Noah's Ark

arauca said:
Sense he is wrong you must be wright , so what is your version ?
Click to expand...
My version?
I don't have a personal version of mythology.
But the Bible says that god put a mark upon Cain, not that he gave him anything like jewellery.
There is also no clear consensus as to what Cain's mark would be. The word translated as "mark" in Gen. 4:15 is 'owth, which could mean a sign, an omen, a warning, or a remembrance. In the Torah, the same word is used to describe the stars as signs or omens,[4] the rainbow as the sign of the flood (Gen. 9:12), circumcision as a token of God's covenant with Abraham,[5] and the miracles performed by Moses before the Pharaoh. Thus, the text of the Bible only explicitly describes how the mark was to function as a sign or warning, not what form the mark took.[citation needed] Cain's curse and mark have been interpreted in several ways. Following the literal Biblical text, most scholars interpret the "curse" as Cain's inability to cultivate crops and his necessity to lead a nomadic lifestyle. They interpret the "mark" as a warning to others, but are unable to determine the form of the mark from the Biblical text.
Click to expand...
Wiki.

Plus, of course, the "mark" wasn't for Cain's protection it was so that no one would kill him and prevent him suffering. The mark was a warning to others.
“My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15 But the LORD said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.
Click to expand...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+4&version=NIV
 
Dywyddyr said:
My version?
I don't have a personal version of mythology.
But the Bible says that god put a mark upon Cain, not that he gave him anything like jewellery.

Wiki.

Plus, of course, the "mark" wasn't for Cain's protection it was so that no one would kill him and prevent him suffering. The mark was a warning to others.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+4&version=NIV
Click to expand...

Good so you have something to shear.

I wonder what mark ? perhaps some sickens or deformity ?
 
@NMS, oh come on!
It would at least have been funny if you'd reversed the comments. :p
 
The mark was probably a bruise or scar on the face were everyone can see. His torment was the same as any modern day killer feels.
 
Mickmeister said:
I was thinking this weekend while I was in the duck blind about the ludicrousness of Noah's Ark.
Click to expand...

I don't think its origins are all that ludicrous, and I have a strong feeling something like that happened.

About 7000 years ago the ocean spilled over the Bosporous ridge into the Black Sea, starting a year-long flood that raised the water level in that lake by hundreds of feet. If you were living near the shores of the Bosporous it would seem like the entire world flooded.

And if you saw the waters rising, and built a raft for you, your family and your livestock, and managed to escape the flood on that raft - you'd have a pretty good story, one that has indeed shown up in half a dozen religions. Over the course of 7000 years it would tend to get bigger and more dramatic, of course, as such stories tend to do.
 
billvon said:
I don't think its origins are all that ludicrous, and I have a strong feeling something like that happened.

About 7000 years ago the ocean spilled over the Bosporous ridge into the Black Sea, starting a year-long flood that raised the water level in that lake by hundreds of feet. If you were living near the shores of the Bosporous it would seem like the entire world flooded.

And if you saw the waters rising, and built a raft for you, your family and your livestock, and managed to escape the flood on that raft - you'd have a pretty good story, one that has indeed shown up in half a dozen religions. Over the course of 7000 years it would tend to get bigger and more dramatic, of course, as such stories tend to do.
Click to expand...
A farmer saving his livestock is much more plausible, but not near as miraculous. ;)
 
gmilam said:
A farmer saving his livestock is much more plausible, but not near as miraculous. ;)
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. But I've seen how big a fish can get from the time it got away to the time the boat got back to the dock. Imagine how big it can get in 7000 years!
 
Knowledge91 said:
The mark was probably a bruise or scar on the face were everyone can see. His torment was the same as any modern day killer feels.
Click to expand...

A change in hair color could do it. Perhaps it become gray ahead of its time 0r heave a liver sickens were the skin turn in patches
 
Dywyddyr said:
Already shown to be disputed.


Apart from, of course, the ones that don't suffer torment. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Show to be disputed? IDC, its an idea you jabroni. All killers suffer torment or they wouldnt have killed in the first place.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Yeah, whatever.
You posted your "idea" AFTER an explanation had been given.


Empty claim. Show the evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't know psychology, but you can't be in the right state of mind to plan and carry out a murder. If you kill someone out of defense then to me it isn't murder or even a kill. My definition of killing is to bring death to someone, but if they provoked you to defend yourself and they died in the act they brought death upon them self, kind of like scoring a own-goal in soccer.
 
Quite so...there are many psychopaths that feel no remorse or feel anything whatsoever. Some even take pleasure from killing.

However, it really doesn't have anything to do with the biblical story Noah's arc...and how it's a elaboration of a real bronze age black sea flood.
 
Knowledge91 said:
I don't know psychology, but you can't be in the right state of mind to plan and carry out a murder. If you kill someone out of defense then to me it isn't murder or even a kill. My definition of killing is to bring death to someone, but if they provoked you to defend yourself and they died in the act they brought death upon them self, kind of like scoring a own-goal in soccer.
Click to expand...

Erm...you just said that if you kill someone in defense then it isn't a kill. Not sure what you mean there, you might be confused.
To kill someone or something is to end their life by your own actions, regardless of motive.

Your soccer analogy is a little silly and far too simplistic when it comes to ending a life. :rolleyes:
 
wsionynw said:
Erm...you just said that if you kill someone in defense then it isn't a kill. Not sure what you mean there, you might be confused.
To kill someone or something is to end their life by your own actions, regardless of motive.

Your soccer analogy is a little silly and far too simplistic when it comes to ending a life. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If I die by anthers hand, but the death was provoked by I, I would be responsible, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top