• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

The Flood is proof of the Creation

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Firstly the OT is not Christian Scripture

What do you mean by that? That Christians did not write the OT? (But who says the OT was written by Christians?) That Christians don't believe the OT? (If Christians don't believe the OT, then what is your grievance?) That Christians should not believe the OT? (If so, why shouldn't Christians believe the OT?) Again, what do you mean?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Genesis was not written for a Creationist in 2022. Genesis was written for late Bronze Age peasants, labourers and all those illiterate and uneducated peoples suffering the drudgery of short, difficult lives. Today we have science and a general global education system so that we might revisit the wondrous writings of the Bible and allow them to reveal the deeper truths that this age gifts us.

This means nothing. The words of the Bible are written down. Quote them and tell us what you think they mean and why, and provide evidence.

That's what we do.

If it arises that the intended audience is a relevant factor in the discussion, we can go over it. But as far as I have seen, you've spent no time actually looking at the text, which is the place to start. The wrong place to start is with your useless assertions and unspoken assumptions.
 

Right Divider

Body part
"Sounds like you've spent exactly no time investigating what actually happened."

I am ready to listen to exactly what happened. Here is your chance to correct my errant understanding of the Flood epic and I will be grateful to read your reply.
Read Dr. Brown's book. Link previously provided.
 

blueboy

Member
This means nothing. The words of the Bible are written down. Quote them and tell us what you think they mean and why, and provide evidence.

That's what we do.

If it arises that the intended audience is a relevant factor in the discussion, we can go over it. But as far as I have seen, you've spent no time actually looking at the text, which is the place to start. The wrong place to start is with your useless assertions and unspoken assumptions.
The words of the Bible are written down, okay. Words are written down in science publications as well and they are done so by highly educated scholars and are not Faith based, or a canon of belief from a religious tribe.

Firstly the Bible was transcribed from an oral tradition into Aramaic, then into common, or publicly used Greek, from Greek to Latin and then into various languages including English. That's quite a journey. Then there is the drift in the meaning of words and a cultural language itself. Just have a look at the works of Shakespeare, 16th century English and you can see how language is not static.

Next, the OT is a compilation of lost religions plus Scripture from the religion of Moses. It's the Scripture of the Jewish religion, not the Christian religion. It comprises snippets of religions going back 6,000 years or more. What are the chances of that surviving many millennia in human hands? There is no question as to its original divine source, but nobody can claim it to be in an original state in context or content.

Now if I quote what I believe from my research it will receive the same considered opinion that it always gets, instant dismissal and scorn and contempt.

I have read the Bible cover to cover and researched sections of it over and over. I doubt many Christians can make that claim.

As for evidence, a claim for a Global Flood, Adam being the first man, original sin, the Trinity, etc, etc requires evidence from the claimant, not the audience. In my many years of looking into this subject I have not seen a flake of substantive evidence for the Noahic Flood. There have been fossils of whales positioned horizontally, folds in rock, shell fossil beds, animal fossil beds, etc, etc, and ever single one of the examples put forward can be explained and dismissed by a true and honest appraisal.

Lastly, God does not hinge on a literal Genesis, only Creationist do. God Created according to His own Will, not the misunderstanding of humans.

If you'd like to pick a particular point and work through it, I would only be too happy.

Thank you for you response, all the best.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The words of the Bible are written down, okay. Words are written down in science publications as well.

Great. So start sharing some of the words from both to back up your ideas instead of pushing false narratives about them.

The Bible was transcribed from an oral tradition into Aramaic
False. There is no evidence of an "oral tradition" sans writing. Every piece of evidence we have about the original autographs for every book of the Bible points to earlier manuscripts or tablets. These were primarily in Hebrew.

then into common, or publicly used Greek, from Greek to Latin and then into various languages including English.

False. There was no chain of translations. We have today copies of the original autographs in the language they were penned in.

That's quite a journey.
That's quite a fantasy.

The pathway you describe is easily circumvented.

Then there is the drift in the meaning of words and a cultural language itself. Just have a look at the works of Shakespeare, 16th century English and you can see how language is not static.
And therefore, something. Are you just going to make up blithe one-liners and post them as if you've presented a compelling case for something? Try this: Complete your arguments with a "therefore." For example: There is drift in the meaning of words and cultural language, therefore _____________.

Present an actual argument, not a narrative stub.

The OT is a compilation of lost religions plus Scripture from the religion of Moses. It's the Scripture of the Jewish religion, not the Christian religion. It comprises snippets of religions going back 6,000 years or more. What are the chances of that surviving many millennia in human hands?

Who cares what the chances are? The evidence shows that it in fact did survive. You do realize that we can show a process of copying that has been nigh on 100 percent perfect across every one of the 66 books, right? You do realize that the debate over what might be ambiguous boils down to semantic issues that are next to meaningless regarding the actual meaning, right?

There is no question as to its original divine source, but nobody can claim it to be in an original state in context or content.
The Bible is close enough to its original state for meaning to be clearly derived and the words we read are clear and not self-contradicting. For example, the Bible says "six days." There is no good reason to think it means other than what it plainly says. So if you disagree with that concept, fine. Present your case for why the Bible is wrong.

Now if I quote what I believe from my research it will receive the same considered opinion that it always gets, instant dismissal and scorn and contempt.
Will it?

Perhaps that's because your research is gobbledygook.

Then again, perhaps it's not. I guess we'll never know.

I have read the Bible cover to cover and researched sections of it over and over. I doubt many Christians can make that claim.
Great. I've flown in an airplane.

In my many years of looking into this subject I have not seen a flake of substantive evidence for the Noahic Flood.
Do you know what a sedimentary rock is?

There have been fossils of whales positioned horizontally, folds in rock, shell fossil beds, animal fossil beds, etc, etc, and ever single one of the examples put forward can be explained and dismissed by a true and honest appraisal.
Uh. OK. Can you provide a single example and the explanation?

God does not hinge on a literal Genesis, only Creationist do. God Created according to His own Will, not the misunderstanding of humans.
What is a "literal" Genesis? Genesis says it is an account of history. That account has many forms of writing in it, including non-literal descriptions.

If you'd like to pick a particular point and work through it, I would only be too happy.
Do you know what three ingredients are required to make a sedimentary rock?
 

Right Divider

Body part
The words of the Bible are written down, okay.
This might be the first true statement that you've made.
Words are written down in science publications as well and they are done so by highly educated scholars and are not Faith based, or a canon of belief from a religious tribe.
That is a misguided at best. Many "highly educated scholars" believe many things that are not true with regard to their interpretation of the scientific evidence.
Firstly the Bible was transcribed from an oral tradition into Aramaic,
False.
then into common, or publicly used Greek, from Greek to Latin and then into various languages including English. That's quite a journey.
And quite a fantasy as well.
Then there is the drift in the meaning of words and a cultural language itself. Just have a look at the works of Shakespeare, 16th century English and you can see how language is not static.
And yet you think that God is incapable of preserving truth.
Next, the OT is a compilation of lost religions plus Scripture from the religion of Moses.
Another of your MANY falsehoods.
It's the Scripture of the Jewish religion, not the Christian religion.
In many cases, it's both. The entire Bible is true regardless of your false views of it.
It comprises snippets of religions going back 6,000 years or more.
No, it is GOD'S WORD through and through.
What are the chances of that surviving many millennia in human hands?
What are you, an atheist? You don't think that God has a hand in it?
There is no question as to its original divine source, but nobody can claim it to be in an original state in context or content.
Again, God is not preserving it? HIS WORD.
Now if I quote what I believe from my research it will receive the same considered opinion that it always gets, instant dismissal and scorn and contempt.
That's because your "research" is flawed.
I have read the Bible cover to cover and researched sections of it over and over. I doubt many Christians can make that claim.
So what? You come to the scripture with a completely distorted view of it. Resulting in complete confusion.
As for evidence, a claim for a Global Flood, Adam being the first man, original sin, the Trinity, etc, etc requires evidence from the claimant, not the audience. In my many years of looking into this subject I have not seen a flake of substantive evidence for the Noahic Flood. There have been fossils of whales positioned horizontally, folds in rock, shell fossil beds, animal fossil beds, etc, etc, and ever single one of the examples put forward can be explained and dismissed by a true and honest appraisal.
Please read Dr. Brown's book, it will answer all of these questions: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Lastly, God does not hinge on a literal Genesis, only Creationist do.
Another pile of dung.
God Created according to His own Will, not the misunderstanding of humans.
You're human.
Thank you for you response, all the best.
You're welcome.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
"Sounds like you've spent exactly no time investigating what actually happened."

I am ready to listen to exactly what happened. Here is your chance to correct my errant understanding of the Flood epic and I will be grateful to read your reply.

So start listening:


Look, I'm just taking it in as I see it based on the advantages we have living in this scientific age.

You're not doing a very good job.

Firstly the OT is not Christian Scripture, but Christians spend 90% of their time messing about in either the OT or Revelation, because that's where all the good stuff is. The end of the world, the flood, the talking snake, dragons and God smiting all those nasty humans. The stuff in the NT where Jesus speaks of love and charity, an equal distribution of food and resources, well, let's get back to the end of the world and the smiting.

Jesus spoke more about Hell and what happens to those who reject Him than the Old Testament ever did.

Also, Revelation is in the New Testament.

Secondly, Genesis was not written for a Creationist in 2022.

Sure it was.

Genesis was written for late Bronze Age peasants, labourers and all those illiterate and uneducated peoples suffering the drudgery of short, difficult lives.

If they were illiterate, then what's the point of writing it?

In other words, you're wrong. It was written as a record of history, to teach a lesson, and to provide a foundation for the rest of what would be written.

Today we have science

Which isn't exclusive to the Bible.

and a general global education system

Which turns bright young children into dull cookie-cutter replicas who can't tell the difference between their right hand and their left.

Parents educate their children better than any government based system.

so that we might revisit the wondrous writings of the Bible and allow them to reveal the deeper truths that this age gifts us.

All it takes to reveal the deeper truths in the Bible is to simply read the Bible, not reinterpret it however you will.

Thirdly, as every vibrating atom is part of Creation and natural order is the set of laws God has commanded physical reality to behave via, then anything in the Bible that contradicts natural order and science, (which is also a great and mighty gift from God, so that we might understand a fragment of His wondrous work), must then be superstition and dogma.

Nothing in the Bible contradicts "natural order and science."

It takes no stretch of understanding to realise the utter impossibility of a global flood as described in Genesis.

Saying it's impossible doesn't make it so, sir. PROVE IT!

We've given you the resources that you need to prove wrong.

On so many levels to accept this story in 2022 as literal is a crime against logic, science, common sense and Christianity itself.

False.

So no Mystery Machine for me, just ordinary, garden variety common sense gleaned from a great deal of reading the works of others.

In other words, you've allowed yourself to be brainwashed by people who reject the Bible, and are simply parroting what they want you to say.

Start thinking for yourself for once.

Religion is always destroyed from within, even the might and power of Rome could not touch the Teachings of Christ and His reality, yet literalism in 2022 has rendered certain factions of Christianity religious backwaters that still conform to Bronze Age beliefs in an age of science.

False.

It's a bit like those folk who reenact the Civil War and have battles dressed as knights.

Nonsense.

The words of the Bible are written down, okay. Words are written down in science publications as well and they are done so by highly educated scholars and are not Faith based, or a canon of belief from a religious tribe.

Appeals to authority and ridicule don't make your position right. They make it wrong.

Firstly the Bible was transcribed from an oral tradition into Aramaic, then into common, or publicly used Greek, from Greek to Latin and then into various languages including English.

Nope. The Hebrew language originated in Egypt during the time of Israel's living there, and Moses (being an educated man himself, would have used it (instead of the Egyptian hieroglyphics) to write Genesis (it would have made more sense, and would have been much easier to use) and the Pentateuch. The rest of the Old Testament would have also been written in Hebrew.

Then, it was translated into Greek in what is known as the Septuagint, which would have been commonly used for study in the times leading up to Jesus' birth and following.

And from Hebrew and Greek, it's been translated into many other languages, but not by translating into another language first. The Hebrew and Greek are (almost) always used when translating, so there's only a single translation step, not multiple like what you're claiming.

That's quite a journey.

One that never happened.

Then there is the drift in the meaning of words and a cultural language itself. Just have a look at the works of Shakespeare, 16th century English and you can see how language is not static.

Three words: Dead Sea Scrolls

Compare them to modern Hebrew versions and they are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

Next, the OT is a compilation of lost religions plus Scripture from the religion of Moses.

False.

It's the Scripture of the Jewish religion, not the Christian religion.

Christianity began with Paul, who was given his doctrine by Jesus.

It comprises snippets of religions going back 6,000 years or more.

False.

What are the chances of that surviving many millennia in human hands?

The fact is that it DID survive, because God is capable of writing a book that can survive the test of time.

There is no question as to its original divine source, but nobody can claim it to be in an original state in context or content.

No one does.

People like myself, however, assert that Scripture was perfect when it was written, in its original manuscripts. The copies we have today are not those.

Now if I quote what I believe from my research

What research? All I've seen from you are assertions.

it will receive the same considered opinion that it always gets, instant dismissal and scorn and contempt.

That tends to happen when all you make are assertions.

I have read the Bible cover to cover

Doubtful.

and researched sections of it over and over. I doubt many Christians can make that claim.

Probably true.

As for evidence, a claim for a Global Flood, Adam being the first man, original sin, the Trinity, etc, etc requires evidence from the claimant,

All of those except for original sin are things I hold to.

You can find the evidence for them (barring original sin) in the Bible, and most of them are explained on https://kgov.com

not the audience. In my many years of looking into this subject I have not seen a flake of substantive evidence for the Noahic Flood.

Supra.

There have been fossils of whales positioned horizontally, folds in rock, shell fossil beds, animal fossil beds, etc, etc, and ever single one of the examples put forward can be explained and dismissed by a true and honest appraisal.


Lastly, God does not hinge on a literal Genesis, only Creationist do.

Whatever that means...

God Created according to His own Will, not the misunderstanding of humans.

Says the human...

If you'd like to pick a particular point and work through it, I would only be too happy.

Says the one who has, so far, ignored everything I've said to him.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
to find the inner spiritual truth within Bible stories.

Is whatever it is you call "inner spiritual truth" effable? I mean, can it be/is it expressed verbally, as can be truth—true propositions—via declarative sentences?

Here's a declarative sentence from Genesis 7:7:


And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

Either Noah, etc., went into the ark, or they did not. Is it your view that, on the contrary, they did not go into the ark—in other words, that the proposition expressed in Genesis 7:7 is false? And if so, is it safe for us to assume that, in order to find what you call "the inner spiritual truth," we merely need to read any declarative sentence in the Bible, and understand that the contradictory of the proposition expressed therein is what you would call "the inner spiritual truth"?

In Genesis 1:1, we read the declarative sentence, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth," in which the proposition is expressed that, in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Are we to think, then, that "the inner spiritual truth" is that, in the beginning, God did not create the heaven and the earth?
 

blueboy

Member
Great. So start sharing some of the words from both to back up your ideas instead of pushing false narratives about them.

False. There is no evidence of an "oral tradition" sans writing. Every piece of evidence we have about the original autographs for every book of the Bible points to earlier manuscripts or tablets. These were primarily in Hebrew.



False. There was no chain of translations. We have today copies of the original autographs in the language they were penned in.


That's quite a fantasy.

The pathway you describe is easily circumvented.

And therefore, something. Are you just going to make up blithe one-liners and post them as if you've presented a compelling case for something? Try this: Complete your arguments with a "therefore." For example: There is drift in the meaning of words and cultural language, therefore _____________.

Present an actual argument, not a narrative stub.



Who cares what the chances are? The evidence shows that it in fact did survive. You do realize that we can show a process of copying that has been nigh on 100 percent perfect across every one of the 66 books, right? You do realize that the debate over what might be ambiguous boils down to semantic issues that are next to meaningless regarding the actual meaning, right?


The Bible is close enough to its original state for meaning to be clearly derived and the words we read are clear and not self-contradicting. For example, the Bible says "six days." There is no good reason to think it means other than what it plainly says. So if you disagree with that concept, fine. Present your case for why the Bible is wrong.

Will it?

Perhaps that's because your research is gobbledygook.

Then again, perhaps it's not. I guess we'll never know.


Great. I've flown in an airplane.

Do you know what a sedimentary rock is?


Uh. OK. Can you provide a single example and the explanation?


What is a "literal" Genesis? Genesis says it is an account of history. That account has many forms of writing in it, including non-literal descriptions.

Do you know what three ingredients are required to make a sedimentary rock?
Thank you for such a detailed response.
 

blueboy

Member
It was a question, ya Muppet.

We'll have to assume that you don't know and don't want to know.
Direct evidence is a tad hyperbole, don't you think. I'm assuming that Fred and your good self imagine that sedimentary rock is evidence of the Great Flood? Now there are a great many works and studies as to the processes and times required to form sedimentary rock and they tend to be millions of years, not 3,500, which as you know is a geological blink.

No sedimentary rock has formed by events that have occurred in the last 3,500 years. You do not need me to demonstrate the truth of this, as a Christian and therefore a lover of truth, you will never allow yourself to be held back from the truth, so in the next few days you will have completely cleared up any misconception you have about sedimentary rocks, unless of course you look for your truth within Creationist publications and who knows what beliefs might lead to.

There are some very interesting studies on the area and formation of the Black Sea, which may very well be the genesis of the Flood story. It's likely that this myth was deeply ingrained in the cultural history of this area and was used to illustrate the consequences of not obeying the word of God. Spiritual death via materialism, self and passion was projected as death by drowning in a great flood.

Please understand I do not reject anything written in the OT, or the Bible for that matter, as nonsense, on the contrary, the stories provide a kind of immediate teaching for some in a literal form and richer teaching for others who see them as symbolic works.

I like Muppet, thanks, now I have to think of a pet name for you seeing as we are getting on so famously.

I shall address my responses to you if you don't mind as your friends are all singing from the same hymn book as you anyway.

All the best, the Muppet.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Direct evidence is a tad hyperbole, don't you think. I'm assuming that Fred and your good self imagine that sedimentary rock is evidence of the Great Flood? Now there are a great many works and studies as to the processes and times required to form sedimentary rock and they tend to be millions of years, not 3,500, which as you know is a geological blink.

No sedimentary rock has formed by events that have occurred in the last 3,500 years. You do not need me to demonstrate the truth of this, as a Christian and therefore a lover of truth, you will never allow yourself to be held back from the truth, so in the next few days you will have completely cleared up any misconception you have about sedimentary rocks, unless of course you look for your truth within Creationist publications and who knows what beliefs might lead to.

There are some very interesting studies on the area and formation of the Black Sea, which may very well be the genesis of the Flood story. It's likely that this myth was deeply ingrained in the cultural history of this area and was used to illustrate the consequences of not obeying the word of God. Spiritual death via materialism, self and passion was projected as death by drowning in a great flood.

Please understand I do not reject anything written in the OT, or the Bible for that matter, as nonsense, on the contrary, the stories provide a kind of immediate teaching for some in a literal form and richer teaching for others who see them as symbolic works.

I like Muppet, thanks, now I have to think of a pet name for you seeing as we are getting on so famously.

I shall address my responses to you if you don't mind as your friends are all singing from the same hymn book as you anyway.

All the best, the Muppet.
Did you see the question?

You spent exactly no time responding to it.
 

blueboy

Member
Maybe the question you want me to have a go at is, "do you know what a sedimentary rock is?"

It may be the question asking me to provide evidence of the things Creationists have claimed to be evidence and yet have been better explained by the scientific method?

So, yes, I do know what a sedimentary rock is, how it is formed and approximately how long such rocks take to form. They most certainly did not form in the last 3,500 years. And I do know a little about the various materials and events that form these rocks.

As for the various items posed as evidence for a global flood, they are many and varied. There is no point me identifying what is proposed as evidence because in truth none exists. And even had such a flood taken place we would most assuredly not be sitting in comfort debating the literal, come symbolic meanings of Genesis, because the earth and its eco-systems could not recover to this extent in 3,500 years.

That said, I am conflicted when reading the work of Walter Brown. I do not accept his various hypothesis, his science is not convincing, but I do believe in Creation, that not a single aspect of transmutation, or evolution is accidental, I do not accept than humans are in any way accidental and that our exceptional sentience is a direct result of us having an eternal spirit. No part of natural order is a mutational accident, in this regard I do not accept the material findings of science, nor the literal accounts of Genesis.

If every drop of moisture suspended in our atmosphere fell all at once, which is about 3,100 cubic miles, or .001 of the water on earth, it would raise our oceans about 1 inch. The water contained within the earth is about 1.7% of the volume above ground, so unless we suspend all known science and claim the Flood was totally miraculous, it's just not possible for such a flood. And if a Flood did occur, where is the water now, the planet is not an empty sponge.

Then there's asteroids bringing water and a pseudoscience concerning sediments laid down after the Flood, etc. You simple can't subvert real science to substantiate that which science clearly refutes.

So you are left only with a miracle. The water was a result of a miracle and was then removed after the planet was destroyed. Such a miracle then removes the free will humans were given so as to choose right from wrong and be rewarded accordingly. The other point of interest is that humans across any later age to the Flood were probably living even more sinfully than a small group in the Middle East and yet God seems to have ignored this.

As for my original post, I stand by most of what I said in the context of the difficulties of communicating fully on such a forum.
 

Derf

Well-known member
So, yes, I do know what a sedimentary rock is, how it is formed and approximately how long such rocks take to form. They most certainly did not form in the last 3,500 years.
You should read more widely. Sedimentary rock has indeed formed in the last 3500 years Here's a place to start:

An interesting excerpt from it:
"Because of the Mount St. Helens eruption, scientists know that sedimentary rock layers can form in only hours, rather than requiring millions of years."
 
Top