Magus55

Again, it depends on what you assume the Earth used to be like. Lift the ocean floor, and lower the tallest mountains and there is plenty of water sitting in the oceans. The Bible describes Ararat being the highest mountain, but I don't think it was anywhere near as high as it is today. And of course, the only source of water wasn't from rain, so no it wouldn't have to have rained 360 inches an hour.

Only if you assume rain was the only source of water.

Doctor X

Sorry, JCS, missed the question:

I think because some simply do not like doubt. Not to beat up on Magus . . . much . . . but methinks if he accepts that the Bible has myth in it, that some parts are "untrue" it brings in the whole problem of "what is certain?"

It is nice to be able to point to something that "proves" a belief. Move from the Bible over to one of the more popular religions--politics. I have seen in the last two days so many mutually exclusive interpretations of, say, Dr. Kay's report that it would make a theologian blush. Every side is certain that Bush is a liar or the Democrats eat babies . . . and not just the ugly ones. . . .

Back to the Bible--the origin of "fundamentalism" to my recollection comes as a reaction to biblical scholarship--somewhere around 1912--sticks in my mind--where one of the "fundamentals" was that the Bible is "inerrant" and "every word true" ipso facto and "so there!"

Why?

You bring in doubt then you may be wrong.

With SCIENCE [Cue Cymbal Crash--Ed.] you can test beliefs. I believe we will one day travel faster than the speed of light so I can visit the Seles Pleasure Transport . . . unfortunately, evidence is proving me wrong!!

You can use science on the Bible, of course, as posters have demonstrated why the flood myths are, well, myths.

Frankly, many theologians are comfortable with that. I would argue that the authors of the texts were not concerned with presenting a "this-is-how-it-exactly-happened" as modern readers seem to obsess.

This page has been over and over clear contradictions in the Bible. The best response has been to just flatly they are contraditions. Gee! I wish I could flatly deny I have been speeding to the policeman with the radar gun!

One is free to believe whatever they wish to believe. The problem is that some cannot expect others to believe the way they do without evidence and in contradistinction to evidence.

--J.D.

Angrillori

Lovely how it DOES seem to disprove the events though. City wasn't there when the bible says Israelites stormed it? Slaves didn't leave Egypt en masse and the Pharoah's army wasn't wiped out? All the firstborn didn't die at once?

Demigawd

Nevermind. I was actually hoping (silly me, I know) that your problems with local floods inspiring global flood myths would actually involve reality, rather than digging further into a literalist reading of the bible. I guess I'm too much of an optimist sometimes.

Doctor X

One can not really call geology an assumption.

Depite the fact that no evidence exists that this happened, evidence exists that it did not happen. . . .

"Think?" "THINK?" [No shouting.--Ed.] I am afraid we [We?--Ed.] need more than that.

Magus, Magus, quite contrarious
How do your mountains grow. . . ?

Others have noted the problem with trying to explain the water coming from the earth. See above.

--J.D.

Magus55

I don't expect anyone on this board to believe the way I do. I'd like everyone here to believe in God, but clearly thats not gonna happen, and that is certaintly more important to me than whether Genesis is literal or not. I just don't appreciate being ridiculed or insulted, just because I don't agree with what you all believe in.

Demigawd

Perhaps if you came off a bit more open to discussion and new ideas rather than demanding your mythology be taken as seriously, if not more so, than the years of research alot of members of this board have invested in, then you'd see alot more respect coming your way.

When I was a Christian, it would piss me off and frustrate me to no end to have to contend with those who didn't follow the fundamentalist faith I embraced. However, I learned to get over my ego and actually start critically thinking about things.

Doctor X

Magus:

You would have to justify unjustified suffering for me to consider a Good deity. However, the problem Here is that this is a forum on Biblical literature and criticism. In order to argue your viewpoint, you have to argue the texts and, frankly, I do not think you do that.

As I and others have indicated, it is not necessary to have an inerrant text to have a faith.

Then why not drop it? You give the appearance of requiring literal truth. Certainly your responses here on the Flood Myths indicate that. If you do not really need "literal" why defend it?

Fair enough. I do not wish to become the Judge of the "He Started it FIRST!" competition--since no one will give me the death penalty!--so I will not bother trying to figure out who insulted whom when.

However, you do take an insulting tone when contradicted. I, too, have been known to respond "a trifle on the harsh side of strict." The problem is if you proclaim an opinion or interpretation--particularly on, say, a scientific forum such as Evolution/Creationism, posters will want evidence.

This is why--some time ago--I issued you a Challenge. At the time you seem'd unreceptive to the Documentary Hypothesis, or multi-authorship of the Pentateuch. Fine. What I wanted you to do is argue the evidence. I suggested you read Friedman's very straight-forward summary Who Wrote the Bible? and argue against it. Granted, I do not think you can argue against the principles any more than a person can argue that evolution never happens, but I am willing to be proven wrong.

Now take Original Sin . . . please. . . .

You seem to support the concept. Fine. The problem is that you have not shown biblical support for it and others have shown that it does not exist. You may disagree with that assessment, to which I would encourage you to provide the evidence. However, you can still believe in Original Sin while accepting that it is not in the Bible. You may not convince others of your belief, but you are free to the belief.

Go to the genealogies of Jesus. They contradict one another. I do not recall if you subscribe to the "one is for Mary" apology--it does not work--it is a patrilineal genealogy. Nevertheless, that they contradict one another does not mean you have to toss your NT on the ash heap . . . the shredder will do [Stop that!--Ed.]

Look at the whole "Historical Junior" debate. Did a "he" ever exist? Sides present evidence. It stands pretty much unresolved, in my mind. So you can accept the contradiction of the genealogies without losing your Jesus. Indeed, you can believe a Jesus "stood for/preached such-and-such" and argue that Jn and Mk protrayed him differently from that conception for polemical reasons.

This is why I speculate you have a problem with doubt. Accepting that myth exists in scripture introduces doubt. Take the example above: you cannot prove your conception of Jesus.

I would think that not so disturbing, unless you feel the need to convince others and yourself of your faith.

--J.D.

Angrillori

Wow dude! Gawd must be working through you to prophecy so effectively!

ROFL!

On a more serious note, would Magus like share with us what evidence exactly can be seen as both evidence of and evidence against a global flood?

That seemed quite an assertion in need of supportin' in my eyes.

Celsus

By the way, the Korean engineers' data has been debunked on theology web (click if you like to see Creationists squirm). George Herbert's conclusion was that the paper wouldn't even have passed at undergraduate level. Perhaps Magus could at least have been honest enough to admit he ripped it off AiG?

Joel