Posts by JosephAlward

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

Faithful,

You believe the flood was a local one, not global, and that it occurred in the Mesopotamian region. I agree with you, and with most scientists, who say that the flood could not have been global, but I believe that that Bible's flood story is a mythologized version of a the story of a real flood in the Mesopotamian valley. I furthermore believe the Bible clearly and unambiguously describes a global flood, and have presented many reasons why I believe this.

One of the verses which I believe shows the Bible is not speaking of a local flood is this one:

"I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you...never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:9-11)

This is a pledge by God never to bring an all-destroying flood onto Noah's descendants, who would multiply to occupy regions outside of the land of Noah.

Since God never said that his promise never to bring a destroying flood to Noah's descendants was void if they moved outside that region, we have to conclude that God's covenant applied to all those regions into which the descendants might move.

Thus, God was not limiting his promise of no more destroying floods to the land of Noah; he was promising never again to flood the whole world. Thus, his covenant protected Noah's descendants wherever they went; the only way they could be protected everywhere is for God's promise to apply to the whole world, not just the land of their forefathers.

It is clear, therefore, that the flood God said would never come again was a global one, not a local one.

How do you address this issue? I would also like to hear what aChristian has to say.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

"8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you ...Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

Are you saying, Faithful, that the covenant God made with the folks who would restart civilization applied only to the land of Noah, and not to the rest of the people who would be fathered by Noah and his children, the ones who would populate the rest of the world, folks such as you and me?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

Gweedo and Farkel,

Before aChristian finds a reason not to respond to your questions, ask him to explain the verse below, in which God promises never to bring another flood like that one again:

I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11)

These words would have been spoken by God more than three thousand years ago, and since that time there have been innumerable floods which destroyed all life over large areas. However, there has never since the time of Noah been a flood which destroyed all life over the entire earth. Either God broke his promise to Noah, or else the flood he was referring to was global. Which does aChristian think it is? God broke his promise to Noah, or the flood really was global?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

37

Why Didn't They Know?

by JosephAlward in

the following is excerpted from an article by frank r. zindler, "did jesus exist?

" at http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html.

emphasis is added.. john e. remsburg, in his classic book the christ: a critical review and analysis of the evidence of his existence (the truth seeker company, ny, no date, pp.

JosephAlward

Right you are, Farkel. And what about all the alleged events surrounding the life of "Jesus" that didn't make the news? Nobody but Matthew knew about slaughter of the male boys under the age of two years old in and around the town of Bethelehem. Nobody but Mark knew that John's head was brought to the dinner table on a platter. There's no record of the five thousand being miraculously fed on just a few loaves of bread and a handful of fish, with food left over; ditto for four thousand more later. No record of the many saints who rose from their graves and chatted up the people in Jerusalem. If these things had really happened, somebody besides the propandizers for Jesus would have written about them.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

Joseph Alward wrote,

Also, will you explain why no Bible writer says a single thing about how the great effort expended in building such a huge ark was in vain--according to you? It was mostly empty--according to you--because the great horde of sinners God hoped would repent and show up at the ark to be saved never repented. All those folks God had hoped he could use to repopulate the earth never showed up! Why does no Bible writer tell us this?

aChristian responds,

Some things go without saying. Besides, I see no reason for them to have specifically discussed that particular aspect of the flood story.

You really "see no reason"? That’s ridiculous. Think about the tons of meaningless and mundane matters that were discussed at length in the Bible that were vastly less important, theologically, than the “fact” that God had a large ark built to accommodate what he had hoped would be a horde of repentant sinners, but they never showed up, and Noah had to sail away with a mostly empty ark!

If God’s inspired Bible-writers were given space to write chapter after chapter about how Solomon’s temple was built, why wouldn’t the writers have mentioned at least once that the ark was mostly empty because the expected repentant sinners didn’t show up--if that had really happened?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

Joseph Alward wrote,

God planned to rescind the death penalty levied against all of the people in the "land of Noah," provided they repent--according to you.
2. aChristian, don't you think this fact--if it's true--should be in the Bible, and spelled out in no uncertain terms?

aChristian responds,

I think it is in the Bible... I have always understood this fact... All other Christians I know..believe the same thing.

What a laugh, aChristian. You "think" it's in the Bible, but you don't show the passage in which this fact is mentioned. Instead, you provide as evidence the fact that you and your friends have always believed this to be the case. You think the fact that you and your friends believe it is going to sway this forum jury? Where's the passage which clearly spells out that the ark was mostly empty because the horde of repentant sinners never showed up?

If you cannot show it--and I know you cannot--then why shouldn't the forum believe that you and your friends are just imagining things? Are these friends the three nameless "Bible scholars" you earlier said agree with you that the Bible described a local flood?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

aChristian, the industrialized, Christian, Muslim, civilized, third, and entertainment worlds take their members from all over the face of the earth. For example, the industrialized world includes all of the industrialized nations; the Muslim world includes all of the Muslim nations, and so on. Thus, the “ancient world” that 2 Peter wrote about includes all of the ancient world, not just the land of Noah.

To put it to you a different way, so you don’t miss my point: If you were to refer in writing to the “Christian world,” without limitation, you wouldn’t expect anyone to think you really meant just the Christians in the world of your hometown, would you?

So, if you wouldn’t expect readers to arbitrarily put a limit on your description, then why do you think that the writer of 2 Peter 2:5 expected you limit his “ancient world” to just the ancient land of Noah?

If you wanted people to know you were talking about the Christian world in your town, you would say so, and not allow people to believe you meant the entire Christian world. You should expect no less from the inspired Bible writer, writing under the guidance of God. If he wanted you to know that he was only referring to the ancients in the land of Noah, he would have said so. If not, why not? He didn’t say that, so any sensible person should believe that he was talking about the entire ancient world, and not just the land of Noah.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

In the following I will explain why the "ancient world" described by the writer of 2 Peter represents the "world of all ancients," and therefore, the whole of the ancient world, not just the ancients who lived in the "land of Noah," but all ancients who lived in that ancient time.

I will use the same logic aChristian uses.

First, aChristian explains that the "world" in Romans 11:12 below is the "world of all Gentiles":

It should also be here noted that, even when the word "kosmos" is translated as "world" in the New Testament, it often does not refer to the entire world. For instance, though the Greek word "kosmos" is translated as "world" in Rom. 11:12 the context of this verse clearly shows it's writer was using it to refer only to the Gentile world.

Next, aChristian explains that the "world" in John 7:7 below is the "world of all opposers of God":

And Christ himself often used the same word to refer only to a part of the world, the part that stood in opposition to him. For instance, he said, "The world [Greek = kosmos] cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil." (John 7:7) The fact is, when the Greek word "kosmos" is translated as "world" in the New Testament it is very often used in a limited way, to refer to the part of our world that remains opposed to God.

Now, let's apply the same reasoning used by aChristian to show that the "world" that the writer referred to in 2 Peter 2:5 is the "world of all ancients":

God …did not spare the ancient world [kosmos] when he brought the flood on its ungodly people (2 Peter 2:5)

Since aChristian showed once before that he would answer questions if I numbered them, I will number the six questions I would like to have him answer.

1. Now, aChristian, if the world in your Romans 11:12 example is the world of all Gentiles, and the world in your John 7:7 example is the world of all opposers of God, then why isn't the world of ancients in my 2 Peter 2:5 example NOT the world of all ancients?

After you've answered this question, aChristian, will you please respond to a question I've asked you four times already, but have not yet received an answer?

Will you address the very important questions relating to what the Bible writers knew? You seem determined not to respond to these questions, and I think the reason is clear: You cannot explain why not a single one of God's writers were inspired or guided by God to explain to Bible readers the following extremely important fact about God's true will and intentions toward the corrupt people of his earth:

God planned to rescind the death penalty levied against all of the people in the "land of Noah," provided they repent--according to you.

2. aChristian, don't you think this fact--if it's true--should be in the Bible, and spelled out in no uncertain terms?

3. Isn't it extremely important for believers to be shown examples of their god being forgiving, and not just ones which show a vengeful, angry god, such as the one who ordered the infants and suckling babes to be killed? What better example of god's intended forgiveness could the Bible writers have described? Why didn't they?

4. Why wouldn't God want to make sure that readers knew he was prepared to let onto the ark anyone in the "land of Noah" who repented, if that was really the case?

5. Also, will you explain why no Bible writer says a single thing about how the great effort expended in building such a huge ark was in vain--according to you? It was mostly empty--according to you--because the great horde of sinners God hoped would repent and show up at the ark to be saved never repented. All those folks God had hoped he could use to repopulate the earth never showed up! Why does no Bible writer tell us this?

6. Do you really think that this is the type of information God would not have wanted to make absolutely certain was in his Bible, if it were true? If so, why?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

aChristian, I sense that even Faithful will no longer wish to associate himself with your silly theory.

Your recent attempt to explain why there is not a single example of the use of kosmos (world) to represent a local area, rather than the whole earth, fails completely. The Bible contains 185 examples of the use of this word to represent the "whole globe," but there is not one example where it is used to represent a limited area of land.

Do you have such an example to present to the forum? If not, then why should we not believe that the writer of 2 Peter was referring to the entire world when he wrote the verse below?

God …did not spare the ancient world [kosmos] when he brought the flood on its ungodly people (2 Peter 2:5)

If aChristian cannot show even one example where the Bible uses the word kosmos to mean a limited area of land, and explain why the 185 examples of its use to mean "whole world" should be ignored, then what person in his right mind would disbelieve that the writer of 2 Peter was describing a flood which covered the whole globe? I'm assuming that Faithful, at long last, has sense enough to abandon aChristian's crackpot beliefs.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

140

Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel in

since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.

farkel

JosephAlward

aChristian writes,

Many believers in a local flood say that when God told Noah to take "every" kind of animal onto the ark, He was only referring to "every kind" of animal which Noah and his family would need immediately after the flood.

Then why didn’t God have his Genesis writer say so? Why wasn't the omniscient God smart enough to know that thousands of years of Bible readers would misinterpret the simple, plain-speaking words in Genesis? If these “believers” can imagine that crucial words were left out of the Bible verses, then where does one draw the line?

God warned what would happen to those who seek to add to the words in the Bible:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. (Revelation 22:18)

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html