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

[Lion IRC]

Why should they?

Why would they.

 

[Frank Robert]

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.

Are you saying that the the many biblical interpretations are symbolic?

 

[Speedwell]

Why would they.

It depends on what they are skeptical of. For example, I doubt very much that a "Bible skeptic" (at least none who are are here now) would challenge an interpretation of the Noah story in which it is based on the legend of a man who saved his family, domestic animals and a selection of local wild fauna from a large regional flood on a raft or barge of his own construction.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you mean 'biblical mortality' or 'biblical morality'?

The story of Noah's Ark really is a story of 'biblical mortality'. Nearly everything on land dies.

 

[Lion IRC]

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.

Can a historically accurate account be false?

Let's start at the beginning. Genesis 6:10
"Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth."

Are there any skeptical arguments against the truth of this claim? Were these four names actual historical, living humans?
Do I need to defend their existence? Are these names plagiarised from an extant mythology elsewhere in antiquity?
If Noah named his sons Bruce, Harry and Curtis, maybe we might suspect the story has been 'airbrushed'.

NEXT...
"...the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence."

Does the bible skeptic dispute this? If so, on what basis? Where is the scientific evidence which refutes Genesis 6:11? Does the bible skeptic dispute this verse solely because it contains the word God?

 

[Occams Barber]

As they say, there are no atheists in foxholes.

Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers | Atheists in Foxholes, in Cockpits, and on Ships - Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers (militaryatheists.org)

We Should Stop Saying There Are No Atheists In Foxholes - World Religion News
OB

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Tsunami do not swamp mountains; their maximum height is about 30 metres, and their destructive effects are therefore limited to coastal regions.

Tsunami are caused by submarine earthquakes, underwater volcanic explosions, massive gravity slides of sea-bed sediments, and asteroid impacts. The Bible does not mention any of these as causes of the flood.

A tsunami in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Oman would probably break in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Hormuz and would not propagate into the Gulf. If so, an Indian Ocean tsunami could not be the cause of flooding in Mesopotamia.

 

[Lion IRC]

...I doubt very much that a "Bible skeptic" (at least none who are are here now) would challenge an interpretation of the Noah story in which it is based on the legend of a man who saved his family, domestic animals and a selection of local wild fauna from a large regional flood on a raft or barge of his own construction.

I completely agree.
A symbolic allegory doesn't need defending.
Which is why I said...
"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."

 

[Lion IRC]

Tsunami do not swamp mountains; their maximum height is about 30 metres

We're not talking about typical, average, occasional tsunamis.
Floods do not typically cover the entire earth either.

Also, there is no such thing as the "maximum height" of a tsunami. The Lituya Bay tsunami was over 500 metres. (Or maybe you think that one was a myth???)

 

[Lion IRC]

Are you saying that the the many biblical interpretations are symbolic?

Im defending the literal truth of the biblical account of Noah's Flood.

 

[Speedwell]

Can a historically accurate account be false?

Let's start at the beginning. Genesis 6:10
"Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth."

Are there any skeptical arguments against the truth of this claim? Were these four names actual historical, living humans?
Do I need to defend their existence? Are these names plagiarised from an extant mythology elsewhere in antiquity?
If Noah named his sons Bruce, Harry and Curtis, maybe we might suspect the story has been 'airbrushed'.

I don't think "Bible skeptics" care very much what Noah's sons are named in the story.

NEXT...
"...the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence."

Does the bible skeptic dispute this? If so, on what basis? Where is the scientific evidence which refutes Genesis 6:11? Does the bible skeptic dispute this verse solely because it contains the word God?

What difference does that make? It's a religious opinion, not a matter of determinable fact. Do you really think that "Bible skeptics" are trying to deny the existence of God?

I think you misunderstand what "Bible skeptics" are skeptical of.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm giving bible skeptics every opportunity to show their hand and indicate which specific part of the text they contend is false. @Kylie says its unfair to ask skeptics to address the actual text, but if not, what exactly ARE you objecting to?

NEXT Genesis 6:14
"...Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."

What is the specific objection to this claim? There doesn't appear to be any obvious cause for disbelief arising from this claim is there?
No logical or scientific impossibility?

 

[Bradskii]

Again, doing it your way would have entailed God saving born again Nephilim and flesh-corrupted people alive, to continue to spread their germs; and would have defeated one of the purposes of the Flood.If your intent is to turn red litmus paper blue, you'll take the necessary steps, even if you already know the outcome.I understand.

You haven't yet explained why God would kill infants and even the unborn (apart from mentioning cocaine and Thalidomide).

 

[Lion IRC]

NEXT Genesis 6:15
"...the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."

Any rational, scientifically demonstrable objections to this?
Any irrefutable coercive logic against the dimensions given?
Any manuscript copying errors? Three million cubits long x half a cubits wide x eighteen miles high - that might give me pause for thought. But it doesn't say that. It gives boat dimensions which scale out reasonably.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm giving bible skeptics every opportunity to show their hand and indicate which specific part of the text they contend is false.

You haven't addressed the fact that the Bible dispenses with the concept of logic altogether, (ie: 'true and false'), by violating the fundamental law of non contradiction, upfront.

Your complaint about accusations of falsity however, are coming from those who think logically. You however, cannot logically argue your way out of this citing the thinking espoused in the Bible (because it dispensed with logic, upfront).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can a historically accurate account be false?

Let's start at the beginning.

Oh, let's!

Genesis 6:10
"Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth."

OK, the main character has a name and three sons with names. Seems like standard story telling to me. Nothing in this that would be out of place in history, or fiction.

Are there any skeptical arguments against the truth of this claim? Were these four names actual historical, living humans?

Are they given in any other sources? Written down contemporaneously? In the records of other cultures? Are they mentioned in the clay tablets of Mesopotamia (not sure the period, so I'm not sure the civilization to look in).? Are they in the Egyptian papyri or tomb carvings? If they're not that's still not a clue on historicity, plenty of minor and major people aren't mentioned in any surviving contemporary document.

Do I need to defend their existence?

Apparently, you feel the need to.

Are these names plagiarised from an extant mythology elsewhere in antiquity?
If Noah named his sons Bruce, Harry and Curtis, maybe we might suspect the story has been 'airbrushed'.

I don't know. Are these common names in ancient history that we should be worried about confusion or something. (I'm not quite getting the point yet.)

NEXT...
"...the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence."

OK, we have a second character, an antagonist, a god that doesn't like the looks of things in mortal land. Too much violence and corruption. (Spoiler: Solution -- even bigger violence.)

Does the bible skeptic dispute this? If so, on what basis? Where is the scientific evidence which refutes Genesis 6:11?
Does the bible skeptic dispute this verse solely because it contains the word God?

Your story now contains a special kind of character -- a god -- that we do not encounter in everyday existance. Unless it can be demonstrated that the character exists, or that type of being could exist (for example, other gods are known to exists, but we don't have evidence of this one yet), or did exist, we will have to consider the whole story to be fictional, or at least the parts with the undemonstrated character are ahistorical additions.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. There actually IS common ancestor evidence of a population bottleneck. And mitochondrial Eve.

Mitichondrial Eve wasn't a single person. The term respresents the most recent common ancestor(mrca) of everyone alive today.

Note that she wasn't the common ancestor, but the most recent. As dna lineages become extinct, the date at which the mrca lived becomes more recent. From wiki:

"Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor for all modern humans. Whenever one of the two most ancient branch lines dies out (by producing only non matrilinear descendants at that time), the MRCA will move to a more recent female ancestor, always the most recent mother to have more than one daughter with living maternal line descendants alive today."

And also from wiki:

"...studies indicate that the effective population size of the ancient human never dropped below tens of thousands..."

I hope you're not basing part of your argument on something that can be proved to be false.

 

[Astrophile]

We're not talking about typical, average, occasional tsunamis.
Floods do not typically cover the entire earth either.

Also, there is no such thing as the "maximum height" of a tsunami. The Lituya Bay tsunami was over 500 metres. (Or maybe you think that one was a myth???)

The Lituya Bay tsunami was limited to the confined waters of Lituya Bay itself (about 11 km × 3 km), in the immediate vicinity of the earthquake and rockfall; it did not propagate into the open waters of the Pacific Ocean - see 1958 Lituya Bay earthquake and megatsunami - Wikipedia . Another such locally confined megatsunami occurred in Taan Fiord, Icy Bay, Alaska, on 17 October 2015 - Icy Bay (Alaska) - Wikipedia it reached a maximum height of 193 metres but 'went undetected for several hours'. These megatsunami are restricted to confined bodies of water in mountainous and earthquake-prone areas; they cannot inundate extensive areas at great distances from the earthquakes and landslides that caused them.

 

[Lion IRC]

You haven't addressed the fact that the Bible dispenses with the concept of logic altogether, (ie: 'true and false'), by violating the fundamental law of non contradiction, upfront

I dont have to address that.
Its not about the Flood.
You said so yourself.

It may not be specifically about the flood, but this discussion is also about the thinking espoused in the Bible.

Thus I claim that the references to the notion of 'the Holy Trinity', violate the basic law of non-contradiction...

I'm generally pretty relaxed about on-topic / off-topic discussion, but I'm not taking your bait to drift off into the theology of a triune God or divine command theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers | Atheists in Foxholes, in Cockpits, and on Ships - Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers (militaryatheists.org)

We Should Stop Saying There Are No Atheists In Foxholes - World Religion News
OB

Just don't overlook I point I made with that saying.