Flood Arguments

[AV1611VET]

/thread

 

[Vance]

/thread

Good idea. You can then simply ignore all those pesky questions that point out you have no real reason to take the position you do.

 

[EnCrypto]

And again, EnCrypto, what's the problem? If I'm holding a note that says 2 + 2 = 5, and I interpret this note literally, then I have no choice but to claim the note says 2 + 2 = 5 --- whether the note is right or wrong is irrelevant. I'm just mimicking the note. That's the nature of a literal interpretation.

Just because you delete a point I make, doesn't make the point disappear.

But, you make an excellent point yourself. If the source is literally wrong, and you interpret it literally without using the common sense God gave you, then you will be wrong. Sure, your interpretation might be right, but since you didn't think for yourself, it doesn't matter because you're incorrect.

Let's say you're taking math. The teacher hands out a study sheet for the next test. Now, this has every single question that will be on the test, and not only that, but it also has answers for all of the questions.

1) 2 x 3 = 8
2) 17 - 5 = 3
3) 14 + 2 = 27

and so on.

Now, all of the other students read their books and use calculators and use their brains to find the right answers to the questions. You, on the other hand, study it literally and ignore what everyone else says, you don't read the book, and you never check a calculator. Come the day of the test, everyone else passes, all As across the board... except for you, who got an F.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And again, EnCrypto, what's the problem? If I'm holding a note that says 2 + 2 = 5, and I interpret this note literally, then I have no choice but to claim the note says 2 + 2 = 5 --- whether the note is right or wrong is irrelevant. I'm just mimicking the note. That's the nature of a literal interpretation.

But why do you insist on taking an eroneous note literally?

 

[Split Rock]

Do you ask someone who is holding a phone book to give you his interpretation of a number you want to call?

No --- you just say --- give me the phone number of [whatever].

I just thought I would note that AVET has compared the Holy Bible to a Phone Book. Apparently he has as little regard for scripture as he has for a list of phone numbers.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

None --- I don't do that kind of extra-Biblical research. It's not my thing. Outside of the Bible, I'm disarmed and disoriented.

Truer words have never been spoken. Forget the elaborate theological justifications, this is the real reason why AV1611VET believes what he believes. He has to desperately cling to the decaying, dusty neverland that is the King James Version because there is nothing else he understands.

Sad, really. What an exciting, vibrant world he misses because of his intellectual agoraphobia.

 

[BrainHertz]

Vance, I'm going to ask you one more time, with the question reworded for simplicity. Then I'm going to do my /thread thing, and I'm done here.

But I'm asking you to give me a straight YES or NO to this simple question:

If I interpret the Bible literally, do I have the right to claim the Flood was a local flood?

In my opinion --- NO --- what say you?

And then I'm done here.

Here's an interpretation, which claims to be literal (I couldn't see any deviations myself, but I'm not issuing a warranty here) which arrives at a different conclusion:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Edit: Since you were asking for a direct answer, here it is : YES. You have the right to interpret the Bible however you personally please.

 

[FishFace]

Here we go again --- as with the Egyptians and the Sumerians --- the Chinese came later, from the grandson of Noah, and [first] cousin of Nimrod.


[bible]Genesis 10:17[/bible]

I don't believe you, and why should I?

 

[FishFace]

EnCrypto, aside from not knowing me very well, if at all, let me say this.

I interpret the King James Bible literally.

Jesus is "the way, the truth and the light." He is also "love."

Are we to suppose then that he is a path, a concept we ascribe to claims which correspond to reality, and something which emits photons? Are we also to suppose he is a certain neurochemical interaction known to occur in the brains of human beings?

"In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die" Except they didn't literally die, did they?

In this case, there are at least two ways of interpreting it the Bible - either literally (in which case it's wrong) or metaphorically (in which case it could be right)

 

[TheBear]

I am convinced that it is now truly a pride issue.

/thread

I am convinced now. At first I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. But when all logic and reason to support his position fails, when the only honest thing to do is cede the point, he pulls this stunt.

Onward Christian soldier! (Or is it, "Retreat Christian coward!"? I always get the two mixed up.)

 

[FishFace]

Have you noticed, Vance, that all of these cultures that have supposedly been around for so long --- got the flood story wrong?

In everything I've read so far --- not one has mentioned Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth by name; given the dimensions of the Ark; the duration of the rainfall; the windows of Heaven; the animals going in two by two --- nothing.

This tells me that either the Flood didn't happen, or the stories were written after-the-fact to mock the true story --- and which explanation do you think I'm going to go with?

How about that a flood happened, probably separate, local floods in all cultures, which was then exaggerated and embellished by generations of oral tradition.

Why wouldn't you go with that explanation?

 

[FishFace]

Vance, I'm going to ask you one more time, with the question reworded for simplicity. Then I'm going to do my /thread thing, and I'm done here.

But I'm asking you to give me a straight YES or NO to this simple question:

If I interpret the Bible literally, do I have the right to claim the Flood was a local flood?

In my opinion --- NO --- what say you?

You have the right to claim whatever the heck you want. Do you mean ought you to claim the Flood was local, given that you interpret the Bible literally?

To that, I answer yes because however you interpret the Bible, it can be literal but wrong. And that's what the evidence points to.

 

[Split Rock]

/thread

Once again, poor AVET gets PWND by Theistic and non-theistic evolutionists in the forum and then runs away. Sadly, he will just repeat the same beaten points in another thread (like, the Bible is the same as a Phone Book) and pretend he didn't loose the argument here.

 

[cerad]

What about the Tyrannosaurs?

They were so heavy that they sank into the mud and thus were easy prey.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have the right to claim whatever the heck you want. Do you mean ought you to claim the Flood was local, given that you interpret the Bible literally?

To that, I answer yes because however you interpret the Bible, it can be literal but wrong. And that's what the evidence points to.

This is a concept that AV simply can't accept. No way, no how.

The map is not the territory. I have explained to AV what this means, but as soon as he starts to follow the argument he swerves right back to biblical inerrancy, his make believe hypotheticals, and unfalsifiable Omphalos post-modernistic nonsense.

As soon as someone prefers their imagined world over reality there really is nothing left to debate.

 

[Split Rock]

This is a concept that AV simply can't accept. No way, no how.

The map is not the territory. I have explained to AV what this means, but as soon as he starts to follow the argument he swerves right back to biblical inerrancy, his make believe hypotheticals, and unfalsifiable Omphalos post-modernistic nonsense.

As soon as someone prefers their imagined world over reality there really is nothing left to debate.

The problem with AVET is that he cannot retreat from his entrenched position. If he does so, he looses the Sword and Shield of The Infallible Word of God and that leaves him with nothing.

 

[Vance]

The problem with AVET is that he cannot retreat from his entrenched position. If he does so, he looses the Sword and Shield of The Infallible Word of God and that leaves him with nothing.

It would be an epiphany for him to realize that he would not lose those at all, but have them even stronger and more valuable.

 

[Vene]

Once again, poor AVET gets PWND by Theistic and non-theistic evolutionists in the forum and then runs away. Sadly, he will just repeat the same beaten points in another thread (like, the Bible is the same as a Phone Book) and pretend he didn't loose the argument here.

And he'll probably link back to this at one point too.

 

[Split Rock]

And he'll probably link back to this at one point too.

Yeah, he's become very fond of linking his responses nowadays. He claims it is because we don't listen to him and make him repeat himself. The truth is, we are the ones having to repeat why his arguments don't fly and he is the one that does not listen.

 

[Vene]

Yeah, he's become very fond of linking his responses nowadays. He claims it is because we don't listen to him and make him repeat himself. The truth is, we are the ones having to repeat why his arguments don't fly and he is the one that does not listen.

If I see that apple challenge one more time...