Magus55

Welcome to the majority of history books. The only reason the Bible is controversial and disagreed with among atheists as a valid record of history is because it supports the supernatural. If every other aspect of the Bible was the same, except the supernatural events, no one would ever question its historical reliability.

Mageth

Well, you're wrong on that. Other "historical" books that do not make supernatural claims are very much questioned for their reliability.

Magus55

So what is used to determine the veracity of a historical book. If a historical structure or person can't be found through archaeology, what do you use to verify it? Other books?

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
Someone saying science has disproven the flood doesn't change my position since that isn't actually the case. Science may not agree with it, but science changes on a daily basis.

Science has found absolutely no evidence that would even begin to support the Global Flood depicted in the Bible. It's the lack of evidence that indicates that the Biblical Flood never happened.

We don't have a clue as to how the Earth was before the flood,

Funny, theists, including you, make such claims all the time. Further, we have many, many clues as to "how the Earth was" going back millions and even billions of years.

and what actual effects the flood would have on the Earth.

Well, actually, we do have "clues" as to what effects to look for resulting from such a flood.

There is only one place in the whole world where you can even see the complete geological column, so how how does analyzing a small portion of it automatically disprove the flood?

There are many places on earth where the "geologic column" goes back for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years uninterrupted by any evidence of such a global flood.

How do scientists even know what to look for to determine if that flood could have caused it or not? Knowing the effects of a local flood has absolutely nothing to do with a flood that destroys the entire world.

Well, to be correct, the Bible doesn't claim the Flood "destroy[ed] the entire world". Further, knowing the effects of floods does have something to do with looking for evidence of any flood.

And as I understand it, science can only disprove a hypothesis. It can never prove one. The flood isn't a hypothesis. It isn't a scientific concept that we can experiment and test.

That's right; it's a myth. But you are claiming it as a real event, and are thus making it an "hypothesis" that can be tested. And the Flood hypothesis doesn't hold water.

It's either true or it isn't, regardless of what science claims to have come up with against it.

But if true it would definitely have left evidence that we could "experiment and test". The lack of such evidence is what science has "come up with against it" (not to mention the physical impossibility of such an event, as detailed throughout this thread). Thus, science concludes it's not true.

It's a myth, Magus.

Stew

Thats not the only reason. Those of a theistic bent, who are accepting of the alleged supernatural events described therein, cannot come to an agreement on what this book means.

Mageth

Other books/sources in addition to archaeology. As well as examination of the "historical book" itself for consistency, etc.

HerodionRomulus

So maybe tomorrow gravity will disappear and we'll all go floating off into space.
Really now.

Accepting the Deluge as 100% fact or not should have NO bearing on whether or not one is living according to the authentic Christian imperative. See IJ3:23.

But it is sooooo much easier to waste time, effort and money on the trivial than it is to actually have a behavior which is filled with love, joy, peace, goodness, meekness, of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, resisting oppression, helping the marginalized, the hurting, the hopeless, the helpless and hapless.

What percentage of your denomination or local congregation is devoted to social uplift. When is the last time your pastor preached a series on practical ways to alleviate poverty and suffering?

Or are you one of those "Christians" who spends a lot of time on supporting the War to Liberate Iraqi Oil and rants against social programs.

Here ends the rant. We now return the thread to it's regularly scheduled topic.

---------------------------------------
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., April 4, 1967
"....we are all his children" St. Paul, Acts 17:28
"Love one another" Jesus Christ

cjack

While we're at it, Magus, could you be so kind as to tell us why it is so important to take the Bible literally.

Isn't it more important that you get the message?

IMO, in this case I would say (turning an old phrase on its head) that the medium is not the message.

Here's an example:

Book of Job.

It basically goes like this:

God and Satan get into an argument over who has a bigger nut sack.

Satan bets God 50 shekels and a six pack of beer that he can make anyone turn away from God.

God takes the bet, 'cause he's got a ringer named Job.

Poor Job. Suddenly his life turns into a country song. His wife leaves him, his dog dies, someone steals his truck, and there's something about a train.

But through it all, Job sticks to his guns, and doesn't turn away from God.

God wins the bet, and in the spirit of giving, shares the brewskies with Job.

Okay, I took a little liberty with the story, but there's a point to that, too.

The message that God (I'll assume for the sake of argument that he's real) is trying to get us to understand is this:

No matter how bad things get, don't lose your faith in Me, because you will be rewarded for keeping your faith.


Everyone I've talked to says that yes, you got the message.

Super-duper! I got a message! God is a-speakin' to me through the Bybull!



The point of this little diversion into a different book is this:

It doesn't matter one tiny bit whether or not I believe the Job story is history or fiction. The point is that I got the message.


Now, I'm not sure what the message behind the Flood is (other than "don't fuck with God"), but that's up for you to decide.

It really doesn't matter whether you believe the Flood actually happened, as long as you understand what the sky-daddy's trying to tell you.

Mathetes

I am with Magus here. The Bible is either 100 % inerrant or it falls apart as a creation of an omnipotent being. How can there be errors if he is omnipotent? The attempts of liberal Christians at reading the Bible "metaphorically" are just attempts of attributing some vague authority to a text when it is plain obvious that it is wrong. As someone else has said, what does "reading a book non-literally" mean? A book is either intended to be read literally, or it is plain fiction. How do you read Herodotus non-literally?

As Magus said, Jesus and Paul and everyone else around them believed that what the OT related was true 100 %. Apples and snakes, floods, talking donkeys, suns stopping in the sky, whales eating people, etc. Nobody ever suggested that these were parables. Besides, in Jesus parables the supernatural does not appear. There are common people doing ordinary things (rich men, poor men, samaritans, grains of seed).

You either believe the whole thing, or the Bible is not more a moral guide than the Odyssey. As Magus said, how can you know what is right and what is wrong?

rmadison

To what extent must science change to account for a billion cubic miles of water?

Remember Magus...the oceans of THREE others Earths...ADDED to our own.

Incorrect. Again...

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

...the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:


The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta



Argument from ignorance does not equal an argument.


Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses /-"sEz/

1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action.

Is Noah's flood an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument?

Why yes, it is.

IF the flood occurred, THEN we should expect "x" to have happened.

Why don't we ever find "x"?

Even granting that a billion cubic miles of water just *poof*, magically started raining down from...somewhere...

There isn't a shred...not a tiny little bit...not even by the wildest stretch of the delusional christian imagination, ANYTHING which supports...even by the remotest of standards...a global flood.

Not one foot deep, not one mile deep, and not 5 miles deep.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Zero.

Translated: No fact, no matter how strongly supported by reality, is sufficient to convince me that the flood did not occur.

The flood is either true, or it isn't. And since the bible is always true, it must be true. Therefore, it is true.

Moreover, since no conceivable amount of evidence is sufficient to discount the inerrant truth of the bible, the flood is true, and will always be true.

Does that about sum it up Magus...