Ellis14

I am not going to rehash this point because if Magus can't see common sense here, he's not going to if I repeat myself.

A fair interpretation, I can accept this.

This doesn't make sense in light of the scripture. How could the ark have rested on the top of a mountain in the 7th month if the tops of the mountains weren't visible until the 10th month? This is a contradiction.

No you haven't. Insulting me is not going to make your mythical book appear more sound. Even if you refuted all these contradictions perfectly, there are thousands more. However, you have no interest in looking into them so me citing this:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...a/by_book.html
will be completely useless I bet.

May I retort to your insult with a mild one of my own: if you cannot see the blatant flaws and contradictions in the bible then your attempt at reading is poor. Scratch that, your reading is fine, your understanding is poor. And when I say poor, I mean awful.

Which parts can we explain naturalistically, and which parts can't we? How do we know in advance which methods are right and which are wrong?

This argument that the flood wasn't a natural event all by itself is just so wishy-washy. What kind of a God decides to wipe mankind out (and all the innocent animals) but spare one family but have humans make a wooden boat all by themselves with no expertise and ship-building knowledge, collect all the animals by themselves from ALL over the world, two or seven of each "kind" (whatever THAT by be!) etc etc? Why bother? Why not just snap your fingers and wipe all the evil people out? Why not just materialise the ark out of thin air yourself? Why not make the earth full of water for a day then make the water mysteriously vanish again? The story is ludicrous. It smacks of primitive goat-herders making up a nice story that gets passed on from generation to generation and gets more convoluted as it progresses, just to make the Hebrews believe they were something special and had a unique God-given heritage. The story is a myth, it's a fable, a bed-time story like the Wolf and the Three Pigs. And before theists go crazy at me for comparing the "word of God" to children's stories, answer me this: if the Jack and the Beanstalk story was in the bible, would you believe it then? (Does a shark shit in the sea??) You're damn right they would.

To believe in something contradictory to fact is irrational. Evolution and an anicent universe are facts. They are irrelevant to God. Being a theist doesn't mean that you reject evolution or an old earth. You seem to be incapable of admitting that your limited close-minded fundamentalist view of the bible might be in error.

Evolution happened. Does this mean God doesn't exist? No. Does this mean necessarily that the bible is flawed? No. Evolution implies nothing either way. It is a fact, so is an ancient earth. If your interpretation contradicts the facts then your interpretation is wrong. It's a simple as that, no bullshit about presuppositionalism or the view we start out with, or naturalistic worldviews over theistic etc. No argument can contradict the facts and be valid. No matter what the argument is. Are you saying Magus, that your interpretation of the bible is wrong, or that the bible itself is wrong?? Do you claim to have the sole authority to correctly interpret an anicent book?

Then we must assume God exists in order to know whether the flood could happen? Faulty reasoning. The bible is not a reliable source of knowledge so we cannot use the bible to prove the bible. However your argument is correct in theory, if God exists then He could have made the flood occur, just not the way the bible describes it.

You are missing the point again, why would God go out of his way to drown the planet in a way that is impossible? Why would he do that? How could he do that? It makes no sense.

Nonsense. You've not refuted anything. If only one flaw in the bible is shown then the flood story is blown out the water, (no pun intended!). The account itself is impossible and the description and story is far-fetched and primitive. Morever, the bible is riddled with errors and if you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend they aren't there then fine, but you are only kidding yourself.

Who determines that the bible account is not flawed? You? right... next argument please.

We are in the same position, trying to decide if the story is true or not. Or are we? You have already decided that it is and then proceed from there. I am starting off by saying that we don't know and I will not prejudge the investigative outcome. Without assuming anything, I can conclude that the story is flawed, because it quite obviously it. Besides, I'm using logic, reason and critical thinking, you are using faith.

This paragraph was such poor reasoning I hesitate to comment, but I will.
God might change the meaning of circle to square, but all that would mean is that we would call squares circles and circles squares. If we did so, then squares would always be round, and circles would always be square-shaped. The name we attribute to the property is irrelevant. God cannot make two things with mutually-exclusive properties co-exist in the same entity. This is a logical impossibility. The flood is also a logical impossibility, therefore God couldn't have made the biblical flood account occur. Simple as that.

Archeology, history, geology, biology, physics, and general scientific skepticism have also anihilated the bible time and time and time again. Theists like to point out the times when coincidentally, some science proves some part of the bible is correct, and ignore the rest of the time when they don't

so what?
that people got diseases?? Wow.
Lie or error. the bible does not indicate a spherical earth at all. I'm surprised someone like you who's been arguing with atheists for a while hasn't clicked onto this point, or have you chosen to ignore the facts again?
what are you saying? the bible mentions leprosy, so it was written by God? People got leprosy, the bible records it...so what? people also were blind, death, dumb etc. it happens. the bible recorded it. so what? in fact, the bible attributes such ailments to demons! so you are right, the bible is not at all scientific.

Oh that you would apply your principles to yourself.
Atheists have a worldview that disagrees with the bible, because the bible is illogical. We didn't decide one day "the bible is illogical" and then shape our worldview as a result. We studied the bible objectively and decided that it was illogical. This then became part of our worldview.

Creationism will never EVER EVER be a scientific theory because it is a pseudoscience. It has not been, and never will be scientific. It is religious dogma posing as science that has no interest in scientific research or objective analysis. It exists merely to confirm itself where possible or attempt to reject conflicting evidence. It is a metaphysical pile of crap.

Nah, choosing which parts of the bible are correct or not is a guessing game. I won't even explain why science isn't a guessing game because it's already been done. Magus55 clearly has no understanding of science so nothing I say will make a difference.

Plognark

In response to Ellis10's last post: :notworthy

Stew

Lots and lots of people have said and continue to say that the geologic evidence is due to natural events.

Of course that statement, in and of itself, could be called an appeal to popularity. In that case, perhaps, it's best to let the evidence speak for itself. How much unambiguous evidence for the supernatural do we have? Not much.



.

chapka

Plate tectonics is NOT compatible with a young earth, especially since much of the evidence for it is (in your eyes) pre-creation. The processes involved in conventional mountain formation can't just be sped up, or we'd see the ground shattering instead of folding, and the release of ridiculous amounts of heat.

The creation of non-volcanic mountains of great height in short time periods is NOT possible based on any type of "tectonic activity," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Unless, of course, God miraculously suspended the laws of physics (and biology and chemistry), then carefully reorganized everything at the end of the flood so that it would appear that it never happened, then carefully crafted "ancient" artifacts and genetically modified Noah's ancestors so that they "remembered" making them...in which case, sure, believe that, it's no skin off my nose. But don't think you can convince me of it with "scientific" arguments.

capnkirk

Sorry, but science 20 years ago did NOT think that the Earth was only 1-3 billion years old. In 1980, Carl Sagan had already written his book "Cosmos" published it, then made it into the award winning PBS Series. In both the book and the series, quoting the prevailing scientific consensus, he presented the Earth as being about four and a half billion years old. Today that estimate has 'changed' to 4.55 billion. Any scientific estimate in the range you quoted predates the discovery of tectonic plates and their movements. Besides, isn't it curious that every time science 'changes' it moves FARTHER from religious (not just Biblical) myth, never closer?

This whole thread is a demonstration that believers believe because they WANT to (or need to), and when they choose to believe IN SPITE OF compelling objective evidence to the contrary, that they are simply placing their wants and/or needs above objective fact. That is a psychological armor that logic can never pierce...it's logicproof.

Plognark

However, as any former Xian scientist could tell you, it isn't reality-proof

spin

Ellis10!

You listed a number of items which you considered to be contrary regarding the flood story. Of course, they are contrary and this is because we are dealing with two separate versions of the story threaded together by a redactor. This is the sort of example which makes the people who like the documentary hypothesis feel good because it breaks down relatively easily along the lines of what might be called a "Yahwist" source and an "Elohist" source -- this use of Elohim is usually attributed to the Priestly source, but that's not important here, just that God's name is one of the indicators of the separate sources.

For example, Gen 6:5-8 is the start of the Yahwist version, both introducing the problem and the hero.

6:9-22, the Elohist version, reintroduces the hero and restates the problem, then gives us information about the flood, the animals and the ark. This passage ends with, roughly, "Noah did everything just as God commanded him", which is basicaly repeated at the end of the next section, reading only a little different.

7:1-5, the Yahwist version, gives us the animals (not just two by two but the clean ones seven by seven) and puts Noah into the ark 7 days before the flood, ending, "And Noah did all that God commanded him."

7:6, the Elohist version, talks of the age of Noah and gives precise dates. Noah's 600th year, 17th of the second month.

7:7-10 goes back to the Yahwist version of the animals, clean and unclean. And after seven days the flood starts.

7:11 More on Noah, dates, and age, as well as the start of the Elohist flood on that day.

7:12 has the Yahwist's rain falling for 40 days and forty nights.

7:13-16a, has the Elohist entry into the ark

7:16b-17, Yahweh shuts the door and a repeat of the 40 days of flooding.

7:18-21, the Elohist tells of the rising waters and the deaths of everything on the earth.

7:22-23, has the Yahwist's version of the deaths of everything on the earth.

7:24-8:2a, the Elohist's flooding for 150 days then the stopping and receding of the waters.

8:2b-3a, the Yahist's stopping and receding of the waters.

8:3b-5, repeat of 150 days (=5 months), when 5 months after the start of the flood the ark comes to rest on the mountains of Ararat. Noah's 600th year, 17th of the seventh month.

8:6-12, the Yahwist's bird story.

8:13a, the Elohist drying up.

8:13b, the Yahwist drying up.

8:14-19, the Elohist exit from the ark

8:20-21, the Yahwist sacrifice of clean animals (not possible in the Elohist story because there were only two of each species).

Careful reading of these two accounts provides numerous idiosyncrasies, yielding the sorts of contrary notions you've already indicated.

Obviously the differences were clear to the original redactor of the two accounts. The redactor was a conservator, not a hider of differences. This is why there are two creation accounts and three accounts of the patriarch palming his wife off as his sister to a foreign ruler.

The only problem we find is with those modern readers who wish to read the texts wilfully as though they were supposed to be one single unerring account.


spin

Godless Wonder

If the redactor wove two accounts together, producing a single account which contains some internal inconsistencies, merely pointing out that there was a redactor who wove two accounts together does not remove the inconsistencies, it merely moves them into two accounts. If you have two separate accounts, and those accounts are not consistent with each other, you still have inconsistiencies. If the redactor is a preserver, as you say, then he didn't introduce the inconsistencies. He just moved them around. So by positiing the redactor, you fail to explain the inconsistencies away.

And . . . the "only" problem?

There's problem of the literal and actual mountains of evidence which point to there being no global flood, so even if the redactor did introduce those inconsistencies, and the two or more stories he wove together were themselves originally consistent with each other, you still have the problem that both or all stories are contradicted by what we see in the world today. So it's hardly the "only" problem . . . But perhaps I read too much into your words. Rereading your post I suspect I probably did.

CX

Let's try to keep our frustration in check and stick to discussing the topic rather than the participants. Thanks.

CX - BC&H Moderator

spin

These are your and Magus's problems. I'm dealing with texts that make no pretense to being historical or scientifically accurate in any modern sense. You can waste your time showing the text's lack of history or science, not me. That's only for fundamentalist baiting. I was merely clarifying the matter for Ellis10.


spin