Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 6:09 AM
18 online now:
(18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,006 Year: 5,043/19,786 Month: 1,165/873 Week: 61/460 Day: 3/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
25Next
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 241 of 372 (436510)
11-26-2007 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Vacate
11-26-2007 3:36 AM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:
No, not really. I take great pleasure in watching you butcher the bible while attempting to defend it.

I gave contextual back-up to verses which you never factored in. Also, I explained that the names and descriptions in the Noah story are all authentic of its period. So we have here, a genuine report of a spacetime, and a flood which is also reported by other nations. It seems any butchering is a disregard how another nation can report a story if they were destroyed by a world wide flood - except if the flood was a local one. Yes/no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Vacate, posted 11-26-2007 3:36 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Vacate, posted 11-26-2007 1:08 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 242 of 372 (436523)
11-26-2007 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by IamJoseph
11-25-2007 8:17 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
Do you not see any dif between destroy the world by water - and a flood - the text? What's the matter with you guys - a comprehension problem - or worse?

Do we live on the same planet? The only thing I don't understand is your line of thinking because you are a pick and choose creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 8:17 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 6:21 PM reiverix has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 243 of 372 (436556)
11-26-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by IamJoseph
11-26-2007 4:43 AM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
I gave contextual back-up to verses which you never factored in.

I have factored in the context. What you have not factored in is the words that God spoke. The question is: When the bible has written God says, is that an accurate statement?

If God did not say "all the world" and "everything that draws breath" then there really is no issue with your version of the story. So how about you provide your interpretation on what the bible means when it says God says. Is it accurate or just makes for a good story?

It seems any butchering is a disregard how another nation can report a story if they were destroyed by a world wide flood - except if the flood was a local one. Yes/no?

True, if you do not disregard the reports of other nations its quite obvious it was a local flood and the bible is wrong that God spoke of a global flood and killing of all animals. So which is it?

1- Local flood and the bible is wrong (the authors didn't know what God said.)
2- Global flood and the bible is wrong (the authors didn't know that it was a local flood.)

Be precise here.

Edited by Vacate, : spelling, as usual


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 4:43 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 6:13 PM Vacate has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 244 of 372 (436588)
11-26-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Vacate
11-26-2007 1:08 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:
I have factored in the context. What you have not factored in is the words that God spoke. The question is: When the bible has written God says, is that an accurate statement?

If God did not say "all the world" and "everything that draws breath" then there really is no issue with your version of the story. So how about you provide your interpretation on what the bible means when it says God says. Is it accurate or just makes for a good story?


Your factoring is in error. 'Everything w breath' relates to 'all the *THEN* world'. There is no other reading when the text is given reasonable semblance: it relates to Noah's pov, and this must be allocated to the speak to him. There is no question the speaker knows the terrain in question - which is seen authentic as its affirmation. You *WANT* to read it wrongly, and the text exposes a lack of comprehension and inadequate attending to regard of the context.

quote:

It seems any butchering is a disregard how another nation can report a story if they were destroyed by a world wide flood - except if the flood was a local one. Yes/no?

True, if you do not disregard the reports of other nations its quite obvious it was a local flood and the bible is wrong that God spoke of a global flood and killing of all animals. So which is it?

1- Local flood and the bible is wrong (the authors didn't know what God said.)
2- Global flood and the bible is wrong (the authors didn't know that it was a local flood.)

Be precise here.


The text cannot be wrong: Tasmania did not exist - relatively, subjectively and actually. Same as it did not exist a 1000 years ago. The reports of a local flood by others affirms the text - as does all the other factors in the text - again negating any possibility the speak is not aware of the terrains or its spacetime.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Vacate, posted 11-26-2007 1:08 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Vacate, posted 11-26-2007 7:00 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 245 of 372 (436590)
11-26-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by reiverix
11-26-2007 9:37 AM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:
Do we live on the same planet? The only thing I don't understand is your line of thinking because you are a pick and choose creationist.

The planet has a timeplace relativity, and correct speech and grammar says this must be factored in. I am not picking and choosing when any relativity is factored in - instead, I am not picking and choosing what to disregard. The contextual setting is 5,500 years ago: even ancient egypt or pyramids cannot be considered here. The text would be in error only if Tasmania was disregarded *TODAY*; this is not the case.

Further, one must look at the other items in the text: does it display an astonishing contemporary evidence of knowing its correct spacetime terrain?

I rest my case.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by reiverix, posted 11-26-2007 9:37 AM reiverix has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 246 of 372 (436602)
11-26-2007 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by IamJoseph
11-26-2007 6:13 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
'Everything w breath' relates to 'all the *THEN* world'.

No, sorry. It was God speaking. You know who that is right? He would be the one who knows about the whole world, and all the creatures on the planet. Your not seriously trying to put forward that God Himself was as limited in knowledge about the world He created as the people of the past?

There is no question the speaker knows the terrain in question

You mean God. The one who you say didn't know about the rest of the world. He only knew about "the terrain in question".

The text cannot be wrong

Then why do you keep insisting that it is wrong? The Bible says that God himself was making a global flood to kill every creature on the planent. That is what the text says, you are saying that the text is in error. Its clear to me now that you are opting for a version of option 1. Either the writers of the Bible did not correctly chronicle the words God spoke, or God Himself was unaware of the rest of the planet.

Tasmania did not exist - relatively, subjectively and actually.

Why do you keep bringing up Tasmania? I don't even understand the relevance.

The reports of a local flood by others affirms the text

And those reports show that the writers of the Bible did not correctly record what God said, or God Himself was unaware of the rest of the planet. This is my point, nothing about Tasmania anywhere in there.

again negating any possibility the speak is not aware of the terrains or its spacetime.

Except the speaker (God) appears to be unaware of the rest of the planet by your interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 6:13 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 8:53 PM Vacate has responded
 Message 248 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 9:13 PM Vacate has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 247 of 372 (436630)
11-26-2007 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Vacate
11-26-2007 7:00 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?

quote:
Its clear to me now that you are opting for a version of option 1. Either the writers of the Bible did not correctly chronicle the words God spoke, or God Himself was unaware of the rest of the planet.

Tasmania did not exist - relatively, subjectively and actually.

Why do you keep bringing up Tasmania? I don't even understand the relevance.


The speaker is God, the subject is Noah; the setting is 5,500 years ago. I use Tasmania to indicate this place did not yet exist in the then known world; Tasmania is less than 300 years old. I posited the authenticity of the textual descriptions as an evidence the speaker knows correctly all the factors of what the then known world - as per the subject's [Noah] and its spacetime. It is a higher insight of the world, when one describes it with catering to the subject spoken to.

Today, if we refer to the 'now' known world - we cannot be referring to an underground hemisphere which is outside our radar; and if an advanced alien knows about this hemisphere - and also that alien knows this it is outside our radar - he must address us in our terms. Subsequently, if the whole known world - according to us [the subject] was affected, it will be a correct statement by the aliens. This will be further affirmed that the alien fully understands all the stats and specs relating to the known world from our pov.

The text have to be treated seriously - exactly how you would treat a complex physics or maths document. It is obviously multi-dimensional for all generations. If in 500 years we discover a new realm of countries on earth - it will not render the texts incorrect, or that the speaker was not aware: exactly the reverse applies. The observer/reader of the texts today, should thus also factor the relativity of the speaker and the subject: here we see all fits into place, and it becomes a confirmation of the right reading. That 'HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES' - applies, even in its grammatical aspect. One does not speak to a child to include MC2, but in accordance of the child's pov.

quote:

And those reports show that the writers of the Bible did not correctly record what God said, or God Himself was unaware of the rest of the planet. This is my point, nothing about Tasmania anywhere in there.


Both those views are wrong: this awareness factor is not relative to today's description of the world [sic], but that of Noah's spacetime. The latter spacetime is 100% vindicated as correct.

quote:

Except the speaker (God) appears to be unaware of the rest of the planet


Such a conclusion is only possible if a description of the world was made *TODAY*. It means, to deliberate the obvious, if you described the world 500 years ago, and did not include Tasmania - and have all your descriptions correct as at 500 years ago: you would NOT be in error. The Genesis text is perfect - from the speaker to subject pov - as seen today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Vacate, posted 11-26-2007 7:00 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Quetzal, posted 11-26-2007 9:31 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 251 by Vacate, posted 11-26-2007 10:34 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 248 of 372 (436633)
11-26-2007 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Vacate
11-26-2007 7:00 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
When one examines their reading of this flood, they have to conclude there is no motive in describing a flood incorrectly, when all their descriptions outside the extent of the flood, is correct. The text is not disregarding other places - they did not exist.

We see from the above, any disputation does not overturn the prima facie aspect of the flood: it did occur, evidenced by cross-nation reporting, and the correct identification of all descriptions. The aspect of the whole world and all creatures, becomes the secondary factor only - and when this is examined correctly - it too becomes vindicated; the secondary factor does not overturn the prima facie in any way. Here, any inuendo of myth becomes non-credible and short sighted - or worse.

I find the obvious premise of a text describing a spacetime 5,500 years ago - an astonishing factor never seen elsewhere for such a spacetime and with such advanced descriptions [in fact nothing of such a calibre exists], becoming a negative instead of a positive allocation. Its not like anyone can display a better historical portrait elsewhere - no historical descriptions exist of this spacetime.

Mount Arafat is introduced here for the first time, in correct allocation and location of the other stats in the narrative; the cultures, names and characters of this primal humanity is correct; the olive and vine are correct descriptions of diet; the dates match the OT calendar correctly; the generations before and after Noah are authentic - culminating in the origins of the ancient egyptians and of Abraham's ancesters [Ham and Shem, Noah's sons, respectively] are correct.

IOW, we have a historical description which is astonishly faultless here, and not seen elsewhere. Not even a less than faultless example is seen elsewhere. The flood report is thus not a myth in any POV, and any allocation of it as such is a greater myth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Vacate, posted 11-26-2007 7:00 PM Vacate has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3979 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 249 of 372 (436634)
11-26-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by IamJoseph
11-26-2007 8:53 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
I use Tasmania to indicate this place did not yet exist in the then known world; Tasmania is less than 300 years old.

Although I am utterly unable to follow the gist of your argument, I would like to point out that this particular statement is inaccurate. The Tasman Basin contains glacial sedimentary and alluvial deposits (indicating it was above the water at least part of the time) dating from the Late Carboniferous - call it around 310 million years old. In other words, a bit over the 300 years you indicate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 8:53 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 10:09 PM Quetzal has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 250 of 372 (436639)
11-26-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Quetzal
11-26-2007 9:31 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:
Although I am utterly unable to follow the gist of your argument, I would like to point out that this particular statement is inaccurate. The Tasman Basin contains glacial sedimentary and alluvial deposits (indicating it was above the water at least part of the time) dating from the Late Carboniferous - call it around 310 million years old. In other words, a bit over the 300 years you indicate.

It does appear the gist is not followed, despite the use of that word. If the glacial sedimentary factors were relevent to Noah, then indeed the 5,500 year futuristic application of Tasmania becomes onerous.

Obviously, I referred to the name of a state called Tasmania did not exist, and this is correct. Captain Cook too did not exist!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Quetzal, posted 11-26-2007 9:31 PM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Quetzal, posted 11-27-2007 2:23 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 251 of 372 (436642)
11-26-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by IamJoseph
11-26-2007 8:53 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
The speaker is God, the subject is Noah; the setting is 5,500 years ago.

Change your point of view, I am talking about God not Noah. I don't really care if Noah believed the whole world was his back porch - God should have known better.

I use Tasmania to indicate this place did not yet exist in the then known world

Lets clear up a possible misconception here. Do you mean that the location that we today call Tasmania literally did not exist back then? Or do you mean, as I think, that the name did not exist but the location did?

Today, if we refer to the 'now' known world - we cannot be referring to an underground hemisphere which is outside our radar

Correct. If we where talking about a human with a limited knowledge. The subject I have brought into this discussion is God.

God would have been correct to say "I am going to flood the world that you know and kill all the animals that you know of. Don't worry Noah, the world is a lot bigger than you understand and this flood is actually of little importance. It will not kill all the animals, nor all the sinning humans. If you install paddles on the ark you could travel to land and not wait out this flood for a year. I don't want you to install paddles however, because in a years time I need a reason to explain why I am changing the fundementals of light itself. The rainbow that I plan to create needs a causal factor, this local flood will be just the excuse I need."

Perhaps Noah would have thought God to be a tad delusional, but it sure would have made a lot more sense than the story you are trying to push.

If in 500 years we discover a new realm of countries on earth - it will not render the texts incorrect

It certainly would. We, much like God, can look down upon the Earth and know the totality of Earth. We, much like God, can correctly conclude that a local flood is not a global flood. We, unlike God, call local floods local regardless of the education of the peoples we are speaking too.

The observer/reader of the texts today, should thus also factor the relativity of the speaker and the subject: here we see all fits into place, and it becomes a confirmation of the right reading.

Speaker: God
Subject: infinite knowledge regadless if timeframe, location, or person spoken too.
Conclusion: Pointless flood by a God who appears unaware of his creation.

and have all your descriptions correct as at 500 years ago: you would NOT be in error

Yes you would, if you knew better. Didn't God know better?

they have to conclude there is no motive in describing a flood incorrectly

Sure there is. To this day many people believe that there was a global flood and Noah took all the animals on the ark. The bible did describe the event incorrectly, you even say so.

So, can you describe the motive for God creating a local flood?

The text is not disregarding other places - they did not exist.

Just to confirm, please explain what exactly you mean by this. As I asked above, I just want to make sure there is no misconceptions.

The aspect of the whole world and all creatures, becomes the secondary factor only

Incorrect. The important point is the apparent lack of knowledge God has about his creation. Noah and his neighbors are not important.

The secondary factor would be why such an event was even worth recording when floods happen all the time.

Here, any inuendo of myth becomes non-credible and short sighted - or worse.

I haven't suggested the myth alternative. I would prefer to explore your interpretation and see where the cards fall. It is up to you however, but I will not be drawn in to discussions of my beliefs simply to distract from a discussion of yours.

I find the obvious premise of a text describing a spacetime 5,500 years ago - an astonishing factor never seen elsewhere for such a spacetime and with such advanced descriptions [in fact nothing of such a calibre exists]

I said before, try reading. Hell even watch a movie. George Lucas has the bible beat hands down... A long time ago in a galaxie far far away. What do you find so special about a book that talks about the past? Its called history, or even historical fiction - the two appear hopelessly merged according to your definition however. Its not 'astonishing', and it has been seen elsewhere regardless how many times you repeat it.

no historical descriptions exist of this spacetime

Many exist. How can you even say that when in the post above you claim that there is conformation of a local flood from other societies! That would be a historical description.

Mount Arafat is introduced here for the first time, in correct allocation and location of the other stats in the narrative; the cultures, names and characters of this primal humanity is correct; the olive and vine are correct descriptions of diet; the dates match the OT calendar correctly; the generations before and after Noah are authentic - culminating in the origins of the ancient egyptians and of Abraham's ancesters [Ham and Shem, Noah's sons, respectively] are correct.

Pointless information. Even if you are correct about all aspects of these claims it does nothing to further your position. All you have done is show that there is some history in the Bible. I have shown there to be history in other works and thus far my point has been ignored.

ABE: I see you have confirmed what you mean by your references to Tazmania in your reply to Quetzal. I will leave the questions in my post but from now on I will accept what you have said as clarifiaction of your position. I suspected that is what you meant anyways :)

Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 8:53 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 10:58 PM Vacate has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 252 of 372 (436646)
11-26-2007 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Vacate
11-26-2007 10:34 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:
I don't really care if Noah believed the whole world was his back porch - God should have known better.

Correct, Gd did know better. This is only evidential by knowing what is knowable by Noah, and affirmed by all the surrounding stats and specs in this reporting. The difficiency would be only if Noah and the spacetime was disregarded, eg: if Tasmania or any other state which was known or settled yet by Noah and not mentioned, or that if wild animals such as lions and tigers, were in the text. This is not the case.

If Mr. Einstein converses with a 2 year old child, and does not mention MC2 - it is a commendation of Einstein - not a difficiency he never knew about MC2.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Vacate, posted 11-26-2007 10:34 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Vacate, posted 11-27-2007 12:15 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 257 by Larni, posted 11-27-2007 5:12 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 253 of 372 (436653)
11-27-2007 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by IamJoseph
11-26-2007 10:58 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
If Mr. Einstein converses with a 2 year old child, and does not mention MC2

If the subject is about E=MC2 and Mr. Einstein does not mention E=MC2 then anyone listening in may interpret Mr. Eistein as an idiot or a liar. Its hard to say really, it all depends whether or not the information he told to child was correct or not. Was the information that God gave to Noah correct? No. Was the information impossible to convey to Noah about the reality of the situation? No.

Noah was not a two year old, and the idea of the world being larger than what Noah had explored is not a tough idea to teach unlike E=MC2. The idea that there are more animals than what was sitting in Noahs barn is also not a tough idea to teach.

Where do we place blame then? Was Noah not smart enough to learn simple concepts? Was God not patient enough to teach them? Was God correct in his methods if the concept of a global flood has been misunderstood by billions of people throughout history because of His unwillingness to explain? (This last is not really a question, its more like my whole point)

it is a commendation of Einstein

Your analogy is pretty weak. The question I would first ask is could the teacher explain the subject in such a way that the student could understand? Is the subject too complex? Did a simplification (if that is the case) end up conveying the wrong information and lead to improper ideas about the subject?

**Do you plan to address the rest of my post? In particular:

Vacate writes:

So, can you describe the motive for God creating a local flood?

If its a time constraint, I understand. Its hard to judge if I have made a point in your eyes when its not addressed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 10:58 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 11-27-2007 1:24 AM Vacate has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1775 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 254 of 372 (436664)
11-27-2007 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Vacate
11-27-2007 12:15 AM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:
If the subject is about E=MC2 and Mr. Einstein does not mention E=MC2 then anyone listening in may interpret Mr. Eistein as an idiot or a liar.

I don't think so. They will see him discussing MC2 on TV with other Professors, and not conclude as you. That is why I pointed you to numerous wondrous stats in the Noah story which affirms there are no lies or errors here: you have clung to semantics and ignored everything else.

quote:

Its hard to say really, it all depends whether or not the information he told to child was correct or not. Was the information that God gave to Noah correct? No. Was the information impossible to convey to Noah about the reality of the situation? No.

Nothing was incorrect, and no other evidential incorrect statements are contained therein. I dare say this debate is becoming like a theological debate of beliefs: here, all logic is useless. We are stretching the fabric of a secondary issue of the flood, and ignoring 100s of other verifying stats.

quote:

Noah was not a two year old, and the idea of the world being larger than what Noah had explored is not a tough idea to teach unlike E=MC2. The idea that there are more animals than what was sitting in Noahs barn is also not a tough idea to teach.

Again, this is wrong. I point out to you, that even 400 years ago, the native Americans had no idea there was Europe. And 5,500 years ago, Babylon did not exist; 5,300 years ago, Babylon did not know of Egypt's emergence. Further, there is no reason to tell Noah of areas which had not yet existed, while ratifying the then known world. If you want to find an error in Genesis, then let it be where this can be seen as clear cut and no qualifications apply, not with a singular semantical reading which is grammatically so poor. Are any of the other stats in the Noah story wrong or false, aside from it applying to the then known world of Noah's period - how then can you account for anything being lies or wrong - what motive or benefit do you apply for such lies?

quote:

Where do we place blame then? Was Noah not smart enough to learn simple concepts? Was God not patient enough to teach them? Was God correct in his methods if the concept of a global flood has been misunderstood by billions of people throughout history because of His unwillingness to explain? (This last is not really a question, its more like my whole point)

Its not a reasonable or proper pov. Noah cannot be called lacking in smartness if he did know that Tasmania and Canada did not yet exist, nor was Gd as the speaker. I gave you an anology with Einstein and a child, but that seems to have been lost in translation!

quote:

it is a commendation of Einstein

Your analogy is pretty weak. The question I would first ask is could the teacher explain the subject in such a way that the student could understand? Is the subject too complex? Did a simplification (if that is the case) end up conveying the wrong information and lead to improper ideas about the subject?


Its not even a simplification: Noah's world did not include the same countries today. Tommorow, we may have totally different states - maybe even underground cities in the Pacific ocean - we need not account for this today in normal speech to evidence our smartness.

quote:

**Do you plan to address the rest of my post? In particular:
Vacate writes:
So, can you describe the motive for God creating a local flood?

If its a time constraint, I understand. Its hard to judge if I have made a point in your eyes when its not addressed.


This is given in the text, and not requiring another pov. Is it related to the point of discussion? Noah is singled out in his region, and told to collect all his household possessions, and to build a sea vessel which dimensions are well alligned to the task. We find here also, this flood was reported by others in the region, affirming the report, but only as a regional flood.

I will add that the text says, Noah was found rightious 'IN HIS GENERATION'. This term generation is numerously employed in the OT, eg. Generation of Abraham, Ismael and Jacob - they apply to their own particular descending family tree only - not to the world, again indicative of a regional event. I am certain, but have not attempted it, but if all the genrations of Adam are checked, they will be found to be divergent from the generations listed of Noah. Both these events allign only with the OT calendar - which is a calendar which is beyond reproach in its accuracy and detail, but it becomes corrupted when reading of a world flood: the OT NY is based on the birthdate of Adam.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Vacate, posted 11-27-2007 12:15 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Vacate, posted 11-27-2007 2:36 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 256 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-27-2007 3:55 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 255 of 372 (436672)
11-27-2007 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by IamJoseph
11-27-2007 1:24 AM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:
If the subject is about E=MC2 and Mr. Einstein does not mention E=MC2 then anyone listening in may interpret Mr. Eistein as an idiot or a liar.

I don't think so. They will see him discussing MC2 on TV with other Professors, and not conclude as you.

Then you will show me where God clarified what that "the entire world" was bigger than the area involving the flood of Noah. If you want this analogy to work you must show this to align it with Einstein speaking about E=MC2 correctly on television. Thus far you have not done so, relevant quotes from the Bible need to be presented or you have nothing to stand on.

That is why I pointed you to numerous wondrous stats in the Noah story which affirms there are no lies or errors here

Error: God stated the entire world was only a local region. (according to your interpretation.)

If I state that 1+1=13 it is incorrect. Telling you who my parents are, where I live, the names of the countries or the history of the region does not clear up the error. 1+1 will never equal 13.

quote:
Was the information that God gave to Noah correct? No. Was the information impossible to convey to Noah about the reality of the situation? No.

Nothing was incorrect, and no other evidential incorrect statements are contained therein.

Insistance will not make it go away. Sorry it does not work like that.

I dare say this debate is becoming like a theological debate of beliefs

Not really. Are you going to use this as a method of not admitting I have a point? 1+1 still does not equal 13. The Earth was not a small region like God said it was.

We are stretching the fabric of a secondary issue of the flood, and ignoring 100s of other verifying stats.

Present them then. I have presented relevant quotes from the Bible that support my position in the matter of Noah and the flood. Care to present any evidence that is relevant to this topic?

quote:
Noah was not a two year old, and the idea of the world being larger than what Noah had explored is not a tough idea to teach unlike E=MC2. The idea that there are more animals than what was sitting in Noahs barn is also not a tough idea to teach.

Again, this is wrong. I point out to you, that even 400 years ago, the native Americans had no idea there was Europe.

Had they been told they would have known, wouldn't they? Unless you are suggesting that Noah was not intelligent enough to grasp simple concepts you still have no point.

Further, there is no reason to tell Noah of areas which had not yet existed, while ratifying the then known world.

There is a reason. The reason is that had God been specific and actually taught Noah some truth about the situation there would not have been billions of decieved people. There would not be creationists pushing to have religious books in public parks (Read about it here), there would not be debates on this forum about the Grand Canyon being the result of a flood, children would not be taught that Noah took every single animal on the planet (including dinosaurs no less!) on an ark, and mans understanding about the earth and its processes would not have been hindered by religious viewpoints .

How can you say there is no reason to inform someone of the truth? God promotes ignorance?

Are any of the other stats in the Noah story wrong or false

Yes. I can provide a list if you would like.

what motive or benefit do you apply for such lies?

Lies are a strong word to use. If you are asking for my interpretation of the events that are recorded about the time of Noah I would first suggest that you drop the word "lie".

quote:
Where do we place blame then? Was Noah not smart enough to learn simple concepts? Was God not patient enough to teach them? Was God correct in his methods if the concept of a global flood has been misunderstood by billions of people throughout history because of His unwillingness to explain? (This last is not really a question, its more like my whole point)

Its not a reasonable or proper pov. Noah cannot be called lacking in smartness if he did know that Tasmania and Canada did not yet exist, nor was Gd as the speaker. I gave you an anology with Einstein and a child, but that seems to have been lost in translation!

You have avoided the questions and also my whole point. If Noah was not lacking in smartness then God could have informed him that the world was larger than he knew and that the flood was merely local. He did no such thing, and all I see being lost in translation is your continued avoidance of this fact. You need not present analogies if they have no relevance.

Its not even a simplification: Noah's world did not include the same countries today.

I know that, I have not shown confusion about this fact. I have shown repeatedly that it is possible to explain to someone that the Earth is larger than Noah had believed. One need not use words like Tazmania, Canada, or any such modern division of pre-existing lands. Why do you insist that this is a prerequisite for an understanding of truth 5500 years ago? Why do you keep bringing it up as if I am making such suggestions?

quote:
So, can you describe the motive for God creating a local flood?

This is given in the text, and not requiring another pov. Is it related to the point of discussion?

Yes its related and you have not given any quotes to show it in the text. I will repeat:

1- Why record a localized flood in the Bible when localized floods are commonplace?
2- Why state that rainbows are a reminder that God will not make a repeat of a global flood when no global flood took place? If its not a reminder of global floods, but of local floods, then why are there still floods?
3- Why the need to create a seperate and special localized flood merely as a pretext to changing the fundementals of light itself?

Noah is singled out in his region, and told to collect all his household possessions, and to build a sea vessel which dimensions are well alligned to the task.

Not only that, but everything that draws breath is also to ride on the ark. Everything! You can attempt to suggest that it was only livestock, but I suggest you read what the bible says first.

We find here also, this flood was reported by others in the region, affirming the report, but only as a regional flood.

Could you provide some documentation? I am curious mainly about the date of this historical record. Does it predate the OT?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 11-27-2007 1:24 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by IamJoseph, posted 11-27-2007 6:22 AM Vacate has responded

RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019