Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru

[SezMe]

Good Point. An example of their concept of the world is in Acts Chapter 2: verse 5 where it says:

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven."

Obviously the author of that area wasn't talking about places like Japan and Korea and New Zealand because he didn't even know those places existed. He was taking about every nation that they knew of.

So this god, who created heaven and earth, forgot about all of that when he told Noah to build a big boat. But wait, god also told Noah to gather all the kinds of animals so he couldn't have forgotten. Maybe god needs a check list before he starts heavy rain storms.

 

[AdMan]

DOC, take your New Testament drivel back to one of the many threads on that subject that you've abandoned for one reason or another.

Seconded.

 

[Craig B]

Good Point. An example of their concept of the world is in Acts Chapter 2: verse 5 where it says:

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven."

Obviously the author of that area wasn't talking about places like Japan and Korea and New Zealand because he didn't even know those places existed. He was taking about every nation that they knew of.

Yes, and you omitted to give us this list of nations, although it appears in the text you refer to:

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven ... 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs

That's a bit parochial, isn't it? Is this the inspired word of God, telling us what "every nation" means?

 

[GeneMachine]

And even if you assume that list to be the known set of nations under the heaven, you still will not find geological evidence of a flood covering all of them...

 

[smartcooky]

Nether Ehrman, yourself nor any other god botherer can actually provide evidence fro the existence of a Historical Jesus.

Well at least, not at the time specified in the NT. There is some evidence of a "Jesus-like" character existing in historical records about 100 years earlier, in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, the King of Judea at that time, however, the accounts of the "synoptic" gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark and Luke cannot be taken seriously. They were written at different times, long after the events to which they refer, allegedly took place, they originated in different places, they directly contradict each other in key respects, and could easily have been referring to much earlier events.

Many Christians believe they are three separate accounts written by three separate people, and this "fact" necessarily proves that the accounts are an accurate record. However, there is plenty of evidence that Matthew was written first, then the writers of Mark used it as a source, and added their own inventions, and finally, the writers of Luke used both as sources.

It may well be that some characters similar to the NT Jesus did exist at around that time and the biblical account of Jesus' life and times were (as I have suggested for the Flood account) a mixture of conflated stories involving both real people and fictional characters woven into a single account by multiple writers.

 

[Akhenaten]

You really do think that a quotation of the words of a character in the very fairytale...

Jesus wasn't a fairytale. He was a famous historical person if we are to believe Bart Ehrman who said Jesus certainly existed. And he was a famous historical person whose grave is empty and whose body has never been found.

Good grief, DOC, do try to develop some reading comprehension.

Aberhaten (may the sun shine on him eternally) said that Jesus was a character in a fairytale. That is not the same thing as saying that Jesus is a fairytale.

I think you're being too kind in attributing it to poor comprehension.

I'm far more inclined to think that DOC knows exactly what he's doing when he snips out and responds to sentence fragments the way he's done in the post above, hoping to create the impression that people have said things that they haven't.

It beggars belief that he still thinks, after all these years of being called on this behaviour, that he can get away with it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Nether Ehrman, yourself nor any other god botherer can actually provide evidence fro the existence of a Historical Jesus.

Well at least, not at the time specified in the NT.

<snip>

Folks, please don't allow DOC to derail yet another thread with his nonsense about the New Testament.

Perhaps the best way to respond when he brings it up here would be to quote whatever rubbish he comes up with and post the answer in one of the more appropriate threads that he's left lying about the place.

These are two of the more popular ones:

Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible.​

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2) (TTTWND)​

Cheers, and apologies for being a Bossy Britches.

 

[Craig B]

Many Christians believe they are three separate accounts written by three separate people, and this "fact" necessarily proves that the accounts are an accurate record. However, there is plenty of evidence that Matthew was written first, then the writers of Mark used it as a source, and added their own inventions, and finally, the writers of Luke used both as sources.

Have you got this the right way round? Do most commentators not now give priority to Mark? As the gospel of Matthew is longer, is it not the one to which "inventions" have been added? These include a miracle birth story, and stories about Jesus' post-resurrection activities, both in Matthew but absent from Mark. Also, as Luke has different versions of these elaborated stories, it is usually argued that the author of Luke was influenced by Mark, but not by Matthew.

 

[pakeha]

Is DOC about to theorize that the flood was local to the Middle East, and that YHWH was only mad at those guys? Because New Zealand and Hawaii didn't have people yet doesn't exclude North America, for example, but I'm pretty sure that North America is "under heaven" despite having lousy cellphone coverage. Weird.

My idea is that DOC somehow has realised the universal flood never happened.
I think we're witnessing a change in the way DOC sees the bible.

 

[Agatha]

My idea is that DOC somehow has realised the universal flood never happened.
I think we're witnessing a change in the way DOC sees the bible.

I admire your optimism!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I admire your optimism!

I agree with your pessimism.

 

[joobz]

My idea is that DOC somehow has realised the universal flood never happened.
I think we're witnessing a change in the way DOC sees the bible.

This is true.
But it is also true to say that he believes the flood did happen.
DOC is not limited by consistency.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is true.
But it is also true to say that he believes the flood did happen.
DOC is not limited by consistency.

Or reality.

 

[Correa Neto]

I agree with your pessimism.

A pessimist is a well informed optmist...

 

[dafydd]

This is true.
But it is also true to say that he believes the flood did happen.
DOC is not limited by consistency.

'I’ve done everything the Bible says — even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!'-Ned Flanders.

 

[Sideroxylon]

My idea is that DOC somehow has realised the universal flood never happened.
I think we're witnessing a change in the way DOC sees the bible.

The ideas of a global flood and a young earth are the soft underbelly of American creationism. The observations and arguments that contradict these ideas are simple while the ad hoc hypotheses required to maintain them, like hydroplate "theory", are patently ludicrous, throwing up even more problems and questions. The other thing here is that when it comes to the flood they are proposing a positive narrative that they must try to defend, as opposed to the relative ease of contriving controversy about scientific ideas like evolution or the big bang. It's for this reason that American Christians focus on evolution in the education debate while being coy about the flood or a young earth.

You may be right. Doc has been very coy about his position since his bold offering of evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

My idea is that DOC somehow has realised the universal flood never happened.
I think we're witnessing a change in the way DOC sees the bible.

I think we're just seeing a short delay while he looks up what Young's Literal Translation, Sir Bartgeisler of Turek-Ramsay, several American presidents and teh World's Greatest Historian™ have to say about the matter.

 

[Mojo]

He might just be waiting for Wednesday.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A pessimist is a well informed optmist...

Inside every optimist there's a pessimist worried about what's going on out there.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He might just be waiting for Wednesday.

Or the Rapture.