| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka" |
| Date: |
07 Jan 2008 07:12:26 PM |
| Object: |
Complete Refutation of the Noahic Flood |
On Dec 11 2007, 2:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip preamble]
Biggest proof for a flood for me is Jesus Christ verified it.
Jesus Christ did no such thing. Someone who claimed they were telling
his story made that assertion.
Now what objective evidence do you have that there ever was a Jesus
Christ, miracle-working son-of-a-god?
Meanwhile, this here completely refutes the global flood:
I assume a very literal interpretation of Genesis and a 6,000 year old
Earth (similar in character to the one we now inhabit) since this is
what the Bible most directly indicates. Anyone who disagrees with
this needs to start by stating and supporting their position and
answering a few basic questions:
a. When did your flood occur? What is your evidence? (I will assume
~4,350 years ago based on Biblical chronology].
b. How high did your flood rise above present-day sea level? What is
your positive scientific evidence? (I will assume it had to cover
today's highest mountains). If you disagree, how high were your
highest mountains back then? What is your evidence, and how did the
heights change to what we see today in only 4,350 years?
c. How deep were your ocean basins back then? If it differs from
today, what is your positive scientific evidence, and how did the
depths change in only 4,350 years?
d. Which parts of the geologic record, precisely, did the flood form,
and what was the mechanism which formed the remaining beds, if any?
What is your positive scientific evidence supporting this?
e. If your ark did not depart from the Middle East and come aground
in the mountains of Armenia, what did it do and what is your positive
scientific evidence for your assertion?
f. What's your scientific definition of "kind" as used in Genesis?
Without a scientific answer, the only intelligent response is to
equate "kind" with species. Creationists have a sliding definition of
"kind" and equate it to genus in order to keep the ark population
small, but even unsophisticated peoples tend to categorize animals at
species level (if only for the organisms they normally interact
with). If you believe Noah differed, what is your positive scientific
evidence?
Since Genesis is the foundation of creationism, I have tackled that in
the first section. I have had creationists squeal like stuck pigs
when I do this, yet those same creationists feel free to attack Darwin
and Dawkins without mercy. This is nothing short of hypocrisy. Be
warned: the view that the Bible is a reliable or scientific source
will be under serious fire in this message.
A. The Poor Reliability of the Bible Itself
1. I find it very curious that the Bible does not seem to have found
any form until after the Israelites conquered Canaan and absorbed its
gods Yaweh and El. With few exceptions, authorship and dates are
educated guesses at best and the dividing line between mythical and
historical is thin. If the Bible had never existed and someone wrote
it word for word today, trying to make the same divine claims for it,
who would believe it? Such a claimant would be laughed out of town.
Yet take that exact text and transport it back into 3,000 years of
anonymity, and lo! it becomes sacred. Why? See
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html
2. The oldest Old Testament is the "J" source, dating c.1000 BC, over
a millennium after the flood and three millennia after the creation!
1,300 years is too long a time for humans to maintain a pure oral
tradition. This alone heavily favors inaccuracy and exaggeration.
The most that creationists can claim is some integrity once the
stories were recorded, but the Bible itself testifies that that
records have been lost and distorted. This is hardly the hallmark of
divine supervision. See
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/6/976which.html
Creationists must admit that the only way early Genesis stories can
have come to us is through Noah! He was not chosen, according to the
Bible, because of his detailed and precise knowledge of history, but
because of his piety. So much for accuracy.
3. The Bible demonstrably has errors. For example, the last verse of
2 Chronicles (26:23) ends in mid sentence. The same story starts over
in the next book and actually runs to completion in Ezra 1:3. Clearly
this is a gross copying error. If an error of this obvious magnitude
has escaped correction, what does this say about important, but less
easily discernible errors? See also:
http://tinyurl.com/yun3nj
at www.freethoughtfirefighters.org
4. The Bible writers rarely, if ever, personally experienced the
events they wrote about. The stories are nothing more than myth,
legend, hearsay, and some history, parts of which were stolen from the
myths of earlier cultures. For example, the Sumerian Enuma Elish says
that the first man was made from clay and a god's blood (the red earth
that gave Adam his name) and the story of Atrahasis and the god Enki
are clearly the source of the Genesis creation and flood stories. See
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/enuma.html
B. The Poor Logic of the Genesis Flood Story
5. In Gen. 1:7, God put waters above the firmament. Not only is this
scientifically impossible, but it indicates that God was already
planning the flood! If he knew the flood was inevitable, why not
start with Noah instead of Adam? Why start a flood to create
suffering and necessitate Noah's ark? Why start all that wondrous
creation, knowing you're going to viciously destroy it 1,650 years
later - a blink of the eye to an eternal god? Did God delight in
drowning innocent children? If he wanted to start over, why not
reverse time rather than creation?
(The vapor canopy doesn't work:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html)
6. How could a perfect creation deteriorate in only 1,650 years? And
why did god have to flood the planet to fix it? Could he not have
simply made the evil humans dematerialize and leave everything else as
it was? And why did Noah need to build the ark and rescue the
animals? Any god worthy of the title could have readily made a
protective enclave for Noah, where the animals would be safe, and food
and clean water would not be a problem. Why did the flood have to
last for almost a year? Where did the dove find an olive leaf in
Genesis 8? Were olive trees really still growing strong after almost
a year under saltwater?! And what was the point of God's covenant in
Genesis 9, if he knew perfectly well that very shortly he would be
sending Armageddon upon us? Some promise!
7. How could Noah have grown grapes immediately after the flood in
what had to have been at best a salt marsh and at worst, bare rock?
Does it really illustrate God's wisdom that the best human he could
find to save was a drunkard who cursed his son for having the decency
to cover up his father's nakedness?
C. The Flood-Wall of Evidence
Part I - The Ark
8. The Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, Fla. May 14, '98) reported 31
animals dying at Disney's Orlando Florida theme park (out of 1,000 or
so). These animals had the best care money could buy, spacious and
stable accommodations, and an army of caretakers. How could Noah have
kept animals alive on a dark, dirty boat with poor food, no light, and
only eight people who had never even seen such animals before? Do you
think Noah's problems would have been somehow any less than the San
Francisco zoo, which didn't have anywhere near the variety or the
numbers of animals he had to have aboard the ark, but which did have
access to experts which Noah most certainly did not?
http://tinyurl.com/29vko7
The Bible itself forbids attempts to minimize the menagerie: "And of
every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring
into the ark", says Gen. 6. Or was it seven: " Of every clean beast
thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female; and
of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female...",
says Gen. 7. Or was it two? "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are
not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creepeth upon the
ground, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark" says Gen. 7.
The male and *his* female. These were not juveniles, but breeding
pairs. Otherwise what was the point?!
"Of every clean beast"? Who knew what was clean? The law settling
that wasn't written until long after the flood! Did someone forget
which part of the Bible they were inventing when they wrote that?
Creationists pretend that no aquatic life would need to be aboard:
that it would survive a global mud consomm=E9; that saltwater life could
survive in fresh water; that freshwater organisms wouldn't die in
brine. They try to pretend that no insects would have been on board
because "creeping things" means reptiles; that insects could survive
for almost a year with no food; that seeds buried in tons of mud under
hundreds of feet of brine would magically sprout and grow!
Just how did Noah manage, for example, the pest problem:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=3D10932&page=3D55
No creationist has ever dared put this story to the test by actually
building an ark, loading it, and setting afloat for 11 months, or by
burying seeds under similar conditions to see if they grow. I guess
they have no faith.
The Bible demands that everything not on the ark perish: Gen. 7:4-17:
"everything that is in the earth shall die." The Bible brooks no
creationist excuses. Every living thing. Everything that draws
breath. Even whales draw breath. Even insects do. They, too, would
have had to be on the ark.
There are some 4,600 mammal species, 9,000 reptiles and amphibians,
over 10,000 birds. This doesn't even touch fish and insects, nor does
it address millions of extinct species. All had to be represented if
there is no evolution. But then creationists admit to evolution. See
www.noanswersingenesis.org :
http://tinyurl.com/yvetpv
and
http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm#floodstory
9. The Bible says God made animals gather at the ark - but Noah had
to get the food. How did Noah and the seven dwarfs gather enough food
not only for the ark, but for the barren months after they
disembarked? How did they keep the food fresh? How did they even know
what these strange and exotic animals would eat?
10. How did they physically get over 20,000 pairs of wild, strange,
scary animals and birds, most of which they had never seen before,
aboard and secured in their cages in only 7 days (Gen. 7)? This means
two pairs, boarded and caged, every minute! If God miraculously sent
animals and food, why not miraculously send an ark already loaded?!
How did the ark occupants breathe with only one window? Who cleaned
the massive amounts of manure? Who fed and watered all those animals?
11. How did the ark survive the flood? It was of questionable design
to begin with. Noah had no boat building experience. No other wooden
boat that size was ever built. Where did he get the design? Where
did he get the materials? How was it sturdy enough to survive the
thrashing oceans? Even ships that came remotely close to that size
were heavily braced with metal, were built by actual ship builders,
not amateurs - and they sank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_wooden_ships
Where did Noah get the pitch to waterproof it with? Tar was
supposedly created by the flood, not before it! Creationists try to
wriggle out of this with the pretense that pine tar was used to
"pitch" the ark, but where did the pine trees come from and how did
Noah get his hands on so much of it at such short notice?! How did he
persuade wild animals to climb aboard this stinking ark?
How did he manage to keep the ark so close to his original departure
point?
Part II - The Flood Water
12. Where did the flood water come from? What caused it? The
surface area of Earth is nearly 200 million square miles. Average
sediment on continents is one mile thick. A flood only 1 mile deep
(it would need to be 6 times deeper to cover Everest), requires some
200 million cubic miles of water. The flood had to have been at least
this deep. One mile of sediment deposited over some 330 days is about
15 feet/day.
Note that this addresses the average existing sediment. The flood had
to be deeper than this - it had to be deep enough to cover the maximum
sediment before any post-flood erosion. It also had to be deep enough
that modern deep sea fish would not explode because of the lack of
pressure in a shallow sea. Whining appeals to a shallow pre-flood
ocean don't work.
The Grand Canyon reveals a formation called the Vishnu Schist.
Schists are usually morphed from fine-grained sedimentary rock. So
if the Vishnu is sedimentary, it had to have been laid down by the
flood. Its depth is some 40,000 feet - this is after compression.
This indicates that the flood had to have been at least this deep!
Make that 1.5 billion cubic miles of water to be accounted for.
There are some 150 million cubic miles of sedimentary rock on Earth.
Mix that in with the 200 million cubic miles of water and you get this
ratio of water to dirt: 1:0.75. That's not dirty water, that's a
swamp. The only way creationists can avoid this is either to admit
that the flood was considerably deeper, in which case they sink
further into their inability to explain where the water came from and
where it went, or for them to explain how it was that fish and marine
mammals survived in what was realistically quicksand.
13. Where did the flood water go? What caused its departure?"
14. Why are scientists unable to find any trace of this global flood
in the geologic record?
15. How could the countless billions of organisms in the fossil
record have all lived on this planet at the same time?
Part 3 - The Flood Survivors
16. How could the Earth recuperate so well after being utterly
devastated, in only 4,350 years? How could the handful of survivors
repopulate a trashed and barren Earth? How did the organisms adapt to
a radically different world? Bob Riggins web site mentions
Notothenioid fish:
http://www.icefish.neu.edu/classroom/askascientist/
These fish die in water above ~6 degrees Celsius. Where did they live
before the flood, before the oceans became bitterly cold in polar
regions? This is only one example of problems of specialised
organisms.
17. How is it that we trace human origins back to Africa both by DNA
and by fossil evidence, rather than to the upper Middle East where the
ark grounded? If the survivors disembarked in Armenia, why don't all
organisms show rapid radiation and variation from an original Middle
East stock?
18. What did herbivores live on given that all the herbs had been
scoured from the Earth by the flood?
19. What did carnivores live on after they had killed all the
herbivores in the first few months after the flood?
20. Given that all living things were created perfectly and Noah and
his crew were all of the same local breeding stock, what scientific
foundation and impetus was there for the racial/ethnic/species
diversity that apparently flourished on Earth in only 4,350 years,
especially if there are no good mutations? Just how did the
population grow? Take a look at http://members.aol.com/darrwin/noabun.htm
for a flood of problems for creationists) details a serious problem
for a world expected to grow to 6 billion from eight flood survivors:
i. When Christ died there was only a half million people.
ii. When the Israelites entered Canaan, the world population was
barely over 2,000!
iii. The Exodus was only 340 people - the entire planet's population!
iv. In 2300 BC there were only 10 people to build the pyramids!
21. Civilisations persisted through the flood era! Ur was inhabited
continuously from around 4000 B.C until around 400 B.C. If the
pyramids were built before the flood (they date approximately 300
years before), where is the flood damage? If they were built after,
who built them and why?
22. Niagara Falls began after the last ice age and have been
retreating for 10,000 years. How does this fit in with a 6,000 year
old Earth? How does this fit in with a 4,350 year old flood?
23. The oldest known tree is a Bristlecone Pine found on the
northeast face of Wheeler Ridge on the Sierra Nevada in California,
and dated to 4,950 years old
http://www.great.basin.national-park.com/sights.htm
How does this fit in with a 4,350 flood?
24. There are 59 alleles of a gene called HLA-DRB1. We carry only
two - one from mom, one from dad. 8 people would have a maximum of
16. It would be less than this on the ark since five of them were
related. Without favorable mutations, whence came the other
alleles? See http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/ referring to: F. J.
Ayala et al. 1993. MHC polymorphism and human origins. Scientific
American 269(6):78-83.
25. The Tower of Babel was built no more than 150 years after the
flood. Where did the builders come from and since there were so few,
how could they have been scattered abroad with differing languages
when they were all the same family?!
Part 4 - Flood Recovery
26. If all the soil was flushed into the ocean basins by the rapidly
retreating floods, where did the six to ten feet of soil we see today
come from in only 4,350 years? What did plants grow in before the
post-deluvian soil arrived? Where did the plants come from? You may
claim they came from seeds. What positive scientific evidence do you
have that seeds can survive immersion for the best part of a year in
briny mud soup and then sprout? Upon what did the ark-o-nauts subsist
whilst they waited for the seeds to grow and fruit?
27. If the post-flood soil was furnished by volcanic eruptions
showering the planet with ash, how did the fragile life that survived
the flood manage to survive first the requisite inferno, and then a
subsequent volcanic winter? How did plants grow in the fresh,
nutrient-depleted volcanic ash, especially with ash in the atmosphere
blocking sunlight?
28. How did corals survive muddy floodwater given that they are
perishing in this modern world because of pollution and rising
temperatures?
29. There are almost 150,000 species of butterfly and moth. How
did we get such a massive number, given that at most, two of each of
these traveled on the ark?
30. "Answers in Genesis" estimates Earth's population around 30AD
at a quarter billion. How did that arise only 2,350 years after the
flood, from an inbreeding stock of eight who stepped off the ark into
an utterly devastated world full of hungry pairs of predators? Don't
forget to factor in the phenomenal slaughter rate recorded in the
Biblical tales of post-flood Israelite wars.
31. Did the inhabitants of the ark carry every disease we know
today? If so, how did they survive the ark? If the diseases arose
afterwards through mutation, this not only defeats creation argument
against evolution but begs the question: "Why did God allow this to
happen after he had deliberately cleansed the world of evil?"
32. How did all the animals manage to get from the ark to their
present locales in only 4,350 years? A direct circuit of half the
globe is 12,000 miles. Topography would increase this considerably.
Those two slugs on the ark would had to crawl almost 200,000 inches
per year, every single year, determinedly headed for the farthest
corners of the globe!
Part 5 - The Fossil Record
33. Creationists have claimed that South African Karoo rock formation
contains the remains of some 800 billion vertebrate animals:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199706/0645.html
"Since there are only 38 billion acres of dry land, this means that
there would have been 21 animals per acre in the preflood world from
JUST this one deposit."
34. Why are ancient, extinct organisms that shared the same niches
as modern organisms not found with modern organisms in the fossil
record?
35. How did the following form in the geologic record under a flood:
fossil rain drops, fossil burrows, fossil desiccation cracks, fossil
meteor craters, and fossil footprints? See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
36. If everything died at the same (geologic) instant in the flood,
how come all the fossils date differently, and date older the deeper
you dig? How come the ones which date older tend to be more
mineralised than the recent ones?
37. If random mutation cannot precipitate evolution, how can a
completely random flood separate out whole eco-systems
stratigraphically and temporally? For example, how were all modern
mammals kept separate from all the dinosaurs which occupied similar
niches? How could it separate shellfish of similar hydrodynamic
properties by shell markings alone? How could it sort fossils into
species by teeth alone? Creationists spout astronomical odds against
DNA arising naturally, but what are the odds against a random,
catastrophic flood neatly compartmentalizing the fossil record?
38. How did a random flood manage to so finely interleave sediments
of widely differing granularity rather than settle them out over the
period of the flood with a fairly uniform gradation from coarsest to
finest as we rise up the geologic column? In a thrashing ocean, how
could any of the finer particles deposit before coarser ones? How
could chalk deposit at all in so short a time?
39. How can you explain peculiarities in rock strata, where sediment
is deposited, hardened, tilted, eroded, and then covered with more
sediment? How did this happen under flood water?
40. Why is marine sediment only about 25% the thickness of
terrestrial sediment if everything got washed into the ocean? Central
Texas sits atop some 15,000 feet of sediment. To deposit this in a
year or so requires precipitating 2 feet of mud/hour.
41. Metamorphic rock requires great temperature and huge pressure
acting on deposited sediment. How did this happen in the short time
since the flood?
42. Why it is that the tiniest primitive lizards are found with the
largest primitive dinosaurs. Why are no small dinosaurs found in
relatively modern layers? Could not a single dinosaur run faster than
any modern mammal?
Why is archaeopteryx, a modern bird according to creationists, sitting
so far back down the pile, yet modern birds sit near the top? Why are
there no pterosaurs mixed in with modern birds? Why are elephants not
found with dinosaurs of the same size? Why are there no modern whales
at the bottom of the heap? Why are all the lightest creatures found
in the lowest layer - the Cambrian and earlier - and none of the
heaviest creatures?
Part 6 - Geology
43. When was the ice age and how long did it last? What caused it?
How do you explain valleys carved by glaciers, which take considerable
time to form? Why is it that ice ages, which are an inescapable fact,
get not a single mention in the Bible?
44. Creationist Whitcomb says cratering occurred during flood! How
are such fossil craters preserved under flood water? How come the
Bible is utterly silent about the massive meteoritic impacts the Earth
and moon have suffered since the flood?
45. How did the Grand Canyon get carved out? If it was carved by
retreating flood water, how come it is so serpentine? How did the
mile-high walls of mud hold up before they petrified? The Coconino
Sandstone is petrified sand dunes. How did these form underwater?
The fine-grained Hermit Shale sits under the coarser Coconino. How is
this possible?
The Tapeats Sandstone (medium to coarse-grained) sits under a finer-
grained shale and has marine ripple marks in its upper layer. How did
these form in a swamp? How did the strata beneath the Great
Unconformity manage to tilt some 30 degrees from the strata above if
all of this was sopping wet mud deposited in the same short period of
time? The unconformity indicates significant erosion before the
uppermost strata were deposited. How did this take place under water?
46. Just how did a retreating flood create mountains? Why didn't the
Earth's crust bend into domes between bodies of water? How did the
differentiation between ocean and terrestrial crust arise? How come
the Bible is silent about this cataclysmic post-diluvian
terraforming? How come there is no evidence of this along coast
lines?
44. Carlsbad Cavern is located in S.E. New Mexico, USA. A 400-mile
horseshoe-shaped reef and an inland sea developed first. Understand
that a healthy, vigorous growth-rate for a solid coral is no more than
an inch or so a year, and must stop when it reaches sea level! Then
the sea dried up and the land rose. Then the cavern was dissolved
away by carbonic and sulphuric acid.
The carbonic acid is created from carbon deposited in the soil by
plants. This would take considerable time after a flood destroyed the
world.
Before any carbonic acid could work on the caverns, the flood sediment
would have to solidify (otherwise the cavern would collapse as soon as
it was hollowed out). Only after that, and after the cavern had been
carved out could the stalagmites and stalactites grow. The world's
tallest stalagmites are some 90 feet tall. The fastest rate I have
ever read for stalagmite formation is of the order of 0.1 mm/yr. That
means getting on for 200,000 years to form the Giant Dome at Carlsbad,
which is over 60 feet tall. This alone defeats any suggestion of a
global flood just 4,350 years ago.
48. The Wyoming Green River formation contains several million
varves! These form in pairs, usually annually. Creationists pretend
they were formed in the flood, but this is impossible. They record
the 11-year solar cycle, the 20,000 years precessional cycle, and the
100,000 year cycle of Earth's orbital eccentricity. These alone
refute the flood. Similar examples are found in the Catskills, in New
Jersey, and in Hungary. Turbidity currents cannot explain these.
49. Salt can only be deposited as a marine environment dries up. How
did the flood manage to deposit salt between fossil strata?
50. Banded iron formations could not have occurred in a rich oxygen
atmosphere, nor could limestone crystallization have completed in the
short time since the flood. See:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html
"...neither to give heed to fables and endless genealogies..." (1
Timothy 1:4) Perhaps the creationists should listen to whomever it
was wrote this letter....
Recommended Reading:
Bob Riggins:
http://members.aol.com/darrwin/newindex.htm
Creation Science and Earth history:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/
Dave Matson
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
Frank Zindler:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/morris-zindler.html
Greene's Creationism Truth filter:
http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/
Jim Meritt:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
Mark Isaac:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Mark Vuletic:
vuletic.com/hume/cefec/
Paul Carlson:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Complete Refutation of the Noahic Flood |
07 Jan 2008 08:20:14 PM |
|
|
On Jan 7, 8:12 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Dec 11 2007, 2:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip preamble]
Biggest proof for a flood for me is Jesus Christ verified it.
Jesus Christ did no such thing. Someone who claimed they were telling
his story made that assertion.
You may have fallen in a trap. This has the look of a Loki.
When did anyone assert that Jesus Christ even mentioned the
Great Flood? Part of the problem with Genesis, the part taking place
before Abraham, is that very few if any prophets, judges, kings or
priests mention any part of it.
Yes, Jesus did mention Abraham in the story of Lazarus (the poor
man). However, the Flood?
Usually, a real Bible believer would point out the quotation, its
book, its paragraph, and its line number. This guy seems to have
pulled that affirmation totally out of his hat. A real Creationist is
very loose when it comes to scientific evidence, but he is specific
when it comes to the Bible.
Most Creationists avoid talking about the chain of reference,
because it brings up troubling questions concerning credibility. This
guy is specifically saying that Jesus referenced Genesis, a claim that
I seriously doubt.
There is nothing to show that any of the later people in the
Bible knew about the Flood or about Adam and Eve. This is consistent
with the model that the early parts of Genesis were made in Babylon,
not in Israel. There is a theory that Moses may not have even known
about the Flood, or about Adam and Eve. What proof is there that he
knew anything about the Creation?
In a Greek Orthodox Church, I saw an icon (drawn 1967) showing
Jesus sinking into Hell and fetching Adam and Eve from there. Now,
that is a touching thought and there is a rather nice sounding
explanation for that. However, the picture is a conjecture based on an
interpretation of the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that says
that Jesus rescued Adam and Eve, or even that he knew who they are. I
don't think the artist would have wanted anyone to claim proof that
Jesus met Adam and Eve.
It like the person who asked a friend of mine, "What did
Aristotle say to Socrates?" My friend answered, "The same thing that
Plato said to Mickey Mouse."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Complete Refutation of the Noahic Flood |
08 Jan 2008 03:39:41 PM |
|
|
In article <1acbe46f-3ef5-41a9-acb5-ae1d2ce2fb75
@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Lorentz said...
However, the Flood?
Usually, a real Bible believer would point out the quotation, its
book, its paragraph, and its line number. This guy seems to have
pulled that affirmation totally out of his hat.
What makes you think that? Plenty of fundamentalists
have bored me with the matter of Jesus's belief in the
flood. To wit, in Matthew's gospel Jesus mentions the
flood, and for fundamentalists this means Jesus must
have had a literal belief in the whole affair.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Clancy McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Complete Refutation of the Noahic Flood |
08 Jan 2008 05:08:02 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.21edb7aa362ca3e898ada6@216.196.97.136...
In article <1acbe46f-3ef5-41a9-acb5-ae1d2ce2fb75
@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Lorentz said...
However, the Flood?
Usually, a real Bible believer would point out the quotation, its
book, its paragraph, and its line number. This guy seems to have
pulled that affirmation totally out of his hat.
What makes you think that? Plenty of fundamentalists
have bored me with the matter of Jesus's belief in the
flood. To wit, in Matthew's gospel Jesus mentions the
flood, and for fundamentalists this means Jesus must
have had a literal belief in the whole affair.
Why not? He didn't know any better. His knowledge of science was no better
than anyone else's of the time.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Complete Refutation of the Noahic Flood |
08 Jan 2008 06:14:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:39:41 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <1acbe46f-3ef5-41a9-acb5-ae1d2ce2fb75
@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Lorentz said...
However, the Flood?
Usually, a real Bible believer would point out the quotation, its
book, its paragraph, and its line number. This guy seems to have
pulled that affirmation totally out of his hat.
What makes you think that? Plenty of fundamentalists
have bored me with the matter of Jesus's belief in the
flood. To wit, in Matthew's gospel Jesus mentions the
flood, and for fundamentalists this means Jesus must
have had a literal belief in the whole affair.
Despite the dlear fact that the whole Jesus' story is pure fiction
anyway?
Using fiction to support fiction strikes me as being insane.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Complete Refutation of the Noahic Flood |
08 Jan 2008 10:06:08 PM |
|
|
On Jan 7, 8:20 pm, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 7, 8:12 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:> On Dec 11 2007, 2:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip preamble]
Biggest proof for a flood for me is Jesus Christ verified it.
Jesus Christ did no such thing. Someone who claimed they were telling
his story made that assertion.
You may have fallen in a trap. This has the look of a Loki.
When did anyone assert that Jesus Christ even mentioned the
Great Flood?
You evidently haven't read your NT. The writer(s) of the gospels
typically attributed to Matthew and to Luke "quotes" the fictional
Jesus as referring to the days before the flood.
Part of the problem with Genesis, the part taking place
before Abraham, is that very few if any prophets, judges, kings or
priests mention any part of it.
Yes, Jesus did mention Abraham in the story of Lazarus (the poor
man). However, the Flood?
Usually, a real Bible believer would point out the quotation, its
book, its paragraph, and its line number. This guy seems to have
pulled that affirmation totally out of his hat. A real Creationist is
very loose when it comes to scientific evidence, but he is specific
when it comes to the Bible.
Most Creationists avoid talking about the chain of reference,
because it brings up troubling questions concerning credibility. This
guy is specifically saying that Jesus referenced Genesis, a claim that
I seriously doubt.
There is nothing to show that any of the later people in the
Bible knew about the Flood or about Adam and Eve.
The OT was part of their heritage. They didn't have a family Bible,
but they did have some scattered scriptures with which some people may
have had passing familiarity. If they attended any kind of church,
they had the rabbis to teach them of the Biblical "history" (as
invented during the Babylonian exile).
Prior to *that* time, however they likely didn't follow any kind of
religion even remotely resembling what modern-days Christians pretend
they did. But even back then they would have had legend and folk
tales.
Of course, these probably didn't have the global flood story as part
of the cannon, but there may have been a few flood stories floating
around (so to speak!). Mesopotamia was called precisely that because
it was between two rivers - rivers prone to flooding.
This is consistent
with the model that the early parts of Genesis were made in Babylon,
not in Israel. There is a theory that Moses may not have even known
about the Flood, or about Adam and Eve. What proof is there that he
knew anything about the Creation?
In a Greek Orthodox Church, I saw an icon (drawn 1967) showing
Jesus sinking into Hell and fetching Adam and Eve from there. Now,
that is a touching thought and there is a rather nice sounding
explanation for that. However, the picture is a conjecture based on an
interpretation of the Bible.
All three major monotheistic (so-called) religions can be thus
described!
There is nothing in the Bible that says
that Jesus rescued Adam and Eve, or even that he knew who they are.
Wrong again. Luke listed Jesus purported genealogy in chapter three -
all the way back to Adam. Whether the tales he had access to were
similar to what we now have is completely debatable, of course but
it's safe to assume from this that they were aware of Adam as being,
so mythology had it, the first human.
[Rest snipped]
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Complete Refutation of the Noahic Flood |
07 Jan 2008 08:32:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 18:20:14 -0800 (PST), Lorentz
<drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 7, 8:12 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Dec 11 2007, 2:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip preamble]
Biggest proof for a flood for me is Jesus Christ verified it.
Jesus Christ did no such thing. Someone who claimed they were telling
his story made that assertion.
You may have fallen in a trap. This has the look of a Loki.
For those with long memories (15+ years) Jim Loucks used to say this,
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darwin123" |
|
| Title: Re: Complete Refutation of the Noahic Flood |
08 Jan 2008 06:37:01 PM |
|
|
On Jan 7, 8:12 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Dec 11 2007, 2:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip preamble]
Does it really illustrate God's wisdom that the best human he could
find to save was a drunkard who cursed his son for having the decency
to cover up his father's nakedness?
Ham did not cover up his father's nakedness. He covered his eyes
in shame when he knew his father's nakedness. The other sons covered
Noah and took him home.
The Hebrew word for "knew" is usually interpreted as implying
sodomy. If it was sodomy, then Noah cursing Ham is understandable if
arguable.
However, this isn't the only interpretation. The "hiding his
eyes" can be interpreted as implying neglect to the point of
abandonment. The other sons took a more proactive role in protecting
their father, according to the second interpretation. That was the
interpretation that I was brought up with. In this interpretation, Ham
seems to have gotten a real raw deal. He didn't sodomize his father,
he only felt ashamed of his father's vice. Isn't it better that he
felt ashamed than to copy his fathers shameful habits?
As someone pointed out, get drunk once after all your relatives
and friends have been killed off, you being the only survivor, is sort
of understandable. Noah's action upon cursing Ham and all his
descendents, which include some of Noah's grandchildren, seems to be
the worse sin.
If it was sodomy, then why did God stop? Wouldn't it be great if
today a rape victim could curse her or his abuser and have it stick
(provided it was true, of course)? Why doesn't God continue to punish
felons, since he is the only one who knows for sure who did what.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Complete Refutation of the Noahic Flood |
08 Jan 2008 08:42:13 PM |
|
|
Darwin123 wrote:
On Jan 7, 8:12 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Dec 11 2007, 2:03 pm, curtjester1
<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote: [snip preamble] Does it
really illustrate God's wisdom that the best human he could
find to save was a drunkard who cursed his son for having
the decency to cover up his father's nakedness?
Ham did not cover up his father's nakedness.
That's because the story is allegory. It's insane to assume that
those were actual events.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Complete Refutation of the Noahic Flood |
07 Jan 2008 09:23:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:12:26 -0800 (PST), Budikka
<budikka1@netscape.net> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Meanwhile, this here completely refutes the global flood:
The story is in many ways completely impossible. See
http://mindprod.com/religion/noah.html
for the explanations.
It is a story as fantastic as Paul Bunyan. It is amusing so many
people have taken this children's fairy tale for literal truth.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
