The Flood (2)

[AV1611VET]

The discontinuity at the tomb, for instance:

Here we go with this again.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here we go with this again.

C'est la vie.

 

[AV1611VET]

C'est la vie.

I'll tell you what, WC. Why don't you just go back to that chart you probably copy-and-pasted and fill it in for us?

Instead of saying "two women," "one human," "two humans," etc.; how about put some names with that (like the Bible did).

Maybe that'll clear it up for you?

Or is it that people love to obscure stuff, then have us Christians sort it out for them?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'll tell you what, WC. Why don't you just go back to that chart you probably copy-and-pasted and fill it in for us?

The verses are quite clearly listed. And for the record, I made it myself. I'm quite proud of it.

Instead of saying "two women," "one human," "two humans," etc.; how about put some names with that (like the Bible did).

Matthew 28

1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,
2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it,





Mark 16

1And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,
3and they said among themselves, `Who shall roll away for us the stone out of the door of the sepulchre?'
4And having looked, they see that the stone hath been rolled away -- for it was very great,
5and having entered into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right hand, arrayed in a long white robe, and they were amazed.





Luke 24

1And on the first of the sabbaths, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bearing the spices they made ready, and certain [others] with them,
2and they found the stone having been rolled away from the tomb,
3and having gone in, they found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4And it came to pass, while they are perplexed about this, that lo, two men stood by them in glittering apparel,


10And it was the Magdalene Mary, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the other women with them, who told unto the apostles these things,





John 20

1And on the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene doth come early (there being yet darkness) to the tomb, and she seeth the stone having been taken away out of the tomb,


11and Mary was standing near the tomb, weeping without; as she was weeping, then, she stooped down to the tomb, and beholdeth two messengers in white, sitting,
12one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid.



Did that clear it up? I don't think so, but perhaps you can explain it to me.

 

[Baggins]

You left a prefix out. One site called it a "super flood," and the other called it a "megaflood."

AV it doesn't matter how "super" or "mega" it was, it was localised, it was the flooding of a meltwater lake that covered much of the Southern North Sea basin. It happend 12,000 and 18,000 years ago and it didn't cover the earth to the hieght of mt Everest, it drained away into the North Atlantic basin after gouging out the Dover Straights.

If it's how the rock was "created" that you want to know, read Genesis 1.

I just did, it didn't mention coccoliths at all so I assume you were making some sort of joke, ha ha!

I got a volume that's more eloquent than you'll ever be:

Whoopeedo, I have have the complete works of Shakespeare, and I find they are rather more eloquent than the bible personally.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV it doesn't matter how "super" or "mega" it was, it was localised...

Okie-doke --- I'll save the laughter until after I hit the SUBMIT button.

 

[Baggins]

Okie-doke --- I'll save the laughter until after I hit the SUBMIT button.

You obviously didn't read the articles, I did. It was the draining of a fresh water melt water lake in the southern North Sea. How anyone could confuse this with a biblical flood is beyond me. Beyond the use of the word flood, which it appears is all that you and some others have gleaned from the article, there is no similarity between this and a biblical flood, this was water draining from a lake at higher elevation into a sea at a slightly lower elevation, like the bursting of a dam.

Saying this has anything to do with a putatative biblical flood makes as much sense as saying that the dambusters raids in the second world war are evidence of a biblical flood.

I think it is very sad that you haven't even made an effort to understand what was going on here, and worse when some one made the effort to explain it too you all you could do was laugh.

I think that says a lot about your character and none of it is very complimentary is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

The verses are quite clearly listed. And for the record, I made it myself. I'm quite proud of it.

From the Scofield Reference Bible:

• The order of events, combining the four narratives, is as follows: Three women, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, start for the sepulchre, followed by other women bearing spices. The three find the stone rolled away, and Mary Magdalene goes to tell the disciples (Lk. 23:55; 24:9; John 20:1,2). Mary, the mother of James and Joses, draws nearer the tomb and sees the angel of the Lord (Mt. 28:2). She goes back to meet the other women following with the spices. Meanwhile Peter and John, warned by Mary Magdalene, arrive, look in,and go away (John 20:3-10). Mary Magdalene returns weeping, sees the two angels and then Jesus (John 20:11-18), and goes as He bade her to tell the disciples. Mary (mother of James and Joses), meanwhile, has met the women with the spices and, returning with them, they see the two angels (Lk. 24:4,5; Mk. 16:5). They also receive the angelic message, and, going to seek the disciples, are met by Jesus (Mt. 28:8-10).

 

[Patashu]

So, they each recorded a different part of the event?

What inspired them to do such a thing? Why would you want to split something up like that?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think it is very sad that you haven't even made an effort to understand what was going on here, and worse when some one made the effort to explain it too you all you could do was laugh.

I'll tell you what I understand, Baggins. I understand that you guys love to deny a global flood occurred, then spend the rest of your time explaining every square mile of the earth in terms of local floods. That's sad.

 

[Patashu]

I'll tell you what I understand, Baggins. I understand that you guys love to deny a global flood occurred, then spend the rest of your time explaining every square mile of the earth in terms of local floods. That's sad.

Who says we explain all phenomena on Earth in terms of local floods? I, for one, am quite partial to other phenomenon such as rain, erosion, etc.

You, on the other hand, have to explain what should be a billion or so years of strata including all the fossils arranged in evolutionary order within its layers using only what a flood can do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

From the Scofield Reference Bible:

• The order of events, combining the four narratives, is as follows: Three women, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, start for the sepulchre, followed by other women bearing spices.

Which contradicts John 20:1, which states that Mary Magdalene alone went early, and Matthew 28:1, which implies the stone was in place upon their arrival.

• The three find the stone rolled away, and Mary Magdalene goes to tell the disciples (Lk. 23:55; 24:9; John 20:1,2). Mary, the mother of James and Joses, draws nearer the tomb and sees the angel of the Lord (Mt. 28:2). She goes back to meet the other women following with the spices.

Which contradicts Matthew 28:1-5, since there is no mention of Magdalene's little trip after verse 1, and her silent return before verse 4.

• Meanwhile Peter and John, warned by Mary Magdalene, arrive, look in,and go away (John 20:3-10). Mary Magdalene returns weeping, sees the two angels and then Jesus (John 20:11-18), and goes as He bade her to tell the disciples. Mary (mother of James and Joses), meanwhile, has met the women with the spices and, returning with them, they see the two angels (Lk. 24:4,5; Mk. 16:5).

Actually, Luke 24:4 talks of two men, not angels. Where did these men pop from?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which contradicts John 20:1, which states that Mary Magdalene alone went early, and Matthew 28:1, which implies the stone was in place upon their arrival.

Actually, WC, what you need is not an explanation to these "contradictions," but you need a course in Hermeneutics. Specifically on how to resolve seeming contradictions.

Never, never, never assume there's a contradiction in the Scriptures until you've subjected the passages to the Law of Non-contradiction.

Then, and only then, can something be considered a contradiction.

On your Matthew 28:1 assumption ---

[bible]Matthew 28:1-2[/bible]

Mark clears that up nicely ---

[bible]Mark 16:3-4[/bible]

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

So what did you mean?

Traditions meaning oral traditions, histories passed on from generation to generation. These eventually tended to get embellished, and then written down at some point, but my point was is that these oral traditions generally have a core of truth to them, and within a few generations tend to stay relatively intact. That is why traditions in many cases can be used as evidence.

Again this is a broader point that doesn't relate to the discussion all that much, but it is important to remember when talking about ancient history.

Ah, but he had: King Herod had, allegedly, set out on a crusade against Jesus before he was even born. That's how famous the King of Kings was.

Amazing he would have such an insight to hunt down Jesus even before he was born, but be stupid enough to tell those hunting to look for Children who were already born.

Also Bethlehem was a small town, I doubt he would have gotten more than 13 children... not exactly a 'crusade'. Of course this is reasonable, because the "wise men" as we commonly refer to them were from a group of persian/parthinian 'king makers' the magi had a huge amount of political influence in persia, and the weren't necessarily on good terms with Rome. The reason of course the Magi 'heard of ' Jesus was really though their astrology. According to the Royal Astronomical Society, there were different signs in the Sky in for about three years each sequentially one after the other saying that a King was to be born in Israel along with the appearance of a comet. (this is recorded in the Bible as well by Luke I believe) The first sign occurs once in every 900 years, the second once in every 800, though I am not sure about the third. This was also consistent with prophecies regarding the messiah.
Source

A few years, yes, but not a few decades. Even if someone was an eye-witness to a divine manifestation a few years ago, people do not have perfect recollection. Now extend that to a few decades,

I will grant you that, things can slip over a few decades, for example, I don't remember one of my teacher's hair or eye color, but general things still tend to stick with me. Something like miracles is not really one of those small details. Also keep in mind, disciples, et al were with Jesus pretty much all the time this was not like "well I saw this guy do this thing one time". There is a profound difference from remembering someone's eye color and remembering people raised from the dead. Of course, we are not even talking about that yet are we, just a person's existence... generally I can remember whether or not a good friend of mine really existed... its kind of hard to do anything with a non-existent one.

Because wars are, unfortunately, fairly common. The manifestation of the Christ in front of your very eyes? Not so common.

Not really. Ignoring the miracles for a second, someone existing is not very hard to believe. I exist, my friends exist not exactly very 'unbelievable'. I doubt Jesus simply 'existing' is enough to turn any heads at all.

The discontinuity at the tomb, for instance:

Those are small contradictions. As I said look for the historical core. If we discarded everything because of such small contradictions, most early wars we would have to forget about. this is not a matter of saying what is 'probable' versus what is 'improbable' but having a consistent methodology.

What we can take from this, is there were some women, probably two or three who went to the tomb early in the morning, saw one or two angels (angels in the bible are many times described as men dressed in white so the implications are the same) When they arrived at the tomb, it was open, and either they heard the earthquake or whatever on the way to the tomb, or the tomb was open when they got there, and the angel told them what happened or perhaps learned from the guards later. As for sitting or standing inside or out of the tomb, the angel or person in white was not in one position indefinitely.

To write it off on such minor contradictions is really bad methodology, most accounts have minor contradictions. To me that simply evidences that no one sat down and tried to make up a historical myth, if that had occurred, there would not be minor discrepancies like this. I see no reason historically why these minor discrepancies pose any reasonable problem.

 

[TheBear]

What thread are we in?

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Yes, it was successfully hijacked.

 

[FishFace]

I'll tell you what I understand, Baggins. I understand that you guys love to deny a global flood occurred, then spend the rest of your time explaining every square mile of the earth in terms of local floods. That's sad.

I'm not sure how one explains a lava flow in terms of any kind of flood. Nor a valley. Nor a mountain. Nor a cliff. Nor very much at all, really.
Sure, lots of features involve water, but we know that there's been water in all sorts of places at various times. We can be pretty sure by the same kind of science that it wasn't there all at the same time.

 

[FishFace]

Actually, WC, what you need is not an explanation to these "contradictions," but you need a course in Hermeneutics. Specifically on how to resolve seeming contradictions.

Hermeneutics? That field which starts with the assumption that the Bible is infallible?

And what would possess us to do that? We have here a potential contradiction. We can't establish that it isn't a contradiction with the assumption that there are no contradictions in the Bible - the wheel of circular reasoning turns around and around.

Never, never, never assume there's a contradiction in the Scriptures until you've subjected the passages to the Law of Non-contradiction.

You could just contract that to "never believe there's a contradiction the scriptures."

Then, and only then, can something be considered a contradiction.

On your Matthew 28:1 assumption ---

[bible]Matthew 28:1-2[/bible]

Mark clears that up nicely ---

[bible]Mark 16:3-4[/bible]

Contradicting John, which states that Mary Magdalene went alone.

You see, the problem here is that you assume there can be no contradiction. I make no such assumption, because there's no reason to.
There are two ways of explaining this: either there is contradiction, but all of the authors wrote very different account and missed out huge details, various people supposedly went backwards and forward (without anyone saying that they did) and there are probably still problems. Or, it was written by a bunch of people who didn't have all the facts completely straight, probably got it second or more hand, and were just human.

You give us no reason to believe the former, weird account, which would be the only known instance, if it were correct. There is plenty of reason to believe the second one, since it happens all the time.
Of course, it would never falsify the core message - that Jesus was gone (and resurrected.) It just shows the Bible isn't infallible.

I can only imagine that would be problematic if you weren't particularly concerned with the message, in comparison to the words.

 

[TheBear]

Oh Baggins, I see you are up to your bad boy stuff again. Why can't you just be nice?

Anyways....What about this site?

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/full/news070716-11.html

Or this one?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/18/geography.geology

Floods, tsunamis, storm surges, glaciers, and other major events involving water, do not equate to a global flood as described in the Bible. The articles you linked don't make such a claim either. And they put the event at hundreds of thousands of years ago.

 

[Split Rock]

I'll tell you what I understand, Baggins. I understand that you guys love to deny a global flood occurred, then spend the rest of your time explaining every square mile of the earth in terms of local floods. That's sad.

Of course we deny that a global flood occurred, since it didn't. As for the rest of your statement nobody here claims that all of the earth's geology are explained by local floods. Quite the contrary, there are many geological layers that cannot be explained by a flood of any kind, as has been explained to you numerous times here.