Amaleq13

It is, quite obviously, a different event.

Sheshonq

1. So cities next to rivers happen to endure flooding. We know that already.

2. You'll also find that Woolley's conclusions have been rejected by archaeologists. I gave the link and citation in a previous post.

That is not his reason for rejecting an area-wide flood. Clearly you didn't read his article. Would you like to try again?


Yes, you *do* have to - if you want to be believed.

I'm quite willing to learn. As soon as you demonstrate that you (a) know enough to teach anybody and (b) have some skill at teaching. As of now, both are in doubt.

Sheshonq

Actually, that was the Rosenbaums again. Only they weren't leaving Egypt; they were checking out of the Luxor casino in Vegas.



Jews. Desert. The basic idea is there. Details don't matter, right JayW?

Amaleq13

The chronology generally offered by those who insist that, as the Bible clearly claims, a global flood occurred, is incompatible with archaeological evidence of civilizations known to have existed at the time.

When do you think the biblical flood took place?

The Bible cannot be said to be "false" about a claim it does not make. The Bible claims a global flood. The only way that claim can be true is if there was a global flood. Evidence of a lesser flood does absolutely nothing to rescue the claim of a global flood from being false.

I understand why someone of faith might indulge in such a clearly specious differentiation but that does nothing to counter the apparently false claim in the Bible that a global flood occurred.

Events are defined by their details. If I claim I attended the President's birthday party when I actually attended my sister's birthday party, it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that my claim was not false but simply differs in detail from what actually happened. My claim was false just as the biblical claim of a global flood is quite clearly and demonstrably false.

Yes, exaggerated details in an account of an event do not establish that no actual event inspired the exaggeration. That is, however, a separate question from what the OP asks. The Bible claims there was a global flood. The "event" in question is, therefore, a global flood. Does the evidence discount this claimed event?

As you have already admitted, the answer is most certainly "Yes".

JayW

Prophecies are not historical events.

I've already told you don't care if you believe it or not.Woolley's conclusions have been rejected by maybe a few archeologists,and only one that you pointed out. What's in doubt is your ability to approach anything with an open mind. You entered this discussion with the belief that there had to be at least one source somewhere that falsifies the Bible. That's all you intend to read.

JayW

What does that have to do with the topic? That's typical of typical of a critic. If you can't prove something,switch topcs and try again.

I understand that events have details. Do you understand that if I have a tree in my yard and claim that it is an oak,when it is actually an Ash, the tree does not go away and the fact that there is a tree there is not falsified. You do understand that right? Maybe not.

-Jay-

Now that's an interesting statement. You seem to be rather reluctant to directly address all of the evidence that's been presented here. Why is that?

regards,

NinJay

Amaleq13

Your claim is falsified because your claim was not simply that a tree exists but that a specific sort of tree exists in your backyard.

Whether you deliberately provided false information about your tree or were simply incorrect in your identification, your claim was false.

The same clearly holds true for the claim made in the Bible about a global flood.

That said, using an event rather than an object would help your analogy greatly.

Keith&Co.

Say you claim to have built a treehouse in your oak.
Upon examination we find only that there is a mailbox nailed to the side of your elm.
An apologist who would prefer to think of you as one who speaks without error may say that "there's amount of exaggeration involved, but the essential story of 'a construction on a tree' is preserved."
That's wishful thinking on his part.
Your claim of an oak-born treehouse is an untruth.
And we can discount it rather handily in the face of observed facts.

Toto

The claim that there is an oak in your yard is falsified.

This is all getting a bit pointless. You want to preserve the "truth" of the Bible by redefining truth to some factual basis. Why? WHY?

You have admitted that inerrancy is not supportable, but I don't know of any religious doctrine based on a "more or less true" Bible.

Nor do I know of any secular historians who find the idea of a historical core behind a religious doctrine to be of any use in interpreting history.

So what is the point of this enquiry?