The Flood

[RedAndy]

In fact, screw the flood altogether. Just miracle away all the bad evil guys. Go God!

The reason he didn't do that is because it would have made a less interesting story. He had to fill those three chapters of Genesis somehow, and poofing all the evil people out of existence just wouldn't have done it.

Plus, God clearly intended to fill the first book of the Bible with as much material as possible that would make absolutely no sense when taken literally. This is all part of a grand joke he is playing on fundamentalists, just to see how extravagant their logical gymnastics are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, if God wanted to say 'and then Pangaea split up' he could have been more careful with his wording.

God is much wiser than that. All it would take is for someone to name a chain like Micronesia, "Pangaea," and then even Christians would question Genesis 10:25. Then later, when the OES (Old Earth "Scientists") showed up, they would say:

• Ya, right; you Christians say God created this earth as five supercontinents? Well, looky here --- the evidence shows that long ago, the earth was one giant landmass.

 

[RealityCheck]

God is much wiser than that. All it would take is for someone to name a chain like Micronesia, "Pangaea," and then even Christians would question Genesis 10:25. Then later, when the OES (Old Earth "Scientists") showed up, they would say:

• Ya, right; you Christians say God created this earth as five supercontinents? Well, looky here --- the evidence shows that long ago, the earth was one giant landmass.

But wouldn't God then prevent that "someone" from naming an island chain "Pangaea"?

I mean, how wise can your version of God be if he can't do something simple like that?

 

[RealityCheck]

and then even Christians would question Genesis 10:25.

No they wouldn't. The fundamentalists would come up with some incredible leap of illogic, similar to embedded age, to ensure that they wouldn't have to question even one verse of scripture in the face of facts and evidence and all the other inconveniences of reality.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Sure did --- I do believe atheists don't believe in an "eternity"?



Let's try this from a different angle. Matthew, John, and Paul would not die a martyr's death --- knowing that what they did was fabricated.

John died of old age in Ephesos, and Matthew's ultimate fate is debatable.

 

[AV1611VET]

But wouldn't God then prevent that "someone" from naming an island chain "Pangaea"?

I doubt it.

I mean, how wise can your version of God be if he can't do something simple like that?

He did what He did. I'm not going to reinterpret Genesis 10:25 to conform to OES paradigms, just like you wouldn't reinterpret Genesis 10:25 to conform to Biblical paradigms.

 

[AV1611VET]

No they wouldn't. The fundamentalists would come up with some incredible leap of illogic, similar to embedded age...

Until you "scientists" come up with something that fits what God said, without being disrespectful to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, I'll go with embedded age.

Incidentally, how would you reconcile the difference between a book that portrays a 6100-year existence, with a rock that's 4.57 billion-years-old? (Please answer this.)

Nevermind --- I'm gonna start a thread --- this ought to be good.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Until you "scientists" come up with something that fits what God said, without being disrespectful to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, I'll go with embedded age.

Incidentally, how would you reconcile the difference between a book that portrays a 6100-year existence, with a rock that's 4.57 billion-years-old? (Please answer this.)

Nevermind --- I'm gonna start a thread --- this ought to be good.

In much the same way as I reconcile War of the Worlds with the observation that nothing described in there ever happened.

 

[RealityCheck]

Until you "scientists" come up with something that fits what God said, without being disrespectful to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, I'll go with embedded age.

Incidentally, how would you reconcile the difference between a book that portrays a 6100-year existence, with a rock that's 4.57 billion-years-old? (Please answer this.)

Nevermind --- I'm gonna start a thread --- this ought to be good.

I wouldn't even begin attempting to reconcile them. The correct answer is that the writers of the book that portrays a 6100-year existence were wrong because they did not have the available facts to show them they were wrong.

 

[RealityCheck]

In much the same way as I reconcile War of the Worlds with the observation that nothing described in there ever happened.

Also a perfectly good answer.

 

[pikatore]

When it came time for the Flood, God handled all the details concerning how nature would have interrupted His plans. As I'm fond of saying, nature is currently hostile to God's creation, yet obedient to God, Himself; as in the instance when Jesus stilled the waters...

Jesus stilling the waters or Moses parting the Red Sea are both more believable than the flood.

Both of them called upon a force that would manipulate matter, that is, cause the water molecules to clump together for Jesus' feet (though it would have been damn cold to walk on), or simply MOVING water to make a part in the Red Sea.

The flood, however, involves a gigantic disappearing act that would have not only meant that the Ark would have been very high in the atmosphere, where the pressure, temperature, and lack of oxygen would have been deadly for the people on board, but also the sheer pressure of all that water on the Earth's crust combined with the massive increase of mass leading to a stronger gravitational pull.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Sure did --- I do believe atheists don't believe in an "eternity"?

I think you need to go back and read my original post.

Let's try this from a different angle. Matthew, John, and Paul would not die a martyr's death --- knowing that what they did was fabricated.

And I said they obviously DID believe what they died for. And unless you can tell me why this is proof of the reality of Jesus' divinity and the deaths of David Koresh's followers is not proof of the reality of D.K.'s then you might want to recalibrate this argument.

That's all I'm saying.

Again, I realize compartive religions is probably the hardest part for a true believer. It always seems to me that the more fiercely held ones beliefs the less likely it is that they will see contrary beliefs around them that share an almost identical form.

 

[waynito]

By the way, didn't Noah sacrice 4 "clean" animals to god after he landed? I always wondered what happened to the unicorn.

 

[FishFace]

What? And end up making the same mistakes you guys make? No, thanks --- you're not gonna pin "Nadab" or "Abihu" on me. It'll be a cold day in Hellespont when I start blaming the Crusades on obedience to the Scriptures, or thinking the Bible taught that the earth was flat, or the Flood was local, or dinosaurs and man didn't co-exist, or Jehovah and Allah are the same,

The point is that we aren't so fussed with what the Bible teaches when what it teaches is clearly wrong. We take what is useful and leave the myths, just as we are liable to do with anything else.
All we ask is that you treat all texts equally and rationally.

or Jehovah and Yahweh are the same

They're two different transliterations of the tetragrammaton - i.e. the same four Hebrew letters. What, exactly, is different about Jehova and Yahweh in terms of the referent.

et. [ad nasuem] al. I'm not trading my cross for a Periodic Table for anyone.

No - I mean, who'd want to be correct when they could have faith.

 

[FishFace]

Let's try this from a different angle. Matthew, John, and Paul would not die a martyr's death --- knowing that what they did was fabricated.

And I guess you have reliable third party witnesses showing A) that if they were incorrect they were lying and B) they really did die martyr's deaths?
Oh wait, no, nope.

Your logic:

1. Assume the Bible is true
2. <Intermediate reasoning>
3. Therefore, the Bible is true.

Bzzt.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Has anyone pointed out that just because people sincerely believe they witnessed something does not mean they ACTUALLY witnessed it?

For example, there are, conservatively, a million people in the US alone who sincerely believe they have been the victims of alien abduction. The majority of these people are otherwise sane, rational, 9-5 mums and dads with no other aparrent mental pathology.

Does this mean that aliens are real and routinely abducting people? Or does an explanation like TLE or Sleep Paralysis explain the observed facts better?

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is that we aren't so fussed with what the Bible teaches when what it teaches is clearly wrong.

Believe me, FishFace, if tomorrow I was to stop believing in Jesus, I sure wouldn't become an atheist. I've never seen as much hate for all things sacred as what comes out from an atheist's keyboard. And even if I was considering becoming a friendly atheist, I wouldn't want to buy into the same ideology that supports such thinking as:

• The Crusades were Christian.
• The Bible teaches the earth was flat.
• etc.

Becoming an atheist is more than just catering to empirical science, it's a whole mindset against all things sacred.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Believe me, FishFace, if tomorrow I was to stop believing in Jesus, I sure wouldn't become an atheist. I've never seen as much hate for all things sacred as what comes out from an atheist's keyboard. And even if I was considering becoming a friendly atheist, I wouldn't want to buy into the same ideology that supports such thinking as:

• The Crusades were Christian.
• The Bible teaches the earth was flat.
• etc.

Becoming an atheist is more than just catering to empirical science, it's a whole mindset against all things sacred.

The Crusades WERE Christian... the pope started the whole deal...

(Crusader ancestor-posessing, evolution understanding Christian here)

 

[TheBear]

Believe me, FishFace, if tomorrow I was to stop believing in Jesus, I sure wouldn't become an atheist. I've never seen as much hate for all things sacred as what comes out from an atheist's keyboard. And even if I was considering becoming a friendly atheist, I wouldn't want to buy into the same ideology that supports such thinking as:

• The Crusades were Christian.
• The Bible teaches the earth was flat.
• etc.

Becoming an atheist is more than just catering to empirical science, it's a whole mindset against all things sacred.

Don't hold back, AV. What's really on your mind? Spill it!

Can you feeeeeel the looooove!!!!?

 

[AV1611VET]

Has anyone pointed out that just because people sincerely believe they witnessed something does not mean they ACTUALLY witnessed it?

Let me repeat --- no one died for what they knew was false. I didn't say thought was true --- I said, knew was false.

Consider Matthew A and Matthew B. Matthew A is with a man who walked on water. Matthew B just wrote that a man walked on water for kicks, and passed it off as factual.

Now they both stand before the mighty Senate:

ROMAN: Did you write this?

• Matthew A: Yes I did.
• Matthew B: Um ... ya.

ROMAN: Do you stand behind what you wrote?

• Matthew A: Yes I do.
• Matthew B: Um ... ya?

ROMAN: Are you aware of the consequences of this choice?

• Matthew A: Yes I am.
• Matthew B: Um ... no.

ROMAN: Death by beheading.

• Matthew A: [quotes Psalm 56:11]
• Matthew B: Um ... can't you guys take a joke?

[bible]Psalm 56:11[/bible]

By the way --- does that verse sound familiar? It should.