Poll: Did the Biblical Flood really occur?

[Hagbard Celine]

I think that it did occur (naturally since this story is represented in some form in many of the cultures in and around central Asia and the Middle East) but I think it was much more local than the Bible describes. Also, there isn't any evidence in the global geological record of a worldwide flood. There's a theory that this actually occured in the area around the Black Sea and was due to a glacial dam that broke and released a massive amount of water into the surrounding areas. This also explains the brackish water table under the salt water on the Black Sea.

[darin]

Cannot answer - because NO answer lines up biblically.

[nevadamedic]

Cannot answer - because NO answer lines up biblically.

That's because the bible is wrong! :laugh2:

[Hagbard Celine]

Cannot answer - because NO answer lines up biblically.

Did it not rain for 40 days and 40 nights in the Bible version?

[darin]

Did it not rain for 40 days and 40 nights in the Bible version?

Indeed - but the flood lasted much longer...that is to say, it took a long time for the water to go down.

And it's not accurate to say there isn't any evidence of a world-wide flood. It'd be MORE accurate for you to say, "I don't believe any of the evidence suggesting a world-wide flood."

[Hagbard Celine]

Indeed - but the flood lasted much longer...that is to say, it took a long time for the water to go down.

And it's not accurate to say there isn't any evidence of a world-wide flood. It'd be MORE accurate for you to say, "I don't believe any of the evidence suggesting a world-wide flood."

If you're referring to the Grand Canyon drain hypothesis, you've gone off the deep end.

[nevadamedic]

If you're referring to the Grand Canyon drain hypothesis, you've gone off the deep end.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[darin]

If you're referring to the Grand Canyon drain hypothesis, you've gone off the deep end.

No, I'm saying two things:

First - You REALLY COULDN'T GIVE TWO RATS' ASSESS about seeing evidence supporting a world-wide flood as having happened.

Secondly - This thread is Merely a thinly-veiled attempt for ad hominem and baiting of believers of this board.

[OCA]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

You ever do anything but pat others on the back for your thinly veiled liberal beliefs and start needless threads?

Also the clock is still ticking until string pulling time........a public apology will stop the clock.

[Hagbard Celine]

No, I'm saying two things:

First - You REALLY COULDN'T GIVE TWO RATS' ASSESS about seeing evidence supporting a world-wide flood as having happened.

Secondly - This thread is Merely a thinly-veiled attempt for ad hominem and baiting of believers of this board.

No it isn't, I just wanted to see where everyone here stood. And again I notice a lack of evidence to support your position. Where is all this evidence dmp? Is it secret evidence?

[darin]

No it isn't, I just wanted to see where everyone here stood. And again I notice a lack of evidence to support your position. Where is all this evidence dmp? Is it secret evidence?

Will you stop the Ad hominem and have an adult-level discussion?

[Hagbard Celine]

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html...

[Missileman]

Indeed - but the flood lasted much longer...that is to say, it took a long time for the water to go down.

And it's not accurate to say there isn't any evidence of a world-wide flood. It'd be MORE accurate for you to say, "I don't believe any of the evidence suggesting a world-wide flood."

It would be even more accurate to say that there isn't much, if any, credible evidence of a global flood. On the contrary, the existence of all of the other races, languages, alphabets, architecture, and religions is very strong evidence against the notion of a global flood and an ark.

[darin]

It would be even more accurate to say that there isn't much, if any, credible evidence of a global flood. On the contrary, the existence of all of the other races, languages, alphabets, architecture, and religions is very strong evidence against the notion of a global flood and an ark.

I think it's MOST accurate to say there is a good-amount of CREDIBLE evidence of a global flood.

(shrug) - the difference is, when you see evidence with which you disagree, you call it 'not credible'.

[glockmail]

No, I'm saying two things:

First - You REALLY COULDN'T GIVE TWO RATS' ASSESS about seeing evidence supporting a world-wide flood as having happened.

Secondly - This thread is Merely a thinly-veiled attempt for ad hominem and baiting of believers of this board.

I don't happen to think this attack on the OP writer's motives is fair. We've been talking about similar issues in other threads and this is simply a continuation. I'll give Hag the benefit of doubt that his stated reason lines up with his true motives.

I hate it when people assume my motives are something that they are not, and I'll defend anyone who's been civil even if I disagree with them most of the time.

BTW I voted "localized", as this is supported by the geological record, ancedotal evidence, and can be explained by reading the biblical text in its intended context.

[darin]

I don't happen to think this attack on the OP writer's motives is fair. We've been talking about similar issues in other threads and this is simply a continuation. I'll give Hag the benefit of doubt that his stated reason lines up with his true motives.

I hate it when people assume my motives are something that they are not, and I'll defend anyone who's been civil even if I disagree with them most of the time.



Ridicule is the FIRST sign of somebody's insincerity. It's upon his ridicule of one of the options to his own poll that I base my assessment of his motives.

[glockmail]

Ridicule is the FIRST sign of somebody's insincerity. It's upon his ridicule of one of the options to his own poll that I base my assessment of his motives. Sorry, but I just re-read the thread and I don't see it. What I do see is an attack- by you.

[darin]

Sorry, but I just re-read the thread and I don't see it. What I do see is an attack- by you.

That's rich - coming from you...an "attack"? lol :)

THIS shows me he's not interesting in learning anything or actually 'debating'


If you're referring to the Grand Canyon drain hypothesis, you've gone off the deep end.

[-Cp]

I don't happen to think this attack on the OP writer's motives is fair. We've been talking about similar issues in other threads and this is simply a continuation. I'll give Hag the benefit of doubt that his stated reason lines up with his true motives.

I hate it when people assume my motives are something that they are not, and I'll defend anyone who's been civil even if I disagree with them most of the time.

BTW I voted "localized", as this is supported by the geological record, ancedotal evidence, and can be explained by reading the biblical text in its intended context.

If it was localized yet deep enough to cover the tallest mountains in that particular region, where did the wall of water stop and what kept it in that zone?

How could teh waters rise to 15 Cubits (8 meters) above the mountains? Water seeks its own level. It couldn't rise to cover the mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/archive/oh20030815_188_scrn.jpg

[-Cp]

God would have repeatedly broken his promise never to send such a flood again.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Overheads/images/oh20030829_191.jpg

[-Cp]

If the flood were regional, then why:

1. Did Noah have to build an ark and but all the animals in it? Couldn't they just have gone to the region where the flooding wasn't going to occur?
2. Why did God send the animals to the ark to escape death? There would've been other animals of the same kind to reproduce and keep all the species going.
3. Why did Noah take birds? They could've easily flown to a safe area.
4. Why was the Ark large enough to hold every vertebrate animal to have ever existed? If only mesopotamian animals were aboard, the ark could've been much smaller.
5. People who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not have been effected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin. If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming of judgment of all men to the judgment of "all" men (Matthew 24:37-39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.

[Missileman]

I think it's MOST accurate to say there is a good-amount of CREDIBLE evidence of a global flood.


List it! Be sure to include the ancient Jewish relics that have been unearthed in unsual places like the South Pacific islands. And then propose a resonable explanation for how a group of people who were eyewitness to the ultimate power of their one true god, could give rise, within a few generations, to other cultures with absolutely no hint of Jewish heritage.

[glockmail]

That's rich - coming from you...an "attack"? lol :)

THIS shows me he's not interesting in learning anything or actually 'debating'

I find nothing wrong with an attack that's justified. Are you that sensitive? I found the Grand Canyon comment not even rating "sarcastic".

[glockmail]

.... propose a resonable explanation for how a group of people who were eyewitness to the ultimate power of their one true god, could give rise, within a few generations, to other cultures with absolutely no hint of Jewish heritage. Not much different than forming a living animal out of a single zygote.

BTW the DNA would have been much more complex with these original humans, which also explains their ability to live fo 600 years or more.

[glockmail]

If it was localized yet deep enough to cover the tallest mountains in that particular region, where did the wall of water stop and what kept it in that zone?

How could teh waters rise to 15 Cubits (8 meters) above the mountains? Water seeks its own level. It couldn't rise to cover the mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.

.... Mountains have been raised and lowered over geologic time. The local mountains were relatively tiny.

[nevadamedic]

You ever do anything but pat others on the back for your thinly veiled liberal beliefs and start needless threads?

Also the clock is still ticking until string pulling time........a public apology will stop the clock.

You wont get a public apology so piss off, and im a member of the state and national GOP so im not a Liberal, you need to lay off the drugs.

[glockmail]

If the flood were regional, then why:

1. Did Noah have to build an ark and but all the animals in it? Couldn't they just have gone to the region where the flooding wasn't going to occur?
2. Why did God send the animals to the ark to escape death? There would've been other animals of the same kind to reproduce and keep all the species going.
3. Why did Noah take birds? They could've easily flown to a safe area.
4. Why was the Ark large enough to hold every vertebrate animal to have ever existed? If only mesopotamian animals were aboard, the ark could've been much smaller.
5. People who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not have been effected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin. If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming of judgment of all men to the judgment of "all" men (Matthew 24:37-39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.


1. Distance.
2. Not the animals of that region.
3. Fly for 40 days straight through torential rain? Do you know of any birds that would survive that?
4. Took a lot of room to manage the animals of that region.
5. Humans lived only in the flooded region.

[Missileman]

Not much different than forming a living animal out of a single zygote.

BTW the DNA would have been much more complex with these original humans, which also explains their ability to live fo 600 years or more.

Are these supposed to be arguments for a global or regional flood?

[-Cp]

1. Distance.
2. Not the animals of that region.
3. Fly for 40 days straight through torential rain? Do you know of any birds that would survive that?
4. Took a lot of room to manage the animals of that region.
5. Humans lived only in the flooded region.

Evidence for your answers would be??

[-Cp]

Mountains have been raised and lowered over geologic time. The local mountains were relatively tiny.

Your answer still ignores the science behind this... .Water always seeks its own levels.... (see illustration above)....
Regardless of how tall or short the mountains, the water would still need some sort of retainer to keep it localized...

[glockmail]

Are these supposed to be arguments for a global or regional flood? It was an agument related to the quoted portion of your post.

[glockmail]

Evidence for your answers would be?? They are all reasonable explanations to the issues that you raised.

[Missileman]

It was an agument related to the quoted portion of your post.

Your answer doesn't explain the cultural amnesia that would have to occurred if there were truly a global flood and all human beings are now direct descendents of the Riders of the Last Ark.

[glockmail]

Your answer still ignores the science behind this... .Water always seeks its own levels.... (see illustration above)....
Regardless of how tall or short the mountains, the water would still need some sort of retainer to keep it localized... Actually flooding happens in isolated regions all the time through dynamic processes, such as tides, wind, and flow.

You know I find it funny that people want scientific explanations of biblical events, then when adequately explained, some of these same people claim the science is evidence that the events were not caused by God.

[glockmail]

Your answer doesn't explain the cultural amnesia that would have to occurred if there were truly a global flood and all human beings are now direct descendents of the Riders of the Last Ark. I've researched my family history and am amazed at the cultural amnesia that has occurred over just a few centuries. Imagine what can be forgotten without the benefit of written language. Why, even theories of Greek and Roman medicine could have been lost. Oh, wait, they have. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Actually flooding happens in isolated regions all the time through dynamic processes, such as tides, wind, and flow.

You know I find it funny that people want scientific explanations of biblical events, then when adequately explained, some of these same people claim the science is evidence that the events were not caused by God.

A scientific (natural) explanation takes the wind out of any supernatural causation arguments. If it can happen naturally, there's no reason to believe a deity had anything to do with it.

[Missileman]

I've researched my family history and am amazed at the cultural amnesia that has occurred over just a few centuries. Imagine what can be forgotten without the benefit of written language. Why, even theories of Greek and Roman medicine could have been lost. Oh, wait, they have. :laugh2:

Modifications resulting from contact with other cultures is a totally different matter than migrating and taking your (only) culture with you.

[-Cp]

Actually flooding happens in isolated regions all the time through dynamic processes, such as tides, wind, and flow.

You know I find it funny that people want scientific explanations of biblical events, then when adequately explained, some of these same people claim the science is evidence that the events were not caused by God.

That answer - my friend - has nothing to do what we're discuessing - just me and you... :)

You said you believe it was a regional flood which also means you believe it was of a large enough scale to warrant an ark for the safety of noah and the animals... if that's the case.. the flood would've had no feasable way to only be located in one regional area....

Regardless of the mountain height, we both agree (I assume) that the water was at least 8 meters over the highest peaks... if that's the case, what would've prevented it from flooding into the surrounding areas?

[JohnDoe]

from wiki:


Global flood
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

Dove Sent Forth from the Ark by Gustave DoréThe global flood or flood of Noah is an event recorded in ancient histories in various forms across cultures worldwide. The entire world was covered with water as divine punishment, and only a small number of humans and animals survived. The account in Genesis is the best known and most detailed account, but the same events are described in the Islamic Qur'an, the Book of Jubilees, and the Book of Enoch. Direct references occur in the Critias and Timaeus of Plato, and the ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh.

The following elements are common to nearly all the accounts:

A flood was sent by the divine to punish mankind.
A family of people and a number of animals were spared from the flood in a boat.
All life on earth outside the boat or not native to the water was destroyed.
The residents of the boat repopulated the whole earth.

that's the story, and I'm sticking with it! :)

[glockmail]

That answer - my friend - has nothing to do what we're discuessing - just me and you... :)

You said you believe it was a regional flood which also means you believe it was of a large enough scale to warrant an ark for the safety of noah and the animals... if that's the case.. the flood would've had no feasable way to only be located in one regional area....

Regardless of the mountain height, we both agree (I assume) that the water was at least 8 meters over the highest peaks... if that's the case, what would've prevented it from flooding into the surrounding areas? The mountain height in the region could have been much lower than te height of nearby mountains. Perhaps He increased gravitational pull of the moon or some ther object over the region. Perhaps He contained the water by wind. Perhaps He contained it in a shot glass.

[glockmail]

A scientific (natural) explanation takes the wind out of any supernatural causation arguments. If it can happen naturally, there's no reason to believe a deity had anything to do with it. Obviously you've never witnessed the birth of a child.

[mrg666]

history displays sparodic weather conditions some adverse over the past few hundred years (cant blame global warming)
this is one of those occurences actual records werent kept so the next best thing and like a rumour it got better and better
or bigger and bigger

[Lightning Waltz]

Obviously you've never witnessed the birth of a child.

Child birth is supernatural?

[glockmail]

Child birth is supernatural? Yup.

[Missileman]

Obviously you've never witnessed the birth of a child.

So child birth doesn't occur without divine intervention? If God's delivering all the babies, what's up with all of the deliveries that don't go perfectly?

[LOki]

I think it's MOST accurate to say there is a good-amount of CREDIBLE evidence of a global flood.

(shrug) - the difference is, when you see evidence with which you disagree, you call it 'not credible'.I'm hoping to get a glimpse at this credible evidence.

[Lightning Waltz]

I'm hoping to get a glimpse at this credible evidence.

:beer:
Here's to hoping, anyway.

[glockmail]

So child birth doesn't occur without divine intervention? If God's delivering all the babies, what's up with all of the deliveries that don't go perfectly? God never said life would be perfect or even pleasant.

[Missileman]

God never said life would be perfect or even pleasant.

I don't believe that God said he delivered every baby either.

[Yurt]

You ever do anything but pat others on the back for your thinly veiled liberal beliefs and start needless threads?

Also the clock is still ticking until string pulling time........a public apology will stop the clock.

how many batteries is it worth? :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

I think that it did occur (naturally since this story is represented in some form in many of the cultures in and around central Asia and the Middle East) but I think it was much more local than the Bible describes. Also, there isn't any evidence in the global geological record of a worldwide flood. There's a theory that this actually occured in the area around the Black Sea and was due to a glacial dam that broke and released a massive amount of water into the surrounding areas. This also explains the brackish water table under the salt water on the Black Sea.

There are just as many Native American flood myths as well. One would have to ask how there can be flood myths on both sides of the world if it was just a localized event. i mean in a certain region yeah, but people on both sides of the world just happening to come up with flood myths seems alittle more than coincidence to me.

And dont forget the Greeks (and probably the romans) had flood myths too.

[Lightning Waltz]

Yup.

Really? What about it is beyond the laws of physics as we understand them?

[gabosaurus]

It's all about what you choose to believe.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa137/gabriella8406/MosesAsLifeguard.jpg

[Lightning Waltz]

Can anyone tell me what happened when light refracted through water before Noah's flood?

[glockmail]

I don't believe that God said he delivered every baby either. Then obviously you've never seen one born.

[glockmail]

Really? What about it is beyond the laws of physics as we understand them? How a mass of cells is alive and not simply inanimate.

[Lightning Waltz]

How a mass of cells is alive and not simply inanimate.

Again, not really "beyond the laws of physics" as we understand them. We may not be able to explain everything, but that is different from us knowing it is "beyond the laws of physics".

Example:
1. We don't know how Joe crossed the room (it's possible that he walked, crawled, skipped, etc)
2. "Jesus" walking on water (if it ever happened) would be beyond the laws of physics as we understand them.

[The ClayTaurus]

Indeed - but the flood lasted much longer...that is to say, it took a long time for the water to go down.

And it's not accurate to say there isn't any evidence of a world-wide flood. It'd be MORE accurate for you to say, "I don't believe any of the evidence suggesting a world-wide flood."Since no one has actually directly asked you, D, could you show me the evidence of a world-wide flood? I've actually spent little to no time researching the subject. Thanks.

[glockmail]

Again, not really "beyond the laws of physics" as we understand them. We may not be able to explain everything, but that is different from us knowing it is "beyond the laws of physics".

Example:
1. We don't know how Joe crossed the room (it's possible that he walked, crawled, skipped, etc)
2. "Jesus" walking on water (if it ever happened) would be beyond the laws of physics as we understand them.

I find it funny that people want scientific explanations of biblical events, then when adequately explained, some of these same people claim the science is evidence that the events were not caused by God.

[Hagbard Celine]

I find it funny that people want scientific explanations of biblical events, then when adequately explained, some of these same people claim the science is evidence that the events were not caused by God.

Again though, you're taking God's existence as a given. Most scientifically minded people believe God was created by man, not the other way around. Keeping this in mind, when talking about what caused the natural disasters described in the Bible, most scientifically minded people attribute these events to natural phenomenon and not to what they perceive as an imagined deity.

The big problem with trying to attribute events to God is that all events in our universe can be explained by natural processes. When you know that the positive or negative charge of ions in the air molecules cause lightening, it's difficult to then insert God into the equation. What it comes down to in the end is faith. I'm convinced that you can't prove God's existence. Whether this is on purpose by God's own design or because God just isn't there and never was to begin with is something none of us will ever know for sure until we actually die. :dunno:

[Lightning Waltz]

I find it funny that people want scientific explanations of biblical events, then when adequately explained, some of these same people claim the science is evidence that the events were not caused by God.

I don't know what "people" you are referring to, since I never asked you for scientific explanations of biblical events....

In any event, I've never seen you "adequately explain (with a scientific explanation)" a miraculous biblical event, anyway...

But, you're right...if you were to "adequately explain (with a scientific explantion)" a miraculous biblical event, it would no longer be a miraculous biblical event.... Miracles, by definition, are beyond the laws of science as we understand them.

[glockmail]

Again though, you're taking God's existence as a given. Most scientifically minded people believe God was created by man, not the other way around. Keeping this in mind, when talking about what caused the natural disasters described in the Bible, most scientifically minded people attribute these events to natural phenomenon and not to what they perceive as an imagined deity.

The big problem with trying to attribute events to God is that all events in our universe can be explained by natural processes. When you know that the positive or negative charge of ions in the air molecules cause lightening, it's difficult to then insert God into the equation. What it comes down to in the end is faith. I'm convinced that you can't prove God's existence. Whether this is on purpose by God's own design or because God just isn't there and never was to begin with is something none of us will ever know for sure until we actually die. :dunno:

I have heard that most scientists (not simply “many”) are convinced of God’s existence. As a practical scientist myself, I'm convinced that you can prove God's existence, since the chance for certain physical occurrences happening otherwise is infinitesimally small. It is similar to making a decision based on DNA evidence, where the probability of a match is 99-point several nines percent.

Scientifically this would be conclusive evidence. Some would argue that this is not proof positive. Although technically correct, I assert that position would be unreasonable.

[Lightning Waltz]

I have heard that most scientists (not simply “many”) are convinced of God’s existence.

I'm not sure on that, though I wouldn't doubt it. But, you will note, the percent of scientists that believe in a "God" is significantly less than the general population.

[glockmail]

…

But, you're right...if you were to "adequately explain (with a scientific explantion)" a miraculous biblical event, it would no longer be a miraculous biblical event.... Miracles, by definition, are beyond the laws of science as we understand them. An example of a miraculous physical event occurring would be the sighting of a large comet or “star”, shortly after a virgin birth, and other related events that fulfill scripture. There may be scientific explanations for each, but taken together, the probabilities of them all occurring together is infinitesimally small.

[Lightning Waltz]

As a practical scientist myself, I'm convinced that you can prove God's existence, since the chance for certain physical occurrences happening otherwise is infinitesimally small. It is similar to making a decision based on DNA evidence, where the probability of a match is 99-point several nines percent.

Scientifically this would be conclusive evidence. Some would argue that this is not proof positive. Although technically correct, I assert that position would be unreasonable.

BTW, probability after the fact doesn't work.

It's like a lottery winner claiming that she didn't win because the chances are so small that she could have won...

[Lightning Waltz]

An example of a miraculous physical event occurring would be the sighting of a large comet or “star”, shortly after a virgin birth, and other related events that fulfill scripture. There may be scientific explanations for each, but taken together, the probabilities of them all occurring together is infinitesimally small.

Yeah, Biblical prophecy is a funny thing...
First, the writers of the NT had the OT to go off of. It would be extremely easy to write the story that agrees with the earlier prophecies.
Second, you have to assume that the stories in the Bible are actually true...that a "star" did actually appear right after a "virgin birth"...
Third, prophecies are subject to heavy interpretation. Just look at horoscopes if you want an example...

[glockmail]

BTW, probability after the fact doesn't work.

... ... Explain what this has to do with my example.

[glockmail]

Yeah, Biblical prophecy is a funny thing...
First, the writers of the NT had the OT to go off of. It would be extremely easy to write the story that agrees with the earlier prophecies.
Second, you have to assume that the stories in the Bible are actually true...that a "star" did actually appear right after a "virgin birth"...
Third, prophecies are subject to heavy interpretation. Just look at horoscopes if you want an example...

1. The writers simply reported what happened.
2. As we have four independent witnesses, or Gospels, we have corroboration of evidence. The fact that the witnesses were persecuted for their beliefs, yet expressed them openly anyway, speaks for their credibility.
3. Agreed. But when you take into account multiple prophesies during a small time frame your argument begins to lose favor.

[Lightning Waltz]

Explain what this has to do with my example.


I have heard that most scientists (not simply “many”) are convinced of God’s existence. As a practical scientist myself, I'm convinced that you can prove God's existence, since the chance for certain physical occurrences happening otherwise is infinitesimally small. It is similar to making a decision based on DNA evidence, where the probability of a match is 99-point several nines percent.

Scientifically this would be conclusive evidence. Some would argue that this is not proof positive. Although technically correct, I assert that position would be unreasonable.

Anything else?

[Lightning Waltz]

1. The writers simply reported what happened.

The writers simply told a tale...


2. As we have four independent witnesses, or Gospels, we have corroboration of evidence. The fact that the witnesses were persecuted for their beliefs, yet expressed them openly anyway, speaks for their credibility.

Biblical scholars disagree on how many independant accounts we actually have, but in any event, it's not uncommon for a group of people to maintain the same lie.

And the fact that people die for what they say, or even believe in, doesn't make what they believe in actually true. Or, do you credit the beliefs of the 9/11 bombers the same way that you credit the writer(s) of the gospels?


3. Agreed. But when you take into account multiple prophesies during a small time frame your argument begins to lose favor.

Again, huge assumptions about the truth of the tale that was told.

[glockmail]

Anything else? Yes, you failed to equate the two arguments.

[glockmail]

[1]The writers simply told a tale...



[2]Biblical scholars disagree on how many independant accounts we actually have, but in any event, it's not uncommon for a group of people to maintain the same lie.

[3]And the fact that people die for what they say, or even believe in, doesn't make what they believe in actually true. Or, do you credit the beliefs of the 9/11 bombers the same way that you credit the writer(s) of the gospels?



[4]Again, huge assumptions about the truth of the tale that was told.

1. Good luck proving that.
2. Actually the vast majority of biblical scholars agree in just four Gospels. That's why they're in the Bible.
3. Yet none of the 9-11 highjackers were witnesses of the actual events that they believe in.
4. Not nearly as big as assuming that they are false, IMO.

[LOki]

:beer:
Here's to hoping, anyway.:beer:

[Lightning Waltz]

1. Good luck proving that.

Good luck proving that they told anything more than a tale...


2. Actually the vast majority of biblical scholars agree in just four Gospels. That's why they're in the Bible.

First, many scholars believe that all four of the "original gospels" are based on one. Also, it is of note what is left out of the earliest of the 4 "original gospels"....


3. Yet none of the 9-11 highjackers were witnesses of the actual events that they believe in.

You assume that the writers of the gospels, were...


4. Not nearly as big as assuming that they are false, IMO.

Heh, prove things are possible beyond the laws of physics as we understand them, and then we'll talk.

[Lightning Waltz]

Yes, you failed to equate the two arguments.

Yeah...excuse me a moment. Temporalilly blinded by my eyes stuck rolling into the back of my skull.

[glockmail]

Yeah...excuse me a moment. Temporalilly blinded by my eyes stuck rolling into the back of my skull. From your previous post it is apparent that your blindness has persisted for more than just a few mere moments.

[Lightning Waltz]

From your previous post it is apparent that your blindness has persisted for more than just a few mere moments.

Heh, nice one.

You're wrong, and you were talking about probabilities...but good come back. I'll give you that.

[GW in Ohio]

No it isn't, I just wanted to see where everyone here stood. And again I notice a lack of evidence to support your position. Where is all this evidence dmp? Is it secret evidence?

I haven't really given this much thought. But upon reflection, I think what must have happened was that there was a big-ass flood in the region where the Bible writer guys lived, and they just assumed the whole earth was covered by water. (Is that even possible?)

You guys can believe whatever you want. I'm just glad my belief system isn't tied to a literal acceptance of what's in the Bible.

:dance::salute::dance: Thank you, Lord.

[Hagbard Celine]

I haven't really given this much thought. But upon reflection, I think what must have happened was that there was a big-ass flood in the region where the Bible writer guys lived, and they just assumed the whole earth was covered by water. (Is that even possible?)

You guys can believe whatever you want. I'm just glad my belief system isn't tied to a literal acceptance of what's in the Bible.

:dance::salute::dance: Thank you, Lord.
This was the third choice in the poll and this is also what I think happened.

[glockmail]

This was the third choice in the poll and this is also what I think happened. Good luck convincing our friends here about that.

[-Cp]

The mountain height in the region could have been much lower than te height of nearby mountains. Perhaps He increased gravitational pull of the moon or some ther object over the region. Perhaps He contained the water by wind. Perhaps He contained it in a shot glass.

But he didn't.... he also promised to never send a flood like that again - hence the Rainbow...

This means he would've broke that promise countless times sense regional floods happen all the time, all over the world...

[glockmail]

But he didn't.... he also promised to never send a flood like that again - hence the Rainbow...

This means he would've broke that promise countless times sense regional floods happen all the time, all over the world...

What kind of post is this that ofers no proof or explaination?

He hasn't done a flood of that magnitude, regional or not.