Evidences against Standard Cosmology

[Subduction Zone]

How can you tell if there is anything false as you outright reject the religious and mythical approaches? Is this all you can do? If so, just leave the subject as you´re of no use to my conversation.

I don't outright reject religious and mythical approaches. The problem is that to accept any claim it must be able to support itself properly. To date mythical and religious approaches fail at that requirement for a rational belief. And of course I am "worthless" I only continually show how you are wrong. Like most believers in woo it appears that you do not want to know. Believers in woo almost always only look for excuses to believe. That leads to all sorts of nonsensical and contradictory beliefs.

 

[ecco]

For the 117th time: I never mentioned the EM!

You've never mentioned your purpose in posting the video. We both know the reason. I said why. You have not.

More of your astray fantasy as I´m not a creationist.

English is not your first language, but you know enough English to know that I never said you were a creationist. I said some of your tactics are similar to those used by creationists.

 

[ecco]

OH, I see! maybe this is why you don´t understand most of my posts?

I sure didn't understand this one...

Try to combine this "genesis water" references with Noah Ark and the drowned Earth and se if you can get your literal explanations even sillier.

In any case, you still have not been able to make a decent argument for why you think the Genesis writers were referring to the Milky Way instead of water when they repeatedly used the word "water" and water related words.

 

[night912]

The myth of a Great Flood belongs to the Milky Way symbolism where the white Milky Way band was symbolized as a CELESTIAL RIVER running OVER the Earth and not a huge flood running ON the Earth.

The Great Flood myth is a celestial mythical telling of the Milky Way and that´s the reason it is told all over the World as the Milky Way are observable all over the world.

Simple mythical logics all over the places.

Instead of using simple mythical "logics," let's just use simple logic. Great flood myths are about a literal flood, hence the descriptions and interpretations of a flood. Milky way myths are about the milky way, hence the descriptions and interpretations of the milky way. Since a culture has two different and separate myths, one describes a flood and the other describes the milky way, using simple logic, one can come to a logical conclusion that the flood myth is not about the milky way.

The evidence?

Here it is. The first one is obviously about a flood and the second is obviously about the milky way. And one more thing, one myth actually has milk in the story. Guess which one it is?

Deluge accounts
The flood in the time of Deucalion was caused by the anger of Zeus, ignited by the hubris of Lycaon and his sons, descendants of Pelasgus. According to this story, Lycaon, the king of Arcadia, had sacrificed a boy to Zeus, who, appalled by this offering, decided to put an end to the Bronze Age by unleashing a deluge. During this deluge, the rivers ran in torrents and the sea flooded the coastal plain, engulfing the foothills with spray, and washing everything clean. Deucalion, with the aid of his father Prometheus, was saved from this deluge by building a chest.[14] Like the biblical Noah and the Mesopotamian counterpart Utnapishtim, he uses this device to survive the deluge with his wife, Pyrrha.
Source

Greek and Roman
The Greek name for the Milky Way (Γαλαξίας Galaxias) is derived from the Greek word for milk (γάλα, gala). One legend explains how the Milky Way was created by Heracles when he was a baby.[2] His father, Zeus, was fond of his son, who was born of the mortal woman Alcmene. He decided to let the infant Heracles suckle on his divine wife Hera's milk when she was asleep, an act which would endow the baby with godlike qualities. When Hera woke and realized that she was breastfeeding an unknown infant, she pushed him away and the spurting milk became the Milky Way.

Another version of the myth is that Heracles (Roman Hercules) was abandoned in the woods by his mortal parents, Amphitryon and Alcmene. Heracles, son of Zeus and Alcmene, was naturally favored by his father, who sent Athena, Greek goddess of wisdom, to retrieve him. Athena, not being so motherly, decided to take him to Hera to suckle. Hera agreed to suckle Heracles. As Heracles drinks the milk, he bites down, and Hera pushes him away in pain. The milk that squirts out forms the Milky Way.
Source


Simple logic, not mythical "logic."

After all, "mythical" does mean:

Definition of mythical
2. usually mythical : existing only in the imagination source

This is why mythical logic only exist in someone's imagination. In other words, it doesn't exist, is meaningless, it's useless and something only imagined by woo woo believers.

 

[Native]

I listened to the following podcast recently and it reminded me of this thread:

"What's Beyond Physics?"

Closer To Truth

"What's fundamental, changes" - I really like (and largely agree with) the comments of the first guest, Lawrence Krauss.

Thanks for the interesting podcast. It confirms my perceptions of modern astrophysics and cosmology which to me seems to have gone far astray in all kinds of speculations.

IMO this has happened because of a general loss of natural connections from where all kinds of cosmological patterns can be deduced very easily and logically.

Besides this: When studying cultural Stories of Creation, it fairly often states the universe to be infinite and eternal in where everything undergoes an eternal change between creation/formation, dissolution and re-creation/formation.

When having this approach to cosmology, it all reveals a "simple" way to understand everything as "eternal cycles of formation", hence no Big Bang and no Big Crunch ideas at all.

 

[Native]

I sure didn't understand this one...

Native said: ↑
Try to combine this "genesis water" references with Noah Ark and the drowned Earth and se if you can get your literal explanations even sillier.

In any case, you still have not been able to make a decent argument for why you think the Genesis writers were referring to the Milky Way instead of water when they repeatedly used the word "water" and water related words.

1) I´ve linked you to the ancient cultural perceptions/allegory of the Milky Way, for instants as a "river running in the night Sky".
2) When I ask you to connect the Genesis story of the flood with Noa Ark, it is because this Flood was thought to cover all the Earth surface and mountains - which isn´t very likely, is it?
3) If you hold onto the Milky Way symbolism of "a celestial river", this imagery fits nicely to the Genesis descriptions of "waters above" and waters below" where the first refers to the Milky Way river which is running OVER THE EARTH and over "the waters ON the Earth".
4) If having no clues of the astronomical and cosmological contexts, the biblical interpreters have no other options but to take the Genesis flood telling literally, thus reading this Milky Way River once to have ran ON the Earth as a divine revenge instead of naturally astronomically running OVER the Earth on the night Sky as we still can observe today in the darker periods of the seasons.

Unfortunately the "Abrahamic religious heritage" long time ago lost the astronomical and cosmological symbolism which has lead to litteral perceptions of it´s creation stories, but the astronomical and cosmological symbolism is still available in many other cultural creation stories from where I have my conclusions.

 

[Native]

Instead of using simple mythical "logics," let's just use simple logic. Great flood myths are about a literal flood, hence the descriptions and interpretations of a flood. Milky way myths are about the milky way, hence the descriptions and interpretations of the milky way.

You can´t use "one celestial logic" and simply reject "a astronomical logic". When a culture refers to perceptions of the Milky Way as for instants "a river running in the Sky", you have to connect the astronomical and celestial realms into one logic.

Deluge accounts
The flood in the time of Deucalion was caused by the anger of Zeus, ignited by the hubris of Lycaon and his sons, descendants of Pelasgus. According to this story, Lycaon, the king of Arcadia, had sacrificed a boy to Zeus, who, appalled by this offering, decided to put an end to the Bronze Age by unleashing a deluge. During this deluge, the rivers ran in torrents and the sea flooded the coastal plain, engulfing the foothills with spray, and washing everything clean. Deucalion, with the aid of his father Prometheus, was saved from this deluge by building a chest.[14] Like the biblical Noah and the Mesopotamian counterpart Utnapishtim, he uses this device to survive the deluge with his wife, Pyrrha.
Source

Greek and Roman
The Greek name for the Milky Way (Γαλαξίας Galaxias) is derived from the Greek word for milk (γάλα, gala). One legend explains how the Milky Way was created by Heracles when he was a baby.[2] His father, Zeus, was fond of his son, who was born of the mortal woman Alcmene. He decided to let the infant Heracles suckle on his divine wife Hera's milk when she was asleep, an act which would endow the baby with godlike qualities. When Hera woke and realized that she was breastfeeding an unknown infant, she pushed him away and the spurting milk became the Milky Way.

Another version of the myth is that Heracles (Roman Hercules) was abandoned in the woods by his mortal parents, Amphitryon and Alcmene. Heracles, son of Zeus and Alcmene, was naturally favored by his father, who sent Athena, Greek goddess of wisdom, to retrieve him. Athena, not being so motherly, decided to take him to Hera to suckle. Hera agreed to suckle Heracles. As Heracles drinks the milk, he bites down, and Hera pushes him away in pain. The milk that squirts out forms the Milky Way.
Source

Thanks, I´m already familiar with these - and more - mythical deluge accounts.

After all, "mythical" does mean:
Definition of mythical
2. usually mythical : existing only in the imagination source
This is why mythical logic only exist in someone's imagination. In other words, it doesn't exist, is meaningless, it's useless and something only imagined by woo woo believers.

Above you are in fact referring to mythical/religious descriptions and still you define "mythical" to mean woo!?

How do you explain this contradiction of terms?

Edit: I can recommend you to read the myth definition contents here - Myth - Wikipedia

 

[night912]

You can´t use "one celestial logic" and simply reject "a astronomical logic". When a culture refers to perceptions of the Milky Way as for instants "a river running in the Sky", you have to connect the astronomical and celestial realms into one logic.

No, all you need is simple logic. And it resulted in the milky way not being interpreted as being a great flood.

Thanks, I´m already familiar with these - and more - mythical deluge accounts.

Which proved you wrong.

Above you are in fact referring to mythical/religious descriptions and still you define "mythical" to mean woo!?

How do you explain this contradiction of terms?

Simple explanation. There is no contradiction.

And I recommend you read this - Adjective
And this - comma

 

[Native]

No, all you need is simple logic. And it resulted in the milky way not being interpreted as being a great flood.

Obviously you aren´t familiar with the cultural symbolism of the Milky Way - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia - and how the symbolism of this Milky Way band is build up in different cultures.

When humans look at the night sky imagery, their only possibility to describe this is by taking geographic or social similarities in order to describe what they´re observing, hence a terrestrial river is equalized to the white band of the Milky Way = A celestial river or flood.

Native said: ↑
Above you are in fact referring to mythical/religious descriptions and still you define "mythical" to mean woo!?

Simple explanation. There is no contradiction.

It´s beyond me how you can take two mythical citations as an argumentative evidence for your conclusion - and at the same time judge ancient myths to be woo.

If you can´t see this is a de facto contradiction, something serious is wrong with your analytic and logical senses.

 

[ecco]

1) I´ve linked you to the ancient cultural perceptions/allegory of the Milky Way, for instants as a "river running in the night Sky".

What does that article have to do with the concepts of the people who wrote Genesis? Nothing!

Just because someone referred to the milky way as a "river running in the night Sky" does not mean that that person discounted floods. Nor does it mean that that phrase influenced the writers of Genesis.

2) When I ask you to connect the Genesis story of the flood with Noa Ark, it is because this Flood was thought to cover all the Earth surface and mountains - which isn´t very likely, is it?

From my perspective as a rational person living in the 21st century, it isn't likely at all. However, there are people, right here on RF who do believe that the Great Flood covered the entire earth. If people can believe this now, then it is easy to see why people 6000 years ago would have believed it. That's very likely, isn't it?

3) If you hold onto the Milky Way symbolism of "a celestial river", this imagery fits nicely to the Genesis descriptions of "waters above" and waters below" where the first refers to the Milky Way river which is running OVER THE EARTH and over "the waters ON the Earth".

Just because you want to "hold onto the Milky Way symbolism of 'a celestial river'", doesn't mean your beliefs are correct. There is certainly no reason for me to hold on to your incorrect beliefs.

Unfortunately the "Abrahamic religious heritage" long time ago lost the astronomical and cosmological symbolism which has lead to litteral perceptions of it´s creation stories, but the astronomical and cosmological symbolism is still available in many other cultural creation stories from where I have my conclusions.

This is really funny. Do you understand what you just wrote? We have been discussing the Genesis story. You have been arguing that the writers were referring to the milky way. Now you admit that the "Abrahamic religious heritage long time ago lost the astronomical and cosmological symbolism". If you know they lost the cosmic symbolism, why would you insist that it is cosmic symbolism that the Great Flood is referring to? You just countered your own argument!

 

[night912]

Obviously you aren´t familiar with the cultural symbolism of the Milky Way - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia - and how the symbolism of this Milky Way band is build up in different cultures.

Actually, i am familiar with it. That's the reason why I don't accept your claim. Cultural symbolism of the milky way has shown that it was symbolized as being a river, not a flood. And no, a river does not mean a flood. Perhaps you should go read those myths from various cultures again. I highly suggest that this time, you leave your bias behind when reading those myths.

When humans look at the night sky imagery, their only possibility to describe this is by taking geographic or social similarities in order to describe what they´re observing, hence a terrestrial river is equalized to the white band of the Milky Way = A celestial river or flood.

Yes, a river but not a flood. They use geological features to describe the night sky imagery, something that they're familiar with, from past generations to future generations. A geological feature would be something like a river or a mountain. A geological event would be something like a storm or a flood.

It´s beyond me how you can take two mythical citations as an argumentative evidence for your conclusion - and at the same time judge ancient myths to be woo.

If this is honestly your confusion and not a strawman, then it's easy. Because unlike you I know how to differentiate between someone using a story and its content as evidence, from someone who believes in the actual story.

If you can´t see this is a de facto contradiction, something serious is wrong with your analytic and logical senses.

Nope, not with mine but with yours. If you end up being totally wrong about what the position of the person who you're opposing, then it's obviously comprehension skills that you are lacking.

You cannot logically critique an idea if you did not understand that idea to begin with. And that's apparently the problem that you are having.

 

[joelr]

Obviously you aren´t familiar with the cultural symbolism of the Milky Way - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia - and how the symbolism of this Milky Way band is build up in different cultures.

When humans look at the night sky imagery, their only possibility to describe this is by taking geographic or social similarities in order to describe what they´re observing, hence a terrestrial river is equalized to the white band of the Milky Way = A celestial river or flood.

.

OT cosmology has literal water above God. It was then used for the world flood. The cosmic water is Tehom. Yahweh had to part is to create dry land. It also creates rain and snow, all of the details point to water.


Tehom is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, where it is translated as "deep":

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

— King James Version
The same word is used for the origin of Noah's flood in Genesis 7:11:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.



The cosmic ocean

The three-part world of heavens, Earth and underworld floated in Tehom, the mythological cosmic ocean, which covered the Earth until God created the firmament to divide it into upper and lower portions and reveal the dry land;[25] the world has been protected from the cosmic ocean ever since by the solid dome of the firmament.[26]

The tehom is, or was, hostile to God: it confronted him at the beginning of the world (Psalm 104:6ff) but fled from the dry land at his rebuke; he has now set a boundary or bar for it which it can no longer pass (Jeremiah 5:22 and Job 38:8–10).[27] The cosmic sea is the home of monsters which God conquers: "By his power he stilled the sea, by his understanding he smote Rahab!" (Job 26:12f).[27] (Rahab is an exclusively Hebrew sea-monster; others, including Leviathan and the tannin, or dragons, are found in Ugaritic texts; it is not entirely clear whether they are identical with Sea or are Sea's helpers).[28] The "bronze sea" which stood in the forecourt of the Temple in Jerusalem probably corresponds to the "sea" in Babylonian temples, representing the apsu, the cosmic ocean.[29]

Heavens

In the Old Testament the word shamayim represented both the sky/atmosphere, and the dwelling place of God.[32] The raqia or firmament – the visible sky – was a solid inverted bowl over the Earth, coloured blue from the heavenly ocean above it.[33] Rain, snow, wind and hail were kept in storehouses outside the raqia, which had "windows" to allow them in – the waters for Noah's flood entered when the "windows of heaven" were opened.[34] Heaven extended down to and was coterminous with (i.e. it touched) the farthest edges of the Earth (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:32);[35] humans looking up from Earth saw the floor of heaven, which they saw also as God's throne, as made of clear blue lapis-lazuli (Exodus 24:9–10), and (Ezekiel 1:26).[36] Below that was a layer of water, the source of rain, which was separated from us by an impenetrable barrier, the firmament (Genesis 1:6–8). The rain may also be stored in heavenly cisterns (Job: 38:37) or storehouses (Deut 28:12) alongside the storehouses for wind, hail and snow.


This is the visual:

Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia


Tehom - Wikipedia

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
1) I´ve linked you to the ancient cultural perceptions/allegory of the Milky Way, for instants as a "river running in the night Sky".

What does that article have to do with the concepts of the people who wrote Genesis? Nothing!

Because the telling of the deluge is a continued telling of the Genesis. And if the people who wrote Genesis, didn´t have a clue of the Milky Way connection, they of course thought it was a terrestrial flood - instead of the image of the Milky Way (River).

From my perspective as a rational person living in the 21st century, it isn't likely at all. However, there are people, right here on RF who do believe that the Great Flood covered the entire earth. If people can believe this now, then it is easy to see why people 6000 years ago would have believed it. That's very likely, isn't it?

They believe it now because they take the story literally, that's why. And if a temporary group of humans experienced such a flood, even "covering the highest mountains" they wouldn´t live to tell any stories at all.

Native said: ↑
Unfortunately the "Abrahamic religious heritage" long time ago lost the astronomical and cosmological symbolism which has lead to litteral perceptions of it´s creation stories, but the astronomical and cosmological symbolism is still available in many other cultural creation stories from where I have my conclusions.

This is really funny. Do you understand what you just wrote? We have been discussing the Genesis story. You have been arguing that the writers were referring to the milky way.

No, I in fact state that the temporary writers DID NOT understood that the flood story relates to the Milky Way mythology and symbolism.

Now you admit that the "Abrahamic religious heritage long time ago lost the astronomical and cosmological symbolism". If you know they lost the cosmic symbolism, why would you insist that it is cosmic symbolism that the Great Flood is referring to? You just countered your own argument!

No I didn´t. I meant and stated that BEFORE the writers wrote Genesis, they already have lost the symbolic language. And most likely they also were forbidden to refer to any religious illustrations and imagery at all, according to the Abrahamic "invisible god" perception. (Which was why they lost the mythical language and symbolism at the first hand)

 

[Native]

Actually, i am familiar with it. That's the reason why I don't accept your claim. Cultural symbolism of the milky way has shown that it was symbolized as being a river, not a flood. And no, a river does not mean a flood. Perhaps you should go read those myths from various cultures again. I highly suggest that this time, you leave your bias behind when reading those myths.

OK, I get your point with the river/flood definitions. But when you can read of a biblical flood covering the entire Earth and the highest mountains, the very terrestrial flood logics crumbles together in all accounts.

This lead back to the understanding of the mythical language and symbolism. If you have a celestial river as the Milky Way, this is logically running over the highest mountains on Earth, and as the Milky Way River is observable all around the Earth as a white band, it covers everything on the entire Earth.

Native said: ↑
It´s beyond me how you can take two mythical citations as an argumentative evidence for your conclusion - and at the same time judge ancient myths to be woo.

Because unlike you I know how to differentiate between someone using a story and its content as evidence, from someone who believes in the actual story.

This requires you to understand the mythical language and symbolism before you can judge anything in your quotations - and in my replies to your arguments. You cannot take one part of the mythical story and then refuse another relevant part of them.

You cannot logically critique an idea if you did not understand that idea to begin with. And that's apparently the problem that you are having.

IMO you can address this to yourself.

 

[night912]

OK, I get your point with the river/flood definitions. But when you can read of a biblical flood covering the entire Earth and the highest mountains, the very terrestrial flood logics crumbles together in all accounts.

Wrong again. The biblical flood fits logically with what is defined as a terrestrial flood (See definition below). What it doesn't logically fit with, is a natural flood, as seen in reality and from the evidence in geological records. Therefore, it fits logically with what would be considered as a supernatural flood, especially since the story said that the flood was caused by a supernatural being, the god of the bible. So you just proved yourself wrong, crumbling away your own illogical argument. And I do give credit where credit is due, so thank you for refuting your own argument.

Flood
noun

1. an overflowing of a large amount of water beyond its normal confines, especially over what is normally dry land.

This lead back to the understanding of the mythical language and symbolism. If you have a celestial river as the Milky Way, this is logically running over the highest mountains on Earth, and as the Milky Way River is observable all around the Earth as a white band, it covers everything on the entire Earth.

And this is where the very terrestrial flood logics crumbles together in all accounts. A river is not a flood, an amount of water constantly rising and overflowing beyond its normal confines, especially over dry land when it's ON EARTH. And the "celestial river," that is the milky way, is and was always above the highest mountain. It never gradually "flowed" to rise above the tallest mountain. It never got the chance to crumbled earth, just only at your argument.

Native said: ↑
It´s beyond me how you can take two mythical citations as an argumentative evidence for your conclusion - and at the same time judge ancient myths to be woo.

This requires you to understand the mythical language and symbolism before you can judge anything in your quotations -

Agreed. That's why I was able to understand the mythical language and symbolism of the biblical flood. It was a punishment brought forth by the creator god of abrahamic religion to punish all of humanity and all living things on earth, besides the survivors. And a supernatural global flood caused by a supernatural being, would logically fit with the mythical language and symbolism of that culture and religion of that time.

So I suggest you go do some homework so you can also understand it.

and in my replies to your arguments. You cannot take one part of the mythical story and then refuse another relevant part of them.

Wrong, yet again. Unlike you, I understand the difference between what's true within the context/content of a story and what's true within reality.

Example:
In the Harry Potter books, according to the story, it's true that Harry can use magic. And I believe that that's true within the context/content of the books. But in reality, Harry and the type of magic in those stories don't exist. And I believe that my statement there is true in accordance to our reality.

You cannot logically critique an idea if you did not understand that idea to begin with. And that's apparently the problem that you are having.

IMO you can address this to yourself.

I addressed that to you because it's not just my opinion, but others as well.

Since you did not understand my position regarding the biblical flood, you failed to critique it logically, as if you were being logical to begin with.

So I assume that I'll be seeing another strawman from you in your response to this.

 

[Native]

OT cosmology has literal water above God. It was then used for the world flood. The cosmic water is Tehom. Yahweh had to part is to create dry land. It also creates rain and snow, all of the details point to water.

I like your general "cosmic ocean" approach to these questions as this concept can be found in several other creation stories.

Quote from - Creation myth - Wikipedia - "In creation from chaos myths, initially there is nothing but a formless, shapeless expanse. In these stories the word "chaos" means "disorder", and this formless expanse, which is also sometimes called a void or an abyss, contains the material with which the created world will be made. Chaos may be described as having the consistency of vapor or water, dimensionless, and sometimes salty or muddy".

If one knows of the Standard Cosmology way of explaining the formation of our Solar System, this mythical telling can IMO easily be compared to the ancient stories of creation in many cultures.

The standard cosmology explanation also take off with "a cosmic cloud of gas (watery elements) and dust" which comes together and create the Solar System", but when it comes to the ancient telling, the creation story includes Milky Way terms as the ancient observations "only" includes the Milky Way at the largest in their world perception.

The first creation of firm matters happens when "cosmic rivers" comes together in a swirling motion and creates "firm matters" and spheres of gas, and from the first firm matter all firm planets and stars are created in the Milky Way.

This creational/formational process explaines how the subject of "earth" in the Bible can occur before the very creation of our Solar System and the planet Earth. The first "earth" term simply explains how firm matter is created in general, whereas the second mentioning in the Bible speaks of the factual planet Earth and how it is positioned in the overall cosmic imagery/firmament.

(Rahab is an exclusively Hebrew sea-monster; others, including Leviathan and the tannin, or dragons, are found in Ugaritic texts; it is not entirely clear whether they are identical with Sea or are Sea's helpers).[28]

We have several Sea Monsters in ancient cultural mythology. Once again, if we connect these sea monsters to the mythical concept of the "cosmic ocean" and other celestial "water issues", we can find several links to cultural mythological stories.

For instants: In Norse Mythology we have the "Midgaard Serpent", Jörmungandr, which encircle the entire Midgaard, the home of humans = the Earth. The only celestial structure which encircle the Earth is observed as the white Milky Way band which is observable in the night sky all around the Earth.

So, the Milky Way contours are connected to several mythological symbols, but in the case of the "Milky Way River", a Sea Serpent is also connected to the cultural stories of the Milky Way. Other Milky Way symbols are specifically cows, which logically connects to the white color of the Milky Way, and it is the same case of a Mother Goddess who also is connected to the Milky Way via her breast feeding milk as described here at - Cattle in religion and mythology - Wikipedia

Below that was a layer of water, the source of rain, which was separated from us by an impenetrable barrier, the firmament (Genesis 1:6–8). The rain may also be stored in heavenly cisterns (Job: 38:37) or storehouses (Deut 28:12) alongside the storehouses for wind, hail and snow.

These sentences contains both celestial and terrestrial terms, which automatically cannot be connected and described logically as a whole.

 

[Native]

Wrong again. The biblical flood fits logically with what is defined as a terrestrial flood (See definition below).

If you believe in a flood which once covered the entire Earth above the highest mountains, you even wouldn´t have survivors to tell about it.

Unless that is of course if you too believe in Noas Ark, his family and a pair of all living beings from the present Earth on this Ark. And then you also have to believe in this ark stranding on the first visible tip of the highest mountain after "40 days and nights of rain".

Therefore, it fits logically with what would be considered as a supernatural flood, especially since the story said that the flood was caused by a supernatural being, the god of the bible.

For your information, I don´t believe in supernatural beings or floods. You can´t escape the logical questions by referring to supernatural powers at all.

And the "celestial river," that is the milky way, is and was always above the highest mountain. It never gradually "flowed" to rise above the tallest mountain.

Now you got it at last. So there is no reason to ponder over an entirely drowning of the Earth at all.

Agreed. That's why I was able to understand the mythical language and symbolism of the biblical flood. It was a punishment brought forth by the creator god of abrahamic religion to punish all of humanity and all living things on earth,

What you don´t grasp is that ordinary factual and natural disasters once was taken as a punishments from God.

But the Genesis deal with the very creation of everything and if this once was created by a god, he wasn´t too clever to destroy his own works.

In this way an historic celestial and terrestrial mix up has taken place, thus confusing the later interpretations.

As for the rest of your reply, I don´t care to comment on this..

 

[ecco]

No I didn´t. I meant and stated that BEFORE the writers wrote Genesis, they already have lost the symbolic language. And most likely they also were forbidden to refer to any religious illustrations and imagery at all, according to the Abrahamic "invisible god" perception. (Which was why they lost the mythical language and symbolism at the first hand)

You are now backtracking trying to get out of your original assertion which is the reason I responded about the Flood and the Milky Way originally.

Here is your comment...

The myth of a Great Flood belongs to the Milky Way symbolism where the white Milky Way band was symbolized as a CELESTIAL RIVER running OVER the Earth and not a huge flood running ON the Earth.

You specifically refer to the Great Flood. The term Great Flood (with caps) refers to the Great Flood in Genesis.

You asserted that this symbolizes the Milky Way, a CELESTIAL RIVER running OVER the Earth and not a huge flood running ON the Earth.

I called that nonsense. You continued to argue that the Genesis Great Flood was about the Milky Way and not a flood of water. Now you make an attempt at a qualifying statement:

I meant and stated that BEFORE the writers wrote Genesis, they already have lost the symbolic language.​

Duck and dodge. If you meant that the Genesis writers had earlier lost the symbolic language, you wouldn't have made the above (indented) comment.

So, to recap;
First you asserted the Genesis Flood referred to Milky Way.
Now, after I and others showed you repeated references to WATER on the part of the writers, you try to wriggle out by saying, OK it was water because they lost the celestial symbolism.

Maybe you should have thought it through before you made your initial nonsensical comment.

 

[night912]

If you believe in a flood which once covered the entire Earth above the highest mountains, you even wouldn´t have survivors to tell about it.

Unless that is of course if you too believe in Noas Ark, his family and a pair of all living beings from the present Earth on this Ark. And then you also have to believe in this ark stranding on the first visible tip of the highest mountain after "40 days and nights of rain".

For your information, I don´t believe in supernatural beings or floods. You can´t escape the logical questions by referring to supernatural powers at all.

Now you got it at last. So there is no reason to ponder over an entirely drowning of the Earth at all.

What you don´t grasp is that ordinary factual and natural disasters once was taken as a punishments from God.

But the Genesis deal with the very creation of everything and if this once was created by a god, he wasn´t too clever to destroy his own works.

In this way an historic celestial and terrestrial mix up has taken place, thus confusing the later interpretations.

As for the rest of your reply, I don´t care to comment on this..

See, exactly as I predicted. Your post consisted of nothing but strawman arguments, therefore they can automatically dismissed after reading them. And from my observations, it's safe to say that the main reason for you doing this is due to your lack of comprehension skills, resulting in you not understanding arguments and ideas that others present. This is why your arguments fails. You borrow ideas that you like from others, but because you couldn't comprehend their whole idea, you misunderstood what they have proposed. And with that, you make illogical arguments defending misunderstood ideas.

For your information, I don´t believe in supernatural beings or floods. You can´t escape the logical questions by referring to supernatural powers at all.

For your information, I already knew that from past observations, that's why I didn't accused you of believing in the supernatural. Obviously, you prefer pseudoscience over the supernatural.
And I already told you my position regarding the supernatural. And you being incapable of understanding it, does not mean that my position automatically changed to how you want it to be.

And sorry, but, you not believing in the supernatural does not change the fact that some stories in the bible do contain the supernatural. To understand that, is to understand the mythical language and symbolism used by the culture and/or religious people of that time and place.

 

[Native]

You are now backtracking trying to get out of your original assertion which is the reason I responded about the Flood and the Milky Way originally.

Here is your comment...

Of course I´m not backtracking anything at all.

Native said: ↑
The myth of a Great Flood belongs to the Milky Way symbolism where the white Milky Way band was symbolized as a CELESTIAL RIVER running OVER the Earth and not a huge flood running ON the Earth.

You specifically refer to the Great Flood. The term Great Flood (with caps) refers to the Great Flood in Genesis.

You asserted that this symbolizes the Milky Way, a CELESTIAL RIVER running OVER the Earth and not a huge flood running ON the Earth.

Of course I´m referring to the OP of the biblical Flood when I´m trying to tell you and other debaters that this flood really should be interpreted as the Milky Way River running OVER and not ON the Earth? (Hence this this ancient divine revenge drowning of the Earth is pure nonsense).

I called that nonsense. You continued to argue that the Genesis Great Flood was about the Milky Way and not a flood of water. Now you make an attempt at a qualifying statement:
I meant and stated that BEFORE the writers wrote Genesis, they already have lost the symbolic language. Duck and dodge. If you meant that the Genesis writers had earlier lost the symbolic language, you wouldn't have made the above (indented) comment.

So, to recap;
First you asserted the Genesis Flood referred to Milky Way.
Now, after I and others showed you repeated references to WATER on the part of the writers, you try to wriggle out by saying, OK it was water because they lost the celestial symbolism.

Maybe you should have thought it through before you made your initial nonsensical comment.

As long as you don´t get the logical points yet of my explanations, I don´t care about your recap at all.

Maybe you should try to get the literal biblical interpretation and the mythical symbolism together into logical conclusions before you judge anything to be nonsense!?