Noah’s Flood Confirmed...?

[AV1611VET]

All this talk about differing interpretations of the Bible has got me thinking (dangerous, I know). I'd like to direct this question to AV:

AV, since there are so many who fail to come to the same conclusions after reading their Bibles, and since there are so many translations with possible errors, etc etc, why would god deliver the Bible to us in such an uncertain state? Why would he not ensure that everyone understood each and every word perfectly, so that we could all arrive at the same conclusions - since this is so important a book?

That answer is actually easier than you think.

If you would have asked me this five years ago, I would have stammered out some kind of answer; but after five years here, I know why:

People try too hard not to understand -- and succeed.

That's my simple answer.

 

[Tinker Grey]

All this talk about differing interpretations of the Bible has got me thinking (dangerous, I know). I'd like to direct this question to AV:

AV, since there are so many who fail to come to the same conclusions after reading their Bibles, and since there are so many translations with possible errors, etc etc, why would god deliver the Bible to us in such an uncertain state? Why would he not ensure that everyone understood each and every word perfectly, so that we could all arrive at the same conclusions - since this is so important a book?

Oh, hell, I can give you AV's answer--or at least an approximation thereof.

The KJV is the last divinely protected inheritor of an uninterrupted chain of divinely protected versions of the Bible. With the KJV, the number of divinely protected versions is 7. Thereby, we know that the KJV is the last & final.

Ergo, it is not in an uncertain state.

So if Christians are coming to different conclusions, it is because they are not reading the KJV.

[/AV approximation]

Now, why there are different conclusions among those that read the KJV, I don't know. Similarly, I don't know the answer to what version Amazonian aborigines are supposed to use. I'd suppose they should all learn God's language, English.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ah, well. A day late & a dollar short.

 

[selfinflikted]

That answer is actually easier than you think.

If you would have asked me this five years ago, I would have stammered out some kind of answer; but after five years here, I know why:

People try too hard not to understand -- and succeed.

That's my simple answer.

That's no kind of answer, AV, especially where the souls of countless people could be at stake! I would imagine, if the Bible we as cut and dry as you say it is, then there would be no debate on flood mythology. However, it's not. And I think my question is a pretty good one, and honestly, I was hoping for something a bit more...reasonable from you

 

[selfinflikted]

Ah, well. A day late & a dollar short.

Good try.

In all seriousness, I think my question is pretty relevant and important. I don't know why this never really occurred to me before. I mean, after all, if everyone's salvation depends on the accuracy and credibility of the book, you'd think god would've wanted us to read it, understand it, and have everyone draw the exact same conclusions from it. That is, however, about as far from what's happened as one can get.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's no kind of answer, AV, especially where the souls of countless people could be at stake! I would imagine, if the Bible we as cut and dry as you say it is, then there would be no debate on flood mythology. However, it's not. And I think my question is a pretty good one, and honestly, I was hoping for something a bit more...reasonable from you

You're actually demonstrating my point and don't realize it.

Let's try a different approach.

Look at this verse:

1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

That's the main message of the Bible in 19 one-syllable words; yet the 'educated' cannot understand it, because they will not understand it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good try.

In all seriousness, I think my question is pretty relevant and important. I don't know why this never really occurred to me before. I mean, after all, if everyone's salvation depends on the accuracy and credibility of the book, you'd think god would've wanted us to read it, understand it, and have everyone draw the exact same conclusions from it. That is, however, about as far from what's happened as one can get.

You can point your finger at everyone else and wonder why they don't get it, but in the end, we're all going to stand before God without excuse.

 

[sandwiches]

That's no kind of answer, AV, especially where the souls of countless people could be at stake! I would imagine, if the Bible we as cut and dry as you say it is, then there would be no debate on flood mythology. However, it's not. And I think my question is a pretty good one, and honestly, I was hoping for something a bit more...reasonable from you

Other answers I remember from him or some other Christians have had to do with free will. It's similar to why God doesn't show up and shows us he exists and it goes something along the lines of:

"If God had made it so that everyone could understand the Bible, then there would be no choice, because you would have to because it's the most reasonable and obvious thing to do."

Nevermind the fact that people make unreasonable decisions all the time but what this really is is elitism thinly disguised as a defense of free will. Many theists, not all of course, do want everyone to go to heaven and, in fact, some think that all will go to heaven regardless of belief. However, people like to feel special and unique. That they are more deserving of this or that.

Like Tinker Grey and I were discussing the other day: Imagine if Christians got to Heaven only to find rapists, murderers, liars, thieves, etc because God is truly infinitely merciful and that he decided that EVERYONE should go to Heaven. Now, as Tinker Grey said, "Not that I would like to spend my eternity worshiping someone, though..."

 

[selfinflikted]

You're actually demonstrating my point and don't realize it.

Let's try a different approach.

Look at this verse:

1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

That's the main message of the Bible in 19 one-syllable words; yet the 'educated' cannot understand it, because they will not understand it.

So, you're saying, that god delivered us the Bible in it's current state, in order that we will not understand it? Brilliant.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you're saying, that god delivered us the Bible in it's current state, in order that we will not understand it? Brilliant.

Anything else? if not, have a GREAT day!

 

[selfinflikted]

Anything else? if not, have a GREAT day!

Well, this only raises more questions for me, but something tells me you don't want me to pursue. So be it.

 

[sandwiches]

You're actually demonstrating my point and don't realize it.

Let's try a different approach.

Look at this verse:

1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

That's the main message of the Bible in 19 one-syllable words; yet the 'educated' cannot understand it, because they will not understand it.

This is truly bizarre. An anti intellectualism quip thrown in there for good measure, AV?

Do you feel that only the 'uneducated' can understand that verse? I have feeling you would not be making that comment if you were educated, AV.

Do you equate understanding with agreement? I would understand it if someone told me that the sky is purple but I would disagree. Of course, I guess your point is that if we "truly understand" then we'll agree. Then again, this boils down to the point that you have to believe the Bible is true to begin with. Why? I know you've had an experience that lead you to believe it. So, if that's the case, then it's not just a matter of just not wanting to understand the Bible, AV; it's a matter of us not having the experience you've had.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This is truly bizarre. An anti intellectualism quip thrown in there for good measure, AV?

Do you feel that only the 'uneducated' can understand that verse? I have feeling you would not be making that comment if you were educated, AV.

Do you equate understanding with agreement? I would understand it if someone told me that the sky is purple but I would disagree. Of course, I guess your point is that if we "truly understand" then we'll agree. Then again, this boils down to the point that you have to believe the Bible is true to begin with. Why? I know you've had an experience that lead you to believe it. So, if that's the case, then it's not just a matter of just not wanting to understand the Bible, AV; it's a matter of us not having the experience you've had.

If it's so simple, why do literalists try to attach their own nonsense like a global flood, embedded age, and all sorts of other unnecessary baggage to it?

 

[TheReasoner]

You can point your finger at everyone else and wonder why they don't get it, but in the end, we're all going to stand before God without excuse.

Yes. And more will stand there as non-believers because you tell them that reality can't be real as opposed to showing them that Jesus is love.

Of course you're entitled to holding whatever opinion you want, but is this really important enough to see people damned over? That IS what you believe, isn't it? So how do you justify telling people more about your views on how everything everyone else considers true is false, as opposed to showing them what Jesus is about?

This is a very serious question AV, and I would point to Paul as an example. How did he meet people when he told about Jesus? Did he run to them ans yell 'you're all wrong to believe yaddayadda'? No. He didn't open with confrontations about their culture at all. He opened by showing them love. Why do you open by yelling at points which do not even touch upon Christ's love and compassion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. And more will stand there as non-believers because you tell them that reality can't be real as opposed to showing them that Jesus is love.

That's pretty low, don't you think?

 

[Doveaman]

Yet, the writing of the two accounts differ in when they were written...Gilgamesh was earlier by far...the Sumerians were the first to have a written alphabet and predate Moses.

Does it matter?

The flood happened before all those written accounts. Exactly when the accounts were written has no bearing on the actual event. The fact that there are so many accounts of a flood lends support to the historicity of the event. Even ancient writings that are considered myths are often based on actual events.

 

[Doveaman]

In the event of a complete global flood there would be waves produced many kilometres high. This would be due in part to there being unlimited fetch* which is basically the length of water wind has blown over. Fetch combined with wind speed produces waves and with no continents or islands disrupting the flow of water Noah's Ark would not stand a chance.

What does this have to do with Noah’s flood?

 

[Hespera]

many accounts of a flood lends support to the historicity of the event

A lot of cultures believe in fortune telling from the stars, too and that lends truth to the claims of astrologers.

Lots of cultures believe in casting spells; the more that believe in them, the more real they are.

many cultures have lucky numbers, but what are we to do? they all pick different lucky or unlucky numbers! how can one decide what is safe and what isnt? In usa, 666 is very bad; in china, 444 is bad, but 666 is good.

Best just to do the numbers, reality is a popularity contest!

many accounts of a flood lends support to the historicity of the event

There are more Chinese than Christians, so too bad. St George is demoted for killing a nice animal, and 666 is now a good number.

 

[Doveaman]

This is a interesting topic. One thing concern me is that where does the water molecules disappear to after the flood? Assuming that water molecules on earth and those that are in the atmosphere is constant.

Considering that the water would have come from ocean tsunamis and from many days of rain, and even from geysers under ground, then mush of the water would have simply receded back into the ocean, some evaporated back into the atmosphere, and the rest would have simply been absorbed back into the ground.

 

[Doveaman]

Hi, nice thoughts. Can you enlighten me a little? Which part describes the opening of the fountains of the great deep? Assuming that tsunami did occur. If the great deep burst can that really cause tsunami? I know that water will spew up as plate collides, but what does the fountains of the great deep got to do with this? Thanks.

A fountain can be considered a pressure pump used to pump water.

If we consider that the “great deep” refers to the great deep ocean, then the colliding plates under the ocean will supply the pressure that pumps the ocean water onto the land.