Doctor X

Sounds of SATAN!!!

If it ain't on 8-track GOD did not intend for you to listen to it. . . .

Anyways, think we have dried out this Flood Myth for good?

--J.D.

Indy

Well, to accept the words of someone who is not God in the first place brings us back to the same point. To begin to understand why the Bible could possibly be considered divinely inspired by God, I think the required starting point would at least be God's own (alleged) words saying such. 1 Timothy 3:16 isn't such an example... and the translation of "Every scripture is inspired by God" has also been translated as "Every scripture is also useful" (with some debate on the parallelism of the adjectives in the sentence, being perhaps "Every scripture is inspired... and useful). There's a lot of room for debate.

I'm continuously curious about this one, because without at least that basic starting point, where's the logic in believing things like the flood are true simply because the Bible said them? I know, there isn't any logic, even if the first words in the Bible were "And God said, "Let there be light, along with everyone understanding that every word in every version of the Bible is my divinely inspired commands and wishes." But I digress.

It seems that in order to support the myriad illogics of the various Bible stories--particularly the flood myth, which is so overloaded with basic violations of not only many sciences but of the laws of physics and mathematics as well--the xians fall back on "Well, it's the divinely inspired word of God and you can't debate it." But where do they get that? Is there ANYWHERE God says anything of the like?

Meanwhile, for divinely inspired word, there sure are a lot of interpretations of it in printed form...

-Indy

Postcard73

When I was a fundy, I figured John 1:1 confirmed the accuracy of the Bible:

Heck, if the Word was God, then it had to be just as perfect as the Big Man himself.

Indy

Hmm... I always thought that referred to God's words during Creation, such as "Let there be light" and all of that. It didn't seem to indicate that the Bible was all God's divine word.

And again, John wasn't God... I've been browsing an online Bible or two trying to find anything God ever said that indicated that a future collection of works by men was to be considered His divine inspiration--not to mention a theoretically flawless one at that.

-Indy

SkinWalker

I'd like to see you post some citations that document these simultaneous tracks. Such spurious evidence was suggested near my home in Glen Rose, TX, but was quite effectively refuted to be outright fraud and spurious presentations of natural erosional formations.

If you would stoop to using such spurious claims here, why should any of your other statements be accepted as sincere?

Again, some citations would be interesting. It seems apparent that you look only for information that reflects your beliefs rather than that which is verifiable. "Probably not factual," is an interesting choice of words. What do you base these probabilities on? While there are calcium carbonate, alluvial, volcanic, and one or two other depositional types that occur with relative rapidity, they are readily and easily identified and have definate characteristics that aren't confused with the slower deposition that makes up the remaining stratigraphic evidence.

Hmmm... "polystrate" doesn't appear to be a geologic term that I recognize, perhaps a citation here would clarify but I'll assume that by "poly" you refer to two or more and by "strate" you are referring to strata (the plural of stratum, or layer).

A fossil can quite easily intrude from one stratum to another for a variety of reasons. This is frequently observed with plant fossils, particularly trees, though it is possible for it to occur with vertabrate fossils as well.

In vertabrates, the intrusion is typically the result of a transform (natural or even cultural) by a variety of forces: burrowing animals, plant roots, underground streams, sinkholes, erosion followed by subsequent re-deposition, etc.

In plants, the same can be true as for vertabrates, but you also get an effect where a plant, such as a tree, can stand vertical while deposition occurs. The deposition is usually that of calcium carbonate, alluvial deposits, volcanic deposition, and other quicker depositional forces.

And, yes, these stratigraphic transforms can be explained. Moreover, they can even be predicted! But I assure you, they are very consequencial and are closely examined in attempting to establish provenience and context for an artifact or fossil.

Sensei Meela

And here I thought Jn 1:14 ("And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.") went on to establish that the Word was Jesus...

You know, that brings up a question I have:

How does this tie in with when Jesus said (in Mt 5:17) that he came to 'fulfill' the Law and the Prophets (which, as ye may well know, was reference to what later was aka the OT)?

I've read that it meant that J.C.:
1) came to 'keep all the Laws of Moses' (so that he might be the perfect sacrifice) and
2) 'fulfill' the 'empty words' of the prophecies re: the Jewish Messiah; or
3) came to 'complete' the revelations of God, hereafter aka the Bible, (with his gospels and revelations thereafter up to John)

...and more; it seems 'Word made flesh' would kinda support all three above, no? Or have I been playing Devil's Advocate for too long...?

edit-- oh, um, yes...this is a Flood thread...uh, so does, like, 'The Word' becoming Jesus mean that the flood became an equally physical reality? Er, yeah..?

LP675

Hehehe, nice! I love it!
I don’t know if I am a forum rule prude (tell me if I am), but it seems all this promiscuous engagement in debate of topics other than the one the OP specified are off topic. It seems Sensei Meela might be as prudish as me ; )

So all these challenges from the likes of these mugs (in effect asking “but wheres the scientific evidence??!?!”) …Are off topic seeing as the OP was specifically not concerned with scientific evidence/ argument :

Sven OP- “Since scientific arguments obviously won't reach guys like him … I decided to try to discuss logical/moral problems with the flood.”


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor X -Anyways, indeed, the waffling unsuccessfully on minor points grows tiresome . . . bring the evidence for the Flood Myths or move on!

Answerer-Ok, if you don't like the words 'scienific evidences', there are always such things called 'physical historical evidences'.
Anyway, stop beating about the bush and get to the main point, won't you?


Doctor X again - and we still wait for the Evidence that supports any one of the Flood Myths.

Waiting. . . .

Waiting. . . .

--J.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I wanted to debate the scientific evidences of the flood I would have responded to (or started) a thread on THAT TOPIC.


By the way Answerer sorry it looks like I went off half cocked before, because you originally didn’t ask me to post it here but in the creation/evolution channel. Oops.

Answerer “But I do hope and encourage him to post his claims and physical evidences about the great flood in the Creation thread since he is so confident that Flood occurs.”


Postcard73-First, welcome to the IIDB. Although this is not the E/C forum, it is a forum designed to discuss stories that appear in the Bible. As such, scientific evidence establishing the validity of the global flood story is relevant to this discussion and can be posted here.

Thanks for the welcome and thanks for the info!

Doctor X

Well the only thing constant about a thread is that a thread wanders.

The problem with Flood Myths is it is impossible to avoid the science entirely. Bring someone the stories--show how they contradict one another--and a True Believer will try to "explain" the inconsistencies with the assumption the stories "could have" happened.

They could not. Period. This glaring bit of dark evidence sits in the room like the proverbial white elephant. It will not be ignored.

--J.D.

Answerer

Yawnzzzzzzz, you are still beating around the bush. Of course, I can understand your fear and inability of not finding them and you aren't the first guy to use such a tactics.

So, case closes. See you guys around........................

LP675

No. I don’t think I did.

Well you should say what you mean and mean what you say. Especially in an opening post. You could have saved all concerned a lot of trouble, because people can only interact with what you have actually written. In fact, a particularly fine mind was recently pontificating elsewhere on the wholesome nature of literal interpretations, and of saying what one means:

Spin- “I do have a respect for literalist reading of texts. People usually attempt to say what they mean.”


HAHAHAHa….please, actually read what I said. When read in context it was clear my point was that calling God’s actions ‘forcing’ or ‘influencing a bit’ was irrelevant, and so I actually equated the two descriptions for the purposes of determining if the action was a violation of ‘free will’, according to the ‘old free will’ argument. My point was that ‘influencing’ or ‘forcing’ that didn’t violate free will was fine, including what one might called ‘forcing’ by threatening death.




Please read more slowly or somthing, because what I said in the final sentence you quoted was that IF anyone could refrain from wrongdoing they would not be punished. I said in the preceding sentence people ‘do not avoid eternal punishment for behaving in a moral way’, because as Paul says in Romans 3:23, no one in fact does live a sufficiently moral life.



The other law which I proceeded to refer to was what is often called ‘natural law’ or ‘natural revelation’, whereby the heathen (and everyone) has the ‘requirements of the law written on their hearts’.



An argument like this is pretty fruitless when you are debating with a Christian on inconsistencies of Christian doctrine. Usually one attempts to show how what Paul said can’t be reconciled with other parts of the bible. What you are really saying is this: “well even though I claimed according to the bible pre-mosaic people didn’t have the law, and it seems Paul (arguably the most important Christian writer in the bible) said they did, what Paul said is irrelevant cause’ who believes what the bible says anyway?


No I don’t think we talk past each other. I read and understand what you say, and respond. You then ignore or fail to understand what I have written.

But I agree we should skip this point and every other, as you seem bent on not reading or understanding what I say. Lets just both cut out loses on this one.

BTW nothing in this post was meant to be unpleasant, it was merely meant to be ‘direct’.