FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-01-2009, 09:21 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default Global Flood

Message to arnoldo: Consider the following post that I made today at the Evolution/Creation Forum:

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm

1. The Bible does not say that it must be global. The word which the translators translate "earth" is more often used as "land". In Genesis 6:17"earth" and "ground" are the same word. The choice to translate 'eretz' as the "planet earth" is strictly an interpretation. Arthur Custance (1958, p. 3) points out:

"Assuming that Young's list is exhaustive, actual count shows that the word is translated Earth about 677 times and translated land 1458 times. Moreover, of the 677 occurrences in at least 100 instances the word may be equally, if not more appropriately, rendered land rather than Earth. Whereas in the cases where it is translated Land in the English the instances in which Earth would have been more appropriate are rare. That is to say, the choice of Earth or Land as a translation of the original in any particular instance is a matter of context: and on the whole, if we exclude the account of the Flood, usage elsewhere shows that the context favours the word Land rather than Earth."

Often 2 Peter 2:5 is cited as evidence that the ancient "world" was destroyed an thus the flood must be global. This verse says NIV,

"If he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven other;"

The Greek word which is translated as "world" is kosmos. According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon,(Thayer 1962, p. 356) the translation in preferred order is: harmonious arrangement or order, ornament, the universe, the earth, the inhabitants of the world, the ungodly multitude, worldly affairs, an aggregate. People act as if the absolutely only way this verse can be interpreted is applying to the earth. Considering the way the rest of the New Testament translates this word as either "worldly affairs", or the "ungodly multitude" why are these not perfectly acceptable translations?

All of the below are acceptable translations.

God destroyed the harmonious order.

God destroyed the earth.

God destroyed the inhabitants of the world. . .

God destroyed the ungodly multitude.

God destroyed the worldly affairs.

1 Peter 3:20 says 8 people were saved in the Flood. In order to argue that this means the Flood was global, one must assume that people were spread all over the earth. This is not at all clear from the Scripture.. .

Conclusion

The Bible does not require a global flood, and the evidence goes against that view. Local flood theories are Biblically acceptable and observationally required.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Well, arnoldo has done it again, he has been refuted by his own source. G.R. Morton DOES NOT believe that a regional flood occured in Mesopotamia. Arnoldo's other source Dr. Hugh Ross does believe that the flood occured in Mesopotamia. In an article at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mflood.htm, Morton says "The details of a Mesopotamian Flood do not fit the Scriptural account." He also has a number of scientific arguments against a regional flood in Mesopotamia.

Arnoldo has used Dr. Hugh Ross as a source, and G.R. Morton. Since Ross says that the flood was only in Mesopotamia, and Morton says that the flood was not in Mesopotamia, I request that arnoldo tell us how he can use two sources who disagree with each other, and which source he actually agrees with, and why he agrees with whichever source he agrees with.

Arnoldo's own source also refuted him at the Biblical Criticism and History Forum. Consider the following:

Arnoldo

"FYI, for a more scholarly examination......."

Johnny Skeptic:

"Better yet, for an even more scholarly examination, please read all of Elaine Pagel's and Bart Ehrman's major books."

Arnoldo:

"Both of those individuals support Christianity, try again."

"http://bartdehrman.com/index.htm
"http://www.princeton.edu/religion/pe...?netid=epagels

Johnny Skeptic:

"Now readers, those SAME LINKS show that Pagels and Ehrman DO NOT support Christianity.

In another thread at this forum, arnoldo said:

Arnoldo:

"Just from a quick check on wikepedia there seems to be conflicting “scientific” theories on the origin of life on earth......."

Johnny Skeptic:

"And yet many theists dispute which God exists. In addition, Christians have disputed many issues among themselves for 2,000years.

"One wonders to what extent arnoldo will go to embarrass himself more than he already has."
You do not have any more credibility at these forums.

By the way, it would appropriate if you admitted that you were wrong about Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehman supporting Christianity, and that your two sources (G.R. Morton and Dr. Hugh Ross) disagree with each other about the regional flood.

It is not sin to admit that you are wrong, but it is a sin to refuse to admit that you are wrong when you know you are wrong. If I posted sources that contradicted me, you would make a big issue out it, and you would have a right to. In addition, if I refused to admit that I was wrong, you would claim that I am evasive, and you would have a right to.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 11:19 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default Global Flood

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
How is a global flood a reasonable possibility? A global flood violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of gravity, and the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting.
How would a global flood violate:

(1) second law of thermodynamics,

(2) the law of gravity, and

(3) the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 11:37 AM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: georgia
Posts: 2,726
Default

<contentless post removed>
sugarhitman is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 12:21 PM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
How is a global flood a reasonable possibility? A global flood violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of gravity, and the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting.
How would a global flood violate:

(1) second law of thermodynamics,

(2) the law of gravity, and

(3) the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting.
Do you not realise that the earth does not contain enough water, either in the atmosphere or sub-terranean, to flood totally itself as described in the Bible?

If every single drop of water from every source was evaporated into the atmosphere and released back to the earth as rain, then that very rain would only refill all the places where the water was first evaporated.

All that would be left would be the same rain clouds that was there originally.

The worlwide flood as described in the Bible is bogus.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 12:21 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Here are the links that Johnny has given in the past:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm
http://www.skepticfiles.org/origins/faq-noah.htm

This actually belongs in the Ev-Cr forum, but I won't bother them with this unless there are more replies.
Toto is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 12:28 PM   #6
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: georgia
Posts: 2,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post

How would a global flood violate:

(1) second law of thermodynamics,

(2) the law of gravity, and

(3) the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting.
Do you not realise that the earth does not contain enough water, either in the atmosphere or sub-terranean, to flood totally itself as described in the Bible?

If every single drop of water from every source was evaporated into the atmosphere and released back to the earth as rain, then that very rain would only refill all the places where the water was first evaporated.

All that would be left would be the same rain clouds that was there originally.

The worlwide flood as described in the Bible is bogus.

Possible, except that the bible also says the deep also burst open. So you had rain coming from above, and flood waters arising from under ground.


Very possible.......
sugarhitman is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 12:30 PM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

And hydroplates.
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 12:34 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

I moved a post from Johnny Skeptic from the Slavery thread to this one, and it ended up as the first.

But this thread merely repeats themes that belong in another forum, so I will lock this.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:01 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.