• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

When Literalists have to literally lie to sell their literal truth (AKA Adventures in Ark-itecture)

Well, you said that as a Christain, you have to believe the Flood story.
That's not true, for you or for all Christains.
Ok , I take the book to be truthful even if the literal interpretation is not clear ,but of course not being clear has many variable angles.

Plenty of Christains accept the theory of evolution and the associated timeline, and just accept Genesis as an allegory. It's not crucial to their faith, so it's not an 'of course' association.

I'm glad you brought that up and yes you are right. I am one of those that believes that evolution doesn't contradict creation.
 
I'm a Christian 'because of Jesus' not the old traditional law. I follow Jesus who is not a proponent for an 'eye for an eye, stoning your kids for mouthing, or the like." Simple!

So in your personal version of Christianity, Jesus is not the god who did the flood, plagues, fire and brimstone, Pharoah's army?
You mean him as the 'Word' in my version ? Could be.
:thinking:
 
You may accept and obey all the Biblical laws (even though you may not like them) but if law enforcement ever learn that you killed your children because they were disrespectful then you would be in a heap of trouble here on Earth even though you may believe you will be rewarded in heaven.

Personally, I know of no Christians (though there may be some) who follow all Biblical laws. I know of none who have sacrificed rams or any who have any qualms of worshiping in a church although the Bible requires sacrifice and directs followers to not build places of worship but instead to worship in open fields with a natural rock as an alter. There are hundreds of other laws not followed by Christians. Do you believe that there is hell in their future for ignoring and even condemning so many Biblical laws?

They would only need to follow these;

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments," (Matt 22:36-40,).
 
I'm a Christian 'because of Jesus' not the old traditional law. I follow Jesus who is not a proponent for an 'eye for an eye, stoning your kids for mouthing, or the like." Simple!
Would this be the same Jesus who said he came to uphold the Law? Every jot and tittle?
 
You may accept and obey all the Biblical laws (even though you may not like them) but if law enforcement ever learn that you killed your children because they were disrespectful then you would be in a heap of trouble here on Earth even though you may believe you will be rewarded in heaven.

Personally, I know of no Christians (though there may be some) who follow all Biblical laws. I know of none who have sacrificed rams or any who have any qualms of worshiping in a church although the Bible requires sacrifice and directs followers to not build places of worship but instead to worship in open fields with a natural rock as an alter. There are hundreds of other laws not followed by Christians. Do you believe that there is hell in their future for ignoring and even condemning so many Biblical laws?

They would only need to follow these;

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments," (Matt 22:36-40,).
If they only need to 'follow' that then why bother with the rest of the Bible? What's the point?
 
You may accept and obey all the Biblical laws (even though you may not like them) but if law enforcement ever learn that you killed your children because they were disrespectful then you would be in a heap of trouble here on Earth even though you may believe you will be rewarded in heaven. They could well love their children while they were stoning them.

Personally, I know of no Christians (though there may be some) who follow all Biblical laws. I know of none who have sacrificed rams or any who have any qualms of worshiping in a church although the Bible requires sacrifice and directs followers to not build places of worship but instead to worship in open fields with a natural rock as an alter. There are hundreds of other laws not followed by Christians. Do you believe that there is hell in their future for ignoring and even condemning so many Biblical laws?

They would only need to follow these;

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments," (Matt 22:36-40,).

You seem to be missing the point (maybe intentionally?). The discussion was about taking the Bible literally. The Bible claims that god gave those laws that today we find to be heinous. Is the Bible wrong or did god really give those laws? If god did give those laws then anyone who "loves the lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." would feel compelled to obey them.

Reality is that religious thought is fluid, changing with changes in social norms. It seems that believers who claim that everything in the Bible is true is just lying to themselves, have never actually carefully read the Bible, or they are intentionally disobeying their god.
 
Just a thought as we dog pile upon Learner, it is fairly mundane and dominant tradition within Christian theology that Jesus fulfilled the law with his death/resurrection. Therefore, the old legalistic system was replaced with the new teachings. Not that the history and teaching of old were tossed into the trash, but had to be considered in light of the good news. One may find it silly, convoluted, contradictory, but the doctrine is out there.

I would also say it is more complicated than just following Jesus 2 commandments...though it might be better that way.
 
I'm a Christian 'because of Jesus' not the old traditional law. I follow Jesus who is not a proponent for an 'eye for an eye, stoning your kids for mouthing, or the like." Simple!

So in your personal version of Christianity, Jesus is not the god who did the flood, plagues, fire and brimstone, Pharoah's army?

I don't see any contradiction between the will of God and Jesus.
Why would Jesus disagree with God punishing evil?

Jesus CERTANLY is entitled to disagree with the way humans try to punish each other and the way we twist God's Word so as to justify the 'floods' and the 'plagues' we inflict on our enemies.
 
I'm a Christian 'because of Jesus' not the old traditional law. I follow Jesus who is not a proponent for an 'eye for an eye, stoning your kids for mouthing, or the like." Simple!
Would this be the same Jesus who said he came to uphold the Law? Every jot and tittle?

And the same one who said ( Matthew 10:34-38)

34Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: 36and a man's foes'shall be they of his own household.
37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.
 
I don't get what you mean when you say that you accept it but don't like it. Do you mean that you consider it to be a good thing (since it's the command of God) but you're not happy that it's a good thing? Stoning your kids to death for mouthing off to you is like eating your vegetables? You accept that they're healthy and part of a balanced diet but you don't like the taste and wish you could get the same vitamins and nutrients from potato chips and chocolate?

I'm not trying to sound dickish with that question, but that's how I read your response and I'm wondering if I understood you correctly.

I'm a Christian 'because of Jesus' not the old traditional law. I follow Jesus who is not a proponent for an 'eye for an eye, stoning your kids for mouthing, or the like." Simple!

How is Jesus not a proponent of that? He specifically said that he was for the entirety of the laws in the OT. Also, you've just finished arguing that because something is in the Bible, you have to get behind it and now you're saying that, as a Christian, you're good with ignoring huge swaths of the Bible because you disagree with what those passages say.

Why is the veracity of the Flood more plausible to you then the veracity of a god who wants an eye for an eye or is in favour of stoning children, when they both come from the same reference?
 
How is Jesus not a proponent of that? He specifically said that he was for the entirety of the laws in the OT.
Not quite, and funinspace already explained it.

Jesus said to not stone harlots like the old law instructs, to not worry that it’s the sabbath if your lamb might fall in a ditch, to NOT take an eye for an eye.

If you’re going to make a display why strict literalism can’t be held consistently, then don’t do it by cherry-picking which tidbits serve your point.
 
How is Jesus not a proponent of that? He specifically said that he was for the entirety of the laws in the OT.
Not quite, and funinspace already explained it.

Jesus said to not stone harlots like the old law instructs, to not worry that it’s the sabbath if your lamb might fall in a ditch, to NOT take an eye for an eye.

If you’re going to make a display why strict literalism can’t be held consistently, then don’t do it by cherry-picking which tidbits serve your point.

Fair enough. My main point was that for a guy who said two pages ago that he felt obligated to believe in the Flood because the Bible talked about it so, as a Christian, he had to accept it to then immediately turn around and essentially say "Well, duh, obviously we can ignore that part of the Bible" strikes me as an odd position.
 
I agree with Learner that the (Christian) biblical theist does need to believe the historicity of the Flood because if not, cannonical exegesis and theology starts to...

2v81hr7.jpg
 
I agree with Learner that the (Christian) biblical theist does need to believe the historicity of the Flood because if not, cannonical exegesis and theology starts to...

View attachment 8124

Right. Sorta like the Republicans needed to believe that Nixon wasn't a crook or his administration would start to unravel.
 
Fair enough. My main point was that for a guy who said two pages ago that he felt obligated to believe in the Flood because the Bible talked about it so, as a Christian, he had to accept it to then immediately turn around and essentially say "Well, duh, obviously we can ignore that part of the Bible" strikes me as an odd position.

What is odd is that you think I said ignore that part or those parts. At least the point I was trying to make is understood , much obliged to members pointing this out. I wasn't very good explaining to be fair.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be missing the point (maybe intentionally?). The discussion was about taking the Bible literally. The Bible claims that god gave those laws that today we find to be heinous. Is the Bible wrong or did god really give those laws? If god did give those laws then anyone who "loves the lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." would feel compelled to obey them.

Going back to the days of Noah who had a covenant with God even . His descendants kept breaking them while turning their backs on God they were doing those henious things and of course the outcomes/punishments were relatively equal in measure.

Genesis 9.

5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6
“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.


The covenant with Noah is 'prior' to all the later laws. The Mosaic laws - more covenants - came into existence after yet more corrupt henious things which took place which in equalling measure increased with more disastrious outcomes.


It does seem like imo; it is then really up to us.;' It has always been in our hands after all!'. (freewill again) A law unto ourselves and incredibly the notion of accountibilty is understood well today as it was for Noah many eons ago.

There can't be any more covenants. Jesus is the last hope!
 
Last edited:
Ussher aside...

Lion, are you suggesting that Noah and his family didn't build the ark themselves, but employed contractors? If Noah and his family built it, then, ipso facto the knowledge needed to build it would have survived. If it didn't, then the people who built these complex systems would have been among the drowned. So we have a case of Noah hiring people to build his boat, knowing that they'd drown. Did he chortle when he paid them? DID he even pay them? "Yeah Eshebenibal, you can count on the payment next week, heh heh heh."

Also, I will note that we have archaelogical traces of civilizations that are older than the dates given for the flood, and they showed no such technological advancement. Also, I must point out that if the flood took place so soon after creation, technology would have had to progress many times faster between creation and the flood than it has since. (which chronology are we using? The accuracy of this statement depends on it. I think that by chance, Ussher's would have roughly similar rates, simply because he calls for a younger earth than the others)

I don't posit a date of the Flood. Certainly not Ussher's
The Bible seems to be quite clear about the timeline from the Deluge thru the Exodus. FWIW, Genesis provides a similarly clear timeline back to Adam. I am not going into detail on this, as it is not relevant to questions about the claims surrounding the Deluge. Below are portions of the text in question, I include a larger section where it clearly describes the continuum of generations in Ge 11:10-15.

11:10-15 These are the records of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old, and [j]became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood; 11 and Shem lived five hundred years after he became the father of Arpachshad, and he had other sons and daughters. 12 Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah; 13 and Arpachshad lived four hundred and three years after he became the father of Shelah, and he had other sons and daughters. 14 Shelah lived thirty years, and became the father of Eber; 15 and Shelah lived four hundred and three years after he became the father of Eber, and he had other sons and daughters.

Ge:
11:10 This is the account of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old when he became the father of Arphaxad, two years after the flood. And after becoming the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years and had other sons and daughters. (+2)
12 Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah; (+37)
14 Shelah lived thirty years, and became the father of Eber; (+67)
16 Eber lived thirty-four years, and became the father of Peleg (+101)
18 Peleg lived thirty years, and became the father of Reu; (+131)
20 Reu lived thirty-two years, and became the father of Serug; (+163)
22 Serug lived thirty years, and became the father of Nahor; (+193)
24 Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and became the father of Terah; (+222)
25 and Nahor lived one hundred and nineteen years after he became the father of Terah (+341)
26 Terah lived seventy years, and became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. (+431)


21: 5 Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. (+100)
25: 26 Afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau’s heel, so his name was called [r]Jacob; and Isaac was sixty years old when she gave birth to them. (+160)
47: 9 So Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years of my sojourning are one hundred and [j]thirty; few and [k]unpleasant have been the [l]years of my life, nor have they [m]attained the [n]years [o]that my fathers lived during the days of their sojourning.” 10 And Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from [p]his presence. 11 So Joseph [q]settled his father and his brothers and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had ordered. 12 Joseph provided his father and his brothers and all his father’s household with [r]food, according to their little ones. (Jacob enters Egypt - +290)


Ex:1240 Now the time [ah]that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And at the end of four hundred and thirty years, [ai]to the very day, all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. (+430)
Nu 32: 13 So the Lord’s anger burned against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until the entire generation of those who had done evil in the sight of the Lord was destroyed. (+470)

So we have 431 years between the end of the Deluge to the birth of Abram; 290 years between Abram’s birth and Jacob entering Egypt; and the years in Egypt and the wandering at 470. These totals 1,191 years from the Deluge to the invasion of Canaan. One may be able to quibble on a couple decades here or there due to some textual issues, but in the end such quibbling wouldn't really change the timeline issues one iota.


So following the Bible literally, one ends up with the first estimation that's required, when did the 40 years of wandering end and the ‘invasion’ begin. I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of Christian apologetics place the invasion between 1200 and 1400 BCE. Adding the above 1,191 years would provide a range of 2391 – 2591 BCE for the end of the Deluge.
 
How is Jesus not a proponent of that? He specifically said that he was for the entirety of the laws in the OT.
Not quite, and funinspace already explained it.

Jesus said to not stone harlots like the old law instructs, to not worry that it’s the sabbath if your lamb might fall in a ditch, to NOT take an eye for an eye.

If you’re going to make a display why strict literalism can’t be held consistently, then don’t do it by cherry-picking which tidbits serve your point.

In early manuscripts, it was variously added to John or Matthew by later hands from the original writers.
That particular story was a late addition to the Gospels.

Most likely it was not something Jesus did.
 
In what way does not believing in the Ark cause the whole thing to unravel?

Frankly, I find the idea that 'God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son to save it,' incompatable with the idea 'God was so disgusted with the world, he drowned everyone except for eight people.'

And another thing: If the entire human race is descended from Noah, around 4,000 years ago wouldn't there only be one single version of the Y-chromosome? Noah's sons would all have his Y. All other human Y chromosomes would have ceased to exist. There would have been one Y and eight X chromosome versions. You would think that would be a testable way to prove (or disprove) the flood, comparing the diversity of the X and Y chromosomes.

ETA: Currently, the Y Chromosomal common ancestor (commonly called 'Adam') is estimated to have lived between 200,000-300,000 years ago. If the flood story is true, we should call that guy 'Noah' instead.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom