the flood

Alessandro · Nov 13, 2003

This has been said before, the evidence is looked at from two different views, one view supports global flood the other does the opposite. I choose the one that goes with what God said.

Arikay · Nov 13, 2003

Alessandro: Maybe you can start a new thread (to reduce confusion) and show us what evidence there is and how to look at it, to show a global flood?

Are you sure you are interpreting what god said correctly?

Alessandro · Nov 13, 2003

Maybe I will, but that will have to be later, tell you what, list the evidence you see as supportive of a non global flood, and I guarantee that there is another way of looking at it that supports a global flood.

Sure is an understatement.

God Bless

Mechanical Bliss · Nov 13, 2003

It's a pointless discussion. Alessandro will just repeat the mantra of "I'm right and you're wrong because the Bible says so" without actually addressing evidence brought up and he will simply pretend that it doesn't exist. It goes on for pages and pages and he invariably gives a very short reply consisting of a variation on that mantra. He claims to merely have a different view, but he never backs up how this view accounts for the specific evidence presented by others. This has already happened on a previous thread regarding how geology falsifies the flood.

Mechanical Bliss · Nov 13, 2003

Alessandro said:
Maybe I will, but that will have to be later, tell you what, list the evidence you see as supportive of a non global flood, and I guarantee that there is another way of looking at it that supports a global flood.

Sure is an understatement.

God Bless

That has already been done for you before here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t41209

You simply ignored those facts and repeated your mantra that you were right because you claim the Bible says so without any specific statements.

Alessandro · Nov 13, 2003

See what I mean.

Mechanical Bliss · Nov 13, 2003

Yes, I see that you think that you must be right because of the way you interpret the Bible and that you refuse to actually address the refuting evidence and simply ignore and excuse it by saying "The Bible says so."

Arikay · Nov 13, 2003

Well, so far I have often heard the claim "you can look at the evidence a different way and get a global flood" But I have yet to see anyone actually substantiate it.

So, can you please substantiate and show us what evidence supports a global flood?

So if sure is an understatement, as in, you are Definatly sure thats what god means, then I assume you must be God, or a perfect human being, since to be 100% sure you know what god ment is to not be a falible human. In the past people have been "sure" of what god ment, and we know now that they were wrong.

So, it is Impossible for your interpretation to be wrong?

Alessandro said:
Maybe I will, but that will have to be later, tell you what, list the evidence you see as supportive of a non global flood, and I guarantee that there is another way of looking at it that supports a global flood.

Sure is an understatement.

God Bless

Alessandro · Nov 13, 2003

And the Bible is? The Word of God. It is not by the way I interpret the Bible, when one sincerely seeks one finds. You may not agree and that is up to you my friend, and I respect that.

Mechanical Bliss · Nov 13, 2003

Alessandro said:
And the Bible is? The Word of God.

Unless you can prove it and prove that your interpretation of it is infallible, this excuse carries no weight. You've been asked to address the evidence, not repeat your tired mantra of "I must be right because the Bible says so." If you cannot do this, then there is no point engaging in the discussion. It's as simple as that.

Arikay · Nov 13, 2003

Again,
can you subtantiate the claim that there is evidence for the flood?

and,

Is it possible that your interpretation (that its literal) of the bible is wrong?

Alessandro · Nov 13, 2003

Prove what?

Alessandro · Nov 13, 2003

Same evidence, two sides.

It is God's Word is it not? Can God be wrong when He says something?

David Gould · Nov 13, 2003

Are you claiming that Mike, for example, has not sincerely sought?

In response to your request for a piece of evidence that the global flood model can explain, the continents and the animals on them would be a good one.

Noah and all the animals were dropped off at one point on Earth, correct?

This flood was about 4,000 years ago, correct?

Explain, using the flood model, how marsupial mammals got to Australia. Why weren't placental mammals not able to use this method? I have read one absolutely ludicrous response to this question. I would like to read your response. Hopefully, it can be a non-ludicrous one.

Mechanical Bliss · Nov 13, 2003

Alessandro said:
Prove what?

I already told you. In order for that excuse to be meaningful in any way you have to prove:

1. That the Bible is the "Word of God" (also that such a god exists, is implied therein)

2. That your interpretation of the Bible is infallible

Same evidence, two sides.

Show it, don't just say it. You have yet to do so despite being given many opportunities.

It is God's Word is it not? Can God be wrong when He says something?

Is it? Prove that it is in order to use that excuse. You're already starting to repeat your "I'm right because the Bible says so" mantra...

Arikay · Nov 13, 2003

"Same evidence, two sides."

You have said that before. Now I ask you to prove it. Show us the evidence and then show us how you view the evidence that gives us a global flood.

"It is God's Word is it not? Can God be wrong when He says something?"

Maybe god can't be wrong, but I assume you can, and thus you can misunderstand what god said.

So, is it possible that you musunderstood what god wrote, or are you infalible like god?

Alessandro said:
Same evidence, two sides.

It is God's Word is it not? Can God be wrong when He says something?

Alessandro · Nov 13, 2003

DG

One would be through early settlers.

People and animal migration, through the use of land bridges and so on.

Tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea floors 'Pleistocene'.

In 1883, Krakatoa erupted. The island remnant remained lifeless for some years, but was eventually re-colonised by a variety of creatures. Which is an example.

Alessandro · Nov 13, 2003

Why dont you try to prove that the Bible is not the Word of God, is it not something that you would like to do?

Mechanical Bliss · Nov 13, 2003

Alessandro said:
Why dont you try to prove that the Bible is not the Word of God, is it not something that you would like to do?

The burden of proof is on you. You make the positive assertion that the Bible is actually true. You make the positive assertion that you interpret it correctly. You use this as the entire basis of your argument. It's up to you to demonstrate it.

However, if you are going to claim that the "Word of God" requires that the global flood is true (literal interpretation or nothing at all), then I can prove that it isn't quite easily by proving that the global flood event didn't happen. I illustrated that in the previously linked thread. Others here have also done so in other threads too numerous to list as I don't have them all on hand.

Arikay · Nov 13, 2003

maybe you can start a new thread and go into depth instead of "and so on" Like an indepth explination of how the animal migration we see can be explined by the flood, or what tectonic upheaval has to do with the flood, or a more indepth explination of the island, the eruption, and the animals that inhabited it.

Whether the bible is the word of god is NOT the issue, what is the issue is wether your interpretation of the bible is the correct one.

Again, you didnt answer my question,
So, is it possible that you musunderstood what god wrote, or are you infalible like god?

So far it just seems like you like to make the claim, but dont have much to back it up.

Alessandro said:
DG

One would be through early settlers.

People and animal migration, through the use of land bridges and so on.

Tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea floors 'Pleistocene'.

In 1883, Krakatoa erupted. The island remnant remained lifeless for some years, but was eventually re-colonised by a variety of creatures. Which is an example.

the flood

Alive In God

HI

Alive In God

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Alive In God

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

HI

Alive In God

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

HI

Alive In God

Alive In God

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

HI

Alive In God

Alive In God

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

HI

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency