The Global Flood

by coldfish 290 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Abaddon

  I think it is very easy to develop a way of interpreting Genesis Creation and Flood accounts non-literally in a scientific way.

  I've argued in such ways myself, on the doors, and ground people to a stand still with yohms and progressive forms.

  Of course, being able to do this doesn't mean one is right when one does it.

  IF the Bible was IN ANY WAY written under god's guidance I think it would be easy to 'encode science' in a creation myth comprehensible to bronze age man.

  "The hosts of heaven sang the praise of God as he formed worlds from the dust of the void, and illuminated the sky with stars. And God turned his face toward one world, our world, and rose man out from amongst the animals so that man could hold eternity in his heart and comprehend God's glory."

  Now that would be a very interesting Creation myth, and one that would be far simpler to reconcile with science than Genesis. However there is no clear encode of science in the Bible's creative account. As people claim it is possible to encode chronology in prophetic accounts, why it isn't possible to encode science in Creative accounts I don't know.

  Of course, if the Bible wasn't written under god's guidance it will be as full of errant nonsense about origins as any bronze age religion. It seemed sensible when it was first written but is now rather silly.

  SO, in short, if there was god guidance in the writing of the Bible, there is no sign of clear science encodes in the text that would make proving inspiration far easier, and that would show the account was accurate.

  One can come up with various arguments as to why god might not want to make his book 'proof', but they are all ineffable.

  If there was no guidance from god in writing the Bible, then trying to reconcile the Genesis account to science is likely to be as accurate as reconciling the Greco-Roman creative myths in a similar fashion. They might appear to work, but it's more due to imagination on the part of those making the fit than any actual fit there is.
• 

  AlanF

  Mike, you've completely misunderstood a good deal of what I wrote. Unless you go back and carefully read what I wrote, and really understand it, there's no point in continuing. I don't feel much like first correcting your misunderstandings, and then tackling your points.

  AlanF
• 

  Narkissos

  A Christian,

  As much as I agree with your forensic reading of Romans, which would still make sense if Genesis 2--3 were to be understood (as I think it should be) as a fictional story (it would be a kind of a scriptura reasoning, just like we have about Melchisedek in Hebrews 7:3), I disagree with your interpretation of Genesis 2--3. To me it is obviously meant as an alternate creation story (parallel and not consecutive to Genesis 1--2:4a), as is shown by the introductory statement:

  In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them (...)

  Notice that this is a different story of the creation of man, which is only subsequently put in a definite location (the garden of Eden). Not the creation of "another man" in some remote spot where he couldn't know about other men. In this alternate story the creation of vegetation, animals, and woman (in that order!) is subsequent to the creation and location of man.

  Another matter on which I would disagree (although it is hardly essential to your demonstration) is the idea that man and woman would have already eaten of the tree of life and would need to continue doing so in order to live forever. If so, why the obvious hurry in the concluding part of the narrative? (They could have been barred from the tree of life anytime with the same result):

  Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

  It is apparent to me that the gods are afraid (just like Yhwh will be in Genesis 11) that mankind who has just laid its hands on their prerogative of knowledge would do just the same with their other prerogative, that is, eternal life or immortality. As you certainly know this is a common motif in many Ancient Near Eastern primeval stories: man steals knowledge from the gods but fails to get their immortality.

  Last but not least, I'm somewhat surprised with your version of the broader "salvation story": if being "free" in the sense of "able to do evil just as good" is necessary to enter into a loving relationship, how can you deny the same freedom to God? Whereas you insist that "man is less righteous than God", it seems to me that man is actually superior to God in this regard.
• 

  a Christian

  Alan,

  You wrote: .... you've completely misunderstood a good deal of what I wrote ...

  I could have said the same.

  You wrote: there's no point in continuing ...

  That's fine. I'm not a mind reader. I was doing my best to understand and patiently respond to each of your comments. Maybe you failed to communicate your thoughts clearly. Maybe we just don't "speak the same language." This may be just as well anyway. For few here are willing to now dig any deeper into the Bible than they did as JWs, which was not very deep. As JWs were all told exactly how every passage in the Bible was to be understood. In my opinion, most exJWs here are now far too willing to throw the baby (the God of the Bible) out with the dirty bath water (the JW religion).

  I think that's a shame. For Prov. 2:4,5 tells us, "If you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God."

  As I think Abaddon's post makes plain, regardless of how well anyone here may show that the scriptures may actually speak in harmony with proven scientific realities, it is unlikely that the scriptures or the one defending them will ever be very much respected on this forum.

  Why? I admit that the Bible itself is largely to blame. For, if God did inspire the writing of the Bible as I believe He did, He clearly did so in a way that would permit many to fail to recognize its supernatural inspiration. Why is that? It could be that God always provides just enough evidence to convince those who are willing to believe and never enough to convince those who prefer not to believe.

  Narkissos,

  The Genesis creation account can be and certainly has been understood numerous ways. My main point was that, if we are willing to look at it a bit differently than we have in the past, we may find that there is no need for us to say that it contradicts scientific realities. I believe that we will know someday exactly how God meant for us to understood it. In the mean time, I see no reason for us to say that it cannot possibly be believed.

  You wrote: Last but not least, I'm somewhat surprised with your version of the broader "salvation story": if being "free" in the sense of "able to do evil just as good" is necessary to enter into a loving relationship, how can you deny the same freedom to God?

  God can never be "free" in the same sense that we are free, free to do good and evil. For whatever God does, by definition, is always good. Might makes right, as they say. That may be a bit simplistic, but it is none the less true.

  You wrote: Whereas you insist that "man is less righteous than God", it seems to me that man is actually superior to God in this regard.

  The Bible tells us that God is "incorruptible." I don't see how our being fully capable of losing our tempers or our minds tomorrow, and then committing atrocious acts, can make us superior to God.
• 

  Narkissos

  For God had deliberately created mankind to be less righteous than Himself. Why? Because He wanted to create people with whom He could have a loving relationship. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, God had to create us as free people. Free to choose to love God and His ways or to not love God and His ways. In other words, free to do both right and wrong, free to do both good and evil. Because we can do wrong and often do, and because God can't do wrong and never does, we are less righteous than God. And, because we are, none of us deserves to live forever. That means all human beings have, in effect, from their births been condemned by God to die

  Isn't your supposedly sovereign God subject to a lot of impossibility (what he cannot do) and necessity (what he has to do)? Aren't they exactly the same kind of ontological determinations which, if I understand you correctly, we need to be free of in order to be able to love?
• 

  Satanus

  I don't see how our being fully capable of losing our tempers or our minds tomorrow, and then committing atrocious acts, can make us superior to God.

  Gee, that's what the bible says god did!! Does that mean god is equal to us?

  S
• 

  gumby

  I'll tell you one thing I learned from this thread.......and that is......regardless how godammed smart and intelligent some people are, regardless how much research is done, that some are STILL to afraid to let go of their little security blanket!

  For gods sake Mike, Carl, and the rest who swallow this crap concerning the bible god, how can you guys believe what your saying? Do you guys really fricken believe a loving god would have his word written so hidden that he wants people to dig for it. Screw him them! Tell that to third world countries who don't have all the fricken bible tools you need to dissect gods word!

  According to you freakin einsteins, lower class people are screwed as for finding bible truths unless they hapen to stumble onto guys like you who spend countless hours trying to figure shit out.

  Anyone who believes that thousands or millions of people were WORTHY of death by their dad because they were such gross sinners who would not listen to a loner old man needs to have their fricken head examined.

  I'm beggining to lose my hope in intelligent people.

  Yes ,I probably picked a bad day to vent about this....I'm sorry.....but the timing was right to speak.

  BTW.....nice job Alan and Norm.

  Gumby
• 

  a Christian

  Nark,

  As I said earlier: God can never be "free" in the same sense that we are free, free to do good and evil. For whatever God does, by definition, is always good.

  In other words, to do evil is to act contrary to God's desires. We are free to do evil, since we are free to act contrary to God's desires.

  But, no one, not even God, can act contrary to their own desires. It is only in that way that God is not as "free" as we are.

  On the other hand, we are not free to act contrary to our own desires. God is free to act contrary to our desires. In that way, God is more free than we are.

  Since you apparently are unable to understand such very simple statements and unwilling to concede undeniable facts, I'll now end my part of this discussion.

  Satanus,

  The Bible never says God "lost his temper." It tells us He has at times been angry and expressed His anger. But there is nothing wrong with being angry, or with expressing anger over unrighteousness. Such anger is called "righteous indignation." As you know, Jesus Himself expressed such anger. And, of course, the Bible never says God has "lost his mind." Your saying that it does shows how little repect you have for God and for the Bible. But then, what can I expect when I foolishly choose to discuss spiritual matters with someone calling himself "Satanus."

  Enough said, If I again feel the need for Internet chat for now on I'll do so elsewhere.
• 

  Norm

  Hello there a christian
  
  In your last post you said among other things:
  
  "For few here are willing to now dig any deeper into the Bible than they did as JWs,
  which was not very deep. As JWs were all told exactly how every passage in the Bible
  was to be understood. In my opinion, most exJWs here are now far too willing to
  throw the baby (the God of the Bible) out with the dirty bath water (the JW religion)."
  
  With all due respect, how do you know how much effort any of us has spent "digging deeper"
  into the Bible? Alan has most certainly done that, and personally I have used many years doing
  the same. That's exactly why I have come to the conlusion that the Bible contains for the most
  part hopeless superstitious nonsense. You see, many of us has used many years searching for
  the alleged "baby" in the famous "bath water" and discovered that there never was a "baby" there,
  just dirty water. Just because some of us has come to a different conclusion then you from
  delving "deeper" into the Bible, doesn't mean that we have never done research.
  
  You see, rooting around in the Bible to find texts to support ones more or less preconceived
  ideas will be like running around in circles. Paralell to a "Bible study" One has to educate
  oneself in evolution, some biology, geology, and even a little archeology. And it is extremely
  important that you do study information that is critical to both positions.
  
  I have no idea what you have done, but judging from what I have read so far, it doesn't appear to
  be the case.
  
  You also said:
  
  "As I think Abaddon's post makes plain, regardless of how well anyone here may show that the
  scriptures may actually speak in harmony with proven scientific realities, it is unlikely that
  the scriptures or the one defending them will ever be very much respected on this forum".
  
  Personally I have never ever seen anyone show "well" that the Bible is in "harmony with
  proven science". I know however that I would be the first to respect anyone who do as I think
  most people here would. So far no one has come close.
  
  The you said:
  
  "Why? I admit that the Bible itself is largely to blame. For, if God did inspire the writing
  of the Bible as I believe He did, He clearly did so in a way that would permit many to fail
  to recognize its supernatural inspiration. Why is that? It could be that God always provides
  just enough evidence to convince those who are willing to believe and never enough to convince
  those who prefer not to believe."
  
  The above is just another reason why it is very hard to take Bible apologists serious. It must
  indeed be a strange God you worship that seems to deliberately muddle his allegedly life and death
  important information so that people can misunderstand it to their demise, another example of what
  a strange God you worship. Or it might be that you haven't thought about what faith is.
  Things that are impossible to prove or verify in any meanigful way, one has to believe. Things
  that are possible to prove or verify need no faith, they are facts and as such do not reguire
  any sort of belief.
  
  This is what i find so strange with many "belivers" that they constantly try
  to harmonize complete hopeless superstitious drivel, written down by bronzeage people with science.
  Why do you have to do that? If this boils down to being "willing to believe" as you state above,
  you don't need to prove anything.
  
  Norm
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Achristian,

  Sorry for interupting but this has me very puzzeled,,you say:

  But, no one, not even God, can act contrary to their own desires. It is only in that way that God is not as "free" as we are.

  How do you know this?? Isn't this a big assumption? Has God told you this or are you just assuming? If you are just assuming this,, then you reasoning is on very shaky ground right from the get-go.