Flood/no flood

[Stargazer]

Ok, as usual, I'm a bit confused.

The flood is just a myth because there is no evidence to confirm it?

or

The flood is just a myth because the lack of evidence to confrim it is clearly evidence that it never happened?

or

The flood is just a myth because of the large amount of counter-evidence against it?

 

Is it that there is no evidence FOR the flood, or that there is direct evidence AGAINST the flood? Most people here seem to agree that the flood never happened, but have given differing reasons for their conclusion. Is there a general concensus?

I am sure there have been plenty of floods both here and there and other places. However, we were talking about the flood account as it is in the Bible, right? If someone wants to claim it happened, how about some evidence that it did happen the way it is described? Is there any? And then add all the impossible things that supposedly happened, and it's a mystery why anyone would believe it the way it is written in the Bible.

[Stargazer]

Personally, I think it was a local phenominon. If it was global, there is not enough genetic

diversity to account in such a short time span. Doesn't say that something didn't happen in

which a story or legend could be told about until later some derivation of the story was

later writtend down. :hihi:

 

Maddog

If the flood was local, then why did this supposed god do it at all? He wanted to kill off all his animals and humans he created except for few of them, right? So then why make it local? It wouldn't kill off all animals and humans. And if it was merely local, what's the point of rounding up animals from all over the world? And why go through the hassle of building an impossibly large boat because of this, when all Noah had to do was to take a few animals and walk a few kilometres away from there? If we interpret the story literally, then it's impossible, and if we decide it's not to be taken literally, but can be interpreted in anyway we want, then it's not much to trust anyway.

[sanctus]

Well Irish,

The flood (as written in the bible) is a myth because the bible is made up from myths (good ones, with the purpose to telll something good, but still a myth).

The first reason that it is a myth (flood or bible) is that it invokes divine intervention while we nowadays know that all the things described could happen just with laws of nature. Open a post and try to find a story that could not be described by those laws and you will see that every story can be explained like that (even the walking over the water thing!). Therefore putting in something divine destroys it as a factual document from the start, therfore it is a myth.

The second reason is that there is evidence a global flood hasn't existed, only one that that seemed to global to the locals and therefore it rests a local one.

Third reason, if it were true that the flood existed, then the only humans surviving were Noah and family. This would mean that mankind descends from incest (second time in biblical history, first adam end eve), something the bible condemns. So either the bible doesn't condemn incest or the flood didn't kill all mankind apart from Noah. Whatever case you answer, it would always mean that bible was somewhere inconsistent!

 

I guess this is enough to explain why I think it's a myth

[pgrmdave]

I find it interesting that some people who do not believe in the flood set it up to be unbelievable. When presented with the possibility that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, they say that it has to, so it is wrong, and then they will say that the bible can't be taken literally, because it would be wrong.

[Tormod]

I find it interesting that some people who do not believe in the flood set it up to be unbelievable. When presented with the possibility that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, they say that it has to, so it is wrong, and then they will say that the bible can't be taken literally, because it would be wrong.

Er...the original post was "This thread is to discuss personal opinions and also any evidence that people may have about the flood as referred to in the Bible."

 

I am not going to tell anyone whether they should read the Bible literally or not - but the flood is one story that has absolutely no scientific evidence in favor of it, and has logical problems to the extreme, so read either way it still does not become a true story.

[Tormod]

Come on now, Tormod... You DO have two beautiful girls. Do we really need to cover procreation with you? How did they procreate after the flood? Well...um... the same way they did BEFORE the flood.

DUH!! :rant:

Let me guess. Cloning? :hihi:

[sanctus]

I find it interesting that some people who do not believe in the flood set it up to be unbelievable. When presented with the possibility that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, they say that it has to, so it is wrong, and then they will say that the bible can't be taken literally, because it would be wrong.

 

 

I guess you are refferenig to me (as well as to others). So here is my answer:

 

When I take the bible literally it is to answer to people that are believers and take it literally; as you have to start from the same basis to show that their point doesn't hold.

 

When I say that you don't have to take the bible literally, I say my point of view (ie from my basis) because as you know I think the bible taken literally is wrong, while there are stories with the aim to create a better society (if not taken literally!).

 

But as we are going a bit off topic here, we can discuss this in another thread.

[jp3089]

Hi there,

 

I'm new to this thread, but I had a quick comment or two on this quote by Sanctus. Great observations by the way. It's good to ask the hard questions of people who believe in the Bible. Here are my comments.

 

Well Irish,

The flood (as written in the bible) is a myth because the bible is made up from myths (good ones, with the purpose to telll something good, but still a myth).

The first reason that it is a myth (flood or bible) is that it invokes divine intervention while we nowadays know that all the things described could happen just with laws of nature. Open a post and try to find a story that could not be described by those laws and you will see that every story can be explained like that (even the walking over the water thing!).

That's a very interesting comment. I don't believe it's completely accurate, however. Many things such as the multitudes of healings by Jesus, and raising of the dead by Jesus and some of the apostles are beyond scientific explanation.

 

The Biblical descriptions put healing beyond medical or scientific explanation.

 

 

Therefore putting in something divine destroys it as a factual document from the start, therfore it is a myth.

I believe my previous reply puts this statement into question. Putting in something divine dosen't destroy something as a factual document unless there is absolute proof of there NOT being a God. Which we can't undeniably prove either way. Sure, there is evidence for both sides, but absolute proof has not yet been found for denial or confirmation of the existence of God

 

 

The second reason is that there is evidence a global flood hasn't existed, only one that that seemed to global to the locals and therefore it rests a local one.

What evidence are you speaking of? It might not be bad to show your sources and their locations for reading and discussing.

 

 

Third reason, if it were true that the flood existed, then the only humans surviving were Noah and family. This would mean that mankind descends from incest (second time in biblical history, first adam end eve), something the bible condemns. So either the bible doesn't condemn incest or the flood didn't kill all mankind apart from Noah. Whatever case you answer, it would always mean that bible was somewhere inconsistent!

Not necessarily. God gave those commands to the Israelites. Noah and the flood came far before Abraham was even called by God. There is no contradiction. Noah and his family weren't breaking any laws by God, because the laws hadn't been commanded yet.

 

For Example:

 

If a speed zone is being changed in 3 weeks from today from 45mph to 30mph, you can't give someone a ticket for going 45mph. You can't ticket them for going that speed until the speed limit in the zone changes to 30mph. Same concept.

 

 

I guess this is enough to explain why I think it's a myth

I totally can see where you are coming from. It's good to ask these tough questions. I appreciate any replys and/or arguments. Great thoughts Sanctus.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

[Tormod]

The Biblical descriptions put healing beyond medical or scientific explanation.

Yes, if you are a Christian and accept that the Bible is the literal word of the Christian God. Otherwise, no description of any kind can put anything beyond scientific explanation. You may be confusing understanding with explanation.

[Fishteacher73]

Not necessarily. God gave those commands to the Israelites. Noah and the flood came far before Abraham was even called by God. There is no contradiction. Noah and his family weren't breaking any laws by God, because the laws hadn't been commanded yet.

 

For Example:

 

If a speed zone is being changed in 3 weeks from today from 45mph to 30mph, you can't give someone a ticket for going 45mph. You can't ticket them for going that speed until the speed limit in the zone changes to 30mph. Same concept.

JP

So by this same logic Cain should not be held accountable fo rthe murder of Abel? (Yet God does punish him. You think the omniscient would be at least consistant).

This is why religous texts are not used in a logical ethical derivation (or really anything other than a theological discussion). Because God/gods/my neighbors dog said so is not a valid argument.

[Stargazer]

I find it interesting that some people who do not believe in the flood set it up to be unbelievable.

Maybe because it is?

 

When presented with the possibility that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, they say that it has to, so it is wrong, and then they will say that the bible can't be taken literally, because it would be wrong.

What I'm saying is that if it is to be taken literally, then it's obviously unbelievable (it doesn't take much to realise this) but I also think that if it can be interpreted any way you like to make it fit your own beliefs, then it can be bent to fit anything, and so it becomes useless.

[sanctus]

I heard somewhere that it is a symbol of high intelligence, if one can quickly change his mind ; I'm therefore average intelligent because I won't change all my mind (or the thought of it I put down earlier) :hihi:

 

 

Hi there,

 

I'm new to this thread, but I had a quick comment or two on this quote by Sanctus. Great observations by the way. It's good to ask the hard questions of people who believe in the Bible. Here are my comments.

 

Well, a very warm welcome to the forum and this thread.

That's a very interesting comment. I don't believe it's completely accurate, however. Many things such as the multitudes of healings by Jesus, and raising of the dead by Jesus and some of the apostles are beyond scientific explanation.

 

The Biblical descriptions put healing beyond medical or scientific explanation.

 

Agree partially, because I don't have all the scientific explanations of this example of Jesus' actions. But before saying that something is beyond scientific explanation, I would be more prudent, simply because I already burnt my hand on that! Do you know that the ten (or were they seven, don't remember) plagues of egypt are scientifically explainable (sorry to the ones who read this for the don't know how "manyth" time, but jp3089 didn't hear it yet as I suppose he didn't read all my old post)? Even the fact of all the oldest sons dying!

 

I believe my previous reply puts this statement into question. Putting in something divine dosen't destroy something as a factual document unless there is absolute proof of there NOT being a God. Which we can't undeniably prove either way. Sure, there is evidence for both sides, but absolute proof has not yet been found for denial or confirmation of the existence of God

Yes I agree on this one, if you put the cause to be divine it doesn't show that the fact hasn't existed!

 

 

What evidence are you speaking of? It might not be bad to show your sources and their locations for reading and discussing.

There is no more religion! (this is an italian expression to say that things are starting tu have bad changements) A new member tells a moderator that he has to show his sources!

 

What else can I say, than that you are right!

I'm sorry I have to disappoint you, but I don't have any english published source, actually not really a source at all. My reasoning is based on the following logic, I'm now studying at university (third year), that means I have done 9 years compulsory school and 4 years of a school to get to university (which wasn't any more compulsory, but just continued and/or got deeper in all the subjects studied at the compulsory school before). In all this years (and as well as discussing with friends of mine, even with religious ones), neither in geography, neither in history nor anywhere else I heard that there is an evidence that there has been an universal flood. I also know that geologues can say that my part of switzerland is earthquake active, even the last big remounts at over 30000years (in geological times 30000 years of no earthquake doesn't mean nothing).

With this two things in mind I can claim (being quite sure of it) that there is no evidence of such a flood, which should have occured less than 30000 years ago (the flood would have left signs and if geologues can read the ones of old earthquakes they could as read the ones of a flood).

Agree, that doesn't really show that there is no evidence (anyway impossible to show that omething doesn't exist), but now it's up to you to show any evidence if you think that ther is.

 

Not necessarily. God gave those commands to the Israelites. Noah and the flood came far before Abraham was even called by God. There is no contradiction. Noah and his family weren't breaking any laws by God, because the laws hadn't been commanded yet.

 

Can you explain yourself better? I don't understand why this should prove that there was no incest and therefore no contradiction.

 

 

 

 

I totally can see where you are coming from.

 

Sorry, I don't know all the expressions of the english language, do you mean by that you can imagine how I got to have my thoughts?

 

It's good to ask these tough questions. I appreciate any replys and/or arguments. Great thoughts Sanctus.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

 

Great constructive answer,JP!

[jp3089]

Fishteacher, that is a perfect rebuttal! Well done! Great knowledge of the Biblical stories to come up w/ a perfect example. I do have a rebuttal to your rebuttal, however. Let me know what you think of this.

 

So by this same logic Cain should not be held accountable fo rthe murder of Abel? (Yet God does punish him. You think the omniscient would be at least consistant).

This is why religous texts are not used in a logical ethical derivation (or really anything other than a theological discussion). Because God/gods/my neighbors dog said so is not a valid argument.

Again, great rebuttal argument. However, I think you may have missed a verse that appears in the Bible mere verses prior to Cain killing Abel. It is found in Genesis 3:22.

Here it is in its entirety.

 

Genesis 3:22

"And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."" NIV

 

The murder of Abel takes place in Genesis 4:8. This clearly shows that prior to the murder of Abel, man had knowledge of good and evil. Just because God had not commanded against it verbally, doesn't mean it still wasn't evil. And the Bible clearly asserts that Cain knew what he was doing was wrong.

 

 

Again, amazing rebuttal. I seriously wasn't sure that I had a good answer until I did some scrounging in the Biblical text. Thanks for making it tough, Fish. I definitely appreciate any other questions or arguments to what I just wrote. Thanks again.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

[jp3089]

Well, a very warm welcome to the forum and this thread.

Thank-you sanctus. Great questions again. I'll try to expound and explain better than previously.

 

 

Agree partially, because I don't have all the scientific explanations of this example of Jesus' actions. But before saying that something is beyond scientific explanation, I would be more prudent, simply because I already burnt my hand on that! Do you know that the ten (or were they seven, don't remember) plagues of egypt are scientifically explainable (sorry to the ones who read this for the don't know how "manyth" time, but jp3089 didn't hear it yet as I suppose he didn't read all my old post)? Even the fact of all the oldest sons dying!

Yes, actually I did know that. I actually have a professor who believes that all Old Testament miracles were natural phenomena, but that the true miracle was in the timing.

 

Great warning, however. At this point, I'm still going to stick to my assertions that some of the miracles of Jesus and the Apostles are beyond explanation other than the miraculous. If you delve into the Biblical text, it is fairly clear that these miracles can't be explained away unless someone is really stretching or outright exaggerating.

 

 

Yes I agree on this one, if you put the cause to be divine it doesn't show that the fact hasn't existed!

Wonderful!

 

 

There is no more religion! (this is an italian expression to say that things are starting tu have bad changements) A new member tells a moderator that he has to show his sources!

 

What else can I say, than that you are right!

I'm sorry I have to disappoint you, but I don't have any english published source, actually not really a source at all. My reasoning is based on the following logic, I'm now studying at university (third year), that means I have done 9 years compulsory school and 4 years of a school to get to university (which wasn't any more compulsory, but just continued and/or got deeper in all the subjects studied at the compulsory school before). In all this years (and as well as discussing with friends of mine, even with religious ones), neither in geography, neither in history nor anywhere else I heard that there is an evidence that there has been an universal flood. I also know that geologues can say that my part of switzerland is earthquake active, even the last big remounts at over 30000years (in geological times 30000 years of no earthquake doesn't mean nothing).

With this two things in mind I can claim (being quite sure of it) that there is no evidence of such a flood, which should have occured less than 30000 years ago (the flood would have left signs and if geologues can read the ones of old earthquakes they could as read the ones of a flood).

Agree, that doesn't really show that there is no evidence (anyway impossible to show that omething doesn't exist), but now it's up to you to show any evidence if you think that ther is.

You are very right. The weight of this section of our discussion is definitely upon me. I will need a bit of time, but I am fairly certain there are credible sources that give evidence for the great flood.

 

 

 

Can you explain yourself better? I don't understand why this should prove that there was no incest and therefore no contradiction.

I will try. When God gives a command in the Bible, it isn't necessarily the forbidden act that is the sin. If the act itself is not the sin, then disobedience to God is the sin. Therefore, prior to God's command to Israel not to commit incest, incest was not a sin because the sin was not incest. The sin was disobedience to the command of God. I hope that clarifies somewhat. If not, ask me to explain again. I feel that I have a sound argument for this point, so if you're not satisfied, I will definitely explain again.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't know all the expressions of the english language, do you mean by that you can imagine how I got to have my thoughts?

I just meant that I can easily follow your logic to your questions and assertions. I understand why you asked what you asked. Your assertions and questions were well-spoken and very intelligently put forth. Great Questions

 

 

 

Great constructive answer,JP!

Thanks so much! I really do appreciate the opportunity to test my knowledge with some great questions. I'm sure you will stump me sometime soon.

 

Until our next discussion.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

[pgrmdave]

Fishteacher, that is a perfect rebuttal! Well done! Great knowledge of the Biblical stories to come up w/ a perfect example. I do have a rebuttal to your rebuttal, however. Let me know what you think of this.

 

 

Again, great rebuttal argument. However, I think you may have missed a verse that appears in the Bible mere verses prior to Cain killing Abel. It is found in Genesis 3:22.

Here it is in its entirety.

 

Genesis 3:22

"And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."" NIV

 

The murder of Abel takes place in Genesis 4:8. This clearly shows that prior to the murder of Abel, man had knowledge of good and evil. Just because God had not commanded against it verbally, doesn't mean it still wasn't evil. And the Bible clearly asserts that Cain knew what he was doing was wrong.

 

 

Again, amazing rebuttal. I seriously wasn't sure that I had a good answer until I did some scrounging in the Biblical text. Thanks for making it tough, Fish. I definitely appreciate any other questions or arguments to what I just wrote. Thanks again.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

 

Shouldn't that then apply to the incest by Adam and Eve, and Noah's family? Or are some things definitely wrong, and others we need to learn are wrong?

[pgrmdave]

Sorry, I hadn't read your other post where you explained that.

[IrishEyes]

I will try. When God gives a command in the Bible, it isn't necessarily the forbidden act that is the sin. If the act itself is not the sin, then disobedience to God is the sin. Therefore, prior to God's command to Israel not to commit incest, incest was not a sin because the sin was not incest. The sin was disobedience to the command of God. I hope that clarifies somewhat. If not, ask me to explain again. I feel that I have a sound argument for this point, so if you're not satisfied, I will definitely explain again.

 

Ok, JP, what the heck are you trying to say? I've read this part of your post about 10 times, and I have no idea what you mean. I speak English as a first language, and you have totally lost me, so I can only imagine how some others must feel.