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

[Sideroxylon]

Not necessarily, if you consider other ancient writings used universal language when describing something less than the whole world.

AiG makes a pretty compelling argument for a global interpretation:

Let me urge you to read carefully Genesis 6-9—chapters dealing with the Flood. If God was really trying to describe a local flood, He surely could have written a little more clearly, for over and over again the wording demands a global flood. In fact, I have counted more than 100 times when the wording implies a global flood. It is true that some of the individual words could be understood in a local sense, but in the context, no other position than that of a global flood is defensible. Consider these few quotes of the many: ‘the face of the earth (i.e. planet)’ (6:1); ‘end of all flesh. . . the earth is filled with violence . . . I will destroy them with the earth’ (6:13); ‘destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die’ (6:17). If God had intended to describe a global world-destroying flood, He couldn’t have said it any more clearly.

Furthermore, God promised never to send another flood like Noah’s Flood (9:11,15), but there have been many local floods, even regional floods, since Noah’s time. If Noah’s Flood was only local, then God lied to us. Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for his survival. He had up to 120 years’ warning (6:3), long enough to walk anywhere on the earth, certainly out of the region of the coming local flood.​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v12/n2/noah

But very clearly the things that are predicted by a global flood, like present day species distributions congruent with origins in eastern Anatolia, are not cashed out in observation. There was no global flood.

 

[DOC]

So the Bible has no more authority than "other ancient writings"?

Do you expect the writers of the Bible not to use the norms of language used in their own time?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You still don't understand historical evidence. Why do you think Bart Ehrman gave the opinion that Jesus certainly existed. It's called "historical evidence".

You still do not understand honest use of sources.

Why do you think that your boy Ehrman (evidently, in the part of the book that you never read) goes no to say that the "Jesus" that he (Ehrman) says "certainly existed" was a fully human, non-divine, apocalyptic preacher who was, not, could not have been, the 'messiah", and is not the "Jesus" promoted by organized religion?

Your continued pretense that Ehrman supports your opinions about "Jesus" is simply dishonest, DOC.

Your claim that Genesis was written by Moses makes your opening sentence of this post bathetically risible.

 

[Craig B]

Do you expect the writers of the Bible not to use the norms of language used in their own time?

It is not the norms of language that are in question, but the authenticity of an account of a worldwide flood. A non-worldwide flood wouldn't require a Noah or an Ark.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Not necessarily, if you consider other ancient writings used universal language when describing something less than the whole world.

Wait. Wut?

Are you REALLY saying that a "literal" reading of the bible can mean that it is not literally true?

 

[DOC]

SlackerBabbath brought up the issue of other ancient flood accounts similar to the Biblical account of Noah. He is a link that addresses that:

http://1peter315.blogspot.com/2011/06/archaeological-evidence-for-flood.html

 

[Dinwar]

Do you expect the writers of the Bible not to use the norms of language used in their own time?

Yes.

Remember, you're postulating that they are inspired by a being outside of time. I would expect to see anachronisms in the work.

You are also claiming that this book can overturn the whole of geology--some 300 years of research by some of the most intelligent men and women, including some of the keenest observers and some of the best-constructed and well-tested experiments, in all of science. You also expect to overturn all of biology, which includes even more of those. I do not think it unreasonable to demand accuracy in a work that proports to do that.

Are you REALLY saying that a "literal" reading of the bible can mean that it is not literally true?

Why not? It's not a new idea. Medieval monks had an entire school of theology devoted to the idea that the truth or falsehood of the work is irrelevant. And our own AvalonXQ has repeatedly argued that she need not be bound by the mere words of scripture. DOC is actually following in a very long line of theologians.

 

[Dinwar]

SlackerBabbath brought up the issue of other ancient flood accounts similar to the Biblical account of Noah.

Floods are among the most common natural disasters. Humans also tend to congregate around rivers and other bodies of water. Flood myths are hardly surprising.

 

[Slowvehicle]

duplicate post

 

[Slowvehicle]

I was simply responding to the personal attack of Akhenaten talking about 5 years of my posts which I have a right to do, since his personal attack dealt with other threads.

*sigh*

A factual description of the kinds of arguments which you characteristically employ, in this and in other threads, is not a personal attack.

See, for instance, your mantric misuse of Ehrman, resorting to cherry picking and quote mining (if not outright misrepresentation) to pretend that Erhman is complicit in your claims about "Jesus".

Perhaps we could get back on topic, by discussing your opinions of the chronologies I have asked you to provide? Go on. It'll be fun.

ETA: Just FTR, Aberhaten spoke of "5¹/₂ years of posts"...accuracy is important.

 

[DOC]

...A non-worldwide flood wouldn't require a Noah or an Ark.

So you don't think boats helped to save lives and animals in the New Orleans hurricane flood.

 

[Dinwar]

So you don't think boats helped to save lives in the New Orleans hurricane flood.

Are you suggesting that a flood along the Mississippi deposited the limestone at the peak of Mt. Everist? If not, your comparison is invalid.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So you don't think boats helped to save lives in the New Orleans hurricane flood.

Which has...WHAT...to do with the fossils in Peru providing support for the fludde myths?

(Hint: the answer can be expressed as "the cube root of bugger-all")

Do at least consider answering my questions.

 

[dafydd]

So you don't think boats helped to save lives in the New Orleans hurricane flood.

I missed the bit about the animals getting into the boats two by two in New Orleans.

 

[smartcooky]

Why are you reticent about demonstrating how you, personally, think that the age of the fossils in Peru, or the presence of the fossils atop the Himalayas, or the evidence of the time that has passed since the breakup of Pangea, can be reconciled with either of the inherently contradictory creation myths in Genesis?

As I posted earlier, its because that would pin him down to a position, and would take away his ability to keep moving the goalposts. That is how most creatards function; they won't put their money where their mouth is, and lock themselves into a position or a corner that they cannot back out of.

IMO, (and I don't know DOC outside this forum) he appears to be just like other members of the God Squad I have met, he will believe that;

► everything in both the OT and the NT is literal gospel truth, to be taken at face value.

► The Earth is about 6000 years old (Genesis took place in the year 4004 BC)

► Radiocarbon dating is the work of Satan, put here to tempt us into doubting the true word of God

As a result, DOC likely thinks that fossils are only a few thousand years old rather than millions or even billions. Also, he is likely a subscriber to the (IMO preposterous) "hydroplate theory" as espoused by Walter Brown, to explain the break-up of Pangaea, continental drift and mountain building. His references to "Fountains of the Deep" as being both the source of the water for the Noahchian Flood and explanation for the subsequent draining of the waters, would seem to indicate this.

DOC, if you are reading this, and haven't placed me on ignore, I CHALLENGE YOU TO REFUTE WHAT I HAVE SAID HERE. I challenge you to deny that you believe the above, especially the three bullet points.

 

[DOC]

Are you suggesting that a flood along the Mississippi deposited the limestone at the peak of Mt. Everist? If not, your comparison is invalid.

Strawman because I responded to a non-global flood question.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So you don't think boats helped to save lives and animals in the New Orleans hurricane flood.

And how would Noah's flood being local and the New Orleans flood tally with the AiG reading of Genesis on God's promise? What is your reading of what they describe as a promise?

Furthermore, God promised never to send another flood like Noah’s Flood (9:11,15), but there have been many local floods, even regional floods, since Noah’s time. If Noah’s Flood was only local, then God lied to us. Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for his survival. He had up to 120 years’ warning (6:3), long enough to walk anywhere on the earth, certainly out of the region of the coming local flood.​

 

[dafydd]

Strawman because I responded to a non-global flood question.

So you agree that the story of Noah and the Ark is a myth?

 

[Christian Klippel]

You are also claiming that this book can overturn the whole of geology--some 300 years of research by some of the most intelligent men and women, including some of the keenest observers and some of the best-constructed and well-tested experiments, in all of science.

Aww, come on now! We all know what these folks really do:

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

So you don't think boats helped to save lives and animals in the New Orleans hurricane flood.

They had arks in New Orleans?

I sense a really immense reality distortion field, and i can feel the vibrations of the cognitive dissonance...

Greetings,

Chris