Biblical Flood II

juvenissun · Mar 31, 2010

Orogeny said:
Once again, Juve, anybody can do science, and therefore be a scientist. You just haven't shown any interest in it.

So, not me, to you.

lucaspa · Apr 2, 2010

juvenissun said:
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.

lucaspa · Apr 2, 2010

juvenissun said:
Why do you still read my post?

I don't know about Orogeny, but I read and respond because I do not want people to get false information. I don't want them led astray into false beliefs.

lucaspa · Apr 2, 2010

juvenissun said:
I am almost 60 years old. I am what I am. No hope (need) to change.

IMO, you do need to change and you should hope that you still can.

lucaspa · Apr 2, 2010

juvenissun said:
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?

juvenissun · Apr 2, 2010

lucaspa said:
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.

juvenissun · Apr 2, 2010

lucaspa said:
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)

Papias · Apr 3, 2010

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?

juvenissun · Apr 3, 2010

Papias said:
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?

Papias · Apr 3, 2010

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

juvenissun · Apr 3, 2010

Papias said:
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)

The Lady Kate · Apr 4, 2010

juvenissun said:
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?

Papias · Apr 5, 2010

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

juvenissun · Apr 5, 2010

The Lady Kate said:
So, whether or not the Bible is literal depends on a dictionary?

Without a dictionary, you can not define literal.

juvenissun · Apr 5, 2010

Papias said:
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.

The Lady Kate · Apr 5, 2010

juvenissun said:
Without a dictionary, you can not define literal.

Ok then... so who said the Bible must be literal? Certainly not the dictionary...

juvenissun · Apr 5, 2010

The Lady Kate said:
Ok then... so who said the Bible must be literal? Certainly not the dictionary...

It depends on what do you mean by being literal.

Papias · Apr 6, 2010

Well, at least a small part of this recent exchange was not a total waste - and that was Juvie condemning the practice of quotemining.

Papias

Orogeny · Apr 6, 2010

lit·er·al

   /ˈlɪt

ər

əl/

Show Spelled[lit-er-uh

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

juvenissun · Apr 6, 2010

Orogeny said:
lit·er·al

   /ˈlɪt

ər

əl/

Show Spelled[lit-er-uh

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?

Biblical Flood II

... and God saw that it was good.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Listening to TW4

... and God saw that it was good.

Listening to TW4

... and God saw that it was good.

The Lady Kate

Guest

Listening to TW4

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

The Lady Kate

Guest

... and God saw that it was good.

Listening to TW4

Trilobite me!

... and God saw that it was good.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency