funinspace

The toughest contradiction of all: the Flood and Joshua's solar object demands. These events as described in the Bible contradict reality as I see it. And as can be seen in the other current thread on the general issue of contradictions, my questions are ignored.

How do I know it's the toughest (though I am not encouraging debate on which is toughest)? By the avoidance of a serious discussion by those who want to swear by an inerrant cannon, and those that don't make such a claim but will not point to any error, nor admit any specific one. I have yet to find a literalist here who is willing to seriously defend the time frame of the Flood. So I will make it stand out front and plain as nose on our faces. Here is my argument as to where and why the cannon is flawed. Specifically what does the inerrantist find faulty in this reasoning: you accept a flood happening between 2400-2200 BCE perhaps; the assumptions of the timeframe of the United Kingdom back to the Canaan invasion is very wrong; the simple verses in Genesis 5 and 11 don't mean what they say; or what?

Simply put, 1100-2400BC is not some point in space and time that is invisible to history. Yet to accept a literal Bible, one must be ignorant, or make some elaborate redactions of reality or the words of the Bible, to not find history contradictory with the Bible. However, both of these events conflict with historical reality. If there was anything approaching Joshua's planetary demands (never mind the literal words that commanded the sun, and not the earth to be still), vice something far simpler like some sort of light over the valleys being fought over, or nothing at all, then the alterations of solar objects could not have been missed by the astronomers of all the civilized empires filling the world circa 1200 BC. Such civilizations include, but are not limited to China, Egypt, Greece, and several Mesopotnian empires. This would have been an absolutely shocking event for all these heathen peoples, and there is no way it would not be recorded as a major and radical event. And the probability that we have not recovered any hint of this event from any of these empires is absurdly low. Therefore, one would have to argue that God was in league with Satin in burying the archaeological information to keep us mortals confused. Therefore why isn't it just as believable that a Q intelligence (a la Star Trek) merely pretending to be gods, was just having fun with our feeble little world. It is no less rational, nor less plausible.
The Bible is quite clear about the timeline from Adam to Noah to Abraham in Genesis 5:3-28 (1056 years) and 5:32,11:10-26 (897 years). A portion of the text in question:
11:10-17 "This is the account of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old when he became the father of Arphaxad, two years after the flood. And after becoming the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years and had other sons and daughters. When Arphaxad had lived thirty-five years, he became the father of Shelah. And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters. When Shelah had lived thirty years, he became the father of Eber. And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived four hundred and three years and had other sons and daughters. When Eber had lived thirty-four years, he became the father of Peleg. And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived four hundred and thirty years and had other sons and daughters."

This is a reality that many literalists seam to want to obfuscate. One cannot rationally argue that these were periods, not father to son, over and over again. When passages clearly state when X was A old, Y was born one after another. If one argues for such wildly variant interpretations of such simple and clear words, then one can reconstruct any part of the Bible any way one wants to make for your desired results. Then language doesn't have any meaning. Therefore, literalism has no meaning when such methods are employed. Almost all Biblical scholars agree that the time frame for Abraham is 2000-1800BC.

Therefore, the flood would have been roughly 2400-2200BC. Which is impossible, since we have uninterrupted written records of both the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations going hundreds of years beyond this time. Going further, there is very excellent science that can accurately look at the records of the ice caps in Antarctica going back 740,000 years; and coral reef records from the Australian Great Barrier Reef and others, going back almost 100,000 years. And both records would be devastated by anything approaching a world wide flood. It would not be missed, overlooked, or misunderstood. So not only could in not happen when the Bible claims due to human records, but it could not have happened at all in any way resembling the tale as told, due to the earths records. Unless of course, if there was a conspiracy of deities? Therefore, either Genesis 5:20-28 is factually wrong, or Noah's flood is a fable, or the gods are having fun with us, or the reality of human sensory perception has no meaning.
The period from Abraham to Jacob entering Egypt to begin the 430 years (Ex 12:40) of Egyptian life can be clearly traced in the same manner. Again, where passages clearly state when X was A old, Y was born. The only difficult one is when Joseph is born, but thru carefully searching thru, the specific dates still
can be determined. This period lasted 290 years.
Abraham has Isaac at 100 Gen 21:5
Isaac has Jacob at 60 Gen 25:26
Jacob has Joseph at 79 (This date become unimportant to calculations)
Jacob enters Egypt at 130 Gen 47:9
Total: 290

So following the Bible literally, one ends up with the first estimation that's required, when did the 40 years of wandering end and the invasion begin. 1170BC (though there are some newer archeological arguments for making this date about a 100 years younger) is what others have culled from the miscellaneous corners searching from King Solomon back to the invasion. I find that an acceptable number. So that puts Jacob entering Egypt in 1610BC (1170 + 40 + 400). And it places the Birth of Abraham at 1900BC. And that puts the flood at 2297BC if you want to insist on the literal life.

DK

GakuseiDon

With the sun standing still: as there could have been any number of ways for God to accomplish this without leaving evidence, I don't think it is a particular problem for literalists. But I like your points about the Flood.

I think this is very strong (IMHO). The Bible is pretty clear about the timeline. I've seen some creationists saying that the Earth was 10,000 years old - but even that would be out by 4,000 years if the Bible were treated as literal. Inerrantist/creationists are 'locked in'.

Yep. Good post, DK! I hope you don't mind if I borrow it for elsewhere?

Godless Wonder

canon vs. cannon.

/pedant

funinspace

The point on the sun standing still, is that the story cannot be redacted in any way shape or form, and still be literal in any sense. The rest of the world did not see the event, because nothing like the story ocurred. I agree it is weaker than the Flood argument, but I think they are related in a general theme of incredous demands of belief against the tide of historical knowledge.

It's free, have fun with it.

Godless Wonder, thanks for the usage check. Though one could play with the usage

DK

diana

I'll see your canon and raise you a Satan vs. Satin.

Although God being in league with Satin did provide an interesting mental image.

d

GakuseiDon

The difference is that I've seen the "sun standing still" incident being explained away as a local event (as strange as that may appear), like God refracting the light just over that area, in which case there would be no 'lingering' evidence. Whereas a global flood would be expected to leave evidence behind that we should expect to find, as you've pointed out so well.

Thanks!

funinspace

Bump. We'll see if any of the new "true believers" in the latest contradiction thread to defend these verses? Last time it was a bust.

Endymion83

This is a contradiction that I have never seen a satisfactory argument against.

Here are some good quotes that Ive found. Source

Nuwanda

You make excellent points and I receive your challenge with open arms. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and if it is it should survive any reasonable criticisim it receives. Yours is reasonable and well articulated.

For the time being, since I'm a working man with limited time, I would like to take up the challenge of Joshua's long day. You mentioned that solar events like this would not have been missed by highly advanced astronomy loving civilizations like China, Egypt, Mesopotanian empires, and even ones you left out like the Central American empires; that they would have recorded such an event. If it could be demonstrated that the Chinese, the Egyptians, and the Americas have ancient accounts of either a long day or a long night (respectively), would you conceed that the Joshua event is not a novelty among the ancient records, and that perhaps such an event did take place?

TomboyMom

1. If it can be demonstrated that they didn't, will you concede that such an event did not take place?
2. You would also need to explain in astronomical terms how such a thing could be possible.