Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 9:26 AM
30 online now:
dwise1, GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Sarah Bellum, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,014 Year: 7,050/19,786 Month: 1,591/1,581 Week: 413/393 Day: 4/43 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 166 of 372 (418683)
08-29-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 7:16 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Refpunk writes:

Sorry, but it can't be erosion because the sedimentary layers are IN THE MIDDLE of the rock layers.

If erosion did not cause the sedimentary layers you speak of, then what did? Weathering and erosion are the two 'causes' for sedimentary rock. Even the flood model suggests that erosion is the cause for the sedimentary layers.

Now that you have brought up the existance of sediment layers within other rock layers perhaps you could explain how this fits with the global flood model.

If it was erosion then the top parts of the rock layers would have eroded away.

And they have, hence the layers of sediments! You appear to be thinking of geology in a limited timescale. Remember that the model of onetime events is your model and not scientists.

So that's another example of scientists not thinking things through well enough because of their eagerness to deny the bible.

Are you sure you have thought this through before you became so eager to deny geology?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 7:16 PM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 11:01 PM Vacate has responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 174 of 372 (418717)
08-29-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 11:01 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
the definition of sediment is: "matter that settles to the bottom of liquid"

True enough for the basic definition of sediment, but not for the definition of sedimentary layers. As you can see on wikipedia weathering does also contribute to 'sedimentary' rock. Just look at the weathering effects you see from sand eroding desert rock.

This is besides the point however.

And the only way sediment could have gotten into the MIDDLE of rock layers is if the rock was once covered in water.

I would ask you to propose some method that would deposit sediments from any source underneath an existing rock layer. We are obviously not talking about sediments collecting in a cave somewhere. This is global, so tell me how sediments collected globally under existing rock.

So you're incorrect.

Thats been know to happen, so show me how.

Don't forget your original claim that erosion did not cause the sediments to be deposited underneath the rocks. An explanation on how you see a flood first creating all the sediments and then depositing them underneath rock layers would be helpfull in correcting my misunderstandings.

Edited by Vacate, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 11:01 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 193 of 372 (420044)
09-06-2007 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Repzion
09-05-2007 9:01 PM


I'm surprised that there haven't been more fossils of creatures from a later era discovered with those of an earlier era.

*emphasis mine*

Can you document even one?

The difference between the old flow model and the young earth model is the former assumes the ice sheets have been forming at a consistent rate for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

And your model assumes hundreds of thousands of changing seasons in a single year. Do you see any problems with this?

I have doubts about the magnetic field's reverse polarity

The rocks don't. The scientists who study the rocks don't.

This is something I haven’t researched but from my point of view it’s probably just another way of evolutionists trying to explain away an argument for a young earth.

Ah yes, its easier to make up a conspiracy than it is to use a search engine.

I’ve read of underwater caves that were formed quickly in the Mediterranean and in Northeastern U.S. (maybe New York).

Who was it that researched these caves and said they formed quickly? Geologists? Have you looked into what they call quick?

How could structures such as insect wings and feathers be preserved over hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years when they have to be buried quickly and removed from oxygen???

Perhaps they where buried quickly and removed from oxygen? Do you think your flood model is the only model where things can happen fast? The term you are after is "localized flooding".

dinosaurs with translucent blood vessels and soft tissue

No need to supply your source, thanks for the laugh.

trilobite fossils in Canada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Arkansas

Wierd how they have never found anything else isn't it? Its like at that time there was no mammals, dinosaurs, fish, birds, etc

a fish fossilized giving birth, a fossil of a perch swallowing a herring

I saw a dead deer with a mouth full of grass once. I didn't catch the second flood though, I must have been up high enough.

I haven’t thought about this much but suspect that there are zoos which have gone years at a time without any problems with parasites.

True, but is that zoo the only source of life on the planet. Its not really like the Ark then is it?

I’m pretty sure there are mosquitoes that have survived flood waters and violent rain stroms though I don’t know how.

Wasn't the flood meant to kill everything?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Repzion, posted 09-05-2007 9:01 PM Repzion has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 233 of 372 (436300)
11-25-2007 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by IamJoseph
11-23-2007 10:12 PM


What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
The OT is 100% correct in its narratives

Except all the parts where you say they are incorrect.

The flood refers to the 'then known world' and the animals were domestic.

Genesis 7:1-4 is God speaking. God surely knew about the entire world when He said "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made". So the then known world was the entire world in that passage, because God said so.

Also note this passage:

Genesis 7:23 writes:

Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Though I don't see this as God speaking directly, it does beg the question of the inerrancy of the Bible if you are claiming it was a local flood. The Bible is quite clear that it was global.

Thus, all references to animals are domestic

Genesis 7:14 writes:

They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings.

Thus, all references to animals that are not domestic should be ignored? The livestock would be considered domestic, the "wild animals" are wild animals, why do you say they are domestic?

Here, the critical pointers of tigers, wasps and crocodiles become the operative missing factors from the text, and the imperitive and encumbent requirements for not going upon the wrong conclusions.

Lets not forget that it was God who said "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.". Your conclusions differ from the words God spoke, how do you explain this?

Genesis 9:15,16 writes:

Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.

If the flood was local, why would God make a covenant to never again destroy all living creatures? If the flood was local and he said he would never do it again he lied; each and every time there was a local flood. Why have the rainbow as a reminder that God will never again flood the Earth if in fact he never did flood the Earth but only a local region, and continues to flood local regions in defiance of his own covenant.

Significantly, all the other historical factors in this report are scientifically authentic and verifiable, including the names, places and surrounding descriptions - dispensing with any notion this is not a historical accounting.

So if names, places, and surrounding descriptions are accurate the authenticity of the book is no longer in question (by your definition). So by the same token the Koran, Romeo and Juliet, and Tom Clancies Hunt for Red October are all historical documents? Can't we just dispense with most of the "fiction" category in the bookstore then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 11-23-2007 10:12 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 1:48 AM Vacate has responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 236 of 372 (436388)
11-25-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by IamJoseph
11-25-2007 1:48 AM


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

quote:
Genesis 7:1-4 is God speaking. God surely knew about the entire world when He said "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made".
Correct. Here, 'every living creature' and 'the earth' is the subject term addressed to Noah, and refers to the then known world only. It does not and can not include Tasmania, is the point.

So God really was unaware of the entire Earth even though he created it. What a bizarre interpretation.

The term 'global' and 'earth' is relative of its spacetime; Tasmania did not exist here.

Sure it did. God created it, and then you assert that He forgot about it when He said He would flood the whole Earth.

Yes, at this time [prior to the OT], wild pigs, hogs, dogs, camels, horses were domestic and part of Noah's possessions

And snakes, worms, mosquitoes, mice, rats, bacteria, virus, scorpions, beetles, ravens, doves, foxes, hyena, ibex, jackal, lizard, locust, hares, porcupines, vultures, etc

That man had quite the flock of domesticated animals. Where does it say in the Bible that everything that draws breath in the region of Noah was called "livestock".

They don't differ. The term 'earth' and all creatures are subject to its spacetime, with no other reading possible.

Sure, If you are trying to claim that God has a limited memory and forgets about the rest of the world that He created.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:
If the flood was local, why would God make a covenant to never again destroy all living creatures?

This applies to all living creatures in any period's known world. This is vindicated, despite many natural disasters which have occured since then.

So Gods covenant is actually meaningless drivel. Your interpretations leave something to be desired.

The rainbow is a most appropriate symbol here, and represents a mark observable by all sectors of humanity in all spacetimes and regions. Again, the selection of such a mark makes for a premise of great credibility here

Explain why a covenant to not flood the entire Earth has any meaning when God didn't flood the Earth in the first place. It was a tiny flood that He made the covenant for, when in fact tiny floods happen all the time. The covenant is meaninless and shows no credibility regarding what God says and what He does afterwards.

The differential is, unlike any other document [to my knowledge], and also irrespectively, Genesis is speaking 'retrospectively', namely of names and historical factors which are over 2000 years from its own contemporary spacetime.

So what? Names, places, and surrounding descriptions are the important factor and the Koran, Romeo and Juliet, and Tom Clancies Hunt for Red October are of equal historical relevance. Most books are written retrospectively, so as long as the names , places and surrounding descriptions are correct the work of fiction is now elevated to a historical document.

That the details of such narratives are acknowledged as authentic by archeologists, is a remarkable feat.

Not all of them. Don't get to hasty vindicating your OT, your own post denies a global flood so don't be too sure that archeologists acknowledge all events of the OT as authentic.

countries and nations which did not yet exist are not mentioned here; those that are mentioned are historically authentic and correct. IMHO, this is perhaps one the strongest indicators of the text's credibility, and which I have not encountered any place else.

Try reading. I encounter this in virtually any book with history involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 1:48 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 8:22 PM Vacate has responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 240 of 372 (436508)
11-26-2007 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by IamJoseph
11-25-2007 8:22 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
Not as bizarre as yours.

I am just reading the words for what they say.

Would you address 5500 Noah with Tasmania?

If "all the Earth" is actually all the Earth like God says, then yes. If "all the Earth" is merely Noahs farmyard, then no.

Tasmania surely did not exist then.

Did God create it afterwards? What does this have to do with what I have written anyways? Address my point instead of avioding it.

And I never forgot your bizarre semantics concerning speech either.

Great. Then reading comprehension is your only failing thus far in this thread.

So I'll drop this nonesense: you have genesis-creation-phobia big time.

No, not really. I take great pleasure in watching you butcher the bible while attempting to defend it.

Now will you address my post or should I created another one that shows you butchering Gods words?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 8:22 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 4:43 AM Vacate has responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 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

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 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

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 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

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 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

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 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

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 265 of 372 (436793)
11-27-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by IamJoseph
11-27-2007 6:22 AM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:
Could you provide some documentation? I am curious mainly about the date of this historical record. Does it predate the OT?

The flood was mentioned in babylonian writings, I believe it was Hamurabi.

So you will be willing to retract your previous statements?

message 232 writes:

Grammar was introduced in the OT.

You have introduced a historical account that pre-dates the OT and confirms a localized flood. Does a historacal account of anything not need grammar?

Message 234 writes:

The differential is, unlike any other document [to my knowledge], and also irrespectively, Genesis is speaking 'retrospectively', namely of names and historical factors which are over 2000 years from its own contemporary spacetime.

Now, to your knowledge there are other ducuments that speak retrospectiveley, mention names and historical factors and also pre-date the OT as a historical record.

And in the same post that you provide the information I requested you say this:

There is no question that Genesis is making historical portrains here, of an ancient period which is not seen elsewhere. This makes it a document which describes ancient history, whereby the world would not know of these details without it.

Why do you keep saying such nonsense when your even contradicting yourself in the same post? There is "historical portrains" of this period seen elsewhere - your using it as supporting evidence for your claims! The details that you claim would not be known to the world without Genesis are in fact recorded in other documents, ones you have attempted to use repeatedly as support.

**why do you seemingly avoid 90% of my post content and reply to small matters? It strikes me as odd and makes me wonder if your strategy is to simply avoid the portions of my posts that would ruin your position if explored. I am of course simply speculating since avoidance means your position can be restated time and agian without closer examination. Alternatively I could speculate that you have retracted all your claims based upon my replies and future posts will reflect this changing worldview. I have my doubts about my speculations but I am unable to confirm much of anything when you skip so much of the debate.

As I said before, if it is a time constraint that is perfectly ok with me. I would ask however that you state as much so I can wait for your reply without the guesswork and speculations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by IamJoseph, posted 11-27-2007 6:22 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by IamJoseph, posted 11-27-2007 6:37 PM Vacate has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019