• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Noachian Flood discussion - Bible skeptics vs Lion IRC and friends :)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,389
1,169
KW
✟145,443.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Now ^THIS^ is a rational skeptic.
That's why I said to @Kylie ...you don't really wanna debate the Flood with me. You literally cannot win that argument.
You are absolution correct, that is why I think it is foolish to debate a belief about God, it proves nothing for either party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
43,726
46,793
Los Angeles Area
✟1,045,190.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
There is not enough water on earth to submerge all the land.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Stipulating in this case that the Flood was 'recent' (4000BC to 2000 BC) and "the mountains of Ararat" is either Mount Ararat or some nearby location in Turkey/Armenia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

I march with Sherman
Mar 11, 2017
22,775
17,021
55
USA
✟430,232.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The way it was explained to me is that cheetahs' DNA is so close, that you can mix and match their organs with no problem at all.

BUT, this has a down side, as they are on the verge of extinction, should a foreign disease plague them.

The flip side is the human being, whose DNA is so unique, that no two humans share the same DNA.

BUT, this has a down side, as you can't even transplant a kidney without its DNA being rejected by the host.

And the example of the cheetah demonstrate the difference between cheetahs and all other animals (at least the ones we've measure genetic diversity for). The estimates I can find online are for a population of about 7 cheetahs at one point in the past. This is the *only* animal for which we see the kind of narrow population that the Noachian global flood and genocide story in Genesis would imply for *all* animals (or at least the air-breathing vertebrates).
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Why would I start this thread if I had no interest in defending the historicity of Genesis 6 thru 9?

You claim this biblical account isn't true. Why? Which verse? Where's your counter-evidence?
"True" and "historically accurate" aren't necessarily the same thing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
That "old book" gets more attention than all other books combined.

Every jot and tittle of It has been analyzed, psychoanalyzed, interpreted, misinterpreted, scrutinized, galvanized and midasized.
Correct. Why? Because it is accurate literal history? Or because it is the inspired word of God?
 
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
50
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you don't think the end justified the means, don't even bother trying to defend biblical mortality.

This is the key, isn't it? Whether it's the Flood or it's 1Sam15:3 it becomes impossible to "defend" God's decisions. They just are what they are. He is omnipotent.

I've seen people of perfectly good faith and with a good "soul" defend 1 Sam 15:3 with various exegeses, so the Flood is not a problem either. God is perfectly free to kill those who displease Him and he's perfectly within His right to ask other humans to murder in his name (as in the Amalekites).

But the problems arise when someone in modern times sees death (or deals death) and claims it is the Will of God. Ironically then those who fancy themselves defensors fide will still be able to sit on a jury and convict someone or will still be able to muster sadness for the loss of life as unwarranted. Because who in their right mind justifies mass slaughter?

Weird how it works.
 
Upvote 0

Oneiric1975

Well-Known Member
Apr 23, 2021
1,044
684
50
Seattle
✟15,282.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
In truth there is no point in debates over the "reality" of the Noachian Flood. As noted earlier those for whom it MUST be true will bend reality to make it so. Those for whom it doesn't need to be true there's no reason to explain away that which has no evidence for its existence.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,389
1,169
KW
✟145,443.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why would I start this thread if I had no interest in defending the historicity of Genesis 6 thru 9?

You claim this biblical account isn't true. Why? Which verse? Where's your counter-evidence?

How many different Jewish and Christians interpretations are there of Genesis? How many are literal interpretations?
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟270,140.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Welcome Bungle_Bear :)

I think it means what it says.
Is there a point of contention that I'm missing?
Does mountain mean something other than what I presume you and I agree is its plain meaning?

I certainly don't engage in word games where mountain, in the bible, really means mole hill.
First you say "The bible doesn't assert all the mountains were covered at the same time" (that's the part of your post I quoted), now you're saying "that passage means all the mountains were covered." That has all the hallmarks of a word game - so, allow me to repeat my question. What do you think the bible actually says?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,306
52,681
Guam
✟5,165,308.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
First you say "The bible doesn't assert all the mountains were covered at the same time" (that's the part of your post I quoted), now you're saying "that passage means all the mountains were covered." That has all the hallmarks of a word game - so, allow me to repeat my question. What do you think the bible actually says?
Genesis 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


Notice the succession:

17 = the waters increased = the Ark becomes buoyant
18 = the waters prevailed = the Ark becomes mobile
19 = the waters prevailed exceedingly = all high hills were covered
20 = the waters prevail = mountains were covered

With each succeeding verse, the waters get deeper and deeper.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟270,140.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Genesis 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


Notice the succession:

17 = the waters increased = the Ark becomes buoyant
18 = the waters prevailed = the Ark becomes mobile
19 = the waters prevailed exceedingly = all high hills were covered
20 = the waters prevail = mountains were covered

With each succeeding verse, the waters get deeper and deeper.
Woosh!

If you don't understand the question, don't try answering it.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,306
52,681
Guam
✟5,165,308.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you don't understand the question, don't try answering it.
Good advice. I'll fix it.
What do you think the bible actually says?
I think It actually says:

Genesis 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


What do you think It actually says?
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
78
England
✟264,026.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
Biblical theist defenders of the Flood account should not be squeamish. We shouldn't give a hall pass to the skepic's myth hypothesis simply because it saves us having to deal with the inconvenient fact that people were drowned in their hundreds, thousands, millions...by God.

If you don't think the end justified the means, don't even bother trying to defend biblical mortality.

What is a 'hall pass'?
the word 'skepic' is spelt 'skeptic', or 'sceptic' in British English.
Do you mean 'biblical mortality' or 'biblical morality'?
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
78
England
✟264,026.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
I think you need to tell us what you consider the bible actually says. Genesis 7:20 "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." What do you consider this means?

Perhaps the word translated 'mountains' actually meant 'city mounds' or 'tells'. A flood only 15 cubits deep couldn't possibly submerge real mountains or even hills.
 
Upvote 0

Lion IRC

Newbie
Sep 10, 2012
509
198
✟34,082.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How many different Jewish and Christians interpretations are there of Genesis? How many are literal interpretations?

There are many.
Bible skeptics seldom take issue with the historical accuracy of symbolic bible imagery. Im seldom quizzed as to how it can be possible for a beast to have seven heads or ten horns.
 
Upvote 0

Lion IRC

Newbie
Sep 10, 2012
509
198
✟34,082.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
First you say "The bible doesn't assert all the mountains were covered at the same time" (that's the part of your post I quoted), now you're saying "that passage means all the mountains were covered." That has all the hallmarks of a word game - so, allow me to repeat my question. What do you think the bible actually says?

To speak of all the mountains being covered does not necessarily mean...all simultaneously covered. A tsunami could progressively swamp mountains on one side of the globe, then move on to swamp mountains on the opposite side of the globe. Thus, ALL the mountains were covered.

This is plain language. Not word games.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
There are many.
Bible skeptics seldom take issue with the historical accuracy of symbolic bible imagery. Im seldom quizzed as to how it can be possible for a beast to have seven heads or ten horns.
Why should they?
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
78
England
✟264,026.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
Yes, I know that's what you think.
I can say the same about a scientist who claims Pluto is a planet, or that thalidomide is safe. They claim to have seen something in a microscope, telescope, etc. Do I believe them?

The question whether thalidomide is safe is a question about objective facts, it has practical consequences, and it can be answered by experimental testing. The question whether Pluto is a planet is more a matter of how one defines a planet than about the observable characteristics of Pluto or the practical consequences of the question.

If a planet is defined, among other things, as a body that has cleared its orbit, then Pluto is not a planet. If a planet is defined as a body that possesses an atmosphere and at least one satellite and that is or has been geologically active, then Pluto is a planet. To say that Pluto is not a planet because it has not cleared its orbit is not to deny that it possesses an atmosphere and satellites or that it has been geologically active; it is merely to say that these properties do not necessarily make it a planet.
 
Upvote 0

Lion IRC

Newbie
Sep 10, 2012
509
198
✟34,082.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is a 'hall pass'?

Hall monitor - Wikipedia
"...hall monitors typically check hall passes; maintain overall good conduct in the corridors; and ensure that students are punctual in attending classes."

the word 'skepic' is spelt 'skeptic', or 'sceptic' in British English.


Yes. So I've heard.
Do you mean 'biblical mortality' or 'biblical morality'?

Morality. Auto correct error. Thanks for spotting. :)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.