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

[Lion IRC]

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.

Well the talking bush isnt really a talking bush, it's a burning bush and that voice isn't the bush, its the Lord.

Still, a literal bush. A literal flame. A real, literal, audible sound.

 

[Speedwell]

Well the talking bush isnt really a talking bush, it's a burning bush and that voice isn't the bush, its the Lord.

Still, a literal bush. A literal flame. A real, literal, audible sound.

That's one way the story is read, certainly.

 

[trophy33]

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.

You think that when the Bible says "you", it means Lion IRC?

 

[Lion IRC]

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. )

I've met a lot of self-professed Christians who are skeptical of what's in the bible.
I dont know how that actually works, but I try to take people at their word.
Your fidelity to Jesus Christ is between you and Him.
God bless you. Peace/out.
Im not debating theology/hermeneutics stuff.

 

[Lion IRC]

You think that when the Bible says "you", it means Lion IRC?

No.
I think when it says "and with your seed" for "perpetual generations" that includes me.

 

[Speedwell]

I've met a lot of self-professed Christians who are skeptical of what's in the bible.
I dont know how that actually works, but I try to take people at their word.
Your fidelity to Jesus Christ is between you and Him.
God bless you. Peace/out.
Im not debating theology/hermeneutics stuff.

I'm not skeptical of what's in the Bible, I'm skeptical of your hermeneutics--which is exactly what we are debating here, at your insistence.

 

[trophy33]

No.
I think when it says "and with your seed" for "perpetual generations" that includes me.

And when it says "the whole earth", then it means the whole planet? When it says "the whole world came to census", it means that Chinese or Australian aborigins came to the Roman empire to be counted?

We are not automatically included just because some story seems to look globally.

 

[Frank Robert]

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

You are striving to defend your belief in a literal bible but beliefs are contrary to evidence and often strengthen in the face of contrary evidence.

 

[Lion IRC]

You are striving to defend your belief in a literal bible but beliefs are contrary to evidence and often strengthen in the face of contrary evidence.

Hardly "striving".
I expected much more effort on the part of the Flood deniers.
FYI my beliefs are based on evidence.
Athests base there beliefs on the supposed absence of evidence.

 

[trophy33]

Hardly "striving".

If the "the whole earth was covered by waters" means the whole planet, then "the whole earth was completely dry" means also the whole planet?

Just a simple question about the internal logical consistency of your view.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hardly "striving".
I expected much more effort on the part of the Flood deniers.
FYI my beliefs are based on evidence.
Athests base there beliefs on the supposed absence of evidence.

Atheism is not a belief.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hardly "striving".
I expected much more effort on the part of the Flood deniers.
FYI my beliefs are based on evidence.
Athests base there beliefs on the supposed absence of evidence.

My comments haven't had a response. I would say that a literal interpretation of scripture contradicts what we see in observations of creation.

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

 

[Frank Robert]

Hardly "striving".
I expected much more effort on the part of the Flood deniers.
FYI my beliefs are based on evidence.
Athests base there beliefs on the supposed absence of evidence.

You missed that part that contrary evidence can strengthen a belief. In the case of the flood the contrary evidence is the lack of evidence for a world wide flood so your belief is likely safe for ever along with your belief that those who do not share your beliefs are atheists.

 

[Job 33:6]

You missed that part that contrary evidence can strengthen a belief. In the case of the flood the contrary evidence is the lack of evidence for a world wide flood so your belief is likely safe for ever along with your belief that those who do not share your beliefs are atheists.

I think it's more than a lack of evidence. It is truly contrary evidence. Such as birds and fish being created on the same day, yet separated to before and after the creation of mammals in observation of the fossil record. And such as a case where this flood allegedly kills all life on earth, or 99% of it, and yet when we look at the fossil record, trace fossils and stratigraphy indicate that no such mass killing occurred.

When we look at things like the k-t boundary, it becomes blatant that mass killing occurred. But when we look at Holocene strata in which the flood is said to have occurred, fossils demonstrate that life lived just fine in the times of Noah.

@Lion IRC

 

[Speedwell]

Hardly "striving".
I expected much more effort on the part of the Flood deniers.
FYI my beliefs are based on evidence.
Athests base there beliefs on the supposed absence of evidence.

Your beliefs are based on your hermeneutic.

 

[Frank Robert]

Bird's Opening

I hate my dinosaurs fly into my chess board.

The number of theists who have ever lived is in the Hundreds of Billions.

And those 100s of billions lived during the earth's 6000 year existence. No, that's not right, the flood occurred in 2350 BC leaving just Noah, his sons and wives so the correct timeline is 100s of billions of people in the last ~4470 years. Totally amazing.

 

[Frank Robert]

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

What you refer to as God's word (in the bible) is a particular creationist interpretation. What you fail to understand is there several major interpretations by biblical scholars that do not share your belief. It fine to believe that your version is the true version but you will not convince anyone who does not share your version that it is true.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Only on paper.

Actualy, a few centuries before paper was invented.

Why wouldn't they? they weren't interrupted by a global flood.

Exactly. And why were they not interrupted by a global flood?
Because there was no global flood.

 

[inquiring mind]

What you refer to as God's word (in the bible) is a particular creationist interpretation. What you fail to understand is there several major interpretations by biblical scholars that do not share your belief. It fine to believe that your version is the true version but you will not convince anyone who does not share your version that it is true.

When interpretation and skepticism took precedence over message, the Bible became subject to more scrutiny and criticism than any other work in history. Despite it all, it has held up to the onslaught. Jews and early Christians probably didn’t even hamstring Biblical truth with inerrancy. We can thank the Enlightenment and academia for that. Is the Bible to be read literally or figuratively, is a question I suspect was not designed for clarification, but rather to discredit (in my opinion). If it’s not literal (not accurate history) or has discrepancies then it’s not actual, and then of course, it’s not true in any form, message or otherwise.

 

[Speedwell]

If it’s not literal (not accurate history) or has discrepancies then it’s not actual, and then of course, it’s not true in any form, message or otherwise.

That is a burden placed upon the Bible unilaterally by fundamentalist Evangelicals; nobody else bears the responsibility and nobody else would care if they weren't trying to push it into the public schools and other areas of public policy.