The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

This is the fulcrum verse which applies to all descriptions of the flood:

quote:

---

Gen 7/1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation.

---

Note the words 'thou and all thy house into the ark' - this refers only to Noah's family and domestic animals. Note the words ' in this generation' - this refers to the people in Noah's environment [not the entire world].Note also that no wild animals [snakes, tigers, bears] are listed. Note also the exacting dimensions of the boat - they align only with a small group of people and animals. Note the close vicinity where the boat settled when the flood sub-sided: Mount Ararat, not Tasmania.Grammatically, one must proceed to the nearest and only logical path. Verses which describe all the mountains being covered thus require correct contextual adjustment: to the people of this vicinity, it did appear as the whole world was covered [expressionism], mostly because at this ancient times, people never ventured outside their towns all their lives. Its not like today, where we see an earthquake in NZ on TV and we know this applies to one particular area - this is a very dfferent time period and the writings acknowledge this and appears an astute contemporary work of high order and merit. If, for example, the writings included this as a flood only impacting one corner f the world, it would violate its time period: the people of this time never knew of Tasmania; indeed Tasmania never existed then for all all credible purposes.For a lesson in true authenticity and credibility, this is the first recording of hisorical factors, such as the mention of Mount Ararat in its correct location, and the pristine engineering blueprints of a boat. Of note aso, the allocation of two animals of each kind shows anticipation of continueing life after the flood [as opposed a conclusion of destruction of the world]; the mention of clean animals [consumable; kosher] caters to forthcoming laws in the same document. This was a regional flood, in an area known for such floods, and is written as if it was done in its contemporary times or via some form of knowledge which is mysterious: a host of scholars and scientists have agreed the names appearing in Noah's geneology are 100% authentic of ts tmes - a factor included in scientific assessments.

quote:

---

Chuck77 writes:
I say this with as much respect as I can, the only reason this debate has lasted so long is because of the long line of ignorant Creationists that come here that havn't or don't want to realise that Creationism in it's current form doesn't fit into the Scientific method.

---

It depends what one understands about creationism. The NT version is very different, more like a Walt Disney view and should not be regarded as the assessment, appearing 2000 years later with no record of its observance or knowledge: the depiction of a 6000 year earth is an embarrassment for those who understand creationism, and it has nothing whatsoever to do wth Genesis when correctly read.The other problem is that negating creationism does not prove anything, and I know of no scientific alternatives to it - you have not mentioned one. Galeleo did not disprove the flat earth merely by saying it is not credible science - he actually had to prove an alternative - he did so!Creationism cannot be cast aside so easily. After all, there are only two possibilities how this universe emerged: via a Universe Creator - or otherwise; not bad odds. Please nominate the 'OTHERWISE' scientifically, and be assured I will respond scientifically also?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Thankfully what you know has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

​

The educated are not limited by your lack of knowledge.

---

Reality and the educated know where the first recording of following comes from:1. That the universe is finite.2. That the universe is based on laws.3. That light was the first entity.4. That an array of actions anticipated life.5. That the first grouping of life forms [species] is recorded in Genesis.6. That evolution is first recorded in Genesis.7. That the oldest names of humans are recorded in Genesis.8. That the DAY & WEEK were introduced in Genesis.9. That all laws of the judiciary, ethicality, human rights, animal rights, women's rights, separation of religion and state - are contained in the Hebrew bible - exclusively.10. The first alphabetical book is the Hebrew bible.11. The oldest active calendar and the most accurate is the Hebrew calendar.12. That the history of a host of nations which do not exist anymore, their locations, beliefs, customs are recorded exclusively in the Hebrew bible. [e.g. the Philistines; Abraham; Moabites, Medianites, etc]13. That no ancient writings have more archeological proof than the Hebrew bible.Apart from the above, you are completely correct and should be congratulated.

quote:

---

1. That the universe is finite.

​

It's not.

---

Show something expanding which is not finite.

quote:

---

2. That the universe is based on laws.

​

It's not.

---

Your succinct response defies the law of gravity.

quote:

---

3. That light was the first entity.

​

It wasn't and in fact has never been.

---

Denial is not a scientific response. The age of the universe is measured by its light.

quote:

---

4. That an array of actions anticipated life.

​

Also didn't happen.

---

Was water not separated from land prior to life?

quote:

---

5. That the first grouping of life forms [species] is recorded in Genesis.

​

Not only is species not a part of Genesis, the "kinds" mentioned there are also not valid.

---

Vegetation; water borne; air borne fowl; land based animals; speech endowed humans. 'Kinds' are validated and vindicated as the first record of life form groupings. You loose.

quote:

---

6. That evolution is first recorded in Genesis.

​

No, it wasn't.

---

Life form groupings emerged via following their kind, as per the host seed output - this is vindicated in our midst without any impact of the time factor. Evolution fails without the host.

quote:

---

7. That the oldest names of humans are recorded in Genesis.

​

Also wrong. There are writings which pre-date Genesis. The Epic of Gilgamesh for example.

---

Your history is worse than your science. The name Adam is 5771 years. Gilgamesh is post Abraham.

quote:

---

8. That the DAY & WEEK were introduced in Genesis.

​

Also wrong. The Babylonians had days and weeks recorded before Genesis was written.

---

No sir: pls prove your statement. The babs and Egyptians never had calendars - they used hour glasses and moons. The Babs divided the year into months, but they could not estimate seasons, which called for solar, lunar and earth movements. Today's Gregorian comes from the Hebrew calendar, which introduced both the day and the week, and the means of calculating seasons and annual aniversaries.

quote:

---

9. That all laws of the judiciary, ethicality, human rights, animal rights, women's rights, separation of religion and state - are contained in the Hebrew bible - exclusively.

​

Extremely wrong. Wrong in the sense that what's in the Bible even REMOTELY addresses these rights. Wrong in the sense that there is separation. And EXTREMELY wrong in the sense that any of this is exclusive to the Bible.

---

Read again. Although there were basic laws [NOT TO MURDER; STEAL; etc] prior to the Hebrew, the laws we follow in today's institutions are seen only in the Hebrew bible's 613 laws. No other ancient documents list animal rights, for example, or that it is forbidden to judge by hearing one arty's side only.

quote:

---

10. The first alphabetical book is the Hebrew bible.

​

Also no, Sumerians had writing before the Bible was written.

---

There are no Sumerian alphabetical BOOKS, namely a multi-page continueing narrative. Name one?

quote:

---

11. The oldest active calendar and the most accurate is the Hebrew calendar.

​

I think the Chinese would dispute that.

---

While the Chinese and Indian are older, there is no calendar, chinese or Indian 5700 years old and active today. Period.

quote:

---

12. That the history of a host of nations which do not exist anymore, their locations, beliefs, customs are recorded exclusively in the Hebrew bible. [e.g. the Philistines; Abraham; Moabites, Medianites, etc]

​

While THOUSANDS more are not recorded. Meanwhile the Incas had recordings of cultures not mentioned in the Bible.

---

No sir. Names and dates are also listed, which align with the Hebrew scriptures. A few examples.

quote:

---

Incas are not old: History[edit] Killke cultureThe Killke occupied the region from 900 to 1200, prior to the arrival of the Incas in the 13th century. Carbon-14 dating of Sacsayhuaman, the walled complex outside Cuzco, has demonstrated that the Killke culture constructed the fortress about 1100. The Inca later expanded and occupied the complex in the 13th century. Cusco - Wikipedia

---

quote:

---

13. That no ancient writings have more archeological proof than the Hebrew bible.

​

There is no archaeological proof for any magical event recorded in the Bible.

​

There is only archaeological evidence that the locations in which the authors decided to set their story were existing places.

---

Re Proof of Israel's history:

quote:

---

The Merneptah Stele, dated to about 1206 B.C.E. and now housed at the Cairo Museum, offers the earliest historical evidence of a people called Israel. It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

​

However, in 1993 an inscription was found at Tel Dan. It mentions a dynasty of David. And on the Mesha stone found in the last century in Moab there is also a probable reference to David. So there is textual evidence outside the Bible for these kings of the United Monarchy, at least David.

​

Archeologists Discover Jerusalem's Oldest. Hebrew University excavations recently unearthed a clay fragment dating back to the 14th century BCE, said to be the oldest written document ever found in Jerusalem.

​

The tiny fragment is only 2 cm. by 2.8 cm. in surface area and 1 cm. thick and appears to have once been part of a larger tablet. Researchers say the ancient fragment testifies to Jerusalem’s importance as a major city late in the Bronze Age, long before it was conquered by King David.

---

quote:

---

Basically, you've presented a long list of errors based on your assumption that if an author writes "this is the first thing that happened" then whatever paper he wrote that on is the oldest recording ever.

​

Not even close to being true.

---

I have only relied on recent archeological proof with back up relics. I have not presented any scriptures as proof.

quote:

---

Hehe rofl lmao id love to here a few of these rights can you provide some quotes from the bible of these rights.

​

I wonder how many women would agree to those rights

​

found some of those rights myself where these the ones you where talking about?

​

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

​

Isaiah 3:12
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.

---

None of those are against women's rights, which comes from the hebrew bible. A punishment made to both man and woman does not apply here. I can list all the laws which verify the case, if it does not conflict with the thread topic.

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

​

1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

​

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

​

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

​

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

​

1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

---

At least get your act together you know what you are rejecting. Those are not the Hebrew bible but the NT, which do not contain any laws.

quote:

---

The creationist position is not just that the Bible is true, but that the Bible is true and that the evidence from the real world says its true. In the science threads you have to focus on the evidence that says the Bible is true, not the Bible.

---

I fully agree with that. Is not a finite universe evidenced in a substantial sector of science today? With species, I listed many valid reasons why Genesis is the first recording of life form groupings [a fact, not an opinion], in a thread of very evidenced factors which point to the host seed, and how it satisfies the evolutionary term of species. I also said the Hebrew bible is the first alphabetical book. These are easily refutable without referring to any theology - but none have done that.How does it make a difference who said it, more so than what is said? This applies to all things I've said, but no one is countering what is said, but rather who said it. If a science thread does not confront the only counter to it, then what merit in just talking with only those who have no counter? Can you tell me why a finite universe is so widespreadly rejected in this thread [I count those who remain silent as liable here] - is there not substantial evidence of the universe being finite, via science theories and via other imprints of evidence? The point is, even if one does not subscribe to a finite universe, it is not based on any valid criteria - so there is no validity in rejecting an equally, if not more so, valid premise. A science response must be the first to vouch what is a scientyifically valid premise - no matter who says it.I put it to you that the book of Genesis is also a historical item, evidenced in the dead sea scrolls. Its content represents the only counter today against Evalution - it introduced this premise without the same name only. None have showed which part of Genesis' mode of re-pro is not scientifically viable - can you?

ADMIN.Did you check my reasoning why the flood story can only be seen as a regional flood? All of the factors I mentioned are based only on scientific and historical grounds, and by quoting texts in the story which verify my reasonings. What for example, does YOUR OWN HOUSEHOLD means, if not only Noah's possessions? Correct me where you can point to a specific item what is said.

Re: You were discussing women's rights in Message 335.Ture. However, this was in context of science laws, where I mentioned other laws also come from this source, as a form of credibility. But a post laughed his head off, then went on to quote incorrect references and allocations - I responded with a correction only. I can, but don't intend to show him proof he was wrong and I correct.This is a science thread which is discussing the veracity of a report in a theological work. The fact is I did show how the topic of the flood is wrongly understood as a global one by giving scientific and historical reasoning and quoting the storie's actual text. I regard this thread's question of it well answered. Instead of countering me on the topic, numerous issues concerning theology was submitted as the response; obviously there was no scientific counter at hand to my reasonings. How is it my fault if others resort to theology, laughing their heads off and being positively wrong?

quote:

---

Hello IamJoseph,
When I read your post my bullshit detector went off so hard I fell of the couch.

​

Reality and the educated know where the first recording of following comes from:
1. That the universe is finite.

​

2. That the universe is based on laws.

​

3. That light was the first entity.

​

4. That an array of actions anticipated life.

​

5. That the first grouping of life forms [species] is recorded in Genesis.

​

6. That evolution is first recorded in Genesis.

​

7. That the oldest names of humans are recorded in Genesis.

​

8. That the DAY & WEEK were introduced in Genesis.

​

9. That all laws of the judiciary, ethicality, human rights, animal rights, women's rights, separation of religion and state - are contained in the Hebrew bible - exclusively.

​

10. The first alphabetical book is the Hebrew bible.

​

11. The oldest active calendar and the most accurate is the Hebrew calendar.

​

12. That the history of a host of nations which do not exist anymore, their locations, beliefs, customs are recorded exclusively in the Hebrew bible. [e.g. the Philistines; Abraham; Moabites, Medianites, etc]

​

13. That no ancient writings have more archeological proof than the Hebrew bible.

​

Can you provide your sources for each one of these claims please.

---

Absolutely. If its not off topic.

quote:

---

seriously?

---

Very.

quote:

---

I will rephrase.

​

WILL you provide your sources for each one of the claims.

​

I was not enquiring as to your ability to provide the sources, I wanted you to actually supply them.

---

The Q is more important than the A. This is what should be monitored; if it not, one can conclude answering it is ok.

The most constuctive factor is the text. I pointed out the relevant textual reference which affirms my position; the others shamelessly left this out. Hello?

Looks like I made a great error. This opening statement by the thread's author mislead me:

quote:

---

Being a six day creationist I believe that the Genesis flood (chapters6-9) is just as literal as the creation account itself.

---

quote:

---

To clarify Admin's point, what we are looking for in this thread is evidence that would lead to the conclusion that there was a recent global flood.

---

Agreed with such a premise. After all, the Hebrew writings, as opposed the NT and Quran, happens to be the most credible writings humanity possesses, making it news #1 to dislodge any minutae error - this is human nature in all things. However, your error, like of all others here apparently, is your use of the word 'IOW' and 'GLOBAL':

quote:

---

IOW, if the flood did happen then someone should be able to follow the evidence to this conclusion without needing to read one word of the Bible.

---

Why did you omit the term 'GLOBAL' above? There is no credibility in omitting fulcrum criteria of a text. Apples and oranges apply!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.