Is the Bible the inerrent word of God?

[Meriweather]

Not of the nature that the Bible describes - ones that would have put the entire region, including the mountains in the region, under water. At least there is no geological evidence of such. And, certainly no such global floods. One can't even count the glacial Ice Age, for that occurred some 2.6 billion years ago, predating the alleged story of Noah by just a bit.

Shrug. If you want original Hebrew to say this was a global event so you can argue a global event never happened you will need to find a religious fundamentalist or English literalist with whom to make your case.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? So what about the part where God told him to take about a pair of every animal on the planet? God didn't really say that either? Just completely reinventing the story to something you can find more palatable, huh?

And how do you explain that there are no geological strata, even in the local area, to indicate that any such catastrophic flood ever occurred? Then let's consider the story of the Olive Tree at the end. Gen 8:11 (NIV)- “When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth”. There are a few problems with this. There was an olive tree, and the tree had leaves. The tree must have been an adult tree as the water had only just receded. There would not have been time in the waters receding for the tree to sprout and grow. The second point is to do with the claim that the tree had leaves. Any query as to the growing habits of olive trees will inform the reader that olive trees do not like standing water. They will certainly not do well with being submerged under water for months. It is highly unlikely that the tree would have survived and so it is implausible that an olive branch was brought to Noah in the ark. Another point to consider with the olive tree is that as the waters were just receding the points of land that would have been visible would be the highest mountain points. We also know that olive trees don’t grow at high altitude. For this story to be true the tree would have needed to be growing before the flood so one may question how it is that an olive tree was growing at extreme altitude.

But, you "believe" the story of the flood? Even as a regional event, as you have reinvented the story, there are things that just don't fit. And your reinvented story simply does not fit with the text, context, and syntax of the story as written.

Once again, we don't get to just reinvent the Bible to a version we find more palatable; not, and still maintain the accuracy, and value of the Bible.

Where in the Bible does it say the flood covered the planet? Where does it say to gather all animals on the planet? Please use the original Hebrew for planet, keeping in mind that the English "earth" can mean dirt or planet, depending on usage. Also keep in mind there are two places in the Old Testament that state that after God separated land from water, the entire planet was never again covered in water.

If you'll notice, I allowed your version. There were still obvious problems with the story. I notice you didn't address a single one of them.

Reinventing the Bible? Hardly. Going back to original sources and learning that modern man interpreted the English rendition somewhat differently than the original Hebrew indicates is called research. Doesn't the very fact that there was an olive branch verify that the original Hebrew was correct that this was not the planet-wide event the modern English speaking world decided it meant?

Actually you are translating one possible meaning of the word, completely ignoring the context, and the syntax the the word appears in this instance. You have to remember that Hebrew is an interdependent language. Words alter their meanings, based on the context around them. The context of the passages leading up to this story in the Bible make it clear that God's purpose was to kill every living thing on Earth ("...all life under the heavens..." Gen 6:17). There is no reason to believe that God intended to do this by flooding a single region on the planet. Unless you are suggesting that God didn't know that there were people living outside of this one small region of the world.

 

[Czernobog]

Not of the nature that the Bible describes - ones that would have put the entire region, including the mountains in the region, under water. At least there is no geological evidence of such. And, certainly no such global floods. One can't even count the glacial Ice Age, for that occurred some 2.6 billion years ago, predating the alleged story of Noah by just a bit.

Shrug. If you want original Hebrew to say this was a global event so you can argue a global event never happened you will need to find a religious fundamentalist or English literalist with whom to make your case.

You're intentionally ignoring the parts of my posts that specifically deal with your "it was only regional" version, and demonstrate how even that could not have happened.

 

[Meriweather]

Actually you are translating one possible meaning of the word, completely ignoring the context, and the syntax the the word appears in this instance. You have to remember that Hebrew is an interdependent language. Words alter their meanings, based on the context around them. The context of the passages leading up to this story in the Bible make it clear that God's purpose was to kill every living thing on Earth ("...all life under the heavens..." Gen 6:17). There is no reason to believe that God intended to do this by flooding a single region on the planet. Unless you are suggesting that God didn't know that there were people living outside of this one small region of the world.

I am using context and that does not preclude a regional event. The other part I take into account is that Bible stories are just that stories, not factual newspaper accounts. The intent of Bible stories is to teach a lesson, not teach science. Are you familiar with the saying of straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel? In Judaism, both gnats and camels are unclean. For this reason people would very carefully strain gnats out of their food. Straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel means missing the point. You are so focused on straining out the science, you miss the point of the story. What is the lesson of Noah's Ark?

Maybe also keep in mind how the people who originally told the story might have described the world as they knew/viewed it.

 

[Meriweather]

You're intentionally ignoring the parts of my posts that specifically deal with your "it was only regional" version, and demonstrate how even that could not have happened.

Grin. Not ignoring anything. You are the one arguing that the Bible is indeed a literal, factual account of a global flood. I am stating it is a story of a regional event whose purpose is to teach a moral or lesson. I'll leave you to prove (using scientific evidence) that your argument is correct and that there was a global flood.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually you are translating one possible meaning of the word, completely ignoring the context, and the syntax the the word appears in this instance. You have to remember that Hebrew is an interdependent language. Words alter their meanings, based on the context around them. The context of the passages leading up to this story in the Bible make it clear that God's purpose was to kill every living thing on Earth ("...all life under the heavens..." Gen 6:17). There is no reason to believe that God intended to do this by flooding a single region on the planet. Unless you are suggesting that God didn't know that there were people living outside of this one small region of the world.

I am using context and that does not preclude a regional event. The other part I take into account is that Bible stories are just that stories, not factual newspaper accounts. The intent of Bible stories is to teach a lesson, not teach science. Are you familiar with the saying of straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel? In Judaism, both gnats and camels are unclean. For this reason people would very carefully strain gnats out of their food. Straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel means missing the point. You are so focused on straining out the science, you miss the point of the story. What is the lesson of Noah's Ark?

Don't piss off our "loving" God, or he'll go on a homicidal rampage, and kill you, and everyone you know? Admittedly, that lesson seems to be on a repeating loop throughout the Bible - particularly the Old Testament.

 

[Czernobog]

You're intentionally ignoring the parts of my posts that specifically deal with your "it was only regional" version, and demonstrate how even that could not have happened.

Grin. Not ignoring anything. You are the one arguing that the Bible is indeed a literal, factual account of a global flood. I am stating it is a story of a regional event whose purpose is to teach a moral or lesson. I'll leave you to prove (using scientific evidence) that your argument is correct and that there was a global flood.

Not global. Even regional, to the point that a "Big Fucking Boat" was needed to survive, simply. Never. Happened. There is no geological evidence to support that it did. And no part of that story, including the "miraculous olive branch" is possible in the real world. I don't care if you want to consider it a global event, or a regional one. There is simply no evidence that any such event ever happened.

Here's a simple question for you. Even if it was just regional, where are the remains? Why is there not a single geological strata containing the fossilized remains of all those people that were all drowned at the same time? And I mean, why have they not been found in that region, not globally?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But we know that everything about the great flood story is demonstrably false.

So there haven't been any floods?

You said you believed in the great flood. Don't equivocate. You either believe, or you do not. The bible clearly says it was worldwide.

If you believe there was "a flood, one time", than say so. Though, I dont find such a thing worth noting. Literally every fact presented in the great flood story (Which delineates it from other historical floods) is demonstrably false.

 

[Czernobog]

But we know that everything about the great flood story is demonstrably false.

So there haven't been any floods?

You said you believed in the great flood. Don't equivocate. You either believe, or you do not. The bible clearly says it was worldwide.

The problem is that, as I pointed out, even his revision of the story doesn't work. There is no evidence that anything like that ever happened. Not globally. Not regionally. There is simply no geological, or archaeological evidence that such an event ever happened.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But we know that everything about the great flood story is demonstrably false.

So there haven't been any floods?

You said you believed in the great flood. Don't equivocate. You either believe, or you do not. The bible clearly says it was worldwide.

The problem is that, as I pointed out, even his revision of the story doesn't work. There is no evidence that anything like that ever happened. Not globally. Not regionally. There is simply no geological, or archaeological evidence that such an event ever happened.

Furthermore, the geological and paleontological evidence contradicts it.

 

[Meriweather]

Don't piss off our "loving" God, or he'll go on a homicidal rampage, and kill you, and everyone you know? Admittedly, that lesson seems to be on a repeating loop throughout the Bible - particularly the Old Testament.

Sure, that works if you want. The original lesson is equally visible.

 

[Czernobog]

Don't piss off our "loving" God, or he'll go on a homicidal rampage, and kill you, and everyone you know? Admittedly, that lesson seems to be on a repeating loop throughout the Bible - particularly the Old Testament.

Sure, that works if you want. The original lesson is equally visible.

You mean, unlike any well written fable, or fairy tale, this story doesn't even have a single, clear cut moral to the story? So, not only is it a clearly made up story, but it isn't even a story designed to send a single, clear message. Yeah, these guys really didn't think their story out real well, did they?

 

[Meriweather]

Not global. Even regional, to the point that a "Big Fucking Boat" was needed to survive, simply. Never. Happened. There is no geological evidence to support that it did. And no part of that story, including the "miraculous olive branch" is possible in the real world. I don't care if you want to consider it a global event, or a regional one. There is simply no evidence that any such event ever happened.

Here's a simple question for you. Even if it was just regional, where are the remains? Why is there not a single geological strata containing the fossilized remains of all those people that were all drowned at the same time? And I mean, why have they not been found in that region, not globally?

Okay, so no flood. So far you seem to be promoting the ideas there was no flood, but God was angry and destroyed mankind by sending a flood that never happened. Also, no olive trees.

 

[deanrd]

I have noticed that in several discussions I have with Christians, the point of contention seems to be in attempting to separate the Bible into two parts - the part that must be accepted as accurate (The New Testament), and the part that doesn't (The Old Testament).

So, I have a question. The creation Truth Foundation, in their statement of faith, claims, “The unique divine inspiration of all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, so that they are infallibly and uniquely authoritative and free from error of any sort, in all matters with which they deal, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”

I would ask the Christians on this forum if they agree with that statement, bearing in mind:

First, they make no distinction between the Old, and the New Testament, and
Second, paying particular attention to the highlighted portion.

Republican Christians don't believe in the Bible. Otherwise, they would follow the teachings of Christ, not Satan.

 

[Czernobog]

Not global. Even regional, to the point that a "Big Fucking Boat" was needed to survive, simply. Never. Happened. There is no geological evidence to support that it did. And no part of that story, including the "miraculous olive branch" is possible in the real world. I don't care if you want to consider it a global event, or a regional one. There is simply no evidence that any such event ever happened.

Here's a simple question for you. Even if it was just regional, where are the remains? Why is there not a single geological strata containing the fossilized remains of all those people that were all drowned at the same time? And I mean, why have they not been found in that region, not globally?

Okay, so no flood. So far you seem to be promoting the ideas there was no flood, but God was angry and destroyed mankind by sending a flood that never happened. Also, no olive trees.

No, I'm not. I'm promoting the idea that there was no flood. Period. Not a global flood. Not a regional flood. There was no flood. The only one insisting that God got mad, and sent a flood is you, and the writers of your fairy tale.

 

[Meriweather]

You said you believed in the great flood. Don't equivocate. You either believe, or you do not. The bible clearly says it was worldwide.

If you believe there was "a flood, one time", than say so. Though, I dont find such a thing worth noting. Literally every fact presented in the great flood story (Which delineates it from other historical floods) is demonstrably false.

Let's go back six or seven thousand years--perhaps even longer. How did people of that time envision the earth? The Hebrew language of the time paints a picture of a flood that covered the earth (not the planet) as far as the eye could see. It mentions rain, it mentions water also coming from the earth. It was an event unlike any other. The flood story existed long before it was written down in Hebrew.

The storytellers in both Gilgamesh and Noah say that before the flood began, humans were behaving badly, that they were loud and obnoxious. We are told in both accounts that God wanted mankind to survive. In both accounts one good man was chosen to insure the survival of the human race.

As to where the flood occurred, as of yet, no one agrees. One interesting theory hypothesizes that the Black Sea was once a fresh water lake which was surrounded by agriculture, that a breach occurred and water from the Mediterranean poured into this area creating the Black Sea.

Do I believe a great flood happened? Absolutely. But I try to see it through the eyes of ancient man and the original Hebrew, not through the eyes of modern man speaking English. Modern man sees the earth much differently than did ancient man. Modern man tries to communicate such events with facts, whereas ancient man told stories. Ancient man tells a story of God preserving mankind despite its imperfections. Modern atheists enjoy picturing God as destroyer.

 

[Meriweather]

You mean, unlike any well written fable, or fairy tale, this story doesn't even have a single, clear cut moral to the story? So, not only is it a clearly made up story, but it isn't even a story designed to send a single, clear message. Yeah, these guys really didn't think their story out real well, did they?

Perhaps people back then weren't as dense as we are now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You said you believed in the great flood. Don't equivocate. You either believe, or you do not. The bible clearly says it was worldwide.

If you believe there was "a flood, one time", than say so. Though, I dont find such a thing worth noting. Literally every fact presented in the great flood story (Which delineates it from other historical floods) is demonstrably false.

Let's go back six or seven thousand years--perhaps even longer. How did people of that time envision the earth? The Hebrew language of the time paints a picture of a flood that covered the earth (not the planet) as far as the eye could see. It mentions rain, it mentions water also coming from the earth. It was an event unlike any other. The flood story existed long before it was written down in Hebrew.

The storytellers in both Gilgamesh and Noah say that before the flood began, humans were behaving badly, that they were loud and obnoxious. We are told in both accounts that God wanted mankind to survive. In both accounts one good man was chosen to insure the survival of the human race.

As to where the flood occurred, as of yet, no one agrees. One interesting theory hypothesizes that the Black Sea was once a fresh water lake which was surrounded by agriculture, that a breach occurred and water from the Mediterranean poured into this area creating the Black Sea.

Do I believe a great flood happened? Absolutely. But I try to see it through the eyes of ancient man and the original Hebrew, not through the eyes of modern man speaking English. Modern man sees the earth much differently than did ancient man. Modern man tries to communicate such events with facts, whereas ancient man told stories. Ancient man tells a story of God preserving mankind despite its imperfections. Modern atheists enjoy picturing God as destroyer.

So, it's not true, and there was no global flood, and it was the words of man, not god.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Meriweather]

So, it's not true, and there was no global flood, and it was the words of man, not god.

Agreed 100%.

Are you just now figuring this out? Where have you been all your life? The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population. Most Christians also state that the Bible was written by man, inspired by God, so there is nothing new there, either.

I am sorry that up-til-now the only people you listen to on matters pertaining to the Bible are literalists. It certainly seems they are the only people you care to discuss our loving God with.

The one thing literalists have going for them that atheists do not: Literalists have faith in God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, it's not true, and there was no global flood, and it was the words of man, not god.

Agreed 100%.

Are you just now figuring this out? Where have you been all your life? The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population. Most Christians also state that the Bible was written by man, inspired by God, so there is nothing new there, either.

I am sorry that up-til-now the only people you listen to on matters pertaining to the Bible are literalists. It certainly seems they are the only people you care to discuss our loving God with.

The one thing literalists have going for them that atheists do not: Literalists have faith in God.

"The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population.

Horseshit. You literally just made that up. It's false, and you said it anyway, without even checking if it were true. I believe we have a word for that behavior, friend.

I gotta tell ya, the religious people on these threads "out-lie" the atheists by 5-to-1, easily. Weird, huh?

And you said you believed the story. Now you say you don't. why not be honest the first time? And no, when you discard literally every fact of the story, save for, "Well, there was a flood that one time"... then no, you don't believe the story.