 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Don't listen to him Kit, continue to worship God and dont' be intimidated into not doing so, even though Ethel here may try to tell you otherwise, those stars, and everything else in the unverse couldn't have simply couldn't have popped out of nothingness. Don't give up, and god bless.  |
Come now, Ethelred has never advocated people stop believing in God. He's simply pointing out how one particular representation of God imagined by men (Jehovah) is a rather unflattering, contradictory and historically false representation.
He knows as well as I do it is 100% impossible to disprove the existance of God. It is, however, 100% possible to disprove Jehovah as described in the Bible, and it has already been done so.
quote:
Did you actually read the Bible? You sure seem to short on clues about the many innocents that were murdered in it. Jehovah once demanded that the Israelites kill everything in a city. Children and animals as well as adults. |
Only an idiot needs to think for more than 2 seconds how this got in the Bible. The Israelites conquered a land and brutally slaughtered its people, and then after the fact made up a story that God told them to do it, hereby making it seem like the right thing to do and absolving them of any guilt in the matter. How those who believe the Bible can't see the contradiction in claiming Jehovah doesn't do evil, evil is man's free will and then look at Jehovah making people do evil is beyond me...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
I am not going to comment too much in this thread, but from just browsing over it I just want to comment on the archetypal "arguement from evil" some posters are presenting here. Essentially what some of the posters are are saying is If God does exist, why is there so much evil in the world? God is all-knowing, and of perfect morals, right? Why does he allow evil to exist? |
Well I sure didn't say that.
I said if god is good why does he kill innocents. I think it is important to understand just what you are accepting if you believe the Bible is true.
quote:
The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God for most people, I presume even yourself Ethel ol chum. |
You presume wrong. I compare reality and the claims about god and find the two are irreconcilable. The Bible and the world we live in do not match. Not even close on many things.
quote:
Logical Version
According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist. |
No one took that tack on this thread. So I am going to skip over most of what you invented here. I will just deal with your more egregious errors. How about your try dealing with what was REALLY said on this thread instead of digging up a straw man.
quote:
B. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose. |
Only if the Bible is not the crock it so clearly is. I can't rebell against something that doesn't exist.
quote:
Rather than submit to and worship God, |
Worshipping a god makes no sense. Why should a god need such a thing? That is human thinking. Weak human thinking.
quote:
D. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. |
I see no good in a god that kills infants. Fortunatly the Bible is so false its clear there is no reason to believe in the god that is in the Bible.
quote:
To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, |
And murder and revenge and the slaughter of nearly everyone on
Earth if you actually believe the nonsense that is in Genesis and other parts of the Bible.
Wishfull thinking like this non-Biblical god you are hypothesizing is just that. Whishfull thinking.
quote:
These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw upon the existence of God. |
You haven't actually read the Bible have you?
You seem to be big on a non-Biblical god.
quote:
However, all this takes us to the emotional problem of evil. I think that most people who reject God because of the evil in the world don’t do so because of intellectual difficulties. |
Straw man. There is no evidence to support the existance of your god. In fact your specific version of god sure isn't Jehovah. Doesn't even come close to matching his actions in the Bible.
quote:
Rather, it’s an emotional problem: they just don’t like a God who permits suffering, and therefore they want nothing to do with Him. Theirs is simply an atheism of rejection. Am I right on this Ethel et al? Does the Christian faith have something to say to these people? |
Straw man. I suppose there are some Atheists that think that way. I however see no reason to believe a god that is clearly described as doing things that never happened.
quote:
It certainly does! It tells us that God is not a distant Creator or an impersonal Ground of Being, but a loving Father Who shares our sufferings and hurts with us. Professor Plantinga has written,
|
Has invented a god that is non-biblical. He carefully ignores all the actions of Jehovah in the Old Testament.
quote:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. (most atheists will agree on this point) |
There are no objective morals. Even with your god since he clearly does not see fit to follow those morals and has even demanded his follower break them.
Yes it does but we define it. I see evil as anti-life. That covers a god that slaughers nearly all of mankind and innocent children. Fortunatly your god doesn't exist since the attrocities attributed to him never happened. There was no Flood so there is no reason to believe in the God of the Flood.
quote:
3. Therefore, objective values exist. (Some things are really evil.)
|
Evil is just a word and not sign of objective moral values.
You not only haven't read Genesis you haven't taken a logic class.
quote:
4. Therefore, God exists. |
False premises AND bad logic both. No wonder you are asserting you have proved something you haven't.
quote:
And thus evil only calls into question God's existence on a superficial level. On a deeper philosophical level evil actually demonstrates the existence of God because evil, as such, could not exist without God. |
Evil does not require a god no matter how much evil Jehovah is purported to have done in the Bible. Your logic is inept. Your premises are false. You have been argueing against something no one on this thread said.
How about you stop ignoring what was actually said and start dealing with it instead of Straw Men and using bad logic even then.
quote:
Thanks for hearing me outl . |
Thanks for creating a Straw Man for you to argue against. You also used false premises and poor logic even though you made up both sides of your arguement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lorizael
|
 |
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
You try to judge God on your own standards.
*IF* there's a god indeed that created this earth and the entire universe, the solar systems and the micro bacteria, do you really think that a pathatic human being like you (or me) has enough knowledge, wisdom and capacities to judge God on what he did, while you have no clue about why he did it and what the concequences are if he would not have done it ?
|
If God is so far above us and is so incredibly powerful that we cannot possibly understand his intentions and motives, why should we bother to listen to what he says? Why should we do anything he says without any proof that what he does is in anyway a good thing. If he is so far above us, how do we know he is not trying to destroy and won't tell us why he's doing this because he doesnt want us to find out. I can't possibly listen to someone who's reasoning is, "I'm not going to reason wiht, you wouldn't understand" which is what your God does.
quote:
I completely encourage every discussion about God or religion, but I'm growing sick and weary of the stupiditous and arrogant hoax of these days to 'blame god' and use this simplistic theory ass an excuse to be an atheist.
CyberShy |
I think religious people need to prove the existence of God. When you really think about, the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient being created all of us for reasons we cannot understand and has done all of what he has done for inexplicable reasons is a laughable idea. The only reason we accept such an idea is because it is drilled into our minds almost the moment we are born. We only believe such a ridiculous tale because that's the way it's been for thousands of years and we're used to the idea now. But if you actually think about it, there is no proof that a god exists or that a god even need exist. Until he comes down and says to me, "Lookey lookey I'm here. I'll explode that tree for you if you want proof" I see no reason to believe something so ridiculous.
In case of editing: I did not edit this as I was in a hurry. After writing what I wrote, I think a lot of what I said isn't very logical, at least not the first part. Well umm, I didn't explain it fully that is. Too tired and in a hurry... anyways...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
Also Ethel I think your main problem in accepting Christianity is the fallacies of the flood story , at least this is a problem that you seem to reiterate. I have done some research on the flood story, and I now am quite certain that it was, in fact, a localized flood. In fact, I'm fairly certain that it was the legendary Black Sea Flood. Here is are a few quotes from the Washington post. "WASHINGTON — Scientists have discovered an ancient coastline 17 meters below the surface of the Black Sea, providing dramatic new evidence of a sudden, catastrophic flood around 7,500 years ago" Skipping ahead a bit in the article. "An apocalyptic deluge followed, inundating the freshwater lake below the dam, submerging thousands of square kilometers of dry land, flipping the ecosystem from fresh to salt water practically overnight, and probably killing thousands of people and billions of land and sea creatures, according to Ryan and Pitman. " (source: http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news165.htm)
Now it is interesting to note that this is at about the exact time and place of Noah . But the Bible makes it clear that it has to be a worldwide flood..or does it? Let's examine the verses a bit.
Those who argue a biblical case for a local Flood believe that Scripture can support this position. They believe terms used in Genesis do not force one to believe in a universal Flood.
1.All Does Not Always Mean All
Though the word all is found throughout the Flood account, it is not necessary to assume that it is used in a universal sense. There are many places in the Bible where all does not mean every last one. For example.
Joel 3:2 reads:
I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, My people Israel, for they scattered My people among the nations and divided up my land (Joel 3:2).
Though the Scripture says all nations, we know from the context that the nations are limited to those around Judah and Jerusalem.
Another example can be found in the statement of Cyrus.
Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him! Let him go up (2 Chronicles 36:23).
His kingdom, though great, did not encompass the entire globe.
Therefore all does not mean every last one. Therefore when we find the term all in Scripture, the context has to tell us if it means every last one. It is not always necessary to assume that it is used in a universal sense.
2.Universal Language Is Often Hyperbolic
In Scripture, universal language is often hyperbolic - deliberate exaggeration for effect. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote:
If you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant (Colossians 1:23).
This is obvious exaggeration. Not everyone, everywhere in the earth had heard the gospel at this time.
This is another indication that universal expressions in Scripture are not necessarily universal. The context must be the determining factor. Statements which sound universal in the English Bible may have a local reference.
The universal terms could have been used to emphasize that this was no normal flood. Though local in extent, it nevertheless was devastating in its destruction.
3.The Hebrew Word Earth Can Be Translated Land
The Hebrew term eretz translated earth in Genesis 6-8 should be translated land instead of earth. The word eretz is used more than 2,500 times in the Old Testament with 80% of the time being translated land rather than earth. Therefore, the Hebrew writers employed the wordrather than earth. Therefore, the Hebrew writers employed the word with its much more restricted meaning about four times as frequently as they employed it with a broader meaning. What is in view, in the Flood account, is not the entire earth, but the land around Noah.
If the word land is substituted for earth in the Flood account then the passage has an entirely different sense. Consider how the passage would then be understood.
Now the land was corrupt in God's sight, and the land was filled with violence. And God saw that the land was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the land. For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the land, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the land shall die (Genesis 6:11,12,17). The point is as follows: the extent of the Flood cannot be decisively settled based upon the Hebrew word for earth.
4.Hebrews Had Better Word For Entire Earth
When the Hebrews wished to convey the idea of the whole habitable earth, they used the word tetel, as in Psalm 24:1.
The earth is the LORD's and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it (Psalm 24:1).
This word is not found in the Genesis Flood account – another indication that the entire earth is not in view.
Not As Clear As It Seems
Consequently, the words all and the whole earth, which are found throughout the Flood narrative, may not really be as widespread in their implications as the text seems to state. The Hebrew language cannot, by itself, be decisive in determining the extent of the Flood.
5.Emphasis On Promised Land
The writer of Genesis was mainly concerned about God's covenant people and the land which they were promised – it was not on the entire globe. Old Testament authority, John Sailhamer, writes.
Two primary themes dominate the Creation account: the land and the blessing. In recounting the events of Creation, the author has selected and arranged the narrative to allow these themes full development. The preparation of the land and the divine blessing are important to the author or Genesis (and the Pentateuch) because these two themes form the basis of his treatment of the patriarchal narratives and the Sinai covenant. In translating the Hebrew word eretz (earth) in 1:1-2, the English versions have blurred the connection of these early verses of Genesis to the central theme of the land in the Pentateuch. Although eretz can be translated by either earth or land, the general term land in English more closely approximates its use in chapter 1. Thus from the start the author betrays his interest in the covenant by concentrating on the land in the account of creation.
Consequently a local Flood that covered the Promised Land is consistent with his emphasis.
Therefore, I think your qualms with the biblical flood are illfounded, in fact, I think this account of the black sea flood gives the bible even more clout as being historically accurate. I hope that perhaps this information will help you view the bible in a more positive light in the future Ethy. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1]
I think religious people need to prove the existence of God. |
Well, no they don't, at least not for reasons of their own personal beliefs.
However, the second they try to shove their religious beliefs on others via public policy, then yes, they have to not only prove the existence of their god, but that he is also a benevolent god who has the best interests of society in his heart.
Jehovah doesn't, IMO, measure up.
And since it is impossible to either prove or disprove God, then it is time for the religious folks who are fanatically trying to get evolution out of the schools, or put creationism in, or put the 10 Commandments on Federal Buildings, to kindly shut up and go away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
Monkspider:
While interesting, that certainly doesn't explain the lunacy of the Ark. All it shows is that a great flood happened in that region. No one is denying that such a flood may be the BASIS for the Biblical flood story, just as one was probably the BASIS for the flood of Gilgamesh.
However, the Bible is quite specific in giving the Ark's dimensions, and saying that Noah took 2 of every living creature on board, they floated for 40 days and nights, etc. This is all patently absurd and physically impossible. A 500 foot-long all-wood vessel couldn't be made today to be seaworthy, and certainly not then. And given the timeframe the Bible says it took to construct, the wood of the Ark would have rotted to ruin as fast as they were building it. And again, all those animals on one boat for 40 days? Not a chance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
You fail to consider Boris that the God of the Bible claims to perform miracles. Why do atheists ignore this when they claim to be refuting the claims of scripture? A miracle by definition ignores or supercedes the laws of physics so unless you can prove that Jesus did not claim to walk on water of raise the dead or make the universe then you are barking up the wrong tree. If God can create life and create the universe then surely he can keep wood from rotting etc. Obviously there is a claim of miracles that defy the laws of physics so it is foolish to argue from that point of view.
On the other hand, I don't understand creationists who try and defend a supernatural being by resorting exclusively to the laws of nature. The essence of God defies the laws so there will never be a reconciliation by resort to them alone. For one thing God claimed to have spoken light into existence. If he controls light then he controls time and the laws of physics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Anyway in answer to the question the answer is, no. People will not believe because they like darkness rather than light. "They profess themselves to be wise so they have become fools."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I was reading about a quest by some scientists to discover the "limits" of the laws of the material world.
In other words, when, if ever, does chance or "divine interferance" take over.
They ended up in the sub-molecular atomic substance of a metal IIRC the name of which escapes me at this moment.
The nucleus of this atom is very unstable.
It has EXACTLY a 50% propability that it will destabilize something that will lead to the rotting (don't know the word in english) of the metal.
And of course it has EXACTLY 50% propability that it will remain stable and the metal will remain intact.
It was at this point that they said they "discovered" one point where "God" can actually interfere and change the course of the material world without violating the laws of physics.
Or plain luck.
It was somewhat interesting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
You fail to consider Boris that the God of the Bible claims to perform miracles. Why do atheists ignore this when they claim to be refuting the claims of scripture? A miracle by definition ignores or supercedes the laws of physics so unless you can prove that Jesus did not claim to walk on water of raise the dead or make the universe then you are barking up the wrong tree. If God can create life and create the universe then surely he can keep wood from rotting etc. Obviously there is a claim of miracles that defy the laws of physics so it is foolish to argue from that point of view.
On the other hand, I don't understand creationists who try and defend a supernatural being by resorting exclusively to the laws of nature. The essence of God defies the laws so there will never be a reconciliation by resort to them alone. For one thing God claimed to have spoken light into existence. If he controls light then he controls time and the laws of physics. |
Such a God is, of course, stupid. Why would Jehovah, in all his supposed omnipotence, bother creating a universe with such complex laws of physics and matter, only to have to violate them at every turn? Any smart God would have, since he is omnipotent, known from the beginning of time that the Flood was going to happen, and planned accordingly. He thereby would have made it so it wasn't necessary to waste his time with miracles, the laws of physics just would have accomadated what he wanted to happen.
Instead, by his own piss-poor planning, he must act like the plate spinner, making miracle after miracle just to get a decent story for his Bible. What a schmuck. This is how a lot of federal employees work. Jehovah should have worked smarter, not harder. A little bit of planning on his part would have saved him a lot of trouble.
I would much rather put faith in a less inept deity, thank you very much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Now, Ethelred, that's not fair. One need not believe in the literal occurences of the Bible to be a Christian. |
He wasn't being fair either and he was harping on good vs evil. He was creating a straw man to argue against.
His version of god really isn't supported by the Bible. Not even Jesus in the New Testament can support that version of god.
I may not have been FULLY fair but I wasn't unfair either. Read some of things about Jesus wanting people to deny their families if need be to follow him. Or the two followers in the New Testament that were struck dead for not giving ALL their money to the cause.
I didn't say what I said just based on Genesis or even just on the Old Testament.
quote:
It simply means one believes in the message and is a follower of Jesus Christ. One can even call one's self a Christian and not believe in Christ's being divine (I know a few like that). What one says is "Christian" is as subjective as what one thinks is "evil" or "good" |
Well almost all christians would disagree with you on the divinity of Jesus. Its a basic tenet of allmost all christian religions. Jesus figuratively brought a sword and REALLY brought a whip remember. He was not all luvy duvy sweetness and light. He really did not fit that warm and fuzzy version of god.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
Hi Boris,
Those are certainly some valid points to raise. I think it should be remembered that since this was just a local flood, there wouldn't be nearly as many animals to fit on the Ark. I think it is certainly feasible to consider that the animals from the area that the black sea flood affected would have fit on the Ark. Certainly it is nowhere as unthinkable as the kangaroos hopping all the way from Australia. 
It also should be noted that the Ark was simply built for stability, not mobility. It was just something designed to stay a float for bit. Here is something I pulled off of a website, I don't know much about Naval stability theory, so I honestly can't comment on it personally, it seems to be reasonable enough though.
"A flat-bottomed barge like the Ark wouldn’t have problems with sag. If the lower deck were made of logs, four layers deep, it would have been very sturdy. If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy. Woodmorappe points this out too, and much more, so Isaak is dishonest to ignore that. Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m (S.W. Hong et al., “Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway”, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):26–36, 1994. All the co-authors are on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Taijon.)"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"Any smart God would have..."
Maybe he isn't as smart as you. Perhaps you can teach him how to be God. God is by definition above the laws because he made them. In any event he claims to violate them so it is foolish to reproach him for doing what he said he would do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
No, it's a rather different conclusion overall.
An omniscient God would by definition know the actions of his creation before they were created. All-knowing is a common attribute given to the Christian God, but not always.
An omnipotent God could do anything he wanted by definition. So he could have created us to do whatever he wanted us to do. Since he knew what he was doing (omniscient) then he basically chose what would happen. There was no doubt when he created us that he would have to destroy most of his creations in the flood.
He would have also known how to prevent having to do that, and had the ability to create us in a more efficient manner.
Finally you have omnibenevolent. This means that God would be an all loving, all caring God. He would never do anything to harm anyone. When combined with the first 2 traits, this means he could only create that which he would never have to harm. Otherwise he would have known his creation was going to need to be destroyed, had the power to avoid such a situation, but chose to harm others. Which can't fit with the definition of omnibenevolent.
So it is a valid argument to say "An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God can't allow suffering to exist." Because he would have created that suffering.
Now if your definition of God is otherwise, then the argument doesn't apply.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
Well those are good points to bring up Aeson, as I stated before, We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for the evils that occur: As finite persons, we’re limited in space, time, intelligence, and insight, but the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to be justly permitted within God’s wider framework. A brutal murder of an innocent man, for example, could produce a sort of ripple effect throughout history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a particular evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.
Also, The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.In the Christian view, this life is not all there is. Jesus promised eternal life to all who place their trust in him as Savior and Lord. In the afterlife God will reward those who have borne their suffering in courage and trust with an eternal life of unspeakable joy. The apostle Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, lived a life of incredible suffering, and yet he wrote: "We do not lose heart. For this slight, momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. For we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal" (II Cor. 4. 16-18). Paul imagines a scale, as it were, in which the sufferings of this life are placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory which God will bestow upon His children in heaven. The weight of glory is so great that the sufferings of this life literally cannot even be compared to it! Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of this life shrink toward an infinitesimal moment. And that’s why Paul could refer to them as a "slight" and "momentary" affliction. Despite what he suffered, his sufferings were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes upon those who trust him.
So, I'm sorry if I misunderstood Ethy's original posts a bit, but My point was that, because of our limitations in space and history, we may not see God’s purposes emerge in our lifetime. Therefore we’re not in a good position to assess the probabilities of why He permitted a certain evil. But I see no basis on the atheistic view for thinking that it’s improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.
Thanks for hearing me out Aeson et al.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Also Ethel I think your main problem in accepting Christianity is the fallacies of the flood story , at least this is a problem that you seem to reiterate. |
I reiterate it because its the most clear and the hardest for a Fundamentalist to waffle on. Fundamentalists can distort Genesis one and two much easier than the Flood. Its why they don't like talking about it anymore.
quote:
I have done some research on the flood story, and I now am quite certain that it was, in fact, a localized flood. |
Then you don't believe in the Bible because its quite clear. It is followed by the equally untenable Tower of Babel story.
quote:
In fact, I'm fairly certain that it was the legendary Black Sea Flood. |
I don't really need you to tell me about it. I have posted links on it. I am fairly sure it inspired the story in the Bible. Which does nothing about my stand on this. If its just a legend then what else is just a legend? There is nothing special in the Bible if its no more right than Gilgamesh. I might as well worship a Zoratrian god by what you are saying.
Oh here is th link I post and its much better than yours because it the the guy doing the work.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/b...a/ax/frame.html
False in both respects. The Biblilcal Flood is clearly and necisarrily a world wide event. It happened acording to biblical chronology around 4400 years ago. Long after the Black Sea Flood.
quote:
But the Bible makes it clear that it has to be a worldwide flood..or does it? |
Yes it does. It not only says it covered the highest mountain it also was intended to kill ALL land life. Both of those mean the Flood had to be world wide and not local.
quote:
Let's examine the verses a bit.
Those who argue a biblical case for a local Flood believe that Scripture can support this position. They believe terms used in Genesis do not force one to believe in a universal Flood. |
Very few people think that way that believe in the Flood. No fundamentalist would. The terms are clear.
quote:
1.All Does Not Always Mean All
Though the word all is found throughout the Flood account, it is not necessary to assume that it is used in a universal sense. There are many places in the Bible where all does not mean every last one. For example. |
It does mean all in Genesis. Its very clear.
quote:
Joel 3:2 reads:
I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, My people Israel, for they scattered My people among the nations and divided up my land (Joel 3:2).
Though the Scripture says all nations, we know from the context that the nations are limited to those around Judah and Jerusalem. |
Which is completely unrelated to the Flood. Even for an apologist this is reaching. The best you can manage in this endeavor of yours is to show another contradiction in the Bible because Genesis is very clear.
Skipping more things not related to the Flood.
quote:
2.Universal Language Is Often Hyperbolic
In Scripture, universal language is often hyperbolic - deliberate exaggeration for effect. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote:
|
So then your are saying its fraudulent to the core.
quote:
The universal terms could have been used to emphasize that this was no normal flood. Though local in extent, it nevertheless was devastating in its destruction. |
That is not what the Bible says. Nor does it match the alleged intent of Jehovah.
quote:
3.The Hebrew Word Earth Can Be Translated Land
The Hebrew term eretz translated earth in Genesis 6-8 should be translated land instead of earth. The word eretz is used more than 2,500 times in the Old Testament with 80% of the time being translated land rather than earth. Therefore, the Hebrew writers employed the wordrather than earth. Therefore, the Hebrew writers employed the word with its much more restricted meaning about four times as frequently as they employed it with a broader meaning. What is in view, in the Flood account, is not the entire earth, but the land around Noah. |
Very nice try. But wrong. I am not going on Earth or ERETZ but highest mountain and all life that crawled or breathed.
If you have to rewrite the Bible like this you don't believe it any more than I do.
quote:
If the word land is substituted for earth in the Flood account then the passage has an entirely different sense. Consider how the passage would then be understood. |
Unfortunalty land and earth are not the only issues. I note that you are avoiding actual passages and are rewriting everything in your own words. Isn't adding to the Bible supposed to be grounds for eternal damnation? You have a lot of nerve to say I engaged in deciet.
quote:
Now the land was corrupt in God's sight, and the land was filled with violence. And God saw that the land was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the land. For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the land, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the land shall die (Genesis 6:11,12,17). The point is as follows: the extent of the Flood cannot be decisively settled based upon the Hebrew word for earth. |
Thats OK I wasn't using the word.
Skipping more stuff about the irrelevant word 'earth'.
quote:
Not As Clear As It Seems
Consequently, the words all and the whole earth, which are found throughout the Flood narrative, may not really be as widespread in their implications as the text seems to state. The Hebrew language cannot, by itself, be decisive in determining the extent of the Flood. |
Yeah it can. You are just evading the inconvenient words.
More skipping.
quote:
Consequently a local Flood that covered the Promised Land is consistent with his emphasis. |
The Promised Land came AFTER the Flood and it wasn't the land that is NOW covered by the Black Sea Flood. That land has been covered ever since the Flood. The Black Sea Flood never covered what later became Israel.
quote:
Therefore, I think your qualms with the biblical flood are illfounded, in fact, I think this account of the black sea flood gives the bible even more clout as being historically accurate. I hope that perhaps this information will help you view the bible in a more positive light in the future Ethy. |
No the Black Sea Flood only inspired the original story and that story inspired the Biblical one. Gilgamesh is the older of the two.
I note they engaged in a major rewrite and focused on one single world and showed no congruence between the Black Sea Flood and the Biblical one. Not in time or space.
Now for what the Bible says instead your own special version.
First the word you think is in question.
0776 'erets {eh'-rets}
from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; TWOT - 167; n f
AV - land 1543, earth 712, country 140, ground 98, world 4, way 3,
common 1, field 1, nations 1, wilderness + 04057 1; 2504
1) land, earth
1a) earth
1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
1b8) city (-state)
1c) ground, surface of the earth
1c1) ground
1c2) soil
1d) (in phrases)
1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
1d3) level or plain country
1d4) land of the living
1d5) end(s) of the earth
1e) (almost wholly late in usage)
1e1) lands, countries
1e1a) often in contrast to Canaan
Now that give you a lot of leaway but Erets is not the only word used in the story that shows it to be a world wide flood.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Note the lack of limits.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Note the creation of man in the first place. Showing that Jehovah does indeed mean ALL mankind. That entails the whole world. Like or not men covered the earth long before the Flood even the Black Sea Flood which is much too early to match the Bible.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Note the intent to slay all, even the birds. In both 6:6 and 6:7 Man is 'adam in the Hebrew. He also clearly is saying he blew the job of creation. Even Jehovah knows he is not perfect so whats your problem?
Gen 6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
I tossed that one just to show the impossible size of the Ark. The largest wooden ship ever made was 350 feet. Considerably smaller than the Ark. It leaked and cracked. It was not fit to stand weeks of the worst storm that ever hit the Earth.
You don't have to take my word for it. Just do a search on Google for the largest wooden ship.
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
More clarity of intent to kill all not on the ship. If its mere hyperbole it sure is WAY overdone as they keep adding more of it.
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Pretty specific on the times. Are you claiming they lied about that? I mention this because of your false claim that the Black Sea Flood happened at the right time to match the Bible. It didn't.
Note also the reference to the windows of heaven. Thats rain which is not overflowing riverbanks which is what actually happened in the Black Sea Basin. Rain had nothing to do with the Black Sea Flood.
But
Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
Now thats a lot of rain.
Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Note that the mountains were covered. Which fits Jehovahs clearly stated intent to kill all.
Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.
And there they are. All dying. Everything that breathed. Which does fit exactly with the stated intent of Jehovah.
Man is 'adam again. Making it clear just how thoroughly it means all of mankind. Everone not on the Ark.
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.
Again the same. Pretty thorough about the slaughter of all. Not surpising then that you only wanted to deal with a single word in your total rewrite of the story.
Gen 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
The waters are STILL there in the Black Sea. Not exactly the same as in this passage. So do you believe in the Bible or the Archeology. They don't agree.
Gen 8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that [is] with thee, of all flesh, [both] of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
None of that would have been needed if it was a mere local flood.
Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Jehovah promising never to again kill everything. He doesn't agree with you either on this issue. You seem to be without support. All you have is one word that you chose to change the usual meaning off. You just ignored all the others and the clearly stated intent of Jehovah. I guess you don't believe Jehovah either.
Now for some expert opinions that don't agree with you either.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp
quote:
Unfortunately, he handles the biblical record carelessly. Noah's Flood was not a local flood in the Black Sea area, but a world-wide flood that has left its mark on every continent on this planet.
|
Not my fault he is wrong about "mark on every continent on this plane".
Specifics about the Flood being worldwide
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4104.asp
quote:
If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.
If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.
If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1
If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.
If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn't rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2
If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of 'all' men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come. |
And the final and pretty darn good bit of reasoning:
quote:
If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again. |
Now if you don't want to believe what Gensis actually says thats fine by me. I sure don't. However don't pretend your rewrite has anything to do with what the Bible really says. If it has to be rewitten and the meaning changed to fit reality its not exactly a convincing book with any special meaning or value.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Well, what good ol' Ethy was saying, aside from his flood comments, essentially boiled down to is a question of how God could allow evil to exist. |
Isn't lying a sin? I never said evil was merely allowed to exist. I said Jehovah did evil. The Bible itselfs says Jehovah created evil.
I mention that evil for one reason. To show what kind of thing you are accepting when you accept the Bible. I NEVER use it to disprove any god. Genesis has more than enough mistakes to make it very clear the Bible is not worth one cent more than Gilgamesh in understanding a possible creator.
quote:
To wit, if the wages of sin are death (eg. the flood victims), why allow sin to exist then? It's true that I didn't address him word for word, but the overall conclusion is still the same. |
Straw man how can you ever stand up
Straw man you burned so well up
Straw man you made it all up
Quite inventing my side of the arguement Straw Man. Deal with what I say not some wimpy Atheist that couldn't out argue Oral Roberts and his 800 foot Jesus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
Good post Ethy ol buddy, that one took a lot of work, let me properly address your concerns one at a time though.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
False in both respects. The Biblilcal Flood is clearly and necisarrily a world wide event. It happened acording to biblical chronology around 4400 years ago. Long after the Black Sea Flood. |
Hmm, the Arafat mountains are in Turkey, the Black Sea flood was in Turkey, I see no problems on that account. I don't think we can be sure when either Noah lived. But here is an excerpt from a news article I found regarding the black sea flood and it's relations to Noah. "But geological research does find reason to believe there was indeed a vast, sudden and deadly flood around 5,600 B.C., close enough to the possible time of Noah to fascinate biblical literalists and liberals alike." (source: http://www.naplesnews.com/today/religion/d321241a.htm)
quote:
Yes it does. It not only says it covered the highest mountain it also was intended to kill ALL land life. Both of those mean the Flood had to be world wide and not local. |
Now the highest mountain bit is a good point to bring up. But If Noah lived in the plains, then the term high mountains could refer to mountains that were relatively low - a few hundred feet. They were high mountains from his perspective on the plain. If this is the case, then it would not force us to assume that the entire world was under water. It is certainly not unthinkable to see something as huge as the black sea flood covering lower lying mountains. And who knows, perhaps the black sea flood was big enough to reach medium sized mountains as well. Certainly our knowledge of it is fairly limited at this point.
quote:
Which is completely unrelated to the Flood. Even for an apologist this is reaching. |
Not at all, showing that hyerbole was sometimes used when mentioning the phrase "the world" amongst old testament writers is perfectly relevent to our discussion.
quote:
Very nice try. But wrong. I am not going on Earth or ERETZ but highest mountain and all life that crawled or breathed. |
Well thanks Ethy, it's very rare of you to show compliments of any sort to us silly Christian-types.
Anyhow, in regards to all life that crawled, etc, there is no reason to think that it wasn't referring to all life that crawled in the area affected by the black sea flood. Especially when we have already shown that earth is simply a mistranslation of "land" and the highest mountains in the land aren't nescarrily Mount Everest.
quote:
The Promised Land came AFTER the Flood and it wasn't the land that is NOW covered by the Black Sea Flood. |
True, but it is showing how the promised land and the history of the Hebrew people came about.
quote:
No the Black Sea Flood only inspired the original story and that story inspired the Biblical one. Gilgamesh is the older of the two. |
Interesting theory Ethy, but P.J. Wiseman presents an interesting theory in this regard in his book Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1985).
He believes that Moses did not WRITE Genesis but rather TRANSLATED it from ancient stone tablets written in Cuneiform script. The tablets each would have been originally written by eye-witnesses of the particular events, or those who received their information from eye-witnesses.
He breaks Genesis into parts according to the phrase "These are the generations" (KJV; "This is the history" - NKJV; "This the account" - NASB; NIV; Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12,9; 36:1,9; 37:2).
He compares the use of this phrase and the structure of each section to the stone tablets written in cuneiform script. Many of these tablets have been discovered and they date to the third millenium BC.
Wiseman's theory is that Genesis is translated from individual tablets which would have contained the material before each occurrence of the above phrase. So the narratives of the creation of the universe (Gen 1) and of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2) would have been written on one tablet by Adam as these events were revealed to him by the only Eye-witness of the events, God Himself.
The narratives of the Fall and subsequent events would have been written on another tablet by Adam as an eye-witness of the events. Adam then passed each of these tablets on to his descendant Seth. Seth then recorded the events of Gen 5 and passed the tablets to his descendant Noah.
Noah then recorded the events of Gen 6-9 and passed the tablets to his descendant Shem, and so one until Joseph. Joseph then recorded the final chapters of Genesis and placed all of the tablets in the library of the pharaohs. Moses then, while in pharaoh’s court, would have had access to these tablets. He then translated them into his native Hebrew.
The above theory "fits" with various evidences in the Scriptures. For instance, it would explain such passages as Exod 6:3: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD [YHWH], I was not known to them."
But the Tetragrammaton appears in Genesis, making for an apparent contradiction. However, this problem is easily explained if Moses, but did translatednot write, Genesis. While translating, when Moses came across the name for God in the cuneiform tablets, he used the Name God revealed to him to translate it. So the Name YHWH was not known to Abraham and other Genesis figures.
Also, note that in the Bible Genesis is never said to be written by Moses, whereas the other four books of the Torah are. For instance, in Matt 18:4-5 Jesus refers to two quotes from Genesis. He introduces them with the general phrase, "Have you not read...." But in verse 8, when referring to a passage from Deuteronomy, Jesus specifically attributes the statement to Moses.
In addition, Wiseman's theory is consistent with the relationship of Gilgamesh and Genesis. There are some similarities between the two, yet many important differences.
More specifically, if Genesis was translated from stone tablets written by the main characters of the events, then these tablets would pre-date the writing of Gilgamesh. Meanwhile, Gilgamesh was based on oral transmission of the events.
So the record in Genesis would be the accurate record; whereas Gilgamesh would be a somewhat "twisted" record. Being based on oral traditions passed over centuries, the latter would be expected to keep some of the main points intact but alter many of the details.
Wiseman's theory also fits with the archeological evidence of the character of the ancient cuneiform, stone tablets as compared to the Genesis narratives. There are many similarities in the writing structure between them. He summarizes all of the evidences on pages 144-148 of his book.
He concludes by stating:
These twenty-four strands woven together make a cumulative muster of evidences, so exceptional both in character and importance, that they establish the antiquity of Genesis as a contemporary record of events upon a sure foundation. This foundation is the internal testimony of the book itself, supported by the external corroboration of archeology.
Here is more info on the cuneiform tablets if you desire.
http://www.v-a.com/bible/old-testament.html
http://www.dtl.org/bible/ng-post/gilgamesh.htm
quote:
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. |
And God saw taht the wickedness of man was great in the land.
Hey thanks Ethy for bringing this verse up! It really helps subtaniate that Land works perfectly well, arguably better even, in these verses too!
quote:
I tossed that one just to show the impossible size of the Ark. The largest wooden ship ever made was 350 feet. |
Well, I it can at least float in theory, unlike the cubed-ship that appears in Gilgamesh. And, since God is telling him how to make it, I'm sure God will make sure he puts glue-type substances in the right areas, he will make sure that the ship is generally stable. It is God after all, after creating a universe, I'm sure he can give Noah advice on how to make an admittedly, rather large ship.
quote:
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. |
AKA, and behold I do bring a flood of waters upon the land...and everything that is in the land shall die.
.
quote:
Pretty specific on the times. Are you claiming they lied about that? I mention this because of your false claim that the Black Sea Flood happened at the right time to match the Bible. It didn't. |
It's tough to say when someone, who is only mentioned in the old testament, actually lived.
quote:
Note also the reference to the windows of heaven. Thats rain which is not overflowing riverbanks which is what actually happened in the Black Sea Basin. Rain had nothing to do with the Black Sea Flood. |
I understand that melting icecaps were involved too, but there is no way you can say that rain wasn't involved as well. In fact, rain combined with these melting ice caps probably could have created a flood which could cover medium-sized mountains. Here is a quote from http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/sm...enom_apr00.html "It was this event that Pitman and Ryan believe could be the flood recorded in the Book of Genesis. The salt water poured through the deepening channel, creating a waterfall 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls (anyone who has ever traveled to the base of the falls on the Maid of the Mist will have a sense of the power involved). In a single day enough water came through the channel to cover Manhattan to a depth at least two times the height of the World Trade Center, and the roar of the cascading water would have been audible at least 100 miles away. Anyone living in the fertile farmlands on the northern rim of the sea would have had the harrowing experience of seeing the boundary of the ocean move inland at the rate of a mile a day.
World Trade Center? That could probably reach the top of a mountain or two me thinks.
The Tower of Babel is substantiated in this same link. "a number of people and new customs suddenly appeared in places as far apart as Egypt and the foothills of the Himalayas, Prague and Paris. The people included speakers of Indo-European, the language from which most modern European and Indian languages are derived. Pitman and Ryan suggest that these people might, in fact, represent a diaspora of Black Sea farmers who were driven from their homes by the flood, and that the flood itself might have been the cause of the breakup of Indo-European languages. " While they speculate that it could be the flood, it also could have been the Tower of Babel. In fact, the Tower of Babel is in the next chapter right after Noah's Flood isn't it?
quote:
....the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
The waters are STILL there in the Black Sea. Not exactly the same as in this passage. So do you believe in the Bible or the Archeology. They don't agree. |
Perhaps they were simply referring to the water that covered the land abated, not the entire black sea. Silly Ethy.
quote:
Gen 8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that [is] with thee, of all flesh, [both] of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth. |
Every animal within the range of the flood, i'm sure there were quite a few species native to that region and it's perfectly reasonable they could have all fit on the ark.
.
quote:
Jehovah promising never to again kill everything. He doesn't agree with you either on this issue. |
Now this is a good point Ethy. Many devastating local floods have happened since Noah's time killing thousands in their destruction afterall.
However, the purpose of the Genesis Flood was to destroy all life, not simply to cover the globe with water. Since the time of Noah there have been no more floods that have destroyed all life. Therefore, even if the Genesis Flood was local, the promise to Noah has not been broken. I think at that time about the only civilizations in the world would have been destroyed. The indus, egyptian, and chinese civilizations have not appeared yet, 6000BC and all. Perhaps god simply destroyed civilization up to that point? Alternatively, God has never had a flood which wiped out an entire "land" of people. I live in the midwest, and we have some bad floods, from time to time. But never to the point the entire state of Kansas is wiped out.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp
quote:
Not my fault he is wrong about "mark on every continent on this plane". |
I generally don't take these young-earthers too seriously.
quote:
If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it. |
It would be fairly tough to walk to some area unaffected by the black sea flood and take all the animals, particularly those native to the region with you.
quote:
If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range. |
I don't think many birds could have survived the sudden level of flooding that occured either.
quote:
Now if you don't want to believe what Gensis actually says thats fine by me. I sure don't. However don't pretend your rewrite has anything to do with what the Bible really says. If it has to be rewitten and the meaning changed to fit reality its not exactly a convincing book with any special meaning or value. |
Actually, the more and more I debate with you Ethy ol pal, the more accurate it is looking, in fact I predict one day you will convert to Christianity too. You'll see.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Not at all, showing that hyerbole was sometimes used when mentioning the phrase "the world" amongst old testament writers is perfectly relevent to our discussion. |
Not "hyperbole", just the way they thought the world was. It was supposedly flat and centered around the Mediterranean. There was nothing worth mentioning outside that area. When they said "all the kingdoms of the world", they were not speaking figuratively.
quote:
No the Black Sea Flood only inspired the original story and that story inspired the Biblical one. Gilgamesh is the older of the two.
Interesting theory Ethy, but P.J. Wiseman presents an interesting theory in this regard in his book Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1985)...
...So the narratives of the creation of the universe (Gen 1) and of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2) would have been written on one tablet by Adam as these events were revealed to him by the only Eye-witness of the events, God Himself. The narratives of the Fall and subsequent events would have been written on another tablet by Adam as an eye-witness of the events... |
This is a reliable source? You seem to be quoting a Young-Earth Creationist to support a non-Biblical local flood. Didn't you just say "I generally don't take these young-earthers too seriously"?
quote:
If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.
It would be fairly tough to walk to some area unaffected by the black sea flood and take all the animals, particularly those native to the region with you. |
I have no problems with the theory that the Black Sea flood may have inspired the Gilgamesh and Genesis stories. But the Ark is a ridiculous addition. The Black Sea flood never left the Black Sea, and is still there: the waters did not abate. In the time it took Noah to build the Ark, he could have just walked away instead: Noah, his family, and any number of animals could have walked to China if they wanted to!
quote:
I don't think many birds could have survived the sudden level of flooding that occured either. |
It took years to build the Ark, then Noah magically summoned the birds. He could have strolled down into Turkey and summoned them there instead. Or taken his time catching a few the hard way. He wasted so much time building the Ark.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-05-2002 06:34
I love you Ethy, but you know you only wish you could devise an arguement as effective as my so-called strawman. 
|