Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 144

Thread: The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

  1. #71
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,609
    Amen (Given)
    7067
    Amen (Received)
    6734
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    where? It says " I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish

    He seems to be making the point that everything is going to die. He makes the point over and over in different ways. The context is pretty clear. It seems like you have to do a lot of ignoring of context and chopping things into pieces in order to make it say it is local.

    You guys are taking natural evidence that there was not a global flood, then working backwards to make that fit into the narrative, no matter how hard you have to shoehorn it in. That is eisegesis. The plain reading of the text shows it means globally. Now you can argue that the text is wrong, but I don't think you can argue that the writer (Moses?) MEANT it was a local flood because he goes to some length to make it read as a worldwide flood.
    In both Heiser's work, and in Walton and Longman's they offer examples of "all life," and even "under the heavens," and how these phrases are used rhetorically. These are Old Testament scholars. They're reading these passages in the Hebrew. They recognize them for what they are...exaggerations. Common exaggerations. You don't have to chop things into pieces to see that, it's perfectly clear to those who know the Hebrew, and the context of this sort of rhetoric in the ancient world. This isn't eisegesis, it's exegesis. Wouldn't an Old Testament Bible scholar be able to tell the difference? I don't think the text is wrong. I think the text is right, and that it's often been read wrong.

    And I've stated (as did Heiser) that I am NOT taking natural evidence about the unlikelihood that there was a global flood and working backwards.

    Do you really think that people in South America, or Korea, or Australia were afraid of Israel when the Bible says,

    Scripture Verse: Deuteronomy 2:24

    “Set out now and cross the Arnon Gorge. See, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his country. Begin to take possession of it and engage him in battle. 25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.”

    © Copyright Original Source



    Did that ever happen universally? No. People beyond the Mediterranean never even heard of the people of Israel. What the Bible says did happen though. It happened among all the nations of the region under the heaven, not all nations everywhere universally.
    Last edited by Adrift; 06-06-2019 at 11:27 AM.

  2. Amen KingsGambit amen'd this post.
  3. #72
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    52,334
    Amen (Given)
    1112
    Amen (Received)
    19050
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    The fish are excluded above in verse 7, where God says all of the creatures that move along the ground and the birds.

    7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
    I'm not sure that excludes fish since fish are animals and AFAICT were regarded as such by the ancient Israelites. There are three groups mentioned along with humanity, animals, birds and "creatures that move along the ground" which IIRC is generally interpreted to mean bugs, worms and the like. But if all life was extinguished (except for what was inside Noah's Ark) that would include fish and other sea creatures.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  4. #73
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,239
    Amen (Given)
    1537
    Amen (Received)
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    The bolded bit often gets ignored by those insisting that all life under heaven had been exterminated. Given that Noah didn't appear to take any fish or other aquatic animals aboard the Ark I think it is reasonable to say that not all life under heaven had been exterminated (never mind the fact that sea creatures manage just fine during floods).
    Genesis 7: 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
    20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

    22 All in whose nostrils was the breath [d]of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.

    2 Peter 3:6-7 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

    I do not believe it stated that the life in the oceans and seas were whipped out.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  5. #74
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,416
    Amen (Given)
    1131
    Amen (Received)
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    But we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true, which leads one to conclude that it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error.
    Martin Luther reasoned along those lines:

    There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/103...copernicus-who
    Last edited by Charles; 08-15-2019 at 08:58 AM.
    "That is the little thing, the small thing, which Trump demands of his followers: To call hot cold. To call black white. To call wrong right." Michael Gerson

  6. #75
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,380
    Amen (Given)
    5754
    Amen (Received)
    6124
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuckles View Post
    Martin Luther reasoned along those lines:
    That is, of course, in no way analogous to this specific topic or the arguments I have presented throughout this thread.

    But nice troll attempt.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  7. #76
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,416
    Amen (Given)
    1131
    Amen (Received)
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    That is, of course, in no way analogous to this specific topic or the arguments I have presented throughout this thread.

    But nice troll attempt.
    You seriously fail to see that you are reasoning along exactly those lines? You claim: "But we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true, which leads one to conclude that it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error." Luther claimed: "The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

    So, in both cases, evidence should be dismissed or reinterpreted according to what you already "know" to be true. And it is given beforehand in both cases that the Bible is the truth.

    Let me guess you will not be able to point out any serious differences between your thinking and Luthers' line of reasoning in this case. If you can, let us know. And personal attacks will not help you.
    "That is the little thing, the small thing, which Trump demands of his followers: To call hot cold. To call black white. To call wrong right." Michael Gerson

  8. #77
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,380
    Amen (Given)
    5754
    Amen (Received)
    6124
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuckles View Post
    You seriously fail to see that you are reasoning along exactly those lines?
    You seriously fail to see that I'm not?

    Here is a selection of my previous posts, for your edification...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    It's possible it was a series of localized floods. The point is, we only know what Noah and his family witnessed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    We need to be careful about taking statements from the Bible to support scientific hypotheses.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I'm willing to accept that the flood may have happened much further in the past than "young earth" creationists believe, and that the evidence may be "lost", but I can't accept that the flood never happened at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I'm of the mind that we can accept the stories in the Bible as wholly trustworthy and reliable even if man, with his limited knowledge and understanding, can't confirm them. Which is to say that I can accept the account of Noah's flood as true even if it supposedly contradicts science. After all, "science" tells us that it's impossible that Jesus could have risen from the dead, and yet the resurrection is the central truth of my world view.

    ...Note that I am not dismissing the value of science, only that we should be wary when it starts telling us that something in the Bible couldn't have happened.
    As any honest and reasonable person can see, Martin Luther's statement is in no way analogous to this topic or the arguments I've presented. At no point have I said or implied that the "evidence should be dismissed or reinterpreted". What I have suggested is that the ostensible lack of evidence should not lead the open minded investigator to doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible.

    I suggest trolling somewhere else, because this one got away.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  9. Amen rogue06 amen'd this post.
  10. #78
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,416
    Amen (Given)
    1131
    Amen (Received)
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    You seriously fail to see that I'm not?

    Here is a selection of my previous posts, for your edification...



    As any honest and reasonable person can see, Martin Luther's statement is in no way analogous to this topic or the arguments I've presented. At no point have I said or implied that the "evidence should be dismissed or reinterpreted". What I have suggested is that the ostensible lack of evidence should not lead the open minded investigator to doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible.
    And your "open minded" investigator is driven not by the though or idea that "we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true,". That is what you wrote. So that is how open minded he is. And it goes on, because here it what goes for the "open minded" investigator. His "knowledge": "leads one to conclude that it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error."

    So what your trying to promote is the idea of an "open minded" investigator who knows the truth beforehand and interprets all the evidence in such a way that it will not contradict the conclusion he had come up with before he investigated.

    All your quotes do is to make it completely evident that your conclusion is given beforehand and thus you twist and turn "evidence" in order for it to fit with what you think you know.
    "That is the little thing, the small thing, which Trump demands of his followers: To call hot cold. To call black white. To call wrong right." Michael Gerson

  11. #79
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,380
    Amen (Given)
    5754
    Amen (Received)
    6124
    No where did I say that an open minded investigator should assume the conclusion. What I said is that "the ostensible lack of evidence should not lead the open minded investigator to doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible."
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  12. #80
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,416
    Amen (Given)
    1131
    Amen (Received)
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    No where did I say that an open minded investigator should assume the conclusion. What I said is that "the ostensible lack of evidence should not lead the open minded investigator to doubt the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible."
    So you admit you were not open minded when you said the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    But we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true, which leads one to conclude that it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error.
    Either you admit that or you are reasoning along the same lines that Luther did.
    "That is the little thing, the small thing, which Trump demands of his followers: To call hot cold. To call black white. To call wrong right." Michael Gerson

  13. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •