space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

by aChristian 251 Replies latest jw friends

SixofNine

How 'bout not. Because, aChristian, those are immoral tales to tell our children.
Even you have no idea if they are true. Nothing you have seen in your time on the planet would make you think God operates that way. Not one thing that you have witnessed in your entire life has God acting the way "God" operated back in those silly myths. Nothing ('cept for maybe the way churches/the org are run).
Now why the hell would this "God" need to illustrate how he is going to treat people. Are you retarded? I'm serious here, do you not see a problem with that logic? It's just plain stupid.
So no, your idea isn't better. You would keep destroying the soul of children to cling to the idea that you haven't been sold a load of horseshit your entire life. Pathetic. Grow up, be a man. Hell, be a hu-man.
There is not one single good value to be learned from the tale of Abraham and Isaac. Not one. It is vile, it is disgusting, it is evil. Same goes for that story of the flood. Not one good moral value. Nada.
D wiltshire

aChristian,
I for one welcome COJ and think it will be very interesting.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
rem

aChristian,
This is hilarious:
How could he have taken the kids? Could he have forcefully abducted all of them from their parents? Maybe Noah could have used some of the lumber he was building the ark with to club all the adults on their heads and then, while they were unconscious, he could have dragged their children kicking and screaming onto the ark. I don't think so.
So this is such an unbelievable scenario to you, but the rest of the story is not??? At what point do you separate fact and fiction in your world? To say that you severely twist and bend the scriptures to fit your unorthodox conclusions is an understatement. You're obviously and intelligent person to be able to come up with such convoluted reasonings, but then again, so was Bibleman (You remember the crazy chronology guy). Do you understand that you sound JUST LIKE HIM?
some in adjoining lands which were not totally destroyed by the flood, as Noah's land was, would not only have survived the flood but would have been in a position to witness and recount both its cause and effects
What's the point of a global flood (or even a local one) if there were survivors to witness it? Were these survivors less evil than the ones around Noah? Surely, even from the perspective of Noah, it could not have been a global flood if there were other survivors that recorded their own version. If they could witness it, then they were not far away enough to not be considered part of the land at that time. I could see if they were on another continent or something, but they supposedly weren't. These people were supposedly in the Middle East with Noah.
You wrote: Whether any flood happened or not, the Epic of Gilgamesh is still just an old myth. The same is true of the Bible's story(stories) of the flood. It doesn't matter if a myth is based on real events - it's still a work of fiction. It's not an inspired account from god.
You might try preceding such statements with the words "I believe."
Usually I do qualify my words, but in this case it would be silly to preface my statements with "I believe". I don't have to say that "I believe" the Odyssey is a myth, do I? I suppose I could have said "Rational people believe" the story of the flood is a myth.
I'm all for liberal Christians, but you seem to be stuck in some sort of no-man's land where you take the bible's words literally, but twist them into your own interpretation through unusual translations of words. Why can't you give up your silly interpretations and see the Bible for what it is: An ancient book of myths that some believe contains spiritual truth. Anything more and you start getting into fundy territory, and I'm sure you agree that fundies are not the most rational people around. You are doing your faith no favors by taking such fantastic interpretations seriously.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
aChristian

Rem,
You asked: What's the point of a global flood (or even a local one) if there were survivors to witness it? Were these survivors less evil than the ones around Noah?
Those who believe that the flood of Noah's day was confined to the land of Noah, generally define "the land of Noah" as being the land of people Noah preached to. We believe God brought His judgment only upon a land that had heard the message of "Noah, a preacher of righteousness," and failed to respond to it. (2 Pet. 2:5) We believe Noah urged the people of his land to repent of their evil ways and to then take advantage of the means of salvation God was providing them all. That means of salvation was an ark big enough to save all the residents of Noah's land from the coming flood.
We believe God did not take the lives of those in other parts of then widely populated earth, even some fairly nearby parts. Why? Because they had not heard Noah's preaching. Thus they had not been given a chance to repent. Neither had they heard of the means of salvation which God then offered to those who did repent.
There is a lesson here for all who have heard the good news of Jesus Christ preached today. With knowledge comes accountability.
rem

aChristian,
When you say "we believe" and "those who believe", what other person are you referring to?
Those who believe that the flood of Noah's day was confined to the land of Noah, generally define "the land of Noah" as being the land of people Noah preached to. We believe God brought His judgment only upon a land that had heard the message of "Noah, a preacher of righteousness," and failed to respond to it. (2 Pet. 2:5) Those who believe that the flood of Noah's day was confined to the land of Noah, generally define "the land of Noah" as being the land of people Noah preached to. We believe God brought His judgment only upon a land that had heard the message of "Noah, a preacher of righteousness," and failed to respond to it. (2 Pet. 2:5)
So god was so concerned about this little plot of land on the earth that he flooded it, but made arangements for Noah and his family and the animals in the area to survive. God didn't seem to care about the wickedness in other parts of the earth. When he said regretted making man on the earth, he really only meant this little area that Noah could preach to in the Middle East?
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
People in other parts of the earth were not as wicked and god did not regret making the other men in the earth, just these particular men? You and your other friend are really stretching the scriptures here. Some people just have a higher threshold for cognitive dissonance, I suppose.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
aChristian

Rem,
You asked: When you say "we believe" and "those who believe", what other person are you referring to?
I see you are not well read on this subject matter. A belief that the flood of Noah's day was a flood confined to the land of Noah is a widely held, and widely taught, belief by many Christians. Maybe the "person" you are referring to is Carl Olof Jonsson, the exJW turned Christian author of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" and "Sign of the Last Days - When?", since I mentioned in an earlier post that he is an advocate of the local flood. But there are many Christians who believe basically the same thing.
Dr. Hugh Ross, a highly respected, widely published and often quoted Christian astronomer teaches that the flood was confined to the land of Noah. His web site is http://www.reasons.org/ . Davis A. Young, a Christian professor of geology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids Michigan, believes as I do. He has written several books debunking Young Earth Creationism and the ridiculous "flood geology" popularized by Morris Whitcomb's "The Genesis Flood." Among Young's books are "Creation and the Flood," "Christianity and the Age of the Earth," "Science Held Hostage" and "The Biblical Flood." His books can be purchased at Amazon.com, as Ross's can be. This understanding of Noah's flood is also being promoted today by the Christian author
Richard Fischer. Fischer graduated from the University of Missouri with a Bachelor of Science degree. His first article on religion was published in The Washington Post in 1986. He received his master's degree in theology in 1992. He has published articles in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and has reviewed articles for publication in Christian Scholar's Review. He is a member of American Scientific Affiliation, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Evangelical Theological Society, and he is listed in Who's Who in Theology and Science. Fisher's book on the subject is entitled The Origins Solution. It too can be purchased at Amazon.com. Or you may want to just crack open a couple non-fundy, non-JW, Bible encyclopedias. I have the five volume "Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible" on my shelves. It has a very good article on why the flood had to have been confined to the land of Noah. I could go on, but that should be enough to get you started.
You asked: So god was so concerned about this little plot of land on the earth that he flooded it, but made arangements for Noah and his family and the animals in the area to survive. God didn't seem to care about the wickedness in other parts of the earth.
Some Christians who believe that the flood of Noah's day was local believe that at the time of the flood the entire human population of the earth was confined to the land of Noah. Those with a background in earth sciences, such as the authors Young and Fischer mentioned above know better. Since they do, they understand as I do, that God intended for the judgment He brought upon Noah's land to serve "as an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." (2 Peter 2:5,6)
You asked: When he said regretted making man on the earth, he really only meant this little area that Noah could preach to in the Middle East?
Substitute the words "in the land" for "in the earth" or "on the earth," as the Hebrew language allows us to do, and you should have less trouble understanding the verses you cited.
rem

aChristian,
I'm aware of the interpretations that you have shown as we have had this very same discussion before. I figured that the "others" would include Ross, Young, and Fischer since you have brought them up before in previous discussions.
Why not accept the words how they are translated in most scholarly bible translations? Why would god allow 99% of Christians and Jews throughout history to believe that the words in the account can be taken at face value if he really meant for them to find hidden meanings in alternate interpretations of words. In fact, even Peter believed in a global flood:
(2 Peter 3:5,6 NASB)"For when they maintain this, it ecapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded by water."
The flood story is simple: It is a myth of a Global (Earth-wide) flood. That is how people understood it back in ancient times up till now. Ask any child what the story is about and they'll tell you. If this is not what god meant, then he is an incompetent communicator. Now, since science shows that a global flood is impossible, you conveniently reinterpret the story to fit, ignoring the more obvious and probable option that the story is simply a myth.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
GWEEDO

Achristian
How could he have taken the kids? Could he have forcefully abducted all of them from their parents?
So instead he killed them all??? Maybe God could have used lightning bolts to selectively kill all the bad people and then had mr and mrs Noah go and get them all. He could have had the angels to look after the kids until mr and mrs Noah got to them. God could have found a way. He's a pretty creative guy isnt he?
Also, you didn't answer my point about God using symbolism ahead of human life. What about those people on the fringes of the flood and comet impact who would have suffered greatly.. all so God could point cryptically to some future messiah and his future works?
How about Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is bad fellow. So is Al-aqaeda and the Taliban. The US could have nuked the place, but that would have killed millions of innocents. As it is they went in and targeted more specifically. The US operation isn't perfect (but they arnt God), and they probably killed many more civilians than the US gov is letting on...but the point is: atleast they made some distinction between the baddies and innocents. If they had just nuked the place they would have been guilty of grosse inhumanity. But isn't that what God has done here, he has nuked a whole area when he could have used some kind of 'smart weapondry' and been more specific in his killing. There must have been many people who didn't die, but suffered horribly, and others that did suffer horrible deaths on the fringes of this disaster God brought...All because God had some bizarre symbolism he wanted to express??? And it's not even very good symbolism since you yourself seem to be quite tentative about accepting that God was "prefiguring" Jesus when he decided to bring the flood! Other people wouldn't see the link at all...and wouldn't care, I greatly suspect!
Faithful2Jah

LOL! Rem just said >>> I figured that the "others" would include Ross, Young, and Fischer since you have brought them up before in previous discussions.
So Rem, why did you bother wasting the guys time making him answer your question if you already knew the answer he was gonna give you! Why this guy bothers with people like you who only want to argue I can't figure.
rem

Faithful2Jah,
Because aChristian is trying to make his interpretations sound mainstream when they are not. I wanted him to expose where he was getting his ideas. When I do research in Non-Fundy liberal Christian reference books, such as Zondervan publications, these interpretations are secondary to the more generally accepted Global flood scenario. Catholic scholarship that I've read agrees that, though the events didn't really happen, the bible account is clearly speaking in global terms. I was trying to draw out how many people actually share his strange interpretations.
If you ask most people, they'd agree that the language in the account is talking about a global flood. If they are fundies then they probably believe the whole story is true. Otherwise, the majority will probably recognize that the global flood is a myth with some type of lesson or prefiguring Jesus sacrifice. It is the minority who twist the clear language of the Bible to fit a real local flood around 2500 B.C. with a real Noah, ark, and animals.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.

Share this