Noah's Ark

[bhsmte]

I will have to bow out because my evil comments (on behalf of the "Serpent") are hurting OldWiseGuy's faith and I do not want that on my conscience.

It's been fun, up until it appeared that I was actually harming someone's faith.

And, of course, I've obviously harmed AV as well with my questioning the historicity of Jesus and my ability to be flexible on this point.

Science appears to be quite evil if I go by what happens on here and that makes me sad. But evil should be clear of the safe spaces carved out for faith.

Thanks!

To some, anything that does not go along with their personal faith beliefs is evil and must be rejected and labeled as such.

That is just how some roll, with this very rudimentary, defense mechanism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The prophets knew it was true because they were there when it happened. The later writers (editors) accepted it on faith.

What are you talking about? Very little of the Bible is from eyewitness accounts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Allegory usually doesn't contain the details that the flood story has. The Good Samaritan parable is also quite detailed. Most parables are actual familiar events that are used to convey spiritual truths. The flood story contains great spiritual truths, not the least of which is that God has destroyed the earth in the past and will do it again because of the evil of mankind.

What "detail"?

And so what? Believing the flood myth is almost as bad as believing in other man made mythical figures.

All of the evidence tells us that there was no flood. Demanding that it is real is the same as demanding a lying God. Of course you can try to keep yourself ignorant of the facts so that you don't see that that is what you are doing. But in the age when geology was young the Christian geologists of that time could see that there was no flood. They had to be honest with themselves and honest to their God. You simply want to hide your head under the blankets.

Not the best debating technique.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What "detail"?

And so what? Believing the flood myth is almost as bad as believing in other man made mythical figures.

All of the evidence tells us that there was no flood. Demanding that it is real is the same as demanding a lying God. Of course you can try to keep yourself ignorant of the facts so that you don't see that that is what you are doing. But in the age when geology was young the Christian geologists of that time could see that there was no flood. They had to be honest with themselves and honest to their God. You simply want to hide your head under the blankets.

Not the best debating technique.

They weren't looking for the flood of Noah but a flood of their own overeager imaginations.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What are you talking about? Very little of the Bible is from eyewitness accounts.

Even Josephus didn't witness the events he chronicled. Few historians of secular history do either. However, the prophets and patriarchs were guided by the Holy Spirit to recall exactly what happened. And yes, many were there in real time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They weren't looking for the flood of Noah but a flood of their own overeager imaginations.

Nope, they knew what they were looking for. It wasn't there.

When you come up with something more than handwaving perhaps then you can make this claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even Josephus didn't witness the events he chronicled. Few historians of secular history do either. However, the prophets and patriarchs were guided by the Holy Spirit to recall exactly what happened.

There is a difference. History will often have contemporary writings. There are no contemporaneous writings of Jesus. The EARLIEST book of the New Testament was written about 20 years after the crucifixion.

And there is no evidence of a Holy Spirit guiding anyone. Was the author of Luke guided when he put the birth of Jesus both about 4 BC and 6 AD? Were the prophets and patriarchs guided when they put countless self contradictions in the Bible?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nope, they knew what they were looking for. It wasn't there.

When you come up with something more than handwaving perhaps then you can make this claim.

As I said I'm not attacking anyone's belief, just presenting my own. Most of the handwaving here has been directed at me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is a difference. History will often have contemporary writings. There are no contemporaneous writings of Jesus. The EARLIEST book of the New Testament was written about 20 years after the crucifixion.

And there is no evidence of a Holy Spirit guiding anyone. Was the author of Luke guided when he put the birth of Jesus both about 4 BC and 6 AD? Were the prophets and patriarchs guided when they put countless self contradictions in the Bible?

I believe many of the so-called contradictions have been satisfactorily explained. Other errors may have been deliberately written by the scribes. They are of little consequence in any case as spurious writings have been exposed over time. John's warning must have certainly anticipated the inclusion of deliberate errors.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, they knew what they were looking for. It wasn't there.

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Tell me, Sub, do you see any evidence of a global flood in this picture?

Just YES or NO please.

I don't need six paragraphs of chatty cathy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Tell me, Sub, do you see any evidence of a global flood in this picture?

Just YES or NO please.

I don't need six paragraphs of chatty cathy.

They will soon be gone as I have plans to convert them to whitewash. I will then whitewash everything in sight to reflect the suns rays back into space thus saving the earth from global warming.

 

[AV1611VET]

They will soon be gone as I have plans to convert them to whitewash. I will then whitewash everything in sight to reflect the suns rays into space thus saving the earth from global warming.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Tell me, Sub, do you see any evidence of a global flood in this picture?

Just YES or NO please.

I don't need six paragraphs of chatty cathy.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'm going to jump in here.

The answer is no.

Creation Science Rebuttals, Chalk and Noah's Flood

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Tell me, Sub, do you see any evidence of a global flood in this picture?

Just YES or NO please.

I don't need six paragraphs of chatty cathy.

Nope.

And why do you think that you are Genghis Khan?

 

[AV1611VET]

The answer is no.

Nope.

Okay ... thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay ... thanks.

By the way, it is your claim. You have to be ready to show why that is evidence for a flood.

I can explain to you why this:

is evidence against a global flood. The burden of proof for your claim is upon you. And likewise the burden of proof for my claim is upon me.

The difference is I am more than ready to support my claim. I doubt if you are ready to support yours.

 

[quatona]

Theistic evolutionists believe in God and evolution at the same time.

So what is it they are overlooking that keeps them (and agnostics) from becoming atheists?

(Please answer this. And I want to know what they are overlooking ... not what they are claiming to see that others don't.)

Embedded age?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Embedded age?

That is an AVism that translates as a claim that God lied.

 

[AV1611VET]

In my opinion, any attempts to replicate the Ark as it existed in Genesis should fail.

First of all, we don't know what gopher wood is.

Second of all, the Ark only consisted of two materials: gopher wood and pitch pine. Any attempt to build it with ... say ... oak and tar, and it would fall apart; probably within days.

 

[VirOptimus]

In my opinion, any attempts to replicate the Ark as it existed in Genesis should fail.

First of all, we don't know what gopher wood is.

Second of all, the Ark only consisted of two materials: gopher wood and pitch pine. Any attempt to build it with ... say ... oak and tar, and it would fall apart; probably within days.

Let me guess, because magic right?