Demigawd

Originally posted by Magus55
Scriptures were inspired by God.

Even the ones we currently have that are imperfectly translated compared to your asserted perfect first draft?

Noah wouldn't know about the flood without God telling Him about it. And incidently, please prove that Noah borrowed the flood idea from other cultures, and not the other way around. Sure there are hundreds of flood myths in all cultures, but to me that just proves that the original came from Noah, and through His subsequent generations, it got changed slightly each generation.

Why is Noah getting a "His" here? I thought only God was supposed to get the capitol treatment.

I think that there are so many flood stories from all over the world is an indicator that there was in a fact a massive flood.

Or that alot of floods have happened all over the world, and that man, being generally pretty egocentric, thought his area represented the entirety of creation? Have you thought about that?

Isn't that the great thing about science, it always changes?

By changing, you mean self-correcting, then sure. It's a great thing. Beats the hell out of religious dogma enforced by fear and loathing.

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
Scriptures were inspired by God. Noah wouldn't know about the flood without God telling Him about it.

I would think those 40 days and nights of rain would have been a pretty big hint...

And incidently, please prove that Noah borrowed the flood idea from other cultures, and not the other way around.

Simply put, the Sumero-Babylonian flood myths were recorded centuries before the Biblical flood myth.

Sure there are hundreds of flood myths in all cultures,

Well, no. There are flood myths in many mythologies, but not all.

but to me that just proves that the original came from Noah, and through His subsequent generations, it got changed slightly each generation.

Or, much more likely, it's simply evidence that big (but local) floods are a common phenomenon in many places around the world, and that different cultures have therefore incorporated flood tales in their mythologies.

I think that there are so many flood stories from all over the world is an indicator that there was in a fact a massive flood.

But, for some amazing reason, various cultures, such as the Egyptian and Chinese cultures, lived through the period of the alleged Great Flood, continuously recording their histories and building their buildings without bothering to notice the miles of water over their heads....God indeed works in mysterious ways!

And the physical evidence may now conclude the event didn't take place ( which is debatable depending upon which assumptions and presuppositions you start with),

Starting simply with "Did a worldwide flood that covered all the mountains occur within the last 10000 years?" The unquestionable conclusion from the evidence: no, it did not.

but you don't know that in the future, new evidence won't replace the current findings and show that it did happen.

Highly unlikely that geologists etc. would have missed the evidence, which would stick out like a sore thumb.

Isn't that the great thing about science, it always changes? Nothing in science is fact. Not the age of the Earth, not evolution, not the Big bang. Its just the current conclusion based on the current available evidence. 20 years ago, the Earth was only 1-3 billion years old. So science was apparently wrong 20 years ago when the evidence told them it was 1 billion years old, but it has to be right now when it says the Earth is 5 billion years old? In 20 years, we'll probably conclude its 8 billion years old.

Yeah, isn't science great? It recognizes when it's wrong and corrects itself. That would seem to be a good thing, no? Or should science have frozen itself in place, say, 500 years ago or so, and still support the belief that the sun, planets and stars are revolving happily (in rather odd orbits) around the earth?

mindaika

Actually, fish were excepted in the bible. Although one does wonder how the aquatic species survived in the ensuing brackish water...

Magus55

Noah was in the Ark 7 days before the flood started.

Then in the 600th year, second month, and 17th day of Noah's life, the Flood waters began pouring onto the Earth. That day of Noah's life, is the same day as 7 days after Noah entered the Ark. In other words, Noah would have been in his 600th year, second month, and 10th day when He entered the Ark. There is no contradiction.

The Earth continued to be flooded with more water for 40 days. Then the rain and waters stopped, and the water remained covering the Earth for 150 days. Remember 40 days and 40 nights? Thats just the time it took to actually flood the Earth. That doesn't mean how long the waters remained.

The Ark rested on Ararat after the 7th month. And then the waters kept receeding for 3 more months below the level of where the Ark landed on Ararat.

As i've clearly shown, they are not all contradictions of the story, they are just your poor attempt at reading.

All of which can be explained. Perhaps not by naturalistic methods, but then again, who here is claiming that the flood was actually a natural event all by itself?

And I used to believe in evolution and a 15 billion year old universe as a fact. I would have agreed with everyone on this board relating to evolution and the Big Bang a few years ago ( i was never an atheist though). And no, I didn't stop believing from hanging around conservative Christians.

Is there evidence of the flood? Yes, its the same evidence used against it. It just depends on what pressuposition and assumptions you start with that determine which view you take. If you assume naturalism, then there is evidence of no flood, if you assume God, then there is evidence of a flood. Could it have logically happened? With God, yes. Without God, no. But again, who here is claiming the flood happened on its own? Is the story self consistent? Yes, as I showed above by your failure to actually read carefully.


God is completely relevent to the discussion, because without God we wouldn't be having this conversation. And who determiens that the Bible account is flawed? You? right.... next argument please.


You're right, a circle can't be a square because if it were, it wouldn't be a circle, it would be square. But we are just playing word games. If God changed the meaning of a circle to square, and square to circle, then a circle can become a square. But that has nothing to do with whether God can flood the Earth He created out of thin air.


I can just as easily say atheists are deluding themselves in falling for a naturalistic worldview. And I didn't say it proved the bible as completely truthful. I said in the past, when science concludes an event in the Bible didn't happen, archaeology routinely shows that it did. Some things have yet to be discovered, but Archaeology has done wonders for bringing the Bible to life.

I never claimed that the Bible is scientific. Its a history book, not a science text book. But when it does mention science it is right. It knew about blood, disease, spherical earth, leprosy etc. long before science or any other civilization found it.

And God didn't write the Bible, He inspired it ( except the 10 commandments which were written by God Himself). And its only illogical to you because it disagrees with your worldview.

And for all you know, in a 100 years, the Global flood and Creationism could be the next scientific theory if the evidence eventually shows that the current conclusion is wrong. Naturalistic Science is a guessing game.

Magus55

You have yet to actually prove how the story is impossible. Oh wait, thats why, because you are assuming I believe the flood happened on its own, without God's intervention? If God exists, it is most certaintly possible.

Magus55

Habit.


Of course I have, but it causes just as many more problems as it explains. The Bible disagrees with a local flood. ( or at least as local as you would assume it would have to be to actually happen. )

Demigawd

What "just as many more problems" does it cause, other than contradicting the bible's claim of a global flood. I'm genuinely curious.

Doctor X

Actually, they have proven it impossible.

If one wishes to believe that a deity would create something impossible and make it look impossible afterwards--including having multiple mutually exclusive versions. . . .

This then gets into the whole Five Possible Choices problem where one is left with a deity that is either:

1. Non-Existent
2. Evil
3. Incompetent
4. Irrelevant
5. Some Combination of 2-5

because if a deity is willing to go through this much trouble to create an impossible situation and make it look impossible afterward but NOT alleviate Unjustified Suffering. . . .

--J.D.

Mageth

But the "global flood" aspect is what causes the problem, Magus. It would take an estimated 5x the amount of water found on Earth to flood the entire globe over the highest mountains. To do that in 40 24-hour days, it would have to rain somewhere around 360 inches an hour assuming Everest as the highest, a generous half that if one assumes, say, Mt. Ararat was the highest.

Needless to say, assuming "global flood caused by 40 days and nights of rain" causes the bigger problems.

Unless you can explain to me by what magic God can cause 180 or 360 inches an hour of rain to fall (which is as impossible as a square circle), how he could keep a 450-foot wooden ark afloat, much less together, in such a deluge, and keep all the animals and humans from suffocating in the dense water vapor that the atmosphere would have to have been.

(and next, Magus proposes that there were no mountains back then)

Magus55

The need for such a massive ark. The water covering the tallest mountains in the area. Even if such mountains were hill size, the water would spread pretty far in such an area. The need to spend 120 years building said Ark, instead of walking over the mountains to dry ground. The need to put every land animal on board, including birds. The rainbow convenant; There have certaintly been plenty of local floods since then. etc.