Spirituality
06 May 05
11 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderalso theres a wide variation in the details of the stories.
We've been over this many times; your assertion does not explain why there are flood myths very similiar to the Middle Eastern ones in the Americas, Australia, Polynesia, etc. You're wasting your time with this assertion; it's essentially unprovable. The "proto-myth" theory of the Flood story explains how the story came to be found in cultures widely seperated by geography; your's simply doesn't.
not so with the Sumerian, Babylonian and Biblical versions ,,,there is a clear progression in the 3 versions.
11 May 05
Originally posted by Colettium, that floods occur in many places?
Sounds like you'd like to have your cake and eat it too. If other cultures speak of the great flood - that is evidence. If there is evidence of other massive floods, there is evidence of floods. You can not say there is no evidence and then say there is. It only a matter of what the evidence means.
11 May 05
Originally posted by telerionwait ,,, the egyptians had no flood story.
Egyptian timelines (who knew that they built the pyramids while under 29,000 ft of water!):
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/history/timeline.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/timeline.shtml
http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/
Looks like you might have been right about the Chinese though(earliest civilization I'v ...[text shortened]... o high tail it to Australia, Mexico, India and China to prepare civilizations there too.
11 May 05
It rained for 40 days and night?
Rain begins as the sun warms the oceans, water evaporates, forms clouds, cools and releases the water.
How did the oceans produce enough water to flood the entire planet to a new sea level about 29,000 feet above the present one?
That's quite a bit of unaccounted for water.
11 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompLike I said, makes you wonder.
wait ,,, the egyptians had no flood story.
I can just see Noah telling his sons as they step of the ark onto the endless mudplane. "Hurry boys. We've got 15 minutes to recreate three great civilizations, and God wants to keep this one clean, just like nothing ever happened."
11 May 05
Originally posted by telerionNot to mention getting the kangaroos back to Australia and so forth (I don't know how they were assembled in the first place)
Like I said, makes you wonder.
I can just see Noah telling his sons as they step of the ark onto the endless mudplane. "Hurry boys. We've got 15 minutes to recreate three great civilizations, and God wants to keep this one clean, just like nothing ever happened."
There does seem to be some nagging technical questions about the Flood.
11 May 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightAllow me to pre-empt the vapor canopy story.
It rained for 40 days and night?
Rain begins as the sun warms the oceans, water evaporates, forms clouds, cools and releases the water.
How did the oceans produce enough water to flood the entire planet to a new sea level about 29,000 feet above the present one?
That's quite a bit of unaccounted for water.
The Bible talks about God dividing the upper and lower waters. Most of us take the "upper waters" to be ignorant people speak for "the sky," but creationists have claimed that this actually describes an enormously dense cloud of water that surrounded the earth. During the flood this all came down.
Cloud cover protected us from harmful UV rays, which is why the patriarchs lived so long. After the flood, lifespans declined rapidly.
My question is. If this cloud were so dense, how did everyone get by in the dark?
Here's a nice quick rebuttal that I found.
http://www.fsteiger.com/canopy.html
11 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionAlso, it is reasonable to imagine that the people of that time didn't realize that rain is part of a cycle, driven by the sun, and that their view of groundwater and sky water, like the earth-centric solar system, was wrong.
Allow me to pre-empt the vapor canopy story.
The Bible talks about God dividing the upper and lower waters. Most of us take the "upper waters" to be ignorant people speak for "the sky," but creationists have claimed that this actua ...[text shortened]... quick rebuttal that I found.
http://www.fsteiger.com/canopy.html
Thanks for the link
11 May 05
Originally posted by telerionLOL
Like I said, makes you wonder.
I can just see Noah telling his sons as they step of the ark onto the endless mudplane. "Hurry boys. We've got 15 minutes to recreate three great civilizations, and God wants to keep this one clean, just like nothing ever happened."
11 May 05
Originally posted by telerionThere are lots of reasonable explanations and we can go back and forth with them. But why must the answers exclude the intervention of God?
My questions still stand. Can you offer a reasonable explaination of even the few issues I brought up in the previous post?
This is ultimately about God, not geology, not hydrology. And if you insist that God is not allowed to be part of the picture, what is the point?
11 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiWhether there was or was not a world wide flood 4300 years ago is most assuredly about geology. If you are going to insist there was, despite the overwhelming geological evidence to the contrary, then you must explain how it occurred and why the geology doesn't support it. Creation "scientists" pretty much reject numerous branches of science and accepted scientific techniques (dating techniques in particular). Yes, you can have the "Goddunnit" explanation for all the inconsistencies with observable facts, but why should we believe it?
There are lots of reasonable explanations and we can go back and forth with them. But why must the answers exclude the intervention of God?
This is ultimately about God, not geology, not hydrology. And if you insist that God is not allowed to be part of the picture, what is the point?
And on a more basic point, why is it important to you that there was an actual Flood and an ark and Noah and two of each animal, etc. etc.? Jesus himself often spoke in parables, why can't this and the Genesis creation story be simply metaphorical? How would it effect your belief in God if they weren't real things that happened, but stories to illustrate important principles handed down by God if you prefer?
Seriously, why does it matter?
11 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderA Biblical metaphor must point to a Biblical truth. And when the Bible speaks in plain language, it is clearly not a metaphor. It would be unwise to label any part of the Bible a metaphor unless it is self-evident. And empirical data should not take precedence over revelatory information.
... Jesus himself often spoke in parables, why can't this and the Genesis creation story be simply metaphorical?
....
Seriously, why does it matter?
11 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiColetti: And empirical data should not take precedence over revelatory information.
A Biblical metaphor must point to a Biblical truth. And when the Bible speaks in plain language, it is clearly not a metaphor. It would be unwise to label any part of the Bible a metaphor unless it is self-evident. And empirical data should not take precedence over revelatory information.
I take that to mean that no matter what data is presented you will simply refuse to believe it if it contrasts with your interpretation that the Biblical flood story is literally true. I note that this is also the techniques used by creation "scientists": they accept the Genesis story is true and the Flood story is true and then try to debunk the data which shows they are not. When all else fails they fall back to "Goddunnit" i.e. he is not confined by physical laws. It seems to me that basically there is a hostility to science and reason itself; everything we need to know is in the Bible and everything else is a waste of time. I find such a position archaic but hey you're welcome to it.
11 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWe are dealing with truth. On one hand we have God's revelation - knowledge from God to man, and the deductive knowledge that can be logically inferred. On the other hand we have interpretations of empirical data (not direct knowledge) but rather indirect theories and hypothesis using inductive reasoning to explain empirical data.
Coletti: And empirical data should not take precedence over revelatory information.
I take that to mean that no matter what data is presented you will simply refuse to believe it if it contrasts with your interpretation that the Biblical flood story is literally true. ..
I don't refuse anything - that would be a gross exaggeration. However, when it comes to understanding events from the Bible, I usually give precedence to the scripture over mans theories. The empirical data itself does not refute the Bible. The disagreements are the result of human interpretations of "data."
So my question remains, if we are discussing the merits of Biblical events - how can one rationalize leaving God out of the picture - considering that we are taking about God's Word?
(No one debunk the data - it is merely the interpretation of that data that is questioned.)