Answering Questions

[nPeace]

@CG Didymus had a few questions on God and the Bible. So since they are not specific to one topic, I decision I could use a thread to address all questions on faith, evidence for God, and the reliability or trustworthiness of the Bible.

The following are his questions:
How literal do you take the flood story?
Did it happen a little over 4000 years ago?
Was Noah somewhere 500 years old when he built the ark?
And he lived to be over 900 years old?
Was he and his family the only humans left alive?
So, 4000 or so years ago, there was only Noah and his family, and all of us are descended from him and his sons?
All animals that survived were on the ark?
So, when the ark came to rest, there weren't that many animals in the world and all of them were in one place?
So, except for the animals that stayed in that area, the rest migrated to other parts of the world?
How long did that migration take?
How high was the highest mountain? And how much water would it take for the flood to cover it?
Is there really "overwhelming" evidence for a literal interpretation of the flood?
But again, how literal do you take the Bible? I know some Christians that don't believe it ever rained until the flood, so they don't have to explain how there could have rain but no rainbows.

How literal do you take the flood story?
As literal as the writers of the books of the Tanakh and the Christian Greek scriptures take it. (Matthew 24:36-42) It's recorded as a historical event.

Did it happen a little over 4000 years ago?
According to Biblical chronology.
While modern historians would extend the period of human habitation on the earth much farther back than 4026 B.C.E., the facts are decidedly against the position they maintain. The thousands of years of “prehistory” they argue for are dependent on speculation, as can be seen from this statement by prominent scientist P. E. Klopsteg, who stated: “Come, now, if you will, on a speculative excursion into prehistory. Assume the era in which the species sapiens emerged from the genus Homo . . . hasten across the millenniums for which present information depends for the most part on conjecture and interpretation to the era of the first inscribed records, from which some facts may be gleaned.” (Italics ours.)—Science, December 30, 1960, p. 1914.
The period of the post-Flood era begins with the year 2369 B.C.E.
While appeal is sometimes made to datings based on the radiocarbon (C-14) technique, this method of dating has definite limitations. Science magazine of December 11, 1959, p. 1630, reported: “What bids to become a classical example of ‘C14 irresponsibility’ is the 6000-year spread of 11 determinations for Jarmo . . . , a prehistoric village in northeastern Iraq, which, on the basis of all archeological evidence, was not occupied for more than 500 consecutive years.” There is thus no solid or provable evidence to favor an earlier date than 2369 B.C.E. for the start of the post-Flood human society.

Was Noah somewhere 500 years old when he built the ark?
According to the Biblical record.
(Genesis 5:32) After Noah reached 500 years of age, he became father to Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
(Genesis 7:6) Noah was 600 years old when the floodwaters came upon the earth.

Noah fathered three boys - not at the same time - after he reached the age of 500.
Impossible for a man to live so long, and be physically able? Not according to scientists, who believe there is an unexplained reason why our tissues eventually stop regenerating.
Scientists have divided these proposed causalities of aging into two categories: programmed and damage related. Programmed factors happen as a result of cells failing to divide properly over time. Damage Related factors are attacks from the environment, or from our bodies' wear and tear damage that accumulates over time.

This bit of scientific knowledge makes the Bible even more trustworthy to me, when it describes why man's life is cut short.
What I find interesting too, is the explanation given for why humans do not go on living, is quite different from why rats - the creature most studied in relation to human research - die.
Perhaps they will learn something from the mole rat.

By the time Noah started to build the ark, his boys would have been grown men, as seen from the fact they all had wives.
(Genesis 7:7) . . .So Noah, along with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark ahead of the floodwaters.
So Noah could have been 550-560 years of age.

And he lived to be over 900 years old?
According to the Biblical record... all the days of Noah amounted to 950 years, and he died. (Genesis 9:29)

Was he and his family the only humans left alive?
According to the Biblical record... Noah’s sons who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham later became the father of Canaan. These three were Noah’s sons, and all the earth’s population came from them and spread abroad. (Genesis 9:18, 19)

So, 4000 or so years ago, there was only Noah and his family, and all of us are descended from him and his sons?
You sound skeptical.
What reason(s) for disbelief do you have?
While most scientists theorize triple that number, based on their beliefs, of course, they seem to have accepted that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people.

All animals that survived were on the ark?
So, when the ark came to rest, there weren't that many animals in the world and all of them were in one place?
According to the Biblical record.
(Genesis 7:21-23) 21 So all living creatures that were moving on the earth perished—the flying creatures, the domestic animals, the wild animals, the swarming creatures, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 So He wiped every living thing from the surface of the earth, including man, animals, creeping animals, and the flying creatures of the sky. They were all wiped off the earth; only Noah and those with him in the ark survived.

(Genesis 8:15-19) 15 God now said to Noah: 16 “Go out of the ark, you, your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives. 17 Bring out with you all the living creatures of every sort of flesh, of the flying creatures and of the animals and of all the creeping animals of the earth, that they may multiply on the earth and be fruitful and become many on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, together with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives. 19 Every living creature, every creeping animal and every flying creature, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families.

So, except for the animals that stayed in that area, the rest migrated to other parts of the world?
How long did that migration take?
The record does not give those details. Is there a reason you think it should?
The record simply states... what was the original purpose stated in Genesis 1.
(Genesis 6:19, 20) 19 And bring into the ark two of every sort of living creature in order to preserve them alive with you, a male and a female; 20 of the flying creatures according to their kinds, the domestic animals according to their kinds, and all creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.

(Genesis 9:1) God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.

The scriptures do tell us that God made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth... Acts 17:26

How high was the highest mountain? And how much water would it take for the flood to cover it?
The record does not provide that detail either. It wasn't writen for later skeptics you see.... but that's expected, as I don't believe you would jot down events that occured, and then, as perhaps an after-thought, decide to jot down every detail in the hope that a person not believing, would believe... as if the detail would somehow make them believe.

Is there really "overwhelming" evidence for a literal interpretation of the flood?
Would people believe it, if there wasn't? Maybe there are people who would, I don't know, but I don't know of any.
I can share the overwhelming evidence for a literal flood with you, a little later, if you would like.

But again, how literal do you take the Bible? I know some Christians that don't believe it ever rained until the flood, so they don't have to explain how there could have rain but no rainbows.
I refer you again to the link II posted under the first question.
"...don't have to explain how there could have rain, but no rainbow"?
I don't understand. Can we have rain and not see a rainbow? I often see people excitedly point out a rainbow, because they are so rare.
I suppose it depends on where you are located.

 

[epronovost]

The simple idea that you believe there is no solid evidence for the existence of humans prior to 4026 BCE is an insult to intelligence. We have found ruins of towns housing over 5000 people that are twice older than that. We have human bones and settlement traces that date back from 315 000 years ago in Morrocco. We have traces of advanced literate human civilization around the globe and even in Mesopotamia prior, during and after the so called flood without any interruption; that's unless you believe the city of Harrapan was built by three person, while Sargon of Akkad had an army of about a dozen and was Noah's great grand son at most and lived in an enormous city filled with nobody.

 

[Audie]

@CG Didymus had a few questions on God and the Bible. So since they are not specific to one topic, I decision I could use a thread to address all questions on faith, evidence for God, and the reliability or trustworthiness of the Bible.

The following are his questions:
How literal do you take the flood story?
Did it happen a little over 4000 years ago?
Was Noah somewhere 500 years old when he built the ark?
And he lived to be over 900 years old?
Was he and his family the only humans left alive?
So, 4000 or so years ago, there was only Noah and his family, and all of us are descended from him and his sons?
All animals that survived were on the ark?
So, when the ark came to rest, there weren't that many animals in the world and all of them were in one place?
So, except for the animals that stayed in that area, the rest migrated to other parts of the world?
How long did that migration take?
How high was the highest mountain? And how much water would it take for the flood to cover it?
Is there really "overwhelming" evidence for a literal interpretation of the flood?
But again, how literal do you take the Bible? I know some Christians that don't believe it ever rained until the flood, so they don't have to explain how there could have rain but no rainbows.

How literal do you take the flood story?
As literal as the writers of the books of the Tanakh and the Christian Greek scriptures take it. (Matthew 24:36-42) It's recorded as a historical event.

Did it happen a little over 4000 years ago?
According to Biblical chronology.
While modern historians would extend the period of human habitation on the earth much farther back than 4026 B.C.E., the facts are decidedly against the position they maintain. The thousands of years of “prehistory” they argue for are dependent on speculation, as can be seen from this statement by prominent scientist P. E. Klopsteg, who stated: “Come, now, if you will, on a speculative excursion into prehistory. Assume the era in which the species sapiens emerged from the genus Homo . . . hasten across the millenniums for which present information depends for the most part on conjecture and interpretation to the era of the first inscribed records, from which some facts may be gleaned.” (Italics ours.)—Science, December 30, 1960, p. 1914.
The period of the post-Flood era begins with the year 2369 B.C.E.
While appeal is sometimes made to datings based on the radiocarbon (C-14) technique, this method of dating has definite limitations. Science magazine of December 11, 1959, p. 1630, reported: “What bids to become a classical example of ‘C14 irresponsibility’ is the 6000-year spread of 11 determinations for Jarmo . . . , a prehistoric village in northeastern Iraq, which, on the basis of all archeological evidence, was not occupied for more than 500 consecutive years.” There is thus no solid or provable evidence to favor an earlier date than 2369 B.C.E. for the start of the post-Flood human society.

Was Noah somewhere 500 years old when he built the ark?
According to the Biblical record.
(Genesis 5:32) After Noah reached 500 years of age, he became father to Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
(Genesis 7:6) Noah was 600 years old when the floodwaters came upon the earth.

Noah fathered three boys - not at the same time - after he reached the age of 500.
Impossible for a man to live so long, and be physically able? Not according to scientists, who believe there is an unexplained reason why our tissues eventually stop regenerating.
Scientists have divided these proposed causalities of aging into two categories: programmed and damage related. Programmed factors happen as a result of cells failing to divide properly over time. Damage Related factors are attacks from the environment, or from our bodies' wear and tear damage that accumulates over time.

This bit of scientific knowledge makes the Bible even more trustworthy to me, when it describes why man's life is cut short.
What I find interesting too, is the explanation given for why humans do not go on living, is quite different from why rats - the creature most studied in relation to human research - die.
Perhaps they will learn something from the mole rat.

By the time Noah started to build the ark, his boys would have been grown men, as seen from the fact they all had wives.
(Genesis 7:7) . . .So Noah, along with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark ahead of the floodwaters.
So Noah could have been 550-560 years of age.

And he lived to be over 900 years old?
According to the Biblical record... all the days of Noah amounted to 950 years, and he died. (Genesis 9:29)

Was he and his family the only humans left alive?
According to the Biblical record... Noah’s sons who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham later became the father of Canaan. These three were Noah’s sons, and all the earth’s population came from them and spread abroad. (Genesis 9:18, 19)

So, 4000 or so years ago, there was only Noah and his family, and all of us are descended from him and his sons?
You sound skeptical.
What reason(s) for disbelief do you have?
While most scientists theorize triple that number, based on their beliefs, of course, they seem to have accepted that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people.

All animals that survived were on the ark?
So, when the ark came to rest, there weren't that many animals in the world and all of them were in one place?
According to the Biblical record.
(Genesis 7:21-23) 21 So all living creatures that were moving on the earth perished—the flying creatures, the domestic animals, the wild animals, the swarming creatures, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 So He wiped every living thing from the surface of the earth, including man, animals, creeping animals, and the flying creatures of the sky. They were all wiped off the earth; only Noah and those with him in the ark survived.

(Genesis 8:15-19) 15 God now said to Noah: 16 “Go out of the ark, you, your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives. 17 Bring out with you all the living creatures of every sort of flesh, of the flying creatures and of the animals and of all the creeping animals of the earth, that they may multiply on the earth and be fruitful and become many on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, together with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives. 19 Every living creature, every creeping animal and every flying creature, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families.

So, except for the animals that stayed in that area, the rest migrated to other parts of the world?
How long did that migration take?
The record does not give those details. Is there a reason you think it should?
The record simply states... what was the original purpose stated in Genesis 1.
(Genesis 6:19, 20) 19 And bring into the ark two of every sort of living creature in order to preserve them alive with you, a male and a female; 20 of the flying creatures according to their kinds, the domestic animals according to their kinds, and all creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.

(Genesis 9:1) God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.

The scriptures do tell us that God made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth... Acts 17:26

How high was the highest mountain? And how much water would it take for the flood to cover it?
The record does not provide that detail either. It wasn't writen for later skeptics you see.... but that's expected, as I don't believe you would jot down events that occured, and then, as perhaps an after-thought, decide to jot down every detail in the hope that a person not believing, would believe... as if the detail would somehow make them believe.

Is there really "overwhelming" evidence for a literal interpretation of the flood?
Would people believe it, if there wasn't? Maybe there are people who would, I don't know, but I don't know of any.
I can share the overwhelming evidence for a literal flood with you, a little later, if you would like.

But again, how literal do you take the Bible? I know some Christians that don't believe it ever rained until the flood, so they don't have to explain how there could have rain but no rainbows.
I refer you again to the link II posted under the first question.
"...don't have to explain how there could have rain, but no rainbow"?
I don't understand. Can we have rain and not see a rainbow? I often see people excitedly point out a rainbow, because they are so rare.
I suppose it depends on where you are located.

Trustworthiness of people who think the bible is literal is the bit your analysis misses.
Nobody is inerrant.

 

[PureX]

Trustworthiness of people who think the bible is literal is the bit your analysis misses.
Nobody is inerrant.

This is a very good point.

Most theories in science are wrong to some degree and they remain theories because the scientists exploring them know they can be wrong. They go to considerable effort to try and eliminate the bias of ignorance and presumption via the experimental process, but they understand that they can still be quite wrong.

Biblical inerrantists, however, accept no such possible error, either in the text or in their interpretation of it. This in itself implies a lack of honesty and humility that seriously undercuts the validity of their theories. (Theories that they can't even view as theories.)

 

[ChristineM]

) It's recorded as a historical event.

Is it? Please provide a link to this historical record

the facts are decidedly against the position they maintain

See my avatar, a 22000 year we ls human skull

all the earth’s population came from them and spread abroad

Nit according to DNA evidence and DNA does not lie, ask any prisoner convicted on DNA evidence

Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died

So animals that can only tolerate salt water lived despite having their environment diluted considerably? Ok.

Is there a reason you think it should?

Fluid dynamics

How high was the highest mountain?

Everest is now and was then, offer the last 10,000 years or more it has grown by roughly 1.8cm per year.

Would people believe it, if there wasn't?

Do'h!!!

 

[ChristineM]

This is a very good point.

Most theories in science are wrong to some degree and they remain theories because the scientists exploring them know they can be wrong. They go to considerable effort to try and eliminate the bias of ignorance and presumption via the experimental process, but they understand that they can still be quite wrong.

Biblical inerrantists, however, accept no such possible error, either in the text or in their interpretation of it. This in itself implies a lack of honesty and humility that seriously undercuts the validity of their theories. (Theories that they can't even view as theories.)

Like the theory of gravity???

 

[PureX]

Like the theory of gravity???

All theories in science remain theories because we cannot know how new information would change our understanding of a theory when it comes. And new information is always coming. No information set is ever complete.

 

[epronovost]

Like the theory of gravity???

Gravity, as in the phenomenon isn't a theory. Theory of gravity is the explanation of the causes and mechanism of the phenomenon and that is definitely a theory. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs for certain, it's mechanism and causes are explained by the modern synthesis theory of evolution.

 

[ChristineM]

All theories in science remain theories because we cannot know how new information would change our understanding of a theory when it comes. And new information is always coming. No information set is ever complete.

Correct thats how science works using "scientific theories", i.e an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Of course new evidence can cause the theory to be modified, example the theory of evolution has developed a little since Darwins day but the theory remains basically the same.

A scientific theory is not the layman's idea of a best guess that said layman thinks sounds about right and shrugging it off as though it is as many people do smacks very much of deliberate ignorance.

So tell me when was the last time new evidence caused the theory of gravity to be changed?

 

[ChristineM]

Gravity, as in the phenomenon isn't a theory. Theory of gravity is the explanation of the causes and mechanism of the phenomenon and that is definitely a theory. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs for certain, it's mechanism and causes are explained by the modern synthesis theory of evolution.

Yes

 

[PureX]

Correct thats how science works using "scientific theories", i.e an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Of course new evidence can cause the theory to be modified, example the theory of evolution has developed a little since Darwins day but the theory remains basically the same.

A scientific theory is not the layman's idea of a best guess that said layman thinks sounds about right and shrugging it off as though it is as many people do smacks very much of deliberate ignorance.

So tell me when was the last time new evidence caused the theory of gravity to be changed?

The theory of gravity has changed and been added to many times over the years. But even if it hadn't, that doesn't change the fact that it always can be. It's always a theory.

 

[ChristineM]

The theory of gravity has changed and been added to many times over the years. But even if it hadn't, that doesn't change the fact that it always can be. It's always a theory.

Once, by Einstein, true that there are hypothesis that can challenge the theory but they are hypothesis.

Of course it will remain a "scientific theory" i i thought i had been though that

 

[PureX]

Once, by Einstein, true that there are hypothesis that can challenge the theory but they are hypothesis.

Of course it will remain a "scientific theory" i i thought i had been though that

There is a bad habit forming among the "scientism" cult around here and elsewhere that presumes a long-standing theory to have become a 'truth' when it has not, and never will. At best, the theory simply remains functional. That's it. Nothing more. I just wanted to make that clear.

 

[ChristineM]

There is a bad habit forming among the "scientism" cult around here and elsewhere that presumes a long-standing theory to have become a 'truth' when it has not, and never will. At best, the theory simply remains functional. That's it. Nothing more. I just wanted to make that clear.

Maybe among the scientism cult, kind of like tje religious cults in that respect.. oh thsts wrong, religious cults see truth as anything they believe


There is also a trend among some here to vomit scientism as abuse for whatever they dont like


Read and understand the definition of "scientific theory" you may actually learn something

 

[PureX]

Maybe among the scientism cult, kind of like tje religious cults in that respect.

Very much like them, and for very mush the same reasons. They both 'believe' they have found the pathway to truth (and therefor their own righteousness).

 

[Aupmanyav]

The theory of gravity has changed and been added to many times over the years. But even if it hadn't, that doesn't change the fact that it always can be. It's always a theory.

So what is wrong with that? Science keeps revisiting and re-analysing its theories, improving them to match with the latest findings. Science does not stop at that there is a bearded man in the sky who sends messages to humans (or begets his own self in a virgin) without providing any evidence, as the theists do.

 

[PureX]

So what is wrong with that? Science keeps revisiting and re-analysing its theories, improving them to match with the latest findings. Science does not stop at that their is a bearded man in the sky who sends messages to humans (or begets his own self in a virgin) without providing any evidence, as the theists do.

1. Most theists do not do that.
2. Your constant demand for "evidence" is absurd.
3. I predict you won't be able to understand or acknowledge 1 or 2.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know. Evidence is enemy of faith. I think Martin Luther said that. What is this 1 or 2?

 

[PureX]

I know. Evidence is enemy of faith.

It's the doorway to idiocy if you make too much of it. And it's not the enemy of faith, it's the result.

 

[Yazata]

@CG Didymus had a few questions on God and the Bible. So since they are not specific to one topic, I decision I could use a thread to address all questions on faith, evidence for God, and the reliability or trustworthiness of the Bible.

I guess that I'll respond to the same questions.

The following are his questions:

How literal do you take the flood story?

I don't take it literally at all. To me it's a myth. The word 'myth' doesn't mean bullsh*t as people so often take it to mean. It means something more like elements of a philosophical worldview expressed in story form.

In ancient Mesopotamia (and elsewhere at the time) water symbolized chaos. Water was formlessness, since water takes the shape of whatever container it's in, but has no shape of its own. Creation was imagined as the imposition of form upon the waters of chaos.

And the stability of their world there in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys always threatened to return to chaos. Flood was the the most dramatic natural disaster in their experience, especially given that they lacked building stone and constructed their cities of mud bricks. Floods threatened to wash their world away.

So if God tired of his creation, the natural way for them to imagine it was as a flood returning the world of created form to primordial chaos.

That's how I read the Biblical flood story, as a myth that already in the Hebrews' time was ancient Middle Eastern tradition expressing a proto-philosophical idea about form and chaos, which all of them typically attributed to whatever god(s) they worshipped.

Did it happen a little over 4000 years ago?

I don't believe that it ever literally happened on a global scale. Obviously there were localized floods.

Was Noah somewhere 500 years old when he built the ark?

No.

Was he and his family the only humans left alive?

No. It's interesting that after the voyages of discovery, the early modern Europeans speculated that peoples like the Chinese were descendants of the ante-diluvians who somehow survived the Flood.

So, 4000 or so years ago, there was only Noah and his family, and all of us are descended from him and his sons?

No.

All animals that survived were on the ark?

So, when the ark came to rest, there weren't that many animals in the world and all of them were in one place?

No.

Is there really "overwhelming" evidence for a literal interpretation of the flood?

Of course not. It's a story, a story that once expressed how ancient people in the Middle East conceived of their world. It wasn't ridiculous when seen in that way and probably is the conceptual background of the early Presocratic Greek form-matter ontologies. Thales actually argued that the primordial "stuff" of reality was indeed water, precisely because of its formlessness.

But again, how literal do you take the Bible?

I take some of it (sorta) literally. When it names ancient places and peoples for example. But I don't believe in the literal truth of its more mythological bits, where it's trying to account for the origins of all of reality.

But unlike most of the atheists I guess, I don't just dismiss it as bullsh*t either. I treat it with respect and have considerable interest in it because it captures how these ancient people conceived of their world. It was analogous to what today is science and philosophy, encapsulated in story form. (Science is the stories that people tell today to make sense of the world, and it has more in common with myth than many would like to recognize.)