JayW

It don't discount the event.It discounts the Biblical details of the event. The event happened. See the above.The ones who wrote the Bible wrote down a much older event and added to it. That is hardly discounting something that actually took place. As I hve sad many mny times in this post alone, I never claimed that the Bible wrote about any event faithfully. Daniel Boone didn't kill a Bar when He was three, but history is right about Him being real.

JayW

deadman_932

Do you have a comprehension problem?

Withered

Okay. I'm with you so far.
Okay, buy it, i assume you mean The global event described in the bible.
still with you... OUCH! oooh, the bible says that the way the flood happened was goddidit! That will be a serious blow to the credibility of god if the bible is wrong!
Are you sure this is what you are meaning to say?
Again, we can both reasonably agree that a flood took place somewhere, and became an exaggerated, epic tale of one man's desperate struggle to overcome incredible odds and repopulate the whole soaking world with...his immediate family?
But you have to remember...god is in the details...:devil1:

L.

deadman_932

Do you? Does the Bible say the sins of ALL MANKIND? Or not?

If you say the flood is local, you're contradicting the Bible itself, not just in an event, but in THE greatest destruction God is claimed to have rained upon the Earth.

Genesis 6: 6-8
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."


Genesis 6:12-13
"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth"

If just one sinner is left then God's plan failed. We are informed that only Noah and his family were saved from the judgement because of Noah's faith and righteousness (Hebrews 11:7 & Genesis 7:1). If others survived in lands unaffected by a local flood then God's idea of righteousness is meaningless. http://www.lwbc.co.uk/Genesis/was_the_flood_global.htm

Also, remember that God later makes a covenant with man, saying that no such flood will again plague mankind...and if YOU say it's local, then God has broken his word thousands of times. So, your view makes the destruction of ALL sinners (an EVENT) false.

Your view also makes God a liar because local floods happen all the time. This makes God's covenant (an EVENT) false.

Gullwind

So somewhere at an unspecified place at an unspecified time, there was once a flood. So what? Why do we need the bible to tell us this, especially since it got the details wrong? If it didn't happen the way the bible describes, then the bible is wrong! Why should we trust anything but the most generalized versions of the bible stories?

Someone once left Egypt. Great. It didn't happen the way the bible describes, but someone, somewhere, sometime left Egypt.

A city was once destroyed. It may not have been destroyed the way the bible says it was, but it was once there and now it isn't. Super.

Someone once died. They may not have been crucified, they may not have been the son of god, but they died. Wonderful.

What I don't understand is why anyone should care that, by your incredibly generalized standards, there is no evidence that discounts any biblical event? By the standards you are using, I agree with you. The bible says that there was a flood. Somewhere in the past, there was a flood. By that standard, my toilet overflowing the other day supports the biblical account. What's your point?

JayW

Gullwind

I never asked you to believe. It don't matter to me either way.
I was wondering what's your point. You came in on the tail end of a post you don't understand and complain becuse you don't want to hear it. My post was in answer to someone else and you decide to answer a post you don't care bout. If you can't comprehend one post it may be time to go to something simpler. The time of the flood isn't unspecified,but then I said that. Thn you throw in somethng about a city being destroyed that wasn't destroyed,which was never mentioned.

JayW

He may have. I'm not the one insisting that God personally wrote the Bible. Is that what your suggesting?

deadman_932

I was earlier trying to be nice to you, JayW-- I specifically said I wasn't trying to destroy your faith and that I wasn't picking on you and that it was literalist inerrantism that was the core of your problems. But when you start using shit like asking me if I have a comprehension problem...eventually, I'm going to start stomping on you.

I don't have a lot of patience with people that use that sort of tactic, nor your doublespeak: "The Bible is not shown wrong in EVENTS, just details OF the events"

Well, if the details OF the event are wrong, then that shows the events as described...to be wrong...and you've already admitted that. Furthermore, there are events within the larger context that MUST be wrong if you hold to a local flood --like the destruction of all sinners, the destruction of all other living things, God's covenant, etc.

My advice to you is to find something else to flail about on.

Gullwind

I was giving examples of other claims in the bible that can be supported the same way you say the biblical flood is supported. Something like it happened somewhere, so apparently us darn skeptics can't say the bible is wrong, even though the bible gets the details wrong and the actual event is nothing like the biblical account.

Like I said, at such a low standard of evidence, I agree that there is no evidence that discounts a biblical event. Of course, my toilet overflowing supports the flood account at that level of evidence. You have agreed that the bible is wrong, so the rest is just meaningless semantics.

deadman_932

I didn't say that...but YOU DID say that no event in the Bible has ever been shown false...which you already admitted is an untrue statement from you. You refuted yourself...quite a feat. QED, baby.