Is the Flood Story True?

by JosephAlward 39 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  pomegranate

  >>Pom,
  My point about the time period is that they would have to have food stored for 330 days.<<

  Tell me how I'm supposed to get THAT from this remark:

  >>>Pomagranite,

  Time perion quoted by you and another person is incorrect. According to the Genesis account, they were in the ark for about 11 months.<<

  By the way, FOOD wasn't even a topic being discussed in this thread. I believe it was water.

  >>Since you are unwilling to make reasonable estimates about the questions I asked, then you can leave it to a whole host of miracles use by God to make it happen.<<

  Where would my estimates leave you?

  >>In short, you should just say that you believe it because it says so, and not bother to even post here.<<

  Ahh, yeah, I won't bother posting here because you tell me too?

  Me no tink so.
• 

  pomegranate

  >>The answer is that there are (at least) two different stories of the flood woven into one seemingly continuous story by an editor who alternated passages from two different authors.<<

  That's Richard Elliot Friedman's hypothesis. A man made opinion that YOU Sir Joseph have put your faith in.

  It is an opinion that you have accepted, not the provable truth because you nor he were there to confirm anything.

  You have as much faith as I do!!
• 

  FreePeace

  Pom,

  Damn, I guess you told me! I am very well aware of what the term "kinds" means. I was not referring to that. I was referring to your interpretation.

  You just don't get it, do you? Here is the bottom line:

  1. According to the Bible, God did not use any supernatural means in building the Ark. Therefore, it is not logical to assume He used any supernatural means to preserve Noah and the animals while on the Ark.

  2. The logistics of 8 people tending to thousands of animals is beyond reason.

  3. The logistics of putting thousands of animals, along with food and water on the Ark is beyond reason.

  4. We could not do today, even with our technology, what Noah supposedly did 5,000 years ago.

  5. Therefore, the whole account does not stand to logical reason.

  6. Therefore, the whole "Noah's Ark thing" is fable; myth; a crock of shit.

  7. Therefore, the Bible as a whole cannot be trusted.

  8. Therefore, the God of the Bible cannot be trusted.

  Any questions? (I hope not. This discussion with you is fruitless.)

  Now, I guess I need to get some sleep. I am having a hard time understanding non-reasoning religionists.

  Thank you very much. Have a nice day.
• 

  JosephAlward

  Pom writes: >>The answer is that there are (at least) two different stories of the flood woven into one seemingly continuous story by an editor who alternated passages from two different authors.<<
  That's Richard Elliot Friedman's hypothesis. A man made opinion that YOU Sir Joseph have put your faith in.

  It is an opinion that you have accepted, not the provable truth because you nor he were there to confirm anything.

  You have as much faith as I do!!
  >>

  I have contempt for those who accept on faith the beliefs and opinions of others on important matters; I don't know if I've ever read anything by, or about Friedman, so I would be shaming myself merely to have adopted without thinking anything Friedman may have said. Even if I have read Friedman's work, I certainly wouldn't accept anything he says on his say-so; I would check the facts for myself, and reach my own conclusions based on my own reasoning. Readers in this forum can check for themselves the validity of my claims about the creation and flood stories being written by at least two individuals; no one has to look farther than the Bible for the evidence; a graduate degree or a background in religious studies is not required to see the truth of what I've claimed. The evidence may be seen on the web pages at http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  Look in the "Genesis" section of the directory for the articles which detail the evidence for the existence of more than one author of the creation and flood stories.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  >>1. According to the Bible, God did not use any supernatural means in building the Ark.<<

  Well, it seems he would have if He communicated the very design of the thing to Noah. I have come to the simple conclusion that everything God does is supernatural. Even dealing with man is supernatural. OK? And yes I get it.

  >>Therefore, it is not logical to assume He used any supernatural means to preserve Noah and the animals while on the Ark.<<

  God is supernatural. The flood is supernatural.

  >>2. The logistics of 8 people tending to thousands of animals is beyond reason.<<

  It's called supernatural. Remember?

  >>3. The logistics of putting thousands of animals, along with food and water on the Ark is beyond reason.<<

  Supernatural. When things go beyond reason, like people being raised from the dead, going 40 days without food and water and everything else that defies nature, would certainly be classified as supernatural. That is God.

  >>4. We could not do today, even with our technology, what Noah supposedly did 5,000 years ago.<<

  So, you wanna be like God? Maybe you should try creating a heavens and earth first. After all, that was the first thing in the Bible that defies logic from God. How do you create something out of nothing???

  >>5. Therefore, the whole account does not stand to logical reason.<<

  With your logic, neither does God.

  >>6. Therefore, the whole "Noah's Ark thing" is fable; myth; a crock of shit.<<

  Yeah, get right down to the sewer words. You have great posting demeanor.

  >>7. Therefore, the Bible as a whole cannot be trusted.<<

  No, you cannot be trusted.

  >>8. Therefore, the God of the Bible cannot be trusted.<<

  See my answer above.

  >>Any questions? (I hope not. This discussion with you is fruitless.)<<

  Why should I ask you questions? You have no answers. Fruitless?? What were you trying to grow here, a new kind of pomegranate?
• 

  pomegranate

  >>I have contempt for those who accept on faith the beliefs and opinions of others on important matters;<<

  You fit that same definition. You put your faith in men, I put mine in God. But I have "contempt" for no man regardless of what they choose to believe. That's where we really differ. What bothers me, is you use the word "contempt" on people. Who the heck are you? You're not a very nice man are you?

  con·tempt (noun)
  
  1. The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.

  2. The state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace.

  >>I don't know if I've ever read anything by, or about Friedman, so I would be shaming myself merely to have adopted without thinking anything Friedman may have said. Even if I have read Friedman's work, I certainly wouldn't accept anything he says on his say-so; I would check the facts for myself, and reach my own conclusions based on my own reasoning.<<

  You most certainly have read his stuff. You are word for wording it.

  By the way, you wanna show everyone here your 1+7+1=9 logic from the Bible verses? I see one pair, then seven pair. Where's the other pair come in? Or is it a phantom pair like your two story theory?
• 

  FreePeace

  Pom,

  Damnit! I've been outdone again!
• 

  Julie

  The issue about the flood that I find so interesting is that supposedly all the animals were herbivores before the flood. Ok, we won't bother to ask why some had serious fangs, claws and talons. For some mysterious reason, after the flood, biblegod decrees that now many animals are carnivores. Um, what? So now that there are only two (or seven???) of each kind of animal they can hunt, kill and eat each other? Why would they become carnivores by design only after there are supposedly so few of them? Wouldn't pretty much all of them but the highest on the food chain be extinct in a very short time? That sounds so absurd to me. Yet those who believe such things consider those who do not to be "unenlightened". What up with that?

  Julie
• 

  JosephAlward

  >>By the way, you wanna show everyone here your 1+7+1=9 logic from the Bible verses? I see one pair, then seven pair. Where's the other pair come in? Or is it a phantom pair like your two story theory>>

  Before I respond to Pom, I'll repeat the relevant verses:

  19 You are to bring into the ark TWO of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 TWO of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. 22 Noah did everything just as GOD commanded him. (Genesis 6:17-22)

  7:1 The LORD then said to Noah, Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also SEVEN of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

  In an earlier post, Pom argued that the one pair of birds in Genesis 6 should be added to the seven pairs of birds in Genesis 7; thus, he claims, there were eight pairs of birds put on the ark:
  
  "All one has to do is add the first pair of all birdies that were gathered up firstly, then add the latter seven pairs of all birdies that were commanded he take into the ark after the ark was completed, then any one with half a brain (and simple addition 1+7=8) would know that Noah took 8 pairs of all birdkind with him on the Ark. "

  I pointed out to Pom that if he's going to treat the birds in Genesis 7 separate from those in Genesis 6, he should do the same thing with the animals. Thus, by his logic, Noah put one pair of animals on the ark in Genesis 6, then he put seven pairs of clean animals on in Genesis 7, plus another pair of unclean animals. That makes 1+7+1=9 pairs of animals.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  >>I pointed out to Pom that if he's going to treat the birds in Genesis 7 separate from those in Genesis 6, he should do the same thing with the animals. Thus, by his logic, Noah put one pair of animals on the ark in Genesis 6, then he put seven pairs of clean animals on in Genesis 7, plus another pair of unclean animals. That makes 1+7+1=9 pairs of animals.<<

  I see your point. Your intial argument was BIRDS. You want the math with animals too. Regarding birds AND animals, the math is the same:

  Gen 6:18-20
  19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

  So what the intial counts are:

  (1) pair, (Male and Female) All Birds

  (1) pair, (Male and Female) All Animals

  Gen 7:1-4
  2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

  BIRDS:
  (1) pair, (Male and Female) All Birds (taken first)
  (7) MORE pairs, (Male and Female) All birds (taken second)
  Total: 8 pairs of each bird.

  ANIMALS:
  (1) pair, (Male and Female) All Animals (taken first)

  Some of the animals are considered clean/unclean, as shown in chapter 7 (The number of cleaness or Holyness) . What was taken on next would be added to the above, depending on how the animals were catagorized according to cleaness, which the Bible does not divulge here.

  (1) MORE pair, those animals considered "unclean." (second)
  Total: That would make 2 pairs of all animals considered unclean.

  (7) MORE pairs, those animals considered "clean." (second)
  Total: That would make 8 pairs of all animals considered clean.

  Summary:

  8 pairs of birds (1 pair first, 7 pairs second)
  2 pairs unclean animals (1 pair first, 1 more pair second)
  8 pairs clean animals (1 pair first, 7 pairs second)

  That's what I understand Noah was commanded to do.

  Where do you get nine?