New series by Aron Ra: Why there was no Noachian Flood

[Queller]

Not yet. Because it is not a "falling away." Most of those denominations I mentioned have "denied the Bible" all the way back to their inception in the earliest centuries of the Christian era.

I don't think he's getting the sarcasm.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Is English your first language? Your last question makes no sense. Do you mean "open to the idea"? And yes, if someone presented proper evidence for a god I could be convinced.

But you keep trying to change the topic to apologetics and I have explained more than once that this is not the proper place for such discussions. This thread is for science based arguments. And all that science does is to show that Genesis is mythical. It does not refute the Christian God.

Would u be open to a new thread that explores and questions your position?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I see, your argument fails so you cant answer.

Not interested. You can believe what you like friend

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

That's OK. You go right on ignoring the problems you can't address. We all see it.

See what you want to see friend

I know what im doing

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would u be open to a new thread that explores and questions your position?

Not really.

After we go over why we know that there was no Noah's Ark I would be glad to.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Not really.

After we go over why we know that there was no Noah's Ark I would be glad to.

So if we continue with noahs ark and end it at its own volition,
You would be open to discuss and question your position in a new thread ?

 

[VirOptimus]

Not interested. You can believe what you like friend

I am not your friend.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I am not your friend.

Is there a chance?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if we continue with noahs ark and end it at its own volition,
You would be open to discuss and question your position in a new thread ?

Possibly

So if we continue with noahs ark and end it at its own volition,
You would be open to discuss and question your position in a new thread ?

Yes, provided that you are honest here. I can promise to strive to be honest. If either of us perform badly in that regard there is no point in continuing.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Possibly


Yes, provided that you are honest here. I can promise to strive to be honest. If either of us perform badly in that regard there is no point in continuing.

Cool, as long as you dont get too emotional and not use logical fallacies. Now we both know how each other feels we shall continue and leave the personal remarks for another time.

Do you want to start with a statement or should i friend?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cool, as long as you dont get too emotional and not use logical fallacies. Now we both know how each other feels we shall continue and leave the personal remarks for another time.

Do you want to start with a statement or should i friend?

Just make sure that you do not make false claims about logical fallacies. If you do you we are done.

I would like to know which version of the Flood that you believe in. It is hard to refute someone's beliefs if one does not know their beliefs.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Just make sure that you do not make false claims about logical fallacies. If you do you we are done.

I would like to know which version of the Flood that you believe in. It is hard to refute someone's beliefs if one does not know their beliefs.

I believe noahs flood happened and i believe that it was a local flood not global.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe noahs flood happened and i believe that it was a local flood not global.

Then what was the purpose of the flood?

And how do you explain the fact that the Bible claims that all land life died?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Then what was the purpose of the flood?

And how do you explain the fact that the Bible claims that all land life died?

I can answer that question with reference from strongs concordance.

If i supplied my references, would you accept references from strongs concordance ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can answer that question with reference from strongs concordance.

If i supplied my references, would you accept references from strongs concordance ?

Yes, but I prefer you also right out your own reasons too. In accepting those references I am not admitting that they are correct in any way. I will be merely accepting them as your explanation.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Yes, but I prefer you also right out your own reasons too. In accepting those references I am not admitting that they are correct in any way. I will be merely accepting them as your explanation.

Sounds fair to me give me a little bit and ill construct my response. Cheers

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds fair to me give me a little bit and ill construct my response. Cheers

It is always better to take one's time and answer correctly than to go off half cocked. I can wait.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

It is always better to take one's time and answer correctly than to go off half cocked. I can wait.

Dont get too excited and im glad you can wait brother

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Hello friend

Here is a quick link to the page that i am using - strongs concordance.

KJV w/ Strong's Concordance - Genesis 6.

All Biblical verses referenced will have concordance index numbers next to the original word, please excuse the muddled look.

And how do you explain the fact that the Bible claims that all land life died?

Genesis 7:21-23

7:21 And all flesh 1320 died 1478 8799 that moved 7430 8802 upon the earth 776, both of

All in whose nostrils 639 [was] the breath 5397 7307 of life 2416, of all that [was] in the dry 2724 [land], died 4191 8804.(the breath…: Heb. the breath of the spirit of life)
7:23 And every living substance 3351was destroyed 4229 8735 which was upon the face 6440 of the ground 127, both man120, and cattle 929, and the creeping things 7431, and the fowl 5775 of the heaven 8064; and they were destroyed 42298735 from the earth 776: and Noah 5146 only389 remained 7604 8735 [alive], and they that834 [were] with him in the ark 8392.



God seems to deal mostly with adams descendants and made a covenant with Abraham and David.

The OT is a demonstration of Gods interaction with the ppl of the middle east and in particular Adams descendants. At this stage God was not dealing with the whole planet.

776, 2724 and 127 are the words used to denote the area which was flooded. These 3 words dont necessarily include the whole planet.

Genesis 7:21 could suggest all life in that land - not planet - died.

Then what was the purpose of the flood?

Genesis 6:5-8

6:5 And GOD 3068 saw 7200 8799 that the wickedness 7451 of man 120 [was] great7227 in the earth 776, and [that] every imagination 3336 of the thoughts 4284 of his heart 3820 [was] only 7535 evil 7451continually 3117.(every…: or, the whole imagination: the Hebrew word signifieth not only the imagination, but also the purposes and desires)(continually: Heb. every day)

6:6 And it repented 5162 8735 the LORD3068 that he had made 6213 8804 man 120 on the earth 776, and it grieved 6087 8691 him at 413 his heart 3820.

6:7 And the LORD 3068 said 559 8799, I will destroy 4229 8799 man 120 whom I have created 1254 8804 from the face 6440 of the earth 127; both man 120, and 5704 beast 929, and the creeping thing 7431, and the fowls 5775 of the air 8064; for it repenteth5162 8738 me that I have made 6213 8804them.(both…: Heb. from man unto beast)

6:8 But Noah 5146 found 4672 8804 grace2580 in the eyes 5869 of the LORD 3068.




The purpose of rhe flood.

I believe that the sons of God had become wicked and this grieved God. God decided that their wickedness had reached a point where he would not tolerate it any longer.

I believe that the sons of God (Adams family) had children with the daughters of men (6th day).

The 6th day may have traveled by then (go forth and multiply). The sons of God started to venture further from the familiar area and met unfamiliar women.

God seems to deal mostly with adams descendants and made a covenant with Abraham and David.

The purpose may have been to wipe out the offspring of the sons of God and the wicked men around this proximity.



6:1 And it came to pass, when men 120began 2490 8689 to multiply 7231 8800 on 5921the face 6440 of the earth 127, and daughters 1323 were born 3205 8795 unto them,

6:2 That the sons 1121 of God 430 saw7200 8799 the daughters 1323 of men 120 that they 2007 [were] fair 2896; and they took3947 8799 them wives 802 of all which they chose 977 8804.

6:3 And the LORD 3068 said 559 8799, My spirit 7307 shall not always 5769 strive 17778799 with man 120, for that he also 1571 [is] flesh 1320 7683 8800: yet his days 3117 shall be an hundred 3967 and twenty 6242 years8141.




The sons of God seem to be in context with the flood as the prequel to Noahs flood is Genesis 6:1-3.

Here we are presented with the account of the sons of God and daughters of men in relation to Gods grievance. The sons od God may have turned their back on God and became wicked.

In the moral climate of these times, everyone risked murder and rape - both sexes. This corruption may have reached the point that good people may not have survived.

Thanks for reading

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see why you used Strong's since it does not really support your claims at all. Strong's merely muddles the Bible, it does not really clarify it.

It appears that all you can claim is that you believe it was a local flood because if you try hard enough the story can be interpreted that way. That's okay with me. I need to ask a few more questions. Do you believe that Noah's family were the only humans left after the flood?