Is there a god?

[Toro]

no

yes

I win!

 

[ding]

It would have impacted that area in the form of a deluge of torrential rain, just like in the story. Some guy on a mountain must have seen the splash and described it as the fountains of the deep opened up...All the pieces fit perfectly. It would boggle our minds. Imagine what it would have done to people 6000 years ago?

And yes, there probably was a guy who was prophetically warned and saved a few local animals... The arc of course could itself be just a metaphor as well as the animals he saved.

Moses built the arc of the covenant.

It would have impacted that area in the form of a deluge of torrential rain, just like in the story. Some guy on a mountain must have seen the splash and described it as the fountains of the deep opened up...All the pieces fit perfectly. It would boggle our minds. Imagine what it would have done to people 6000 years ago?

And yes, there probably was a guy who was prophetically warned and saved a few local animals... The arc of course could itself be just a metaphor as well as the animals he saved.

Moses built the arc of the covenant.

So none of the bible stories are actually true.

Arc of the covenant never existed, no proof, so another myth.

You want to criticize the Bible and can't even spell the word Ark.

The Bible is true. It's just as accurate as any source you rely on. The problem is, the Bible was limited by the number of words in the Greek and Hebrew language that could not be directly translated directly into another language.

Add to that, the Bible was written to, for, and about a specific people. The Bible only acknowledges preadamites, for example. It gives no details about them. But, science, history and the Bible all agree on their existence.

I was taking the spelling from hob, so take that up with my jew.

So was the Flood a worldwide flood or a myth?

Science can uncover the existence of something, I agree, but so far, no god has been discovered by science. So you either take it all or leave it all, you can't start cherry-picking science as well.

NOBODY is cherry picking stuff. Do you want to troll or have a civil conversation?

In my opinion, the flood was NOT worldwide. For one thing, the Chinese were aware of Noah; the flood overflowed the Tarim Basin and it was duly noted by Chinese historians.

Scientifically, if we presume the flood covered the entire earth - and use that to be synonymous with the planet, then the critics win. There are places where the rain would have to be six miles deep. We know that was not the case. Moses could only write about the land as he knew it. And so as far as the eye could see and far as people traveled in the time of Moses, everything was under water.

People are operating under this false assumption that the Bible was about all the men on earth; however, this is easily proven to be an error believers cannot accept. The Bible only claims to be about one people. Genesis 5 : 1 states: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not claim to be about the predecessors of Adam. The only relevance other people have in the Bible relative to Adam is when their paths crossed.

There are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. The Bible, correctly interpreted, does not say that God created man in six "days" we understand the term; it does not say that that the flood covered the whole world.

The term earth comes from the Hebrew word ehrets and as used in Genesis and only means a common country, land, nations, wilderness... but never does it mean the entire planet.

So what about a flood that drowned everyone regionally for 40 days? No proof for that either. And the Chinese may have known about a flood but they didn't know about Noah.

So god made Adam out of nothing or was evolution involved?

You ARE cherry-picking because at some points you say "they didn't mean that" and at others you quote word for word. That, my friend, is called cherry-picking the bible.

No, Taz. This has been explained to you dozens of times. The fact that YOU keep cherry picking the Bible by making literal interpretations of allegorical accounts is how I know you are a militant atheist on a mission.

 

[Toro]

The Bible itself does not say that. The word in Hebrew is yome. It only means equal periods of time. It could have been any increment of time.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." II Peter 3: 8

The bible says 6 days. Go look it up, fool.

On that same note, even though the Bible says "Though shall not steal," it really means "Take whatever you want from whomever you want anytime you feel like it." It got lost in translation.

 

[ding]

You want to criticize the Bible and can't even spell the word Ark.

The Bible is true. It's just as accurate as any source you rely on. The problem is, the Bible was limited by the number of words in the Greek and Hebrew language that could not be directly translated directly into another language.

Add to that, the Bible was written to, for, and about a specific people. The Bible only acknowledges preadamites, for example. It gives no details about them. But, science, history and the Bible all agree on their existence.

I was taking the spelling from hob, so take that up with my jew.

So was the Flood a worldwide flood or a myth?

Science can uncover the existence of something, I agree, but so far, no god has been discovered by science. So you either take it all or leave it all, you can't start cherry-picking science as well.

NOBODY is cherry picking stuff. Do you want to troll or have a civil conversation?

In my opinion, the flood was NOT worldwide. For one thing, the Chinese were aware of Noah; the flood overflowed the Tarim Basin and it was duly noted by Chinese historians.

Scientifically, if we presume the flood covered the entire earth - and use that to be synonymous with the planet, then the critics win. There are places where the rain would have to be six miles deep. We know that was not the case. Moses could only write about the land as he knew it. And so as far as the eye could see and far as people traveled in the time of Moses, everything was under water.

People are operating under this false assumption that the Bible was about all the men on earth; however, this is easily proven to be an error believers cannot accept. The Bible only claims to be about one people. Genesis 5 : 1 states: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not claim to be about the predecessors of Adam. The only relevance other people have in the Bible relative to Adam is when their paths crossed.

There are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. The Bible, correctly interpreted, does not say that God created man in six "days" we understand the term; it does not say that that the flood covered the whole world.

The term earth comes from the Hebrew word ehrets and as used in Genesis and only means a common country, land, nations, wilderness... but never does it mean the entire planet.

So what about a flood that drowned everyone regionally for 40 days? No proof for that either. And the Chinese may have known about a flood but they didn't know about Noah.

So god made Adam out of nothing or was evolution involved?

You ARE cherry-picking because at some points you say "they didn't mean that" and at others you quote word for word. That, my friend, is called cherry-picking the bible.

You are not going to prevail by being dishonest. I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. And I've told you the writers were limited by the lack of knowledge - meaning they would not know that California existed, so how could they know it didn't get flooded?

The duty of a Christian is to know how to separate the figurative from the literal. It is NOT a process of cherry picking:

II Timothy 2: 14 and 15 reads:

"14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

And yes, the Chinese knew of Noah AND there are strong arguments that they knew Noah himself:

Migration to China

" I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible."

That's called cherry-picking. Now you know.

And if you choose to not believe certain things in the bible as being true, how can you justify believing other parts to be true? Who decides? And how? By simply saying "this is stupid and can't have happened so it's figurative, but this part sounds like something someone could have said, so we go with it"? Flip a coin?

No. That is called intellectual honesty. The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light. Something that people who are intellectually dishonest don't do.

 

[ding]

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

On the topic of the world being made in 6 days, let us read from Genesis 1

Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice how the earth was created IN THE BEGINNING. It was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This tells us that the initial creation of the earth was before God pronounces there to be light. The earth was also covered in water and had no land forms yet. This is what I take it to mean when God says the earth was without form and void. Notice that no light has yet been introduced so no day had transpired as of yet. Not until verse 3 does God introduce light upon the earth. He then divides the light from the darkness and calls the light day and darkness night. Only after introducing the light were we able to have the first day. So how long in "The Beginning" did it take before God introduced light? This is not known. But an even better question is, "What was the source of light in verses 3-5? It wasn't the sun because the sun was not introduced until the 4th day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The greater light that was to rule the day that God made on the 4th day of creation was the sun. So it was not until the 4th day that the sun was created. What then was the source of light for the days of creation? How long was a day according to this source of light? Perhaps it was according to God's time. Peter in his Epistle to the saints of his day says:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

Adam died at the age of 930 years. If one day unto the Lord is 1000 of our years. Then surely Adam died on the day (according to the Lord's time) he partook of the forbidden fruit.

But science tells us that the universe was existing for around 9 billion years before the earth was formed by gravity. And the sun existed before the earth was formed, otherwise the earth couldn't have formed.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So Peter supposedly said this, but how would he know? Sounds like he just made it up on the spot. You going to quote another verse?

Again, an allegorical account of an actual event.

What is lost on you is that Bible correctly tells us that there was a beginning. It took science 6000 years to catch up.

 

[Taz]

The 40 days part and the worldwide part and the 2 of every animal part and the 600 year old captain part are all myths.

Prove it

That’s not how proof works, there’s no proof that these things happened. It’s up to you to prove that they did. So go for it, prove it.

You were called on it first. Sorry. You have to go first. You got challenged first.

There is no geologic proof of a 40 day worldwide flood, no proof that anyone got kangaroos from australia over to the Middle East and back again and no human has lived more than 120 years or so, and nobody can prove otherwise. To say that something can't be disproven therefore it's true is total bullshit and you know it.

The one thing that I can prove and unequivocally is that you are so desperate you've created strawman arguments against me.

But, you feel it necessary to keep coming back and responding to my every sentence. So, I'm studying what you're saying. Now that you are employing straw man arguments, who are really trying to convince? Me? Or YOU?

So where's your proof of a 40 day worldwide flood?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[Taz]

Maybe there is a god but it’s decided to, or is not allowed to contact us.

Taz, If you use the senses that you have not tapped into, you will find that God does speak to all men.

Have you ever heard of a mother that suddenly woke up in the middle of the night knowing that something terrible had happened to her son or daughter only to receive a call hours later confirming it?

You have senses that you have yet to tap into because if it don't fit YOUR personal definitions and presuppositions it doesn't exist. Yet the whole time you're oblivious as to what is happening all around you.

There’s no proof that that woman was contacted by god, it’s pure wishful thinking.

Again, you don't have any way of contradicting the facts.

It's not a fact until it can be proven.

You're here. That is all the facts I need.

That makes no sense, as per usual.

 

[Taz]

God is the God of the living. You can't blame God for your poor hygiene.
'
God doesn't visit foul and loathsome creatures, much less the dead.

Even if they dropped their drawers bent over and winked.

God tossed Adam and Eve out of Eden for having hetero sex. I wouldn’t even have to wink.

You read the story and thats what you got out of it? God tossed Adam and Eve out of Eden for having hetero sex?

okey dokey..very funny, ha ha. But, Wait a minute! ... Where's your proof? lol... what a maroon!


Obviously you never understood the lessons in The Tale of the Puppet either..

If naughty boys remain on Pleasure Island for too long those donkeys ears are there to stay. (Pinocchio 3:14)

You are the proof.

Thems the breaks. You should have listened to the talking cricket. Ask any scientist.

I would say that I felt sorry for you if I did. Really, I would..

Adam and Eve get punished for disobeying God's command and atheists want to focus on it all being about sex???

They don't like going further into history for fear of being faced with the truth.

Hey, it's a made up story so I'm allowed to make stuff up as well, why do you get to have all the fun?

I haven't made anything up. I've given links to what archaeologists and other scientists say. They're pretty much satisfied with the account of Noah being true.

I wonder what you'd think if America broke out into a major world war and all this computer junk was destroyed. There was no more record of our existence as satellites were shot down, etc, and a hundred years later, even if someone found a hard drive, it would be like hieroglyphics to the modern archaeologists. People would then look to that body of circumstantial evidence and argue that you ever existed.

Being mostly trained in law, as a legal matter, the weight of evidence says the flood account IS true, not the dishonest way you present it, however. Science seems to be in agreement. If this were a flood thread, and it is not, I'd present many different hypotheses and introduce many witness accounts. But, you wouldn't know when you lost because you've closed the door as well as your mind.

What evidence shows that the flood is true? I've never seen any evidence for a 40 day worldwide flood. And no, scientists aren't satisfied enough to say that the story of Noah happened. You made that up. Your previous link only showed some scientists looking for evidence of a regional flood of not so great proportions that the story of Noah MIGHT BE BASED ON. Man, you live in a fantasy world.

 

[Taz]

All those examples are filled with war, massacres, rapes-as-a-weapon and slavery. Please try again.

Wounded Knee Pest Control

What makes you believe that all four of those are evil under any circumstances?

I don't know what that is. Please explain.

Whirled Wad Wub

It is perfectly clear. Quit pretending it isn't, in order to evade the question. That is a typical Internet act.

I wasn't sure what the "wounded knee pest control" thing was, but I'll keep playing.

dingbat was saying that peace and harmony led to virtuous societies. The ones he named were filled with all kinds of nasty shit. So not peaceful, harmonious or virtuous.

No. ding said, that logic and history show that virtue leads to peace and harmony within individuals and within societies.

But you haven't shown this to be true, your example were far from it.

 

[Taz]

In other words, you have no real proof so you scapegoat your made up god and say that it's so on another level that there can be no proof. Oldest trick in The Book. YAWWWWN!

Ok, maybe this will be of more interest to you. Assume, for a moment, there is a god, and that said god created the entire universe. What tells you that we, as mere humans, would have the ability to come even close to comprehending what that god is, let alone "real proof" that said god exists? What tells you that we have the ability to explain such an entity? Such an entity would, I say is, so far beyond our ability to comprehend that we really have no hope of EVER understanding. Therefore, what you ask for is far beyond your ability to comprehend, and is, therefore, completely futile. Unless, of course, you can explain where all the matter in the universe came from... If not a god, then what? It just always has been? Where did the laws of nature come from? If evolution is the truth, then why did life on this planet only start once? Do you understand what the odds of THAT scenario are, that life, spontaneously, started only once in the entire history of the world?

Just because at this point in time we don't know where all matter comes from doesn't default over to it being from an invisible being. That's pure fantasy.

If evolution isn't the truth, then do you believe that god just started plopping people around there earth? How did that work exactly? He made Adam out of thin air, then ripped out one of his ribs to make Eve?

It is beyond my understanding, something I can accept. Apparently you cannot, that's not a fault, just an observation. Some people require more evidence than I do. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is you classifying my beliefs as "fantasy" simply because you do not share them. That is really quite offensive to me, therefore I respectfully request you stop using that term. I thank you in advance.

You're offended because you live in a fantasy world? That's what it is when you have ZERO proof. If that makes you upset, well then maybe you're not as okay with it as you think.

And I believe it is YOU who lives in the fantasy world. I have tons of evidence and reasons to believe in a Creator.

I'm on the side of science, you're not. Science is where it's at, not your book of stories you don't even believe yourself. Science continually looks further, your book is stuck in an ignorant past.

 

[Taz]

Seriously brah, if there was a god, do you actually think that it would need to express its will through A FUCKING BOOK??? AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Are you being serious, or just facetious? HOW ELSE WOULD IT EXPRESS ITSELF? Furthermore, it was not God who expressed himself through a book. God expressed himself through men, and commanded men to write an account of said expression. Therefore, the Bible, Koran, Torah, and all other religious documents are, at most, man's interpretation of God's will. Are you really so uneducated as to not understand that?

Is god so lame that he can't express himself directly to me, and that I can only get in touch with him through a 2000 year old book of non-stop nonsense not in evidence written by people who were so primitive that they hadn't even been able to invent toilet paper at that time? Do you understand THAT?

If that is your understanding, then you really do not understand the teachings as I know them. I am not inclined to attempt to explain them to you, as you seem to have utter contempt of the idea, and therefore I see it as an exercise in futility.

I understand the teachings, apparently better than you do. There is no geologic proof for a worldwide flood that lasted 40 days and drowned nearly everyone on earth. How do you explain that?

That the event of a flood is widely documented in all cultures of antiquity and that their knowledge of the world was limited. To them it was a world wide flood. It did happen. You want to read it literally because that fits your agenda.

You need to move the goalposts away from a 40 day flood because you know that that couldn't have happened. So now the story of a 600 year old man who may or may not have been sailing around to 40 days, or not, with 2 of every animal, or not, or maybe 2 of every regional animal, or not...can be shoehorned into your fantasy world.

 

[Taz]

In other words, you have no real proof so you scapegoat your made up god and say that it's so on another level that there can be no proof. Oldest trick in The Book. YAWWWWN!

Ok, maybe this will be of more interest to you. Assume, for a moment, there is a god, and that said god created the entire universe. What tells you that we, as mere humans, would have the ability to come even close to comprehending what that god is, let alone "real proof" that said god exists? What tells you that we have the ability to explain such an entity? Such an entity would, I say is, so far beyond our ability to comprehend that we really have no hope of EVER understanding. Therefore, what you ask for is far beyond your ability to comprehend, and is, therefore, completely futile. Unless, of course, you can explain where all the matter in the universe came from... If not a god, then what? It just always has been? Where did the laws of nature come from? If evolution is the truth, then why did life on this planet only start once? Do you understand what the odds of THAT scenario are, that life, spontaneously, started only once in the entire history of the world?

Just because at this point in time we don't know where all matter comes from doesn't default over to it being from an invisible being. That's pure fantasy.

If evolution isn't the truth, then do you believe that god just started plopping people around there earth? How did that work exactly? He made Adam out of thin air, then ripped out one of his ribs to make Eve?

What I do have a problem with is you classifying my beliefs as "fantasy" That is really quite offensive to me, therefore I request you stop using that term. .

"To Inhibit Them, Pretend They Offend"

You want us to believe that there are no fantasies then. And why should we care about offending someone who interferes with others, such as with abortion? On that matter, influence other Christians not to have abortions; don't tip the scales in an election in order to get a legislator who will impose your Puritanical sadism on the rest of society. Most likely, he will be a GreedHead looter, so you can go to your imaginary Hell.

At conception a new genetically distinct human life is created. Not just any human life, but one that has never existed before and will never exist again. This is scientific fact. From a legal perspective it is a specific person and has the same inalienable rights as you.

Who is that person's advocate if not us?

No, the fetus doesn't have the same rights as a person.

 

[Taz]

If that is your understanding, then you really do not understand the teachings as I know them. I am not inclined to attempt to explain them to you, as you seem to have utter contempt of the idea, and therefore I see it as an exercise in futility.

I understand the teachings, apparently better than you do. There is no geologic proof for a worldwide flood that lasted 40 days and drowned nearly everyone on earth. How do you explain that?

Media Narrative by Those Who Were Even More Careless About Accuracy

Perhaps the Flood represents the extermination of the subhuman Neanderthal predators. Or the mass destruction caused by the global warming at the end of the Ice Age. "Forty days" probably represents only the tail end of what those who passed on the story actually witnessed.

All of the worldwide flood myths from every continent was most likely inspired by the aftermath of whatever celestial object left a crater 25 times the size of meteor crater in Arizona at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. The billions of metric tons of water instantly vaporized into the atmosphere could easily have caused a weeks long deluge of torrential rain and superstorms washing away every settlement situated near rivers and streams and even dry washes in the deserts not to mention the mega tsunamis that would have wiped out every coastal civilization.

So the Hebrews used that event as the basis to teach moral lessons to their children with a fictitious and metaphorical narrative using only a little hyperbole because they wouldn't have needed much. Whats so hard to believe or understand about that?

It could be one of the reasons that a belief in an invisible being in the sky of unimaginable power to destroy everything began all around the world.

Obviously the destruction was real and obviously whatever mighty supernatural being caused it needed to be appeased because obviously he was mad about something....

Do you have a link to this asteroid coming down around what, 6000 years ago?

Again you read the Bible literally to make that claim to fit your agenda.

I'm asking about HIS version of what happened, I just want to see where we go with this, to something that make total sense, or to more of his gibberish. He's saying an asteroid came down around that time and create the flood, now I need a link to said asteroid. No need for an agenda.

 

[Taz]

Do you have a link to this asteroid coming down around what, 6000 years ago?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia

So you're saying that those resulting mega-tsunamis, as they called them, were the basis for the flood story? If they were in the Indian ocean, they wouldn't have impacted that side of the Middle East. And did some guy make a huge boat before hand and round up all the local animals? Or is that made up?

It would have impacted that area in the form of a deluge of torrential rain, just like in the story. Some guy on a mountain must have seen the splash and described it as the fountains of the deep opened up...All the pieces fit perfectly. It would boggle our minds. Imagine what it would have done to people 6000 years ago?

And yes, there probably was a guy who was prophetically warned and saved a few local animals... The arc of course could itself be just a metaphor as well as the animals he saved.

Moses built the arc of the covenant.

Do you have a link to this asteroid coming down around what, 6000 years ago?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia

So you're saying that those resulting mega-tsunamis, as they called them, were the basis for the flood story? If they were in the Indian ocean, they wouldn't have impacted that side of the Middle East. And did some guy make a huge boat before hand and round up all the local animals? Or is that made up?

It would have impacted that area in the form of a deluge of torrential rain, just like in the story. Some guy on a mountain must have seen the splash and described it as the fountains of the deep opened up...All the pieces fit perfectly. It would boggle our minds. Imagine what it would have done to people 6000 years ago?

And yes, there probably was a guy who was prophetically warned and saved a few local animals... The arc of course could itself be just a metaphor as well as the animals he saved.

Moses built the arc of the covenant.

So none of the bible stories are actually true.

Arc of the covenant never existed, no proof, so another myth.

This is how I know you are a militant atheist, Taz. You are on a mission.

So you have nothing to add to this conversion except something you repeat over and over again... Hope it at least makes you feel better.

 

[Taz]

So none of the bible stories are actually true.

Arc of the covenant never existed, no proof, so another myth.

You want to criticize the Bible and can't even spell the word Ark.

The Bible is true. It's just as accurate as any source you rely on. The problem is, the Bible was limited by the number of words in the Greek and Hebrew language that could not be directly translated directly into another language.

Add to that, the Bible was written to, for, and about a specific people. The Bible only acknowledges preadamites, for example. It gives no details about them. But, science, history and the Bible all agree on their existence.

I was taking the spelling from hob, so take that up with my jew.

So was the Flood a worldwide flood or a myth?

Science can uncover the existence of something, I agree, but so far, no god has been discovered by science. So you either take it all or leave it all, you can't start cherry-picking science as well.

NOBODY is cherry picking stuff. Do you want to troll or have a civil conversation?

In my opinion, the flood was NOT worldwide. For one thing, the Chinese were aware of Noah; the flood overflowed the Tarim Basin and it was duly noted by Chinese historians.

Scientifically, if we presume the flood covered the entire earth - and use that to be synonymous with the planet, then the critics win. There are places where the rain would have to be six miles deep. We know that was not the case. Moses could only write about the land as he knew it. And so as far as the eye could see and far as people traveled in the time of Moses, everything was under water.

People are operating under this false assumption that the Bible was about all the men on earth; however, this is easily proven to be an error believers cannot accept. The Bible only claims to be about one people. Genesis 5 : 1 states: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not claim to be about the predecessors of Adam. The only relevance other people have in the Bible relative to Adam is when their paths crossed.

There are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. The Bible, correctly interpreted, does not say that God created man in six "days" we understand the term; it does not say that that the flood covered the whole world.

The term earth comes from the Hebrew word ehrets and as used in Genesis and only means a common country, land, nations, wilderness... but never does it mean the entire planet.

So what about a flood that drowned everyone regionally for 40 days? No proof for that either. And the Chinese may have known about a flood but they didn't know about Noah.

So god made Adam out of nothing or was evolution involved?

You ARE cherry-picking because at some points you say "they didn't mean that" and at others you quote word for word. That, my friend, is called cherry-picking the bible.

No, Taz. This has been explained to you dozens of times. The fact that YOU keep cherry picking the Bible by making literal interpretations of allegorical accounts is how I know you are a militant atheist on a mission.

The 40 day flood wasn't meant to be allegorical, you moved the goalposts there because you know that such a flood has no geologic proof. And if you're allowed to cherry-pick the bible like that, why can't I? does it have to be cherry-picked in a certain way?

 

[Taz]

I was taking the spelling from hob, so take that up with my jew.

So was the Flood a worldwide flood or a myth?

Science can uncover the existence of something, I agree, but so far, no god has been discovered by science. So you either take it all or leave it all, you can't start cherry-picking science as well.

NOBODY is cherry picking stuff. Do you want to troll or have a civil conversation?

In my opinion, the flood was NOT worldwide. For one thing, the Chinese were aware of Noah; the flood overflowed the Tarim Basin and it was duly noted by Chinese historians.

Scientifically, if we presume the flood covered the entire earth - and use that to be synonymous with the planet, then the critics win. There are places where the rain would have to be six miles deep. We know that was not the case. Moses could only write about the land as he knew it. And so as far as the eye could see and far as people traveled in the time of Moses, everything was under water.

People are operating under this false assumption that the Bible was about all the men on earth; however, this is easily proven to be an error believers cannot accept. The Bible only claims to be about one people. Genesis 5 : 1 states: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not claim to be about the predecessors of Adam. The only relevance other people have in the Bible relative to Adam is when their paths crossed.

There are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. The Bible, correctly interpreted, does not say that God created man in six "days" we understand the term; it does not say that that the flood covered the whole world.

The term earth comes from the Hebrew word ehrets and as used in Genesis and only means a common country, land, nations, wilderness... but never does it mean the entire planet.

So what about a flood that drowned everyone regionally for 40 days? No proof for that either. And the Chinese may have known about a flood but they didn't know about Noah.

So god made Adam out of nothing or was evolution involved?

You ARE cherry-picking because at some points you say "they didn't mean that" and at others you quote word for word. That, my friend, is called cherry-picking the bible.

You are not going to prevail by being dishonest. I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. And I've told you the writers were limited by the lack of knowledge - meaning they would not know that California existed, so how could they know it didn't get flooded?

The duty of a Christian is to know how to separate the figurative from the literal. It is NOT a process of cherry picking:

II Timothy 2: 14 and 15 reads:

"14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

And yes, the Chinese knew of Noah AND there are strong arguments that they knew Noah himself:

Migration to China

" I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible."

That's called cherry-picking. Now you know.

And if you choose to not believe certain things in the bible as being true, how can you justify believing other parts to be true? Who decides? And how? By simply saying "this is stupid and can't have happened so it's figurative, but this part sounds like something someone could have said, so we go with it"? Flip a coin?

No. That is called intellectual honesty. The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light. Something that people who are intellectually dishonest don't do.

Exactly, you follow a certain cherry-picked version that you claim is the right way to read the bible. In other words, I'll never understand the bible if I don't learn how to cherry-pick it properly.

 

[Taz]

Sure there are metaphors like you mentioned, but saying that a worldwide flood means something else, or that he world wasn’t actually made in 6 days is completely moving the goalposts, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

I came here to see if the believers here had anything concrete to base their beliefs in, and it turns out that you all have nothing really except a book that you don’t even believe is true. Kinda douche. And when questioned, they all get upset, just like you.

On the topic of the world being made in 6 days, let us read from Genesis 1

Genesis 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice how the earth was created IN THE BEGINNING. It was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This tells us that the initial creation of the earth was before God pronounces there to be light. The earth was also covered in water and had no land forms yet. This is what I take it to mean when God says the earth was without form and void. Notice that no light has yet been introduced so no day had transpired as of yet. Not until verse 3 does God introduce light upon the earth. He then divides the light from the darkness and calls the light day and darkness night. Only after introducing the light were we able to have the first day. So how long in "The Beginning" did it take before God introduced light? This is not known. But an even better question is, "What was the source of light in verses 3-5? It wasn't the sun because the sun was not introduced until the 4th day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The greater light that was to rule the day that God made on the 4th day of creation was the sun. So it was not until the 4th day that the sun was created. What then was the source of light for the days of creation? How long was a day according to this source of light? Perhaps it was according to God's time. Peter in his Epistle to the saints of his day says:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Abraham 3:4
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Abraham 5:13
13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord’s time, which was after the time of Kolob; for as yet the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning.

Adam died at the age of 930 years. If one day unto the Lord is 1000 of our years. Then surely Adam died on the day (according to the Lord's time) he partook of the forbidden fruit.

But science tells us that the universe was existing for around 9 billion years before the earth was formed by gravity. And the sun existed before the earth was formed, otherwise the earth couldn't have formed.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So Peter supposedly said this, but how would he know? Sounds like he just made it up on the spot. You going to quote another verse?

Again, an allegorical account of an actual event.

What is lost on you is that Bible correctly tells us that there was a beginning. It took science 6000 years to catch up.

Actually the bible has the beginning of the universe all wrong. It wasn't made in the order described, nor was it made on the timeline described, nor were humans made in the manner described, nor did the Flood happen the way its described apparently... Pretty much everything in the bible is wrong. Good thing I have you to cherry-pick it for me.

 

[Humorme]

I was taking the spelling from hob, so take that up with my jew.

So was the Flood a worldwide flood or a myth?

Science can uncover the existence of something, I agree, but so far, no god has been discovered by science. So you either take it all or leave it all, you can't start cherry-picking science as well.

NOBODY is cherry picking stuff. Do you want to troll or have a civil conversation?

In my opinion, the flood was NOT worldwide. For one thing, the Chinese were aware of Noah; the flood overflowed the Tarim Basin and it was duly noted by Chinese historians.

Scientifically, if we presume the flood covered the entire earth - and use that to be synonymous with the planet, then the critics win. There are places where the rain would have to be six miles deep. We know that was not the case. Moses could only write about the land as he knew it. And so as far as the eye could see and far as people traveled in the time of Moses, everything was under water.

People are operating under this false assumption that the Bible was about all the men on earth; however, this is easily proven to be an error believers cannot accept. The Bible only claims to be about one people. Genesis 5 : 1 states: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not claim to be about the predecessors of Adam. The only relevance other people have in the Bible relative to Adam is when their paths crossed.

There are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. The Bible, correctly interpreted, does not say that God created man in six "days" we understand the term; it does not say that that the flood covered the whole world.

The term earth comes from the Hebrew word ehrets and as used in Genesis and only means a common country, land, nations, wilderness... but never does it mean the entire planet.

So what about a flood that drowned everyone regionally for 40 days? No proof for that either. And the Chinese may have known about a flood but they didn't know about Noah.

So god made Adam out of nothing or was evolution involved?

You ARE cherry-picking because at some points you say "they didn't mean that" and at others you quote word for word. That, my friend, is called cherry-picking the bible.

You are not going to prevail by being dishonest. I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible. And I've told you the writers were limited by the lack of knowledge - meaning they would not know that California existed, so how could they know it didn't get flooded?

The duty of a Christian is to know how to separate the figurative from the literal. It is NOT a process of cherry picking:

II Timothy 2: 14 and 15 reads:

"14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

And yes, the Chinese knew of Noah AND there are strong arguments that they knew Noah himself:

Migration to China

" I said there are both literal and figurative truths in the Bible."

That's called cherry-picking. Now you know.

And if you choose to not believe certain things in the bible as being true, how can you justify believing other parts to be true? Who decides? And how? By simply saying "this is stupid and can't have happened so it's figurative, but this part sounds like something someone could have said, so we go with it"? Flip a coin?

No. That is called intellectual honesty. The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light. Something that people who are intellectually dishonest don't do.

Taz knows better than to make the arguments he / she is making. But now there is an even better explanation for Bible interpretation. Thanks for the good job.