Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[Hans Blaster]

What is a full fledged flood denier

Someone who understands the geological history of the Earth.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Now, I don't blame you for not taking intenstive time to research either of these first two problems in depth. I know that you have to be in a frame of mind to want to research these topics in order to fully understand them.

I apologize I just read the first two sources I could find on the topics and it seemed that the premise they are based on doesn’t actually pose a legitimate problem. They both seem like a secular point of view.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is a full fledged flood denier

In my view, it would be someone-- unlike you or me --who would think that it was impossible for there to have ever been any large scale flood (or floods) in any place or at any time during the ancient eras that could have given rise to ancient hyperbolic "World Flood" narratives.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I apologize I just read the first two sources I could find on the topics and it seemed that the premise they are based on doesn’t actually pose a legitimate problem. They both seem like a secular point of view.

Why wouldn't they pose a problem?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Someone who understands the geological history of the Earth.

In basic form, I think I understand the geological history of the Earth.

Let's not insinuate that if I am not a 'full-fledged flood denier,' I must not understand geological history whatsover.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

 

[Astrid]

In my view, it would be someone-- unlike you or me --who would think that it was impossible for there to have ever been any large scale flood (or floods) in any place or at any time during the ancient eras that could have given rise to ancient hyperbolic "World Flood" narratives.

That would be pretty extreme considering what the
tiniest grain of fact can be grown into.

 

[Astrid]

Someone who understands the geological history of the Earth.

In short, yes, though its possible to find
ways to complicate and quibbilate most anything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That would be pretty extreme considering what the
tiniest grain of fact can be grown into.

It's not that extreme given the cosmological viewpoint of any ANE writer. Their understandings of actual physics and biology were obviously limited and skewed.

Secondly, the writer (or writers) of the Biblical flood account, not to mention that of the earlier Babylonian flood account, weren't offering their readers 1st hand reports. This kind of goes without saying.

Taking these things into account, then for me, the Biblical flood only becomes extreme if the claim is made by Christians that the Bible was inspired through some kind of divinely given direct dictation.

I don't make that claim.

 

[ottawak]

Truth is not subject to interpretation it remains constant despite interpretation. Picking and choosing what is literal and what is not apart from the obvious results in an infinite number of alternatives for determining truth which inevitably makes it indeterminable.

Only if you start with the assumption that it is only true if it's literal. You have to ask, how is it true?
The Bible as revelation is not a message to individual believers but to the whole of Christ's church. It is not up to the individual to decide on his own what it means. If the Bible is, as we believe, a revelation from God then it deserves the best scholarly inquiry from all areas of human intellectual endeavor.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, my point is that the Biblical flood account was likely written after the Babylonian flood account;

You do realize that Shem lived right up to the time of Jacob, do you not?

That means that when Noah had Ham, who had Cush, who had Nimrod, and Nimrod went and built Sumeria, and when someone (Nimrod?) wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh ... that means that Shem was right there to expose said epic as a lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

Secondly, the writer (or writers) of the Biblical flood account, not to mention that of the earlier Babylonian flood account, weren't offering their readers 1st hand reports. This kind of goes without saying.

That's why the Epic of Gilgamesh was written long after the Flood.

But what the author of that epic overlooked is the fact that an eyewitness, who was actually there and on the Ark during the Flood, was still alive to provide eyewitness testimony of what actually happened.

 

[Astrid]

It's not that extreme given the cosmological viewpoint of any ANE writer. Their understandings of actual physics and biology were obviously limited and skewed.

Secondly, the writer (or writers) of the Biblical flood account, not to mention that of the earlier Babylonian flood account, weren't offering their readers 1st hand reports. This kind of goes without saying.

Taking these things into account, then for me, the Biblical flood only becomes extreme if the claim is made by Christians that the Bible was inspired through some kind of divinely given direct dictation.

I don't make that claim.

More quibbling?
We are aware the old timers were
ignorant and serstitious - common fault
these days.
But why bring it up, " total flood denialisticalism
or whatev is about today,
not the moldy den of antiquity.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are aware the old timers were
ignorant ...

But what you're not aware of is the fact that an eyewitness to the Flood -- someone who was there -- lived right up to the time of Jacob; and would be available to set any record straight about it.

It's academia today that is ignorant as a hay rake about it.

But as long as they make the dean happy ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

But what you're not aware of is the fact that an eyewitness to the Flood -- someone who was there -- lived right up to the time of Jacob; and would be available to set any record straight about it.

It's academia today that is ignorant as a hay rake about it.

But as long as they make the dean happy ...

Except that Jacob almost certainly did not exist either. You really need to understand your Bible a bit better to see why you arguments fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why the Epic of Gilgamesh was written long after the Flood.

But what the author of that epic overlooked is the fact that an eyewitness, who was actually there and on the Ark during the Flood, was still alive to provide eyewitness testimony of what actually happened.

Nope. Not so. Once again, study up on the history of the Bible and when various parts were written.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that Jacob almost certainly did not exist either. You really need to understand your Bible a bit better to see why you arguments fail.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Not so. Once again, study up on the history of the Bible and when various parts were written.

Why? so I can make the dean's list?

 

[ottawak]

Why? so I can make the dean's list?

No, to help you understand it better. The Bible is a revelation from God; isn't it worth at least a little effort on your part to learn more about it?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, to help you understand it better. The Bible is a revelation from God; isn't it worth at least a little effort on your part to learn more about it?

So I can make the dean's list?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the QED.

That you were wrong as usual. No problem.

I am rather amazed at the arrogance of some Christians that think that they can dictate to their God how he did things.