Did The Great Flood Really Happen?

[ding]

I just googled and there are thousands of different interpretations talking about many different literary styles. This is not settled, apparently.
I understand there are poems etc in the bible. Im not stupid. My point is, you just make shit up when its convenient.
Whether its literal or allegorical isnt settled either.
BECAUSE you people just make shit up to fit your own narrative.

Dude, you want to argue against the literal interpretation because it doesn't make sense.

You don't want to argue against the allegorical interpretation because you have no argument and you are only here to make fun of others to please yourself. Tell me I'm wrong.

Why would i argue something you make up inside that head of yours?

So you aren't here to make fun of people to please yourself, TN? Yes or no.

I would deflect too.

You just did

We both know what you are doing and we both know it doesn't work on me and that's what really gets your goat.

That and I kick your ass routinely.

You wish, Mr. Deflection.

Let's take it to the bull ring.

You want to debate your imagination?

I would debate you on almost anything.

I doubt you will say the same.

I am always down for structured, REAL debate. I used to want to go to the bull ring all the time but no one would ever do it.
Throwing out one liners is better than structured discussion around here, so i gave up.

OK, let's debate if the first eleven chapters of Genesis are meant to be taken literally or allegorically. That is what you are arguing, right?

Im not debating your imagination, ding. Find another subject.

How is the debate of whether or not the first 11 chapters of Genesis was meant to be read literally or allegorically made up in my head?

Aren't you confident you can prove Genesis should be read literally?

How else do you read it? Oh yeah, make shit up.
End of debate

I will explain why it should be read that way and you can explain why it shouldn't be read that way. You know you are scared.

 

[ding]

I just googled and there are thousands of different interpretations talking about many different literary styles. This is not settled, apparently.
I understand there are poems etc in the bible. Im not stupid. My point is, you just make shit up when its convenient.
Whether its literal or allegorical isnt settled either.
BECAUSE you people just make shit up to fit your own narrative.

Dude, you want to argue against the literal interpretation because it doesn't make sense.

You don't want to argue against the allegorical interpretation because you have no argument and you are only here to make fun of others to please yourself. Tell me I'm wrong.

Why would i argue something you make up inside that head of yours?

So you aren't here to make fun of people to please yourself, TN? Yes or no.

That would make three questions:
are you here?
Is it in order to make fun of people?
would that be to please yourself, or someone/something other than yourself?

I just got it. I'm a little slow.

TNHarley everything is an interpretation. The question is are you reading for intent or bias.

 

[TNHarley]

I just googled and there are thousands of different interpretations talking about many different literary styles. This is not settled, apparently.
I understand there are poems etc in the bible. Im not stupid. My point is, you just make shit up when its convenient.
Whether its literal or allegorical isnt settled either.
BECAUSE you people just make shit up to fit your own narrative.

Dude, you want to argue against the literal interpretation because it doesn't make sense.

You don't want to argue against the allegorical interpretation because you have no argument and you are only here to make fun of others to please yourself. Tell me I'm wrong.

Why would i argue something you make up inside that head of yours?

So you aren't here to make fun of people to please yourself, TN? Yes or no.

I would deflect too.

You just did

We both know what you are doing and we both know it doesn't work on me and that's what really gets your goat.

That and I kick your ass routinely.

You wish, Mr. Deflection.

Let's take it to the bull ring.

You want to debate your imagination?

I would debate you on almost anything.

I doubt you will say the same.

I am always down for structured, REAL debate. I used to want to go to the bull ring all the time but no one would ever do it.
Throwing out one liners is better than structured discussion around here, so i gave up.

OK, let's debate if the first eleven chapters of Genesis are meant to be taken literally or allegorically. That is what you are arguing, right?

Im not debating your imagination, ding. Find another subject.

How is the debate of whether or not the first 11 chapters of Genesis was meant to be read literally or allegorically made up in my head?

Aren't you confident you can prove Genesis should be read literally?

How else do you read it? Oh yeah, make shit up.
End of debate

I will explain why it should be read that way and you can explain why it shouldn't be read that way. You know you are scared.

Im not scared, its stupid. Me arguing against you making stuff up so it doesnt seem so illogical doesnt sound fun. Cause thats all it is. You making up things up so you dont evolve into an agnostic.

 

[ding]

I just googled and there are thousands of different interpretations talking about many different literary styles. This is not settled, apparently.
I understand there are poems etc in the bible. Im not stupid. My point is, you just make shit up when its convenient.
Whether its literal or allegorical isnt settled either.
BECAUSE you people just make shit up to fit your own narrative.

Dude, you want to argue against the literal interpretation because it doesn't make sense.

You don't want to argue against the allegorical interpretation because you have no argument and you are only here to make fun of others to please yourself. Tell me I'm wrong.

Why would i argue something you make up inside that head of yours?

So you aren't here to make fun of people to please yourself, TN? Yes or no.

I would deflect too.

You just did

We both know what you are doing and we both know it doesn't work on me and that's what really gets your goat.

That and I kick your ass routinely.

You wish, Mr. Deflection.

Let's take it to the bull ring.

You want to debate your imagination?

I would debate you on almost anything.

I doubt you will say the same.

I am always down for structured, REAL debate. I used to want to go to the bull ring all the time but no one would ever do it.
Throwing out one liners is better than structured discussion around here, so i gave up.

OK, let's debate if the first eleven chapters of Genesis are meant to be taken literally or allegorically. That is what you are arguing, right?

Im not debating your imagination, ding. Find another subject.

How is the debate of whether or not the first 11 chapters of Genesis was meant to be read literally or allegorically made up in my head?

Aren't you confident you can prove Genesis should be read literally?

How else do you read it? Oh yeah, make shit up.
End of debate

I will explain why it should be read that way and you can explain why it shouldn't be read that way. You know you are scared.

Im not scared, its stupid. Me arguing against you making stuff up so it doesnt seem so illogical doesnt sound fun. Cause thats all it is. You making up things so you dont evolve into an agnostic.

I'm making the call out. You can show or not show. Your call.

 

[TNHarley]

Geezus

 

[ding]

 

[ding]

Geezus

The call out thread was made.

 

[TNHarley]

Geezus

The call out thread was made.

View attachment 472722

already responded

 

[Meriweather]

"the flood happened!"
When science shows there is no evidence = "it was an allegorical account!"
"the sun revolves around the Earth!"
When science shows that isnt true = "it was an allegorical account!"
"The world is flat!"
When science shows that isnt true = "Turns out thats not what they were talking about. Its all good!"
"God made the Earth immobile!"
When science shows that isnt true = "It was an allegory!"

It was never about science. Nor, in the case of the flood, was it about allegory. A flood was the setting, the background. It actually shows how little mankind has changed. Think about it. There was a flood, a climate change--and mankind decided it was all their fault. Calls to mind the present, doesn't it? Yelp! A climate change! It must be because of human behavior, it must be our fault.

Many Bible stories address human behavior, sometimes using allegories; often times using embroidered facts to better illustrate the behavior being addressed and how to correct said behavior.

The number one thing people care about is human behavior. It even comes before science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do you know?

Already covered in the thread.

 

[ding]

How do you know?

Already covered in the thread.

That's a major deflection. Tell me how you know there was never a flood in ancient times? Are you familiar with the concept of falsifiability? How exactly are you falsifying that there was no flood?

 

[ding]

Geezus

The call out thread was made.

View attachment 472722

already responded

Bet you are glad you took that meeting.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's a major deflection.

No, this was answered over and over, and once by me. Go read the thread. We can rule out the flood myth. And respond to those points or don't. Those are your choices.

Of course there were floods. Lots of them. I am talking about the truth of the bible myth.

 

[ding]

That's a major deflection.

No, this was answered over and over, and once by me. Go read the thread. We can rule out the flood myth. And respond to those points or don't. Those are your choices.

So you don't know. OK. Which means you can't falsify it.

#winning

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's a major deflection.

No, this was answered over and over, and once by me. Go read the thread. We can rule out the flood myth. And respond to those points or don't. Those are your choices.

So you don't know. OK. Which means you can't falsify it.

#winning

Don't know...what? You are incoherent.

Yes, we.know the great flood myth is fiction.

 

[BreezeWood]

Did the Great Flood really happen? - Living Faith - Home & Family - News - Catholic Online

Many Christians today argue the flood story is only a myth. It is a cautionary tale, not intended for literal interpretation. What's important, they say, is that we accept the lessons in the story rather than the story itself. There is merit to this approach. The story has no value if we ignore the lessons it teaches.

Jesus said it did.

I'm a Christian. I believe Him over today's "christian" teachers whom Christ said would be judged HARSHLY for teaching false doctrine

Then most Christians are fucked, as they created the "allegory" nonsense, to keep up with reality.

Sort of like most atheists are fucked because they read allegorical texts literally?

I would assume all atheists are fucked. Do some atheists get a "get out of hell" free card? Is it like the immigration lottery?
Or is that something else you just made up like the "allegories?"

Allegories explain things humans don't know or understand. Perhaps the tale of Adam and Eve is about the time period when humans stopped trusting o God's providence and began to cultivate crops and tend livestock.

Of course that took place 14,000 years earlier, but the story is still an explanation.

Allegories is something the religious cling to when science provers their hand-me-down, cherry picked fables written by desert savages, are proven wrong.

Ancient man knew 6,000 years before science that the universe was created from nothing, was the result of stages and that man arose from that creation.

If you weren't such an intellectually dishonest militant atheist you'd have seen it too.

New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist

Counters nonreligious professor: The Genesis account of the formation of the heavens and the earth has nothing to do with science

www.timesofisrael.com

Genesis and the Big Bang: Both contain truth

In 2014, Pope Francis told a group of scientists that both the biblical stories of Genesis and the Big Bang theory are consistent with Catholic faith. Secular m

www.catholicsentinel.org

Creatio ex nihilo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Ancient man knew 6,000 years before science that the universe was created from nothing

.
the thread of fallacies - there is nothing to prove otherwise there has never been a time both energy and matter have existed.

CMB, red shift, quantum mechanics, FLoT, SLoT, Einstein's field equations, expanding universe, etc. say it's not a fallacy.

Energy and matter exist today, so maybe you meant to say something else.

.

the thread of fallacies - there is nothing to prove otherwise there has never been a time both energy and matter have existed.

CMB, red shift, quantum mechanics, FLoT, SLoT, Einstein's field equations, expanding universe, etc. say it's not a fallacy.

Energy and matter exist today, so maybe you meant to say something else.

.

Ancient man knew 6,000 years before science that the universe was created from nothing

,

I left out the not - you have no proof there has ever been a time energy and matter have not existed.

your answer is simply confirmation after the moment of singularity of the cyclical bb.

 

[alang1216]

Did the Great Flood really happen? - Living Faith - Home & Family - News - Catholic Online

Many Christians today argue the flood story is only a myth. It is a cautionary tale, not intended for literal interpretation. What's important, they say, is that we accept the lessons in the story rather than the story itself. There is merit to this approach. The story has no value if we ignore the lessons it teaches.

I don't have any position on the theology of the Flood but, unless it was a supernatural event unlike any before or since, historically there was no global flood. There is no geological evidence for it and no natural forces that could cause such a global flood.

The burckle crater on the bottom of the indian ocean under 11,000 feet of water dated to the approximate time of gilgamesh is 25 times larger than meteor crater in arizona. The impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a worldwide deluge that lasted for weeks, sweeping away every village,town or city built near rivers and streams and washes, worldwide, not to mention the immediate mega tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal civilizations.

According to scripture the next time the earth, including the atmosphere, will be destroyed is by fire, which would be the result of a similar impact on land or a larger one on the ocean again.

Whatever it was, it left no global signature.

Except on the memory of the survivors and their descendants...

List of flood myths - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have been to places that had been destroyed by wars, natural disasters, hurricanes, fires, and devastating floods yet saw absolutely no evidence of it.

Is that so strange?

You put too much faith in eyewitness testimony. Just because you saw no evidence of disaster (were you even looking for any?) doesn't mean there was none to the trained eye.

What does the trained eye see here?

View attachment 472614

My eye sees a dissected plateau. Interesting that the plateau is so homogeneous it may be a single layer. Volcanic maybe?

They are chevrons created by 600 foot high tsunamis that match other chevrons which when triangulated mark the sight of the burckle crater.

Where are they? Around the Indian Ocean? Not global. In the Mediterranean? Global.

 

[alang1216]

2. Everything he created is good

Really? How do you define good? Are viruses good? Is Satan good?

There is only good, the absence of good and everything in between. It's like heat or light.

So Hitler was good, just not as good as some others?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

2. Everything he created is good

Really? How do you define good? Are viruses good? Is Satan good?

There is only good, the absence of good and everything in between. It's like heat or light.

So Hitler was good, just not as good as some others?

So many killed so many more than Hitler, but they were Communists.

Is that why Hitler is the epitome of evil in the mind of the left, and not Mao or any other communist?

 

[alang1216]

2. Everything he created is good

Really? How do you define good? Are viruses good? Is Satan good?

There is only good, the absence of good and everything in between. It's like heat or light.

So Hitler was good, just not as good as some others?

So many killed so many more than Hitler, but they were Communists.

Is that why Hitler is the epitome of evil in the mind of the left, and not Mao or any other communist?

So I should have said "Hitler was good, just not as good as some but better than others"? Happy?