Testing The Bible Scientifically Part 3 / The Genesis Flood and More

reply to post by freedom12


This question you ask is a good question and there is a simple answer to it. It does however take a bit of time to explain it.

Try to stay with me on this and it will be clear. The Bible is not assymbled in chronological order. Genesis is the first book but it was written after some of the others like Job or Isaiah and some others.
What may be confusing to you is that genesis is one of five books that Moses wrote and they contain History past , Before Moses's birth. Although Moses was the writer.

So what I am saying is that when Genesis references the flood, it's talking about the past before Genesis was written and thats why some of the books that follow Genesis can contain many references to Giants. Also the term Giants is used in some cases to describe size comparison, etc.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by freedom12

 

This question you ask is a good question and there is a simple answer to it. It does however take a bit of time to explain it.

Try to stay with me on this and it will be clear. The Bible is not assymbled in chronological order. Genesis is the first book but it was written after some of the others like Job or Isaiah and some others.
What may be confusing to you is that genesis is one of five books that Moses wrote and they contain History past , Before Moses's birth. Although Moses was the writer.

So what I am saying is that when Genesis references the flood, it's talking about the past before Genesis was written and thats why some of the books that follow Genesis can contain many references to Giants. Also the term Giants is used in some cases to describe size comparison, etc.

Indeed.I am guessing Moses had a desire to know how the world came to be and God probably told him the history from Adam to Moses' great great great grandfather Abraham.

It's interesting to see how Moses was a direct decendant of Adam.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000


We can argue about this all day long bro, but youre [sic] going to be wrong everytime.[sic]

Right back atcha, big fella.
There is absolutely no geological evidence for a global flood.
Obviously god was telling porkies when he said that he'd flood the world. It just didn't happen.
[sarcasm] Oh, I see, he meant only the world of those who were his vassals..ah, nice try at dodging and making up evidence to fit the claim.[/sarcasm]

Go on then, you show me evidence of this global flood.

Erm, i just did. The whole part about the earths oceans rising 400 feet since 12000 B.C.? Where the hell do you think early man was living in sky scrapers? No, they were living on the coastlines of the seas where fish and seafood were abundant. Water starts rising, they abandon their settlements and move further inland until the water stops rising. See? Rising waters=flood. Take a look at the Black Sea, bottom half is freshwater, top half is salt water. So howd that happen? Well, when the ice age ended the earth grew warmer and the ice shelves began to melt, the ice that blocks the gap in the pillars of heracles melted and all that salty atlantic water came rushing in (foundations of settlements found all on the bottom of the mediteranean in hundreds of sites) and the mediteranean rose and overflowed the bosporus river leading to the black sea and presto changeo, anyone living on the coastlines of the mediteranean lake and the black sea lake ended up with a watery grave and the evidence of their settlements left on the bottoms of those seas for underwater archeaologists to go pick clean.

Erm, no you didn't. That's not a global flood that covered the whole world. It certainly wasn't an instant inundation ether, so people would have been able (in most instances) to walk away from it.

Try again.

You won't find any evidence geologically of a global flood as outlined in the bible, at all.

reply to post by aorAki


I am curious if you read the story from the link I posted in the very beginning of the thread. It has many other interesting points that I think anyone would find interesting.

reply to post by CherubBaby

I am well aware of the claim that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT. Your answer doesnt explain the history in the bible as David(of the Goliath story) came after Moses,so that answer is not possible. As well as Tribes of Israel(descendants of Moses) battling tribes of giants.

reply to post by CherubBaby


Yep, much to my chagrin I did read it. It is pseudo-scientific garbage and not supported in fact at all. I mean, come on, humans living to such a ripe old age?
But then, since we are in opposing camps we will obviously disagree, but the archaeological record and the geological record tell far different and much more factually robust stories than the bible does.

reply to post by freedom12


I don't understand what your asking maybe. Can you tell me what your referring to a bit more in detail? Thanks.
The term Giant is used several places including the flood

reply to post by CherubBaby

You tried to explain how Giants were alive post-flood by saying that the OT was not in historical order.

I'm saying there are stories of Giants such as David and Goliath, and tribes of Israel battling wholes tribes of giants. Both of which are descendants of Noah as the Bible explains it.

Therefore, its not possible that the whole Earth was flooded and everyone killed as I posed hypothetically to you in my earlier post.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

I hate to burst your bubble of self delusion but it must be done. Archeaology has already proved the "great flood" in fact has happened.

And could 'archealogy' also provide us with a date for this miraculous occurrence?

In a later post you first say the Great Flood was regional, then speculate that it might have been the same thing as the known rise in sea levels between Ice Ages, i.e. not a regional flood at all but a global one. Well, which was it, then, and when did it take place?

The Middle East is mostly desert and flood plain. Flooding is common and frequent; in fact, flooding in desert areas occurs nearly every time it rains; I have lived in the Middle East and seen both floods and traces of floods for myself. I do not doubt that there is archaeological evidence for flooding everywhere in the Middle East – not one flood, but dozens, hundreds, thousands. So tell us: which was Noah's, and when did it occur?

Or do you want to go with a global Interglacial or post-Younger Dryas flood? It might be safer. Sea levels once rose to almost six metres higher than today, according to some experts. Want to claim that a climate-related sea level rise was Noah's flood? In that case, shall we accept the Biblical account of the extermination of all mankind (except for Noah and his kin, of course) and of all the animals known to the ancient Hebrews? If it is archaeology that provides the evidence, we have abundant proof that interglacial sea rise did not wipe out the human race or even come close to doing so. Given this evidence, how scientific can the Biblical account possibly be? And just how Chosen, after all, were the Jews?

And if it isn't absolutely accurate, and other humans besides Noah and his kin were saved, doesn't that mean that there was nothing special about Noah, or the ancient Hebrews, in God's sight? That there was no moral dimension to the Flood story? And that, in fact, the story is just a Middle-Eastern folk-tale (found also in the Sumerian story of Zusidra, later transformed into the Babylonian myth of Atrahasis)? In other words, that there is absolutely nothing special about the Bible story at all?

Archeaology has also proved Jericho did exist and in the spot the bible said it did and that it was also razed and burnt to the ground.

Here you are correct. But though this may prove the historicity of some Bible stories, it tells us nothing of the scientific accuracy of the Bible. So, did the Sun and Moon pause in the sky for Joshua to fight his battle? Did the sound of trumpets bring stone walls crashing down? I would love to see the OP (or you, for that matter), present a scientific (as opposed to speculative and pseudoscientific) explanation for these remarkable events.

Archeaology has also proved that Troy actually did exist and that it too was razed to the ground.

'Archeaology' may have proved this, but archaeology certainly has not. The site discovered by Schliemann and known to the world as Troy may or may not be the historical city. No categorical proof of that has ever been discovered, and, as most people interested in the matter are aware, the local terrain does not match the descriptions given in the Iliad. We call it Troy because we are fond of Homer's epics and would like them to be true; but outside the epics there is not a shred of evidence that a city called Troy (or Ilium) ever existed. I am inclined to think it probably did, but there is no proof of it.

Archeaology has also proved that Herodium in fact did exist and many ancient cities in Israel that are in the bible actually did exist like Caesaria and even the Temple of Herod and jewish coins from the first century A.D. were in fact discovered at the base of the Mt. Moriah with maccabee inscriptions on them.

Did anybody ever contest the existence of these places? The politico-historical side of the Bible is quite clearly based in fact, although specific events have of course been invented or distorted for political reasons. By the time we get to the Book of Joshua the narrative has moved forward from mythic time (the creation and Hebrew ancestral myths, the captivity in Egypt, etc.) to historical time (the genocides in Canaan, Samuel's betrayal of his protector and the creation of a theocratic state, the reluctant yielding to military necessity that resulted in the crowning of Saul, and so on). On these subjects, the Bible is a work of fictionalized propaganda set in a very real historical frame. You are trying to prove what no educated person seriously doubts.

Archeaology is a well established and well respected science by the world scientific community world wide, it is hardly "psuedo-science".

That would be archaeology, I think.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

The whole part about the earths oceans rising 400 feet since 12000 B.C.?

Yes, 400 hundred feet higher now than they were 14,000 years ago.

According to that theory, sea levels are now higher than they were at the time of Noah's flood.

Where the hell do you think early man was living in sky scrapers? No, they were living on the coastlines of the seas where fish and seafood were abundant.

They were also living on inland grasslands and other environments far from the sea. Humankind was born on the African savannah, not on a beach. It is true that settlement tended to spread along coastlines; but you are not talking about primitive Homines Sapientes or even Paleolithic tribespeople; by the time of the Younger Dryas (the period you are describing), humanity was technologically and culturally well advanced, and quite widespread.

Water starts rising, they abandon their settlements and move further inland until the water stops rising.

Yes, I do see. So where, in your story, is the flood the Bible says covered the whole world? Where are the waters that rose to the peak of Ararat? Where was the need to save every living animal – or did Noah just save his livestock and chickens, as one might expect? Where was the dove, where the olive branch, whence the rainbow that marked God's promise never to destroy the world by water again? Did He keep that promise?

Take a look at the Black Sea, bottom half is freshwater, top half is salt water. So howd that happen? Well, when the ice age ended the earth grew warmer and the ice shelves began to melt... the mediteranean rose and overflowed the bosporus river leading to the black sea and presto changeo, anyone living on the coastlines of the mediteranean lake and the black sea lake ended up with a watery grave and the evidence of their settlements left on the bottoms of those seas for underwater archeaologists to go pick clean.

Fiddlesticks. The depths of the Black Sea are more, not less salty than the surface layers. Yes, the Black Sea was probably an isolated lake at times during the Glacial era and yes, global sea levels did rise until the Mediterranean waters poured into the Black Sea basin and flooded it. That flood hasn't subsided yet. According to your Interglacial Biblical's Flood Hypothesis, we are still living in the middle of Noah's flood. And dammit, you still can't find an ark when you need one...

Oh, and by the way, the Bosporus is not a river.

reply to post by Astyanax


As far as the water for the flood? Here I covered this in the first opening post of this thread,

www.one-gospel.org...

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by CherubBaby

 

You tried to explain how Giants were alive post-flood by saying that the OT was not in historical order.

I'm saying there are stories of Giants such as David and Goliath, and tribes of Israel battling wholes tribes of giants. Both of which are descendants of Noah as the Bible explains it.

Therefore, its not possible that the whole Earth was flooded and everyone killed as I posed hypothetically to you in my earlier post.

I'm guessing google / Xtian sites don't have the answer for this

reply to post by freedom12


Hi there. The answer to your question is that demons / wicked spirits came and had sexual relations with people on the earth . This happened before the flood and after the flood.

Genesis 6:4 (Original KJV):
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and
they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which
were of old, men of renown

This is believed to have happened both before the Flood and after the flood. In Israel at the time of David, and before this when the Hebrews were scouting the land - there were tribes of these Nephilim - Goliath the giant of Gath is one example. Early Church fathers also understood this to be the case. It appears that these fallen angels were active all over the world. These bizarre giants living on the earth are also echoed in the legends and myths of nearly every ancient culture. The ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and most all the others have these legends.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by freedom12

 

Hi there. The answer to your question is that demons / wicked spirits came and had sexual relations with people on the earth . This happened before the flood and after the flood.

Genesis 6:4 (Original KJV):
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and
they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which
were of old, men of renown

This is believed to have happened both before the Flood and after the flood. In Israel at the time of David, and before this when the Hebrews were scouting the land - there were tribes of these Nephilim - Goliath the giant of Gath is one example. Early Church fathers also understood this to be the case. It appears that these fallen angels were active all over the world. These bizarre giants living on the earth are also echoed in the legends and myths of nearly every ancient culture. The ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and most all the others have these legends.

I am well aware of what the Bible speaks of in Gen 6:4, which is pre-flood. Please point out where any "cast out angels" or as you refer to them "demons/wicked spirits" are mentioned as coming to the Earth after the flood. Unless it is your contention that these guys had the ability to survive God flooding the Earth. Gibberish about what the "early church fathers" thought is just them trying to interpret the Bible, which can be done by you or me also. Bible references only a that is what your thread is about!

reply to post by CherubBaby


The source is automatically discredited by calling the Bible "useful for moral teaching". Anyone taught morals strictly from the Bible will come out an absolute mess, especially where the Old Testament is involved. One could argue Jesus is a decent moral teacher but the old Mosaic law is absolutely horrific. Anyone who can read Deuteronomy 22 and come out claiming the Bible is good for moral teaching needs to have their head examined.

As for the so-called science a lot of mental gymnastics has been done to "prove" the Flood but as of yet no legitimate science has ever validated a worldwide deluge. In fact geology could easily prove the flood, but it doesn't because a worldwide flood never took place. Do you honestly think every geology graduate in the world is in on some sort of conspiracy, or are they all non-Christians, or perhaps just too stupid to notice evidence for a worldwide flood (which would be OBVIOUS if it existed). Your source makes some ridiculous claims, such as:

This book claims that there were no rainbows before the Flood but rainbows were immediately visible afterwards. With the details that the Bible describes of the Flood this is exactly what the modern scientist would anticipate!

NO RAINBOWS BEFORE THE FLOOD? Good grief, that kind of thing is just agonizing to read and scientists wouldn't agree to anything of the sort. The water-layer scenario your source attempts to support is one of the most absurd hypotheses that religious pseudo-science has tried to use to prove the flood is possible, here's just a few more ridiculous unfounded ideas:

The Earth split open releasing water that was inside of it
There was a giant layer of ice that melted
God sent an icy comet that melted

etc, etc

This isn't to mention the moral objections to the Flood story, like how it makes God out to be a genocidal buffoon who's first inclination when dealing with human sin is to sentence infants and billions of innocent animals to horrific watery graves.

the bible is supposedly the word of God....the word of God cant be wrong it says......God said he made us

The great flood was what happened around 10,000 years ago when the ice age was ending. It wasn't a great flood, however, it was a series of floods in various regions. The evidence for this is astounding. As a result there are many different cultures with various flood stories. Taking the story of Noah or the countless other flood myths literally poses some major problems. The evidence from the one-gospel link is completely subjective at best. We know there was flooding back in the day. We know the earth is older than 10,000 years. It's kinda hard to live on earth with a giant ice shield blocking the sun.

Yeah.....the Earth and or the universe wasnt created in six days, so thats pretty much the end of this arguement.

Anyone who reads Genesis will realize the Earth was once gathered together in one place...proving tectonic theory...

Anyone who reads Genesis will understand the waters were all gathered together in one place on Earth and there was a canopy of water over the globe...Looking at Venus or other planets in the Solar System, with their cloud cover, makes the water canopy a very plausible theory...

The Flood of Genesis was a catastrophe of tremendous proportion, never witnessed prior or since in the history of the planet...probably the result of a massive collision of a comet/asteroid...It was responsible for the shifting of the Earth's axis and the crust displacement resulted in tremendous upheaval of the mountain ranges we see today...it is also responsible for the fossils of crustaceans we see in the Himalayas and the Andes...

There were no mountains the height we see today prior to the Flood of Genesis...the written record afterward relates the location of the Ark in the mountains of Ararat simply because that is the location it rested...it does not mean those mountains were that height at the time prior or even immediately after the flood...

Uniformity (i.e., gradual changes in the Earth's geological processes) is laughable...Look at Paricutin in Mexico...how tall is that mountain? Nearly 10000 feet...When was it born? 1943...Catastrophes have shaped this globe much more than uniform processes...the Flood of Genesis is the most catastrophic of all we have seen to date...

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by freedom12

 

Hi there. The answer to your question is that demons / wicked spirits came and had sexual relations with people on the earth . This happened before the flood and after the flood.

Genesis 6:4 (Original KJV):
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and
they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which
were of old, men of renown

This is believed to have happened both before the Flood and after the flood. In Israel at the time of David, and before this when the Hebrews were scouting the land - there were tribes of these Nephilim - Goliath the giant of Gath is one example. Early Church fathers also understood this to be the case. It appears that these fallen angels were active all over the world. These bizarre giants living on the earth are also echoed in the legends and myths of nearly every ancient culture. The ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and most all the others have these legends.

It's really hard for me tro believe that after only several generations of Noah's offspring knowing full well that their God had wiped everything off the planet to start over new, ANY of them would be stupid enough to consort with "fallen angels". The "daughter of men" selection would have been seriously depleted wouldn't it? Hard headed buggers, weren't they........ Or what is your theory about the second daughters of men. Better yet where did the FIRST group of daughters of men come from since Adam and Eve were the only 2 people God created??

The second really big problem is that from only Noah's genes, how is such a diverse ethnic population possible in only 12k or so years, give or take?!?!?!?! Suppose Noah's bloodline was the only one to survive. Where did the ethnicities come from? In 12K years on the extreme outside - we would all still look middle eastern I am afraid.