Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I specifically did address one of the points you attempted, inside your 'it's not literal' statement. I went back to the water analogy because if you propose an upper atmosphere seen figuratively as water but which instead is vacuum [because that is the only alternative], that concept even as analogy doesn't make sense, either.
You kept asserting it's not as far fetched as it seems; my statement remains 'yes, it is far fetched'.
Basically, any reference to a global flood, no matter how you want to water down [pun intended] the actual tale to try and make it believable, it's going to fail as some kind of 'proof', because the event, despite semantic attenuation, never happened. There has been no global die-off during homo sapiens' biological tenure.
I specifically did address one of the points you attempted, inside your 'it's not literal' statement. I went back to the water analogy because if you propose an upper atmosphere seen figuratively as water but which instead is vacuum [because that is the only alternative], that concept even as analogy doesn't make sense, either.
You kept asserting it's not as far fetched as it seems; my statement remains 'yes, it is far fetched'.
Basically, any reference to a global flood, no matter how you want to water down [pun intended] the actual tale to try and make it believable, it's going to fail as some kind of 'proof', because the event, despite semantic attenuation, never happened. There has been no global die-off during homo sapiens' biological tenure.
I'm uncertain. Can you point out where I said it happened during Homo Sapiens biological tenure?
Or are you suggesting that an event where the very atmosphere boils away, like, say, during a major heavenly body collision never occurred?
Before I counter your argument, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.
Oh, wait.. you're suggesting the Bible is somehow informing us of a cataclysmic extinction event, where mankind was not involved at all? Because we did not exist yet? By telling us of an allegory where mankind is wiped out save a few selected survivors?
How does that make any sense given the topic of the thread at this moment?
If sinful man didn't exist God had no reason to make the onus of the Flood his anger at man. There's no reason for the flood at all.
How is this position believable, in any manner whatsoever??
Last edited by Heathen Hammer; 08-02-2012 at 06:22 AM..
Basically, we're getting to the point where the Bible is being shaken like an Etch-a-Sketch so that the contents become 'believable' compared to reality and history; and the ONLY reason it might veer close to that believability is that it contains words that can be arranged into sentences.
Oh, wait.. you're suggesting the Bible is somehow informing us of a cataclysmic extinction event, where mankind was not involved at all? Because we did not exist yet? By telling us of an allegory where mankind is wiped out save a few selected survivors?
How does that make any sense given the topic of the thread?
If sinful man didn't exist God had no reason to make the onus of the Flood his anger at man. There's no reason for the flood at all.
Genesis 6:4:
Quote:
There were giants
Quote:
in the earth in those days; and also after that
Genesis has several interesting things to say which could be painted as intriguing. You have to understand that Genesis is a discussion of the creation of the earth, and is very relevant to the topic at hand. For instance, the Hebrew word they use for the Serpent in the Garden is hwh. This does not mean 'Snake', but rather 'serpent'. It is more properly used as 'Sea Serpents' and the word is used with monstrous intent.
Also note that there are several words translated as 'Man' used in the Hebrew:
Adam - This denotes the origin.
Ish - This is the 'sex' of male.
Enosh - This is regards to his character and physical mortality.
Geber - This denotes his physical strength and often refers to him as mighty.
Which of those would most fit with a hypothesis about the death of 'man' in the flood?
EDIT: I just saw you posted several other things after I had begun responding. Do you really think that understanding root words recalls using it as an Etch-a-sketch?
it is relevant only in that it wished to discuss how the Earth came about; it is not relevant at all when the actual contents are examined.
I invite you to read 'Commentary on the Torah' by Richard Elliott Friedman, who is the Ann and Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia and was Visiting Fellow at Cambridge, Oxford and Senior Fellow at the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem.
I think at this point we are veering off into totally non sequitur territory. We need to discuss how we might determine if natural processes or design, are what we see when viewing the universe as a whole. Making repeated statements about how awesome and accurate the Bible is, when the examples being given are anything but, won't get us there.
I think at this point we are veering off into totally non sequitur territory. We need to discuss how we might determine of natural processes or design, are what we see when viewing the universe as a whole. Making repeated statements about how awesome and accurate the Bible is, when the examples being given are anything but, won't get us there.
Could you quote what isn't accurate? That space is not very similar to water, that there were no serpents on the world at the beginning of the earth, or that there were no extinction level events?
As those seem to be the three things I compared to biblical accounts of creation, I'm hoping you can clarify which of those three is incorrect or, possibly, what it is you don't understand.
Could you quote what isn't accurate? That space is not very similar to water, that there were no serpents on the world at the beginning of the earth, or that there were no extinction level events?
Could I personally quote them all> No, I would not. Since we are suggesting research to one another feel free to Google phrases like 'inaccuracies in the Bible' or anything similar for the huge catalog of problems this ancient piece of fiction has.
Space is not similar to water, no. Only in poetic metaphor. The 'serpent' mentioned in genesis has nothing to do with dinosaurs. And since I am attempting to show how daft your assertions are based on real physics and science, are you seriously asking me if Im saying there were no mass extinction events? really?
Quote:
As those seem to be the three things I compared to biblical accounts of creation, I'm hoping you can clarify which of those three is incorrect or, possibly, what it is you don't understand.
And what I am repeating now, for your final benefit, is that the biblical accounts of creation are not related to those things in any way whatsoever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
