Summations Only

I believe all those positions are coming from creationists working the YEC time frame. To a YEC, 4,350 years means nothing stratagraphic specific. To other YECs, the K-T boundary or the Cambrian explosion may well be at 4,350 years. Maybe even the K-T boundary AND the Cambrian explosion may well be at 4,350 years.Moose

quote:

---

By "anti-creationists" do you mean scientists, and others who rely on empirical and testable evidence instead of ancient tribal myths?

---

Einstein and Newton upheld creationism. I would check the science nobels for more enlightenment here.There is no concievable motive in the Noah report. It is pre-religions; myths and fables usually have an agenda. Its most controversial factor is hardly whether there was a flood, but that a claim is made God spoke to Noah. Yet that bypassed everyone as the more credible rejection in this story in the mis-directed zeal.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Well, actually the OP was asking proponents of a global flood to show their evidence. Since you don't seem to be one, I think that discussing whether the Bible does describe a global flood or not would belong in another thread in the bible study forum.
I don't think that anyone is disputing that regional flood have happened. The biggest contention is about whether a global flood happened.

How about establishing that the God of the Israelites is very powerful? How about claiming that a local story about gods flooding the known world was actually done by the God of the Israelites? There are religions that date older than any known copy of Genesis. Yes. The agenda is to show that Yahweh is powerful enough to kill us all. The agenda is to take the flood story that is prevalent throughout the near east and make it all down to Yahweh. Its agenda is to show that the descendants of Noah (and specifically Shem, the ancestor of Abraham) are especially blessed as being historically holy/pure/moral. Its agenda is to suggest that bad things happen because of bad behaviour courtesy of Yahweh.Genesis is filled with agendas. The Flood story is not an exception, I'm afraid.The question I'm forced to ask is. Is it your position that the claimed lack of agenda in Genesis is evidence that a flood happened and it happened in recent times? If so, please show your chain of reasoning that leads there.I'll give it a go:1. There is no evidence of an agenda in the flood account.
2. All false stories have an agenda.
3. Therefore, the flood account is not a false story.I would disagree with both (1) and (2), and therefore argue that (3) has not been established.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How about establishing that the God of the Israelites is very powerful? How about claiming that a local story about gods flooding the known world was actually done by the God of the Israelites?

---

Israelites yet never existed. Nor do the laws handed down later agree with mass killings ['Only the soul that commits a crime shall pay'].

quote:

---

It is pre-religions

​

There are religions that date older than any known copy of Genesis.

---

That's the point. The other religions did not report a global flood.

quote:

---

myths and fables usually have an agenda

​

Yes. The agenda is to show that Yahweh is powerful enough to kill us all. The agenda is to take the flood story that is prevalent throughout the near east and make it all down to Yahweh. Its agenda is to show that the descendants of Noah (and specifically Shem, the ancestor of Abraham) are especially blessed as being historically holy/pure/moral. Its agenda is to suggest that bad things happen because of bad behaviour courtesy of Yahweh.

---

But Israel was not given any special treatment; the advent of establishing liberty, inalienable human rights, laws and monotheism is not special treatment of any group. How about the smallest land and constant exiles and world hatred. How powerful is such a God?

quote:

---

Genesis is filled with agendas. The Flood story is not an exception, I'm afraid.

​

The question I'm forced to ask is. Is it your position that the claimed lack of agenda in Genesis is evidence that a flood happened and it happened in recent times? If so, please show your chain of reasoning that leads there.

​

I'll give it a go:

​

1. There is no evidence of an agenda in the flood account.
2. All false stories have an agenda.
3. Therefore, the flood account is not a false story.

​

I would disagree with both (1) and (2), and therefore argue that (3) has not been established.

---

I see no agenda in a flood story being false. I see the story embedded with loads of factual, historical marks - not seen in any other writings; not addressed in its negations. Its varied from head bashing deities battling for supremecy. I see the agenda not in the flood story.The only legitimate claim of anti-creationists is that this reported flood is described as God talking to Noah and prempting the flood - nothing else merits their charges in the text.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Well, actually the OP was asking proponents of a global flood to show their evidence. Since you don't seem to be one

---

None have such evidence. They rely only on a mis-reading of selected verses and ignoring other selected and pivotal ones.Conclusion: the rejection is not of the text but shrouded in the premise of a God.

Where was the flood? What were the boundaries and extent?When was the flood?How long did the flood last?Where are the sites that show the physical evidence of that flood?

They existed at the time of the earliest copy of Genesis that we have. I have no idea what relevance this has. But they do report a flood that covered all the land (whatever that is) and they do discuss one man and his family being saved by divine intervention. I'm not suggesting it was given any special treatment, so I don't know why you say this. What I actually said was that the agenda is to show that the Ancestor of the Israelites was specially chosen for their moral superiority. I don't see any such factual historical marks. That's besides the point I was raising. Are you suggesting that the lack of an agenda is evidence in favour of the story? Even if we assume the story is true, it can still have an agenda: Telling a true story is itself evidence of an agenda of truth-telling.

If someone says the world was destroyed 1,500 years ago - none would believe him. If that claim included a list of contemporary factors which were not possible to list after 1,500 years, and which turned out to be correct but impossible to derive from other sources - then we have a mysterious anomaly. In such a case one is incumbent not to reject the story, but to re-examine their reading of the text. Contemporary factors listed for the first time cannot be claimed as retrospective - those who do not understand this are not understading, or worse - what the report says; in fact they do not even go there.One would first have to check if, for example among other things, if the name Noah and those listed in his geneology, are authentic by scholars and experts in this field, recorded for the first time. One would have to check if there are any historical factors which are known to be false. Here, none have put anything on the table.

Do you honestly think that people reading what you write actually see things the way you do?I bunked with Reed Richards in my uni days and picked up a Thing or two (full marks for the pun) and I have no idea what you are getting at.As my professor used to say "a good teacher can make herself understood easily".

Where was the flood? What were the boundaries and extent?When was the flood?How long did the flood last?Where are the sites that show the physical evidence of that flood?

earliest copy of Genesis that we have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is a seasonal factor; the dates change as more relics pop up. King David was a myth 10 years ago; a billion today still claim the Jerusalem temple is a myth; Moses was a Muslim; etc. Do you have any evidence anything in the Noah story which can be disproved is disproved - such as historical factors? If not, the report is generally credible aside from a global flood.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Nor do the laws handed down later agree with mass killings
I have no idea what relevance this has.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You inferred special treatment as the agenda here?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That's the point. The other religions did not report a global flood.But they do report a flood that covered all the land (whatever that is) and they do discuss one man and his family being saved by divine intervention.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------'whatever that is' is the point here. You may reject the premise of a God - but not that the text is incorrect of a regional flood.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------But Israel was not given any special treatmentI'm not suggesting it was given any special treatment, so I don't know why you say this. What I actually said was that the agenda is to show that the Ancestor of the Israelites was specially chosen for their moral superiority.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Moral superiority? A host of bad deeds are also listed, nor do the moral laws apply to Jews: the term Jews do not appear in the laws. Are you not confusing your bibles here about chosen by example [be a light'] and the chosen of 'exclusive kingdom keys' and 'no god but allah'? There is chosen and there is CHOSEN, no? Choose your facorite chosen and agenda before making such a claim as your reason of proof.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I don't see any such factual historical marks. That's besides the point I was raising. Are you suggesting that the lack of an agenda is evidence in favour of the story? Even if we assume the story is true, it can still have an agenda.This is limited; all have agendas involuntarilly and generically. If the report has accuracy [truth] then this is a superfluous charge. The report is fantastically and astonishingly accurate aside from a global flood view; no ancient writings quite measure up here.

These stats are given. The region is well described as regional: nations and countries are listed as forthcoming around Mount Ararat. The bounderies cannot apply when countries were yet not relevent at such a period. Tasmaia yet never existed; of note is that incorrect nations of its contemporary period [e.g. Philistines; Romans; etc] are not listed. None have yet pointed out any historical errors in the report - incumbent here.

Ask your uni teacher to point out a historical error in the texts.

Hi Joseph,I believe that Professor Richards is a secular humanist. I don't think you'll have much luck getting a response out of him though. He's currently rather busy with his work on the Negative Zone.Mutate and Survive