Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Colt]

Words used in the Bible can be symbolic. Yes, the preservation and use of faithful ones like Moses was ordained by God.

Gods original writings (his word) were smashed by Moses, but you will just ignore that and move on! Suit yourself, it’s your own bias that you are believing! I’m not required to accept such rank intellectual dishonesty and call that faith! I’ve never trusted the claims of the kind of proud holy men who were capable of killing the Son of God!

 

[Colt]

No problem with that!

 

[YoursTrue]

Living in the real world!

The Documentary Hypotheses first tried to explain the conflicting and edited versions of the Hebrew Bible which then lead to the current “Fragmentary” and “Supplementary” theory.

Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia


“Modern scholars of Israel's religion have become much more circumspect in how they use the Old Testament, not least because many have concluded that the Hebrew Bible is not a reliable witness to the religion of ancient Israel and Judah,[46] representing instead the beliefs of only a small segment of the ancient Israelite community centered in Jerusalem and devoted to the exclusive worship of the god Yahweh.[47][48]

​

I have done my comparison and regardless of technicalities such as what certain terms mean to you and others, the Bible as far as I am concerned, comes out the winner!

 

[YoursTrue]

Gods original writings (his word) were smashed by Moses, but you will just ignore that and move on! Suit yourself, it’s your own bias that you are believing! I’m not required to accept such rank intellectual dishonesty and call that faith! I’ve never trusted the claims of the kind of proud holy men who were capable of killing the Son of God!

Frankly, you're not making sense. Bye bye for now...

 

[shunyadragon]

that's a good question.... but it would seem that the opposing view haven't done much better on this thread.

'Opposing view hasn't done much better?!?!?! There remains the fact that the Christian Creationist who proposed this concerning Noah's Flood has present nothing in terms of evidence. I am a geologist and I have dealt with this flood myth many times and there is absolutely no evidence for any such flood. This is really an 'oldy and moldy' topic

 

[shunyadragon]

So how do you feel about war?

In the Old Testament God waged ruthless war on several tribes.

 

[shunyadragon]

But what the Smithsonian has to say is more scientific? Evidence for a Flood

The Black Sea flood referred to in this article would not be a sudden Noah flood. After an initial sudden flood of the Black Sea near the Bosphorus Straits the rise of sea level around the sea where some primitive people lived was slow enough that the people could have walked away with no Arc necessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have done my comparison and regardless of technicalities such as what certain terms mean to you and others, the Bible as far as I am concerned, comes out the winner!

That is only because you have to ignore all of the evidence that endlessly shows the Bible to be wrong. You should ask yourself why you cannot honestly investigate your own book of myths. The Bible is easily shown to be the "loser" when it comes to morals, history, archaeology, science, and worst of all for it, prophecy.

 

[YoursTrue]

'Opposing view hasn't done much better?!?!?! There remains the fact that the Christian Creationist who proposed this concerning Noah's Flood has present nothing in terms of evidence. I am a geologist and I have dealt with this flood myth many times and there is absolutely no evidence for any such flood. This is really an 'oldy and moldy' topic

I disagree with your conclusion as if it did not happen. But I can understand them. I have decided that the Bible is the Word of God. Some do, of course, go to church yet deny the truthfulness of recorded miracles.
I find it strange that the OP hasn't appeared much in the discussion. No telling as to reason.

 

[YoursTrue]

'Opposing view hasn't done much better?!?!?! There remains the fact that the Christian Creationist who proposed this concerning Noah's Flood has present nothing in terms of evidence. I am a geologist and I have dealt with this flood myth many times and there is absolutely no evidence for any such flood. This is really an 'oldy and moldy' topic

You leave yourself open when you use the term "Christian Creationist" unless you're willing to explain it in detail. Because it opens up a subject wide and deep. The OP is apparently not willing to discuss it much if at all. Oh well. Here's my take: after much pondering and prayer, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true, even when it speaks of the ark and Noah and the flood.

 

[shunyadragon]

You leave yourself open when you use the term "Christian Creationist" unless you're willing to explain it in detail. Because it opens up a subject wide and deep. The OP is apparently not willing to discuss it much if at all. Oh well. Here's my take: after much pondering and prayer, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true, even when it speaks of the ark and Noah and the flood.

You are testifying it is indeed a Christian Creationist belief, and of course, many believers in the Quran also view Genesis's Creation and flood as literal events.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree with your conclusion as if it did not happen. But I can understand them. I have decided that the Bible is the Word of God. Some do, of course, go to church yet deny the truthfulness of recorded miracles.
I find it strange that the OP hasn't appeared much in the discussion. No telling as to reason.

This testimony is not evidence that Noah's Flood ever happened.

 

[Colt]

Frankly, you're not making sense. Bye bye for now...

Maybe you just don't understand?

1) After coming down Sini Moses smashed the first set of Tablets that God supposedly wrote with his own fingers in stone.

2) Evil religious men whose father was the devil put Jesus through a trumped-up trial and turned him over to the Romans to be crucified.

3) If holy men could conspire to kill the Son of God then their ancestors who wrote the Old Testament could have lied and exaggerated their dubious history!

4) There is no scripture before Moses.

 

[Colt]

You leave yourself open when you use the term "Christian Creationist" unless you're willing to explain it in detail. Because it opens up a subject wide and deep. The OP is apparently not willing to discuss it much if at all. Oh well. Here's my take: after much pondering and prayer, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is true, even when it speaks of the ark and Noah and the flood.

What are ancient mountains? How old were they?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The Jews are correct,

Wow!
So you accept the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies, and that they were written beforehand?

You accept that they wrote truthfully?

Good for you.

You must worship the God of the OT now, huh?

 

[Kenny]

'Opposing view hasn't done much better?!?!?! There remains the fact that the Christian Creationist who proposed this concerning Noah's Flood has present nothing in terms of evidence. I am a geologist and I have dealt with this flood myth many times and there is absolutely no evidence for any such flood. This is really an 'oldy and moldy' topic

I've read up on these things and this is what I have found...

1) Believers in the flood offer evidence
2) Non-believers offer evidence as a rebuttal to the evidence
3) Believers offer evidence as a rebuttal to the rebuttal of the evidence
4) Non-believers offer evidence as a rebuttal to the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the evidence...

My take... I guess neither side knows for sure.

(You are on the non-believer side)

Usually the final statement that believers aren't real scientists (even if they have a PhD) and that they haven't submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the non-believers for them to accept it. Of course, then the believers create their own peer-reviewed organization to review the submitted papers

then we have the same merry-go-round of which of the two are real organizations.

Happens all the time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In the Old Testament God waged war on several tribes.

Yes, God did, the “Judge of all the Earth (Genesis 18:25),” who can ‘read the heart (1 Samuel 16:7),’ and can restore life.

We can’t do those things, so it’s no license for us to kill.

In fact as Christians, loving others is part of acceptable worship to God. We’re under the command to love all. (John 13:35; Matthew 5:44)
Vengeance is God’s. — Romans 12:17-20

How many people really follow this, though?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, God did, the “Judge of all the Earth (Genesis 18:25),” who can ‘read the heart (1 Samuel 16:7),’ and can restore life.

We can’t do those things, so it’s no license for us to kill.

In fact as Christians, loving others is part of acceptable worship to God. We’re under the command to love all. (John 13:35; Matthew 5:44)
Vengeance is God’s. — Romans 12:17-20

How many people really follow this, though?

The history of Christianity is a war against other tribes that do not believe as they do including wars between the sects of Christianity. This has been justified by the belief in 'Dominion' and the Manifest Destiny of Christianity over the world as in the prevalence of 'Converting by the Sword.':

Interview — Converting By the Sword | Christian History Magazine

Christian History Institute (CHI) provides church history resources and self-study material and publishes the quarterly Christian History Magazine. Our aim is to make Christian history enjoyable and applicable to the widest possible audience.

christianhistoryinstitute.org

 

[shunyadragon]

I've read up on these things and this is what I have found...

1) Believers in the flood offer evidence

The believers have not offered any evidence. Please specifically cite objective evidence offered here or any other source.

2) Non-believers offer evidence as a rebuttal to the evidence

The foundation evidence against the Noah flood is irrefutable and extensive. Primarily the lack of any geologic evidence for such a flood on the regional or world scale is overwhelming. I am a geologist with over fifty years of experience and one of my specialties is geomorphology and hydrogeology. The occurrence of any such flood is virtually impossible. Also, the construction of a sea-worthy arc such as described is impossible.

3) Believers offer evidence as a rebuttal to the rebuttal of the evidence
4) Non-believers offer evidence as a rebuttal to the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the evidence...

My take... I guess neither side knows for sure.

(You are on the non-believer side)

Going with the documented objectively verifiable evidence trumps religious mythological claims every time no problem

Usually the final statement that believers aren't real scientists (even if they have a PhD) and that they haven't submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the non-believers for them to accept it. Of course, then the believers create their own peer-reviewed organization to review the submitted papers

then we have the same merry-go-round of which of the two are real organizations.

The objectively verifiable evidence again trumps all of the above. Fundamentalist Christians do indeed start alternate pseudoscience organizations, but they all fail the accepted academic science standards.

The Discovery Institute and AIG are the primary examples, and both state in their organization standards that the Bible takes precedence over science.

Happens all the time.

No, not in the International academic standards of science, and by the way the Oxford academic standards for history.

 

[Audie]

I've read up on these things and this is what I have found...

1) Believers in the flood offer evidence
2) Non-believers offer evidence as a rebuttal to the evidence
3) Believers offer evidence as a rebuttal to the rebuttal of the evidence
4) Non-believers offer evidence as a rebuttal to the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the evidence...

My take... I guess neither side knows for sure.

(You are on the non-believer side)

Usually the final statement that believers aren't real scientists (even if they have a PhD) and that they haven't submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the non-believers for them to accept it. Of course, then the believers create their own peer-reviewed organization to review the submitted papers

then we have the same merry-go-round of which of the two are real organizations.

Happens all the time.

That's not a reasonable assessment.
One detail that stands for all of it.

The " not a real scientist".
You are misrepresenting the argument.

( by "believer" do you mean all Christians, or,
the funds who are flood- believers?)

Anyway, to " real". That is not the issue, never was.
Essentially you are doing strawman.

My fav. organic chem prof was a creationist.
No way it interfered with his research.

I discussed it with him. His position was that
he saw the problems with abiogenesis,
but that it was a natter of faith, not facts.

THAT is a real scientist, an honest one.

Then there are such as a Dr. K Wise, with a
PhD in paleontology.

His starement:
"....even if all the evidence in the universe turns
against YEC, I will still be YEC as that is what the
Bible seems to indicate".

And THAT is dictionary grade definition for someone
who is intellectually / scientifically dishonest.

That is what it takes to be such a person with a PhD
(99% of those cited are engineers etc not skilled
in the relevant arts, not qualified in their opinions
and like Dr. Wise, all lack one datum point for their
ideas)

There are dishonest accountants, judges, preachers,scientists, etc. So no biggie to find a few who
are dishonest in their religious zeal.

It is simply impossible to be a well educated and
intellectually honest yec.

AND, you have drawn a false equivalence.

The actual argument is that to be a flood believer requires
ignorance and / or intellectual dishonesty.


One side is wrong, and misrepresenting the facts.

If you want to criticize, that's great. Just don't
make things up. Which you did.