Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood is true?

[Hollie]

Thanks for the clarification. Since the Flood was a supernatural event there is really nothing to refute. The issues with the story, e.g., no evidence of a global flood or kangaroos only in Australia, are easily explained as supernatural machinations. "Because God did it" is always the final answer.

I wouldn't just write it off like that. The least you can do is learn from it. God is a loving God who sacrificed his only son so that we could live on with our second lives. Prior to it, we could not anymore due to Adam's sin. Just like with Adam, he gives us one command and that is to believe and follow his son Jesus. He is the way and the door to the narrow path. This is in lieu of taking the path of the wide gate. Many people mistake it for heaven's gate. The other big takeaway from the flood is that Jesus is a wrathful God. He will be coming again, probably after your and our deaths. It's prophecized that this will happen and all eyes will see. It means all of our differences will be settled on Earth. Now, the prophecies of what happens is what is allegory and metaphor. We do not know what all the symbolic happening mean including the Lake of Fire (hell) or even Hades, the place of the dead. I think most of will be in a sleeping but conscious state. A few will be suffering right away like Lazarus.

ETA: Science discredits your no evidence for a global flood and kangaroos only in Australia. I've said the Earth was not the same in the past as it is today. Satan and his Antibible of evolution has clouded your mind into accepting uniformitarianism. The Bible does not state that. We had Pangaea the supercontinent and plate tectonics or underseas earthquakes formed our seven continents. The catastrophism changed our geology rapidly. This is how I know that things happen rapidly on Earth. One does not have to wait a lifetime or beyond it.

Since this is the Science and Technology thread I'll try to focus on that and save the theology for another time.

So far as I know there is evidence for floods just about everywhere but no evidence for a single, global flood. What did science say about why there are only kangaroos in Australia? Yes, we had Pangaea the super-continent and plate tectonics or underseas earthquakes formed our seven continents but those same processes are still going on today and you consider them catastrophic only because your literal reading of the Bible makes you a YEC.

Maybe Satan has clouded your mind into rejecting uniformitarianism?

You're blind. I already pointed out the mountains underneath the oceans and entire buried civilizations around the world. We even have the oxygen-18 now in the rocks. You can't just make the fossils are on top of mountains, and they're marine creatures, disappear. Why should your fossils only show evolutionary layering? That's BS. There was a whole whale skeleton found in the Himalayas. Most of the fossil record is marine creatures. Even the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum has been successful while evolution exhibits such as Lucy have been failures. People do not want your Satanic Temple in the neighborhood.

I had to look up your kangaroos in Australia. It means creation scientist Wallace was right about his observation of the Wallace line. Isn't that enough evidence of God and science backs up the Bible? Of course not. It destroys you and your worldview, so the only way we'll know is after we die. Guaranteed you will know and every eye will see. All the contradictions of God's word and science by Satan's Antibible are not just coincidence. When your science all contradict God's word, it means they are bad and it isn't a coincidence.

Christianity has its own version of the Taliban, just not as heavily armed.

 

[ReinyDays]

So what do you believe will happen when 1500 gigatons of ice is instantly vaporized?

Perpetual motion will be a reality and our energy worries are over ... do you have a citation for that number ... I can't find it in your paper ... just the bogus article ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The bottom line is that there is a massive crater in the polar region which would have resulted in a global climatic change which was a sudden event which released massive amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere which would have come down as rain

Haha, dithering ding, wasting everyone's time again.

Uh, you forgot your actual point, which was to argue that this caused a global flood. Is someone supposed to come along and do this for you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Really? How small was it?

This is described in your own link, you fraud.

If you read that book you keep bringing up, then I am the queen of England. Stop wasting my time and summarize the evidence you claim exists. Or, shut the fk up.

Before you continue to embarrass yourself:

Don't forget to account for the fact that the article very clearly states that much of that melted water just ran off into the ocean, and that the melt took quite a while (was not instant).

You know, I really shouldn't have to coach you with information from your own links.

 

[skye]

Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans

Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?

Yes, it is possible.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Really? How small was it?

This is described in your own link, you fraud.

Well then why don't you post your evidence in opposition to what I've stated troll.

If you read that book you keep bringing up, then I am the queen of England. Stop wasting my time and summarize the evidence you claim exists. Or, shut the fk up.

Which book would that be?

Before you continue to embarrass yourself:

I think it's the other way around.

Don't forget to account for the fact that the article very clearly states that much of that melted water just ran off into the ocean, and that the melt took quite a while (was not instant).

Which article?

You know, I really shouldn't have to coach you with information from your own links.

Then present your non existent evidence instead of looking like the trollish idiot you are.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[alang1216]

Maybe Satan has clouded your mind into rejecting uniformitarianism?

You're blind. I already pointed out the mountains underneath the oceans and entire buried civilizations around the world. We even have the oxygen-18 now in the rocks. You can't just make the fossils are on top of mountains, and they're marine creatures, disappear. Why should your fossils only show evolutionary layering? That's BS. There was a whole whale skeleton found in the Himalayas. Most of the fossil record is marine creatures. Even the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum has been successful while evolution exhibits such as Lucy have been failures. People do not want your Satanic Temple in the neighborhood.

I had to look up your kangaroos in Australia. It means creation scientist Wallace was right about his observation of the Wallace line. Isn't that enough evidence of God and science backs up the Bible? Of course not. It destroys you and your worldview, so the only way we'll know is after we die. Guaranteed you will know and every eye will see. All the contradictions of God's word and science by Satan's Antibible are not just coincidence. When your science all contradict God's word, it means they are bad and it isn't a coincidence.

Plate tectonics and uniformitarianism adequately explain whole whale skeleton found in the Himalayas and all your other examples without the need to resort to supernatural forces. After all, the Himalayas are still growing, the Atlantic is still spreading just as predicted.

Wallace developed his theory of evolution independently of Darwin so I don't know why you say he was a creationist. The root cause of Wallace's line is that the ancient supercontinent Gondwana was separated entirely from other parts of the world after Pangaea broke up. Australasia and its smaller islands were part of Gondwana, and that is why their fauna is so different from that of south-east Asia.

When science contradicts 'God's word', it means He either lied, He was wrong, or His words were not accurately recorded.

 

[ReinyDays]

Wallace developed his theory of evolution independently of Darwin so I don't know why you say he was a creationist.

It may be true that Wallace developed his theory of evolution at the beginning ... but Wallace and Darwin were in regular communications, and Wallace was very encouraging of Darwin to publish and co-authored a few papers with him ... in many respects, the two gentlemen worked together in blessed co-operation ...

Both were members of the Church of England, but that doesn't make either one a "creationalist" in the contemporary sense of the word ...

I'm sorry James Bond, I agree that some parts of the Bible can be treated scientifically, but not all ... perhaps the single most important event in the Bible, the virgin birth, completely defies all known science ... that was a miracle, and miracles can't be tested in the lab ...

 

[ding]

So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical? You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical? Do I have that right? You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.

What was God's role in all this? Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?

C’mon man. Saying there was a great migration from Mesopotamia which happens to be called the cradle of civilization does not mean mankind began in the ME.

What part of they used allegory to make it easier to remember and pass down information did you not understand? Why are you trying to find something to not pick? Rather than reading these accounts critically, why aren’t you trying to discern what lessons and knowledge they were trying to pass down? Is it that important to you to know if there was an actual ark? And that people used a boat to save human and animal lives? Because I’m sure some did. Wouldn’t you? But instead you keep reading these passages literally to justify your biases.

So it doesn’t appear that you have it right. Here’s a suggestion why don’t you ask me what I am saying instead of trying to guess what I am saying. It takes too long to correct your guesses.

how much physical evidence are you expecting for events that occurred thousands of years ago? Are you telling me that you don’t believe there was a migration from Mesopotamia to other parts of the world? C’mon man.

Sorry if I'm being dense but I'm only trying to understand what you're saying and I don't. What do you think the Bible is? History, science, folklore, theology, ethical guidance, or something else?

Do I believe there was a migration from Mesopotamia to other parts of the world? If you mean the physical movement of people, no I don't. The people of the ME look nothing like those of the Americas. If you mean the culture of the ME then yes, to a degree, since every culture affects those that it touches. China influenced the ME just as the ME influence China via trade. The culture of the ME looked nothing like that of the Americas when first encountered by Europeans.

It's not that you are dense. You aren't stupid. You are being deliberately obtuse.

What do I believe the Bible is? It depends on which book you are talking about. There are several literary styles employed; allegorical, poetic, law, historical, prophetic, etc.

Of course there were other migrations.

The earliest Chinese dynasties worship Shangdi who is the God of Abraham. The account of Genesis was used as symbols in the Chinese written language 4500 years ago. They tell about the migration from the west in those symbols.

The account of the flood was also captured as symbols in their written language.

 

[ding]

So what do you believe will happen when 1500 gigatons of ice is instantly vaporized?

Perpetual motion will be a reality and our energy worries are over ... do you have a citation for that number ... I can't find it in your paper ... just the bogus article ...

The second law of thermodynamics says otherwise.

It requires you to do 8th grade math. Which you can't do. Have you already forgotten your fuck up that you have as of yet failed to own or admit owned?

1.5 x 10^18 kg ÷ 1 x 10^6 kg/m^3 = 1.5 x 10^12 m^3
1.5 x 10^12 m^3 ÷ 3.6 x 10^8 m^2 = 4.2 x 10^3 m ≈ 4 kilometers sea level drop

 

[ding]

The bottom line is that there is a massive crater in the polar region which would have resulted in a global climatic change which was a sudden event which released massive amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere which would have come down as rain

Haha, dithering ding, wasting everyone's time again.

Uh, you forgot your actual point, which was to argue that this caused a global flood. Is someone supposed to come along and do this for you?

That's disingenuous. This OP is about an asteroid impact in Greenland which unleashed 700 gigatons of TNT equivalence and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which caused a global disruption to the climate. Flooding happend all around the globe. That doesn't mean it was a worldwide flood. You couldn't debate honestly if you tried.

 

[ding]

Really? How small was it?

This is described in your own link, you fraud.

If you read that book you keep bringing up, then I am the queen of England. Stop wasting my time and summarize the evidence you claim exists. Or, shut the fk up.

Before you continue to embarrass yourself:

Don't forget to account for the fact that the article very clearly states that much of that melted water just ran off into the ocean, and that the melt took quite a while (was not instant).

You know, I really shouldn't have to coach you with information from your own links.

You are the fraud. I sleep like a baby knowing that you reap what you sow. And that is why you are such a pathetic excuse of a human being.

 

[ding]

So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical? You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical? Do I have that right? You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.

What was God's role in all this? Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?

First, ding doesn't know science nor understand Archimedes Principle. There are hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles due to warming cycles and no global flood. It's evidence for God as he promised no more global floods.

Second, Noah's flood was real and it happened around 2458 BC. None of Genesis is allegorical. It happened the way the Bible is written. Creation was in seven days. While Noah and his family were building the ark as instructed by God, he tried to get people to repent, i.e. change their minds, but to no avail. It's the same as with ding and others here. They'll continue to believe what they want to believe.

With the global flood, it first rained for forty days and forty nights. During that time, the fountains of the deep rose up as mountains underneath the seas rose up and the water inside the Earth came rising up quickly. More evidence for God are the subterranean oceans that came forth. There is also some who believe there was a canopy of water in the sky that was created on the second day. This would add to the water. Eventually, the water covered the mountain tops and highest peaks. It covered Mt. Everest and the Himalayas because they weren't as high as today. More evidence that the past was different from the present.

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

Noah's ark drifted for 150 days while every plant, animal, and human were killed. The fact is a flood is one of the natural disasters that will kill the most people. More evidence for God. The God sent a wind to the ark and then for another 150 days the water steadily went down. Where did the water go? It went here -- https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html.

Noah was instructed by God to send out a raven, which flew back and forth but could find no place to land. How did Noah know? It did not return. Next, he sent out a dove, which came back. A few days later, he sent it out again and the second time came back with an olive leaf in its beak. It symbolized peace. A few more days and Noah sent it out a third time and this time it did not return. It had found a safe place to live and that is where Noah headed. If you know about birds and their behaviors, then this is more evidence of God. Look up how Vikings used to navigate their ships.

Noah and his family ended up on land, but waited until God commanded him to leave the ark, along with his family, and all the animals. They had been on the ark over a year. As soon as he stepped on dry land, Noah built an altar of stones and offered sacrifices to God to give thanks. God made a covenant with Noah to never send another flood to destroy the entire world and marked it with a rainbow. Noah and his sons received the command from God to be fruitful and multiply. Before the Flood, people ate only vegetables. I suppose one could argue they were vegan, but not in the same context as today. After the flood, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat meat from animals. The water of the Flood symbolized baptism. Just as the Flood washed away evil and gave the world a fresh start, baptism cleanses a person for entry into a new life. This may to some who have repented, but sin remained and we are ending up like it was before. Will people become so evil that innocent people are in danger? I don't think so. We have nuclear weapons and guns to protect ourselves now. The danger will probably come from those who do not believe in God, i.e. without God, or end up being like God in their thinking and attitude.

Dude, I’ve been a practicing engineer for 35 years. Engineering is the commercial application of science, so I am pretty sure I am qualified to discuss science.

you on the other hand are a religious nutjob who reads the Bible literally and believes the earth and universe were created 6000 years ago.

I'm a computer scientist who is smarter and have a higher IQ than you. I've read evolution (have a source for that) and believed it and then started comparing it with the Bible since 2012; I was baptized then and became a born-again Christian. From 2007 - 2011, there were a lot of scientific articles that came out criticizing evolution. This was not my motive for getting baptized. It was coincidental. These articles are more difficult to find now, but I think still there.

Furthermore I have a source for my beliefs -- the Bible -- and learned how to read it and understand how science backs it up.

Anyway, I cannot convince you to change your worldview. What I can argue is that you are wrong about this thread since we have much more ice melting at the poles than fifteen gigatons. Read and learn -- Antarctica is Dumping Ice into the Ocean 630% Faster Than It Did the 1980s | Live Science

The Global Impacts of Rapidly Disappearing Arctic Sea Ice

What isn't happening is AGW. It's just cyclical warming that we go through. Besides, there are things we can do if you do not want excess CO2.

I think you are dumber than a rock.

Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.

 

[james bond]

I think you are dumber than a rock.

Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.

I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting. How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?

Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve. Whatever. It wasn't brag. Just fact.

What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.

No one believes you. If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical. The flood was allegorical. One can't even explain what happened in the past. I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner. Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder. At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do. I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.

As science, it's you who do not use the Bible. I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church. You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.

 

[ding]

I think you are dumber than a rock.

Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.

I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting. How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?

Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve. Whatever. It wasn't brag. Just fact.

What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.

No one believes you. If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical. The flood was allegorical. One can't even explain what happened in the past. I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner. Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder. At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do. I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.

As science, it's you who do not use the Bible. I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church. You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.

The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.

 

[ding]

Unless of course you use ReinyDays fucked up calculation. He thinks 15 gigatons of water equals 4 km deep in the world’s oceans.

 

[james bond]

I think you are dumber than a rock.

Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.

I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting. How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?

Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve. Whatever. It wasn't brag. Just fact.

What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.

No one believes you. If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical. The flood was allegorical. One can't even explain what happened in the past. I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner. Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder. At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do. I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.

As science, it's you who do not use the Bible. I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church. You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.

The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.

You just open yourself up for embarrassment. Heh. alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.

 

[ding]

I think you are dumber than a rock.

Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.

I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting. How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?

Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve. Whatever. It wasn't brag. Just fact.

What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.

No one believes you. If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical. The flood was allegorical. One can't even explain what happened in the past. I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner. Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder. At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do. I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.

As science, it's you who do not use the Bible. I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church. You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.

The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.

You just open yourself up for embarrassment. Heh. alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.

How so? Feel free to take his place.

 

[ding]

I think you are dumber than a rock.

Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.

I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting. How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?

Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve. Whatever. It wasn't brag. Just fact.

What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.

No one believes you. If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical. The flood was allegorical. One can't even explain what happened in the past. I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner. Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder. At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do. I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.

As science, it's you who do not use the Bible. I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church. You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.

The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.

You just open yourself up for embarrassment. Heh. alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.

Let me ask you this question. If the whole earth was covered in water, including the mountains, where did the water drain to?

 

[ding]

I think you are dumber than a rock.

Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.

I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting. How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?

Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve. Whatever. It wasn't brag. Just fact.

What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.

No one believes you. If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical. The flood was allegorical. One can't even explain what happened in the past. I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner. Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder. At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do. I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.

As science, it's you who do not use the Bible. I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church. You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.

The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.

You just open yourself up for embarrassment. Heh. alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.

Although not the place for this discussion, I don’t believe you know what a Christian is.