How Archaeology Disproves Noah's Flood

660griz

Senior Member
They get to shake their fist at God. That’s the gist of it,....and enjoy what little prideful happiness that brand of insanity brings.
If you see an atheist, well anyone, shaking his fist at God, insanity is the word I would use as well.
To a man, they are as detached from reality as the one who finds each step he takes up the gallows funny.
That is what we are here to talk about. Debating on who has a better grasp on reality. Well, some of us.
They are truely to be pitied, for this life is the best it will ever get for them.
I am ok with that. Carpe Diem!!
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
No, there comes a line between inerrancy and mistranslated. There's also a misunderstood by the interpreters.

Almost everytime world is mentioned in scripture it doesn't mean the global world.

I'll give you a New Testament example.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Romans 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Colossians 1: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Here we have a prophesy in Matt 24, that Paul declares is fulfilled in Colossians and Roman's. The " world" was their known world, at that time, the Roman empire....And the world " age" was about " melo" to come to an end when Paul was writing .

The old covenant age came to an end in AD70, that was the end they all looked to, for there is no end to come in our age. Ephesians 3:21
 
Thread starter #324
There's a lot more issues than just the translation of world in Genesis. I went through and detailed many of them. Funny how the more we learn about how the world works the more theists have to go back and re-translate and reinterpret their texts away from the traditional understanding to avoid acknowledging the scriptures aren't always true.
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
There's a lot more issues than just the translation of world in Genesis. I went through and detailed many of them. Funny how the more we learn about how the world works the more theists have to go back and re-translate and reinterpret their texts away from the traditional understanding to avoid acknowledging the scriptures aren't always true.
Actually a global flood doctrine is not so traditional. It was originally thought up and made a doctrine by Ellen G White. A false prophetess that founded the 7th day adventist.
 

660griz

Senior Member
Actually a global flood doctrine is not so traditional. It was originally thought up and made a doctrine by Ellen G White.
I know it is not hard to do but, you lost me. Ms. White wrote Genesis? Or, did folks translate Genesis into local flood till Ms. White came along?
 
Thread starter #327
Actually a global flood doctrine is not so traditional. It was originally thought up and made a doctrine by Ellen G White. A false prophetess that founded the 7th day adventist.
Was that before or after Martin Luther wrote this in his commentary on Genesis?


“When therefore in the time of Noah the whole earth had been deluged by the Flood and every living creature except a few souls, bad been utterly destroyed, the age which immediately succeeded that of Noah lived without doubt in the fear of God.”
 
Thread starter #328
This is from John Calvin’s commentary.

And the flood was forty days, etc. Moses copiously insists upon this fact, in order to show that the whole world was immersed in the waters. Moreover, it is to be regarded as the special design of this narrations that we should not ascribe to fortune, the flood by which the world perished; how ever customary it may be for men to cast some veil over the works of God, which may obscure either his goodness or his judgments manifested in them. But seeing it is plainly declared, that whatever was flourishing on the earth was destroyed, we hence infer, that it was an indisputable and signal judgment of God; especially since Noah alone remained secure, because he had embraced, by faith, the word in which salvation was contained. He then recalls to memory what we before have said; namely how desperate had been the impiety, and how enormous the crimes of men, by which God was induced to destroy the whole world; whereas, on account of his great clemency, he would have spared his own workmanship, had he seen that any milder remedy could have been effectually applied. These two things, directly opposed to each other, he connects together; that the whole human race was destroyed, but that Noah and his family safely escaped.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
Noah's flood was a local event. Common sense disproves a global event.
Common sense disproves
When you get through the meat and down to the bone this is at the foundation of a lot of the A/A position on this entire overall subject.
It doesnt seem to work for us when discussing/debating God/gods/Bible/talking donkeys/rainbows etc etc etc
Not sure its going to work for you either ...…
The counter to "common sense disproves" seems to be "you just gotta believe".
 
Thread starter #330
When you get through the meat and down to the bone this is at the foundation of a lot of the A/A position on this entire overall subject.
It doesnt seem to work for us when discussing/debating God/gods/Bible/talking donkeys/rainbows etc etc etc
Not sure its going to work for you either ...…
The counter to "common sense disproves" seems to be "you just gotta believe".
Why the appeal to common sense rather than scripture?
 

ambush80

Senior Member
Why the appeal to common sense rather than scripture?
Most of the believers I know, who are in general critical thinkers, and want their worldview to be consistent with reality, almost always speak of Biblical miracles as metaphors. Jordan Peterson is the epitome of this. We should encourage all of them to move towards this way of thinking
 
Thread starter #332
Most of the believers I know, who are in general critical thinkers, and want their worldview to be consistent with reality, almost always speak of Biblical miracles as metaphors. Jordan Peterson is the epitome of this. We should encourage all of them to move towards this way of thinking
Yeah it would be great if they were the norm among believers. Then we could finally get past these claims of biblical inerrancy.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
Most of the believers I know, who are in general critical thinkers, and want their worldview to be consistent with reality, almost always speak of Biblical miracles as metaphors. Jordan Peterson is the epitome of this. We should encourage all of them to move towards this way of thinking
We should encourage all of them to move towards this way of thinking
I really question whether that is a realistic expectation/goal.
In my opinion, the (not sure what word to use here) mystery? miracle? attraction? is a necessary part of belief/faith. Truly critical thinking would lead to dismissing 3/4 of the Bible. Can a believer dismiss most of the Bible as metaphor and still believe in an omni everything God? How far could a believer take it? All the way to God and his supposed attributes are just a metaphor for "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences"?
 

ambush80

Senior Member
Yeah it would be great if they were the norm among believers. Then we could finally get past these claims of biblical inerrancy.
It's moving in that direction. They should be lauded and encouraged to try to reform others.

I really question whether that is a realistic expectation/goal.
In my opinion, the (not sure what word to use here) mystery? miracle? attraction? is a necessary part of belief/faith. Truly critical thinking would lead to dismissing 3/4 of the Bible. Can a believer dismiss most of the Bible as metaphor and still believe in an omni everything God? How far could a believer take it? All the way to God and his supposed attributes are just a metaphor for "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences"?
I think it's not only realistic but inevitable. I do all I can to accelerate the transition. One can have all the mystery, miracle, and attraction without having to sacrifice being honest about science and reality. You don't have to dismiss the stories. You just re-interpret them. You might enjoy listening to Jordan Peterson. He eloquently talks about the value of ancient stories and never needs to advance superstition or anti scientific ideas. Peterson extracts the message "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences" without having to appeal to the supernatural or make false claims about reality.
 

ambush80

Senior Member
Believers often say that the way that the Bible stories were told was so that ancient people could understand them without the knowledge we have to day. If there are truths about the nature of humanity, then they should be applicable to modern people who know that bats aren't birds. They should apply to people who recognize that a world wide flood is impossible.
 
Thread starter #336
I really question whether that is a realistic expectation/goal.
In my opinion, the (not sure what word to use here) mystery? miracle? attraction? is a necessary part of belief/faith. Truly critical thinking would lead to dismissing 3/4 of the Bible. Can a believer dismiss most of the Bible as metaphor and still believe in an omni everything God? How far could a believer take it? All the way to God and his supposed attributes are just a metaphor for "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences"?
It would be one thing if someone said "Yeah common sense tells us that didn't happen. The bible got that wrong." It's another thing when we get the "what the bible really meant to say" game.
 
Thread starter #337
It's moving in that direction. They should be lauded and encouraged to try to reform others.



I think it's not only realistic but inevitable. I do all I can to accelerate the transition. One can have all the mystery, miracle, and attraction without having to sacrifice being honest about science and reality. You don't have to dismiss the stories. You just re-interpret them. You might enjoy listening to Jordan Peterson. He eloquently talks about the value of ancient stories and never needs to advance superstition or anti scientific ideas. Peterson extracts the message "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences" without having to appeal to the supernatural or make false claims about reality.
Saying the Genesis flood account wasn't a world wide flood isn't a re-interpretation. It's a rewriting.
 
I really question whether that is a realistic expectation/goal.
In my opinion, the (not sure what word to use here) mystery? miracle? attraction? is a necessary part of belief/faith. Truly critical thinking would lead to dismissing 3/4 of the Bible. Can a believer dismiss most of the Bible as metaphor and still believe in an omni everything God? How far could a believer take it? All the way to God and his supposed attributes are just a metaphor for "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences"?
When I set out to back up the writings in the bible with facts,and instead had to admit it was 3/4 worth of dismissal of facts in favor of suspending rational and logical thought...It turned me into another direction completely that I initially fought.
I truly believe that most do not want to even tempt their faith like that.
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
This is from John Calvin’s commentary.
I'm not much on John Calvin, and I mischaracterized Ellen Whites theology. She actually created the young earth theory, in which she uses a global flood to explain the extinction of dinosaurs , and geological formations .
Sorry about getting that confused, it's been a while since I've looked into that exact study.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
Saying the Genesis flood account wasn't a world wide flood isn't a re-interpretation. It's a rewriting.
Not if you understand they didnt even know the world beyond their region. If their region was flooded, it was the entire world to them.
 
Top