What if it was created by God to evolve?

[Subduction Zone]

There is evidence of a very large local flood thousands of years BC in that area.
There are also reasons why the Ark could have landed in the foothills of the Mountains of Ararat even if it started at a lower altitude.
There are also reasons why the flood might have taken so long to subside.

Local Mesopotamian Flood: An Apologia Local Mesopotamian Flood Model: Addressing Criticisms

This is a follow-up to my article, Local Flood & Atheist Ignorance of Christian Thought (7-2-21), and it will deal with some elements of proposed I document several fascinating scientific arguments (from scientists) for a local Mesopotamian Flood c. 2900 BC. The various cumulative evidences are...

www.patheos.com

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

Introduction The Bible (Genesis 6–9) describes a worldwide flood (the Noachian Flood) covering even the highest mountains of the earth and the construction of a huge boat (a rectangular box-like craft) that transported animals, at least two of a kind of all land animals on the earth.

ncse.ngo

Yes, a very very local flood. It was only in the Tigris Euphrates valley system. It would not have accomplished what Noah's flood supposedly did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1Corinthians is said to have been written in the early to mid 50s AD and was being written to people who knew of and probably had heard the witnesses speak. That is pretty good historical hearsay writing when compared to other historical records of events that we have.
For those who do not use the presumption that prophecy is untrue to date the writing of the synoptics to post 70AD,,,,,,,,, those synoptics were probably written not long after the 1Corinthians Epistle and by people who were witnesses and who had heard from witnesses.
John's gospel was written post 70AD through the words of an old man who had been a witness.

No, it is attributed rather clearly to Paul. He was not an eyewitness. Nor was it written as if he spoke with any eyewitnesses.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Being witnesses of the risen Jesus.

You said that.
Who are these supposed witnesses?

 

[SkepticThinker]

IMO my beliefs are not contrary to the claims in the Bible, just to the common translations of the Bible. Alternative legitimate translations can support a local flood imo.

Your beliefs are contrary to the flood story in the Bible, as written. The story doesn't' even begin to make sense unless it's a global flood. We've been over this. The last time I drew this to your attention you ran off.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Epistles of Paul are hearsay, much earlier than when the gospels were written, and his audience knew the truth of what he wrote here, that Cephas (Peter) taught the resurrection of Jesus.
1 Corinthians 15:3-11 “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, … that [Jesus] was raised, and that He appeared to Cephas (Peter) then to the twelve.” He adds: “Whether then it was I or they [Peter et al.], so we preach and so you believed.”

You just said these are hearsay accounts. Soooo.... not witnesses.

Peter and James and the other apostles are reported to be witnesses, which, as I said, the ones to whom he wrote, knew of and may have even heard talking about the resurrection.

More hearsay. Hearing about a thing means you didn't witness it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1Corinthians is said to have been written in the early to mid 50s AD and was being written to people who knew of and probably had heard the witnesses speak.

So ... not witnesses.

That is pretty good historical hearsay writing when compared to other historical records of events that we have.

Nah.

For those who do not use the presumption that prophecy is untrue

So, those who suspend rationality and reason ...

to date the writing of the synoptics to post 70AD

So ... not witneses.

,,,,,,,,, those synoptics were probably written not long after the 1Corinthians Epistle and by people who were witnesses and who had heard from witnesses.
John's gospel was written post 70AD through the words of an old man who had been a witness.

People who "heard from witnesses" aren't witnesses. Even Judge Judy would throw that hearsay right out of court.

 

[Brian2]

You said that.
Who are these supposed witnesses?

Peter and the other apostles and the women who were at the tomb.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, a very very local flood. It was only in the Tigris Euphrates valley system. It would not have accomplished what Noah's flood supposedly did.

It is calculated to have been maybe 15,000 square miles.
What would have been accomplished is killing all the animals and people in the area.
That is what the story can be read to mean.

 

[Arnaud1221]

Evolve within the rule. No problem I would say.

 

[Brian2]

No, it is attributed rather clearly to Paul. He was not an eyewitness. Nor was it written as if he spoke with any eyewitnesses.

We are told in other places that Paul spoke with witnesses.

 

[Brian2]

Your beliefs are contrary to the flood story in the Bible, as written. The story doesn't' even begin to make sense unless it's a global flood. We've been over this. The last time I drew this to your attention you ran off.

An alternative translation changes the meaning.

 

[Brian2]

You just said these are hearsay accounts. Soooo.... not witnesses.


More hearsay. Hearing about a thing means you didn't witness it.

Peter's epistles and John's gospel and Matthew's gosel are not hearsay imo

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is calculated to have been maybe 15,000 square miles.
What would have been accomplished is killing all the animals and people in the area.
That is what the story can be read to mean.

That would not have killed all the people that it was supposed to have killed. It would only have killed a very small percentage of the human population.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Peter's epistles and John's gospel and Matthew's gosel are not hearsay imo

But they are. The authors of both were classically trained in Koine Greek. Neither one of those were. They were simple people, not members of the upper class. It is extremely dubious that the apostle John would have even been alive when that Gospel was written. Even Matthew had a good chance of being dead 60 years after the crucifixion.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would not have killed all the people that it was supposed to have killed. It would only have killed a very small percentage of the human population.

oh oh now you got me curious. I do not agree that it was a local flood BUT -- now I wonder how you might figure it was a very small percentage of the human population. How many humans were populating the earth anyway at that time that the Bible has it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolve within the rule. No problem I would say.

I'm not contesting that. There ARE rules as far as I'm concerned. Depending on science, I guess rules can be changed or broken.

 

[Audie]

It is calculated to have been maybe 15,000 square miles.
What would have been accomplished is killing all the animals and people in the area.
That is what the story can be read to mean.

It can be read, is read to mean practically
anything.
The very definition of completely
worthless testimony.

 

[Subduction Zone]

oh oh now you got me curious. I do not agree that it was a local flood BUT -- now I wonder how you might figure it was a very small percentage of the human population. How many humans were populating the earth anyway at that time that the Bible has it?

60 to 70 million people. All around the world. We never had such an extreme event happen to the human population:

Genetic study pushes back timeline for first significant human population expansion

Using new genetic tools, the authors conclude that the first significant expansion of human populations appears to be much older than the emergence of farming and herding, dating back to the Paleolithic (60,000-80,000 years ago) rather than Neolithic age (10,000 years ago). They also suggest...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Brian2]

That would not have killed all the people that it was supposed to have killed. It would only have killed a very small percentage of the human population.

That is fine, maybe God wanted just that. "All" in other parts of the OT does not mean absolutely "all".
Another alternative is that floods happened all over the world at the same time and wiped out most of humanity.

 

[Brian2]

But they are. The authors of both were classically trained in Koine Greek. Neither one of those were. They were simple people, not members of the upper class. It is extremely dubious that the apostle John would have even been alive when that Gospel was written. Even Matthew had a good chance of being dead 60 years after the crucifixion.

We don't know that they did not have someone to write down what they said. iow that is no problem.
And what is 60 years after the crucifixion all about unless you want to date the gospels after 70AD on the presumption that they are not true. Without that presumption Matthew was written maybe 20-30 years after the resurrection.