Part of my point is that the questions aren’t relevant for every position, because they are historical questions, not literary-theological ones. So the when/where Qs would receive “I don’t know,” and the why Qs would receive “because of the theological symbolism and inherent polemics.”
I couldn’t disagree more, but what more can be said? The evidence for a global flood is all around us, staring us all in the face. It’s impossible to explain our world’s geography and surface features without one.
Based on the Bible timeline, roughly 4000 years ago.
Ask any geologist here. Is it really reasonable to believe there was a local flood in Mesopotamia that killed huge numbers of people, and which covered all the highest mountains, as the Bible says?
You’re cherry picking both the Bible AND secular science when you attempt to promote this.
The local view reduces us to shrugging and guesses. The global view makes perfect sense of these very basic questions.
Why did God create Adam and Eve with the capability to sin when it would require the sacrificial death of Jesus?
Easy. Because God wants us to be real friends to him, and his ‘Bride’- not just robots incapable of disobeying.
Why did God punish the serpent when it was Satan that tempted Adam and Eve?
This question is based upon a false premise. The Bible teaches that the serpent was Satan. They were one and the same.
Probably because working by the sweat of their brows was part of the curse, and even without the Tree life would probably have been a lot easier in the Garden where they could just pick lots of fruit, etc. But I’ll admit this is the most mysterious of your list of questions.
I don’t find the “Why did” questions reasonable arguments against the possibility of a local flood, but I’ll at least share my guesses.
They are reasonable because they demonstrate the ridiculousness of the whole scenario, given that interpretation. If one interpretation gives us a comprehensible motive, while the other interpretation comes out strange and seemingly silly, then all other things being equal, we have a strong reason to prefer the comprehensible view.
My guess is Noah needed an ark because of the extent of the flood
Not when God gives Noah plenty of advance notice (120 years in fact). He easily could have walked away from the danger.
because God wanted to show what could be done when people choose to follow His instructions.
Building an ark? Nowhere in the text do we get any kind of idea that people of that time didn’t think an ark could be built. How do you think Noah learned how to build ships in the first place? The text seems to imply God just took it for granted that Noah would have this ability. God seemingly only gave him the specs for it.
My guess is that animals were sent to the ark to display God’s dominion
This is incomprehensible to me. How does placing animals on an (unnecessary) ark display God’s dominion? It makes God look silly, actually.
possibly even help restore life to the affected area.
The world has had many countless local floods over the centuries, and not once has an ark ever been needed to restore animal life afterwards. Thats because the birds can fly and the other animals can walk. Even if a few do die, other neighboring populations can always come in and refill the area afterwards.
Then find some evidence that is not hotly contested.
2 Likes
Question about bias. Do you really think that if the Nippur tablet had been in the form of another fable like the Epic of G that anyone would have questioned the date immediately?
The reason that scholars predisposed against the Bible must always seek to discredit the Nippur tablet is because it reads like a news article, just like the biblical text does. It is immediately credible sounding in every way.
You’ll be surprised at how well the Earth Sciences explain our world’s geography and surface features without requiring a global flood. But since I doubt you have ever bothered to educate yourself about these sciences you wouldn’t know about that.
7 Likes
Unsupported empty rhetoric as normal. There are a huge number of geologic features impossible to form in a one-year one-time flood. Things like angular unconformities which we’ve discussed here many times before and for which you have no Flood explanation. In fact it was the famous angular unconformity as Siccar Point, Scotland which convinced Christian geologists a young Earth and Noah’s Flood were impossible over 240 years ago.
Should I repost all that evidence again and watch you ignore it one more time?
4 Likes
Your science denial is well-known here, Paul. So is your assumption that the thousands of experts in their respective fields accept the evidence they do only because of some atheistic, and completely erroneous, premises.
Absolutely.
The highest mountains in the area? Possibly. It depends on the area described.
Great observation, Paul. Now what if the entire planet were covered with water for months on end? What would restore populations then?
4 Likes
Look in a mirror.
1 Like
Oh by the way, I believe it is now common knowledge that archaeology has confirmed that monotheism predates polytheism.
So, just based on that fact alone, we - without being scholars of ancient tablets - can justifiably make the unbiased judgment today that the Nippur tablet must predate the Epic of Gilgamesh fable.
You said that about natural arches, and were shown wrong. There’s no reason to think you aren’t equally wrong about the other geographical features - especially since you haven’t bother to name any.
(We need an elephant-hurling emoji)
2 Likes
According to you. I actually supported it with multiple sources. Three, as I now count. You have nothing but scoffing to offer, as usual.
Non-sequitur.
Completely false. If I found a book written by Billy Graham I wouldn’t date the book to 2,500 BC simply because monotheism predates polytheism.
Yes, you’re a great “de-escalator”, aren’t you? This is typical of why legitimate dialogue on these topics is nearly impossible. Anybody who disagrees with the Party Line is labeled a denier. That includes of course PhD scientists who dare to buck the consensus.
Well in that vein you are clearly a Bible-denier. I noticed you chose to respond very selectively to my points, ignoring many of them. Why might that be?
You say you doubt the Flood killed everyone. The Bible couldn’t possibly be any more clear that it did. When’s the last time you read it?
The highest mountains in the area? Possibly. It depends on the area described.
Scientifically, how can a Flood cover all the mountains of only a local area? The whole area would have to be in a giant basin or valley for this idea to work. But that doesn’t match the geography of Mesopotamia, does it? How would the Ark come to rest anywhere near the mountains of Ararat? It couldn’t possibly.
Great observation, Paul. Now what if the entire planet were covered with water for months on end? What would restore populations then?
This is the whole point. That was why God needed Noah to preserve the kinds on the Ark.
Every time you’ve tried to engage on that evidence, you’ve been shown to be seriously mistaken. Flood geology is transparently silly. But feel free to try again.
Of course not. There’s no evidence of any such thing, just as there’s no evidence of the supposed worldwide flood. The evidence is in fact similar.
Not unless “the highest mountains” refers to a small pile of dirt a few feet tall. If you’re willing to do that much damage to the text, why have a flood at all?
1 Like
I didn’t choose this title, although it is something I typically try to carry out. It is also completely irrelevant to the conversation.
This statement is a flat lie.
I should have known better to reply in the first place, but I’m done responding with you on this thread because there is virtually zero chance of anything productive coming from it.
4 Likes
This is a point worth considering, but I think it is possible that some hyperbolic language was used - along the lines of view #5 in what @deuteroKJ posted earlier.
So it was just a regular flood, and it didn’t cover any mountains or even big hills? In that case it seems like a lot of excitement over nothing.
Not what I said - I think it was something cataclysmic over a large portion of Mesopotamia. Were large hills covered? I think probably so. Were entire mountains covered? I don’t know.
Probably? The text is clear. Your inability to be clear is proof that your authority is not the text.