The Flood & Worldwide Festivals of the Dead — the connection.

[Dan From Smithville]

Since God is claimed as the Author, what is His ‘interpretation’? Don’t you think that should be the goal, to get His meaning & understanding? (Like why the Flood had to be worldwide. Only the Bible can explain that…. no other documents give us a rational reason.)

Jesus said it’s possible to gain that accurate knowledge. - Luke 10:21

I never said anything against or about trying to find God's true meaning in the Bible. My statements go to the point that claiming to dismiss what we learn using science on the basis that they are merely man's words seems hypocritical and contrary, when all interpretations of the Bible are merely man's words.

What I know from the evidence is that numerous men wrote the Bible over centuries of time. What I believe is that these writings were inspired by God and not simply dictation. Inspired is an arguable term that means different things to different people.

All the different Abrahamic religions, denominations, branches, sects, etc., claim to have the one true interpretation or something to that effect. These groups are all made up of people. So it is people that are making the claims. Your position to deny the words of man is ultimately a blanket denial of even the words that you follow, since they are the words (interpretation) of man. That seems to be a rabbit hole in my opinion.

Are you saying that there is no room for some previous author to impart his personal bias or errors into the Bible? The Old Testament is made up of books that are often oral tradition transcribed by man. Someone decided which tradition. In some cases it is a blending of more than one story. Some of the writings are after the fact and by third parties in some cases. Someone decided what of a vast amount of material should be included in the Bible and how it was to be presented there. The Christian Bible was originally written piecemeal in different languages. It has been transcribed and translated numerous times throughout the last 2,000 years.

So not one possibility for error in any of that?

And then some parts of the Bible come up against the facts that man can and does observe and uses to draw rational conclusions. I see this as using the gifts God gave us to understand His creation. There is nothing wrong with that idea and there is nothing wrong with using those natural scriptures to learn from. But the creationist answer is to ignore all that and wave it away as merely the words of man that has no validity because they are the words of man. And it is not a consistent dismissal. For instance, gravity is not waved away, though it has less evidence in support of theory than evolution does.

Pardon me if I have doubts about that strategy and concerns that it is allowing the bias of a few to be the dictator of all.

When the facts of reality contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible, then the most reasonable conclusion is that we do not understand what the Bible is saying and/or we are interpreting wrongly.

I know what you’re saying, but I’m posting evidence that is there. You know, God was the cause of the Flood. (Jesus supported its reality.) With that understanding — which is the correct one, that God was the Source of it, right? — there are some expectations regarding natural evidence that would be altered.
Only if God was out of the picture. He wasn’t. Why take God out of the Event that He caused?
How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s flood?

This is what God’s Word has said since the time Psalms 104 was written.
It’s not what anybody else came up with.

You are telling me why you believe in an event that has no viable evidence supporting it as an actual event. I appreciate that, but it only goes to explain why you persist in your quest. It is not evidence for the object of your quest. In my view, seeing it as allegory has no negative impact on my belief in God and acceptance of Christ.

You post claims that you see as facts. You also post facts that have thin, dubious and questionable application as evidence for an event that should be a slam dunk to reveal if it did happen.

Your evidence of the fact of ancient remains existing in the permafrost is just citing something and making your own claims about it. Claims you must further substantiate, but have not.

This evidence of festival dates, isn’t easy to see. Because of varying calendars.
Much of the evidence isn’t clearly discerned.
I think a couple are, though.

So even you see how dubious and unreliable these particular facts are as evidence for the flood.

Yes, an entomologist, right? That’s cool. Do you have a favorite bug? I think the different species of praying mantis are fascinating!

I am fond of mantids, but my favorite group is the beetles. Particularly members of the superfamily Scarabaeoidea, but also other families and groups within that order.

No, I have close friends who are scientists. But they recognize Jehovah’s part as Creator, and the deficiencies of science in using materialism to explain creation.

It is not God's Hand in creation that I question. It is the interpretation that some men claim is the only interpretation that I question.

Questioning the validity of Genesis as an indisputable, accurate, historical account of the origin and diversity of life is not a denial of God.

Well, that’s good, but isn’t that an unwritten rule? I mean, try getting a paper published that gives God the credit as Designer.

No. There is no unwritten rule demanding that God be kept out of science.

Research based on untestable claims is not research. It is belief. If you want research that supports God, you will have to provide the evidence for God and the evidence of His actions in whatever is being researched.

I know of no global conspiracy of science against God. I have no evidence that such a conspiracy exists now or has ever existed. I have never seen anyone claiming such a thing to succeed in their arguments that one exists.

I didn’t mean to insult....I didn’t mean to imply you were involved in lying.

You got it! I’d like to share a couple beers with you, someday.

I believe you.

I would enjoy a beer.

I don't have any animosity about what or how you believe. That is your own personal business and I cannot say that you haven't found a way to commune with God that works for you. My challenge with anyone here is what they claim in the public square and what they demand from those claims. Even my own claims require scrutiny, skepticism and evaluation. I am open to new information that might change my mind on things. I have been wrong about some things or forgotten some key piece of information that someone else points out. Sometimes, in these discussions and debates, I even have the rare epiphany that leads to greater clarity and understanding from a source I did not expect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wow…. really?
In your mind, maybe?


“Scientists Are Still Uncovering The Grand Canyon's Geological 'Secrets'”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/08/12/grand-canyon-national-park-centennial

I appreciated how the geologist stated “…one of the current ideas…”

…which implies the understanding can change. IOW, what is ‘currently understood,’ could be in error.

So your “well understood” is just another of your statements that inflates the facts.

"well understood", does not mean "knowing everything there is to know with nothing further to find out".


Off course they are still figuring things out. The fact that plenty of scientific teams continue to study the thing, is kind of a give-away that there are more things to learn


Evolution is also pretty well understood. Biologists, paleontologists, geneticists,... yet still continue their studies.

And the same goes for geology, physics, chemistry, etc etc etc.


And obviously, in science, understanding of anything can change. It's called making progress and learning.


Take a look here:
A deeper understanding of the Grand Canyon (knowablemagazine.org)

To truly understand how the grand canyon formed step by step, one has to unravel about 1.6 billion years of geological history. Not quite an easy thing to accomplish.

Nevertheless, it's pretty well understood. Which, again, does not mean that there aren't still things to learn.



FYI: I always chuckle when I read creationists proudly saying that scientific understanding changes when it makes progress. As if somehow, that is a bad thing. Hilarious.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To truly understand how the grand canyon formed step by step, one has to unravel about 1.6 billion years of geological history. Not quite an easy thing to accomplish.

1.6 billion years is involved in learning how the strata formed, not the erosion that formed the GC.


Yep, a lot to learn....i.e., not well-understood.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I never said anything against or about trying to find God's true meaning in the Bible. My statements go to the point that claiming to dismiss what we learn using science on the basis that they are merely man's words seems hypocritical and contrary, when all interpretations of the Bible are merely man's words.

What I know from the evidence is that numerous men wrote the Bible over centuries of time. What I believe is that these writings were inspired by God and not simply dictation. Inspired is an arguable term that means different things to different people.

All the different Abrahamic religions, denominations, branches, sects, etc., claim to have the one true interpretation or something to that effect. These groups are all made up of people. So it is people that are making the claims. Your position to deny the words of man is ultimately a blanket denial of even the words that you follow, since they are the words (interpretation) of man. That seems to be a rabbit hole in my opinion.

Are you saying that there is no room for some previous author to impart his personal bias or errors into the Bible? The Old Testament is made up of books that are often oral tradition transcribed by man. Someone decided which tradition. In some cases it is a blending of more than one story. Some of the writings are after the fact and by third parties in some cases. Someone decided what of a vast amount of material should be included in the Bible and how it was to be presented there. The Christian Bible was originally written piecemeal in different languages. It has been transcribed and translated numerous times throughout the last 2,000 years.

So not one possibility for error in any of that?

And then some parts of the Bible come up against the facts that man can and does observe and uses to draw rational conclusions. I see this as using the gifts God gave us to understand His creation. There is nothing wrong with that idea and there is nothing wrong with using those natural scriptures to learn from. But the creationist answer is to ignore all that and wave it away as merely the words of man that has no validity because they are the words of man. And it is not a consistent dismissal. For instance, gravity is not waved away, though it has less evidence in support of theory than evolution does.

Pardon me if I have doubts about that strategy and concerns that it is allowing the bias of a few to be the dictator of all.

When the facts of reality contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible, then the most reasonable conclusion is that we do not understand what the Bible is saying and/or we are interpreting wrongly.

You are telling me why you believe in an event that has no viable evidence supporting it as an actual event. I appreciate that, but it only goes to explain why you persist in your quest. It is not evidence for the object of your quest. In my view, seeing it as allegory has no negative impact on my belief in God and acceptance of Christ.

You post claims that you see as facts. You also post facts that have thin, dubious and questionable application as evidence for an event that should be a slam dunk to reveal if it did happen.

Your evidence of the fact of ancient remains existing in the permafrost is just citing something and making your own claims about it. Claims you must further substantiate, but have not.

So even you see how dubious and unreliable these particular facts are as evidence for the flood.
I am fond of mantids, but my favorite group is the beetles. Particularly members of the superfamily Scarabaeoidea, but also other families and groups within that order.

It is not God's Hand in creation that I question. It is the interpretation that some men claim is the only interpretation that I question.

Questioning the validity of Genesis as an indisputable, accurate, historical account of the origin and diversity of life is not a denial of God.

No. There is no unwritten rule demanding that God be kept out of science.

Research based on untestable claims is not research. It is belief. If you want research that supports God, you will have to provide the evidence for God and the evidence of His actions in whatever is being researched.

I know of no global conspiracy of science against God. I have no evidence that such a conspiracy exists now or has ever existed. I have never seen anyone claiming such a thing to succeed in their arguments that one exists.
I believe you.

I would enjoy a beer.

I don't have any animosity about what or how you believe. That is your own personal business and I cannot say that you haven't found a way to commune with God that works for you. My challenge with anyone here is what they claim in the public square and what they demand from those claims. Even my own claims require scrutiny, skepticism and evaluation. I am open to new information that might change my mind on things. I have been wrong about some things or forgotten some key piece of information that someone else points out. Sometimes, in these discussions and debates, I even have the rare epiphany that leads to greater clarity and understanding from a source I did not expect.

I appreciate your amiable reply.

But I would like to understand your view better: what, exactly, do you think God did in creation?

Take care...Hope you are well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1.6 billion years is involved in learning how the strata formed,

The strata are an important part of the site. It's actually what makes the site so amazing.

not the erosion that formed the GC.

Erosion is very well understood process. It's how we know that the canyon is the result of erosion.

Did you even read the link that you posted?
Because all this is explained there. I find it kind of hilarious that you used a link to make your case, while the article behind it is the polar opposite of what you believe.

Yep, a lot to learn....i.e., not well-understood.

Again, well-understood does not mean "know everything there is to know".

How the canyon formed is well understood. All major key events have been identified. How the strata formed, how the uplift happened, how erosion cut through the rocks,...

You might want to read up.


Another thing that is also known btw, is that the site is entirely inconsistent with physically impossible biblical floods.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Ancient Egypt lasted for 3,000+ years. I think we'd at least find something. Neither they nor their African brethren relate any flood myths. The most straightforward conclusion is that they hadn't any.

There appear to be some African flood myths. African Mythology, A to Z

 

[Rival]

There appear to be some African flood myths. African Mythology, A to Z

Yes, I later clarified that there are only a few, but that the majority of African cultures relate none. I was mainly concerned that the OP was butchering Kemetic myths to fit his narrative, because Kemet has no mass flood myths.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes, I later clarified that there are only a few, but that the majority of African cultures relate none. I was mainly concerned that the OP was butchering Kemetic myths to fit his narrative, because Kemet has no mass flood myths.

I gotcha!

 

[Aupmanyav]

But I would like to understand your view better: what, exactly, do you think God did in creation?

He just had to wish and lo it was there, whether the universe, stars, sun or moon, trees and animals. Only when he had to make humans, he had to dirty his hands with soil / mud (whatever).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Erosion is very well understood process. It's how we know that the canyon is the result of erosion.

Yes, exactly, that’s what I said. But the erosion wasn’t over a span of 1.6 billion years, per your implication. The strata probably began forming then, definitely not the Canyon.

Did you even read the link that you posted?

Yes.

Again, well-understood does not mean "know everything there is to know".

How the canyon formed is well understood. All major key events have been identified. How the strata formed, how the uplift happened, how erosion cut through the rocks,...

You might want to read up.

Then where’s the sediment from the erosion that created the GC? Almost 1,000 cubic miles of it. Where? To transport that much, to a distance where we can’t even find it? Only a Flood of gigantic proportions.

And aspects of the uplift are still in question.

Another thing that is also known btw, is that the site is entirely inconsistent with physically impossible biblical floods.

From a YEC perspective, yes. From an Old-Earth POV, not at all.

And there was one Flood, not “floods.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, exactly, that’s what I said. But the erosion wasn’t over a span of 1.6 billion years, per your implication. The strata probably began forming then, not the Canyon.

Correct. Depending upon how one dates it the canyon began to form 70 million years ago when the began to be uplifted. But it is not just one simple event that formed the Grand Canyon. Here is link to help you out. Spoiler alert, "A big flood" is not the cause:

How old is the Grand Canyon? | The Real Age of the Grand Canyon

Yes.



Then where’s the sediment from that erosion? Almost 1,000 cubic miles of it. Where? You don’t know.

No, you don't know. You forgot that this was a process that took tens of millions of years. You might check out western California. There are a couple of features that you should be aware of. First, there is the San Andreas fault. Second there is huge part of California called "the central valley". The farmland there is very rich. You might want to check out the source of it.

And aspects of the uplift are still in question.

Really? Do you have a reliable source that supports this claim? Please note, sources that require their employees not to follow the scientific method are not scientific.

From a YEC perspective, yes. From an Old-Earth POV, not at all.

And there was one Flood, not “floods.”

That is only because YEC's are all very scientifically illiterate or even worse liars. You could learn how we know that your beliefs are wrong. It would not take much in the way of learning to do that?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

. I was mainly concerned that the OP was butchering Kemetic myths to fit his narrative, because Kemet has no mass flood myths.

Am I the OP you’re referring to?
My post wasn’t about the Flood myths, but rather, about the Festivals of the Dead that are celebrated globally. Around the same calendar date.

I’m sure many current cultures have no idea anymore how such festivals originated, i.e., their cause.

The Mexican “Dia de los Muertos” posits no cause, for one.

You know, @Rival , “butchering” is a fighting word. Is that really where you wanna go with this? I was simply quoting from a book.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, exactly, that’s what I said. But the erosion wasn’t over a span of 1.6 billion years, per your implication.

I didn't imply that at all.
The site has a 1.6 billion year old history.
All the layers that the rivers have cut through, the geological rise of the entire plateau, the lifting and shifting that occurred... It's a 1.6 billion year story.

Sorry if my wording confused you.
For me, the canyon is the enitre site and not just the cutting through by rivers. There needs to be stuff to cut through and for me, the formation of that stuff is just as much part of the historical formation of the canyon as the cutting through by rivers is.

Then where’s the sediment from the erosion that created the GC? Almost 1,000 cubic miles of it. Where? To transport that much, to a distance where we can’t even find it?

Your ignorance does not make a dent in geological knowledge.
Again, you might want to read up.

Only a Flood of gigantic proportions.

Floods don't result in such geological formation.

And aspects of the uplift are still in question.

Aspects, yes.

From a YEC perspective, yes. From an Old-Earth POV, not at all.

No matter. Floods just don't result in such formations.
Even if you wish to argue it was a natural flood at the end of the ice age for example and say it was some ice dam breaking or whatever, releasing a sea of water over the site. It would not result in such a formation. It just wouldn't.

We understand what type of formation rivers leave behind.
We understand what type of formation oceans leave behind.
We understand what type of formation floods leave behind

This is how we know that the canyon holds multiple layers of multiple different ocean deposits, that the canyon was formed by cutting through by rivers and that a flood had no part in this.

And there was one Flood, not “floods.”

One, many, whatever.
The canyon is the result of rivers. Not a flood. Or floods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Am I the OP you’re referring to?
My post wasn’t about the Flood myths, but rather, about the Festivals of the Dead that are celebrated globally. Around the same calendar date.

I’m sure many current cultures have no idea anymore how such festivals originated, i.e., their cause.

The Mexican “Dia de los Muertos” posits no cause, for one.

You know, @Rival , “butchering” is a fighting word. Is that really where you wanna go with this? I was simply quoting from a book.

There are far more reasonable explanations that do not rely on magic.

 

[Bree]

I missed a lot of this thread but love the topic of the flood. As a believer in the Flood account as found in the bible im happy to contribute but im a bit lost as to what the frame of reference for this discussion is.... maybe there are a few different arguments after 14 pages.... Are you looking for an actual earthly date for the flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I missed a lot of this thread but love the topic of the flood. As a believer in the Flood account as found in the bible im happy to contribute but im a bit lost as to what the frame of reference for this discussion is.... maybe there are a few different arguments after 14 pages.... Are you looking for an actual earthly date for the flood?

The OP is pretty much a nothing burger. Some, not all, areas have certain festivals around about this time of year and somehow that was "evidence" for the Flood.

But there are endless ways that we know that the flood of Noah never happened. The scientific evidence refutes it. The historical evidence refutes it. The archaeological evidence refutes it. So why do you believe it? Parts of the Bible should not be read literally.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Floods don't result in such geological formation.

Yes, it does.
Example, on a much smaller scale…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_Lake_Gorge

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it does.
Example, on a much smaller scale…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_Lake_Gorge

Nothing at all like the Grand Canyon. Do you see any meanders there? Because I don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again a picture of the location that refutes the Noah's Ark Mtyh:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, it does.
Example, on a much smaller scale…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_Lake_Gorge

Ow yea, that totally looks the same like the grand canyon


So where are the meanders?


You'ld grasp at any straw, would you?