The Sumerian Flood Narrative

[TLK Valentine]

Why should we do that?

You guys do it enough for us.

Someone has to keep you guys honest -- you refuse to do it yourselves.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sounds like the Sadducees were Atheists. Or was it the other way around?

Nope -- they were observant Jews -- just like Jesus was.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sounds like the Sadducees were Atheists. Or was it the other way around?

Nope -- they were observant Jews -- just like Jesus was.

Well, unlike the atheists, the Sadducees aren't around any more

http://www.christianforums.com/t7454770-2/#post56591868
Why did Sadducees not believe in Resurrection? Acts 23:8

The Sadducees were a powerful minority within the whole of Judaism...
...They rejected both the Resurrection of the body & postmortem spiritual existence.<snip>.

The key word being "were"

Matthew 3:7 Seeing yet many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming upon the baptism he said to them, "prodigy of vipers! who intimates to ye to be fleeing from being about wrath?"

The Sadducees | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

Being closely associated with the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared from history when the Temple was destroyed in 70.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, unlike the atheists, the Sadducees aren't around any more

Is that a sign of things to come?

History has a funny way of repeating itself.

 

[Doveaman]

all I ask is that you guys acknowledge that your interpretation of scripture, whatever conclusions you come up with, is fallible and not "The Inerrant Word of God."

It is "The Inerrant Word of God" that says: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..." - (2 Tim 3:16).

In other words, it is "The Inerrant Word of God" that reprimands and corrects all other versions of the flood story by giving us the correct interpretation of the flood story. That’s why it’s called "The Inerrant Word of God."

I have seen both claims that the serpent was Satan and claims that he had used the serpent here in this forum. Neither claim makes any sense to me, since A. The serpent was the one punished by God and B. If the serpent was Satan, he should still be crawling on his belly eating dirt.

Or C. The Serpent was a metaphor for Satan, just as Pig is a metaphor for Glutton.

 

[Jamin4422]

Just another example of you refusing point blank to face the truth when you don't like it.

Oh, so your willing to accept that truth does exist? Or are we just talking about what is convenient and what is inconvenient?

 

[Doveaman]

I've always wondered where the dove found a live branch after the flood destroyed all living things, including plants.

Plants do not have nostrils:

“Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.” – (Gen 7:22).

If God can preserve three men in a fire, can He not preserve a plant under water?

 

[Doveaman]

Words are just labels, or approximations if you like. By definition it is impossible for them to be entirely inerrant. So your statement that God's word is inerrant is silly. If He is using words then he has already conceded inerrancy.

Jesus' reply is: &#8220;You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.&#8221; &#8211; (Matt 22:29).

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Oh, so your willing to accept that truth does exist? Or are we just talking about what is convenient and what is inconvenient?

You'd be better off asking AV1611VET that one.

 

[Jamin4422]

It is "The Inerrant Word of God" that says: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..." - (2 Tim 3:16).

In other words, it is "The Inerrant Word of God" that reprimands and corrects all other versions of the flood story by giving us the correct interpretation of the flood story. That’s why it’s called "The Inerrant Word of God."

Yes, God also gives us the natural record. Like fossils so that one does not cancel out the other. We have to look at all of what God gives us to look at. We can examine all that God gives us to examine. Then we can allow God to guide us and lead us in our understanding.

If you JUST look at the Bible then your going to come to a different conclusion then if you look at the Bible AND the natural record we find in nature and in the natural world. Just the same people that only look at fossils and what they see in the natural world. And they do not study the Bible. They will come to a different conclusion because they have limited themselves and they have limited their understanding.

NOTE: I started a sentence with "and". Also I used the word "and" three times as a device so people walk away with the understanding that it takes BOTH the Bible AND science. You can not study and understand just one or the other and have a proper understanding of what God wants us to know. Yet I know somone will count all the times I used the word "AND" and they will proudly give me that count. Still the message is you can not rely on or depend on one or the other. It takes the witness of both. Because God always gives us at least TWO witnesses.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Jesus' reply is: &#8220;You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.&#8221; &#8211; (Matt 22:29).

Then Jesus would be talking out of his hat.

 

[Jamin4422]

You'd be better off asking AVET1611VET that one.

That would lead me to believe that you only accept what is convenient then. So you disregard inconvenient truths. As for AV he seems to be some sort of enigma or a riddle. I do not think he wants anyone to know what he believes. He has a lot of gray area inbetween.

 

[Jamin4422]

Then Jesus would be talking out of his hat.

Did they wear hats back then?

 

[Split Rock]

Why should we do that?

You guys do it enough for us.

The reason I feel the need to repeat this here is that you guys continue to sidestep the issue.

God's Word is inerrant ... errant interpretations aren't.

I certainly agree with the latter. Now why is it your posts don't seem to reflect this fact?

I don't bow to your rules.

I'm not trying to make "rules" here. I was answering your question about my post.

Jesus walking on water constitutes an 'excessive claim' to you guys; does it not?

Jesus walking on water constitutes an 'errant interpretation' to you guys; does it not?

I thought I discussed the issue of miracles with you recently. While I may not subscribe to them, I don't have a real issue with them because of the fact they are isolated events.

I disagree ... Biblical infallibility stands on its own.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but I'll assume you mean that the Bible is infallible, even if interpretation of it is not... correct? I don't agree that the bible is itself infallible, since it was written, transcribed and translated by fallible men. However, I would consider it at least a step in the right direction if you guys act like you understand that interpretation is not infallible. It would at least be something we could agree on, and would at least set the bar to a reasonable level for discussion. Neither our scientific inquiry nor our interpretation of scripture is infallible.

God tells us how the Bible can be falsified; and as yet, It hasn't been.

I am not talking at all about falsifying scripture.

I'll ask you again though, because this is a good point that I think makes you uneasy:

Not really, but go ahead and ask.

Of the six natural explanations as to how we got our moon, which one do you subscribe to, and is it 'infallible' as well?

I haven't studied them very much to be honest, so I wouldn't come down behind one or the other. As to infallibility, none are. You can quote me on that.

If you say it is infallible, then your point about infallibility can take a hike.

Not a problem. All human endeavours are fallible. This includes those based on scripture and science, both.

Look in the mirror.

I have no problem looking in the mirror... do you?

Here's a second point I'd like to make:

Why is it that those who interpret the Scriptures allegorically don't seem to bother you at all?

1. Because they do not contradict reality.
2. Because I believe that is the way the scriptures (at least GEN) were intended to be read.

Those who interpret Genesis 1, for example, to fit the Big Bang paradigm nary get a hoot out of you guys, does it?

Actually, I have noticed many non-Christians disagree with this, here. I do believe it makes little sense to try and "prove" that scripture predicts anything we have recently learned via science. I have posted such here on ocassion, though not as often as some others have.

That's because ... in my opinion ... the only thing that really bothers you guys is the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Any interpretation that conflicts with the reality that we have determined via our species' combined scientific inquiry bothers me.

That's what brings you guys out of the woodwork, demanding we admit 'our interpretation could be infallible' ... isn't it?

Well to be fair, its usually the literalists here that tend to claim infallibility, not the non-literalists. I will emphasize one more time, no interpretation is infallible.

 

[Doveaman]

Yes, God also gives us the natural record. Like fossils so that one does not cancel out the other. We have to look at all of what God gives us to look at. We can examine all that God gives us to examine. Then we can allow God to guide us and lead us in our understanding.

If you JUST look at the Bible then your going to come to a different conclusion then if you look at the Bible AND the natural record we find in nature and in the natural world. Just the same people that only look at fossils and what they see in the natural world. And they do not study the Bible. They will come to a different conclusion because they have limited themselves and they have limited their understanding.

NOTE: I started a sentence with "and". Also I used the word "and" three times as a device so people walk away with the understanding that it takes BOTH the Bible AND science. You can not study and understand just one or the other and have a proper understanding of what God wants us to know. Yet I know somone will count all the times I used the word "AND" and they will proudly give me that count. Still the message is you can not rely on or depend on one or the other. It takes the witness of both.

That sounds all sweet and nice, but truth is not dependent upon a fallible man-made theory:

"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth." - (John 17:17).

Because God always gives us at least TWO witnesses.

I'm sure He does:

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit..." - (1 John 5:7).

 

[Split Rock]

That sounds all sweet and nice, but truth is not dependent upon a fallible man-made theory:

At the same time, however, you will insist that truth be based on a fallible interpretation of scripture by man.. correct?

 

[Jamin4422]

That sounds all sweet and nice, but truth is not dependent upon a fallible man-made theory:

What makes Creationism less of a fallible man-made theory when compared to Evolution?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That would lead me to believe that you only accept what is convenient then. So you disregard inconvenient truths. As for AV he seems to be some sort of enigma or a riddle. I do not think he wants anyone to know what he believes. He has a lot of gray area inbetween.

I have no idea whether I ignore inconvenient truths or not. Perhaps if you suggest some I'd have a better idea of what sort of things you were thinking of.

As for AV1611VET, apart from being thrilled to bits that we're discussing him, he doesn't have any grey areas that I know of. He's a Bible literalist and dispensationalist which involves all that jewish stuff and rapture and "not in this dispensation" nonsense, but more pertinently he just ignores anything at all that stands in the way of his belief system. In fact, if anything gets too close too upsetting his applecart, like evolution, he'll simply claim it's part of satan's skulduggery. That's why I suggested you would be better off asking him about convenient and inconvenient truths.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Plants do not have nostrils:

“Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.” – (Gen 7:22).

If God can preserve three men in a fire, can He not preserve a plant under water?

23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out;

Unless of course you contend plants aren't really alive.

 

[RickG]

23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out;

Unless of course you contend plants aren't really alive.

I agree. The KJV says: "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,"

Then Genesis 8:11 says: "And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth."