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

[Bradskii]

Yes. It says;
Noah was...
Noah did...
The earth was...
Noah's sons and their wives did...

These are self-asserting fact claims.
They don't need any disambiguation such as...."I kid you not" or "this really truly went down for real."

But the author doesn't say 'this story is a historical fact' as you said. Apologies for being picky but you did say we could only use the words in the bible. And you aren't in making your case.

I could quote you a few lines from the Illiad or Morte d'Arthur which were written in exactly the same way. And nowhere in either of the three stories is it claimed that we are reading historical facts. Allegories which we accept as allegories in the bible are also written in the same manner:

And the trees said to the fig tree...
But the fig tree said unto them...

Do you have anything to show that what is being described in Genesis is to be treated as a historical fact as opposed to other stories?

 

[Hans Blaster]

NEXT Genesis 6:19
6:16-18 aren't controversial or falsifiable so I wouldn't expect them to generate much objection. So its on to the great muster of animals wherein Genesis 6:19 says..."And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

OK, back to comparing the claims in genesis 6-9 against science and history...

Does anyone think animals can sense impending natural disasters?

Generally, no, but creatures living in nature can sense subtle signs we would miss. I would also posit that if we lived outside all the time we would sense more of nature's signals.

On a more relevant point...

Do you think the flood was natural, or was it a supernatural intervention. If the latter, then why would any animal instincts be useful in detecting it?

An evolutionary sixth sense which prompts them to head for high ground, or hibernate for a few months inside a nice warm cozy Ark?

By "sixth sense" are you referencing the notion that humans have only 5 senses and a "sixth sense" is some sort of supernatural detection? Such things can be shown not to exist in humans. (esp, clairvoyance, etc.).

Does the gender-binary, heterosexist, male/female paradigm provoke Noah-phobia in bible skeptics and anti-patriarchy feminists?

Wow. Really. I've *never* seen any one use these kind of things as reason to argue against the Noah flood.

Though, this does bring about a criticism I wouldn't have thought of (thanks!): many animals do not mate in pairs, so their is no reason to pair off animals, especially for the 7-pairs of "clean" animals (though that passage contradicting with this one is yet to come.).

Is there some difficulty with there being too few or too many animals on the floating biodome?

I'm not sure why there'd be "too many" animals, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, there aren't any animal species that we have measured genetic diversity in that is compatible with there *ever* having just been two of them. So, yeah, that's not compatible with genetic diversity as measured in the present.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

Lol. You avoid dealing with problematic things the bible actually says by a) ignoring context and b) making claims about things the bible doesn't say. To claim you are not playing word games is dishonest.

Genesis 8:5 "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."

How does that work if the mountains weren't covered?

 

[Gene2memE]

So far, there has been nary a peep on why anyone should accept the biblical flood account as historical, rather than mythological. Nor any reference to any physical evidence supporting the occurrence of a global flood.

The paucity of evidence provided seems rather telling.

I was rather hoping to engage with evidence provided, as I always enjoy a good spur for some historical reading. Alas, looks like that will have to wait for another thread.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

.

 

[Job 33:6]

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

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

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

My three posts regarding how what we observe contradicts a literal interpretation of the book of genesis^.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am rather late to this thread. That being said the OP seems to be rather confused right from the start. If he believes the flood story he should believe a specific version. The flood story can work as a fable, allegory, or some other sort of lesson that is not literal as an actual event it fails.

Does the OP have any details about his version of the flood story?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I am rather late to this thread. That being said the OP seems to be rather confused right from the start. If he believes the flood story he should believe a specific version. The flood story can work as a fable, allegory, or some other sort of lesson that is not literal as an actual event it fails.

Does the OP have any details about his version of the flood story?

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that special pleading "wins" any debate about the flood. It doesn't matter what version you want to debate, special pleading will win every time.

 

[Lion IRC]

But the author doesn't say 'this story is a historical fact' as you said. Apologies for being picky but you did say we could only use the words in the bible. And you aren't in making your case

OK
You win that point. I can't offer more than that God's Word is not considered to be fictional by those who think God exists. I think i can also make the case that authorial intent in Homer's works goes as far as historical documentation of key events...with a bit of poetic license.

Contrast this with @Kylie 's claim about Startrek science fiction.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

OK
You win that point. I can't offer more than that God's Word is not considered to be fictional by those who think God exists. I think i can also make the case that authorial intent in Homer's works goes as far as historical documentation of key events...with a bit of poetic license.

Contrast this with @Kylie 's claim about Startrek science fiction.

The Iliad makes claims about several gods. Are we to believe those claims are true? There is evidence of a city we call Troy, a conflict between Greeks and people from the region where Troy stood etc which is a lot more than there is for Noah and his ark.

 

[Kylie]

OK
You win that point. I can't offer more than that God's Word is not considered to be fictional by those who think God exists. I think i can also make the case that authorial intent in Homer's works goes as far as historical documentation of key events...with a bit of poetic license.

Contrast this with @Kylie 's claim about Startrek science fiction.

I think you missed my point. If every claim that Star trek is fiction was lost, we still wouldn't be justified in believing that the Battle of Wolf 359 happened.

 

[Bradskii]

OK
You win that point. I can't offer more than that God's Word is not considered to be fictional by those who think God exists.

I'm not sure that much more needs to be said (although I'm sure there will be). 'God's word' includes talking trees. Your problem is to convince me that some passages - God's word - are meant to be taken literally and some are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK
You win that point. I can't offer more than that God's Word is not considered to be fictional by those who think God exists. I think i can also make the case that authorial intent in Homer's works goes as far as historical documentation of key events...with a bit of poetic license.

Contrast this with @Kylie 's claim about Startrek science fiction.

Even claiming the Bible to be"God's word" is problematical. You need to be able to come up with a reasonable defense of that claim. Best to just call the Bible the Bible without any indefensible adjectives.

 

[SelfSim]

I think you missed my point. If every claim that Star trek is fiction was lost, we still wouldn't be justified in believing that the Battle of Wolf 359 happened.

I was thinking maybe the encounter with the Paxans(?)
Ie: complete erasure of other collective event memories as well as consistent supporting evidence ultimately convinces(?)

 

[Lion IRC]

I am rather late to this thread. That being said the OP seems to be rather confused right from the start. If he believes the flood story he should believe a specific version. The flood story can work as a fable, allegory, or some other sort of lesson that is not literal as an actual event it fails.

Does the OP have any details about his version of the flood story?

As stated previously, an allegorical/symbolic 'version' doesn't need defending because bible skeptics only ever challenge the literal reading. Seriously, why would science and mythical allegory be at odds?

@Bradskii contends that (on a technicality) the writer of the Flood account doesn't emphatically declare themself to be a journalist and the work to be intended as history. But so what? That doesn't mean the author intended it as allegory. And Bradskii wouldnt care about it if it WAS meant as allegory.

In terms of AvT Flood apologetics, this is the only game in town - a literal meaning of the words intended to be understood as...global flood...mountain tops, 8 survivors, wooden ark, birds, cattle, dry land, gopher wood.

 

[trophy33]

Seriously, why would science and mythical allegory be at odds?

They are not. Christians get at odds with reality only when they work wrongly with their Bibles, for example treating mythological drama of Babylonian era as a scientific description for the 21st century.

Bible was not written to us, no part of it. First parts were written to ancient people in mythological era by ancient people with mythological thinking. Late parts were written to philosophical/helenistic people by philosophical/helenistic people.

When we ignore this simple fact, the Bible stops being useful to us, today, and brings much of unnecessary conflicts.

 

[Lion IRC]

Lol. You avoid dealing with problematic things the bible actually says by a) ignoring context

How am I ignoring context? I'm the one asserting a literal meaning! Do you see anyone accusing me of taking a verse out of context?

What problematic things. I assert there are no problematic 'things' in Genesis.
Have I demurred when pressed about babies drowning? Have I tried to shoe horn stuff into a scientifically acceptable alternative to the plain fact that the Flood is the Hand of God - not global warming, not a freakish natural weather event, not a comet.

and b) making claims about things the bible doesn't say.

My claim is not that things happened which aren't mentioned. My claim is that the bible DOESNT say what atheist bible skeptics accuse it of saying. Did you completely miss my remarks about the desirability of confining the debate to the actual text?

Here's how it works;
Skeptics : its impossible that all the mountains were all completely under water at the same time,
Lion IRC : The bible doesn't say all the mountains were all under water simultaneously. (Thats when I offer the plausible explanation of mountains in different places at different times being covered by a tidal swell or tsunami, allowing the bible text literal reading intact.)

Ironically it is team atheism which wants to read between the lines of the text and contextualise the Flood as if it occurred in a modern day setting.

To claim you are not playing word games is dishonest.

In my world, to blatantly accuse your debating opponent of dishonesty is code for..."this discussion is over!

Genesis 8:5 "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."

How does that work if the mountains weren't covered?

I would hate to attempt a sincere answer this question and be accused of dishonesty, playing word games, ignoring context, cowardice in the face of "problematic things".
Moreover, you're raising a repeat question about a matter I've already explained a few times now. The verse you're citing does not say ALL the mountain tops simultaneously appeared all at once.

 

[Lion IRC]

Bible was not written to us, no part of it.

How can you claim that?
Have you even read Genesis?

"...And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you"
"...And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations."

I am personally and directly being referred to by these (bolded) texts.
Do yourself a favor and do some reading about canonical exegesis.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes. It says;
Noah was...
Noah did...
The earth was...
Noah's sons and their wives did...

These are self-asserting fact claims.
They don't need any disambiguation such as...."I kid you not" or "this really truly went down for real."

Just like any other work of history or historical fiction. If you re going to claim the Flood story as history rather than historical fiction, you need some way of differentiating between the two--and you haven't shown it to us yet.

 

[Speedwell]

@SelfSim was suggesting that the purpose of this forum was limited to only one form of apologetics.
...or that there is just one form of apologetics.

I am offering a defense of the bible.
That entails the obvious and conspicuous existence of non-theist bible skeptics who actively assert (proselytize) the errancy of scripture, internal contradictions within scripture, the mythology of scripture, the ungodly motives of alleged writers who wrote the bible for their own self-interest...etc etc.
If bible skeptics want to take their bat and ball and go home, you won't find me sitting here all alone talking to myself.
Otherwise, I can talk till the cows come home about why Gods Word is True, Relevant and Beneficial.

Well, you're not addressing me, then--I'm a "Bible skeptic" by your definition, but I'm a Christian, not a non-theist. (I kind of had a premonition there would be some reason I shouldn't get too deeply involved in this thread. )