conkermaniac

Some theists seem to think that the flood described in the Bible was a massive regional flood. Now, aside from how silly that idea is (people in Somalia and China are looking at a giant block of liquid water?), I also added that if the flood was regional, that would only render the Bible false, as it clearly states that every mountain "under the heavens" was covered by water. Then they went on about how the Bible isn't wrong and how the "world" described in Genesis was only the interpretation of the people of the time. I said that God would not allow such a blatant error to enter into his "Holy Book", if He wanted the word to be spread to other countries and to be for all time. Then they went on about how the Bible is divinely inspired, not divinely monitored, or some crap like that.

How should I settle the matter once and for all? Is there any impeccable argument that I can use so that at least I can back them into the corner and make them say, "Goddidit"?

demoninho

Ask them how we can tell no other errors slipped in, which we are not able to tell yet? If they say the holy ghost guides them then ask them why there are so many christian denominations each claiming to have the thruth revealed by the holy ghost.

They are right about the regional flood though, there was a massive Black See flood about 10,000 yrs ago.

Anyway they don't seem to be literalists they are a lot harder to debate because the have the bible mean they want it to mean.

conkermaniac

Did it cover all the mountains in the Middle East? To think that this massive flood covered the towering Mt. Ararat is a bit hard to swallow, I must say.

demoninho

http://www.mysticaquarium.org/latest...h/mgbs1999.asp

A little bit of info about the flood, doesn't say much about the damage done though.

But a local flood is in contradiction with the Genesis account as Magus has been defending the last few day here (don't know how to do induvidal posts so scroll down a bit)

leftfist

Well on the one hand believing that the Bible is not 100% accurate but that the general message is true is in my view the only way someone who is willing to examine the Bible critically can be a Christian. But on the other hand once someone has acknowledged that the Bible is not the infallible word of God there's a lot less holding him back from reason. He's made the first step - presumably he now has the ability to stop believing something once he realizes there is overwhelming evidence against it. The next step is to be able to not believe something simply because there's no particular reason to believe it.

-DM-

The mountain now referred to as "Mt. Ararat" transliterated is, I have read, "Agri Dari" (or something like that), whereas the Bible says that the Ark came to rest on the "mountains [plural] of Ararat"--and no one really knows with certainty what mountains are meant.

Brushing that aside, however, some apologists suggest that the topography of the earth was much different at the time of the Flood, that the mountains weren't nearly as high then as they are now, therefore it isn't at all hard to swallow all that water; in other words, all of the mountains really were covered to a depth of 15 cubits (approx. 23 feet).

There is almost no impeccable argument against any religious beliefs that will convince a true believer given the ad hoc how-it-might-have-been "reasoning" that can be applied to any fact otherwise thought to bear on the accuracy of those beliefs. Never mind that there is no evidence whatsoever that there ever was a universal flood.

--

Two good, easy-to-read books on the Flood nonsense, both out of print but available used:

The Noah's Ark Nonsense by Howard Teeple.

Where Is Noah's Ark? Mystery on Mount Ararat by Lloyd R. Bailey, professor of Old Testament at Duke Divinity School.

-Don-

Koyaanisqatsi

Just a nitpick. Global flood, not "universal." A universal flood would be a tremendously huge flood indeed .

nermal

What an absolutely hilarious visual image! Know that many nontheists believe that the flood described in the bible was a massive regional flood, as well. When there was a massive regional flood in the Mississippi delta, people in New York certainly weren't looking at a giant block of liquid water!
There is even evidence that a considerable region of the Black Sea was inhabited before some massive regional flood.
It's not that hard to imagine that a severe local flood in one of the few inhabited regions of the fertile crescent thousands of years ago was passed down as an oral tale through generations to become Noah's flood, eventually.
Remember, there was a Rome and an Egypt too. Just because the bible says it doesn't necessarily mean it ain't true!

Ed

-DM-

universal (y¡´ne-vûr´sel) adjective
Abbr. univ.
1.Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide. [Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary]

global (glo´bel) adjective
2.Of, relating to, or involving the entire earth; worldwide. [Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary]

-Don-

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, what do you know? My picked nit has itself been picked!

How counterintuitive.