• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Deluge

edge said:
Those diseases are caused by future generations falling away and returning to sin.
Click to expand...
And your all-knowing so-called didn't see this coming, again, he needs new glasses.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
kedo1981 said:
What’s funny is that Christians don’t realize the flood story totally invalidates the basic concepts of Christianity.
WWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!
Hear me out!
Either
God knew for many generations ahead of time who would be saved and tells this to Noah, thus proving that free will is a lie.
Or the story of Noah being told by God that his family would be the only ones saved is wrong, if there was an attempt to save others (Noah evangelizing) and the Bible is wrong and/or God told a lie.
Click to expand...


Interesting; I never thought of it that way...
 
MarekM said:
The quantity of the posts isn't the problem here.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the Quality is a problem. You know I don't mind going into long details on a subject if I think that person is listening, but on the other hand, if they what to misquote the facts as truths.....

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Simon39759 said:
Interesting; I never thought of it that way...
Click to expand...
Well, this so-called god is all-knowing, one would think that it would know all this crap already. I seems not to know very much.

Paul

:) :) :)

Let Noah's family incest begin, the bible is good for that.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Actually. I do have one other question if you'll indulge me.
Why do you have such a NEED for every part of the bible to be literally true?
Most christians I know accept genesis as a series of myths more to establish the nature of god and his interactions with humans rather than literal truth.
They believe that god made the universe and then was willing to wait 13 billion years for us to appear so he could care about how they live their lives and tell them what to do.
They have no problem with parts of the bible being allegories rather than literal truth.
Why is that different for you?
Click to expand...


I don't presume to speak for David Henson, but I suspect that deep down he fears that if he admits to a portion of the Bible -any portion- being "metaphorical", "allegorical" or just flat-out untrue, it is a slippery slope that leaves the entire Bible open to doubt. If the flood didn't actually happen, maybe the crucifixion and resurrection didn't actually happen? If that is the case, what does it mean to be a Christian? Does it become nothing more or less than being say, a Confucianist, who follows the teachings of a person not because of any divinity or promises of eternal life but "merely" for their words of wisdom?

There are people, intelligent, thoughtful and skeptical people (Martin GardnerWP springs to mind) who have somehow managed to reconcile their faith with the flawed and contradictory collection of writings known as the Bible. Perhaps instead of trying to defend the inerrancy of the Bible, David should look into the the writings of Gardner and others with similar belief systems?
 
JohnG said:
I don't presume to speak for David Henson, but I suspect that deep down he fears that if he admits to a portion of the Bible -any portion- being "metaphorical", "allegorical" or just flat-out untrue, it is a slippery slope that leaves the entire Bible open to doubt.
Click to expand...
Well then, I welcome him the the world of science, where we don't change what we learn to fit what we want.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
JohnG said:
I don't presume to speak for David Henson, but I suspect that deep down he fears that if he admits to a portion of the Bible -any portion- being "metaphorical", "allegorical" or just flat-out untrue, it is a slippery slope that leaves the entire Bible open to doubt. If the flood didn't actually happen, maybe the crucifixion and resurrection didn't actually happen? If that is the case, what does it mean to be a Christian? Does it become nothing more or less than being say, a Confucianist, who follows the teachings of a person not because of any divinity or promises of eternal life but "merely" for their words of wisdom?
Click to expand...

I know when to interpret the Bible as being metaphorical, allegorical or figurative. For example Adam. Some say Adam was allegorical because evolutionary science goes against a literal interpretation, but Adam was listed in the genealogy and allegorical figures aren't listed there, especially as having children. Often someone tries to interpret the Bible's metaphoric portions to some science, like in Revelation where the stars fall from the sky or the sun and moon are darkened, but I know that the very same things were said in the Hebrew / Aramaic scriptures to describe political and social upheaval.

JohnG said:
There are people, intelligent, thoughtful and skeptical people (Martin GardnerWP springs to mind) who have somehow managed to reconcile their faith with the flawed and contradictory collection of writings known as the Bible. Perhaps instead of trying to defend the inerrancy of the Bible, David should look into the the writings of Gardner and others with similar belief systems?
Click to expand...

More often than not the difficulty lies not so much in flaws or the Bible but rather flawed interpretation. You can't look at the Bible from a religiously flawed doctrine that is historically documented. You can't get into the trap of "believing" what the Bible says you have to dig deep and explore it and try and get to know what it says. The Bible fascinates me, but you have to realize that in this thread what I am trying to do is see where science is coming from. I have never had much interest in science but I do know that I can't take my very limited knowledge of science and make it look like it agrees with the Bible's account of the flood if it doesn't do that, but that doesn't really mean a great deal to me. I want to know why science doesn't agree. That is why I asked for questions instead of opening up with statements about what the Bible says about it.
 
David Henson said:
...
The Bible fascinates me, but you have to realize that in this thread what I am trying to do is see where science is coming from. I have never had much interest in science but I do know that I can't take my very limited knowledge of science and make it look like it agrees with the Bible's account of the flood if it doesn't do that, but that doesn't really mean a great deal to me. I want to know why science doesn't agree. That is why I asked for questions instead of opening up with statements about what the Bible says about it.
Click to expand...

So now you've seen why science doesn't agree with the book, what are you going to do?

Posters in this thread have provided examples from Biology, Geology, Physics etc which all show that such a global flood 6000 years ago could not possibly have occurred, will that make you reconsider the possibility that the story of the flood is just a story and not like modern history at all?
 
I wonder why David thinks he's the one who knows what the Bible means? I think a Bill Hicks quote is in order.
They believe the bible is the exact word of God - Then they change the bible! Pretty presumptuous, hu huh? "I think what God meant to say..." I have never been that confident.
Click to expand...
 
To "unflaw" biblical interpretation is to throw out common sense.
Science, as you are continually told every place you post, looks for real answers.
Accepting Adam as real just because he's the first guy mentioned in the book does not establish his existence, genealogy notwithstanding.
Science says humanity is tens of thousands of years older than Adam.
Science can point to an early (by those same ten of thousands of years) Eve by analyzing mitochrondrial DNA.
There's (according to science) no such direct route to an Adam but the route to Eve stands scrutiny by science.
Everything with any scientific credibility must stand that scrutiny, or be tossed aside.
Adam wasn't even -in the book- until the Exile, when more thoroughly based Sumerian myths were adapted to suit.
 
Paulhoff said:
Well then, I welcome him the the world of science, where we don't change what we learn to fit what we want.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

You really think that never happens. Scientists are incorruptible,

Newton didn't cheat a little bit on his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Paul? Maybe just a little? You think maybe as president of the Royal Society he didn't review Leibniz's work anonymously in a review in the Philosophical Transactions - just a little . . . Dr. Arnold S. Relman, an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine: “What kind of protection against fraud does peer review offer? Little or none. Fraudulent work was published in peer-reviewed journals, some with very exacting standards. In the case of the two papers we published, no suggestion of dishonesty was raised by any of the referees or editors.”

Science 83: “The history of science is replete with personal prejudices, misleading philosophical themes, miscast players. . . . I suspect all scientists have been guilty of prejudice at times in their research.”

The danger in science making the assumption that it is incorruptible is exactly the same one religion is susceptible to and being blissfully ignorant to it or insisting it doesn't happen is equally as dangerous. It isn't about "science" or "religion" or "politics," it is about people.
 
Last edited:
I Ratant said:
To "unflaw" biblical interpretation is to throw out common sense.
Science, as you are continually told every place you post, looks for real answers.
Accepting Adam as real just because he's the first guy mentioned in the book does not establish his existence, genealogy notwithstanding.
Science says humanity is tens of thousands of years older than Adam.
Science can point to an early (by those same ten of thousands of years) Eve by analyzing mitochrondrial DNA.
There's (according to science) no such direct route to an Adam but the route to Eve stands scrutiny by science.
Everything with any scientific credibility must stand that scrutiny, or be tossed aside.
Adam wasn't even -in the book- until the Exile, when more thoroughly based Sumerian myths were adapted to suit.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine.

I think Y-chromosomal DNA can be used for analysis in a similar manner as mitochondrial DNA, and it has been done.
 
David Henson said:
You really think that never happens. Scientists are incorruptable,

Newton didn't cheat a little bit on his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Paul? Maybe just a little? You think maybe as president of the Royal Society he didn't review Leibniz's work anonymously in a review in the Philosophical Transactions - just a little . . . Dr. Arnold S. Relman, an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine: “What kind of protection against fraud does peer review offer? Little or none. Fraudulent work was published in peer-reviewed journals, some with very exacting standards. In the case of the two papers we published, no suggestion of dishonesty was raised by any of the referees or editors.”

Science 83: “The history of science is replete with personal prejudices, misleading philosophical themes, miscast players. . . . I suspect all scientists have been guilty of prejudice at times in their research.”

The danger in science making the assumption that it is incorruptable is exactly the same one religion is suseptable to and being blissfully ignorant to it or insisting it doesn't happen is equally as dangerous. It isn't about "science" or "religion" or "politics," it is about people.
Click to expand...
You say you know little of science, please don't show us how much.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I've seen David say that it is unfair to impose modern standards of morality onto ancient cultures. OK, if that's true, isn't it also unfair to impose modern standards of historical reporting onto ancient cultures?

They weren't telling history when they told of the flood, like we do when we talk about The Civil War or WWII, they were telling myths to teach a moral lesson. Stop trying to impose your modern world view onto ancient people David, it doesn't work.
 
I Ratant said:
To "unflaw" biblical interpretation is to throw out common sense.
Science, as you are continually told every place you post, looks for real answers.
Accepting Adam as real just because he's the first guy mentioned in the book does not establish his existence, genealogy notwithstanding.
Science says humanity is tens of thousands of years older than Adam.
Science can point to an early (by those same ten of thousands of years) Eve by analyzing mitochrondrial DNA.
There's (according to science) no such direct route to an Adam but the route to Eve stands scrutiny by science.
Everything with any scientific credibility must stand that scrutiny, or be tossed aside.
Adam wasn't even -in the book- until the Exile, when more thoroughly based Sumerian myths were adapted to suit.
Click to expand...

Is or is not Pluto a planet? How many hundreds of years in between Isaac Newton and Einstein's relativity. When you state, quite emphatically that the Bible can't possibly be right because science says it is wrong it is the same nonsense as religion saying science can't be right because the Bible says it is wrong. It is interpretation. Nothing more. No amount of certainty, smugness or polemic pontification can change that.
 
Mirrorglass said:
Bolding mine.

I think Y-chromosomal DNA can be used for analysis in a similar manner as mitochondrial DNA, and it has been done.
Click to expand...
.
I could be wrong.
Scientists are like that, we know what we know, and we know what we don't know. :)
 
David Henson said:
That is what this is all about, o' dogmatic one. Show me where I was wrong in that quote.
Click to expand...
I follow science, it is you that are dogmatic by trying to make things fit your bible.

As for the quote, if something is wrong, it will be changed when found to be wrong, no matter who wrote it.

As for the bible, you will make it work to what you think it should be no matter if it is right or wrong.

You live in a lie and you don't know your way out.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom