Crazy Bible Stories

[Keith&Co.]

There'd be NO rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded...when the waters receded gradually (as its written) after 150 days! More than enough time!

Cite?
I don't really care from what. Study done by cops, or 'rule of thumb' stories from crime-scene sleanup crews, stories from body farms, earthquake clearing crews, mud-slide veteran forest rangers... How do you know that there won't be a smell after 150 days?
Will it be different between, say, drowned rats and drowned camels?
I've found long-dead animals and they stink to high firmament. But i never actually studied how long after death they still stankified.
This assertion interests me, can you back it up?

 

[atrib]

Enormous shovel iinteresting ... a large volume of water can move a large volume of earth in a big tsunami sort of way. They can wash away foundations beneath large things that once stood upon them. Besides - small floods in comparison to The Flood, move houses and uproot trees down newly formed rivers or streams. Things (some) can get buried when water recedes . Park your cars up hills I say before they float away.

Can you respond to something I had asked you yesterday? Why is there no evidence in the geological column for the Biblical flood? Why is there no evidence for a extreme population bottleneck in the genomes of all living things, a bottleneck that would have necessarily resulted from the Biblical flood? Remember that this flood allegedly happened just a few thousand years ago. Stop fucking around building smokescreens and answer these questions.

 

[skepticalbip]

answersingenesis.org I don't vist that site but now that you brought it up, I am eager and willing to learn new things or perspectives.

I would suggest that you read the actual Bible first. You don't seem to have done so yet. Once you have read the Bible then you can be aware of the passages that those on that website ignore.

Well I wouldn't be a preacher preaching with a learner staus so to speak but I think even though I am a light-weight , I do funny enough seem to high-light errors in your biblical interpretation. Perhaps I'm "wrong" and you can give bible lessons to people like me.

That is rather snide. I only suggested that you read the Bible so you can know what it says. Your posts indicate that you haven't actually read anything more than maybe some excerpts. You seem to be constantly surprised when anyone points out what it actually says.

 

[atrib]

Well the most obvious is ... bible-sense is not fathomable in the modern world even if it were to be true. The "best explanation" (within fathomable) is what you mean of course.

Not really. The global flood is completely indefendable.

Times change and I've seen datings of findings move about, to fit various other elements which would be contradicting otherwise. Whale bones found way up in the mountains, means moving the age of the whale bones back to match the estimated age of the mountain to when it arose for example. Or IIRC the theory they shifted up those mountains after a considerable time by earth rumbles and tremors or earth / plates shifting. Perhaps its acceptable that both happened and there are two defenders of these ideas.

Oh my fucking god! Not this old nonsense again. Do you know how mountains are formed? Do you know how scientists date rock formations? You keep embarrassing yourself every fucking time you post. I know 10 year old children who know more about the natural world than you do. Really!

 

[James Brown]

Most? What says most came from the Waters Below? It says the fountains of the deep opened up AND the windows in the firmament were opened. Doesn't say how much came from which, far as i know.
Where do you find support for your claim, here? God of the gaps, noted.

The firmament I don't yet know the explanation being an unfathomable. So one out of many humdreds, so to speak, is fine, I'm sure you'll accept I don't know everything in the bible.

And this, then, is why i call your stance based on bullshit.
The book is very clear that the firmament is a solid dome.
The Earth is lke an inside-out snow-globe, a bubble of air that has a flat bottom (the Water Below) and a dome keeping the water out above. Except when God wants rain, and opens the windows in the firmament, to let water fall through.
But you know that's not accurate to the real world. So you edit scripture as necessary, making parts literal when you think you can get away with it, and allegory when you're forced to, so that the Bble doesn't egregiously violate reality as you accept it.

Absolutely... If it says that and that I am sure thats what it means, then I must believe in the bible, even though it is unfathomable an contradictary to what I used to think of the world. I would have to either trust in God's word or not and trust Jesus validating the OT.

That's a curious stance. What assurances do you have that the author of Genesis got the details of the Flood exactly correct?

 

[atrib]

Yes, we have found that there isn't a firmament (a large, solid dome) above the Earth separating the 'waters above' from the Earth below. Because of this we find it unlikely that the non-existent firmament opened to flood the Earth with the non-existent water it was separating from the Earth. We have also found that the Earth isn't floating on the large sea of the 'waters below'. This makes it unlikely that the non-existent 'waters below' washed over the Earth either.

Well you again didn't read the bible, most of the water came from under not from the sky. There is no drill deep enough to tell you everything of whats down there.

We know whats under the ground. We really do. At the ground surface you typically find recent deposits of soil going back about 10,000 to 100,000 years. As you get deeper, you get into material that is much older, millions and even hundreds of millions of years old. This older material has either been lithified, or is in the process of being lithified. Below the crust you get into the mantle and the core, where the rock is molten and can flow because of the extreme temperatures and pressures at these depths. Which is why the earth generates its own magnetic field. And we don't need to drill into the molten core, we can use seismic waves to create detailed maps of the core.

So explain where this enormous volume of water came from. Show us the geological publications that list where these water deposits are hidden away, and the analyses that shows the amount of water needed. Explain the mechanics of how this water rose to the surface and inundated the planet.

 

[Learner]

Well I wouldn't be a preacher preaching with a learner staus so to speak but I think even though I am a light-weight , I do funny enough seem to high-light errors in your biblical interpretation. Perhaps I'm "wrong" and you can give bible lessons to people like me.

That is rather snide. I only suggested that you read the Bible so you can know what it says. Your posts indicate that you haven't actually read anything more than maybe some excerpts. You seem to be constantly surprised when anyone points out what it actually says.

Apologies scept.. I take that back. Your suggestion noted.


later

 

[ideologyhunter]

Goddamn!! The faith community never disappoints, does it? Now I'm craving an exegesis of the striped goats lalapalooza (actually it was a straight-up scam from Jacob) in Gen. 30. And does anyone doubt that, if Humpty Dumpty was a character in Judges, there'd be a conservative Christian enterprise in proving his existence? ("Clearly an antecedent of the elephant bird...eggs with agency and personality are proof that God invested us with a soul...the wall he fell from is clearly the temple, and his breaking into pieces that all the king's -- that is, the Roman emperor's -- men could not reassemble is God's metaphor for the destruction of the temple. Humpty Dumpty will not be restored until Lord Jesus returns to gather the faithful, judge the wicked, and glue a talking egg back together.")

 

[atrib]

Most? What says most came from the Waters Below? It says the fountains of the deep opened up AND the windows in the firmament were opened. Doesn't say how much came from which, far as i know.
Where do you find support for your claim, here? God of the gaps, noted.

The firmament I don't yet know the explanation being an unfathomable. So one out of many humdreds, so to speak, is fine, I'm sure you'll accept I don't know everything in the bible.

And this, then, is why i call your stance based on bullshit.
The book is very clear that the firmament is a solid dome.
The Earth is lke an inside-out snow-globe, a bubble of air that has a flat bottom (the Water Below) and a dome keeping the water out above. Except when God wants rain, and opens the windows in the firmament, to let water fall through.
But you know that's not accurate to the real world. So you edit scripture as necessary, making parts literal when you think you can get away with it, and allegory when you're forced to, so that the Bble doesn't egregiously violate reality as you accept it.

Absolutely... If it says that and that I am sure thats what it means, then I must believe in the bible, even though it is unfathomable an contradictary to what I used to think of the world. I would have to either trust in God's word or not and trust Jesus validating the OT.

How do you know it is God's word you are reading in the OT and the NT?
Why must the Bible be believed? Why reject objective, verifiable facts about the natural world in favor of the Bible? Especially when the Bible is so clearly and obviously wrong when it comes to so many things.

 

[Learner]

Absolutely... If it says that and that I am sure thats what it means, then I must believe in the bible, even though it is unfathomable an contradictary to what I used to think of the world. I would have to either trust in God's word or not and trust Jesus validating the OT.

That's a curious stance. What assurances do you have that the author of Genesis got the details of the Flood exactly correct?

A big flood IS a big flood in any language and bible version. But precise particular details, well that is still an area under study obviously- alongside new findings for example in archeology.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, completely different question.
You HAVE to believe what's in the Bible because it's what the Bible says is true.
How do you know that what the Bible says is the truth?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well the most obvious is ... bible-sense is not fathomable in the modern world even if it were to be true.

That only works if events happened but the results of said events were modified for nonsensical reasons to make it appear that something else happened.

The "best explanation" (within fathomable) is what you mean of course.

No, not really.

Not really. The global flood is completely indefendable.

Times change and I've seen datings of findings move about, to fit various other elements which would be contradicting otherwise. Whale bones found way up in the mountains...

Are you seriously going to make that argument?

...means moving the age of the whale bones back to match the estimated age of the mountain to when it arose for example.

So you say.

Or IIRC the theory they shifted up those mountains after a considerable time by earth rumbles and tremors or earth / plates shifting. Perhaps its acceptable that both happened and there are two defenders of these ideas.

So this is evidence of a global flood because...?

 

[Learner]

There'd be NO rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded...when the waters receded gradually (as its written) after 150 days! More than enough time!

Cite?
I don't really care from what. Study done by cops, or 'rule of thumb' stories from crime-scene sleanup crews, stories from body farms, earthquake clearing crews, mud-slide veteran forest rangers... How do you know that there won't be a smell after 150 days?
Will it be different between, say, drowned rats and drowned camels?
I've found long-dead animals and they stink to high firmament. But i never actually studied how long after death they still stankified.
This assertion interests me, can you back it up?

I chose to live abroad on a small little island near the Philipines over 20 years ago, on way to Aussie and of all the times to choose (sods law or murphy's law as you call it), I chose the time when it was hit by a hurricane, I've been in two. The produce and animals that where killed half sticking out of the swampy-like area seems to have decomposed easily in water than animals I've seen decaying in the bush. The salt water destroyed all the green things. I recalled an experience to make the suggestion - not an assertion from guessing or making things up!

In a big flood theres lots of fish food, not forgetting , and I suppose the scavengers at the bottom of the sea among other sea-creatures had many feasts during the first ffew months.

 

[James Brown]

Absolutely... If it says that and that I am sure thats what it means, then I must believe in the bible, even though it is unfathomable an contradictary to what I used to think of the world. I would have to either trust in God's word or not and trust Jesus validating the OT.

That's a curious stance. What assurances do you have that the author of Genesis got the details of the Flood exactly correct?

A big flood IS a big flood in any language and bible version. But precise particular details, well that is still an area under study obviously- alongside new findings for example in archeology.

But new findings have been demonstrating that there was no global flood within the last 5,000 years. And by "new findings" I refer to archaeological and scientific discoveries over the last two hundred years. Why do you still believe the contrary?

I used to be a Young-Earth Creationist, and I know why I stubbornly held on to my belief in a Global Flood for so long. But I'm curious what your reasoning is.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There'd be NO rotting plant material and carcasses when the flood receded...when the waters receded gradually (as its written) after 150 days! More than enough time!

Cite?
I don't really care from what. Study done by cops, or 'rule of thumb' stories from crime-scene sleanup crews, stories from body farms, earthquake clearing crews, mud-slide veteran forest rangers... How do you know that there won't be a smell after 150 days?
Will it be different between, say, drowned rats and drowned camels?
I've found long-dead animals and they stink to high firmament. But i never actually studied how long after death they still stankified.
This assertion interests me, can you back it up?

I chose to live abroad on a small little island near the Philipines over 20 years ago, on way to Aussie and of all the times to choose, I chose the time when it was hit by a hurricane, I been in two. The produce and animals that where killed half sticking out of the swampy-like area seems to have decomposed easily in water than animals I've seen in the bush. I recalled an experience not an assertion from guessing!

Well, if you didn't mention the experience, it was just an assertion.
And if you have this experience, why was your first response to try to bury all the animals under layers upon layers of silt?

 

[Learner]

A big flood IS a big flood in any language and bible version. But precise particular details, well that is still an area under study obviously- alongside new findings for example in archeology.

But new findings have been demonstrating that there was no global flood within the last 5,000 years. And by "new findings" I refer to archaeological and scientific discoveries over the last two hundred years. Why do you still believe the contrary?

I used to be a Young-Earth Creationist, and I know why I stubbornly held on to my belief in a Global Flood for so long. But I'm curious what your reasoning is.

As our poster friend quite rightly pointed out about rejecting or not rejecting parts of the bible. Simply ... I became Christian from other areas of the bible not the flood. I accept it as truth! The Details I am learning more.

(BB later ... Not avoiding you atrib... bear with me.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A big flood IS a big flood in any language and bible version. But precise particular details, well that is still an area under study obviously- alongside new findings for example in archeology.

But new findings have been demonstrating that there was no global flood within the last 5,000 years. And by "new findings" I refer to archaeological and scientific discoveries over the last two hundred years. Why do you still believe the contrary?

I used to be a Young-Earth Creationist, and I know why I stubbornly held on to my belief in a Global Flood for so long. But I'm curious what your reasoning is.

As our poster friend quite rightly pointed out about rejecting or not rejecting parts of the bible. Simply ... I became Christian from other areas of the bible not the flood. I accept it as truth! The Details I am learning more.

Talk about intellectually dishonest responses.

It's all true, I just haven't gotten to that part yet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a big flood theres lots of fish food, not forgetting , and I suppose the scavengers at the bottom of the sea among other sea-creatures had many feasts during the first ffew months.

While the "food" is being buried in sediments?

 

[Learner]

As our poster friend quite rightly pointed out about rejecting or not rejecting parts of the bible. Simply ... I became Christian from other areas of the bible not the flood. I accept it as truth! The Details I am learning more.

Talk about intellectually dishonest responses.

It's all true, I just haven't gotten to that part yet.

I can defend/ or argue the faith with what I currently have available whilst still learning.

 

[Learner]

In a big flood theres lots of fish food, not forgetting , and I suppose the scavengers at the bottom of the sea among other sea-creatures had many feasts during the first ffew months.

While the "food" is being buried in sediments?

More bones than flesh I would assume - perhaps tastier and easier to digest than bones.