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

[Speedwell]

But there is nothing in the Noah's story saying that it covered the globe and happened in the 3rd millenium BC. So...

So, a local Mesopotamian catastrophe in the beginnings of human civilization (so that it affected seriously the humanity as such) is still a valid reading of the story.

Of course--for non-creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody is forcing you to participate here.

You either, chief.

I have given you scholarly answers, even from Wikipedia, and you have accused me of making it up.

That usually rubs me the wrong way.

 

[trophy33]

Of course--for non-creationists.

What is a definition of a non-creationist?

I believe the universe is God's creation, but I am not a literalist and I do not think that the ancient cosmology, culture or language is inspired to be scientific.

But even if I would be a literalist, there is nothing in the Noah's story saying it was planetary or in the 3rd millenium BC.

 

[VirOptimus]

Better than the ones we have now. They were there, we weren't.

I once made up this conversation to effectively make that point:

Shem: What's this trash you wrote, Nimrod; are you okay!?
Nimrod: Don't start on me again, uncle; you've always looked down on us Hamites.
Shem: That's garbage too! You used to be a mighty hunter before the LORD, what went wrong?
Nimrod: You think you Shemites are so much better than us, just because my grandfather was cursed for what his father did to your father in that tent that day.
Shem: I watched you grow up, Nimrod, and how you used to love the LORD so much; but somewhere along the line you went astray and broke away from the rest of us and went and formed your own little empire. Well ... you do what you want, but as long as I live, I'll make sure my eyewitness testimony trumps your lies.
Nimrod: And what makes you an authority on the Flood over me?
Shem: I was there! Remember??? I was on the Ark ... you weren't!
Nimrod: Oh, that's right ... somehow I forgot ... what with there being no evidence and all.
Shem: [facepalms]

The Sumerian Flood Narrative

Made up conversations to ”prove” your point? How convincing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Myst33: Funny x 1 List

Ya ... it's funny, isn't it?

Any modern classroom would be glad to have you.

On second thought, maybe they do.

 

[trophy33]

Ya ... it's funny, isn't it?

Any modern classroom would be glad to have you.

On second thought, maybe they do.

Another useless post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Made up conversations to ”prove” your point? How convincing.

As long as you don't understand, I suppose you're okay with it.

Ignorance is bliss.

Believe me, I know.

 

[VirOptimus]

As long as you don't understand, I suppose you're okay with it.

Ignorance is bliss.

Believe me, I know.

We know you are ignorant, I am not.

I find its pretty funny you think ignorance is bliss.

 

[Speedwell]

What is a definition of a non-creationist?

I believe the universe is God's creation, but I am not a literalist and I do not think that the ancient cosmology, culture or language is inspired to be scientific.

But even if I would be a literalist, there is nothing in the Noah's story saying it was planetary or in the 3rd millenium BC.

Yes, in that sense any theist is a creationist*, but the way the term is generally used in this forum is to refer to a so called "young Earth" creationist, a literalist who does take Ussher's dates seriously and regards them as biblical. And it's their version of the flood we're talking about. Nobody seriously disputes your version and many here (except the YECs) believe it.

*Granted, the use of the term here is careless but habitual What it boils down to is if you see somebody post "Creationism is hooey" they are not talking about what you believe.

 

[trophy33]

Yes, in that sense any theist is a creationist, but the way the term is generally used in this forum is to refer to a so called "young Earth" creationist, a literalist who does take Ussher's dates seriously and regards them as biblical.

Ok, lets pretend that we are literalists... what exactly is the evidence in the text itself that it was planetary?

Actually, I see some evidence of locality:
a) "The whole earth was dry" cannot be about planet, but can be only about some local land.
b) The ark began its journey somewhere in Mesopotamia and ended up in... just Turkey. One would expect that in the wild wild planetary cataclysmic event the landing would be more random, for example Siberia, China, South America... not just so near to the beginning.

 

[AV1611VET]

We know you are ignorant, I am not.

I find its pretty funny you think ignorance is bliss.

Well we both demonstrate it in our own ways, don't we?

One by a lack of knowledge; the other by a mental block.

 

[Hans Blaster]

He put us here to gather a people unto himself. Those who choose him will live on the new world. This current world will pass away by fire once the full number are in.
2 Peter 3
3 First of all, I want you to know that in the last days men will laugh at the truth. They will follow their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “He promised to come again. Where is He? Since our early fathers died, everything is the same from the beginning of the world.” 5 But they want to forget that God spoke and the heavens were made long ago. The earth was made out of water and water was all around it. 6 Long ago the earth was covered with water and it was destroyed. 7 But the heaven we see now and the earth we live on now have been kept by His word. They will be kept until they are to be destroyed by fire. They will be kept until the day men stand before God and sinners will be destroyed.

Who ever wrote this passage in Peter's name (and likely in the 2nd century) certainly believed the Noah story, but it is not evidence of the Noah story, nor part of it, nor part of its claims, nor relevant to this thread. (or board)

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, lets pretend that we are literalists... what exactly is the evidence in the text itself that it was planetary?

Genesis 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

Actually, I see some evidence of locality:
a) "The whole earth was dry" cannot be about planet, but can be only about some local land.
b) The ark began its journey somewhere in Mesopotamia and ended up in... just Turkey. One would expect that in the wild wild planetary cataclysmic event the landing would be more random, for example Siberia, China, South America... not just so near to the beginning.

Read Genesis 6 thru 9, and everywhere it says "earth," substitute it with "Mesopotamia," and see how silly that sounds.

 

[trophy33]

Genesis 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

I hope you do not propose that a dove can fly all over the planet. That she checked Russia, China, Australia, Canada and returned and said "nope".

Read Genesis 6 thru 9, and everywhere it says "earth," substitute it with "Mesopotamia," and see how silly that sounds.

It sounds silly just because you are not used to read it that way. There is actually nothing against it, when you realize the story is written from the viewpoint of a man in Mesopotamia.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who ever wrote this passage in Peter's name (and likely in the 2nd century) certainly believed the Noah story, but it is not evidence of the Noah story, nor part of it, nor part of its claims, nor relevant to this thread. (or board)

Would you like evidence of the Noah story to come back here?

If so, chances are you'd get saved.

As they say: There are no atheists in foxholes.

And although there might be some tough guys who think they're exceptions; that's why I said "chances are".

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope you do not propose that a dove can fly all over the planet.

Nope.

Don't concentrate on the dove; concentrate (if you can) on the extent of the water mentioned.

 

[Mr Laurier]

You mean God?

Nope.

Yup ... you meant God.

Nope

 

[Speedwell]

Ok, lets pretend that we are literalists... what exactly is the evidence in the text itself that it was planetary?

You're asking the wrong person. It says in the Bible that that the whole Earth was flooded. The underlying Hebrew can mean the world, the land, or just the parts of it that we know about or is significant to us, or even just dirt. Literalists have decided that it can only mean the entire world. I have no idea why.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea why.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Real scholarly. That should insure you won't understand.

But then I can just see the Muses saying: "Mission accomplished."

Yes. you tend to only see what is NOT there