Flood Arguments

[AV1611VET]

How does your statement here contradict my claim? Let me do this one more time:

1.) There are some people here who are picky about words like "proof", "evidence", "theory" and "hypothesis", both in what other people say and what they say themselves.

2.) There are also people who do not use them in such a strict way.

My claim is very specifically that these are not the same people.

And of Number 1 or Number 2 above, Mr I-know-what-Steezie-is-talking-about, which one is Steezie talking about?

 

[Vance]

For the 5,000[sup]th[/sup] time --- as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible, I don't have a problem with it.

whew! Then we can move past the evolution and old earth issues, since these don't contradict Scripture, only your interpretation of Scripture.

But, really, what evidence outside of Scripture do you have for all of these cultures not existing until after the global flood. You seriously must have SOME evidence to point to if you believe it.

 

[BrainHertz]

Like I say --- please try as hard as you can to make it look impossible. Heap on all the evidence you can and make it so that anyone who claims it is a moron --- and the darker it gets, the brighter the Light shines.

[bible]Romans 3:4[/bible]

So I'm correct, yes?

 

[BrainHertz]

And of Number 1 or Number 2 above, Mr I-know-what-Steezie-is-talking-about, which one is Steezie talking about?

Steezie apparently falls into the second category. My claim does not relate to about whom he is talking...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

L O L --- you guys really crack me up.

The request that you scientifically support any of your claims is not a joke.

 

[Vance]

To scientifically back up his claim would require a post of more than three lines. A feat which AV is incapable of or it will slow down his post count.

 

[TheBear]

LOL you guys!

 

[AV1611VET]

But, really, what evidence outside of Scripture do you have for all of these cultures not existing until after the global flood. You seriously must have SOME evidence to point to if you believe it.

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.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Hey... you all realise hes done it again?

AV has managed to take a perfectly reasonable thread about problems with the Biblical Flood story, and turn the whole thing into an argument about semantic word meanings.

AV, THE BIBLICAL FLOOD STORY IS A BUNCH OF BALONEY!

IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS IT AS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE, I INVITE YOU TO POST IT NOW. IF YOU DON'T, THEN YOU ARE OFF TOPIC IN THIS THREAD!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Which, to any other rational person, would be a fairly powerful motivator to get out of the Bible and research some other stuff!

How can you seriously claim the Bible is the only "truth" if you refuse to look at any other sources?

 

[AV1611VET]

To scientifically back up his claim would require a post of more than three lines. A feat which AV is incapable of or it will slow down his post count.

I guarantee you, if you want me to back something up with raw science, you'll probably get zero lines.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey... you all realise hes done it again?

AV has managed to take a perfectly reasonable thread about problems with the Biblical Flood story, and turn the whole thing into an argument about semantic word meanings.

AV, THE BIBLICAL FLOOD STORY IS A BUNCH OF BALONEY!

IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS IT AS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE, I INVITE YOU TO POST IT NOW. IF YOU DON'T, THEN YOU ARE OFF TOPIC IN THIS THREAD!

[shrugs shoulders] Just answering questions. How's come you're the only one whining?

 

[Vance]

I guarantee you, if you want me to back something up with raw science, you'll probably get zero lines.

It does not have to be raw science, just the extra-biblical evidence, summarized into your own words if you like, that support your historical conclusions. I mean, really, you can't possibly dismiss thousands of years of recorded history for which there is a ton of evidence without SOME historical evidence. If ALL of the evidence falls squarely on the side of the cultures being around for much longer than the time of the flood, then any responsible reader of Scripture would be humble enough to doubt their own particular reading of Scripture which says otherwise. Not doubt Scripture, mind you, just the particular interpretation that is contradicted by ALL the evidence.

That would be nonsensical and irresponsible behavior for any Christian. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt of being a responsible Christian, I am giving you the opportunity to explain to us the historical evidence that has convinced you that all the accepted historical evidence is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

It does not have to be raw science, just the extra-biblical evidence, summarized into your own words if you like, that support your historical conclusions. I mean, really, you can't possibly dismiss thousands of years of recorded history for which there is a ton of evidence without SOME historical evidence. If ALL of the evidence falls squarely on the side of the cultures being around for much longer than the time of the flood, then any responsible reader of Scripture would be humble enough to doubt their own particular reading of Scripture which says otherwise. Not doubt Scripture, mind you, just the particular interpretation that is contradicted by ALL the evidence.

That would be nonsensical and irresponsible behavior for any Christian. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt of being a responsible Christian, I am giving you the opportunity to explain to us the historical evidence that has convinced you that all the accepted historical evidence is wrong.

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?

 

[BrainHertz]

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?

I hereby incorporate my previous post at #46 in its entirety by reference.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hereby incorporate my previous post at #46 in its entirety by reference.

And I hereby respond as previously in post 47 in its entirety.

 

[Vance]

Is that a rhetorical question? It is obvious which one you SHOULD choose.

But, really, what is the historical evidence that offsets all the accepted evidence?

BTW, you do know that the Sumerian version of the flood, with many identical passages, predates Moses by hundreds of years, possibly up to 1,000 years? And it predates Abraham, who came from . . . guess where. Sumeria. So, what is more likely:

1. that Abraham and his family (some of whom, you will recall, kept their Sumerian gods) brought the Sumerian version they grew up with to Canaan where it was retold, hundreds of years later, by Abraham's descendants in the form we find in Scripture (which was obviously the version God wanted told for His own reasons, which need not have anything to do with literal history).

2. Abraham and his family knew the Sumerian version, and would have passed it down to their descendants, but at some point hundreds of years later, the Israelites developed an entire flood story completely independently which just happened to match the Sumerian version in many ways.

 

[BrainHertz]

And I hereby respond as previously in post 47 in its entirety.

was that a "yes" or "no"?

 

[TheBear]

It does not have to be raw science, just the extra-biblical evidence, summarized into your own words if you like, that support your historical conclusions. I mean, really, you can't possibly dismiss thousands of years of recorded history for which there is a ton of evidence without SOME historical evidence. If ALL of the evidence falls squarely on the side of the cultures being around for much longer than the time of the flood, then any responsible reader of Scripture would be humble enough to doubt their own particular reading of Scripture which says otherwise. Not doubt Scripture, mind you, just the particular interpretation that is contradicted by ALL the evidence.

That would be nonsensical and irresponsible behavior for any Christian. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt of being a responsible Christian, I am giving you the opportunity to explain to us the historical evidence that has convinced you that all the accepted historical evidence is wrong.

Didn't you know? Not only does science have it all wrong, but so do all the historians.

It's absolutely amazing to see such stubborn resistance and defiance, in the face of magnitudes of evidence to the contrary.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that a rhetorical question? It is obvious which one you SHOULD choose.

But, really, what is the historical evidence that offsets all the accepted evidence?

BTW, you do know that the Sumerian version of the flood, with many identical passages, predates Moses by hundreds of years, possibly up to 1,000 years? And it predates Abraham, who came from . . . guess where. Sumeria. So, what is more likely:

1. that Abraham and his family (some of whom, you will recall, kept their Sumerian gods) brought the Sumerian version they grew up with to Canaan where it was retold, hundreds of years later, by Abraham's descendants in the form we find in Scripture (which was obviously the version God wanted told for His own reasons, which need not have anything to do with literal history).

2. Abraham and his family knew the Sumerian version, and would have passed it down to their descendants, but at some point hundreds of years later, the Israelites developed an entire flood story completely independently which just happened to match the Sumerian version in many ways.

And around, and around, and around we go ---