My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[Hans Blaster]

My statement about you never having been a Christian to begin with; is based on the doctrine of election. Those who are elect from the foundation of the world are those Christ atoned for. He didn't pay for the sin of every single human being that ever lived. If he'd done that; there'd be no grounds God could stand on to condemn anyone for their sin. There are other issues with the concept of universal atonement; but that's one of them.

This sounds like Calvinism to these formerly Catholic ears. But you haven't given any reason for thinking I wasn't a Christian from what I wrote.

 

[trophy33]

@AV1611VET do you want to answer the question in the post #261?

"Therefore, can we agree that the original languages of the Bible do not support a complete planetary flood and that this planetary flood is not needed for Christianity?"

 

[trophy33]

Now if you were to ask me this question; I would say because God can not lie.

This is a common misconception. Bible is not God. Bible was also not dictated to people word after word, but people wrote in their language, with their vocabulary, with their personality and mindset.

The verses you quoted from AV1611VET answer your question. Look at Genesis 7:19. It says the water covers all the land under heaven. Does "earth" in Hebrew mean "land"? (I don't know the answer to that; not something I've dug into.)

Of course it means just the Mesopotamian area, or "land" if you wish.
1. Hebrews had no concept of the planet, so there is no reason to think they meant the planet
2. As the same author of the story says some verses later, the land, after the flood ended, was completely dry. A completely dry planet without oceans is quite absurd. Only a part of some land can be flooded and then completely dry later.

I am totally fine with the story to be metaphorical or just alluding to some old event. But if somebody wants it to be literally true, with all the names and clean animals and 40 days and doves etc, there is still nothing planetary, if we understand from what perspective and in what era it was written.

 

[Gene2memE]

Can you admit there are things you don't know?

Yes. I'm a professional researcher. I learn new things every day, that's literally part of my job. What I don't know would fill warehouses.

But, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Scientific theories are falsifiable and none are "proven", because scientific theories are always tentative, being subject to both revision to incorporate new evidence, or overturning if the evidence is such that the theory becomes untenable.

However, in colloquial terms, scientific theories are as "proven" as anything can be (apart from esoteric claims and labels). Overturning any one of them would also require overturning a substantial portion of our understanding of the nature of reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Therefore, can we agree that the original languages of the Bible do not support a complete planetary flood and that this planetary flood is not needed for Christianity?"

No, we cannot.

Especially since I believe the first ten chapters of Genesis were written in Jacobean English, the language of the KJB.

 

[trophy33]

No, we cannot.

Especially since I believe the first ten chapters of Genesis were written in Jacobean English, the language of the KJB.

Ok let mi rephrase the question for somebody who has some very unusual opinions about the origins of the Bible.

"Therefore, can we agree that the Bible in languages we find the oldest manuscripts written in (Hebrew, Greek) does not support a complete planetary flood and that this planetary flood is not needed for Christianity?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok let mi rephrase the question for somebody who has some very unusual opinions about the origins of the Bible.

"Therefore, can we agree that the Bible in languages we find the oldest manuscripts written in (Hebrew, Greek) does not support a complete planetary flood and that this planetary flood is not needed for Christianity?"

First of all, I don't have a clue as to what you have as far as 'oldest manuscripts' are concerned.

As I understand it, they are the oldest because the common people wouldn't touch them, knowing they were false.

That's why they didn't wear out.

And as far as 'was the planetary flood needed for Christianity' is concerned, if it happened, and God documented it, then yes, it is very much needed for Christianity.

Do you know, for example, that the Flood is the judgement on mankind that ended the dispensation of Conscience?

Here are the seven dispensations, which are periods of time that God expected man to act under a given set of rules, and their respective judgements for failure on mans' part to adhere to God's expectations:

1. Innocence = expulsion from Garden of Eden
2. Conscience = the Flood
3. Human Government = confusion of tongues at Tower of Babel
4. Promise = Egyptian captivity
5. Law = crucifixion of Christ
6. Grace = Tribulation period
7. Kingdom = Great White Throne Judgement

 

[trophy33]

First of all, I don't have a clue as to what you have as far as 'oldest manuscripts' are concerned.

As I understand it, they are the oldest because the common people wouldn't touch them, knowing they were false.

That's why they didn't wear out.

And as far as 'was the planetary flood needed for Christianity' is concerned, if it happened, and God documented it, then yes, it is very much needed for Christianity.

Do you know, for example, that the Flood is the judgement on mankind that ended the dispensation of Conscience?

Here are the seven dispensations, which are periods of time that God expected man to act under a given set of rules, and their respective judgements for failure on mans' part to adhere to God's expectations:

1. Innocence = expulsion from Garden of Eden
2. Conscience = the Flood
3. Human Government = confusion of tongues at Tower of Babel
4. Promise = Egyptian captivity
5. Law = crucifixion of Christ
6. Grace = Tribulation period
7. Kingdom = Great White Throne Judgement

Oldest manuscripts are in Greek or Hebrew, because these are languages of people who wrote the Bible. I ignore your absurdity proposing it was Jacobean English, because its simply too silly to talk about it.

Using and surviving of a manuscript is about copies, not about languages, so its something not related to my question. If an English manuscript from 1000 BC was used so much that it did not survive, it would be certainly also copied, so its copy would survive.

Regarding Christianity, if the literal and global Flood is important, why is it not mentioned in creeds?

 

[Gene2memE]

As soon as one admits there are things they don't know; this opens the door to the possibility that what they think is correct they could be wrong about.

I recommend reading this essay 'The Relativity of Wrong' by Isaac Asimov:

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbalmer/eportfolio/Nature%20of%20Science_Asimov.pdf

This quote in particular: "...when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

 

[AV1611VET]

Oldest manuscripts are in Greek or Hebrew, because these are languages of people who wrote the Bible.

Noah wrote in Hebrew, did he?

I ignore your absurdity proposing it was Jacobean English, because its simply too silly to talk about it.

Now that's real nice and scholarly, isn't it?

I'll bet you're on the dean's list, aren't you?

Using and surviving of a manuscript is about copies, not about languages, so its something not related to my question.

Then I'll reiterate:

The answer to your question -- for the second time -- is NO.

Let me state this as plainly as I can:

Where the Hebrew & Greek differ from the King James Bible, the Hebrew & Greek are wrong.

The Greek can't even get Lymphas' gender right.

Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

And the Hebrew language has Moses leading the Israelite across the Sea of Reeds, and building the Tabernacle in the Wilderness out of skins from sea lions.

If an English manuscript from 1000 BC was used so much that it did not survive, it would be certainly also copied, so its copy would survive.

Nice.

Regarding Christianity, if the literal and global Flood is important, why is it not mentioned in creeds?

 

[trophy33]

Noah wrote in Hebrew, did he?

There is no evidence Noah wrote anything.

Now that's real nice and scholarly, isn't it?

I'll bet you're on the dean's list, aren't you?

Where the Hebrew & Greek differ from the King James Bible, the Hebrew & Greek are wrong.

And the Hebrew language has Moses leading the Israelite across the Sea of Reeds, and building the Tabernacle in the Wilderness out of skins from sea lions.

 

[trophy33]

@AV1611VET

OK, let me summarize, you are welcome to correct it:

1. Your belief in the global flood requires some other extraordinary and extra-biblical views, like KJV Onlyism and such. Its not something found in Hebrew or Greek

2. You have a specific individual theology that the global flood is somehow fundamental for Christian faith, but you have no explanation why it is not in Christian creeds.

 

[partinobodycular]

...and faith is by nature unprovable...

But it can be demonstrated, can't it?

Actually, no it can't.

 

[AV1611VET]

2. You have a specific individual theology that the global flood is somehow fundamental for Christian faith, but you have no explanation why it is not in Christian creeds.

Do you remember the post I made, stating that the creeds were more about soteriology, than history?

Every jot & tittle of the Bible is 'fundamental for Christian faith.'

Every single dot of an i and cross of a t.

When I go to buy a Bible, the first thing I do is turn to Numbers 11:4, which reads:

Numbers 11:4a And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting:

If it is written "mixed multitude," it goes back on the shelf, and I won't touch it.

So I hope you can imagine what I think about Greek & Hebrew.

Paul put it very well, when he said:

1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

We recognize seven fundamentals of the Christian faith.

We call them "fundamentals," because, if any seven didn't happen, then we're still in our sins and can't get saved.

One of those seven is the virgin birth.

Jesus had to be born of a virgin, else He would have the sin nature on Him (from the seed of the man), and He too would be in need of a Saviour.

But Genesis makes it clear that He would come from the seed of a woman, not a man.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

So no virgin birth = no salvation.

But academia, whose job it is to sow tares among the wheat, translates "virgin" as "young woman."

'Nuff said.

 

[trophy33]

Do you remember the post I made, stating that the creeds were more about soteriology, than history?

Yes and it was a wrong statement.

Every jot & tittle of the Bible is 'fundamental for Christian faith.'
Every single dot of an i and cross of a t.

It seems you do not understand the term "fundamental".

Imagine a big and complex tree with a lot of leaves. You say that every leaf is fundamental, but thats not the meaning of the word. The meaning is that a system cannot exist or function well without such part.

Though it would be less practical and harder, Christianity can function well even without any Bible. Neither your favorite Noah had the Bible, nor Abraham, nor Melchisedech...

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, no it can't.

Yes, it can.

And even unbelievers here agree with me on this.

It's called cause-and-effect.

Here are some examples:

1. Martyrs.
2. Churches and other edifices, including Christian schools.
3. Iconography & statuary, including symbols, drawings, and artwork.
4. The Bible and other books written about our LORD, including tracts.
5. Songs, hymns and carols venerating Jesus Christ.
6. Holidays such as Christmas and Easter.
7. Debates, programs, cartoons, and specials on TV.
8. Time divided into BC/AD.
9. Mottos such as IN GOD WE TRUST, and ONE NATION UNDER GOD, and ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, and ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR.

 

[dlamberth]

My statement about you never having been a Christian to begin with; is based on the doctrine of election.

Just another theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity can function well even without any Bible.

They tried that during the dispensation of Conscience, where they let their conscience be their guide, and what did it get them?

A flood.

Your favorite Noah had no Bible, nor Abraham, nor Melchisedech...

That's true.

They didn't have a completed Bible, until after John completed it in 96 AD.

But they did have as much of the word of God as God intended for them to have.

And for the record, "my favorite Noah" wrote part of the Bible, as did Abraham.

Melchisedec was Jesus Christ preincarnate.

 

[trophy33]

They tried that during the dispensation of Conscience, where they let their conscience be their guide, and what did it get them?

A flood.



That's true.

They didn't have a completed Bible, until after John completed it in 96 AD.

But they did have as much of the word of God as God intended for them to have.

And for the record, "my favorite Noah" wrote part of the Bible, as did Abraham.

Melchisedec was Jesus Christ preincarnate.

I am glad we agree that even Bible as such is not necessary for Christianity to exist and prosper. Not to say every verse in it or every word or dot.

You also seem to have nothing to say to creeds, anymore.

The rest are just your individual speculations and specific theological views, like Noah writing something (in English, I suppose) and therefore not relevant to my point about Christianity as such.

 

[partinobodycular]

Yes, it can.

As a matter of fact... you're wrong. Faith can't be demonstrated.

Let me ask you a simple question... can my computer perform an act of faith?

The obvious answer is no. Why? Because it lacks free will. It can only do what it's programmed to do.

But the same holds true for you and me. Until we can demonstrate that we have free will we can't possibly demonstrate that we've performed an act of faith. Unfortunately, it's impossible to prove that we have free will, thus you and I may have no more capacity for acts of faith than my computer does. So any claims of faith may be nothing more than an illusion.