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

[Hans Blaster]

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."

NOAH: What's a cubit?

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.

My understanding from those who do know what a cubit is, is that these dimensions are a bit large to be made with anything but steel, and such a craft could not have been constructed with wood or rope and functioned.

Likely cause of text, the author or scribe exaggerated a bit and lacked knowledge of the limits of boat building.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Lituya Bay tsunami was...

...disproof of your false claim that tsunamis have a maximum height of 30 metres.

Youre welcome.
I know rational thinkers are committed to truth. Im happy to help,

 

[Bradskii]

I believe the Flood happened because Jesus did... simple as that.

Who picked your forum name?

 

[Astrophile]

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

If you are not talking about typical, average tsunami, which have known causes, what cause are you proposing for the tsunami that supposedly swamped mountains and caused the Noachian Flood?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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?

It's made of mystery wood, but the text does demonstrate the knowledge of water sealing. I like a text that acknowledges the basic nature of things, even in a fantastical tale. I wouldn't tolerate a starship with the convertible top down in space, but I will accept the fictional mechanism of warp drive to get from planet to planet.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Yes, I have.

More than once.

 

[Astrophile]

...disproof of your false claim that tsunamis have a maximum height of 30 metres.

Also, there is no such thing as the "maximum height" of a tsunami. The Lituya Bay tsunami was over 500 metres.

Even 500 metres is not high enough to swamp mountains.

 

[Speedwell]

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?

That is an command allegedly given by God. You either believe He said that or you don't.
I don't think you understand what "Bible skepticism" is about.

 

[Bradskii]

"...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?

If you are saying that everyone was corrupt and everyone was violent, then yes. I dispute that. So could you tell me how you interpret the passage?

 

[Lion IRC]

Oh, let's!



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.

So not in dispute? Great,

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.

So not in dispute? Great.

Apparently, you feel the need to.

No.
I only feel the need to defend the text IF bible skeptics feel the need to challenge it. #Cart_Horse

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.)

Do you have any specific problem with the text?
If not. Great. If so, then present it.

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.)

You aren't bringing any specific objection yet.
That's fine by me.

Your story now contains a special kind of character -- a god -- that we do not encounter in everyday existence.

Yes 'we' do.
You might not. But you don't get to tell me and hundreds of billions of your fellow humans that they DIDNT experience divinity.

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.

This objection can be summarised as... "I don't think God exists, therefore the Flood didn't happen because the Flood event requires supernatural assistance."

But that would be a concession that if/since God does exist, then the Flood ceases to be impossible. Arguments for the existence of divinity are outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Bradskii]

I wouldn't tolerate a starship with the convertible top down in space...

Google Image Result for https://images.theconversation.com/files/208104/original/file-20180227-36674-a74733.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1200&h=900.0&fit=crop

That would look better if I could work out how to paste a piccie...

 

[AV1611VET]

I like a text that acknowledges the basic nature of things, even in a fantastical tale.

Then you should like this (even though it is off-topic).

Leviticus 25:4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

This is just more than a moral law, given to the Israelites.

It had a secular application as well.

Can you think of a secular reason the Israelites were not to plant anything every seventh year?

Spoiler: ANSWER

It was a form of pest control.

 

[Lion IRC]

If you are saying that everyone was corrupt and everyone was violent, then yes. I dispute that. So could you tell me how you interpret the passage?

The text doesn't assert that everyone was corrupt/violent.

 

[Speedwell]

But that would be a concession that if/since God does exist, then the Flood ceases to be impossible. Arguments for the existence of divinity are outside the scope of this thread.

Are you defending the occurrence of a flood or your interpretation of a text describing a flood?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, I have.

More than once.

But infants and the unborn are not corrupt. And do not imagine evil. Your explanation is obviously rejected. Unless you can show how infants and the unborn are corrupt and imagine evil.

 

[Lion IRC]

That is an command allegedly given by God. You either believe He said that or you don't.
I don't think you understand what "Bible skepticism" is about.

I've spent a lot of time at skeptics annotated bible. I'm pretty sure I grasp the category. I also understand the term "arguendo".

Do you understand the term "disingenuous"?
...as in, engaging in a debate about the plausibility of the Noachian Flood and then...

...oh well your God doesn't even exist so I win

 

[AV1611VET]

But infants and the unborn are not corrupt.

I'm not going over this again with you.

I gave you three medical examples for you to handwave, and you did a good job.

 

[Bradskii]

The text doesn't assert that everyone was corrupt/violent.

So God determined to kill those who weren't corrupt and violent. That God is cruel and unjust. Just as we would say of anyone who would kill innocent people (and no playing the WCKTMOG card).

And I'll note that it appears that AV doesn't agree with you in any case. It's difficuly to argue against a proposal when the people making it have different versions.

 

[Lion IRC]

Are you defending the occurrence of a flood or your interpretation of a text describing a flood?

Im defending agsinst whatever basis you and others might have for disputing the text of Genesis 6:9 thru to Genesis 9:16

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

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.

Plain Language, not word games. Yeah Right.