Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why was a flood needed?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 16 of 90 (45559)
07-09-2003 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brian
07-09-2003 2:06 PM


Brian Johnston writes:
quote:
The most complete and the best-known of the Babylonian sources is of course the Gilgamesh epic. In this story there are some surprising similarities with the Bible accounts
Not just "some." The story is pretty much a copy. For instance, not only is it birds that show the end of the flood, it's specifically three birds, the first two returning and the third not coming back. In Gilgamesh, it's a raven, a swallow, and a dove while in Genesis, it's a raven, a dove, and a dove.
Too, the description of the boat is identical: Made of wood with one door. The way the flood comes down is described in the same manner.
There is no doubt that the story of Noah is connected to the story of Ut-Napishtim.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 07-09-2003 2:06 PM Brian has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 17 of 90 (45591)
07-10-2003 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
07-09-2003 6:14 PM


HI Mike,
RUBISH. he was showing pharaoh that all his gods were false and not to mess with the real deal.
Yahweh - I AM
Mike, you pretty much agree with me that YHWH was showing off.
since it claims to be true and no one has ever proved otherwise do not refer to it as myth!
Where does it claim to be true?
It has been proven untrue, you just wont accept it.
nice try but i'm afraid i still take it as truth.
You can take it as true if you like, but most 12 year old kids know how silly a stance that is. If a 12 year old child can realise how implausible the flood myths are, why cant you, what is the difference between them and you?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 07-09-2003 6:14 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 9:54 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 9:57 AM Brian has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 90 (45610)
07-10-2003 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
07-10-2003 5:09 AM


'If a 12 year old child can realise how implausible the flood myths are, why cant you, what is the difference between them and you?'
well for a start the proportions of the picture are about 300 times too small,as a painter i can tell you my version would look 100% different from this child like image.that is because i read the story properly and the ark was vast, it was a vast ark ,as for childrens perceptions , i'm sure they'd believe evolution and creation as they are children! however i am not .
'Where does it claim to be true?'
the bible is a book not based on fiction, by reading it you will agree it never says 'and this book is not true,and is a huge parable' indeed Jesus confirmed the words of prophecy.are you suggesting the jewish are all wrong and your personal opinion is correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 5:09 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Autocatalysis, posted 07-10-2003 11:08 AM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 90 (45611)
07-10-2003 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
07-10-2003 5:09 AM


'It has been proven untrue'
then tell me how it is untrue, because no one has ever provided absolute proof against it and you know it Brian , that is exactly why we are debating i'm pretty sure deep down you have a thought in you that says 'what if this is God's word?'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 5:09 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 10:15 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 21 by Randy, posted 07-10-2003 10:18 AM mike the wiz has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 20 of 90 (45613)
07-10-2003 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 9:57 AM


then tell me how it is untrue
No thanks Mike, I prefer not to start pounding my head off that particular wall again, I have more meaningful things to do with my time.
If I thought for one second that you would actually take on board anything I said, or even thought that you would try to do some objective critical research, I would be happy to investigate the evidence for the Flood with you. But all that would happen would be that you would rely on the Bible everytime regardless of any external evidence.
i'm pretty sure deep down you have a thought in you that says 'what if this is God's word?'
I'll say one thing for you Mike, you are consistent, this is yet another thing that you are pretty sure about that is incorrect.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 9:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 21 of 90 (45614)
07-10-2003 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 9:57 AM


quote:
then tell me how it is untrue, because no one has ever provided absolute proof against it and you know it Brian , that is exactly why we are debating i'm pretty sure deep down you have a thought in you that says 'what if this is God's word?'
It is "Proved" untrue by geology, paleontology, biogeography and biodiversity, many of the threads are on this board. There are so many features of the world that obviously falsify the young earth worldwide flood that creationist geologists abandoned it more than 150 years ago in spite of their religious beliefs.
The only possibility aside from myth is the Omphalos hypothesis that God made the earth to look old with geology and paleontology simulating an old earth with extinction of species over massive periods of time, magically transported animals to the ark, magically sustained animals on the ark, magically sustained predators post ark until prey species recovered sufficient numbers and magically transported all those marsupials from the Middle East to Australia, Flightless Birds to New Zealand and Sloths to South America, just for starters. I suppose God might have wanted to cover up the horrible crime of flooding the world but then why have his "Chosen People" record it.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 9:57 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 10:34 AM Randy has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 90 (45616)
07-10-2003 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Randy
07-10-2003 10:18 AM


however everything you have just said DOES NOT disprove it at all , what would prove or disprove it is a time machine.
can you be 100% correct randy are you so closed minded you do not even consider that the experts could be wrong .as i said before show me the concluding and absolute 100 percent proof that it is wrong?
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Randy, posted 07-10-2003 10:18 AM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Brian, posted 07-10-2003 10:50 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 24 by Randy, posted 07-10-2003 10:52 AM mike the wiz has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 23 of 90 (45621)
07-10-2003 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 10:34 AM


Hi Mike,
No you do not need a time machine, a flood of the magnitude decribed in the Hebrew Bible would HAVE to leave some evidence. It was supposed to have wiped out every living thing on earth, apart from the ark inhabitants. It would also have destroyed every structure that was around at the time, have you any idea how much water is required to fulfill the Bible claim?
Catastrophes leave evidence Mike, the Flood has left nothing.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 10:34 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 24 of 90 (45623)
07-10-2003 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 10:34 AM


quote:
however everything you have just said DOES NOT disprove it at all , what would prove or disprove it is a time machine.
can you be 100% correct randy are you so closed minded you do not even consider that the experts could be wrong .as i said before show me the concluding and absolute 100 percent proof that it is wrong?
No I can't be 100% sure that God is not an evil trickster who created the world to look old and covered up all the evidence of the flood recorded in Genesis. However, I am very certain that the worldwide flood myth that the ancient Hebrews borrowed and recorded in Genesis is falsified past the nth degree by geology, paleontology, biogeography, biodiversity, archeology and other aspects of science. You can believe that your particular interpretion of the Bible is correct because you have been taught it is the word of God but if you think it has any scientific support you are simply delusional.
You call me close minded but I was raised a Christian and have been studying the evidence of science for nearly 50 years. You have totally closed your mind to the mass of evidence that falsifies your interpretation of Genesis. Do you think the creationists who went out to find evidence of the worldwide flood in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were close minded? If they were they would have stuck to their myths. Instead they were open minded and discovered that there was no evidence for a worldwide flood and massive evidence against it.
Randy
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 10:34 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 11:10 AM Randy has not replied

Autocatalysis
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 90 (45627)
07-10-2003 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 9:54 AM


A fellow painter! Good stuff. Yes that is a crappy boat. But my paintings are abstract so my boat would sink even quicker. LOL.
[This message has been edited by Autocatalysis, 07-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 9:54 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 11:15 AM Autocatalysis has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 26 of 90 (45628)
07-10-2003 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Randy
07-10-2003 10:52 AM


'No I can't be 100% sure that God is not an evil trickster who created the world to look old and covered up all the evidence of the flood recorded in Genesis'
in other words , no i could be wrong but i am too self righteous to admitt it!
'You can believe that your particular interpretion of the Bible is correct because you have been taught it is the word of God but if you think it has any scientific support you are simply delusional. '
well i'm afraid thats your opinion Randy but i think the foolishness of God is wiser than men , so personally scientists can misenterprate their findings untill the end of time they still wont be right in the end!
as for so called believers hunting for evidence of the flood,i am pretty sure God was so disapointed in their lack of faith that he rewarded them with baffling finds!
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 07-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Randy, posted 07-10-2003 10:52 AM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by roxrkool, posted 07-10-2003 11:29 AM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 90 (45629)
07-10-2003 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Autocatalysis
07-10-2003 11:08 AM


'A fellow painter! Good stuff'
hi there, well i say i'm a painter but thats a matter of opinion. lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Autocatalysis, posted 07-10-2003 11:08 AM Autocatalysis has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 28 of 90 (45634)
07-10-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 11:10 AM


Mike, when you get a degree in paleontology or geology, or whatever, then, and only then, can you tell us that we are 'misenterprating' the evidence. Since you have no clue at all how one goes about interpreting geological evidence, you have no right to accuse people of not knowing how to do their job. Or imply that they are obviously lacking faith or have ulterior motives (such as bringing down Christianity). What a load!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 11:10 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 11:35 AM roxrkool has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 29 of 90 (45636)
07-10-2003 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by roxrkool
07-10-2003 11:29 AM


no,all i am saying is i think God is more intelligent than humans and so i will take his WORD over theirs,and according to them i am a relative of an ape,whereas God says i am made in his image so when scientists disregard God's word i take comfort in the fact that God knows a lot better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by roxrkool, posted 07-10-2003 11:29 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Randy, posted 07-10-2003 12:23 PM mike the wiz has replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 30 of 90 (45645)
07-10-2003 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 11:35 AM


quote:
'No I can't be 100% sure that God is not an evil trickster who created the world to look old and covered up all the evidence of the flood recorded in Genesis'
quote:
in other words , no i could be wrong but i am too self righteous to admitt it!

No, I admitted that God could be an evil trickster, I just don’t think that He is and the Omphalos hypothesis has some sever philosophical problems. The list of scientific falsifications of the worldwide flood is virtually endless and I have studied many of them. You prefer to ignore but that is you perogative. Deliberate ignorance is apparently vital to the YEC worldview.
quote:
'You can believe that your particular interpretion of the Bible is correct because you have been taught it is the word of God but if you think it has any scientific support you are simply delusional. '
well i'm afraid thats your opinion Randy but i think the foolishness of God is wiser than men , so personally scientists can misenterprate their findings untill the end of time they still wont be right in the end!
as for so called believers hunting for evidence of the flood,i am pretty sure God was so disapointed in their lack of faith that he rewarded them with baffling finds!
So you are delusional. Why am I not surprised? The findings were not baffling, they were very clear and clearly showed that the worldwide flood is a myth.
quote:
no,all i am saying is i think God is more intelligent than humans and so i will take his WORD over theirs,and according to them i am a relative of an ape,whereas God says i am made in his image so when scientists disregard God's word i take comfort in the fact that God knows a lot better.
Except that you are taking about your interpretation of His word from a book that you think is His word because it says it is His word and you think is literally true at least where you want it to be. Generally YECs now take those statements about a fixed earth and the sun going around the earth as poetry but maybe you are also a geocentrist. Others who also think the Bible is His word interpret it differently. Do you think you are literally made in the image of God or is that symbolic? Do you think God actually looks like a man? Do you think that God has teeth and hair and intestines or is image not meant to be exactly literal here? Have you ever considered that some of the things you consider literally true might be symbolic?
Randy
[This message has been edited by Randy, 07-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 11:35 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 12:53 PM Randy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024