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

[Bradskii]

Who today can answer this question either way in a 100% convincingly way? The only question that can be answered is ‘why do you believe one way or the other?’ You guys believe there is evidence to the contrary. I believe the story is true because Jesus apparently did, or why would He have even referenced it, while quoting and teaching from the entire OT continually as the Truth? Another reason I believe it is true is because there are no other untruths in the Bible, so why should I not trust in the Flood story as well?

A story that tells a truth and a story that is actually true are not the same thing. And saying that there are no lies in the bible isn't the same as saying that everything is literally true. If Jesus uses a story to make a point and that story didn't actually happen, He isn't lying. He's using a parable to make something clear to the reader.

I trust the flood story as well. I trust it as a means to show God's wrath against those He believes are sinners (unjustifiable wrath in my opinion). But I don't treat it literally.

 

[inquiring mind]

Did you read it? That is not evidence that Noah's Flood happened. That is evidence that there was flooding of the Black Sea. At one point it was much smaller than it is now. It is likely that a flood occurred that filled it to its current levels. It is hardly the Flood of Noah. That flood was relatively slow. A person could have crawled away from it. Cities and villages unfortunately cannot crawl. They were covered with water even though everyone would have been able to walk away. Does that sound like the Biblical flood?

I think that you might want to learn what scientific evidence is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

Hey! That looks familiar!

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

To even have scientific evidence one must have a way of testing one's idea. Creationists hate being force to think of a test that could refute their beliefs.

That's not evidence for the Noachian flood as described in the biblical story though. (Covers the world, wipes out all civilizations, kills 99.999% of all living creatures).

That's just evidence for a large flood in the Black Sea region that occurred around 7000 years ago. If anything, its evidence against the biblical account being literal.

The rest is just journalistic hyperbole and using a well known story as a touchstone. If Gilgamesh or Atra-Hasis were better know, the journalist could have used those as the hangar for the cloth of the story.



You do. Or at least, you can replicate their arguments as it pertains to evidence and the testing of that evidence to discount alternate hypotheses.

You guys blew past paragraphs 5,6,7. That's what I'm referring to.

 

[Kylie]

There are scientists who believe there are such traces.

Can you show this? Who are they? Are they qualified in a relevant field? What are these traces they claim indicate a worldwide flood?

 

[inquiring mind]

A story that tells a truth and a story that is actually true are not the same thing. And saying that there are no lies in the bible isn't the same as saying that everything is literally true. If Jesus uses a story to make a point and that story didn't actually happen, He isn't lying. He's using a parable to make something clear to the reader.

I trust the flood story as well. I trust it as a means to show God's wrath against those He believes are sinners (unjustifiable wrath in my opinion). But I don't treat it literally.

I realize He used parables, but the Noah and the Flood comparison was to the Day of Judgement and the coming of the Son of Man. "In the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, Jesus compares Noah's flood with the coming Day of Judgement: Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man."

 

[inquiring mind]

Can you show this? Who are they? Are they qualified in a relevant field? What are these traces they claim indicate a worldwide flood?

I can try, but not tonight, it's 1am here. As I told the others, you can find these scientists all over the Internet.

 

[Bradskii]

I realize He used parables, but the Noah and the Flood comparison was to the Day of Judgement and the coming of the Son of Man. "In the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, Jesus compares Noah's flood with the coming Day of Judgement: Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man."

Head of Engineering to all departments:

Unless the projected work loads are not completed by the end of the month then the repercussions will be positively biblical. Everyone's job is on the line. I shall sweep through all departments like the flood. There will be few survivors. The Day of Judgement is upon you.

Yours,

JC

Whaddya reckon. Do you you think he's using it for effect?

 

[inquiring mind]

Can you show this? Who are they? Are they qualified in a relevant field? What are these traces they claim indicate a worldwide flood?

Kylie, I said all over the internet, but of course not too many are brave enough or in a financial position to go against mainstream science, and they are usually trashed when they do.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can try, but not tonight, it's 1am here. As I told the others, you can find these scientists all over the Internet.

you left out the quotation marks around "scientists".

 

[inquiring mind]

Head of Engineering to all departments:

Unless the projected work loads are not completed by the end of the month then the repercussions will be positively biblical. Everyone's job is on the line. I shall sweep through all departments like the flood. There will be few survivors. The Day of Judgement is upon you.

Yours,

JC

Whaddya reckon. Do you you think he's using it for effect?

I hear you.

 

[Gene2memE]

You guys blew past paragraphs 5,6,7. That's what I'm referring to.

Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7:

"Where I live in Connecticut was ice a mile above my house, all the way back to the North Pole, about 15 million kilometers, that's a big ice cube," he said. "But then it started to melt. We're talking about the floods of our living history."

The water from the melting glaciers began to rush toward the world's oceans, Ballard said, causing floods all around the world.

"The questions is, was there a mother of all floods," Ballard said.
​

Nothing in there supports the biblical flood account.

There was a change in sea levels of up to ~85m between 15000 and 7000 years ago, between when the last glacial maximum ended and melt rates stabilised. That's an unusually rapid increase, but it's nothing that resembles any of the flood mythemes, let alone the biblical account.

 

[inquiring mind]

Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7:

"Where I live in Connecticut was ice a mile above my house, all the way back to the North Pole, about 15 million kilometers, that's a big ice cube," he said. "But then it started to melt. We're talking about the floods of our living history."

The water from the melting glaciers began to rush toward the world's oceans, Ballard said, causing floods all around the world.

"The questions is, was there a mother of all floods," Ballard said.
​

Nothing in there supports the biblical flood account.

There was a change in sea levels of up to ~85m between 15000 and 7000 years ago, between when the last glacial maximum ended and melt rates stabilising. That's an unusually rapid increase, but it's nothing that resembles any of the flood mythemes, let alone the biblical account.

Well, you are talking about the guy who found the Titanic.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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?

This in response to a post demonstrating you do just that. That's impressively dishonest.

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.

Did I say it did? Word games is all you've got, isn't it? The verse actually says that it was 9 months before any mountain tops were visible. There's the context you ignored.

Here's what the bible actually says: All the mountains were covered; no mountain tops became visible for 9 months. That cannot be explained by a series of large swells or tsunamis.

 

[Bradskii]

Kylie, I said all over the internet, but of course not too many are brave enough or in a financial position to go against mainstream science, and they are usually trashed when they do.

It's actually what every scientist dreams of: To find evidence that refutes an established theory. It's the pot of gold. The El Dorado. It's fame and glory.

But this tired old trope is always thrown up when someone asks for some genuine scientific evidence to back up a claim. 'Oh, there's plenty of evidence. But the scientists who have it would be ostracised. They'd lose their funding!'

Abject nonsense.

 

[Gene2memE]

Well, you are talking about the guy who found the Titanic.

Which is totally besides the point.

Where, in that article, is there any evidence that supports the biblical flood claim?

 

[trophy33]

The bible says the flood was worldwide

The bible also says that the Roman census in the time of Jesus' birth was worldwide. Was it?

 

[Kylie]

I can try, but not tonight, it's 1am here. As I told the others, you can find these scientists all over the Internet.

I'll wait until you can post the ones you athink are most relevant.

 

[Kylie]

Kylie, I said all over the internet, but of course not too many are brave enough or in a financial position to go against mainstream science, and they are usually trashed when they do.

Sounds like you are proposing a conspiracy theory...

 

[AV1611VET]

Errors in the Bible are known to be errors because we can explain and show why.

But in order to "show why," they have to first downplay some aspect of the phenomenon down to their level; then they can "explain and show why."

And they have several pet ways of downplaying it:

1. It didn't happen as documented.
2. It wasn't a literal account.
3. It wasn't a miracle, it was magic.
4. It plain didn't happen.

 

[trophy33]

But in order to "show why," they have to first downplay some aspect of the phenomenon down to their level; then they can "explain and show why."

And they have several pet ways of downplaying it:

1. It didn't happen as documented.
2. It wasn't a literal account.
3. It wasn't a miracle, it was magic.
4. It plain didn't happen.

Todays fundamentalists actually do not understand their Bible, its genre, cultural context, the process of canonization, the process of creating editions of textual variants and the process of translation.

They think that their English Bible fell from heaven from God, every word perfect and scientific.

They have no idea how to use the Bible properly to be useful to them and to all.

 

[Frank Robert]

Most of the scientists I have seen present such reasoning and rationale at various locations. I hope I don't have to name them all. They are all over the internet.

An extraordinary claim, like a worldwide flood, needs extraordinary evidence. Hints of the flood are more than enough for the believers in a literal bible but those believers should not expect others to concur when the logistics of a worldwide flood rule against it.