Dating the Flood back 650 years

[Learner]

Nope....the trick is to recognize that unexplained events are by definition 'unexplained' and not try to induce an explanation where no explanation currently exists.

Especially not to interpret unexplained events in terms of your own beliefs.....like Christians seeing signs and wonders through the filter of Christian theology, Hindus through their own faith, this is the work of Shiva, that is attributed to Ganesh....Muslims and their Allah and so on.

That is the work of fixed minds. Seeing the world through the filter of faith.

Nope ...it depends on the historic aspects of scripture etc.. (if you accept or not ) that can turn out to be true ... but I guess you mean appying scripture to a scientific discussion dialogue e.g. God of the gaps.

 

[DBT]

Nope....the trick is to recognize that unexplained events are by definition 'unexplained' and not try to induce an explanation where no explanation currently exists.

Especially not to interpret unexplained events in terms of your own beliefs.....like Christians seeing signs and wonders through the filter of Christian theology, Hindus through their own faith, this is the work of Shiva, that is attributed to Ganesh....Muslims and their Allah and so on.

That is the work of fixed minds. Seeing the world through the filter of faith.

Nope ...it depends on the historic aspects of scripture etc.. (if you accept or not ) that can turn out to be true ... but I guess you mean appying scripture to a scientific discussion dialogue e.g. God of the gaps.

It's how something is determined to be true or false that's the issue. Including probability and likelihood.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think you are misreading DBT. I don't see his mind as "set and fixed" but, on the contrary, is exploring evidence for possible and plausible explanations. A search for these possible and plausible explanations begins with some evidence to explain. An "open mind" that invents scenarios with no evidence as a basis is only constructing fantasies. Now there is nothing wrong with fantasizing... It can even be quite enjoyable. But one should be wise enough to distinguish between their fantasizing and their open attempts to make sense of possible and plausible explanations of evidence. If taken too seriously, accepting an invented fantasy as a reality can have undesired consequences.

Yes, I enjoyed the fantasy of the Star Trek series... but I was never tempted to accept it as reality.

I wasn't talking of "invented" fantasy ( if such "evidence" for invented could be shown regarding the bible). Besides I used to be a trekkie too.

Apparently you are taking the Bible as the source. If so then it must be understood that the bible is a compilation of several different parts. There is the geographical and historical that tells the story of the Israeli tribe. This can be used to locate old cities and understand some of the culture and history of the tribe - but, like all ancient historical documents of the time, it should be understood that the writers exaggerate and glorify. Then there is the parables or fables (similar to the works of Aesop) that are only for offering moral tales, not descriptions of real events. Then there is the descriptions of god's power, commands, deeds, etc. that is drawn from nothing but the minds of the writers (often derived from the imaginative writings of other religions). These make up a comforting fantasy that there is a big daddy who will always take care of the believers.

The trap seems to be that some assume that since the historical parts of the Bible accurately describes the location of cities then everything can be taken as literally true. For example: there is no evidence that should make anyone consider that snakes and donkeys can talk (as the Bible claims) than there is that Aesop's fables indicate that the animals he describes can talk.

ETA:
And then the story of the exodus appears from all available evidence to be in the fable or parable category rather than the history category.

 

[funinspace]

G'day

Well, getting beyond the reality that the earth never noticed a global earth surface covering flood of water in the last 800,000 or so years; or shall we bend the spoon? Nothing, absolutely nothing, supports the notion outside of fairy tales.

Ok, that said...notions of 're-introduced writing systems' is purely and un-evidenced speculation. Secondly, what makes you think Shandi was about monotheism? Of course many think the roots of Yahweh weren't monotheistic either, so then they would have something in common. You might as well ask 'What if Loki is the real God, and he gets his socks off by playing differing gods to differing people over the ages and watching the cacophony?'. That would fit the evidence better than the God-breathed world of the Bible. Nothing suggests the Hebrew theistic roots have any ties to the Chinese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangdi

The earliest references to Shangdi are found in oracle bone inscriptions of the Shang Dynasty in the 2nd millennium BC, although the later work Classic of History claims yearly sacrifices were made to him by Emperor Shun, even before the Xia Dynasty.

Shangdi was regarded as the ultimate spiritual power by the ruling elite of the Huaxia during the Shang dynasty: he was believed to control victory in battle, success or failure of harvests, weather conditions such as the floods of the Yellow River, and the fate of the kingdom. Shangdi seems to have ruled a hierarchy of other gods controlling nature, as well as the spirits of the deceased.

G'day Funinheaven,

Hierachy of gods ,Shang Di still refers to one "ultimate" creator , An "Almighty". Not forgetting, gods (some were angels) plural, is also in the bible, that also states there IS only one "Almighty". An interesting discussion for another time maybe (should there be interest) since the topic of the thread is the Flood.

Uhm...it is almost as if you are suggesting a pantheon (with a lead god) is synonymous with monotheism (ergo the point I was making that they do not share major traits with Chinese origins). Or maybe you see Christianity not so much a pure monotheistic faith, with Yahweh, Jesus, angels all being distinctly differing gods?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One almighty, quite a few names though.

Indeed Mr. Higgins, obviously, more so with various different nations with various languages and dialects.

I was talking about the Book of Genesis.

OMG, who'd ever independently come up with the bad guy archetype?!

Good question.

You understand what an archetype is, right?

 

[Sarpedon]

Zeus was also sometimes referred to as "Almighty." In fact, in my college epic literature class, we compared the depiction of Zeus in the Iliad with Zeus in the Odyssey, with the point that in the later book, he had become more powerful relative to the other gods.

The tendency to go from polytheism to monotheism through strengthening of the principle god is actually quite common.

 

[James Brown]

Zeus was also sometimes referred to as "Almighty." In fact, in my college epic literature class, we compared the depiction of Zeus in the Iliad with Zeus in the Odyssey, with the point that in the later book, he had become more powerful relative to the other gods.

The tendency to go from polytheism to monotheism through strengthening of the principle god is actually quite common.

Seems natural to me. An extension of "My Dad can beat up your Dad" argument into the supernatural realm.

 

[bilby]

Zeus was also sometimes referred to as "Almighty." In fact, in my college epic literature class, we compared the depiction of Zeus in the Iliad with Zeus in the Odyssey, with the point that in the later book, he had become more powerful relative to the other gods.

The tendency to go from polytheism to monotheism through strengthening of the principle god is actually quite common.

Seems natural to me. An extension of "My Dad can beat up your Dad" argument into the supernatural realm.

More of a reflection of the societal trend from collective decisions, to leadership by village elders, to leadership by a villiage chief with advisors, and finally to leadership by an absolute monarch whose word is law.

At each stage, power is consolidated through personal loyalty and faith that the big man will make the best decisions.

 

[Learner]

It's how something is determined to be true or false that's the issue. Including probability and likelihood.

Yep , I agree and not forgetting the pieces of various data discovered "yesterday" that gave some perspective to some ideas, would no doubt alter again (and again) when there is newly discovered data, through continuous vigorous study.

 

[DBT]

It's how something is determined to be true or false that's the issue. Including probability and likelihood.

Yep , I agree and not forgetting the pieces of various data discovered "yesterday" that gave some perspective to some ideas, would no doubt alter again (and again) when there is newly discovered data, through continuous vigorous study.

So how does that relate to the Bible and its stories?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Answers in Genesis, etc, date the Flood to be 2350 BC while the pyramids of Giza are dated at 2550 BC. But it seems that a more Biblical dating of the Flood is actually about 3000 BC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE
This makes the Biblical record seem more reliable though I still believe in an old earth.

Aha... which places it between the downfall of Númenor and the creation of the one ring. Interesting.

Who cares on when wholly fictional events are placed on an imaginary timeline? These are religious myths. Their function is the same, regardless of when in the past they are placed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Zeus was also sometimes referred to as "Almighty." In fact, in my college epic literature class, we compared the depiction of Zeus in the Iliad with Zeus in the Odyssey, with the point that in the later book, he had become more powerful relative to the other gods.

The tendency to go from polytheism to monotheism through strengthening of the principle god is actually quite common.

I think iconography is also important. In Christian iconography God is always painted like Zeus. Still. That never changed. For practical purposes it's the same God

 

[DBT]

Zeus was also sometimes referred to as "Almighty." In fact, in my college epic literature class, we compared the depiction of Zeus in the Iliad with Zeus in the Odyssey, with the point that in the later book, he had become more powerful relative to the other gods.

The tendency to go from polytheism to monotheism through strengthening of the principle god is actually quite common.

I think iconography is also important. In Christian iconography God is always painted like Zeus. Still. That never changed. For practical purposes it's the same God

In what sense do you mean 'the same God?'

 

[skepticalbip]

Zeus was also sometimes referred to as "Almighty." In fact, in my college epic literature class, we compared the depiction of Zeus in the Iliad with Zeus in the Odyssey, with the point that in the later book, he had become more powerful relative to the other gods.

The tendency to go from polytheism to monotheism through strengthening of the principle god is actually quite common.

I think iconography is also important. In Christian iconography God is always painted like Zeus. Still. That never changed. For practical purposes it's the same God

In what sense do you mean 'the same God?'

Good question. "The same god" implies that there is a real extant god that the two cultures identify differently. Maybe a better wording would be that both Zeus and the Christian god are beliefs in gods with very different descriptions but use similar iconography.

 

[DBT]

In what sense do you mean 'the same God?'

Good question. "The same god" implies that there is a real extant god that the two cultures identify differently. Maybe a better wording would be that both Zeus and the Christian god are beliefs in gods with very different descriptions but use similar iconography.

That's quite possible.

 

[skepticalbip]

In what sense do you mean 'the same God?'

Good question. "The same god" implies that there is a real extant god that the two cultures identify differently. Maybe a better wording would be that both Zeus and the Christian god are beliefs in gods with very different descriptions but use similar iconography.

That's quite possible.

Indeed and quite possible because the iconography for each is from the same people in modern times not from those who actually worshipped Zeus or from the early Christians. As I recall the early Greek images of Zeus were generally like a physically fit normal human male and the early Christians considered iconography of their god to be a sin so forbidden.

 

[Gun Nut]

Answers in Genesis, etc, date the Flood to be 2350 BC while the pyramids of Giza are dated at 2550 BC. But it seems that a more Biblical dating of the Flood is actually about 3000 BC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE
This makes the Biblical record seem more reliable though I still believe in an old earth.

In the Lord of the Rings, much of the story takes place walking through the woods. Around where I live, I am surrounded by woods. This makes the Middle-Earth record more reliable though I still believe in the coming of men during the Third Age.