How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Jose Fly]

It's pretty simple really.....if there was enough water on earth to flood the earth, the earth would be flooded right now. The reason the earth isn't currently flooded is because there's not enough water to do so.

 

[nPeace]

Have you ever heard monkeys making sounds to each other?


See above.


Why do you believe there was a first universal language?



That's the difference between religion and science. Science is not afraid to say "I don't know - let's find out."

Religionists, going back to prehistoric tribes' "medicine men" never dared to say "I Don't Know". They would not have lasted very long. They were supposed to KNOW.

Have you ever, even today, heard a religious or political leader say "I don't know"?

Oh, Great Wise One, where did we come from?
Our ancient stories tell us we came from far beyond the hills.
Oh, Great Wise One, I meant did the first man come from?
The Great Thunder Maker made the first man.
Oh, Great Wise One, who made The Great Thunder Maker?
The Great Thunder Maker has always been. Now, shut up and go to sleep.

No comment on the first question. I am trying to say nice things, even though my thoughts run contrary sometimes.

I believe the history recorded in the Bible, because it proves to be sound.

I think you have it wrong.
You assume that People who believe the Bible don't ask questions, and honestly search for answers.
The reason they don't say, *I don't know." to the many questions that baffle the 'wise men' of this world, is because they have found the answers... in the Bible.

Why do I get the feeling this is not an honest mistake that atheist make, but a deliberate effort to feed their ego and convince themselves that people who believe the Bible, are beneath their feet.

The Pharisees of Jesus' day had the exact attitude.
John 9
30 The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

34 To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.

 

[nPeace]

I used my brain to understand and respond to your comment about your certainty about being on the right path to ultimate truth. That would put you on the same intellectual level as Buddha. That is something my brain tells me to seriously doubt.

You also think there is no God. Do you mind if I ask why you think this way?

 

[Willamena]

Do you think Jesus and his apostles saw it that way?
Matthew 24:36-42; 2 Peter 2:4-10

Yes.

 

[nPeace]

Yes.

That's interesting, and a first I've heard.

2 Peter 2:4-10
God spared not the angels that sinned, ...to be reserved unto judgment;
....spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
....And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly;
...And delivered just Lot,
(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds

The Lord know how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

You see these event as stories, not real historical events?
So no angels in heaven sinned, and were punished.
God did not reign down destruction on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and save Lot.

Do you consider Jesus Christ a fictional character as well, and his apostles?

 

[ecco]

I believe the history recorded in the Bible, because it proves to be sound.

Actually most Christians do not take Genesis literally.

I think you have it wrong.
You assume that People who believe the Bible don't ask questions, and honestly search for answers.

I believe that people who take Genesis literally haven't done as much searching as those who realize that Genesis is allegory.

The reason they don't say, *I don't know." to the many questions that baffle the 'wise men' of this world, is because they have found the answers... in the Bible.

Why do I get the feeling this is not an honest mistake that atheist make, but a deliberate effort to feed their ego and convince themselves that people who believe the Bible, are beneath their feet.

Feed my ego. I stated that people like me are OK with saying "I don't know" when we don't.

From just your above comments, it is clear that it is you that has an ego. You have no reason to say "I don't know" because you have found the answers... in the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

Actually most Christians do not take Genesis literally.


I believe that people who take Genesis literally haven't done as much searching as those who realize that Genesis is allegory.








Feed my ego. I stated that people like me are OK with saying "I don't know" when we don't.

From just your above comments, it is clear that it is you that has an ego. You have no reason to say "I don't know" because you have found the answers... in the Bible.

Sorry. In hindsight, I really should have said most atheist. Sorry I put all atheist in one bag. That's bad - I beg your pardon.

I agree that many people who say they believe in Christianity are being swayed by the philosophies of the world. This was prophesied in scripture.
The thing is they don't realize the position that puts them in.
Jesus and the apostles mentioned creation, the first man and woman, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham, Moses... in fact all of Genesis.
There is no Messiah without Genesis.
So I guess the next thing that will go for those "Christians", is the Bible... or maybe it has already gone, or never was.

Maybe all of it is the prophecies in Revelation coming to past.
That's what it is, imo.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Actually most Christians do not take Genesis literally........
I believe that people who take Genesis literally haven't done as much searching as those who realize that Genesis is allegory.

Those 'most' Christians, so-called Christians, are the ones of Matthew 7:21-23 because they are part of the 'MANY' would come 'in Jesus' name' and prove false.

The gospel writers took Genesis as literal.
Gospel writer Luke traces Jesus lineage back to Adam at Luke 3:38. So does 1 Chronicles 1:1
Gospel writer Matthew wrote that Jesus believed in the days of Noah at Matthew 24:37-39
Jesus did much searching or researching of the old Hebrew Scriptures to the point that Jesus taught that Scripture is religious truth at John 17:17. Jesus often referred and prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written...." meaning already written down in the O.T.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But mankind was around long before there was any Babylon. Any family tree tracing would have to go way back before anyone ever thought of building a city, no?

Thank you for your reply. I was Not clear in that I was using ancient Babylon (Genesis chapter 10) as a root or base that when the people left ancient Babylon they took with them flood-account stories and spread them world wide into a greater Babylon. That helps explain why we read similar flood accounts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your reply. I was Not clear in that I was using ancient Babylon (Genesis chapter 10) as a root or base that when the people left ancient Babylon they took with them flood-account stories and spread them world wide into a greater Babylon. That helps explain why we read similar flood accounts.

The Babylonian version is local. It is not worldwide.

Egypt, a very close neighbor, has no flood myths.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But that's not what physical evidence is.
This use of "kind" as a technical term for what we'd call a biological genus or family is a new thing.....

I find the use of "kind" (mankind / animal kind) is biblical. Each reproduced according to its own ' kind '.

To me people are: physical evidence. I know that sounds nit picky.
Anything perishable would have disappeared in the Flood ( except for what was on the Ark ).
So, 'material' (Not physical) evidence could have survived the Flood but No physical evidence except Ark people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find the use of "kind" (mankind / animal kind) is biblical. Each reproduced according to its own ' kind '.

To me people are: physical evidence. I know that sounds nit picky.
Anything perishable would have disappeared in the Flood ( except for what was on the Ark ).
So, 'material' (Not physical) evidence could have survived the Flood but No physical evidence except Ark people.

Your definition is incorrect. Material is "physical" , therefore it is physical evidence. Though I prefer empirical evidence and even better scientific evidence.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Babylonian version is local. It is not worldwide.
Egypt, a very close neighbor, has no flood myths.

Those local ancient Babylonians left ancient Babylon.
As they migrated away from ancient Babylon they took with them their flood-account stories and spread them world wide that is why we see similar or overlapping food-accounts.

Why do you say Egypt has No flood account because there is an Egyptian book called the Book of the Dead.
In it there is the destruction by water by a divine cause, a warning was given, humans were spared alive preserved in a vessel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those local ancient Babylonians left ancient Babylon.
As they migrated away from ancient Babylon they took with them their flood-account stories and spread them world wide that is why we see similar or overlapping food-accounts.

Why do you say Egypt has No flood account because there is an Egyptian book called the Book of the Dead.
In it there is the destruction by water by a divine cause, a warning was given, humans were spared alive preserved in a vessel.

There does not appear to be any reason to believe that.,,And the land bridge between North America and Asia was gone for thousands of years before that. The stories could not have made the trip to the New World.

And please quote and link to the Book of the Dead.

 

[ecco]

You also think there is no God. Do you mind if I ask why you think this way?

God, god, gods, Supreme Beings or however people throughout millennia have referred to them are all the creations of man's imaginings. They are no different than Superman, the Easter Bunny, Santa, psychic snowflakes or invisible pink unicorns.

Does that answer your question?

 

[ecco]

Gospel writer Luke traces Jesus lineage back to Adam

What lineage - Mary's?

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
​

Jesus was not a descendant of Joseph. Jesus, if one is the believe the Bible, is the result of Mary being impregnated, without her consent, by a subset of God. Joseph was just a cuckold.

Gospel writer Matthew wrote that Jesus believed in the days of Noah at

It should not be surprising that a Jew 2000 years ago believed what was written in his scripture.

In any case, how would Matthew know this? Did he ask Jesus? Did Jesus himself write that he believed in the Flood?

 

[gnostic]

Why do you say Egypt has No flood account because there is an Egyptian book called the Book of the Dead.
In it there is the destruction by water by a divine cause, a warning was given, humans were spared alive preserved in a vessel.

Except that the Book of the Dead was written in the 20th dynasty (there are few more versions written in later dynasties), and it is prophecy that has not happened, when the gods will unmake the world and return it to the abyss.

Genesis say the Flood has already happened, while the Book of the Dead haven’t.

 

[gnostic]

What lineage - Mary's?

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Jesus was not a descendant of Joseph. Jesus, if one is the believe the Bible, is the result of Mary being impregnated, without her consent, by a subset of God. Joseph was just a cuckold.

The Exodus makes adultery a big deal, and one of the big sins, and Jesus himself say even bigger deal that even looking and thinking about women are considered “adultery”, even without sex.

So Jesus being born to a woman, and Joseph not being his father, make her relationship with god, in essence and technically “adultery”.

The gospels are hypocritical.

 

[nPeace]

God, god, gods, Supreme Beings or however people throughout millennia have referred to them are all the creations of man's imaginings. They are no different than Superman, the Easter Bunny, Santa, psychic snowflakes or invisible pink unicorns.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks

 

[Audie]

Those 'most' Christians, so-called Christians, are the ones of Matthew 7:21-23 because they are part of the 'MANY' would come 'in Jesus' name' and prove false.

.

You are of course, familiar with "No True Scotsamn"?

I often wonder how it is that everyone claims to have theTrue
Reading because God helps them.

But you all get something different.

Of course, as there was no flood, it seems possible you got
it wrong.