God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

All,

General statements like "ugh, not uniformitarianism debate again!" contribute nothing of import or relevance to this discussion. This discussion from my perspective is:

*Can we date the Flood or Big Bang with any certainty? (No, and we can make cases against either or both never occurring at all.)

*Is there geologic evidence of a Flood and/or a recent Ice Age that would be caused by the optimal conditions a Flood would provide?

*Are we open to logical discourse concerning a Flood, which story is in most every ancient culture? Do we once again hear from non-believers science NOW is RIGHT and stick to presuppositional science? If we were at Oxford or Cambridge when they began, you would be saying "Every reputable scientist knows the Earth is flat," and the Bible would still have said it is round.

And sure it's always the Bible Flood story. 100 ancient cultures have one but the Bible contains the ship's dimensions and numerous other details across chapters of Bible history. If there was a Flood, the other myths were the ones which degraded over time and retelling.

 

[outhouse]

100 ancient cultures have

Because it regionally floods in every part of the world, their world was covered in water.

All of this flood mythology has different dates of origins.

Can we date the Flood or Big Bang with any certainty?

Yes we can. We know when the Israelites wrote their mythology based on previous mythology based on previous mythology, that went back to a regional river flood in 2900 BC.

The flood is factual/attested. AS A regional flood.


You cannot provide a date for your flood because it never took place.

 

[`mud]

WOW !
~
'mud

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because it regionally floods in every part of the world, their world was covered in water.

All of this flood mythology has different dates of origins.



Yes we can. We know when the Israelites wrote their mythology based on previous mythology based on previous mythology, that went back to a regional river flood in 2900 BC.

The flood is factual/attested. AS A regional flood.


You cannot provide a date for your flood because it never took place.

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me you know that archaeology is a modern science and that there would be no records of a flood in 2900 BCE when the Bible was written. And you call me ignorant?

"Bu-bu-but they told the story of the regional flood for 2000 years before the Bible was written!" Then why don't you believe the story of Jesus Christ?

 

[Tumah]

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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" - (Genesis 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?

There is a similar idea present in Judaism, although not exactly for the reasons you've stated here.

 

[outhouse]

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me you know that archaeology is a modern science and that there would be no records of a flood in 2900 BCE when the Bible was written. And you call me ignorant?

The bible was written after 960BCish at about the earliest.

Israelites did not exist before 1200 BC, at that time they were proto Israelites.


You will have the same amount of success debating for a flat earth.


I would love it, if you actually knew anything at all about real history.

 

[outhouse]

"Bu-bu-but they told the story of the regional flood for 2000 years before the Bible was written!"

They told the mythology that has a historical core, when the Euphrates overflowed in 2900 BC. A few hundreds years later we get Sumerian mythology about the river flood, and it had King Ziusudra who went down the flooded river on a barge with animals were he beached next to a hill and performed an animal sacrifice. King Ziusudra is also on a known kings list. We don't have much for his historicity.

But we know noah is a literary creation based on this event as some of the wording and mythology outline is identical in places.

 

[BilliardsBall]

They told the mythology that has a historical core, when the Euphrates overflowed in 2900 BC. A few hundreds years later we get Sumerian mythology about the river flood, and it had King Ziusudra who went down the flooded river on a barge with animals were he beached next to a hill and performed an animal sacrifice. King Ziusudra is also on a known kings list. We don't have much for his historicity.

But we know noah is a literary creation based on this event as some of the wording and mythology outline is identical in places.

I understand both history and the reasons why conservatives and liberals place different dates on Bible authorship--and in different sections of the Bible. (And personally, it's not working for me or likely, anyone else reading this thread, for you to be so rude and accusing like I know zero about history, archaeology or geology. It's just rude. Please stop.)

And no, if you posted both Genesis 6-9 and the story you feel is identical, we can all have a laugh.

[Are we open to logical discourse concerning a Flood, which story is in most every ancient culture?] I am. I think you're not open to this at all.

 

[Shad]

I understand both history and the reasons why conservatives and liberals place different dates on Bible authorship--and in different sections of the Bible. (And personally, it's not working for me or likely, anyone else reading this thread, for you to be so rude and accusing like I know zero about history, archaeology or geology. It's just rude. Please stop.)

And no, if you posted both Genesis 6-9 and the story you feel is identical, we can all have a laugh.

[Are we open to logical discourse concerning a Flood, which story is in most every ancient culture?] I am. I think you're not open to this at all.

There are a lot of stories about a lot of different floods. However to take the word flood in isolation in each then compare it to a favorite flood story as if this provides correlation is selection bias. One can easily take a non-biblical flood story, cherry pick "flood" from the bible then use it to support their favorite story as factual history.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are a lot of stories about a lot of different floods. However to take the word flood in isolation in each then compare it to a favorite flood story as if this provides correlation is selection bias. One can easily take a non-biblical flood story, cherry pick "flood" from the bible then use it to support their favorite story as factual history.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but it isn't selection bias to say the Bible Flood story provides the most accurate details and the most details. We would expect in literary/storytelling telephone disintegration for the clearest, most accurate story, the one that lines up the most with logical thought and geology as well, to be the original, correct version.

Thanks.

 

[`mud]

hey Out,
I always wonder from where the rain came ?
And.........where did it go after the flood ?
Maybe it drained into the Grand Canyon !
Sometimes you have to laugh, or else you'll cry.
~
'mud

 

[Shad]

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but it isn't selection bias to say the Bible Flood story provides the most accurate details and the most details. We would expect in literary/storytelling telephone disintegration for the clearest, most accurate story, the one that lines up the most with logical thought and geology as well, to be the original, correct version.

Thanks.

No selection bias is taking specific data in order to fulfill a bias. So the bias would be the Biblical Flood is historic. One supporting this idea takes "flood stories" from other cultures as evidence. They use only selective data to support the case. Selective data would be the event, a flood. So due to there being other floods one puts forward these stories correlate with the Biblical one. However these stories also contain other details such as in Chinese flood stories in which the flood was ended by man not a god and never become global. One omits this data in order to meet their bias. The details do not matter, the narratives do not matter, the outcome of the story does not matter. The only thing that matters is that a flood happened. So while there are hundreds of flood stories most do not share any similarity to the Biblical one once the details are examined. As with the Epic of Gilgamesh the narratives details show a pattern of writing which is also in the Biblical story. The details show the story was lifted from Babylon/Sumeria and placed into the Biblical one due to the details rather than focusing on the ambiguous term of a flood. Minor details are changed such as the people, the scale of the event but the narrative remains the same in form. The epic matches a logical scenario as it limits the scale of the event. It does not put forward a complete destruction of humanity down to 8 people. This makes the story more plausible since it does not make absurd leaps in the narrative which has drastic implications in reality, such as there being only 8 people alive.

A non-flood example is "Ancient Aliens" theory. The presupposition is that humans were not capable of building various structures around the world; temples, pyramids, etc. To give this idea more credibility those that support the idea look for any text mentioning spirits, gods, angels, etc, from the sky. These texts are retrofitted into the theory thus these entities become aliens. They ignore the details and focus on entities from the sky coming to down to Earth. Every other detail is dismissed. Thus aliens did it. Supporters only select data which supports their view. Every piece of data that does not is omitted on purpose. Thus selection bias.

 

[`mud]

hey Shad,
you can't win when you're......well, you get it don't you ?
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

hey Out,
I always wonder from where the rain came ?
And.........where did it go after the flood ?
Maybe it drained into the Grand Canyon !
Sometimes you have to laugh, or else you'll cry.
~
'mud

It came from Mars. Mars used to have a lot more water, but it's gone.

And now, how left Earth? Our moon crashed into it and made the water fly out in space, and it ended up as Europa, the moon to Jupiter.

That's obvious, isn't it?

Or maybe God just said "Let there be a friggin' big shower head over Earth, and there was a big shower head. And he turned the shower on." And "Let there be a big bath tub draining hole at the bottom of the sea, and lo and behold there was a fracking huge bath tub draining hole at the bottom of the sea, and all water got sucked therein." (The missing verses from the Bible)

 

[jonathan180iq]

hey Out,
I always wonder from where the rain came ?
And.........where did it go after the flood ?
Maybe it drained into the Grand Canyon !
Sometimes you have to laugh, or else you'll cry.
~
'mud

Mud, ya must be a prophet!

 

[`mud]

And then the water put all the fire in hell out, and then......
oh wait....hell is still there...
I'm sorry...I better rethink that !
~
'mud

 

[Shad]

hey Shad,
you can't win when you're......well, you get it don't you ?
~
'mud

Winning is irrelevant. Many ideas which are now incorrect "won' for centuries. Racist views "won" for centuries. Winning does not mean one is right.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Winning is irrelevant. Many ideas which are now incorrect "won' for centuries. Racist views "won" for centuries. Winning does not mean one is right.

 

[outhouse]

for you to be so rude and accusing like I know zero about history, archaeology or geology. It's just rude. Please stop.)

Your only providing what most claim as mythology. That goes directly against history, archeology, and geology.

I would ask why do you hate credible education and knowledge taught in every university around the world as fact?


Please show me where I have been rude so I can work on that. have you thought maybe you have a problem dealing with the truth the rest of the world lives by?

 

[outhouse]

[Are we open to logical discourse concerning a Flood, which story is in most every ancient culture?] I am. I think you're not open to this at all.

I do require honesty when debating.

If I am not mistaken, I already told you it floods every single year in many places on this planet.


Do you think 500 year or even 1000 year floods to ancient people would generate food legends and mythology?

What about places we know had terrible tsunamis that generated legends? can we take those out of your personal equation?

What about places that had only river floods?


What about lowlands that flooded?


What about the different origin dates of all of these floods?



I asked you for specific date YOUR flood happened, no exact date, no exact flood. We can then attribute it to the river flood that generated flood mythology in this area for thousands of years.