Noah’s Flood Confirmed...?

[TheReasoner]

You're not the Bible, so I'm not obligated to look anywhere.

I could tell you it's the literal interpretation of the bible and insist it's crucial to the bible's authority. Makes about as much sense as what you're saying.

You wouldn't have to tell me to 'keep looking'; I wouldn't look in the first place.

Well, then in that case you're wrong and a fool for not looking for the biblical dino-rabbit-cyborg. It's there.

It's not my position -- I didn't write it.

It's your position. You interpreted it in a fashion which only has support among sectarian fanatics.

To look at all makes no sense.

God said it -- it happened -- case closed.

Nope. You read it, misinterpreted it and elevated it to godhood in your own minds. You're humans. Human beings can be wrong. You are wrong, just look at God's creation. It in it's entirety denies your interpretation. To say you're right despite God's very handiwork is to elevate your own interpretation above God's own work.

Go for it, if that's your interpretation. It's your money.

So you're NOT a literalist then? If you reject that, the corners of the earth and the pillars upon which the bible says the earth rests you're reading the bible selectively and can hold no claim to the title of 'literalist'.

And we KNOW it's right.

You base your delusion upon the claim to infallible reading. Which has no substance

Let's just let God break the tie in His time and stop with the arguing, shall we?

I sincerely doubt you'd even take God at His word face to face if it contradicts your interpretation. You obviously don't listen to what He has told us through His creation, so why would you listen to Him in a face-to-face conversation?

If you stop looking, then don't tell us it didn't happen; or 'keep looking' is an appropriate response.

We looked. There is no support for it. Do you want us to keep looking for what? An event which would have shaped every aspect of the earth's face, yet has left no trace in geology, biology, etc? Why? Where shall we look? It isn't real. Period. Like I said, keeping looking makes just as much sense as looking for the dino-rabbit-cyborg or the pillars, corners and firmament. All - minus the rabbit - the bible claims are real if read the way you say you read it.

 

[Nostromo]

Kinda like the time I was talking about evidence for the Flood being global, and I said to a poster, 'keep looking', and he came back with: 'We stopped looking 200 years ago.'

It's not so much that people stopped looking 200 years ago, they just stopped entertaining the idea that the accumulated evidence could fit a global flood.

Why did you encourage someone to keep looking for the evidence when you don't believe there is any?

 

[Hespera]

It's not so much that people stopped looking 200 years ago, they just stopped entertaining the idea that the accumulated evidence could fit a global flood.

Why did you encourage someone to keep looking for the evidence when you don't believe there is any?

People are still looking but, not for the seven cities of gold, hyperborea or atlantis etc.

Doesnt mean they quit looking mapping, studying what is actually there.

The earth's geology had been mapped in enormous detail, and people are out there still looking at what is there.

If "flood evidence" or Atlantis were actually there, it would have been found

 

[AV1611VET]

Why did you encourage someone to keep looking for the evidence when you don't believe there is any?

I wasn't aware I didn't believe there is any.

Nathan Poe, for example, has 29,814 posts.

Would you tell him he doesn't believe [whatever], without reading all his posts first?

 

[AV1611VET]

If "flood evidence" or Atlantis were actually there, it would have been found

So everything is found and mapped that is to be found?

 

[AV1611VET]

To say you're right despite God's very handiwork is to elevate your own interpretation above God's own work.

Let's see your interpretation of what nature teaches here:

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Please tell us what this verse is saying -- (whether you agree with it or not).

 

[Delphiki]

Here's a thought, AV.

My wife is Christian, so maybe you'll consider what her view of the flood is. She thinks the story of Noah's flood is partially literal, but from the perspective of a civilization living during a largely undiscovered earth. The story accounts for a world-wide flood, but the evidence shows that there was a flood that may correlate with the story, but was isolated near the Black Sea. If a civilization knew little to nothing of the other continents, then from their perspective, "the world" would have been flooded.

The problems that this hypothesis still don't explain, of course, include a ship the size as described not falling apart under it's own weight/buoyancy, and that there were, in fact, other civilizations included int he bible that existed outside the area evidenced to have been flooded.

While, there are still some problems with this idea, why would you not accept something like this as a far more plausible scenario? It would also reduce the number of animals on the ark to a small fraction of what actually exists on the planet. Why jump straight to the most ludicrous and fantastic conclusion that the biblical flood is completely literal? Have you ever considered the author's limited understanding of the flood having influence on the story?

 

[Hespera]

Here's a thought, AV.

My wife is Christian, so maybe you'll consider what her view of the flood is. She thinks the story of Noah's flood is partially literal, but from the perspective of a civilization living during a largely undiscovered earth. The story accounts for a world-wide flood, but the evidence shows that there was a flood that may correlate with the story, but was isolated near the Black Sea. If a civilization knew little to nothing of the other continents, then from their perspective, "the world" would have been flooded.

The problems that this hypothesis still don't explain, of course, include a ship the size as described not falling apart under it's own weight/buoyancy, and that there were, in fact, other civilizations included int he bible that existed outside the area evidenced to have been flooded.

While, there are still some problems with this idea, why would you not accept something like this as a far more plausible scenario? It would also reduce the number of animals on the ark to a small fraction of what actually exists on the planet. Why jump straight to the most ludicrous and fantastic conclusion that the biblical flood is completely literal? Have you ever considered the author's limited understanding of the flood having influence on the story?

Ask if the rivers and hills will really clap their hands and sing.

 

[AV1611VET]

My wife is Christian, so maybe you'll consider what her view of the flood is.

Ask your wife why Noah was aboard the Ark for a year?

And ask her how water, which seeks its own level, managed to cover the top of Mt Ararat?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I wasn't aware I didn't believe there is any.

Nathan Poe, for example, has 29,814 posts.

Would you tell him he doesn't believe [whatever], without reading all his posts first?

You would -- and you have.

 

[Delphiki]

Ask your wife why Noah was aboard the Ark for a year?

So, because of this question, you're led to conclude that there really was a guy with a bunch of animals, on a magical, invincible zoo-box for 12 months? Why do you jump to not just the mot improbable understanding, but the impossible? You don't consider hyperbole as a possibility? Interpretation?

And ask her how water, which seeks its own level, managed to cover the top of Mt Ararat?

Again - hyperbole? Interpretation? Artistic license? Or even the idea that another hill or mountain went by the same name at the time? Or since the bible doesn't actually say Mt Ararat, but the "mountains of", that it could have been a much smaller hill that was a part of the mountain range.

And most importantly, why not entertain the possibility that the bulk of the bible flood is a story, mostly embellished from a real-life natural disaster? After all, there are other tellingly similar folk tales and accounts that actually predate the bible.

 

[Delphiki]

BTW, my wife and I don't actually agree on the flood story -- the main detail we disagree on is that I think the story of Noah's Ark is basically a re-telling of the much older folk stories of floods, which may have been inspired by a local flood. She thinks that the similarities between the older stories are coincidental, and that Noah's flood is the first one actually based on a local natural disaster.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Ask your wife why Noah was aboard the Ark for a year?

And ask her how water, which seeks its own level, managed to cover the top of Mt Ararat?

Off the top of my head;

Because even local floods can last for a long time

It has by no means been established that the place mentioned in the bible is what is currently known as Mount Ararat. It could refer to a huge number of places, and could just as easily be a large hill, turned into an island by the flood. Far more plausible than a magic flood using magic water that came from nowhere by magic, that covered the entire world, magically, and magically left no evidence of ever having happened, except a book that may or may not have been written by a man or men who claim to have talked with a God nobody has seen any trace of in thousands of years, if at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, because of this question, you're led to conclude that there really was a guy with a bunch of animals, on a magical, invincible zoo-box for 12 months?

No -- I'm willing to conclude that the Almighty Creator of this universe orchestrated the Flood; and did it by telling science and nature to stand down where appropriate.

 

[Doveaman]

You obviously don't listen to what He has told us through His creation

Can you empirically demonstrate in "creation" that a dead man can be restored to life after being dead and buried for three days?

If not, then why do you believe it happened?

If everything in "creation' shows this to be impossible, does this mean then that you obviously don't listen to what God has told us through His creation?

Again I ask, is there a double standard here, or what?

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW, my wife and I don't actually agree on the flood story -- the main detail we disagree on is that I think the story of Noah's Ark is basically a re-telling of the much older folk stories of floods, which may have been inspired by a local flood.

Ya -- heard that rhetoric 1k times.

In our church, we call that a PRATT.

She thinks that the similarities between the older stories are coincidental, and that Noah's flood is the first one actually based on a local natural disaster.

Ask her if her husband (that's you) knows what Diabolical Plagiarism is; or if he's even heard of the term before.

 

[AV1611VET]

It has by no means been established that the place mentioned in the bible is what is currently known as Mount Ararat.

I've heard the same thing about Bethlehem as well.

Viva Bar Kokhba!!!

 

[Doveaman]

The earth's geology had been mapped in enormous detail, and people are out there still looking at what is there.

If "flood evidence" or Atlantis were actually there, it would have been found

This reminds me of this story:

“So Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.” - Dan 3:26-27.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were engulfed in an intense fire, but when they emerged from the fire there was not a single thread of evidence suggesting they were ever in a fire, and the evidence that was observed on them (intact skin on their bodies, intact hair on their heads and intact clothing on their backs) also suggest they were never in a fire.

 

[Hespera]

This reminds me of this story:

“So Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.” - Dan 3:26-27.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were engulfed in an intense fire, but when they emerged from the fire there was not a single thread of evidence suggesting they were ever in a fire, and the evidence that was observed on them (intact skin on their bodies, intact hair on their heads and intact clothing on the backs) also suggest they were never in a fire.

Unless your "god' hid every trace of evidence of his "flood", it would be there.

Reminds me of why christianity has so little credibility in china or japan and why i would never be a christian myself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Reminds me of why christianity has so little credibility in china or japan and why i would never be a christian myself.

Um ... you do know that some claim that Chinese writing is patterned after Christian symbols; do you not?

And you do know that the Japenese, while rejecting Christianity, worshiped their swords, and thus paid the penalty when they refused to trade their swords for rifles, do you not?