Question about the flood

[Bible Highlighter]

Nope, that is desperate grasping at straws:

misunderstandings of biblical proportions | Pinyin News

Again, not expecting you to get it (even when the evidence is right there in front of you). See, this is what I am talking about. No evidence. I repeat. No evidence is going to truly convince you. It is very rare when somebody is honest with themselves in regards to the evidence like with Lee Strobel who was somebody who used to pride himself on finding out facts. He used to be an atheist, too. But the evidence was too compelling for God's Word, so he came to believe in Jesus and the Bible. There are other hardcore atheists who were convinced that God was real and true, as well. Even Jeffrey Daumer (Who used to be an atheist) was convinced of Jesus Christ existence before he died.


...

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are 50,000 seperate handwritten versions of the scriptures
with no variations on ideas or concepts.
This makes it the most well substantiated text collection in human
history showing no contextual changes over time.
What else would you like to know about it?

Sorry, but that sounds incredibly bogus as well. Do you have a valid source that supports that claim? Wacko sources will be laughed at. You do not appear to understand the history of the Bible either. Books have been added and dropped over the years. There was a major purge of biblical books when the Bible as we know it first began to take shape. That is one of the reasons that you see a homogeneous product today.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry, but that sounds incredibly bogus as well. Do you have a valid source that supports that claim? Wacko sources will be laughed at. You do not appear to understand the history of the Bible either. Books have been added and dropped over the years. There was a major purge of biblical books when the Bible as we know it first began to take shape. That is one of the reasons that you see a homogeneous product today.

I have no concern about substantiating my claims or your laughter.
Those manuscripts are still available. You are perfectly free to create a new edition.
I've read some of those removed books and the reasons are obvious. But they are
still available, so no harm done. Likely you have me confused with somebody else.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, coral in the shape of circles are found.

Watch the videos I provided. They filmed them with an underwater camera.

So what? Man uses circles for all sorts of things. Chariot wheels from that time would have returned to dust long long long ago.

Yes, but the coral that surrounded them wouldn't have all gone away.

And how do you know that the top of Jabal al-Lawz is burnt?

You can see it in many pictures up close and far away in the video I provided. They had the burned top of the mountain analyzed and it is unlike any other findings they have found for a top of a mountain before.

I have not seen one whit of evidence that supports that claim. Merely some poorly taken photographs from a long distance away. The only way to know if it is burnt or not would be to go get samples.

One family took pictures of this mountain up close in regards to this black rock.

You really really should try to learn what is and what is not evidence.

And you should stop being biased to what you want to see.
Again, like I said, there could be a giant neon sign fall into your house that says, "Believe in Jesus." and you still would not think twice about God's existence or not. No evidence is going to convince you. You are just looking to mock God's Word. That's it. Evidences for God's Word doesn't really mean anything to you. Any or all evidence is automatically rejected. Again, the only way you are going to see is if you break down as a sinner before a holy God and repent.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nope, you are just spreading falsehoods again. Swearing comes from Christianity. Porn is consumed massively by Christians, otherwise the industry would die. There are not that many atheists. All the rest sound like you are projecting again. By all measurable means atheists are more "moral" than Christians. A Christian is far more likely to break a law that will end up with him in prison (though this is not exactly fair since atheists tend to be much better educated), they have lower divorce rates, and they probably have lower out of wedlock birthrates and therefore lower abortions (atheists are educated and understand birth control). And at least when it comes to children they are more generous than religious children:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2015/11/05/religion-morality/#5e389fd47aea


Where do you get these crazy ideas from in the first place?



But that is not an "Absolute". The morality in the Bible varies quite a bit. And it is not absolute because what is "right" is merely what God says is right. It is not based upon whether something is actually right or not. Is killing innocent children wrong? Not always according to the Bible. Is killing people for no good reason at all okay? Yes, a man could be killed for merely picking up sticks on a superstitious day. Those are not good morals. Is slavery okay? Definitely yes according to the Bible.

My morals beat the Bible's morals any day of the week.

Secular sources to prove atheism? Yeah, that is not biased.




...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, not expecting you to get it (even when the evidence is right there in front of you). See, this is what I am talking about. No evidence. I repeat. No evidence is going to truly convince you. It is very rare when somebody is honest with themselves in regards to the evidence like with Lee Strobel who was somebody who used to pride himself on finding out facts. He used to be an atheist, too. But the evidence was too strong for him to believe in the truth of God's Word. There are other hardcore atheists who were convinced that God was real and true, as well. Even Jeffrey Daumer (Who used to be an atheist) was convinced of Jesus Christ existence before he died.

Please, quit making false claims about others. And you do not understand the nature of evidence so quite complaining when your ignorant claims are laughed at.

If you actually had evidence I would be convinced. So far you have only quoted lies and misrepresentations. And no, I doubt Strobel's claims about being an atheist. If he was he was the most idiotic atheist ever. He went looking for "proof that Jesus did not exist". That is not the proper way to approach that problem. An actual atheist would look for "proof that Jesus did exist". He did not find evidence, he only found a lack of evidence. But I can't find any evidence that Sasquatch does not exist either. Does that mean that he exists?

And was Dahmer an atheist? What evidence do you have? You have just the word of a psychopath. Did he become a Christian? What evidence do you have? You have just the word of a psychopath. Without outside sources I would not believe any of the claims of Dahmer.

And even if you were right, which is highly dubious, I could still name Christians that were far worse. Evil Christians does not prove that Christianity is evil. Though lots of evil Christians gives us a hint. Evil atheists does not prove that atheism is evil, and there are far fewer of them than there are of Christians.

Your own arguments if turned against you would prove your religion to be evil. Try to pick your arguments more wisely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Secular sources to prove atheism? Yeah, that is not biased.




...

It isn't. Secular does not mean "atheistic". Sadly your side is demonstrably biased. You lost the high road on this long ago. Secular sources have many Christian contributors. They merely do not base their claims on Christianity. They are neutral. Your Christian sources cannot claim the same. Secular sources are as neutral as you can find.

Perhaps you should learn what words mean before you react.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Watch the videos I provided. They filmed them with an underwater camera.

Not worth my time. Find a peer reviewed paper that supports your claim. If you can't you have nothing.

Yes, but the coral that surrounded them wouldn't have all gone away.

If that were the case maybe so. Though coral does die and it does break up when it does so. I can see that you do not know how coral reefs are formed. It is highly dubious that any 3,000 year old coral would remain.

You can see it in many pictures up close and far away in the video I provided. They had the burned top of the mountain analyzed and it is unlike any other findings they have found for a top of a mountain before.

Really? I looked for peer reviewed papers on the subject and could not find any. But go ahead, find the evidence. It is your claim, until you find valid evidence it can be refuted with the wave of a hand :wavey:

One family took pictures of this mountain up close in regards to this black rock.

So what?

And you should stop being biased to what you want to see.
Again, like I said, there could be a giant neon sign fall into your house that says, "Believe in Jesus." and you still would not think twice about God's existence or not. No evidence is going to convince you. You are just looking to mock God's Word. That's it. Evidences for God's Word doesn't really mean anything to you. Any or all evidence is automatically rejected. Again, the only way you are going to see is if you break down as a sinner before a holy God and repent.


...

Oh my. You are projecting your flaws upon others again. Once again, since you don't understand the concept of evidence you really can't claim to have any.

When you repent for all of your false claims that you have made perhaps you might get others to do so too. Your Christian behavior needs to be brushed up a bit. Perhaps you might find a beam or two.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no concern about substantiating my claims or your laughter.
Those manuscripts are still available. You are perfectly free to create a new edition.
I've read some of those removed books and the reasons are obvious. But they are
still available, so no harm done. Likely you have me confused with somebody else.

So you have nothing.

If your claim was not bogus you could have supported it. You do not seem to understand the burden of proof. You made a rather ridiculous claim. Even if your claim you would still need to support your claim when challenged. By running away you simply tell us that you are wrong.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please, quit making false claims about others. And you do not understand the nature of evidence so quite complaining when your ignorant claims are laughed at.

If you actually had evidence I would be convinced. So far you have only quoted lies and misrepresentations. And no, I doubt Strobel's claims about being an atheist. If he was he was the most idiotic atheist ever. He went looking for "proof that Jesus did not exist". That is not the proper way to approach that problem. An actual atheist would look for "proof that Jesus did exist". He did not find evidence, he only found a lack of evidence. But I can't find any evidence that Sasquatch does not exist either. Does that mean that he exists?

No. He did find evidence that was compelling that Jesus existed. You need to watch the movie called: "The Case for Christ." It is now on DVD and Blu Ray.

Here is the Trailer:

And was Dahmer an atheist?

He said he used to believe we all came from the slime, etc.
You can check that out here:

What evidence do you have? You have just the word of a psychopath. Did he become a Christian? What evidence do you have? You have just the word of a psychopath. Without outside sources I would not believe any of the claims of Dahmer.

Why would he lie? What possible motivation could he have? It doesn't sound like he is lying. He seems pretty convinced in what he is saying.

And even if you were right, which is highly dubious, I could still name Christians that were far worse. Evil Christians does not prove that Christianity is evil. Though lots of evil Christians gives us a hint. Evil atheists does not prove that atheism is evil, and there are far fewer of them than there are of Christians.

The Bible talks about how if one is a true and faithful Christian or saint, they endure to the end until they die. So it is not in a believer's mistakes through out their entire life always. God can forgive and chasten His people. This is not Once Saved Always Saved type garbage or a sin and still be saved gospel. Mind you I hate those kinds of teachings that has snuck it's way into the church these days. A lack of morality seems to be growing worse and worse among those who claim to be Christian these days. But the Bible talks about this. 2 Timothy 3:1-9 says in the last days perilous times will come and men shall be lovers of their own selves and having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof. The Scriptures talks about how they will be those who will depart from the faith.

Your own arguments if turned against you would prove your religion to be evil. Try to pick your arguments more wisely.

Not at all. You are merely seeing things from your askewed point of view. Like I said, it doesn't matter what evidence I show you. You are going to automatically reject it out of hand no matter what kind of evidence it is. You believe you have all the answers already.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not worth my time. Find a peer reviewed paper that supports your claim. If you can't you have nothing.





If that were the case maybe so. Though coral does die and it does break up when it does so. I can see that you do not know how coral reefs are formed. It is highly dubious that any 3,000 year old coral would remain.



Really? I looked for peer reviewed papers on the subject and could not find any. But go ahead, find the evidence. It is your claim, until you find valid evidence it can be refuted with the wave of a hand :wavey:




So what?




Oh my. You are projecting your flaws upon others again. Once again, since you don't understand the concept of evidence you really can't claim to have any.

When you repent for all of your false claims that you have made perhaps you might get others to do so too. Your Christian behavior needs to be brushed up a bit. Perhaps you might find a beam or two.

Not worth your time. Good job investigating the truth.
Then there is no point in having this discusision then if you just want to see what you want to see.
As I said before. You simply do not want to see it. So no evidence is going to convince you.
Only admitting your sin to Jesus and accepting Him as your Savior will open your eyes.


...

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. He did find evidence that was compelling that Jesus existed. You need to watch the movie called: "The Case for Christ." It is now on DVD and Blu Ray.

Here is the Trailer:

Forgive me, I should have been more precise. He should have gone looking for evidence for the Jesus of the Bible. He did not find evidence for that. He found evidence for the man Jesus, but I have never said that there was never a man that the stories were based upon.

He said he used to believe we all came from the slime, etc.
You can check that out here:

That is a double fail on your part. Most Christians worldwide accept the fact that we are a product of evolution. That in no way supports your claim. You should not conflate creationism and Christianity.

Why would he lie? What possible motivation could he have? It doesn't sound like he is lying. He seems pretty convinced in what he is saying.

That is only because you want to believe him. Psychopaths can easily dupe people like you. Who knows, he could probably have duped me. All you have is the word of a psychopath. And he would probably agree to anything that would help him. Whether true or not.

The Bible talks about how if one is a true and faithful Christian or saint, they endure to the end until they die. So it is not in a believer's mistakes through out their entire life always. God can forgive and chasten His people. This is not Once Saved Always Saved type garbage or a sin and still be saved gospel. Mind you I hate those kinds of teachings that has snuck it's way into the church these days. A lack of morality seems to be growing worse and worse among those who claim to be Christian these days. But the Bible talks about this. 2 Timothy 3:1-9 says in the last days perilous times will come and men shall be lovers of their own selves and having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof. The Scriptures talks about how they will be those who will depart from the faith.

Then by that standard I don't think that there are any Christians at all. You are attempting to use a No True Scotsman fallacy. I could say the same for atheism. I doubt Strobel since his research was rather idiotic and I would hope that no atheist would be that stupid. But who knows, someone may have converted a rather idiotic, at least spiritually, atheist.

Not at all. You are merely seeing things from your askewed point of view. Like I said, it doesn't matter what evidence I show you. You are going to automatically reject it out of hand no matter what kind of evidence it is. You believe you have all the answers already.


...

And you once again make false claims about others. I keep pointing out this fact and you keep running away from it:

You do not understand the nature of evidence. I would be glad to help you to begin to understand. If you don't understand the concept you can't claim to have it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not worth your time. Good job investigating the truth.

If it was "the truth" there would be no need to watch a foolish movie. Once again, you really need to work on the concept of evidence. All you have is propaganda.

Then there is no point in having this discusision then if you just want to see what you want to see.
As I said before. You simply do not want to see it. So no evidence is going to convince you.
Only admitting your sin to Jesus and accepting Him as your Savior will open your eyes.


...

Again with the false claims. I would love to see evidence. I will laugh at propaganda. Until you learn the difference you will continue to lose.

 

[GatodeQ]

An important reason apparently was to have animals to sacrifice to God as burnt offerings after all other living things had been wiped out.

That's an interesting point Herman Hedning. I've never heard of this before. Is it in the book of Genesis? Yes, I am guilty of never reading it...

 

[GatodeQ]

To repopulate the earth after the Flood.

I know AV1611VET, but as I mentioned in my first post, what puzzles me is:
"The animals were his own creation. He could have re-created them after the flood."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If it was "the truth" there would be no need to watch a foolish movie. Once again, you really need to work on the concept of evidence. All you have is propaganda.



Again with the false claims. I would love to see evidence. I will laugh at propaganda. Until you learn the difference you will continue to lose.

I am not interested in arguing with you. You are not truly interested in any true evidences for God's Word but you are looking to mock God's Word. Repent and accept Jesus.


...

 

[GatodeQ]

That is a major non sequitur on your part. And no, it makes no sense at all that one has to believe a myth to understand a myth. If your God is real you should be able to understand him without "faith". In fact "faith" is the worst of all reasons to believe anything. Faith will lead you to Islam or Hinduism just as it will lead you to Christianity. Faith is not a path to the truth. You are also claiming that your God is an unjust God when you do that.

But then logical thought is eliminated by the cognitive dissonance that is involved in preserving a failed belief. We know that there was no flood. And since there are other threads for this we can discuss that elsewhere.

Let's get back to the OP's question. If God is real why didn't he merely recreate the animals after the flood? No one has really offered any answer that could not have been more easily answered with God creating the animals all over again.

Thank you Subduction Zone for pointing the discussion back to my original question. Discussions easily get diverted when so controversial, don't they?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I know AV1611VET, but as I mentioned in my first post, what puzzles me is:
"The animals were his own creation. He could have re-created them after the flood."

I already provided several reasons already in response to your question alreadly.
Are they not good enough?
Isaiah 55:8 says our thoughts are not God's thoughts.
Surely He knows what he is doing even if we do not understand it.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thank you Subduction Zone for pointing the discussion back to my original question. Discussions easily get diverted when so controversial, don't they?

Are you interested in any real answer here?


...

 

[GatodeQ]

The Noah flood myth appears to be based on earlier flood stories (see the Epic of Gilgamesh for example). Ergo, it likely takes elements of those earlier tellings for its own.

Epic of Gilgamesh? I just read about it online. Very interesting! Thanks pitabread!