Weather during the Global Flood

[Critias]

How many times does the word "GLOBAL" appear in The Bible? Exactly zero times.

Do you need that exact word to be in the Bible in order to believe it?

Anyone who says that The Bible states that there was a global flood is therefore not being honest.

Now off to calling me a liar as well, eh?

People may well say that they interpret The Bible to be talking about a global flood. That would be the honest thing to say.

But to say that The Bible talks about a global flood is simply dishonest.

More name-calling. Is this the way your debate by resorting to childish name-calling?

How about you answer my questions and we actually deal with Scripture?

 

[Critias]

My answers, FWIW:

Clearly, quite a few local floods have happened, and still do happen.


Yes.


In the story, yes. In reality, no.


In the story, yes. In reality, no.


In the story, yes. In reality, no, but through the story God makes it with all mankind.


In the story, yes. In reality, I dare say it has rained for 40 days and 40 nights at some time and somewhere. If you'd ever lived in Devon it would seem extremely plausable.


The question is ambiguous.


In the story, yes. In reality, no.

So, you don't have faith that this "story" is history?

 

[Critias]

Critias,


Wrong. Gluadys did not say night2day was a liar, she said what night2day said was untrue.

There must be a serious case of the English impaired going on here. Gluadys exact words were "lie".

What do you call someone who lies? A liar. Gluadys called here statements of their being evidence for a global flood a lie, thus calling her a liar.

Well, if night2day believes a global flood occured, and it didn't, then she has fallen victim to someone else's deceit. Considering what the Bible say about false teaching, for Gluadys to feel bad about the teaching of a global flood and not to warn night2day would be against the Bible, and indeed, the very will of God himself...

Then you are now calling night2day gullible and lacking intelligence by saying she is a "victim" of someone else's deceit. If you would like to keep with that sarcastic phrase then what lead her to her belief in a global flood is the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Care to start demeaning God now?

Now, you are calling night2day a false teacher. Lest it be known that those who speak out against the Bible are false teachers. You seem to be support the various false teachers here.

And you think the will of God is to speak against Himself?

It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. There was a time where some very intelligent men believed the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that didn't change the fact they were wrong. All Gluadys is saying is that she believes that a global flood is false teaching, and is warning night2day (as the Bible commands) that she has been deceived.

Now this is rich! You are supporting the speaking out against the Bible. Who is the false the teacher, the one who defends the Bible or the one who argues against the Bible?

Wrong, Critias. night2day has been given evidence for a global flood which she honestly believes to be accurate. From this data, she says there is evidence for a global flood. Certainly, from Gluadys' point (and indeed mine) this is untrue, but night2day did not lie, and Gluadys did not at any point suggest she did. Now if night2day knew there was no evidence for a global flood, yet told others there was, that would be a lie. But Gluadys never said this, she simply said night2day's statement was in her opinion untrue.

Evidence is from God's word, the Bible that teaches a global flood.

No, Gluadys said night2day's statement was a lie.

In any case, if night2day was indeed lying, would it not be justified to say so?

I'm sorry Critias, but your statement seems a bit hypocritical, especially when you are so willing to misrepresent Gluadys for no apparent reason...

Peace,
Nick

Nick, your lack of belief in what God has said in His Holy Bible is sad, as it is sad that so many her desire to argue against what the Bible teaches. The arrogance displayed here as if you know what happened in a time you were never born is amazing. Instead of rely on the Creator, the One who was there, you rely on man, who wasn't there, to tell you how it all happened.

I have spent a long time on this board and have watched how many of the TEs including Gluadys speak out so harshly against the Bible. Now, many of you gather together to call night2day a liar. This is much like a witch trial here, where you all are in a frenzy to get a good punch in on night2day. I will not stand by and watch what you all are doing. I am in disgust with many of the actions portrayed here where people are so willing to personally attack 1 person because they don't like her words.

Do you want to get to the heart of this matter? Let's go to Scripture and see what it teaches or are you afraid that you might be wrong?

 

[gluadys]

Your capable of doing the same for your own views. But since you can't even get past calling people a liar regarding the Genesis global flood, why bother?

Cop-out.

My rationale for treating each book and passage of scripture on a case-by-case basis is that it was written by many different writers using different literary forms and it does not come with a key to tell us which is which. So the form of each is to be determined separately.

Now what is your rationale for saying a passage of scripture such as the flood story must be considered history? And I am looking for a positive rationale, not something like “nothing in scripture indicates that it is not history.” The appeal to lack of evidence is an appeal to a default—to the position that everything in scripture is a historical text unless there is positive reason to hold otherwise. There needs to be a rationale for that default position before I will accept it.

We are discussing the real issue. How one regards the Scriptures ultimately decides how one regards the Christian teachings and faith. Since it is the Scriptures which define them.

This can go back back and forth, but we already know we each regard the Scriptures far differntly than the other.

This was not the issue in question. The issue in question was that you made a reference to people “Stating God's word can be redefined and read as one likes, however one likes,..”

The issue is that no one here has made that statement. This is not a TE position. So why do you refer to people making statements like that when they have not.

You seem to be making the assumption that anyone who reads scripture differently than you is not disagreeing with you but with God. You seem to be assuming that anyone who reads scripture differently than you is redefining God’s word. You seem to be assuming that anyone who reads the scripture differently than you is reading it however they like, not as God or the human author intended it to be read.

In short, you are equating your personal opinions about scripture with God’s word as if you and you alone have been commissioned as the infallible interpreter of scripture.

When a brother or sister in Christ disagrees with your rendering of scripture, it is not an indication that they are redefining God’s word. It is only a disagreement with you. It is not a disagreement with God; it is not a disagreement with the scriptures, it is a disagreement with you.

For you to judge a disagreement with you as “redefining God’s word” and reading scripture “however one likes” is an amazing example of arrogance.

Regarding the Genesis flood, or anything else in the Bible for that matter, it is a matter of faith, or lack thereof, that what the Bible states is God working through human history to bring about His purpose.

Faith interprets facts. It does not contradict them.

Pardon, but it is not your place to be condesending nor insulting to my intelligence simply because you have a dislike to the fact I simply because I hold to Genesis 1-9 to be as is.

I do not consider you unintelligent and never said or implied that. Do you think that only stupid people are deceived? Intelligence does not protect one from being the victim of lies and deception.

Nor do I dislike the fact that you hold the flood story to be history. I think you are woefully mistaken and that you are adopting a theology that dishonours God, but that is a matter of observation, not dislike.

In addition, I highly doubt you know of a tiny fraction of the world's mysteries. Not even I would say such a thing. The world we live in is far too complex and designed for that. All I said all along is to trust in the one who created it in the first place, not in fallible human study which changes day by day by day.

Oh, granted, I know very few of the world’s mysteries. But I do know what I know.

Human study should change day by day precisely because it is fallible and incomplete. We know there is much truth still to be discovered. What kind of an idiot would not change an incomplete to a more complete truth when the more complete version was discovered. What kind of a fool would not change an error in their understanding when the correction was discovered?

This has nothing to do with not trusting the Creator. It has to do with recognizing the limitations of human knowledge.

I get the impression from you that trusting the Creator means we should believe lies about creation.

You again stated in your post: "

[/size][/color][/font]So, this is a lie. I am willing to believe you did not know it is a lie, that you yourself are the victim of someone else's deceit. But to say there is evidence of a global flood is a lie." Name-calling is name-calling.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, by suggesting you are the victim of deceit and not the perpetrator of it. In fact, nothing in your posts suggests that you are the perpetrator of the deceitful statement that evidence for a global flood exists in nature.

Apparently you don’t like to be characterized as a victim any more than as a liar. But given the falsity of the statement, to stand by it means you must be one or the other. I pass no judgment as to which.

It's very dishearting you feel you need to force your views on someone else...or that person is termed as something other than intellident by your standards if they do not accept certain therories or views

I have not said you are unintelligent. In fact, your posts, the evidence that you are well read in some subjects, that you know how to do research, that you write with clear articulation of your ideas, all this tells me you are far from being unintelligent.

But like all of us fallible humans, there are some things about which you are mis-informed. You said yourself that you would not claim to know all mysteries.

One of the things you are mis-informed about is the biblical flood. I have stated the fact:

There is no evidence of a global flood in nature.

I have also stated the only possible rational conclusions one can make on the basis of this fact:

1. Either no flood was global, or
2. All the evidence of a global flood was removed.

I am not forcing you to choose which to believe.

 

[Critias]

I think you had better re-take some reading for comprehension classes. I gave an example of a written document that would not be evidence. I did not say the bible was the same kind of written document. Just that some kinds of written documents are not evidence, such as a forgery.

And if you look closely, I was asking you a question. Thank you for answering.

The kind of proof you are looking for (e.g. a personal note from Moses that he used Gilgamesh as a source) does not exist. Nor is it needed for anyone who can make a literary comparison. It is obvious that Gilgamesh is a source to anyone who is not closing his eyes and his mind.

It is you who are closing your eyes because you have accept evolution thus you need to change Genesis. Many times I have asked you to present support for you assertions on this subject, not once have you been able to do so to show that Moses took from the Gilgamesh story.

You know, there are several resurrection stories out there that don't include Jesus Christ, that were written before Jesus Christ came to earth. Does this mean now that He did not raise from the dead and what we find in the Bible is actually a rip off of someone elses writing?

Give it up, Critias. If you have to so completely distort what I say to make a point, you don’t have a point worth making.

What you are suggesting is analogous to saying that a shopkeeper who takes his day’s cash receipts to the bank for deposit, should be charged with counterfeiting because one of the bills he is depositing turns out to be counterfeit. Is the shopkeeper to blame because he accepted the bill in good faith? For that matter, even the person who gave it to him may not be the counterfeiter either, but someone who unwittingly acquired the counterfeit bill and passed it on in good faith.

The only person who is committing fraud (aka lying) is the original counterfeitor, not those who innocently and in good faith pass on the counterfeit bill.

This is the position of the majority of YECists. They are personally honest and stating what they believe to be the truth. They do not know (or believe) that their statements are false. The blame rests with those who deceived them, not with the person who repeats the false statement in the sincere belief that it is true.

First, you called her statements a lie. Second, you never asked here where she got her information nor did she state she got it anywhere else. Third, you insulted her intelligence with the "victim" part as if she cannot discern truth for herself. Fourth, if she does believe the Bible as evidence, which is clear she does, then you called her a liar.

You are so wrapped up in condoning your wrongful actions that you cannot even see what you said. Your lack of understanding that other people can come to different conclusions without being a liar is quite remarkable. For some reason, you have much contempt for night2day as well as many other YECs.

Show us your Biblical support that there was no global flood. Last time we did this you called Peter and Paul ignorant.

 

[gluadys]

1. Did any flood happen?

We don’t know. There are some possible candidates for Noah’s flood.


Does Genesis even talk of a flood at all?

Yes.


2. Did all flesh die(but 8) because of the flood?

That is what the story says—yes.

3. What of the Ark, did Noah actually make one by the specifications given in Genesis?

That is what the story says.

4. Did God actually make a covenant with Noah after the flood?

That is what the story says. Jewish tradition is that the Noachian covenant is a covenant with all humankind, as distinct from the Mosaic covenant which was limited to Israel.

5. Did it actually rain for 40 days and nights?

That is what the story says.

6. Did the waters actually flood the earth or land for 150 days?

That is what the story says.

7. Did the Ark really rest on the Mount of Ararat?

That is what the story says.

So from my perspective, all of these things did happen within the framework of the story. The question is whether the story is a story or a factual account of a flood. Given the contradictory evidence in creation, it is IMHO a story. If a global flood actually occurred, I would expect evidence of the flood and no contra-indications. I would expect this because I expect integrity from God, not deceit.

I grant that God could have removed all evidence of the flood. I do not grant that he would do so.

 

[ebia]

So, you don't have faith that this "story" is history?

Nothing leads me to conclude that it is history. God's message in creation leads me to conclude that it is not history.

 

[justified]

So from my perspective, all of these things did happen within the framework of the story. The question is whether the story is a story or a factual account of a flood. Given the contradictory evidence in creation, it is IMHO a story. If a global flood actually occurred, I would expect evidence of the flood and no contra-indications. I would expect this because I expect integrity from God, not deceit.

I'm afraid I can't keep up with everyone's bickering on here, but I am curious about this. I am a Christian, and I don't believe in a global flood or a literal seven day creation, but I'm also an Ancient Historian which makes it convenient. How do you view the flood pericope from a historical point of view. Specifically, now.

 

[gluadys]

[/font]
I'm afraid I can't keep up with everyone's bickering on here, but I am curious about this. I am a Christian, and I don't believe in a global flood or a literal seven day creation, but I'm also an Ancient Historian which makes it convenient. How do you view the flood pericope from a historical point of view. Specifically, now.

I consider it to be a myth, especially as it is actually two stories woven together.

I consider that it is possible that it is a story based on a real remembrance of an actual flood such as the one that created the Black Sea and destroyed many human settlements in the area.

But while that is possible, it is not a necessary explanation of the origin of the story.

The importance of the story is not whether it actually happened but the theological use the Israelites put it to.

 

[gluadys]

It is you who are closing your eyes because you have accept evolution thus you need to change Genesis. Many times I have asked you to present support for you assertions on this subject, not once have you been able to do so to show that Moses took from the Gilgamesh story.

The way you do this is to read the Gilgamesh story, read the biblical story, and note that they are essentially the same story, just with different names. This indicates that one story is the source of the other. Since the Gilgamesh story is considerably older than the biblical story, it could not be using the biblical story as a source. So it had to be the other way around.

You know, there are several resurrection stories out there that don't include Jesus Christ, that were written before Jesus Christ came to earth. Does this mean now that He did not raise from the dead and what we find in the Bible is actually a rip off of someone elses writing?

In fact, some people support that thesis. I have seen this argument used by atheists. Can you show they are wrong?

First, you called her statements a lie.

I called one statement a lie. And it was. But if you cannot tell the difference between a deliberate lie and the innocent passing on of what one believes to be the truth although it isn't, you are the one who needs to straighten out your thinking.

You are beating a dead horse here, Critias. Time you stopped wasting your effort.

 

[Critias]

The way you do this is to read the Gilgamesh story, read the biblical story, and note that they are essentially the same story, just with different names. This indicates that one story is the source of the other. Since the Gilgamesh story is considerably older than the biblical story, it could not be using the biblical story as a source. So it had to be the other way around.

Ah, so because there are two stories that are similar, you conclude the Bible took from the Gilgamesh. Another assertion that has no support to show that Moses did in fact use the Gilgamesh to write the Genesis Flood Epic.

Now, about your claim that Gilgamesh and the Bible's Flood are almost identical, with the exception of names. This you say is proof that Moses recopied the Gilgamesh in the Bible. Do you honestly want to hold to your claim that everything is nearly the same except for the names?

1. Gilgamesh story teaches that the flood was only 6 days and nights.
2. The boat in the Gilgamesh is a cube.
3. The release of birds is different, which is very illogical in Gilgamesh.
4. The gods in the Gilgamesh are seen squabbling and are in need of human sacrifices for their hunger.

a. Your theory of a local flood, Gilgamesh being Genesis' precursor is dependent on the Documentary Hypothesis.
b. Julius Wellhausen assumes that the people of Moses' time did not invent writing. Archaeological discoveries prove this to be wrong.

I would like to see you prove that Moses copied the Gilgamesh. You cannot, you can only make assertions and guesses. Instead of putting your faith in this Holy Writing from God, you put your faith in those who speak out against the this account in the Bible.

In fact, some people support that thesis. I have seen this argument used by atheists. Can you show they are wrong?

I have encountered it as well. It is very much just like your thesis on the Flood and Creation. I have also seen it asserted that there never was a man name Jesus Christ who was crucified.

The point is, you use the same argument as atheist, just against Genesis 1-11, the foundation of the Gospels themselves. You have become partners with atheists, you destroy the foundation, they destory the Gospels.

Thankfully, Jesus' words will never pass away, and it is by His will that the Bible remains and His children believe what it says by faith. There will always be people who will take up war against God and the Bible.

I called one statement a lie. And it was. But if you cannot tell the difference between a deliberate lie and the innocent passing on of what one believes to be the truth although it isn't, you are the one who needs to straighten out your thinking.

You are beating a dead horse here, Critias. Time you stopped wasting your effort.

Maybe it is time for you to repent and apologize to night2day instead of justifying yourself. The fact is you called her a liar, you insulted her intelligence and you are too prideful to apologize.

 

[justified]

Gluadys,

Only because I have training in this area am I going to poke around a little bit; don't think that I disagree with you. But in my tradition, it's a complement to ask someone to defend themselves:

The way you do this is to read the Gilgamesh story, read the biblical story, and note that they are essentially the same story, just with different names. This indicates that one story is the source of the other. Since the Gilgamesh story is considerably older than the biblical story, it could not be using the biblical story as a source. So it had to be the other way around.

How can you possibly say this? It's entirely syllogistic to presume that since two stories exist of one event one must be dependent upon the other. They can both be reporting the same event remembered that had been carried through oral tradition. Through oral tradition, the Sumerians got it wrong and the Hebrews got it right. But you can't say it indicates anything; that's presumption, not logic!

On the Yahwist and the Priestly source in this Pericope: Even among liberal scholars, the four-source theory was done away with a long time ago. Moreover, that little ditty on the website ignores the fact that in oral sources things are repeated because it is an oral source. It entirely ignores how writing is done in the ancient world. Finally, another syllogism -- having two stories woven together, were it true, would prove nothing at all about its mythical status. It would have simply meant that there were two stories circulating, and they are both in our records harmonized; so there's nothing we can say about contradiction.

 

[night2day]

The only explanation I can think of is that when I wrote Deutorocanonical, you read it as Decalouge.

Yes, I see now I apparently did confuse the two words. It still stands those books, whether they be the Apocrypha between either side of the 3 Testaments were never really considered inspired. In the Hebrew rexrx it hadn't even been considered inspired at all, nor was it included.It was only perhaps prophetible reading regarding the Old Testment Apocrypha. Not so for the New Testament questionable books.

The "other Gospels" (and other questionable writings) such as from Thomas, Peter, and Mary and others...they were held highly suspect to be Gnostic in origin.

And I can see why. Looking over the "Gospel of Thomas" some time ago and comparting it with the rest of the Scriptures...I can only say that it does happen to have quite a few Gnostic elements within them to say the least! The old working of oneself to become devine. One may wish to use whatever term they wish...but many, non-Christian beliefs teach that too. From Hinduism and Buddism, the New Age movement, etc. It all follows the same lie the snake told Eve in the garden "Did God really say? ... Eat of the fruit and ye shall be as gods." Still does the same today.

 

[Rusticus]

Do you need that exact word to be in the Bible in order to believe it?

So you are expecting me to believe something that is not in The Bible, just because you think it is a good idea?

I was under the impression that you think highly of Luther. So, what happend to Sola Scriptura? Martin Luther would turn over in his grave if he heard you talking thus.
Really......

Now off to calling me a liar as well, eh?

It is not what I said, but it is your interpretation of what I said.

What I said was this:

"How many times does the word "GLOBAL" appear in The Bible? Exactly zero times.
Anyone who says that The Bible states that there was a global flood is therefore not being honest.
People may well say that they interpret The Bible to be talking about a global flood. That would be the honest thing to say.
But to say that The Bible talks about a global flood is simply dishonest."

The best way to avoid being called dishonest is to stop being dishonest.

More name-calling. Is this the way your debate by resorting to childish name-calling?

Of course, you calling me a "childish name-caller" is neither childish nor name-calling?

If I was interested in name-calling the term "Bully-Boy" would come to mind to describe you. But, seeing that I am not into that sort of thing, I won't call you that.

How about you answer my questions and we actually deal with Scripture?

I have no intention to share my beliefs with a person who is dishonest.
If you were able to honestly admit that "Global" is your interpretation, rather than what The Bible actually says, there is a very slight chance that we might have a meaningful discussion.

 

[ebia]

Yes, I see now I apparently did confuse the two words. It still stands those books, whether they be the Apocrypha were never really considered inspired.

Say's who? The RCC and the Eastern Orthodox churches have always treated them as inspired, although (in the case of the RCC) of lesser inspiration. Pick up a decent Catholic bible and you'd be hard pressed to pick them out - they aren't stuck together in the middle - and that's how a lot of bibles have been for roughly three-quarters of Christian history. The were in the bible St Paul quoted from (the LXX) and have been since.

But this is drifting off the point - you claim that God has preserved the bible, when he actually seems to have preserved at least 3 slighly different bibles - the "Catholic" bible, the "Protestant" bible and the "Eastern Orthodox" bible, and that's without delving into some of the "not quite orthodox" eastern churches.

The "other Gospels" (since some do consider them alongside the Apocrypha, but seperate from) such as from Thomas and Mary and others were held highly suspect to be Gnostic in origin. As well as written by others during the days of the early Christian church that held legitement.

The apocraphal "gospels" are a completely different kettle of fish to the deuterocanonical books, although the are sometimes confused with them because of the tendency to call the deuterocanonicals "The Apocrypha" in non-Catholic traditions. I'm not aware of any remotely orthodox church that includes them in their canon.

 

[Critias]

So you are expecting me to believe something that is not in The Bible, just because you think it is a good idea?

Ok. So, even though there is no Hebrew word for global, you expect it to be said in order to believe it?

I am not asking you to believe anything. I am asking you why do you expect the specific word "global" to be in the Hebrew language in order for you to believe it was global? Obviously a description of global won't suffice because it is there in Genesis.

I was under the impression that you think highly of Luther. So, what happend to Sola Scriptura? Martin Luther would turn over in his grave if he heard you talking thus.
Really......

Well, I am a Lutheran after all. I don't think Luther ever said tradition is bad, he just said it doesn't take precendent over Scripture nor is it equal to Scripture as the RCC was doing.

Yeah, Martin Luther would turn over in his grave if he heard me defending the Bible, especially since he and I agree the flood was global. It is you who demands an English word to be in Ancient Hebrew when it is not in order to believe.

It is not what I said, but it is your interpretation of what I said.

Well, you said anyone who says the Bible is talking about a global flood is being dishonest. I am saying, so you are calling me dishonest, which is the same as calling me a liar.

What I said was this:

"How many times does the word "GLOBAL" appear in The Bible? Exactly zero times.
Anyone who says that The Bible states that there was a global flood is therefore not being honest.
People may well say that they interpret The Bible to be talking about a global flood. That would be the honest thing to say.
But to say that The Bible talks about a global flood is simply dishonest."

The best way to avoid being called dishonest is to stop being dishonest.

In other words, in order for you to stop calling me a liar, I would have to argue against the Bible. Not gonna happen. So keep the personal attacks coming if that is how you see best to debate.

Of course, you calling me a "childish name-caller" is neither childish nor name-calling?

Personal attacks are childish. It also shows you don't have anything to back up your beliefs.

If I was interested in name-calling the term "Bully-Boy" would come to mind to describe you. But, seeing that I am not into that sort of thing, I won't call you that.

Yeah, I can tell you don't resort to name calling, like calling people dishonest.

I have no intention to share my beliefs with a person who is dishonest.
If you were able to honestly admit that "Global" is your interpretation, rather than what The Bible actually says, there is a very slight chance that we might have a meaningful discussion.

More personal attacks and a copout to not address the real account. Anytime you actually want to discuss Scripture and what it actually says, let me know. Until then, just keep on with those personal attacks, I praise God for everyone of them!

 

[Critias]

Say's who? The RCC and the Eastern Orthodox churches have always treated them as inspired, although (in the case of the RCC) of lesser inspiration. Pick up a decent Catholic bible and you'd be hard pressed to pick them out - they aren't stuck together in the middle - and that's how a lot of bibles have been for roughly three-quarters of Christian history. The were in the bible St Paul quoted from (the LXX) and have been since.

But this is drifting off the point - you claim that God has preserved the bible, when he actually seems to have preserved at least 3 slighly different bibles - the "Catholic" bible, the "Protestant" bible and the "Eastern Orthodox" bible, and that's without delving into some of the "not quite orthodox" eastern churches.


The apocraphal "gospels" are a completely different kettle of fish to the deuterocanonical books, although the are sometimes confused with them because of the tendency to call the deuterocanonicals "The Apocrypha" in non-Catholic traditions. I'm not aware of any remotely orthodox church that includes them in their canon.

When looking at the three various Bibles you present, what books are in all three?

 

[Rusticus]

.....just keep on with those personal attacks, I praise God for everyone of them!

Really? ....... Fantastic. ........ Halleluiah!

 

[ebia]

When looking at the three various Bibles you present, what books are in all three?

Are you suggesting that the 'bible God has preserved' is the minimial set of books that every Christian church agrees on? On what basis would you think that?

 

[ebia]

[...], just keep on with those personal attacks, I praise God for everyone of them!

Well, that explains a lot.