• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Biblical Flood II

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
First, the Global Flood is not an ad hoc hypothesis. It is a conclusion. If you want to look at it from a scientific point of view, then it is a scientific conclusion.

I said Flood Geology was an ad hoc hypothesis. Flood Geology states that all sedmentary rock (and the fossils in it) was formed during the Flood as described in Genesis 6-8.

We do not know how could the conclusion be reached.

Right here you just told us that belief in a Global Flood is not a conclusion. If if were a conclusion, then you would know how you reached it! Conclusions are based upon evidence and logic. Since they are, we know how we got there.

So we make hypothesis to explain it.

That is different. A hypothesis to explain a Global Flood would be how there was enough water to cover the earth.

However, since the evidence already shows that the theory of a Global Flood is disproved, none of those hypotheses matter.

Many of you questioned the truth of the Flood, because you do not know what tool could be used to search for it.

Oh come now. Geologists have identified local floods from many locations and times in the geological record. The fossils beds at Dinosaur National Park are the result of a large local flood. The tools that were used to search for and find those local floods would also find a global one.

And I am practicing on the use of a promising tool, which is to dig the origin of water on the earth.

That won't help, because you won't get enough water to cover all the earth. If you think you do, that still doesn't help because you have to figure out where the water went. Why isn't it still there?

For the authors of Genesis 6-8, the source of the water wasn't a problem. Their cosmology had great tanks of water above the firmament and large cisterns of water in caverns below the earth. All God had to do was empty the tanks above and open up the cisterns below. At the end of the flood He simply put some water back into the cisterns and then pumped water back into the tanks.

Now that we know neither the tanks above nor cisterns below exist, there isn't enough water to have a global flood. Certainly not within human times.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I take the Global Flood as a scientific conclusion simply by faith.

That you cannot do. You can say: "I believe the Global Flood actually happened by faith." But scientific conclusions cannot possibly be based on faith.

Here is what science requires:

"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself. "

You aren't doing that. You have decided --by your own words -- that "the Global Flood" (the one described in Genesis) happened by faith. You either won't test the faith against external reality and/or you reject any part of external reality that contradicts your faith. That is not science in any way, shape, or form.

The Bible does not give the Global Flood as the only message which could be related to science. There are many others. If there were 10 Bible messages that bear the meaning of science, and 9 of them have already been supported by modern science, would you think I have some confidence toward the remaining one, which is yet to be supported?

Since there is evidence contradicting that one, you should have no confidence at all. You are saying that you are playing the odds. But that gets back to your rejecting evidence from external reality.

However, my curiosity can't resist asking what the other 9 messages that you think have been supported by modern science.

Just like a Christian who needs some experiences to establish and to strengthen his or her faith, I have established my faith to scientific implications in the Bible.

Why do you feel a need to establish faith in the scientific implications of the Bible? What does that do for your Christian faith?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I said Flood Geology was an ad hoc hypothesis. Flood Geology states that all sedmentary rock (and the fossils in it) was formed during the Flood as described in Genesis 6-8.

No. The Bible did not say that.
Geologically, it is not reasonable.
So you should not say that again. It is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why do you feel a need to establish faith in the scientific implications of the Bible? What does that do for your Christian faith?

Because, for example, I do not know how could the whole earth get flooded all together. And I like to know are there reasons other than faith that can help me to trust the flood description as a truth.

And I found a lot reasons. So I become confident that the flood story is true. And the Genesis creation is also true. So I will spend a lot of time to study how could it be true.

You are a biologist. Have you thought about doing the similar? How do you treat all "unreasonable" biological descriptions in the Bible? (If you want example, I can give you some)
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Juvie, do you think that the woman described in the Song of Songs has doves in her eyesockets? Why not see clear metaphors as the clear metaphors they are?

It is not 100% metaphor. She has a dove-like eyes. If you replaced dove by any other birds, it probably won't fit.

How literal in percentage is this interpretation?
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
News flash for Juvie - metaphors do actually use words. All metaphors will be subject to your question about whether or not other metaphors (other birds in this case) would work better or worse. That doesn't mean they aren't metaphors.

Besides, even if by "new english", something was part metaphor and part literal, that would still show that your Bible is not 100% literal. Juvie - are you admitting that your Bible is not 100% literal?

Papias
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
News flash for Juvie - metaphors do actually use words. All metaphors will be subject to your question about whether or not other metaphors (other birds in this case) would work better or worse. That doesn't mean they aren't metaphors.

Besides, even if by "new english", something was part metaphor and part literal, that would still show that your Bible is not 100% literal. Juvie - are you admitting that your Bible is not 100% literal?

Papias

If a literal meaning is and only is the primary definition of a word in a dictionary, then yes, the Bible is not literal. (Warning, do not separate this sentence! So you should not quote that I said the Bible is not literal. It is highly likely that you will do such thing)
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
If a literal meaning is and only is the primary definition of a word in a dictionary, then yes, the Bible is not literal. (Warning, do not separate this sentence! So you should not quote that I said the Bible is not literal. It is highly likely that you will do such thing)

So, whether or not the Bible is literal depends on a dictionary? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Juvie wrote:

If a literal meaning is and only is the primary definition of a word in a dictionary, then yes, the Bible is not literal. (Warning, do not separate this sentence! So you should not quote that I said the Bible is not literal. It is highly likely that you will do such thing)

You are correct that it is deceptive and repugnant to take part of a quote out of context, and use it to misrepresent the views of the author. I hope you will correct me should I lie in such a way, and I pledge not to do so, and to apologize should I misstep and do so.

Juvie, since you too see the sin in lying by misrepresenting quotes, will you agree to point out and reject those who do so regularly, without apparent remorse?

Papias
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Juvie wrote:



You are correct that it is deceptive and repugnant to take part of a quote out of context, and use it to misrepresent the views of the author. I hope you will correct me should I lie in such a way, and I pledge not to do so, and to apologize should I misstep and do so.

Juvie, since you too see the sin in lying by misrepresenting quotes, will you agree to point out and reject those who do so regularly, without apparent remorse?

Papias

Most likely, I won't. There are too many people doing it all the time. Some are done deliberately. Some are done innocently. And I don't even have enough time to take a good care of myself. If people do that to me, I just go away.
 
Upvote 0

Orogeny

Trilobite me!
Feb 25, 2010
1,599
54
✟24,590.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
lit·er·al

   /ˈlɪt
thinsp.png
ər
thinsp.png
əl
/ Show Spelled[lit-er-uh
thinsp.png
l] Show IPA
–adjective 1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical
from dictionary.com
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
lit·er·al

   /ˈlɪt
thinsp.png
ər
thinsp.png
əl
/ Show Spelled[lit-er-uh
thinsp.png
l] Show IPA
–adjective 1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical
from dictionary.com

How many literal meanings could be included in the blue-colored quote?

Is the primary meaning also the strict meaning? Or could they be different?

Could the primary meaning of A word be different from that when the exact word is used with other words? If yes, then which one is the literal meaning of that particular word?
 
Upvote 0