Local Flood

[In A Perfect World]

No He responds to our actions Adam in the Garden was blessed while he walked with God. It was not God who left him but he (Adam) hid from God

Red Herring. Just answer the question I asked after you stated your premise that I want "All of god's love". Does he not share ALL of his love with certain people, i.e. others get more? This is what you hinted at.

 

[A4C]

Red Herring. Just answer the question I asked after you stated your premise that I want "All of god's love". Does he not share ALL of his love with certain people, i.e. others get more? This is what you hinted at.

And I have answered in the best way I know how -It all depends on how we respond to the love shown to us,
The comparison is made in the Bible of our relationship to God is like it is in a marrige: One partner responds to the love shown to the other for the benifit of both

 

[Floodnut]

That's false, as the OT borrowed the flood myth depicted in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the OT.

No, it is not false. The true account which Moses recorded by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit predated Gilgamesh, and was handed down to Moses, both through his Hebrew ancestory and from the records of Egypt. The biblical account is the inspired and accurate account that is infallible and is what Jesus and Paul and Peter believed as literal.

Your statement that the OT BORROWED is false.

 

[Floodnut]

Mind linking to a source that identifies these fossils from the flood?

Mind linking me to a source that is based on the account of someone who was there? My source is someone who was there.

 

[mikeynov]

No, it is not false. The true account which Moses recorded by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit predated Gilgamesh, and was handed down to Moses, both through his Hebrew ancestory and from the records of Egypt. The biblical account is the inspired and accurate account that is infallible and is what Jesus and Paul and Peter believed as literal.

Your statement that the OT BORROWED is false.

Is this the Argument From I Said So(TM)?

The fact remains that the biblical flood (along with a good % of Hebrew mythology) has very strong parallels to prior mythology, which existed before the Hebrews did. The most parsimonious explanation for the pattern of religious beliefs we see is that material from pre-Hebrew cultures was incorporated into their own mythology, and the flood (which, mind you, never actually happened) is a good example of that.

 

[In A Perfect World]

Mind linking me to a source that is based on the account of someone who was there? My source is someone who was there.

Fine! Call your source to the witness stand, manuscripted writings not allowed. Pure unadultered testimony; let's go!

 

[Floodnut]

Is this the Argument From I Said So(TM)?

The fact remains that the biblical flood (along with a good % of Hebrew mythology) has very strong parallels to prior mythology, which existed before the Hebrews did. The most parsimonious explanation for the pattern of religious beliefs we see is that material from pre-Hebrew cultures was incorporated into their own mythology, and the flood (which, mind you, never actually happened) is a good example of that.

You said so? And other "scholars" said so?

 

[In A Perfect World]

You said so? And other "scholars" said so?

People have been saying so, yes. I would call that more reliable than a 2500 year old manuscript about events that "supposedly" took place 4000 or more years ago.

 

[mikeynov]

You said so? And other "scholars" said so?

Yep.

 

[Dr.GH]

No, it is not false. The true account which Moses recorded by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit predated Gilgamesh, and was handed down to Moses, both through his Hebrew ancestory and from the records of Egypt. The biblical account is the inspired and accurate account that is infallible and is what Jesus and Paul and Peter believed as literal.

Your statement that the OT BORROWED is false.

There are no flood stories from Egypt. Moses did not predate Gilgamesh. Yeshua ben Yosef did not assert that the "global flood" was literally true- in context he asserted that the tradition/lineage was "true" and even the meaning of "true" must be considered as contextually open. Paul nee Saul, and Peter neither were historically, biblically, nor rationally believed to be infallibal.

The Epic of Gilgamesh reused earlier texts to make a point about immortality and human achievement. The earlier text was of course the Epic of Atrahasis. The Hebrew Bible/ Torah did not "borrow" the Epic of Gilgamesh, it reused it, just as Mohamad's Quran reused it centuries later.

 

[Dr.GH]

I am embarassed by the likes of "Floodnut" who neither posses the scholarship nor the modesty for this discussion. I recommend some reading:

Blenkinsopp, Joseph 1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday

Cross, Frank Moore 1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Boston: Harvard University Press

Dalley, Stephanie 2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press

Dever, William 2001 What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know IT?: What Archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman 2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts New York: The Free Press

Friedman, Richard Elliott 1987 Who Wrote the Bible New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

Jacobsen, Thorkild 1976 The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion New Haven: Yale University Press

Mazar, Amihai 1992 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday
Pardee, Dennis 2002 Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Parker, Simon B. (Editor) 1997 Ugarit Narrative Poetry Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9 Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Schmandt-Besserat, Denise 1992 Before Writing Volume I: From counting to cuneiform Austin: University of Texas Press

Stern, Ephraim 2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Vol. II: The Asserian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.) The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday

These are just a good start at understanding the Bible's first chapters. Nonsense about the "Flood" lacking these references (and these shown to be well understood) is merely a child's blithering for attention.

 

[A4C]

I am embarassed by the likes of "Floodnut" who neither posses the scholarship nor the modesty for this discussion. I recommend some reading:

Blenkinsopp, Joseph 1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday

Cross, Frank Moore 1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Boston: Harvard University Press

Dalley, Stephanie 2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press

Dever, William 2001 What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know IT?: What Archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman 2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts New York: The Free Press

Friedman, Richard Elliott 1987 Who Wrote the Bible New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

Jacobsen, Thorkild 1976 The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion New Haven: Yale University Press

Mazar, Amihai 1992 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday
Pardee, Dennis 2002 Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Parker, Simon B. (Editor) 1997 Ugarit Narrative Poetry Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9 Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Schmandt-Besserat, Denise 1992 Before Writing Volume I: From counting to cuneiform Austin: University of Texas Press

Stern, Ephraim 2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Vol. II: The Asserian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.) The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday

These are just a good start at understanding the Bible's first chapters. Nonsense about the "Flood" lacking these references (and these shown to be well understood) is merely a child's blithering for attention.

In the words of that well known acedemic "BLABLABLABLA"

 

[Floodnut]

People have been saying so, yes. I would call that more reliable than a 2500 year old manuscript about events that "supposedly" took place 4000 or more years ago.

More reliable than the Word of God? The Word of God which Jesus said shall not pass away? Your unbelief is a lie and a falsehood. Moreover the Book of Genesis is not a manuscript that is 2500 years old. The oldest manuscripts of Genesis are from the 10th Century AD, not including any confirming fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls. But Moses wrote Genesis prior to the Exodus which occured, according to the Bible in about 1445 BC, give or take a year or two. So the Book of Genesis as penned by MOSES is not 2500 years old, but it is about 3450 years ago. And Moses was inspired and his writings are infallible, therefore superior to the faulty Gilgamesh Epic.

 

[In A Perfect World]

More reliable than the Word of God? The Word of God which Jesus said shall not pass away? Your unbelief is a lie and a falsehood. Moreover the Book of Genesis is not a manuscript that is 2500 years old. The oldest manuscripts of Genesis are from the 10th Century AD, not including any confirming fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls. But Moses wrote Genesis prior to the Exodus which occured, according to the Bible in about 1445 BC, give or take a year or two. So the Book of Genesis as penned by MOSES is not 2500 years old, but it is about 3450 years ago. And Moses was inspired and his writings are infallible, therefore superior to the faulty Gilgamesh Epic.

Can a get a WOOOO WOOO for circular logic!

>Bible says X is right. -> Bible is always right because -> The Bible states it is true-^

 

[Floodnut]

Can a get a WOOOO WOOO for circular logic!

>Bible says X is right. -> Bible is always right because -> The Bible states it is true-^

For Christians the Bible is the Word of God. This is part of the Christian Forum, whether it is "Christians Only" or not, so I am stating Biblical and Christian Truth.

It is evolution and the deniers of Creation who engage in circular reasoning about things they have not seen. I rely on the word of One who was there.

 

[L'Anatra]

More reliable than the Word of God? The Word of God which Jesus said shall not pass away? Your unbelief is a lie and a falsehood. Moreover the Book of Genesis is not a manuscript that is 2500 years old. The oldest manuscripts of Genesis are from the 10th Century AD, not including any confirming fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls. But Moses wrote Genesis prior to the Exodus which occured, according to the Bible in about 1445 BC, give or take a year or two. So the Book of Genesis as penned by MOSES is not 2500 years old, but it is about 3450 years ago. And Moses was inspired and his writings are infallible, therefore superior to the faulty Gilgamesh Epic.

LOL. Hahahaha...

Good work bringing those lost sheep into the fold, my man.

 

[Floodnut]

Our friend refers to many lovely books which promote the ludicrous JEDP theory and the BIBLE IS STILL the Word of God and Moses wrote Genesis and there are dozens of well written books, just as lovely that demonstate the Mosaic authorship of the Penteteuch all of which are quite available to you.

 

[In A Perfect World]

Our friend refers to many lovely books which promote the ludicrous JEDP theory and the BIBLE IS STILL the Word of God and Moses wrote Genesis and there are dozens of well written books, just as lovely that demonstate the Mosaic authorship of the Penteteuch all of which are quite available to you.

I've read the whole Bible, it didn't convince me that Yahweh, Jesus, Baal, or Satan exist. So I am willing to be you reading scientific literature wouldn't change your mind... so have you attempted to read such books about Evolution?

 

[notto]

Thank you for your explanation that you dont know where to find documentation to back up your claims of multi level animal burrows.
I therefore assume that every other one of your "claims" against a global flood also cannot be substantiated

You have been given references that show that trace fossils including burrows occur in many of the different sedimentation layers throughout the fossil record. I think you are confusing what I am claiming. I am claiming that your flood claims cannot explain these trace fossils including burrows, egg nests, footprints, tree roots, etc that are found in almost every layer of the geologic column. You have not shown us any different and have refused to try to explain the evidence you have been presented.

How do you explain those beaver burrows that are above some layers of sediment and below others? If you claim is that they were done preflood and then covered, can we assume that all of the sediment below them was preflood? If they were done after, can we assume that the sediment above them was post flood.

That is where the problem lies. If you can't tell us that any particular layer was a flood layer, then you really haven't told us anything or addressed the evidence because once you make a claim of a particular layer being laid down by the flood, your argument falls apart because then you can't use the flood to explain the other layers, which indicate that they took a great deal of time to lay down. This is evidenced by the trace fossils we find within them that include many layers of burrows, fossil nests, tree roots, and footprints, in each of the layers.

Pick a layer, claim the flood laid it, and tell us how you know this. Tell us what we can then assume about the layers above it and the layers below it. You claim the flood can be used to explain some of the layers. You have yet to point out which those are.

How does the flood explain those beaver burrows?

http://www.lebendigevorwelt.de/megasucc/meg_7.en.htm
http://www.lebendigevorwelt.de/megasucc/megap069.jpg


As for this:
I therefore assume that every other one of your "claims" against a global flood also cannot be substantiated

You have been presented multiple independent lines of evidence that falsify the global flood. These have been refered to and you have been given links, pictures, and websites, all of which contain multiple documented sources from research, scientific journals, and geologists. You have not addressed a single one of them in detail or tried to explain them using the flood model.

My claims are not 'against a global flood', they are mainstream scientific geology. It is you that are making claims that you can explain the geology that has been determined by hundreds of people who have studied it all their life with an alternative explanation, except you never seem to actually try to do that. You seem to not even take the time to familiarize yourself with what we actually find in the geologic column. Your claims are hollow and cannot be substantiated.

 

[A4C]

How does the flood explain those beaver burrows?

http://www.lebendigevorwelt.de/megasucc/meg_7.en.htm
http://www.lebendigevorwelt.de/megasucc/megap069.jpg


.

Thank you for excellent documentation of a typical flood scenario
I didn't see any evidence there about multiple layer beaver burrows but I did see a lot of doubt exist about some of the features. I thought that it was significant that the writer thought that the layers were put down by water and occured through a catastrophic event. I would agree with that despite the fact that it is located in the middle of a continent well above sea level
Here are some of the statements I found interesting:

An interpretation of these different fossil strata as fauna which are supposed to have appeared in succession during the course of about 20 million years (Oligocene to Miocene) is clinging to something artificial.

All the animals were destroyed by a catastrophe.

The different types of animals did not all perish simultaneously, but herds were washed away one after another, which is reflected in the vertical sequence of their remains. 5. The vulnerable land animal species became extinct altogether through this catastrophe.

Now when it gets onto the corkscew burrows that they say defies explanation let me propose something:
Suppose that there was a very hardy creature that burrowed in damp ground near water . When the global flood arrived and they got carried along and ended up in Dakota hills they might immediatly try to escape the depositing silt eh? Now suppose they did and got carried away only to get swamped again. Would you not then be left with a series of empty burrows crossing over sediment layers
Even your own reseachers admits that it was a catastrophic water event that caused it
Sounds like a big flood to me