Noah's Flood...

[Minimalist]

Just because one does not accept the Bible as absolute, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY HAVE NO MORALS.

As a matter of fact, it probably gives them an advantage.

[Guest]

Indeed, indeed.

I mean, he seems to be trying to defend the morality of an entity that demands the slaughter of children and babies--and with squish you if you let one get away.

You have a deity who lies to David so his can punish him.

Now this all makes bloody good sense when one considers the time periods of the writing of these various texts--and they are texts. Assyrians just kicked your dog? Well . . . way . . . way back . . . no, further back . . . WE not only kicked dogs, we killed everyone! BWA!HA!HA!HA! [Stop that.--Ed.]

Right, sorry.

--J.D.

[Minimalist]

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/killergod.htm

YHWH, The Killer God

Lots of bloodshed here by Yahweh the Bloody-Handed.

[Guest]

Exactly.

I have a "canned" essay on such violence, because the usual reaction of [Straw--Ed.] fundamentalists is to either deny the violence or try to apologize for it.

How did the infants "deserve" being slaughtered?

In a way, it is "unfair" to the writers and believers of the relevant periods--they did not regard gods as moral and ethical exemplars. The "message" of Job, for example, is basically, "Because I CAN, dickhead!"

That is what gods do. Many portrayals are quite "human" in that respect. This is why who have YHWH "repenting" of his "evil"--changing his mind, acting out, et cetera.

--J.D.

[Guest]

i see that this thread has degenerated also.

but anyways, again you can do all the calculations you want to and declare it could not happen but the error comes in when you use modern thinking, for an event that happened in ancient times.

there are so may variables missing from your calculations that any conclusion is rendered meaningless until you make the proper adjustments.

also, i doubt that you can prove it did not happen because your evidence leads you to make a faith based conclusion. data attributed to local floods, may well be part of the information that was left from the global one. you certainly cannot say for sure which way it goes.

then you have to deal with the problems that arise which can only be explained by a global flood catstrophe. your millions of years justificatioon is just an excuse for not dealing with the biblical account.

the mountains of evidence for Noah's flood oputweighs any argument you can produce. cheap tricks like saying the book is 50 years old shows that yuo cannot compete against the truth and must find some off-handed way to escape dealing with what is being said.

[Minimalist]

i see that this thread has degenerated also.

I doubt that it would be possible for a thread on a non-event not to degenerate.

There is simply no way that either of the Noah myths in the bible could have happened. In fact, the fact that there are two versions should pretty much have spelled oblivion for it from the start.

[john]

shows that yuo cannot compete against the truth and must find some off-handed way to escape dealing with what is being said.


........like a certain christian living in korea, and i don't mean the rev. moon.

doublebloody hip, hip, hooray!


john

[Guest]

i see that this thread has degenerated also.

Ipse dixit, but incorrect, with a dash of Poisoning the Well

On the contrary, ee see you are unable to defend a position.

. . . but the error comes in when you use modern thinking, for an event that happened in ancient times.

Evidences?

Thanks.

. . . there are so may variables missing from your calculations that any conclusion is rendered meaningless until you make the proper adjustments.

Evidences?

Thanks.

the mountains of evidence for Noah's flood oputweighs [Sic--Ed.] any argument you can produce.

Where is this mountain? After so many pages you have yet to give its coordinates. Also which Noah Flood Myth does this "mountain" support?

Fallacy is not argument.

--J.D.

[john]

god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent

which means he don't need no stinkin gps to tell you where the mountain is.

so fess up, arch.

it isn't like its a secret fishing hole.


john

[Guest]

Arch are you saying that scientists are "immoral

read what i wrote. doesn't even come close to this thought.

i doubt that you can prove it did not happen because your evidence leads you to make a faith based conclusion

then bring on your evidence in a logical, concise, intelligent, proper, readable, organized, and so on manner.

let's see what you have based upon understandable science that disproves an event no one has witnessed and is writing about it (except the Bible).

your conclusions are as faith based as mine except i have more evidence on my side. so time for you all to pony up as described 2 paragraphs ago. if you can't do it, don't insult or criticize.

[Guest]

Yet you cannot provide this "evidence" and you cannot address the evidence given to you.

Curious. . . .

I, in fact, am currently engaged in a torrid affair with Nicole Kidman.

I have "evidence" too.

--J.D.

[ed]

Yet you cannot provide this "evidence" and you cannot address the evidence given to you.

Curious. . . .

I, in fact, am currently engaged in a torrid affair with Nicole Kidman.

I have "evidence" too.

--J.D.

Had 'er.

Anyway, expound on the two flood versions.

[john]

Yet you cannot provide this "evidence" and you cannot address the evidence given to you.

Curious. . . .

I, in fact, am currently engaged in a torrid affair with Nicole Kidman.

I have "evidence" too.

--J.D.

Had 'er.

Anyway, expound on the two flood versions.

i think he be talking about pathos and bathos.
you gotta remember that all biblical accounts are merely metaphors or symbolic representations of man's fall from grace.

not to be taken literally.

chapter in question is called 'between the devil and the deep blue sea"

herman melville's translation (moby dick), is, in my opinion, best.


john

[Guest]

Bah! Moby Dick was scrawled by an effeminate failure who also spat such abominations as "Billy Budd" and "Bartleby the Who Really Gives a Shit?"

Now, CONRAD . . . there was a writer who knew the sea . . . and actually sailed upon it not as someone's butt-boy.

--J.D.

P.S. What? Oh . . . on topic? Let me check my files. . . .

[Minimalist]

Yet you cannot provide this "evidence" and you cannot address the evidence given to you.

Curious. . . .

I, in fact, am currently engaged in a torrid affair with Nicole Kidman.

I have "evidence" too.

--J.D.

Had 'er.

Anyway, expound on the two flood versions.

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/flood.html

The story of the flood consists of two separate traditions chopped into pieces and then spun together, with inconsistent passages intact. In one version God is referred to as Elohim, which is usually translated God in the Bible, but is actually plural, and means gods. In the other version God is referred to as Yahweh, which is usually translated YAHWEH. These two different names of God each correspond to the different details in the two conflicting versions of the flood story. Separate the names of God, and you will separate the two flood stories, each emerging with its separate details intact, making the story of Noah's ark and the flood one of the most famous examples of the practice of source criticism and redaction criticism in the Bible. In one version, the one we are all familiar with, it rained for ‘forty days and nights." But another version is also present, but is ignored.

"The flood lasted forty days on the earth." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 17)

"When the water had increased over the earth for a hundred and fifty days, God took thought for Noah and the beasts and cattle with him in the ark, and he caused a wind to blow over the earth, so that the water began to subside. The springs of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped up, the downpour from the skies was checked." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 24)

Similar conflicts are found in the story of the animals going onto the ark. In one version we are specifically told that all animals, ‘clean' and ‘unclean' went onto the ark two by two, and in the variant (priestly) version of the story the ‘clean' animals go on seven by seven. The reason for the variant is that Noah must be portrayed as offering up animal sacrifices upon leaving the ark in the priestly version, thus suggesting that priestly sacrificial doctrine had an illustrious history. Similarly in the priestly version the flood is said to last ‘forty days and nights' since it appears that ‘forty' was considered an illustrious number. (The Sinai mountain top expedition of Moses lasted ‘forty days and nights'. In the gospel account Joshua fasted for ‘forty days and nights,' and ‘afterward he was hungry,' which is another story altogether.)

"And to him on board the ark went one pair, a male and a female, of all animals, clean and unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, two by two, as God had commanded....Those which came were one male and one female of all living things; they came in as God had commanded Noah...the water had increased over the earth for a hundred and fifty days." (Genesis Chapter 7 verses 15, 24)

"Take with you seven pairs, a male and a female, of all ritually clean animals, and one pair, a male and a female, of all unclean animals; also seven pairs, male and female, of every bird-to ensure that life continues on the earth. For in seven days I am going to send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 2)