The Flood (2)

[AV1611VET]

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.

I didn't say "layers."

Are you telling me now that there are parts of the earth that have never been under flood water at one time or another?

Please cite one, as I understand that even Kansas has been under a flood at one time.

 

[TheBear]

I understand that even Kansas has been under a flood at one time.

One time??? (If they were only so lucky. )

http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/waterwatch/flood/historic.html

 

[Contracelsus]

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.

DIdn't someone already point out that there's no single globe-wide flood? That while most surfaces of the earth have been under water at some point in time, they haven't all been under water _at the same time_.

I think that's the big difference. I surely hope you are able to see that one means "No Flood of Noah" and the other means "Flood of Noah".

There's a big difference between the two.

It's like saying every nail in my house was hit with a hammer. But not all nails were hit by hammers simultaneously.

It has rained all over the continent of N. America at some point in time, but at no point in time is it raining everywhere on every square inch of ground in North America.

See?

 

[TheOutsider]

I guess we can add "localized" to the ever-growing list of words that AV doesn't understand.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

On the contrary, that task is up to you. I'm not particularily bothered if the Bible is consistent or not. My beef is with Biblical literalism and the disproof thereof.

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

Naturally. This is what we mean by internal inconsistency. Indeed, it is simply a specification of said Law.

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]

On the contrary, Matthew 28:1-10 takes place on Friday morning, John 20:1-9 on Saturday morning (pre-dawn), Luke 24:1-8 on Saturday morning (post-dawn), and Mark 16:1-9 sometime after Saturday evening.
(Times on the first verse of each chapter; I'm taking the first Sabbath day to be Saturday, please correct me if I'm wrong).

And indeed, Matthew 28:6 states that Jesus had already risen by Friday morning, whilst Mark 16:9 states that he rose on Saturday morning.

So... what's going on? John and Luke can be amalgamated into one event, but Mary Magdalene still 'learns' of Jesus' resurrection on three seperate occasions over at least two days.

 

[AV1611VET]

On the contrary, that task is up to you. I'm not particularily bothered if the Bible is consistent or not. My beef is with Biblical literalism and the disproof thereof.

As the old saying goes:

• Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

This is what Hermeneutics does: teaches a man to fish.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

My beef is with Biblical literalism and the disproof thereof.

You are not going to refute biblical literalism by demonstrating the Bible has contradictions. You would disprove it by demonstrating that it is meant based on genre and other literary devices that it is meant to be taken metaphorically.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

They can be used as evidence if there's something to back the up, sure. That's why we are fairly sure that the Flood story, while not true in its entirety, is based upon an actual local flood that happened.

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.

My point was that the Gospels tell us that Jesus was very famous, even before he was born, yet you tell us that he wasn't all that famous, at least not until sometime after his death.
So which is it? Was he famous enough that Herod wanted him killed as a babe? Or unnoticed enough to not have anything written about him till several decade after his death?
Or perhaps he never existed in the first place?

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.

Why ignore the miracles? They weren't all post-humous, y'know. Wasn't anyone interested at this bloke turning water to wine, etc?

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.

I agree that minor discrepancies are to be expected in a geniune historical document, but I disagree that these were minor. In one account it was nighttime, and in the rest it was morning. And besides, wouldn't the gospel writers have corresponded with each other?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are not going to refute biblical literalism by demonstrating the Bible has contradictions.

Of course I am. According to literalism, the Bible is 100% literally true (hence the name). If a contradiction is demonstrated, then the things involved with the contradiction cannot be simultaneously true, and thus the Bible itself cannot be 100% true (contrary to literalism's claims).
I.e., a contradiction disproves literalism

You would disprove it by demonstrating that it is meant based on genre and other literary devices that it is meant to be taken metaphorically.

That would work too, but I have my doubts as to whether it's possible...

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

What you are saying is that there are certainly "flood" layers found pretty much everywhere. It is simply your contention that these occur at different layers in different places. However, this may simply be the result of different sorts of things occurring in different locations (at the same time), as the FLOOD started, proceeded, progressed and ended, and as the globe settled down. Clearly, if a volcano erupted at the start of the FLOOD over here and a meteor hit over there and the crust of the earth thrusted way over there, one will see different layerings. Prove that reasoning false.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are not going to refute biblical literalism by demonstrating the Bible has contradictions.

The problem, Tim, is that we're dealing with people who do not have a teachable spirit. Rather than wanting to learn how to interpret the Bible correctly for themselves, they want each and every verse annotated and spoonfed to them to their satisfaction.

 

[Contracelsus]

It is simply your contention that these occur at different layers in different places. However, this may simply be the result of different sorts of things occurring in different locations (at the same time)

No, it doesn't work that way. There are many places on the planet in which sand dune deposits or "river deposits" can be "correlated" with oceanic deposits. That means, according to the geologists that they occured simultaneously.

In addition there are places where you see evidence of oceans then dry land then another ocean layer, then another dry land layer and another ocean layer and a dry land layer, over and over and over and over.

In some cases we see coal deposits that form this way. They show the development of a large forest which is later covered over by ocean followed by another forest followed by another ocean. Over and over and over again.

This means that if one of these is "the Flood of Noah" then what about the other ones? Are you going to say that ONE was a global flood but the others aren't? Why would you make the claim for one but not the others?

, as the FLOOD started, proceeded, progressed and ended, and as the globe settled down.

I am thinking you don't have any authoritative proof of anything you are saying here. I am guessing that you are merely making up a story to fit your need to make the Bible literally true.

Clearly, if a volcano erupted at the start of the FLOOD over here and a meteor hit over there and the crust of the earth thrusted way over there, one will see different layerings. Prove that reasoning false.

Again, you are just making up stories because you can't think of how the scientists would know what was really happening.

It would help if you had something like an actual understanding of these things.

We can all imagine a Flintstones kind of world in which volcanoes were everywhere and dinosaurs and people existed side-by-side and worked in quarries for Mr. Stone but that doesn't mean it is actually what the scientist sees when they actually look at their data.

Anyone can just make up fun imagination stories, but the hard work is done by the geologists who actually have to understand what they see when they look at the rocks isn't it?

 

[Contracelsus]

The problem, Tim, is that we're dealing with people who do not have a teachable spirit.

And by that you probably really mean: "we're dealing with people who simply wont' take my word for what this means."

That's usually what people mean when they resort to accusing others of not having an "open spirit" or "spiritual understanding" of a debate point.

Rather than wanting to learn how to interpret the Bible correctly for themselves, they want each and every verse annotated and spoonfed to them to their satisfaction.

If the Bible can be understood by Creationists then it surely must be spoonfed.

But further, why would God require any real effort to understand his Ultimate Truths?

They should be as simply put and patently obvious that anyone anywhere in any language using any translation could understand them with minimal work.

Otherwise God is playing a big game of hide-and-seek with Truth.

And the stakes, according to some versions of Christianity, are pretty high.

 

[AV1611VET]

But further, why would God require any real effort to understand his Ultimate Truths?

The crux of the Bible is this:

[bible]1 John 5:12[/bible]

19 one-syllable words --- and you guys still don't get it.

 

[Split Rock]

What you are saying is that there are certainly "flood" layers found pretty much everywhere. It is simply your contention that these occur at different layers in different places. However, this may simply be the result of different sorts of things occurring in different locations (at the same time), as the FLOOD started, proceeded, progressed and ended, and as the globe settled down. Clearly, if a volcano erupted at the start of the FLOOD over here and a meteor hit over there and the crust of the earth thrusted way over there, one will see different layerings. Prove that reasoning false.

Show us where the meteor hit and where the crust of the earth thrusted way over there. Show us also how chalk, salt and shale are deposited by meteor impacts or crust thrusting. ... or are you just making stuff us as you go along?

 

[Contracelsus]

The crux of the Bible is this:

[bible]1 John 5:12[/bible]

19 one-syllable words --- and you guys still don't get it.

What's to "get"? That this is YOUR religion and not EVERYONE ELSES?

 

[Split Rock]

I didn't say "layers."

Are you telling me now that there are parts of the earth that have never been under flood water at one time or another?

Please cite one, as I understand that even Kansas has been under a flood at one time.

You do realize that strata showing fossilized marine ecosystems are not the same as those showing flooding... right? For example, you mentioned Kansas being underwater at one time.. this is correct, as a large inland sea covered much of the center of the U.S. However, the geological column here shows marine life, including intact ecosystems, not evidence of massive flooding. Therefore, to answer your question, there are plenty of regions that were underwater at one time, but were never under "a flood."

 

[Skaloop]

The crux of the Bible is this:

[bible]1 John 5:12[/bible]

19 one-syllable words --- and you guys still don't get it.

Oh, we get it. We just don't believe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's to "get"? That this is YOUR religion and not EVERYONE ELSES?

Then don't whine because God would require some effort to understand His "Ultimate Truths."

[bible]1 Corinthians 2:14[/bible]

Now you know why such things as embedded age is so hard to understand. It took me over a year to explain it, and you guys still don't understand it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Therefore, to answer your question, there are plenty of regions that were underwater at one time, but were never under "a flood."

Isn't that what I said you guys say?