Flood, literal or not?

[Beastt]

No, thanks; either way--- we're on the winning side:

[bible]1 Thessalonians 4:17[/bible]

or

[bible]Psalm 116:15[/bible]

Living in an unsupportable belief which causes one to reject the demonstrable discoveries of science is not winning. When you proudly declare, (as you do in your signature), that you refuse to accept truth if it is other than what you wish it to be, you are not demonstrating that you are a winner. You're demonstrating an insistence to reject truth wherever it conflicts with your desires.

Because of this, I am saddened for you. I believe you have been victimized. But I can only present the evidence of reality. If you choose to ignore that evidence and instead live in the unverifiable words of an ancient and demonstrably false book, it is sad, but it is your choice.

 

[Beastt]

As I have just demonstrated, it's both.

It is neither. You can't assert that it's logical when you can't even present the concept of God as being logical. If it were logical and reasonable, believers would have no need of faith.

Yes --- physical evidence contradicts Scripture --- but that is the nature of ex nihilo creation.

You can't assert any nature of ex-nihilo creation when you can't even demonstrate ex-nihilo creation to be real. In fact, you can't even demonstrate creation to be real. Where have you ever seen any act of creation? It doesn't happen, isn't evidenced to happen, and, (outside of specific quantum phenomenon), is contrary to reality.

You can't confine God's handiwork to the readings of a man-made machine.

You can't demonstrate any handiwork to be that of God. You keep leaping over the realities to reach fantasies.

Not hardly.

Of course it would. If God built a false age into the Earth, (and indeed, the universe), that would be an act of intentional deception. Intentional deception is the primary component in lying.

 

[dad]

Athiests like to try prove the Bible wrong by saying the world does not contain any evidence of a flood ever taking place. This is not what this thread is for, but more or less the discusion of if we should even spend are time arguing against that. Is Noahs Flood a literal happening, or a mere parable that was written to teach us a lesson?

Real.

As much as id like to be able to take this non-literaly, i feel the need to argue against this to reasure myself that this is the case:

First off id like to point out how odd it is that the Bible goes into such depth about how the story takes place. Im refering to measurements of the size of the boat, type of wood used, location. Why would the Bible go into such depth about a parable? It is true that this could all just be taken in context of the story, but why? This "why" is what makes us think that the story should be taken for more then just a parable...is this true?

Of course.

Noah is a real person, outside the context of the story we are told about his family. I dont want to make this to long or no one will take the time to read it, heres one verse today that i read....it got me thinking about the topic:



The bolded part shows us that the story is a chronological happening. "In the days of Noah", shows a real life time period that took place. "God waited....while the ark was being built", the fact that God was waiting for somthing suggests it was not a story...but a real life happening. The Bible also explains the location on Earth where the Ark was placed, its on a mountain in Turkey (probly under a glacier).

Comments?

It was on the mountains of Ararat. That could be one of many mountains. If there was some great upheaval after the flood, we may not expect to see the ark just sitting on a mountain top. But it is somewhere.

 

[FishFace]

Thank you, Pyro! God, of course, gets the glory. It pays to study, though!

When God created the earth, He created it with age embedded in it, and this is what "scientists" see when they date things - age.

But the earth, in my opinion, has only gone around the sun about 6100 times.

I sum it up like this:

• The earth is 4.55 billion years old geologically.
• And the earth is 6100 years old existentially.

There is no epistemological difference than claiming that the earth is 3 days old, "existentially."

 

[JoshuaW]

Why? In view of the fact that God said He would preserve it?

[bible]Psalm 12:6-7[/bible]

The Psalms are man's poems in praise of God, not God's directive to accept the literal words of the Bible verbatim.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you proudly declare, (as you do in your signature), that you refuse to accept truth if it is other than what you wish it to be, you are not demonstrating that you are a winner. You're demonstrating an insistence to reject truth wherever it conflicts with your desires.

And therein is a major difference between you and I.

To you, truth and god are two different things.

To me, Truth and God are one and the same.

You keep using the word "demonstrate", overlooking the fact that God did demonstrate His existence with signs and wonders - but was still rejected.

Do you honestly think He's going to repeat Himself over and over to every generation that comes along?

What do you think would happen right now if God were to shout at us from the sky loud enough for all to hear?

I'll tell you what would happen --- the same thing as before:

[bible]John 12:29[/bible]

The Bible makes it clear that even when Jesus comes back physically and rules and reigns with a rod of iron here on the earth in His own kingdom --- people are going to reject Him; and not just reject Him, but I mean to the point where they go after Him again to do away with Him - (Revelation 20).

But this time it's gonna be different.

My suggestion is for you to get on the winning side (if you haven't already) before it's too late.

Please!

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no epistemological difference than claiming that the earth is 3 days old, "existentially."

Whatever.

 

[flatworm]

And therein is a major difference between you and I.

To you, truth and god are two different things.

To me, Truth and God are one and the same.

It seems you use the word "God" merely as an excuse not to question whatever beliefs you prefer to hold.

You keep using the word "demonstrate", overlooking the fact that God did demonstrate His existence with signs and wonders - but was still rejected.

You have one ancient book among many ancient books that claim this happened.

Have you ever seen "The X-Files"? The movie "Signs"? How about "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"? The theme of skeptics being proven wrong with overwhelming evidence is a popular one - in fiction, including the Bible. In real life this doesn't happen. You might wonder why. I no longer do.

Do you honestly think He's going to repeat Himself over and over to every generation that comes along?

Supposedly such a being would be cable of it, supposedly the stakes warrant it, and supposedly this being cares. Even if this being exists obviously one of the above must be false.

What do you think would happen right now if God were to shout at us from the sky loud enough for all to hear?

I'll tell you what would happen --- the same thing as before:

[bible]John 12:29[/bible]

If you have evidence or logical arguments, I'm all ears. Else keep your wish-fulfillment fantasies to yourself.

The Bible makes it clear that even when Jesus comes back physically and rules and reigns with a rod of iron here on the earth in His own kingdom --- people are going to reject Him; and not just reject Him, but I mean to the point where they go after Him again to do away with Him - (Revelation 20).

But this time it's gonna be different.

My suggestion is for you to get on the winning side (if you haven't already) before it's too late.

Like I said, thousands of years of failed prophecy indicate the above is nothing more than a fantasy. Please don't feel you need to inflict it on the rest of us.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

And therein is a major difference between you and I.

To you, truth and god are two different things.

To me, Truth and God are one and the same.

You keep using the word "demonstrate", overlooking the fact that God did demonstrate His existence with signs and wonders - but was still rejected.

Do you honestly think He's going to repeat Himself over and over to every generation that comes along?

What do you think would happen right now if God were to shout at us from the sky loud enough for all to hear?

I'll tell you what would happen --- the same thing as before:

On the contrary. Even Jesus himself supplied physical evidence of his resurrection when the apostle Thomas didn't believe it.:

24: But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25: The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.


26: And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.


27: Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.


28: And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.


29: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

As you can see, God can supply physical evidence for his existence to unbelievers, and has done so at least once already. The fact that he seems to prefer faith without evidence is irrelevant, IMHO.

The Bible makes it clear that even when Jesus comes back physically and rules and reigns with a rod of iron here on the earth in His own kingdom --- people are going to reject Him; and not just reject Him, but I mean to the point where they go after Him again to do away with Him - (Revelation 20).

But this time it's gonna be different.

My suggestion is for you to get on the winning side (if you haven't already) before it's too late.

Please!

I appreciate your concern, but there are representatives from thousands of other religions telling me exactly the same. For the moment, I see no reason to prefer one of you over the other.

 

[FishFace]

Whatever.

That's the best you can come up with ? You should talk to dad!

 

[LittleNipper]

Like I said, thousands of years of failed prophecy indicate the above is nothing more than a fantasy. Please don't feel you need to inflict it on the rest of us.

Thousands of years of what false prophecy? Show me a false prophecy... It would seem that all the prophecy has come to pass up to the present. Even so this one.

II Peter 3:3 & 4

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of HIS coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as from the beginning of creation."

 

[flatworm]

Thousands of years of what false prophecy? Show me a false prophecy... It would seem that all the prophecy has come to pass up to the present. Even so this one.

Here's a quick rundown:

http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm

Many of these are biblical in origin. Since they've failed, of course, other believers are quick to claim it's only the interpretation that's wrong... but we have yet to see an interpretation confirmed right!

If you care to watch the religious game of "Absolute Truth!" -> "Oops!" -> "Interpretational Error" -> "New Absolute Truth!", I present to you:

http://www.truebiblecode.com/

II Peter 3:3 & 4

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of HIS coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as from the beginning of creation."

We've been over this. Thousands of years of scoffers. Over 730 000 "last days" and counting.

So come up with something verifiable or just spare us all your wish-fulfillment fantasy.

 

[Beastt]

Thousands of years of what false prophecy? Show me a false prophecy... It would seem that all the prophecy has come to pass up to the present. Even so this one.

II Peter 3:3 & 4

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of HIS coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as from the beginning of creation."

No false prophecy? I think it fair to say that any prophecy which does not come to pass is false. The most important of all Christian prophecies certainly never has come to pass. Of Christians today, a full 22% are absolutely certain that Jesus will return in their lifetime. Another 22% are fairly sure he will return in their lifetime. And these figures have varied very little from generation to generation. Yet it hasn't come to pass for any of them. All indications are that it never will come to pass. So the most important of all Christian prophecies is, by any reasonable measure, a false prophecy.

The Bible suggests a single planet, created just for man, which sits stationary at the center of the solar system, around which move the sun, moon and stars. Around 400 to 500 years ago, some began to suggest in earnest that this wasn't true. Christians threatened some of these people and still the evidence persisted. Then they imprisoned some of these people, and the evidence persisted. They even killed some of these people and the evidence persisted. Eventually, even Christians came to accept the idea that the world is not the center of the universe, around which everything else revolves. So they changed the way they read the Bible and continued with their faith.

The Bible suggests that man sprang from the dust as a fully-formed adult human. A couple hundred years ago, (or less), people began seriously considering the idea that this isn't true and even that man is an animal, who evolved from species which we today recognize as non-human animals. Of course to Christians, the idea was absurd. But it became a dangerous idea because even Christians seemed to be fooled by the evidence. So the threats started, the trials started and laws were formed to protect good, God-fearing Christians from the concept of evolution. But despite the best efforts of Christians to hide and deny the evidence the vast majority of the world's population now accepts that the Bible's insinuations are incorrect and that we did indeed, evolve from non-human animals. Today even many Christians accept evolution. So they again changed the way they read their Bible and continue with their beliefs.

Then the great flood came under attack. It was pointed out that rain must have a source and that the source is insufficient to do what the Bible claims. We found out that the Ark, as described in the Bible wouldn't have been sea-worthy. We found out that there isn't any way to put all of the necessary animals on a vessel that size and keep them alive as the Bible suggests. We found out that floods leave a record in the geologic column and that there is no record of the Bible's global flood. So Christians have done what they have always done, they change the way they read the Bible and continue to proclaim that it holds ultimate truth. Above all, they continue to insist that it's most important prophecy will come to pass, no matter how many generations come and go without the fulfillment of its prophecy.

The most important Christian prophecy is the return of Jesus which has never been fulfilled. There is no reasonable expectation that it will ever be fulfilled. And without that, even if every other Christian prophecy had been fulfilled, they would be meaningless to Christianity.

 

[AdHoc]

As I have just demonstrated, it's both.

No, you haven't demonstrated that it's either.

Yes --- physical evidence contradicts Scripture --- but that is the nature of ex nihilo creation.

No, it's not. The physical evidence could easily suggest a world 6,000 years old. It doesn't, because the world isn't 6,000 years old.

You can't confine God's handiwork to the readings of a man-made machine.

Copout, and completely irrelevant.

Not hardly.

Yup.

 

[AV1611VET]

No false prophecy? I think it fair to say that any prophecy which does not come to pass is false. The most important of all Christian prophecies certainly never has come to pass.

And what prophecy would that be, Beastt?

People who claim the Bible has false prophecies in it are a dime a dozen --- let's up the ante and see a chapter and verse --- fair enough?

Or, as I suspect, is it much easier to generalize?

 

[Beastt]

And what prophecy would that be, Beastt?

People who claim the Bible has false prophecies in it are a dime a dozen --- let's up the ante and see a chapter and verse --- fair enough?

Or, as I suspect, is it much easier to generalize?

You don't know what the most important prophecy in Christianity is? Can't you even guess?

I thought I offered a fairly obvious clue when I said, "Of Christians today, a full 22% are absolutely certain that Jesus will return in their lifetime. Another 22% are fairly sure he will return in their lifetime."

Or do you think Christianity doesn't promise that Jesus will return? It certainly hasn't happened. And you can't simply hold out forever and claim that it might still happen. Or did it happen and we all just missed it?

Let me try my hand at atheist prophecy. There will come a time when Christians will start to realize that they were offered a false promise. And to follow the trend of biblical prophecies, I'm not going to say when this will happen. But there will be signs. As we enter this time we will see storms, wars among nations, buildings will fall, lightning shall come out of the east, predators shall gather around pray and scavengers around the fallen.

We'll see how I do.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't know what the most important prophecy in Christianity is? Can't you even guess?

Oh I know what it is alright --- I just don't know it as a false prophecy.

I thought I offered a fairly obvious clue when I said, "Of Christians today, a full 22% are absolutely certain that Jesus will return in their lifetime. Another 22% are fairly sure he will return in their lifetime."

That's my point. Let's skip clues and go right to the heart. Chapter and verse --- fair enough?

Or do you think Christianity doesn't promise that Jesus will return?

I've heard rumors to that effect.

It certainly hasn't happened.

I've heard rumors to that effect as well.

And you can't simply hold out forever and claim that it might still happen.

And why not?

Or did it happen and we all just missed it?

Not quite yet.

Let me try my hand at atheist prophecy. There will come a time when Christians will start to realize that they were offered a false promise. And to follow the trend of biblical prophecies, I'm not going to say when this will happen. But there will be signs. As we enter this time we will see storms, wars among nations, buildings will fall, lightning shall come out of the east, predators shall gather around pray and scavengers around the fallen.

We'll see how I do.

Here, let me help you out --- is this what you're talking about:

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Or, better yet, is it this?

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Are you saying, Beastt, that one or both of these are false prophecies?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are you saying, Beastt, that one or both of these are false prophecies?

These are two of my personal faves in terms of unfulfilled prophecies. In order to run the Apologetics-o-matic to make the "yet to be fulfilled" you have to resort to concept that Jesus didn't say what he said. While Jesus did indeed speak in parables so that some hearing would not hear and not be saved, this seems pretty clear. Clear as day.

Now, if words are so devoid of meaning, I guess it would be OK if I just went willy-nilly through the Bible and unilaterally decreed that

[BIBLE]1 Samuel 5:4[/BIBLE]

really means "You should send all of your money to Thaumaturgy and then you should give him all the sugary cereal in your cupboard."

Sadly for prophecy-philes words have to mean something or we are all equally lost. If Jesus said something and it doesn't mean what it says then he effectively said nothing.

If I hide my meaning in such possible alternative meanings as to render the statement to mean what was not said and say what was not meant, then I have done absolutely nothing of value. It would be better had I not spoken at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

...and then you should give him all the sugary cereal in your cupboard."

No dice --- I'm a grouch if I don't get my Fruit Loops in the morning!

 

[Jadis40]

There were no ice caps in Noah's time. The earth was one uniform tropical temperature.

There is absolutely no proof of this.

When God created the earth, He sheared off a layer of water and ballooned it out into space.

[bible]Genesis 1:6[/bible]

Notice the division is top-to-bottom, not side-to-side.

[bible]Genesis 1:7[/bible]

The top layer, ballooned into space, became what we call a Water Canopy, that refracted the rays of the sun evenly over the surface of the earth, making it one tropical paradise.

Remember, until the Flood, it had never rained.

[bible]Genesis 2:4-6[/bible]

When the Flood occurred, God sent the Water Canopy crashing to the earth, with 40 days of torrential rainfall, coupled with water gushing up from inside the earth (the Grand Canyon possibly being one of the sources).

[bible]Genesis 7:11[/bible]

After the Flood, the ice caps appeared, the dinosaurs eventually died out, and we now have seasons.

Except, there is absolutely no proof that the vapor canopy ever existed, and if it did, life on earth would have been impossible:

from www.godandscience.org:

Air can hold, at most, 55 grams of water per cubic meter. In contrast, liquid water is at a density of 1,000,000 grams per cubic meter. The ratio of the two numbers is 1:18,000. Therefore, a flood of 1 mile thickness (which would cover only 1/5 of Mount Everest), would require 18,000 miles of canopy. Besides the problem of gravity (which would bring the whole thing down), such a thick layer of water would completely block any light from the Sun from reaching the earth.
Even a canopy of only 40 feet of liquid water would double the earth's atmospheric pressure, which would kill many animals, including humans. This pressure would also increase the temperature on the earth to a scorching 220°F. Most animals and plants do not survive long at this temperature.
Another problem is getting the water out of the atmosphere and onto the ground without cooking everything on the earth. Each gram of water vapor that condenses to a liquid releases 539 calories of heat. For a global water layer of only 40 feet deep, 6.22 x 1021 grams of water would release 3.35 x 1024 calories, raising the temperature of the earth to 810°F. Such a scenario would definitely kill all life on earth, but would produce a tremendous air conditioning problem for Noah. And a 40 feet deep flood would certainly not be global.

And it most certainly did rain before the supposed global flood given the fact that agriculture originated long before Mesopotamia.

Even answersingenesis.org doesn't support the vapor canopy. I have to say I admire them for at least being intellectually honest in saying even they have problems with it, and it's based on science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp

I'm referring specifically to the section entitled A major problem with the canopy theory.

Here's tons of proof bearing out not only that the global flood never happened, but that that the earth is older than a mere 6,000 years old:

WHEAT: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat

The earliest archaeological evidence for wheat cultivation comes from the Levant and Turkey. Around 10,000 years ago,[9] wild einkorn and emmer wheat were domesticated as part of the origins of agriculture in the fertile crescent.

There's also this here:
http://www.nelstrop.co.uk/wheat.asp

It is known that bread wheat was being cultivated in 5000 BC in the Nile and its cultivation spread gradually to other parts of the world, reaching Britain in about 2000 BC, to Mexico by the 16th century and to North America by the 18th century.

RICE: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice

Zhao explains that the collection of wild rice from an early date eventually led to its domestication and then the exclusive use of domesticated rice strains by circa 6400 B.C. at the latest (Zhao 1998). Stone tool evidence from the Yunchanyan site in Hunan province suggests the possibility that Early Neolithic groups cultivated rice as early as circa 9000 B.C. (Crawford and Shen 1998:862). Crawford and Shen point out that calibrated radiocarbon dates show that direct evidence of the earliest cultivated rice is no older than 7000 B.C. (Crawford and Shen 1998:862). Jared Diamond, a biologist and popular science author, summarizes some of the work done by professional archaeologists mentioned above and estimates that the earliest attested domestication of rice took place in China by 7500 B.C.[6]

BARLEY: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barley

Earliest evidence of farming of barley comes from archelological site of Indian subcontinent named Mehrgarh, from 7000 BC.

So there you are, archaeological proof (which uses the exact same methods as YECers) that the vapor canopy is nothing more than a myth, and conclusive proof, based on evidence of agriculture dating back BEFORE the supposed date of creation that the hydrologic cycle was in place from the very beginning, no pun intended, in 3 different regions of the world: India, China, and the Fertile Crescent.

Also, how can a global flood, which surely would have killed off all plant life, explain the appearance of certain species of grapes that are native to only specific areas of the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grape

Not to mention apples: http://www.bestapples.com/varieties/index.html

Sure, trade explains some of it, such as the Fuji being introduced to the US from Japan, but how do you get all those different species AFTER a global flood?

Seems to me YECers who believe in a global flood don't realize that they're proposing evolution on a massive scale, since supposedly all life after the event originated from the animals on the ark. Funny that the only plant that's mentioned after the fact is grapes. So, where did all the trees, that are native to only specific parts of the world, come from?

I will state that I used to believe in a global flood, until I actually started reading more about it, and I no longer believe that it covered the entire world, as seen from a 21st century perspective. Not to mention the fact that I have a degree in history, so I've studied different regions of the world that had contemporary civilizations spread out all over the face of the globe. Did the flood happen at some point? Yes...but not one that covered every single square inch of the planet. There's just way too much archaeological evidence (too much in fact that I won't go into detail here) spread out all over the world that disproves a global flood.

Now, as far as the dinosaurs, they died out about 65 million years ago.