My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[trophy33]

Where the Hebrew disagrees with the KJB, the Hebrew is wrong.

Oh, you need also these beliefs for this all to work together...

I suspected there must be some extra-biblical or unusual (regarding Christianity) piece to the puzzle.

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?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Any flood leaves evidence behind. Way more so for a supposed Genesis flood. It's not about the fossils. It's about the Earth itself.

I'm not followin ya.

What do you conclude is the evidence of a flood?

 

[The Righterzpen]

There's a principle that Jesus stated that says ...

Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

People who lay up their treasures learning about evolution, end up laying there hearts there also.

And to tell them evolution is wrong is like tearing their hearts out.

We see this with a lot of things though; like wokeism, neo-Marxism, LBTQ+++ ideology, radical (pick a religion) etc. It all boils down to hardness of the human heart.

 

[AV1611VET]

We see this with a lot of things though; like wokeism, neo-Marxism, LBTQ+++ ideology, radical (pick a religion) etc. It all boils down to hardness of the human heart.

No argument there!

 

[sjastro]

Go back and read the thread and then you tell me what you think the subject I'm addressing is.

As I suspected you are all bluff and no substance.
What I read is of an individual who has a profoundly ignorant view of how science and scientists operate and the only reason I have participated in this thread is to set the record straight.

There are also the logical fallacies you employ to make a point.
The context of your argument the science as it is now could been different in the past or in a different location is one such example.
Given you emphasize this point continuously turns it into an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy of trying to turn a speculation into a statement of fact.
This leads to another logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof on others, it’s your responsibility to support the argument with evidence.

From the scientific context once again your ignorance shows.
Scientists do in fact entertain the idea parameters could have been different in the past and in different locations.
Once such parameter of is the fine structure constant α ≈ 1/137 which defines the strength of the electromagnetic force.
Research indicates using the spectral lines from 128 quasars that there is a very small change Δα over the past 10-12 billion years and
Δα/ α = (-5.7 ± 1.0) X 10⁻⁶.
Other studies involving the Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor give even smaller values.
Scientists are not certain whether it is real or an experimental error, if it is real the change is so small it doesn’t impact on the science.

There are non mainstream theories that consider the speed of light may have been different in the past.

 

[The Righterzpen]

As I suspected you are all bluff and no substance.
What I read is of an individual who has a profoundly ignorant view of how science and scientists operate and the only reason I have participated in this thread is to set the record straight.

There are also the logical fallacies you employ to make a point.
The context of your argument the science as it is now could been different in the past or in a different location is one such example.
Given you emphasize this point continuously turns it into an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy of trying to turn a speculation into a statement of fact.
This leads to another logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof on others, it’s your responsibility to support the argument with evidence.

From the scientific context once again your ignorance shows.
Scientists do in fact entertain the idea parameters could have been different in the past and in different locations.
Once such parameter of is the fine structure constant α ≈ 1/137 which defines the strength of the electromagnetic force.
Research indicates using the spectral lines from 128 quasars that there is a very small change Δα over the past 10-12 billion years and
Δα/ α = (-5.7 ± 1.0) X 10⁻⁶.
Scientists are not certain whether it is real or an experimental error, if it is real the change is so small it doesn’t impact on the science.

There are non mainstream theories that consider the speed of light may have been different in the past.

Yep, my theory was correct. Telling you to go back and read the posts only confirms that you totally missed the point of the ENTIRE exchange!

 

[sjastro]

Yep, my theory was correct. Telling you to go back and read the posts only confirms that you totally missed the point of the ENTIRE exchange!

Why you are you continuing with the bluff; I called your bluff and you caved in.
On the subject of theories I have one of my own, you a small minded conservative Christian who sees science as a threat to your faith and your participation in this thread is a reaction to that threat.

Incidentally using a laughing icon as a response to a serious post is one of mockery.
It's regrettable you have to resort to this behavior.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Why you are you continuing with the bluff; I called your bluff and you caved in.
On the subject of theories I have one of my own, you a small minded conservative Christian who sees science as a threat to your faith and your participation in this thread is a reaction to that threat.

Incidentally using a laughing icon as a response to a serious post is one of mockery.
It's regrettable you have to resort to this behavior.

Wondering if this tom foolery even deserves a response?
But I'll give you one anyways - Let's see if you can figure this out?

It doesn't matter if you're right. It only matters if I'm right!

Since you're the "scientist", what does that mean; particularly in the contextualization of theories on the origin of the universe?

P.S. Are you aware that your profile says you are a Christian?

 

[Ligurian]

1. Was the Flood story scientifically researched?

2. If so, was it thoroughly researched to see if it comported to how it was documented in the Bible?

3. If not, what parts were researched and what parts weren't?

4. Is there anything more that can be researched?

5. What is the scientific consensus of opinion on the Flood so far?

Back in the day, the world meant the inhabited world ...the world they knew about... "they" being the people who spread the legend. But if Cain wasn't tossed off the world for killing Abel in that legend, then "world" must mean something other than planet Earth. People seem to want to think that all flood legends everywhere are just the Patriarchal Religion of Palestine cropping up... but they also say that it was the Phoenicians who brought it there... for that, see Quinn, In Search of the Phoenicians.

 

[Hans Blaster]

LOL - Christians are told all the time that how they interpret the flood and geology is just their beliefs. (I wouldn't have to tell a Christian that; because they already know that.)
But tell an atheist that and man..... nuclear apocalypse!

Not sure what that has to do with the text you quoted (about Romans 1).

P.S. You were never a Christian to begin with; but that's another theological subject!

That's quite a claim. You seem to be calling me a liar. Care to retract that? because I very much was a Christian. (It's just not all of us (ex)Christians were anti-science or treated the Noachian flood as real.)

 

[AV1611VET]

People seem to want to think that all flood legends everywhere are just the Patriarchal Religion of Palestine cropping up...

Palestine didn't exist when the Flood occurred in 2348 BC.

Neither did the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who came much later.

The "flood legends everywhere" we hear about are lies of the Devil.

Something we call diabolical plagiarism.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Why exactly do you think its important to believe in a global flood, when there is no natural evidence of it, when its not needed for the theological message of the story and when it changes nothing about Christianity?

Now if you were to ask me this question; I would say because God can not lie. And if you believe Scripture was written by the Holy Spirit (Which Scripture says that of itself.) Then God would not allow something to be put in there that wasn't true.

And the fact that God recorded the flood; means that the testimony of it was important. So, dissect the entire story and figure out the gospel significance? That may be harder than it would seem on the surface.

Where does the Bible say that the flood was global, meaning over the whole planet/globe?

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.)

Then you have Genesis 6:17. God warns Noah that the flood is coming.

One thing I've learned about studying the Bible is to pay very close attention to the details. The flood waters will "destroy all flesh" wherein is "the breath of life". What does that mean, would require doing a little digging and dissecting of the language.

We know from Job that everything that's alive possess the breath of life. Yet the Bible doesn't say Noah was instructed to bring fish into the ark. Then we have fish that are technically mammals. Then the end of the verse we have "everything that is in the earth". Is that term "earth" talking only about land mass? That would make the most sense given the entire context of the account. Yes we have fish in the fossil record; but fish are going to have much higher of a chance of survival in a flood than land animals would.

Then we have 150 days for the totality of the flood. (Which is 5 months.) Going back to the question of the word "flesh". Plant life that goes dormant in winter could certainly do that for 5 months. There are places on this planet that have winter for longer than 5 months. And low and behold, when the spring thaw comes; the plants reemerge from the ground.

So the closer you look at the language the more the questions make you think. How did this actually happen? There's a lot of information in the mere details.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Not sure what that has to do with the text you quoted (about Romans 1).

Not sure why you think my statement there had anything to do with the text in Romans 1? I didn't quote Romans 1 in that post.

That's quite a claim. You seem to be calling me a liar. Care to retract that? because I very much was a Christian. (It's just not all of us (ex)Christians were anti-science or treated the Noachian flood as real.)

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.

Of course this doesn't mean that there aren't people who genuinely believe (or believed) that they are (or were) believers. Sincerity doesn't equal salvation though. "Many will say unto me Lord, Lord; did we not do..... And I will say to them. I never knew you; be gone from me you workers of iniquity."

I'm not anti science either. I only pointed out to you that what you conclude about the scientific data you look at; is based in a belief system. (You're current stated conclusion is that God doesn't exist.) Although you know He does; and that's what Romans 1 is about. I know that. You know that. I know that you know that; although would you ever admit to me that you knew that? (Not likely; because that would create an internal conflict in yourself with your claim to be an atheist.

So the question becomes a psychological one. Why are you so angry about people who believe Noah's flood was a genuine historical event of a material global flood? Why is it so important to your atheism to prove that it wasn't? (Romans 1 answers that question.)

 

[The Righterzpen]

Back in the day, the world meant the inhabited world ...the world they knew about...

This isn't exactly true.

"A decree went out from Augustus Caesar that all the world be taxed." That word "world" is the Greek word "inhabitant".
"For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son..." That word "world" is the Greek word "Cosmos".

Now does Hebrew have more than one word for "world"? I know Hebrew has different words for "earth" and "world"; But this doesn't mean that the Hebrew word "world" that's normally translated "earth" isn't translated "world" in some places. That does happen. There is some degree of ambiguity in translations from one language to another.

 

[Ligurian]

The "flood legends everywhere" we hear about are lies of the Devil.

Your opinion doesn't match my opinion... I'm good with that.

 

[Ligurian]

This isn't exactly true.

"A decree went out from Augustus Caesar that all the world be taxed." That word "world" is the Greek word "inhabitant".
"For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son..." That word "world" is the Greek word "Cosmos".

Now does Hebrew have more than one word for "world"? I know Hebrew has different words for "earth" and "world"; But this doesn't mean that the Hebrew word "world" that's normally translated "earth" isn't translated "world" in some places. That does happen. There is some degree of ambiguity in translations from one language to another.

There is nothing scientific about religion, and faith is by nature unprovable... What else ya got?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Except for the times that A isn't actually A. You just assume it's A.

Which is all based on an assumption you can't prove. You can't prove that natural law has been consistent throughout the course of time.

You really didn't pay attention what I wrote and where is A not A. Can you give even one example?

And this is because you can't prove those values have been consistent through time. Matter of fact, because of entropy we know they are not. Now how much does entropy affect something like a hydrogen atom? We don't know the answer to that either. It's an assumption that the make up of a hydrogen atom has had the same "shape", "structure" and "interactive capacity" from the beginning of time.

The paragraph above is a response to an aside I offered to another poster about very fundamental things, but you want to talk about entropy and hydrogen atoms, so I guess you're going to get a physics lesson. I hope it will take...

Entropy is a property of ensembles of things, not individual particles or atoms. A hydrogen atom doesn't have an entropy any more that it has a temperature. (Individual atoms don't have temperatures for the record.) We very much do known the properties hydrogen atoms. They are literally the easiest physical quantum system to calculate. (Just two particles, one proton, one electron) Because of that we know how the properties of hydrogen atoms are dependent on the base physical constants (like the electric charge). The properties can also easily calculated in terms of *different* values of the physical constants so are knowable if the constants were different in the past.

Again, another assumption. Would the magnesium lines in a quasar have been the same 10,000 years ago? I would venture to hypothesis "probably not" because of entropy.

Again entropy doesn't affect the properties of atoms, hydrogen, magnesium or otherwise.

As for 10,000 years ago. HAHAHAHAHA. The nearest quasar (Markarian 231) is 581 *million* light years away, so we see it as it was 581 million years ago. No quasar has been observed that is less than a half billion years older than now.

And while the magnesium atom is harder to calculate than the hydrogen atom, the two lines in question are resonance lines of the first ionized state of magnesium (Mg II) and that ionic state can be treated as a single electron and the nucleus screened by the inner neon-like core of the other 11 electrons.

As someone who doesn't believe in God; I'm sure you would agree this cosmos is not eternal.

No, I would not. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old, but the Cosmos is probably eternal.

To say the cosmic material in this universe is "unchanging" would be to give it properties of Divinity. And you certainly don't want to do that - now; do you?

Divinity is meaningless to me as a property or otherwise. I don't really care about how you want to toss that word about.

The "gotcha" is actually a (would we call it rhetorical argument?) which you ended up agreeing with me (using your own definitions) that your assessment of a given set of data is based on a belief system about that data.

I told you I won't play presuppositionalist games with you.

I never said I or anyone else could understand or explain everything. We are not omniscient (yet another theological concept). You stated your own "absolution on truth" (which "what is truth" isn't a measurable question either; at least it's not in the context of an atheistic world view which has no standard whereby to measure truth from!)

Atheism isn't a worldview and I don't derive "truth" from it, nor would I care to.

So just like moral relativism.

All morality is relative, or at least subjective.

Your interpretation of the data collected is no more valid than mine!

Based on what expertise or experience with the data do you claim equivalent validity?

But that's a whole other aspect of this debate that you seem to be missing.

O jee, what could that be?

The presupposition that everything can be naturally explained is also an assumption.

Yes, I said that. So what.

Again, here's where Romans 1 applies perfectly to you.

Only if you think gods are real. I don't. And I certainly am not "suppressing" any "knowledge of god". If I knew about a god, I wouldn't not believe in any. I would certainly think it was there. (Obeying, worshipping, or even liking such a being is a completely different question, from accepting it exists. I see no reason to think any god is real based on the utter lack of evidence of any god.)

You put yourself in the position of God assuming there's no framework that natural explanation can't answer. (I.E. Another example of "scientist" nixing data to support his own theory!) Mathematical probability doesn't support the idea that this cosmos is randomly created. And if it's not randomly created; your only other possible "hypothesis" is Intelligent design.

I never said the cosmos was randomly created. (In fact I think it was uncreated and always existed.) I'm not sure how the Universe arose from the Cosmos, but that's a different question.

(Gotcha again!)

Hardly.

A mountain of evidence that you can't explain how it got here though!

It was measured, or is this a "then where did the Universe come from" thing? if the latter I don't know, but so what. We already established we don't know everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your opinion doesn't match my opinion... I'm good with that.

Are you good with the Choctaw saying several families escaped the Flood on a great raft?

Or the Incas' god creating giants in the earth, who became unruly, so he destroyed them with a flood and turned them to stone?

These stories around the world differ in detail and events.

Do any of them mention a man named Noah?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

But it can be demonstrated, can't it?

 

[sjastro]

Wondering if this tom foolery even deserves a response?
But I'll give you one anyways - Let's see if you can figure this out?

It doesn't matter if you're right. It only matters if I'm right!

Since you're the "scientist", what does that mean; particularly in the contextualization of theories on the origin of the universe?

P.S. Are you aware that your profile says you are a Christian?

After being painted into a corner you need to engage in this diversionary tactic of word salad and questioning my credentials as a Christian and “scientist”.
I’m am not going to play your game and it is none of your business enquiring about my profile given the obvious bigoted motives behind it.
Since you are avoiding discussing the science with me like the plague but providing “science like” snippets to @Hans Blaster like these.

And this is because you can't prove those values have been consistent through time. Matter of fact, because of entropy we know they are not. Now how much does entropy affect something like a hydrogen atom?

And this.

Again, another assumption. Would the magnesium lines in a quasar have been the same 10,000 years ago? I would venture to hypothesis "probably not" because of entropy.

Here is your big opportunity to put your money where your mouth is and explain how entropy can affect the hydrogen atom and magnesium lines in the quasar spectrum.