Pre: Why I know the flood is a fantasy

[Mumbo]

He did better than that --- He documented what He did, and preserved for us.

That certainly is thoughtful, but written evidence isn't nearly as convincing as physical evidence, even if the book that contains it claims to be inerrant. It would've helped things along if He had simply allowed evidence of a worldwide Flood to be left behind. Hiding evidence isn't winning God any converts, and frankly, it makes Him look a bit untrustworthy.

 

[AV1611VET]

That certainly is thoughtful, but written evidence isn't nearly as convincing as physical evidence, even if the book that contains it claims to be inerrant. It would've helped things along if He had simply allowed evidence of a worldwide Flood to be left behind. Hiding evidence isn't winning God any converts, and frankly, it makes Him look a bit untrustworthy.

Then I'll ask you what I have asked others (and have never gotten a straight answer, yet):

Would you like for Him to bring the evidence back?

 

[lemmings]

Then I'll ask you what I have asked others (and have never gotten a straight answer, yet):

Would you like for Him to bring the evidence back?

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36102692&postcount=334
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36111723&postcount=336

 

[AV1611VET]

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36102692&postcount=334
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36111723&postcount=336

I meant "since then".

 

[Yggdrasil]

AV1611VET, would you like to explain how every major civilization around the supposed time of the flood never recorded a world wide flood and continued their lives with no interruption of a global flood?

 

[Mumbo]

Then I'll ask you what I have asked others (and have never gotten a straight answer, yet):

Would you like for Him to bring the evidence back?

What kind of underhanded question is that? I'm saying that if there was a worldwide Flood, there would be evidence. If God hid that evidence, then I'd appreciate it if he would be a little less deceptive in the future.

AV1611VET, would you like to explain how every major civilization around the supposed time of the flood never recorded a world wide flood and continued their lives with no interruption of a global flood?

Guessing inaccurate dates.

 

[shinbits]

Even a date of two hundred years before the one AiG lists wouldn't be enough. The minimum date is 2750 bc and that's assuming everything in favor of creationists a more accurate date is atleast 2,950 bc and both those contradict biblical record greatly.

Plus, AiG and ICR are proposing a 500 year ice age and 200 year melting period which would put the tree under many meters of ice. Which would add 700 years to that age.

again, this way of refuting creationist arguments is flawed.

Your argument assumes that AiG is the ultimate authority on creationism, which it isn't. You shouldn't use AiG or any creationist website as the foundation for your arguments.

It's not that hard to refute creation as a science. But make sure you're using better logic.

 

[Basket]

again, this way of refuting creationist arguments is flawed.

Your argument assumes that AiG is the ultimate authority on creationism, which it isn't. You shouldn't use AiG or any creationist website as the foundation for your arguments.

It's not that hard to refute creation as a science. But make sure you're using better logic.

What the tree thing does is it eliminates the most probable time periods for Noah's flood to have occured, if it was a worldwide event. This in itself is an important fact to take into consideration, even if it doesn't completely rule it out it casts it into doubt. But it's not just tree ring dating. In addition, you also have the ancient cultures/civilizations which stretch back millenia further than these ancient trees' age.

Ancient Egypt -- According to Wikipedia (and therefore probably other historical sources it's based upon) the local communities of Egypt were unified around 3150 BC. This suggests that those communities were around for a while longer too.

Other ancient civilizations had been around for even longer. Here's something about Ancient Sumeria from Wikipedia:

The Sumerians were a non-Semitic people and were at one time believed to have been invaders, as a number of linguists believed they could detect a substrate language beneath Sumerian. However, the archaeological record shows clear uninterrupted cultural continuity from the time of the Early Ubaid period (5200-4500 BC C-14, 6090-5429 BC calBC) settlements in southern Mesopotamia. The Sumerian people who settled here farmed the lands in this region that were made fertile by silt deposited by the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers.
(end Wikipedia)

The Sumerian culture was transformed into the Babylonian culture when the city of Babylonia took over the area around 2000 BC. And some of the old Sumerian cities are mentioned in the time of Abraham, who was a few generations after Noah.

A worldwide flood would cause the destruction of such cultures, especially if there was only one family from which everyone else in the world came. Ideas about everyone descending from Noah were generated before it was known that ancient civilizations stretched back this far.

It doesn't really make sense that Noah's ancestors would restart the civilizations after they were wiped out. A worldwide flood doesn't fit into ancient history anywhere near the dates assigned to the flood that are based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. For your information, those dates are determined based on the genealogies found throughout the Bible.

 

[shinbits]

good post. makes sense to me.

 

[Yggdrasil]

I think its pretty simple.....there was a large regional flood where the authors lived and they thought the rest of the world was flooded, and created stories around it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What the tree thing does is it eliminates the most probable time periods for Noah's flood to have occured, if it was a worldwide event. This in itself is an important fact to take into consideration, even if it doesn't completely rule it out it casts it into doubt. But it's not just tree ring dating. In addition, you also have the ancient cultures/civilizations which stretch back millenia further than these ancient trees' age.

Ancient Egypt -- According to Wikipedia (and therefore probably other historical sources it's based upon) the local communities of Egypt were unified around 3150 BC. This suggests that those communities were around for a while longer too.

Other ancient civilizations had been around for even longer. Here's something about Ancient Sumeria from Wikipedia:

The Sumerians were a non-Semitic people and were at one time believed to have been invaders, as a number of linguists believed they could detect a substrate language beneath Sumerian. However, the archaeological record shows clear uninterrupted cultural continuity from the time of the Early Ubaid period (5200-4500 BC C-14, 6090-5429 BC calBC) settlements in southern Mesopotamia. The Sumerian people who settled here farmed the lands in this region that were made fertile by silt deposited by the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers.
(end Wikipedia)

The Sumerian culture was transformed into the Babylonian culture when the city of Babylonia took over the area around 2000 BC. And some of the old Sumerian cities are mentioned in the time of Abraham, who was a few generations after Noah.

A worldwide flood would cause the destruction of such cultures, especially if there was only one family from which everyone else in the world came. Ideas about everyone descending from Noah were generated before it was known that ancient civilizations stretched back this far.

It doesn't really make sense that Noah's ancestors would restart the civilizations after they were wiped out. A worldwide flood doesn't fit into ancient history anywhere near the dates assigned to the flood that are based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. For your information, those dates are determined based on the genealogies found throughout the Bible.

Science may not be the best at tracking civilizations. I watched "The Gangs of New York" last evening and was surprised when the character of 'Bill' aimed a disparaging remark at the 'Hiberians'. I don't think he was referring to Portugese or Spanish (Iberia) but at the hated Irish. Iberia, or, Hiberia derive from Heber, or, Hebrew. The Irish have been identified by some scholars as being the tribe of Dan, one of the 'lost tribes of Israel'. How did this get into a hollywood script, as the line would be virtually meaningless to 99.999999 per cent of the audience?

 

[shinbits]

I think its pretty simple.....there was a large regional flood where the authors lived and they thought the rest of the world was flooded, and created stories around it.

makes sense.

 

[Basket]

Science may not be the best at tracking civilizations. I watched "The Gangs of New York" last evening and was surprised when the character of 'Bill' aimed a disparaging remark at the 'Hiberians'. I don't think he was referring to Portugese or Spanish (Iberia) but at the hated Irish. Iberia, or, Hiberia derive from Heber, or, Hebrew. The Irish have been identified by some scholars as being the tribe of Dan, one of the 'lost tribes of Israel'. How did this get into a hollywood script, as the line would be virtually meaningless to 99.999999 per cent of the audience?

About the tribe of Dan... I'm pretty sure that it was intermingled with the other conquered countries that were taken over by Assyria. Assyria was well-known for doing it in order to prevent rebellions. What basically happened was that the poor and uneducated people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Ephraim) were left in place after it was invaded. The high class population, though, including the priests and other important people, were shipped off elsewhere carefully and spread far apart so that their cultures were completely forgotten. It is doubtful that they remained long enough to reach Ireland. I don't remember anything about Israel's culture reaching others' lands as a result of the diaspora. You probably know what happened to the poor people left behind in Israel -- the Assyrians moved in some pagans and their culture and religion was corrupted. They became the despised Samaritans known in the Bible.

I don't know anything about the Hibernians, but I'm looking them up right now...

It seems they were formed in the 1500's AD as a form of protest against Protestantism. I'm not really thinking too well right now because of sleep deprivation, but I really doubt the idea of them really being descended from the Hebrew nation. According to most historians the people of Great Britain were mostly descended from the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings (not sure if they're two different groups) and Romans. Red hair comes from the Anglo-Saxon heritage, I think. People with red hair tend to be more resistant to pain, which was helpful to such war-faring tribes of people.

I'm just chock full of useless information, aren't I? Might want to look some of that stuff up as I haven't double-checked it.

 

[Tenka]

Science may not be the best at tracking civilizations. I watched "The Gangs of New York" last evening and was surprised when the character of 'Bill' aimed a disparaging remark at the 'Hiberians'. I don't think he was referring to Portugese or Spanish (Iberia) but at the hated Irish. Iberia, or, Hiberia derive from Heber, or, Hebrew. The Irish have been identified by some scholars as being the tribe of Dan, one of the 'lost tribes of Israel'. How did this get into a hollywood script, as the line would be virtually meaningless to 99.999999 per cent of the audience?

And why would "some scholars" be betters equipped to declare ancestory than the scientific methods at our disposal? Some scholars declare American 'Indians' direct descendants of Hebrews.

 

[Cabal]

sorry, redandy, i didn't realise that's what ops stood for, i thought you'd misspelled oops.

 

[consol]

You know the flood is a fantasy,
because you can think for yourself.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And why would "some scholars" be betters equipped to declare ancestory than the scientific methods at our disposal? Some scholars declare American 'Indians' direct descendants of Hebrews.

Not all scholars are scientists (or need to be) to study this stuff.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

About the tribe of Dan... I'm pretty sure that it was intermingled with the other conquered countries that were taken over by Assyria. Assyria was well-known for doing it in order to prevent rebellions. What basically happened was that the poor and uneducated people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (Ephraim) were left in place after it was invaded. The high class population, though, including the priests and other important people, were shipped off elsewhere carefully and spread far apart so that their cultures were completely forgotten. It is doubtful that they remained long enough to reach Ireland. I don't remember anything about Israel's culture reaching others' lands as a result of the diaspora. You probably know what happened to the poor people left behind in Israel -- the Assyrians moved in some pagans and their culture and religion was corrupted. They became the despised Samaritans known in the Bible.

I don't know anything about the Hibernians, but I'm looking them up right now...

It seems they were formed in the 1500's AD as a form of protest against Protestantism. I'm not really thinking too well right now because of sleep deprivation, but I really doubt the idea of them really being descended from the Hebrew nation. According to most historians the people of Great Britain were mostly descended from the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings (not sure if they're two different groups) and Romans. Red hair comes from the Anglo-Saxon heritage, I think. People with red hair tend to be more resistant to pain, which was helpful to such war-faring tribes of people.

I'm just chock full of useless information, aren't I? Might want to look some of that stuff up as I haven't double-checked it.

Glad to see someone actually researching a subject rather than criticising it. Many wandering peoples are named by others in the land where they settle or pass through.

A great misconception (even by bible scholars) is that God himself forgot who the northern tribes were after they were captives for long periods of time by a foreign nation, or through a diaspora.

It is clear (biblically) that God knows who they are and will bring his end-time plans for those tribes to fruition, whether or not those tribe themselves know who they really are. God has hidden their own true identity from them.

Remember too that the seeds of a whole tribe can be carried in the loins, or womb, of a small number of people. That makes for a pretty mobile 'tribe' that might not be noticed by historians.

Also, the term 'Saxon' derives from 'Saac's sons', or, 'Isaac's sons'.

Do some reading about British Israelism. Interesting stuff.

 

[Basket]

Glad to see someone actually researching a subject rather than criticising it. Many wandering peoples are named by others in the land where they settle or pass through.

A great misconception (even by bible scholars) is that God himself forgot who the northern tribes were after they were captives for long periods of time by a foreign nation, or through a diaspora.

It is clear (biblically) that God knows who they are and will bring his end-time plans for those tribes to fruition, whether or not those tribe themselves know who they really are. God has hidden their own true identity from them.

Remember too that the seeds of a whole tribe can be carried in the loins, or womb, of a small number of people. That makes for a pretty mobile 'tribe' that might not be noticed by historians.

Also, the term 'Saxon' derives from 'Saac's sons', or, 'Isaac's sons'.

Do some reading about British Israelism. Interesting stuff.

Ah, British Israelism. I have never heard of it before, to be honest. I looked it up some today, and although I have only gotten some of the basics down, it is an interesting subject. However, I'll probably take what I read and hear about it with a grain of salt until I come to a full understanding.

Thanks for the info

 

[Blayz]

Also, the term 'Saxon' derives from 'Saac's sons', or, 'Isaac's sons'.

Riiiight. Not derived from the Germanic knife nosiree.
--taken from a website I cannot link to because of post count ---

(History of the Seax Knife) A scramseax (also scramsax, scramseaxe, scramaseax, scramasax, scramaseaxe and sometimes referred to as simply scram, seax or sax) was a type of Germanic single-edged knife. Scramseax seem to have been used for warfare and as a tool. They occur in a size range from 2.9" to 29.5". The larger ones (langseax) were probably weapons, the smaller ones (hadseax) tools, intermediate sized ones serving a dual purpose. Wearing a scramseax may have been indicative of freemanship. The scramseax was worn in a horizontal sheath at the front of the belt. Scram refers to food and seax to a blade (so, "food knife"). There is some debate about the authenticity of the longer word scramseax. The Saxons may have derived their name from seax (the implement for which they were known) in much the same way that the Franks were named for their francisca. This claim is largely supported by the appearance of scramaseaxes in early Saxon heraldry.