Gullwind

How does this help the bible's credibility? The bible says the "whole earth" was flooded. Why is it so hard to imagine that they meant the whole earth? The fact that they didn't know how big the earth really was is irrelevant. The bible also says that every living thing on the earth that wasn't on the ark was destroyed. Why couldn't they mean exactly that?

All this shows is that the bible was written by men with a limited understanding of the world (from our point of view, at least). When they said the entire earth was flooded, it seems obvious that they meant it. The fact that they didn't account for Australia just shows that they wrote it based on the limited knowledge that they had, and is not the result of a supernatural being.

Minimalist

In archaeology it is impossible to know what the next shovel into the ground will uncover. That's why they talk in terms of evidence rather than "proof."

When archaeologists dig in Jerusalem and find a miniscule village at the time there is supposed to be a great city and capital of an empire that is "evidence" that the bible story is a crock. It isn't "proof" but it certainly seems that it is up to the other side to get out their shovels and start digging for that great city, if they can.

It is a subtle distinction, I grant you.

Withered

Good point. We should stick to the historical, scientific, and disciplined information regarding the bible. I find it much more refreshing to have facts and data to work with. Given the chance to discuss the supernatural elements of the bible, christians invariably, in my experience, resort to claims of "goddidit". Besides, if the rather mundane things written in the bible can be shown to be incorrect or inaccurate, then the supernatural claims simply look all the more transparent, don't they?

No, i believe that if the god of the bible existed, he would have murdered, burned, flooded or otherwise committed genocide in such flagrant and jeuvenile displays of power, throughout history, up to and including the current era, that we would be unable to dismiss him as myth.

No, i believe that if the god of the bible were more than a myth, would not only have convinced people of his power absolutely, he would have done it in such a way as to perfectly illustrate his power, thus giving people a "real" choice to believe, or not, as they saw fit, rather than leaving them to wallow in doubt, while having to deny the only reality their senses and intellect could discern.

The issue right here becomes something worthy of another thread in and of it's self. You seem to be a gold mine of interesting statements, JayW!

Please start another thread, or briefly inform those of us unguided by the holy spirit, which parts of the bible are exaggerated, and which are not.

In this new thread , please indicate how you are able to tell the difference, why some christians might disagree with you, and of course:

Why something so important as the worship of the christian god, who decides the fate of your immortal soul, is based almost exclusively and singularly on a book written with exaggerations in it rather than specific truths and facts that would prevent errors, mistakes, and critical misunderstanding among those that the text was supposed to enlighten, save and guide?!
Not to derail a thread i am enjoying, but this sounds an awful lot like the way creationists argue with evolutionists...no real arguments for creation, just attacks on evolution that do nothing to bolster their claims.

Is that what you are claiming is going on here? I am unconvinced, if that is the claim being made.
Say, Reniaa, could you post a link or two that points me toward some of these embarrassed people, what they believed, and what was eventually uncovered about their beliefs that made them feel that way?

I would appreciate a link to something that backed up a claim like that, rather than simply an assertion. it would be a good way to finally start introducing evidence for some of the claims that are being made here without any support in the way of links, texts, or citations of any kind. Otherwise it kind of looks like jesus-babble.

It might also set a good example for christians everywhere that assert things.
If i post any stuff myself, i'll be sure to include something to support it.
As near as i can tell, and this is just my 34 years of very mortal, very human experience talking...

Lack of evidence for something is a good reason to doubt something. If i look into something, anything, and find no indication that it was true or real, and every time i consider it, something comes along to erode the viability of that thing's existence, i am perfectly comfortable saying that thing does not exist, until evidence to the contrary pops up.
What he said.
There was not a global flood. This is scientific fact.
There was no flood in the region that covered it's mountains to their tips, and fifteen cubits beyond that. That is scientific fact.

The bible claims this happened. You claimed earlier that the bible is agreed upon by most christians (what does that mean? Why are the ones that don't agree wrong?) to include exaggerations. Is the global flood story an exaggeration? If so how do you know it is intended as such? If so, how do you justify any other part of the text to be free of exaggeration? And if it is in fact not an exaggerated account, how then do you explain the direct and consistent contradiction between science and the bible?
You may have shown possibility in some cases, but you have certainly not, in any case, shown probability. That i find very telling of your argument, and your ability to defend the god and text that you claim is so peachy.
What you said.
Wow. Good post. Thanks for that.

JayW

The Hittites did not exist when the flood story was first written. The Biblical version was taken from a much older written version which was taken from a much older oral vesion. The ancient sumerian did not know anything about the world outside Mesopotamia. The Bible writers knew about Egypt and Hatti and Assyria and Syria and Babylonia, but the Bible writers did not come up with the flood story. The story itself is probably older than the date the Bible gives for Noah. The story was written thousand of years before Egypt had a history. It was written thousands of years before there was a Hatti.

deadman_932

Uh, evidence? I want you to show me how you KNOW this. And why did you ignore what I said about Egypt and the Levant? Heh, that reminds me: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/...ver-44161.aspx

Agricultural site in Egypt at 5,600 BC in the Fayum. There's lots of those sites around the region ...going back to early agriculturalism at 8000 BC. and beyond...and NO flood covered those regions at all...so where IS this flood? You claim it's local? WHERE AND WHEN?

Julian

In law, yes. In law, we have what is termed, 'proof.' The same holds for mathematics. Of course, the term is only accurately used in mathematics, in law it is merely an exaggeration, an aggrandizement of what should properly be termed 'very likely' or maybe even 'beyond reasonable doubt.' In science, however, we deal with evidence, probability, and likelihood, and we hold no license to stray beyond those rigid bounds. Science can exclude nothing that escapes the clutches of absurdity but can render many ideas so improbable so as to afford the poor scholar a trouble free night of rest on a regular basis. We must be careful not to pronounce judgment upon any claim in the same manner that those of faith do by standing on their head and claiming the evidence to be beneath them. We can never convince a believer that we have won these arguments, but by retaining the high ground of morality and reason, we can, at least, win by any applicable objective standard. That's a 'loss' I will take any day.

You know that you are right by weight of evidence. The darn thing is that you cannot prove it.

Julian (who, after a little Chablis, loves the sound of his own thinking out loud just a bit too much.)

Julian

Indeed. Well said.

Julian

MarkA

Point taken.

deadman_932

By the way, JayW...different people have different posting "styles" and I'm sure some would prefer that I used a more gently persuasive approach. But I am not picking on you, I don't see any great "need" to assault your faith in God, and I'm not arguing that way. What I am saying is that a literalist, inerrantist view of the Bible eventually runs headlong into some very uncomfortable facts at some point. For instance...given clues inherent to the Bible, one can work out a timeframe in which the flood HAD to occur...and that time frame is generally conceded to be 2300-2500 BC. If you want to add in "lost generations" great...but even if you go back to 15,000 BC or more...a "local" flood won't hold up. Nor does it deal with the fact that the Bible makes specific claims like :

Genesis 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

Genesis 7:19: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered."

Genesis 7:23 repeats "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

So how can that be local? Remember, again , the flood was to punish ALL wicked men, everywhere, not just "some, somewhere"

Solitary Man

There wasn't a flood recorded by the memory of the Hebrews per se which made its way into Genesis. You're using an ad hoc flood to explain a mythical story. Not going to work.