The supernatural

[heydarian saeed]

1. heydarian, you've not addressed that very basic question, that I've now asked twice. I'm afraid your repeatedly avoiding this issue, while at the same time holding forth at length on other parts of my comment, is starting to smack of deliberate cherry-picking. I'll request you to squarely answer this question, that I'll ask again (and for the third time now) in the next paragraph, and, if you don't have an answer, to clearly admit that you don't.
   
   If the flood was merely local, then what was the need to carry all of those animals up in that Ark? If as you say the flood only covered the area in and around Iraq, then as soon as the waters receded, that land would have been connected with the rest of the world again. That whole zoo thing, the carrying of animals inside the Ark, makes no sense at all, in the context of a local flood, does it?
   
   
   
2. Not that it really matters one whit, except only as an academic discussion of what is written in the Quran, but you're now claiming that Surah 11 contains explicit statements that the flood was local. Well, here's a link to Surah 11 that I found online. (Click the underlined word "link" in the previous sentence to access the link.) I don't see any explicit statement there that the flood was local.
   
   The link I'd supplied in my earlier post clearly stated that this is not a question of what is stated in the Quran, but a question of interpretation, and that the interpretation isn't unanimous, either way. Nothing in Surah 11 seems to contradict what I'd said earlier (at least going by this particular translation that I've linked to).
   
   
   
3. Finally, while I haven't gone in detail through the whole mass of references you've supplied --- and absolutely, you've done well to present them here, and one ideally would indeed take the time and effort to engage with all of them in full detail in order to do them complete justice --- but here's what I observe basis a cursory look-through :

• While what you present as some historical study refers to a flood in around 5000 BC, you suggest that your Quranic sources puts that date at around 2900 BC. Don't you see the contradiction?
  
  (There's also, apparently, a ship found dated to around 500 BC, but that in any case seems to only be an incidental observation, in that it only gives them, as you say, "hope of finding older things".)
  
  
• Even assuming the historicity of the flood is established, floods are not such a rare event, you know, across timeframes spanning millinnia. We're talking about a huge flood that literally covered Ararat. You've produced nothing here that even purports to point at such a massive flood, leave alone successfully establishes that claim.
  
  
• Although admittedly, your own representation of Ballard does say that "the earth was submerged". Even taking that at face value, even taking that literally --- not that that is likely to be the case, I'm sure, on actual examination of the source material, but still, for now, granting you this for the sake of argument --- nevertheless, a literal reading of "the earth was submerged" once again takes us back to the Bible's description of a global flood, and not the local flood that you're claiming here. You can't have it both ways, you know.

​

Hi
- I have told you many times that this flood and the flood of Noah was local, not global. Let me make two points first, think carefully. First: Noah and his people lived in a land called the current state of Iraq or its ancient name, the land of Mesopotamia.Therefore, the disbelievers of his people deserve the punishment of God for their disobedience - oppression - disobedience. There is no reason for the disbelievers to be tormented in other parts of the earth. And if this had happened, God's justice would have been called into question.
Secondly: Noah's message reached only his relatives in the land of Iraq. And has not reached the tribes of other parts of the earth. Therefore, those who lived elsewhere did not receive the message of God and there is no excuse for them. Therefore, their torment is far from expected.
And it was not correct. And this has not happened to them. These two logical and rational reasons show that the torment of Noah's flood was local, not global. As stated in the Qur'an....

 

[Susheel]

Hi
- I have told you many times that this flood and the flood of Noah was local, not global. Let me make two points first, think carefully. First: Noah and his people lived in a land called the current state of Iraq or its ancient name, the land of Mesopotamia.Therefore, the disbelievers of his people deserve the punishment of God for their disobedience - oppression - disobedience. There is no reason for the disbelievers to be tormented in other parts of the earth. And if this had happened, God's justice would have been called into question.
Secondly: Noah's message reached only his relatives in the land of Iraq. And has not reached the tribes of other parts of the earth. Therefore, those who lived elsewhere did not receive the message of God and there is no excuse for them. Therefore, their torment is far from expected.
And it was not correct. And this has not happened to them. These two logical and rational reasons show that the torment of Noah's flood was local, not global. As stated in the Qur'an....

I am going to then ask you again...can you provide a rough estimate of the extent the (localised) flood would have to be, for the waters to be high enough to deposit the ark where it was found on Ararat.

 

[heydarian saeed]

1. heydarian, you've not addressed that very basic question, that I've now asked twice. I'm afraid your repeatedly avoiding this issue, while at the same time holding forth at length on other parts of my comment, is starting to smack of deliberate cherry-picking. I'll request you to squarely answer this question, that I'll ask again (and for the third time now) in the next paragraph, and, if you don't have an answer, to clearly admit that you don't.
   
   If the flood was merely local, then what was the need to carry all of those animals up in that Ark? If as you say the flood only covered the area in and around Iraq, then as soon as the waters receded, that land would have been connected with the rest of the world again. That whole zoo thing, the carrying of animals inside the Ark, makes no sense at all, in the context of a local flood, does it?
   
   
   
2. Not that it really matters one whit, except only as an academic discussion of what is written in the Quran, but you're now claiming that Surah 11 contains explicit statements that the flood was local. Well, here's a link to Surah 11 that I found online. (Click the underlined word "link" in the previous sentence to access the link.) I don't see any explicit statement there that the flood was local.
   
   The link I'd supplied in my earlier post clearly stated that this is not a question of what is stated in the Quran, but a question of interpretation, and that the interpretation isn't unanimous, either way. Nothing in Surah 11 seems to contradict what I'd said earlier (at least going by this particular translation that I've linked to).
   
   
   
3. Finally, while I haven't gone in detail through the whole mass of references you've supplied --- and absolutely, you've done well to present them here, and one ideally would indeed take the time and effort to engage with all of them in full detail in order to do them complete justice --- but here's what I observe basis a cursory look-through :

• While what you present as some historical study refers to a flood in around 5000 BC, you suggest that your Quranic sources puts that date at around 2900 BC. Don't you see the contradiction?
  
  (There's also, apparently, a ship found dated to around 500 BC, but that in any case seems to only be an incidental observation, in that it only gives them, as you say, "hope of finding older things".)
  
  
• Even assuming the historicity of the flood is established, floods are not such a rare event, you know, across timeframes spanning millinnia. We're talking about a huge flood that literally covered Ararat. You've produced nothing here that even purports to point at such a massive flood, leave alone successfully establishes that claim.
  
  
• Although admittedly, your own representation of Ballard does say that "the earth was submerged". Even taking that at face value, even taking that literally --- not that that is likely to be the case, I'm sure, on actual examination of the source material, but still, for now, granting you this for the sake of argument --- nevertheless, a literal reading of "the earth was submerged" once again takes us back to the Bible's description of a global flood, and not the local flood that you're claiming here. You can't have it both ways, you know.

​

... Another reason: Archaeological finds for the flood of Noah were found only in Iraq and parts of Turkey. Therefore, the theory of storm universality is rejected. On the other hand, this issue is raised only on the basis of suspicion, the theory of the universality of Noah's flood. And suspicion has no way in Islam and the Qur'an. And is rejected. We do not follow suspicion.
Quranic Reasons:
- The Quran never explicitly states that Noah's flood was universal. And those who believe in the theory of universality use the word "earth" which appears in three verses related to the event of Noah's flood. (71 / 26- 11/40 - 11/43) While this word refers to the people of Noah. That is, the land of Noah and his people. Therefore, it does not prove the universality of floods.
- In eleven verses related to Noah's flood, he did not say the word "earth". And it only refers to Noah and his people. Therefore, in response to the first case, the location of Noah's flood is mentioned here. (71/1 - 11/36 - 10/7 - 25/37 - 7/59 - 23/23 - 26 /150 and 117 - 51/46 - 29/14 - 53/52) ...

 

[heydarian saeed]

1. heydarian, you've not addressed that very basic question, that I've now asked twice. I'm afraid your repeatedly avoiding this issue, while at the same time holding forth at length on other parts of my comment, is starting to smack of deliberate cherry-picking. I'll request you to squarely answer this question, that I'll ask again (and for the third time now) in the next paragraph, and, if you don't have an answer, to clearly admit that you don't.
   
   If the flood was merely local, then what was the need to carry all of those animals up in that Ark? If as you say the flood only covered the area in and around Iraq, then as soon as the waters receded, that land would have been connected with the rest of the world again. That whole zoo thing, the carrying of animals inside the Ark, makes no sense at all, in the context of a local flood, does it?
   
   
   
2. Not that it really matters one whit, except only as an academic discussion of what is written in the Quran, but you're now claiming that Surah 11 contains explicit statements that the flood was local. Well, here's a link to Surah 11 that I found online. (Click the underlined word "link" in the previous sentence to access the link.) I don't see any explicit statement there that the flood was local.
   
   The link I'd supplied in my earlier post clearly stated that this is not a question of what is stated in the Quran, but a question of interpretation, and that the interpretation isn't unanimous, either way. Nothing in Surah 11 seems to contradict what I'd said earlier (at least going by this particular translation that I've linked to).
   
   
   
3. Finally, while I haven't gone in detail through the whole mass of references you've supplied --- and absolutely, you've done well to present them here, and one ideally would indeed take the time and effort to engage with all of them in full detail in order to do them complete justice --- but here's what I observe basis a cursory look-through :

• While what you present as some historical study refers to a flood in around 5000 BC, you suggest that your Quranic sources puts that date at around 2900 BC. Don't you see the contradiction?
  
  (There's also, apparently, a ship found dated to around 500 BC, but that in any case seems to only be an incidental observation, in that it only gives them, as you say, "hope of finding older things".)
  
  
• Even assuming the historicity of the flood is established, floods are not such a rare event, you know, across timeframes spanning millinnia. We're talking about a huge flood that literally covered Ararat. You've produced nothing here that even purports to point at such a massive flood, leave alone successfully establishes that claim.
  
  
• Although admittedly, your own representation of Ballard does say that "the earth was submerged". Even taking that at face value, even taking that literally --- not that that is likely to be the case, I'm sure, on actual examination of the source material, but still, for now, granting you this for the sake of argument --- nevertheless, a literal reading of "the earth was submerged" once again takes us back to the Bible's description of a global flood, and not the local flood that you're claiming here. You can't have it both ways, you know.

​

... - In twenty-nine verses related to the flood of Noah in Sura 11, the word nation - nation - Ahl al-Bayt Noah has spoken 15 times. You see, the verses are addressed only to Noah and his people. And other tribes are not mentioned in other parts of the world. So it is very clear that the flood of Noah is only for the people of Noah. And they lived only in Iraq and the surrounding areas. Therefore, it is conclusively proven that the flood of Noah was local.
Please think carefully about the 5 definite reasons why Noah's Flood was local.
- You said that; If it was local, what was the need for a ship ?! I refer the answer to this question to your intellect. But I also say: What is the only way out if a whole land and country like Iraq is flooded and the sea becomes flooded?
Note that this happened 5,000 years ago. And at that time there was no airplane, train or any modern device. Therefore, the best way was to use the ship. And Noah built the ark for the believers by the command of God.

 

[heydarian saeed]

1. heydarian, you've not addressed that very basic question, that I've now asked twice. I'm afraid your repeatedly avoiding this issue, while at the same time holding forth at length on other parts of my comment, is starting to smack of deliberate cherry-picking. I'll request you to squarely answer this question, that I'll ask again (and for the third time now) in the next paragraph, and, if you don't have an answer, to clearly admit that you don't.
   
   If the flood was merely local, then what was the need to carry all of those animals up in that Ark? If as you say the flood only covered the area in and around Iraq, then as soon as the waters receded, that land would have been connected with the rest of the world again. That whole zoo thing, the carrying of animals inside the Ark, makes no sense at all, in the context of a local flood, does it?
   
   
   
2. Not that it really matters one whit, except only as an academic discussion of what is written in the Quran, but you're now claiming that Surah 11 contains explicit statements that the flood was local. Well, here's a link to Surah 11 that I found online. (Click the underlined word "link" in the previous sentence to access the link.) I don't see any explicit statement there that the flood was local.
   
   The link I'd supplied in my earlier post clearly stated that this is not a question of what is stated in the Quran, but a question of interpretation, and that the interpretation isn't unanimous, either way. Nothing in Surah 11 seems to contradict what I'd said earlier (at least going by this particular translation that I've linked to).
   
   
   
3. Finally, while I haven't gone in detail through the whole mass of references you've supplied --- and absolutely, you've done well to present them here, and one ideally would indeed take the time and effort to engage with all of them in full detail in order to do them complete justice --- but here's what I observe basis a cursory look-through :

• While what you present as some historical study refers to a flood in around 5000 BC, you suggest that your Quranic sources puts that date at around 2900 BC. Don't you see the contradiction?
  
  (There's also, apparently, a ship found dated to around 500 BC, but that in any case seems to only be an incidental observation, in that it only gives them, as you say, "hope of finding older things".)
  
  
• Even assuming the historicity of the flood is established, floods are not such a rare event, you know, across timeframes spanning millinnia. We're talking about a huge flood that literally covered Ararat. You've produced nothing here that even purports to point at such a massive flood, leave alone successfully establishes that claim.
  
  
• Although admittedly, your own representation of Ballard does say that "the earth was submerged". Even taking that at face value, even taking that literally --- not that that is likely to be the case, I'm sure, on actual examination of the source material, but still, for now, granting you this for the sake of argument --- nevertheless, a literal reading of "the earth was submerged" once again takes us back to the Bible's description of a global flood, and not the local flood that you're claiming here. You can't have it both ways, you know.

​

... - You said that I told the story of the event in 5000 BC. No. I said 5000 ago. That is 3000 BC.
- You asked if there was a local flood. In order to connect the land of Iraq to other parts of the world after the flood, what is the need to remove a pair of males and females from each animal ?! Note my answer:
God commanded Noah to take a pair of male and female animals from each animal and board the ark. It is even said in some historical documents that you should take the seeds of plants and seedlings of trees and bring them to the ship!
God does not think like you and me. God's view is different from all other beings. God has commanded Noah to preserve the wildlife ecosystem, especially the domestic animals that humans need, as well as to preserve the environment of the land of Iraq. God wanted to save all species.
You must know that if a great flood like the event of Noah occurs, no land animals, no trees and plants will remain, and all will be destroyed. On the other hand, humans saved after Noah's flood need animals and a healthy environment.
Also, in the last 5000 years, there have been no facilities to bring animals or trees and seeds from the surrounding lands. Therefore, God's command is accurate and perfect. And he has considered everything.
God created all beings in the universe for man. Whatever is there is at the disposal of man to go his own way of evolution. Nature and matter are all in the hands of man. In the Flood of Noah, God commanded you to take what you ought to be saved and be Healthy for the people who were saved. Did you pay attention? Following this, you must realize the greatness of Noah's flood. The flood was so great that it covered the heights of Ararat up to about 2900 meters. The sea is made.
...

 

[heydarian saeed]

1. heydarian, you've not addressed that very basic question, that I've now asked twice. I'm afraid your repeatedly avoiding this issue, while at the same time holding forth at length on other parts of my comment, is starting to smack of deliberate cherry-picking. I'll request you to squarely answer this question, that I'll ask again (and for the third time now) in the next paragraph, and, if you don't have an answer, to clearly admit that you don't.
   
   If the flood was merely local, then what was the need to carry all of those animals up in that Ark? If as you say the flood only covered the area in and around Iraq, then as soon as the waters receded, that land would have been connected with the rest of the world again. That whole zoo thing, the carrying of animals inside the Ark, makes no sense at all, in the context of a local flood, does it?
   
   
   
2. Not that it really matters one whit, except only as an academic discussion of what is written in the Quran, but you're now claiming that Surah 11 contains explicit statements that the flood was local. Well, here's a link to Surah 11 that I found online. (Click the underlined word "link" in the previous sentence to access the link.) I don't see any explicit statement there that the flood was local.
   
   The link I'd supplied in my earlier post clearly stated that this is not a question of what is stated in the Quran, but a question of interpretation, and that the interpretation isn't unanimous, either way. Nothing in Surah 11 seems to contradict what I'd said earlier (at least going by this particular translation that I've linked to).
   
   
   
3. Finally, while I haven't gone in detail through the whole mass of references you've supplied --- and absolutely, you've done well to present them here, and one ideally would indeed take the time and effort to engage with all of them in full detail in order to do them complete justice --- but here's what I observe basis a cursory look-through :

• While what you present as some historical study refers to a flood in around 5000 BC, you suggest that your Quranic sources puts that date at around 2900 BC. Don't you see the contradiction?
  
  (There's also, apparently, a ship found dated to around 500 BC, but that in any case seems to only be an incidental observation, in that it only gives them, as you say, "hope of finding older things".)
  
  
• Even assuming the historicity of the flood is established, floods are not such a rare event, you know, across timeframes spanning millinnia. We're talking about a huge flood that literally covered Ararat. You've produced nothing here that even purports to point at such a massive flood, leave alone successfully establishes that claim.
  
  
• Although admittedly, your own representation of Ballard does say that "the earth was submerged". Even taking that at face value, even taking that literally --- not that that is likely to be the case, I'm sure, on actual examination of the source material, but still, for now, granting you this for the sake of argument --- nevertheless, a literal reading of "the earth was submerged" once again takes us back to the Bible's description of a global flood, and not the local flood that you're claiming here. You can't have it both ways, you know.

​

... In our religious documents and in the Qur'an, it is said that water flowed from the earth. And the floods came down from heaven. It was not raining or thunderstorming. Floods are falling from the sky. See how great this flood of Noah was ?!
I have already said that the work of God - the miracles of God - the punishment of God - the mercy of God and whatever is the work of God can not be imagined in us humans and we should not compare it with human abilities. You paid attention. This is the answer to all your questions.
Good luck

 

[heydarian saeed]

I want to tell you an important point here. Now that I have told you about God and the Qur'an in my posts. You have received the message of God. And I have answered your numerous questions. So be careful what your approach will be from now on?
I am worried for you. And I love you. I do not want any problems for you. Please think about the messages carefully. The God of Noah - the God of Moses - the God of Jesus - the God of Adam - the God of Muhammad are one. And now he is God and he sees us. Did you pay attention? I am worried for you.
God's punishment is up to date. Did you pay attention? Do not I think it will send the great flood of Noah? Maybe another torment. In all my posts, I spoke of God's kindness and goodness. Now I needed to write to you out of God's wrath. Know that God's goodness and God's wrath depend on man's approach. If we are good, we will see good. If we are bad, we will see ugliness and torment. Let us not be unaware of the devil. He is the worst enemy of man. It is also a foreign enemy. Both internal enemy!
I love you. I love you all. Because you are human. You have scientific progress. You have technological advances. You have cultural progress. You have all the good things you need to be human. You are evolving. Please believe in God. God loves us all. God loves us all. He does not want anything from us. It does not need anything. Just be human. And be good.
Worship of God is our need, not His need! Worshiping God is our thanksgiving to God. I do not worship God for fear of Hell, nor for attaining His Paradise. Hell and heaven are in our hands. I worship God because he is beautiful. it is good. With knowledge. he is kind. And it has all the good things. His name does not matter. It is important to believe in its existence. He is there. And the whole universe is his evidence.
I am. I am not far away.

 

[Pixel42]

So your answer to our questions is to just state "God can make miracles" even though you cannot provide a shred of objective evidence that any such miracles actually happened?

Do you at least understand why no sceptic is ever going to be convinced, or even slightly impressed, by that?

 

[Pixel42]

I am worried for you.

Whilst I am worried for you, and for anyone else who is as easily taken in by superstitious nonsense.

 

[heydarian saeed]

I am going to then ask you again...can you provide a rough estimate of the extent the (localised) flood would have to be, for the waters to be high enough to deposit the ark where it was found on Ararat.

Hello. I have already answered. These unique events are the work of God, not man. Therefore, it does not fit in human capacity. Like the incident of splitting the Gulf of Aqaba by the command of God in the time of Moses. Have you read the historical event of Moses? His works are many. Most of his evidence is kept in the French Museum. it is interesting to know. France issued him a passport for the arrival of the mummy of Ramses II (Pharaoh the Great) from Egypt. Ramses II passport photo is on the internet. look. its true. Not a story.
Ramses II was an unbeliever. And he even claimed to be a god !! And he persecuted Moses and his people. He killed their sons. And enslaved themselves. So see how God punished him?
Ronnie White is a well-known figure among researchers and thinkers. His first research work was to search for signs from Noah's ark. He managed to publish the documents that had been scattered before him in a complete book. Could he find the signs of the divine punishment that the enemies of Prophet Moses had suffered ?!
The names of Ronnie White and Rossi Patterson and his companions were forever recorded in history. They were able to gather evidence of a divine torment for today's generation.
You can search and read on the Internet if you wish. Good luck

 

[heydarian saeed]

Whilst I am worried for you, and for anyone else who is as easily taken in by superstitious nonsense.

Hello. I have a human duty to tell you. Although you do not believe. But it is true. Go to the French Museum to see the relics of Noah and Moses up close.
I stand by my word. And I will not leave at all. None of you have said or questioned or criticized my logical reasoning in proving the supernatural of science - the soul and God. Because it is quite clear and proven. I advise all of you to read logic and philosophy. I have said many times before: some subjects are not in the field of experimental science but in the field of logic and philosophy. Unfortunately you are not careful. Or you are prejudiced. While you said everything scientific, I accepted. I'm sorry.

 

[Pixel42]

Hello. I have a human duty to tell you. Although you do not believe. But it is true. Go to the French Museum to see the relics of Noah and Moses up close.

There are no such relics. Just people who believe there are, based on nothing but wishful thinking and a prejudiced imagination.

I stand by my word. And I will not leave at all. None of you have said or questioned or criticized my logical reasoning in proving the supernatural of science - the soul and God.

Many of us have, you simply ignored us.

 

[junkshop]

Ronnie White is a well-known figure among researchers and thinkers. His first research work was to search for signs from Noah's ark. He managed to publish the documents that had been scattered before him in a complete book. Could he find the signs of the divine punishment that the enemies of Prophet Moses had suffered ?!
The names of Ronnie White and Rossi Patterson and his companions were forever recorded in history. They were able to gather evidence of a divine torment for today's generation.
You can search and read on the Internet if you wish. Good luck

I did that. I searched on the internet, and I read.
I think that by 'Ronnie White' you mean the deluded loon and/or fraudster Ron Wyatt.

As to 'Rossi Patterson', I came up blank. Either you've conflated two different names, or mangled a single name even moreso than you did Wyatt's.

ETA: I think I've found him - Ross Patterson, a New Zealand computer programmer and Seventh Day Adventist, following up on Wyatt's nonsense. To be fair, his name was less mangled than White/Wyatt.

Oh, and his 'petrified timber' turned out to be rocks

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Still not sold on any of the "god" things: nothing there to make me reconsider my decision of 50-odd years ago to abandon this nonsense; it's more of the same lack of evidence, spurious attempts at reasoning, cherry picking, mangling language and all the rest.

I'll just carry on as usual in my completely unspiritual life.

 

[turingtest]

I want to tell you an important point here. Now that I have told you about God and the Qur'an in my posts. You have received the message of God. And I have answered your numerous questions. So be careful what your approach will be from now on?
I am worried for you. And I love you. I do not want any problems for you. Please think about the messages carefully. The God of Noah - the God of Moses - the God of Jesus - the God of Adam - the God of Muhammad are one. And now he is God and he sees us. Did you pay attention? I am worried for you.
God's punishment is up to date. Did you pay attention? Do not I think it will send the great flood of Noah? Maybe another torment. In all my posts, I spoke of God's kindness and goodness. Now I needed to write to you out of God's wrath. Know that God's goodness and God's wrath depend on man's approach. If we are good, we will see good. If we are bad, we will see ugliness and torment. Let us not be unaware of the devil. He is the worst enemy of man. It is also a foreign enemy. Both internal enemy!
I love you. I love you all. Because you are human. You have scientific progress. You have technological advances. You have cultural progress. You have all the good things you need to be human. You are evolving. Please believe in God. God loves us all. God loves us all. He does not want anything from us. It does not need anything. Just be human. And be good.
Worship of God is our need, not His need! Worshiping God is our thanksgiving to God. I do not worship God for fear of Hell, nor for attaining His Paradise. Hell and heaven are in our hands. I worship God because he is beautiful. it is good. With knowledge. he is kind. And it has all the good things. His name does not matter. It is important to believe in its existence. He is there. And the whole universe is his evidence.
I am. I am not far away.

It does really take the blinded eye of faith to not be able to see the plain contradiction between saying that god wants nothing from man and also that god will certainly torment men for eternity for not taking the right approach.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I am going to then ask you again...can you provide a rough estimate of the extent the (localised) flood would have to be, for the waters to be high enough to deposit the ark where it was found on Ararat.

It was special 'Sloped Water' obviously. Shame we don't have it anymore, you could go waterskiing without a motorboat!

 

[Scorpion]

I want to tell you an important point here. Now that I have told you about God and the Qur'an in my posts. You have received the message of God. And I have answered your numerous questions. So be careful what your approach will be from now on?
I am worried for you. And I love you. I do not want any problems for you. Please think about the messages carefully. The God of Noah - the God of Moses - the God of Jesus - the God of Adam - the God of Muhammad are one. And now he is God and he sees us. Did you pay attention? I am worried for you.
God's punishment is up to date. Did you pay attention? Do not I think it will send the great flood of Noah? Maybe another torment. In all my posts, I spoke of God's kindness and goodness. Now I needed to write to you out of God's wrath. Know that God's goodness and God's wrath depend on man's approach. If we are good, we will see good. If we are bad, we will see ugliness and torment. Let us not be unaware of the devil. He is the worst enemy of man. It is also a foreign enemy. Both internal enemy!
I love you. I love you all. Because you are human. You have scientific progress. You have technological advances. You have cultural progress. You have all the good things you need to be human. You are evolving. Please believe in God. God loves us all. God loves us all. He does not want anything from us. It does not need anything. Just be human. And be good.
Worship of God is our need, not His need! Worshiping God is our thanksgiving to God. I do not worship God for fear of Hell, nor for attaining His Paradise. Hell and heaven are in our hands. I worship God because he is beautiful. it is good. With knowledge. he is kind. And it has all the good things. His name does not matter. It is important to believe in its existence. He is there. And the whole universe is his evidence.
I am. I am not far away.

DO LEAVE OFF!

You are warning us we will suffer if we do not believe you, because you have told us about God and if we don't convert he will punish us.
You say you love God because he is beautiful, but the God the Quran describes is a sadistic, merciless monster. I knew as soon as I read the following verses that the Quran was evil, made up lies about God to scare silly Arabs into fighting Muhammad's wars for him.




Quran surah's 22.19
22.19 These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water.
22.20 With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins.
22.21 In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them.
22.22 Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), "Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!"


4.56 Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for God is Exalted in Power, Wise.


40.70 Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We sent our apostles: but soon shall they know,-
40.71 When the yokes (shall be) round their necks, and the chains; they shall be dragged along-
40.72 In the boiling fetid fluid: then in the Fire shall they be burned;

Heydarian, unlike almost every other member of this forum except you, I do believe in God. But I do not fear him because the God I believe in would never torture anyone for eternity. How can you love or worship the monster the above verses describe?

 

[junkshop]

I found 'Rossi Patterson' (see my edit to post #1119). Another failed pseudoarchaeologist.

 

[heydarian saeed]

How on earth can you actually believe that someone lived to be 950 years old?

Even today with modern medicine, all sorts of life saving medical care, and a lifestyle for many in the more privileged parts of the world which reduces all the hardships and dangers that more primitive and more impoverished people suffer, even now it's rare that people live beyond 100 years.

In various posts above I think you said that from your holy books you know that Noah lived around 3000BC. But we do not have any writing actually from anywhere near that date. The earliest biblical accounts that actually exist, date to around 200AD,... and the earliest remains of manuscripts from the Koran are AFAIK 400 or 500 years newer than that …

… how on earth did anyone writing in the first few hundred years after Christianity, know what anyone called Noah did 3000 years earlier?

Clearly they would have no other source except generations of repeated tales of the fantastic and the supernatural, such as claiming all sorts of people lived to be 900 years old, or that all sorts miracles happened, or that someone built a boat that withstood floods that covered the mountain tops. That's not remotely credible as a source of reliable evidence, is it!

Do you any have reliable independent evidence for anything that you believe from the Koran? If so, can you please produce it?

You even mentioned yourself, that thousands of years before the Koran was even first written, there were numerous ancient religious societies all over the world that claimed biblical-type Flood Myths … that is – mythical stories of how their gods sent floods to punish people for their unfaithful disbelief. In which case those would constitute quite obvious earlier sources from which the OT bible and later the Koran were almost certainly just copying tales of far more ancient ancient mythical stories.

And lastly; when you mentioned Robert Ballard, you did not tell us where he published his claims of finding an ancient shoreline under a deep ocean. So again; where is the evidence to support what Ballard believes? … can you give us the reference to a genuine science journal where he published his claims?

Hello and thanks for your good post.
-The longevity of Noah was neither a miracle nor the amount of the year and time was different from the present time and was naturally long and so far no evidence has been presented that it is impossible to achieve a long life. Of course, given the medical evidence that you said, and it is true, this is strange and unlikely. But no reason has been given for its impossibility. If we look at the characteristics of Noah, we see that he was a very calm and grateful human being.
-I have already said in Noah's post that the oldest documents are related to the Sumerians and there is a cuneiform inscription, and I have seen the photo in the encyclopedia.
-No. The Qur'an is not a copy of ancient documents or holy books. It is independent and it is real. Just keep in mind that the author and sender of all the holy books of the divine religions was one person. God
- Regarding Robert Ballard's remarks, you can refer to Turkish documents about Noah's Ark in Ararat. for example:
BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
Robert Ballard's Black Sea Discoveries - Journal of New Science May 4, 2002 Page 13
As well as various research groups in Turkey for Noah's Ark
Good luck

 

[Scorpion]

-No. The Qur'an is not a copy of ancient documents or holy books. It is independent and it is real. Just keep in mind that the author and sender of all the holy books of the divine religions was one person. God

The Quran is direct plagiarism from the bible and other sources like Arabian myths about Jinn's, and Salih bringing a camel to life by striking a rock.
Proof of plagiarism is that verses 3.49 and 5.110 mention Jesus bringing a clay bird to life when he was a boy. But this story, along with Jesus speaking when he was a baby were taken from a known book of fables called, 'the infancy gospels'
This book of fiction was written in about 150AD, and yet it appears in the Quran.