Was there really a global flood? (new publication reasoning)

Simon

The latest "Keep on the Watch" publication released at the district assembly really looks like a rehash of old material (and even old pictures ... they must be running out of paint or something!).

One 'gem' caught my eye flicking through it. How do you reason with people to convince them that the bible account of a global flood is real?

Simple (are you ready for this 'logic'?!):

Was there really a global flood?Many critics say No. But the bible says Yes.
Jesus Christ himself spoke of it, and he was alive when it occurred, viewing it from the heavens.

So, basically the argument as to whether the bible account is true boils down to:

1. The bible says that it's true (duh! ... isn't that what we were questioning in the first place?!)
2. A fictional character in the book that is being questioned mentioned it.

El blanko

A fictional character in the book

Well, that depends whether Jesus was fictional or not. I'd say he did exist to be honest.

If *I* was a WT writer I'd be finding secular evidence for it to prove the Bible is correct, not just looking for it mentioned in the Bible. And if no secular evidence existed I'd fabricate it! I'd at least make it *look* like it was proven beyond all doubt looking between historical, "false religion" (many cultures have a flood myth) and Biblical evidence! But why do they need historical evidence when they have the word of God...?

Sirius Dogma

they can't use secular sources for proof, so much of what secular sources say completely disagree with what they teach. besides they only need to inspire faith, not reason. if people were to start being reasonable, they would no longer be jw's.

VM44

The WT writers are in trouble with regard to "Flood evidence," and they know it!

The geological evidence does not exist for a global flood, notice how the publications have steered away from talking about geology during the last decade?

They have been using the "global mythology" line of argument for proof. This argument was used by Isaac Newton Vail a hundred years ago (Russell and Rutherford promoted Vail's annular ring theory for the source of the flood waters, Rutherford even went so far in the Creation book to say that God has chosen this time to reveal the facts in the Vailian theory. Nevermind Vail was a crackpot!)

Now they have simplified. The Flood happened because Jesus mentioned it. Are you going to argue with Jesus?

I suppose that takes the burden of proof off the Watchtower.

Isaac Newton Vail is a good example of a person obsessed with a theory of their own creation. People like that think their ideas are so clever, they have to be right. He was an interesting character.

--VM44

Fire Dragon

Seems to me they are only trying to "reason" with those that believe the bible is real. They are having trouble keeping their flock and so 'reasoning' with a group of people that already believe in Jesus and the bible.

They will have to put more effort into trying to convince people that believe in evolution or are agnostic.

XQsThaiPoes

Actually this is the best logical proof for the flood. Unfortunately it is a false dichotomy. Many aprocraphal books and mythological characters and works are referenced in the bible often with out giving them credibility. I wish I had the exact reference but the bible has a few lines from plays in the new testament. How do you know that jesus believe the flood was global. If Jesus quoted the illiad does than mean the oddessy happend?

Conversely Jesus belief in a global flood can be used to disprove existance of Jesus deity.

glitter

they can't use secular sources for proof, so much of what secular sources say completely disagree with what they teach.

Never stopped them before.

Seems to me they are only trying to "reason" with those that believe the bible is real. They are having trouble keeping their flock and so 'reasoning' with a group of people that already believe in Jesus and the bible.

Precisely - and people who already believe the Bible is the literal word of God (as JWs do) would believe the Genesis account already.

People who believe it's just a story but believe in Jesus would still believe it was a story as Jesus used stories to preach.

To a devout Christian it's watertight () evidence that ought to be good enough for anybody - that's what the WT thinks it is, IMHO.

Undaunted Danny

Problems with a Global Flood http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html Rain Cloud Some hard logic here.

Farkel

Was there really a global flood?Many critics say No. But the bible says Yes.
Jesus Christ himself spoke of it, and he was alive when it occurred, viewing it from the heavens.

: So, basically the argument as to whether the bible account is true boils down to:

: 1. The bible says that it's true (duh! ... isn't that what we were questioning in the first place?!)
: 2. A fictional character in the book that is being questioned mentioned it.

Not to mention the fact that if Jesus did exist and did believe in a global flood, he was as ignorant as everyone else back then.

Farkel

Was there really a global flood? (new publication reasoning)

Share this