"Look it wasn't a global flood.." (page 2)

Qcmbr

Tammy - ?.

Do you accept that the bible has Jehovah's instructions and words tied into the flood?

Are you happy to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe in?

Are you happy to irrationally accept that the bible was kinda right ( a global flood occurred despite NO evidence) but utterly wrong about when, where,who the major players were, the supposed eyewitness author, everything Jehovah said and everything the rest of the bible writers said about it.

Do you have many cute fridge magnets?

brotherdan

Someone seems very bitter about the Bible... Your writing style has WT-like word usage. Notice:

Are you happy to irrationally accept that the bible was kinda right

utterly wrong about when, where,who the major players were

supposed eyewitness author

jookbeard

B Dan;

the polar ice caps would have melted, core examples show they never, and the times scales of the continents being fused together are millions of years out of date, how did the marsupials/koala bears/kangaroos navigate to Australia in thousands of miles of salt water?

AnnOMaly

Dumb questions time:

Isn't there geological evidence for an extensive flood in the Mesopotamian region c. 4th millennium BC?

Does "every" necessarily mean every? Could "every" be hyperbolic? E.g. compare,

(Zephaniah 1:1-6) 1 The word of Jehovah that occurred to Zephaniah the son of Cush′i the son of Gedali′ah the son of Amariah the son of Hezeki′ah in the days of Jo?si′ah the son of A′mon the king of Judah: 2 "I shall without fail finish everything off the surface of the ground," is the utterance of Jehovah. 3 "I shall finish off earthling man and beast. I shall finish off the flying creature of the heavens and the fishes of the sea, and the stumbling blocks with the wicked ones; and I will cut off mankind from the surface of the ground," is the utterance of Jehovah. 4 "And I will stretch out my hand against Judah and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and I will cut off from this place the remaining ones of the Ba′al, the name of the foreign-god priests along with the priests, 5 and those who are bowing down upon the roofs to the army of the heavens, and those who are bowing down, making sworn oaths to Jehovah and making sworn oaths by Mal′cam; 6 and those who are drawing back from following Jehovah and who have not sought Jehovah and have not inquired of him."

cofty

The overwhelming majority of geologists are not absolutely correct, as science is not absolute - but always learning, adapting where previously wrong

Sorry but this is nonsense. At the cutting edge of science we have hypotheses that scince freely admit are not yet proven but it is a delusion to pretend this applies to things as basic as geology. It is wishful thinking with absolutely no foundation in the real world. I cannot understand this incredible rejection of solid reliable science among religious people.

Admittedly science is not easy but why do people think its ok to make assertions about things they haven't studied?

Billions of dollars are spent every year on oil exploration and it is all based on well established geology. Why not actually read a good textbook like Donald Prothero's brilliant "Evolution, What the Fossil Record says and why it matters", he discusses "flood geology" in one of the early chapters, you can't help but be overwhelmed by the depth and quality of the evidence.

Qcmbr

Sadly I have to go to bed.

BrotherDan - as a young earth creationist I salute you in your defence of the Alamo. I wish I could stay up to look at your statements for belief as I do accept that the one premise left in my OP is that IF I am wrong then the only remaining conclusion is yours. There was indeed no earth roughly 6000 years ago. I think you may qualify as a bible believer.

Tammy - I find you so hard to pin down - I still have no idea what you believe. I will mentally pigeonhole you as a gnostic for now :) that is not meant as an insult.

The Finger - my wife agrees with you.

brotherdan

jookbeard, these questions have all been thoroughly dealt with. I find it the general thought of the atheists here to call Ken Hamm a quack, but he has some very valid points. It's easy to pull some of the things he says and call him names. But He deals with just about every global flood issue that you can think up. Here's an overview on some of these, including marsupials getting to Australia, and the polar ice caps.

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

cofty

it is so interesting to me how exJWs tend to throw the Bible away after they find out that there is not a Faithful Slave class. - brodan

Actually I became a full-blown born again, gave my life to Jesus, bible-believing, Jesus died for my sins, son of god, christian after I left teh borg. It was 9 years later before I began down the path of questioning my faith int he same way I had previously questioned the watchtower. My conclusions were based on a great deal of careful study and deep thought. Having lost all my family and friends once I was in no hurry to go through that again but I came to the conclusion that belief in the bible and ultimately in god was a delusion.

brotherdan

Hey, I'm not bashing anyone that gives it a thorough examination and comes to that conclusion. My problem is when people don't examine Christianity outside of the WT.

I'm sure Mr. Dawkins had nothing to do with your conclusions?

god was a delusion

tec

Do you accept that the bible has Jehovah's instructions and words tied into the flood?

I accept this, yes... (not that what I think or accept is going to determine what actually happened)

Are you happy to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe in?

According to what Christ said, yes - if something contradicts Him, then it either is untrue, recorded or translated wrong, or I am not understanding it properly. As for what science says... it can be either/or... a story might be told in such a way to reveal a truth that could not otherwise have been grasped without the scientific knowledge needed. This is a possibility that I am not in the least bit bothered to consider.

Are you happy to irrationally accept that the bible was kinda right ( a global flood occurred despite NO evidence) but utterly wrong about when, where,who the major players were, the supposed eyewitness author, everything Jehovah said and everything the rest of the bible writers said about it.

I hope I answered that above... though the way you say 'irrationally accept' kind of feels like an attempt to rig the answer, lol. If you think its irrational, fine, but why not just ask the question without the bias in it? If it is so obvious, then you won't need to add that word, will you?

Do you have many cute fridge magnets?

Not a one... unless the plumber magnet/coupon counts.

Tammy

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

Share this