Farkel, Some people do not now understand how Lee Harvey Oswald could have killed President Kennedy all by himself, so they insist that he could not possibly have done so. Because of their lack of understanding conspiracy theories abound. To such people I also say, "Just because you don't understand something does not mean it didn't happen." How is that an "argumentum from idiocy"? You once contributed more to this board than insults. Maybe you will again someday.
The Biblical Flood Thoroughly Trashed
by Farkel 75 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
a Christian
Sero,
You wrote: Genesis 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. As I pointed out, there are no "mountains" - as we now understand that word - now in southern Mesopotamia and whatever high hills that are there now were most likelly not so high several thousand years ago. The Hebrew word which is often translated as "mountain" in the Genesis flood account is the same word that is translated as "hill" elsewhere and in the Old Testament. The Hebrews had one word for hill or mountain. It was used to refer to any raised mound of earth, from an ant hill to a Hymalayan peak. A proper rendering of the Hebrew would also be, "The waters rose twenty feet covering all the hills."
You wrote: I think they were aware there was much more to the world beyond their 'trough'. Come on now.
Noah could have seen no further than the horizon. Even if he did understand just how much more there was to our earth than just his land, since he could see no further than the horizon, a large local flood which extended to the horizon in all directions may well have appeared to him to be much larger than it was.
You wrote: And forget 5000 years ago, didn't 'Moses' write the account 3500 years ago?
Yes, he did. But he wrote about an event that he indicated took place about a thousand years earlier.
You wrote: Maybe it's just silly to honestly believe two kangaroos swam to what is now modern day Iraq to board a boat, live through a flood, then return to their native Australia once it was over. Same with other animals.
It certainly is. That's why anyone who seriously believes the Genesis flood account is based on actual historical events has to believe that the flood was a local flood and that there were no kangeroos on the ark.
You wrote: Apologists have a hard enough time explaining how all the millions of animals fitted into the Ark. Plus the food and other things that were needed (as seen by these recent Noah threads).
Those who believe that the ark was intended to carry only animals from southern Mesopotamia see an ark with plenty of room for extra human passengers.
You wrote: I've been told about Christianity, and I don't believe for the same reason you don't believe in the Egyptian gods. I've got just as much reason to believe in them as I have to believe in your choice of god.
Maybe someday you will find reason to believe. I too was once an unbeliever.
You wrote: To add to that, if there were humans already around, what's going on when it says God made Adam from clay and divine breath, and woman from his rib, .....
I believe God intended for the story of Adam and Eve in Eden to mirror His creation of the race of man (Hebrew = 'adam) He had previously created, as described in Gen. 1:26-30. I believe Adam and Eve were later created by God (Gen. 2) for the purpose of serving as a small scale picture of the human race He had much earlier created.
God created Adam from preexisting life, the dust of the ground, which when viewed under a microscope is seen to be filled with life, just as He had previously created the human race from preexisting life. God gave Adam a wife who came from his own gene pool, small as it was, just as the wives He had given to the men He had earlier created had come from their own gene pools. God had a special relationship with Adam and Eve, as His relationship with the previously created human race was special in much the same way. God gave Adam and Eve a garden home in the middle of a barren land, just as the home He previously gave to the human race was the only "garden spot" in our barren solar system, and possibly the only "garden spot" in our entire barren universe. God made all the animals in Eden subject to Adam and Eve, just as He had earlier subjected all animals on earth to the human race He had previously created. God arranged things so that Adam and Eve would acquire an intimate "knowledge of good AND evil," in order for them to gain a personal knowledge of why God's ways are best, a knowledge that would serve them well for all eternity. He had earlier done the same thing for the entire human race.
God offered to give eternal life to Adam and Eve if they could manage to live truly righteous lives, which meant obeying God even in what some might consider to be a very "trivial" matter. He had made essentially the same offer to all members of the human race He had previously created, though it was an unspoken offer and the "trivial" commands they had to obey to receive eternal life were all those which came from their God-given consciences. Because Adam and Eve showed themselves to be less than perfectly righteous God judged them to be unworthy of eternal life. God had, for the same reason, also judged all members of the human race He had previously created to be unworthy of eternal life. Because Adam and Eve proved themselves to be unworthy of eternal life God expelled them from their garden home and condemned Adam ('adam) to return to the dust from which he came. God had, in effect, earlier done the same thing to the race of man ('adam) He had previously created. God covered Adam and Eve's shameful condition, their nakedness, with coverings (animal skins) He Himself had made, coverings which required the shedding of blood. Just as God Himself had earlier made provision for covering over the shameful (sinful) condition of the entire race of man ('adam) He had previously made. A provision He made by means of a "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8)
I could elaborate further on this same theme.You wrote: I think living for hundreds of years is unnatural, yet back in those days, the Bible has people living for hundreds of years.
The Bible records the names of only 24 people who had significantly longer lives than any which have been documented in modern times (beyond their 120's). These 24 people may have been the only people who God ever gave such extraordinarily long lives. The writer of Genesis may have made a point to record the length of their lives because they were in fact so unusually long. The Bible itself gives us indications that this may have been the case. For instance, the writer of Genesis makes a point to tell us that Noah's three sons who accompanied him on the ark were all born after Noah was 500 years old. (Gen. 5:32) And he tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood began. (Gen. 7:6) He then records an unusually long life for only one of Noah's sons, Shem. (Gen. 11:11) Thus he seems to have made a point in telling us that Noah's other two sons may have had lives of normal length. The writer of Genesis also seems to say that God Himself told Noah that He intended for men to be "mortal" with life spans limited to only about "a hundred and twenty years." (Gen. 6:3) This seems to clearly indicate that anyone who ever lived longer than that was an exception to the rule. Why would God have given 24 individuals extraordinarily long lives? We can only speculate. The number seems to have some symbolic significance in the Bible. There were 24 elders around God's throne in Revelation. (Rev. 4:4) God's people in Old Testament times were represented by the 12 tribes of Israel. In New Testament times God's people were represented by the 12 Apostles. 12 plus 12 equals 24. So, possibly God once gave 24 people extraordinarily long lives to picture the fact that He would one day give all of His people the same (i.e. eternal life).
-
serotonin_wraith
As I pointed out, there are no "mountains" - as we now understand that word - now in southern Mesopotamia
and whatever high hills that are there now were most likelly not so high several thousand years ago. The Hebrew word which is often translated as "mountain" in the Genesis flood account is the same word that is translated as "hill" elsewhere and in the Old Testament. The Hebrews had one word for hill or mountain. It was used to refer to any raised mound of earth, from an ant hill to a Hymalayan peak. A proper rendering of the Hebrew would also be, "The waters rose twenty feet covering all the hills."
Are you suggesting that the flood was only 20 ft high? Maybe I misread you.
If you are, I'll go into that. If not, there's still the problem of the water overflowing, not rising another 20 ft over the hills. Whether it's hills or mountains, the water will still overflow or pour out of the gaps between them. The actual height of the mountains/hills won't matter.
Noah could have seen no further than the horizon. Even if he did understand just how much more there was to our earth than just his land, since he could see no further than the horizon, a large local flood which extended to the horizon in all directions may well have appeared to him to be much larger than it was.
Except that some words about the entire earth being flooded and every animal killed are quotes from God, who I assume would have known.
But he wrote about an event that he indicated took place about a thousand years earlier.
Yes, but the narration to the story still talks about it as if it's the whole earth under the entire heavens. The narration should have been modernised, even if the quotes couldn't be.
It certainly is. That's why anyone who seriously believes the Genesis flood account is based on actual historical events has to believe that the flood was a local flood and that there were no kangeroos on the ark.
Yet in a previous post this was said:
You wrote: So if it was a local flood, why save every kind of animal? Why not just ones indigenous to that area?
Maybe God wanted Noah's actions to represent a future judgment that will truly be "world wide" - as we now use that phrase.
So which is it? Did every kind of animal go into the Ark or not?
Maybe someday you will find reason to believe. I too was once an unbeliever.
I know this is way off topic, but what reason do you have to think your god is real? I'm open to reasons, I just don't see any good ones.
I believe God intended for the story of Adam and Eve in Eden to mirror His creation of the race of man (Hebrew = 'adam) He had previously created, as described in Gen. 1:26-30. I believe Adam and Eve were later created by God (Gen. 2) for the purpose of serving as a small scale picture of the human race He had much earlier created.
So if he created two brand new humans 6,000 years ago (on his 'resting day' apparently), he would have been aware that man needed company in the form of another human and not animals, so it makes no sense that God would bring every kind of animal to Adam to test for compatability and for naming too, seeing as I'm guessing animals were already named by that time. It's bad enough thinking we could be held accountable for people who weren't our ancestors, but now if you're right they were humans who didn't even evolve! They were made then and there, and God being God, he would have known they would fail his test, before he even made them! There could be millions of descendants on earth now who share the common ancestor of the clay man and rib woman, while the rest of us have human ancestors going back 100,000 years who evolved from ape like creatures. Mixing Genesis with science can lead to some amazing theories, but this is one of the most imaginative ones I've heard.
God created Adam from preexisting life, the dust of the ground, which when viewed under a microscope is seen to be filled with life, just as He had previously created the human race from preexisting life.
Evolution isn't creation. We evolved from preexisting life - we developed slowly and naturally over a long period of time. How was that process creation? We're still evolving - how is humans having children and grandchildren God creating? When we pick our partners that's God creating?
God gave Adam a wife who came from his own gene pool, small as it was, just as the wives He had given to the men He had earlier created had come from their own gene pools.
I'm not sure how new an idea marriage is, but the early humans were more likely to be raping women they wanted and having multiple partners. Family structures took time to develop. With every species (except ones like donkeys and horses, say) they can only reproduce within their own species. Evolving differently biologically and becoming a new species is just natural, it's happened with every animal. Is it God giving zebras wives when they evolved into the zebra species? I've heard an illustration that says if we see the history of the universe as a whole year, man only appeared on the scene at one second to midnight on the 31st of December. So to think the universe was made with us in mind is staggering, to say the least.
God arranged things so that Adam and Eve would acquire an intimate "knowledge of good AND evil," in order for them to gain a personal knowledge of why God's ways are best, a knowledge that would serve them well for all eternity.
Ah, but he didn't want them to. He told them NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge. In fact, wasn't that the original sin all humanity needs saving from? Are you now saying that he actually wanted them to eat from the tree, but that for doing something God wanted, a punishment was handed out and they were made to feel as if they'd done wrong and brought about the damnation of mankind?
the "trivial" commands they had to obey to receive eternal life were all those which came from their God-given consciences
Are these the ones that I have in my mind which go against the rules from God in the Bible - like being allowed to keep slaves or thinking of women as inferior to men or killing disobedient children or killing animals for their fur?
-
Farkel
You said:
:Some people do not now understand how Lee Harvey Oswald could have killed President Kennedy all by himself, so they insist that he could not possibly have done so.
That's an assertion, but not substantiated by any facts. Nothing wrong with that. If you are stuck on the idea the LHO killed Kennedy by himself and not open to any other ideas or assertions, what can I say? But next, you turn YOUR assumption into what you think is a FACT. Note:
: Because of their lack of understanding conspiracy theories abound.
Lack of understanding about what? You call THAT an argument? You are basically asserting that LHO killed Kennedy and ANY other theories are a "lack of understanding." Now, mind you, I have read the literature on this subject. I was in 10th grade when it happened. I saw Oswald killed LIVE on TV the next Saturday morning. However, you are dismissing any other theories as a "lack of understanding", therefore asserting that your idea about what happened is true, and any other ideas about it are from idiots who have a "lack of understanding", which of course, you have not defined.
:To such people I also say, "Just because you don't understand something does not mean it didn't happen."
I do not understand how that magician made the Statue of Liberty disappear in front of 50 million people and then reappear again. To such people I also say, "just because you don't understand something does not mean it didn't happen." Therefore, according to your stupid logic, the magician DID make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
: How is that an "argumentum from idiocy"?
See above. :You once contributed more to this board than insults. Maybe you will again someday. Not likely. There are more morons than usual these days. Cheers, Farkel
-
clarity
Bump
-
prologos
If the flood was global and Everest high, to make sure everything drowned as planned, all glaciers would have lifted off their bases, (the Greenland ice sheet is only 1/3 of Everest's height), and drifted for 9 months. Vast fields of floatsome, biomatter on the surface too. so-- why do we have these Ice masses there now again? and where did they come from in the first place if it never rained, snowed before the flood?