If God's Flood was only a regional flood...

[Fort Fun Indiana]

as you demand that the literal "translation" is the truth of the behind the story.

Your Appeal To Authority is telling.

You shouldn't use word s, when you don't know what they mean. The Bible says what it says. Reading it aloud is not an appeal to authority, son.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

as you demand that the literal "translation" is the truth of the behind the story.

Your Appeal To Authority is telling.

You shouldn't use word s, when you don't know what they mean. The Bible says what it says. Reading it aloud is not an appeal to authority, son.

I can read just fine boy. Where's your supporting evidence to prove that your 'authority' in this matter knows the whole truth behind the story he/she set down on paper?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where's your supporting evidence to prove that your 'authority' in this matter knows the whole truth behind the story he/she set down on paper?

There isnt any. What in the world are you crybabying about now? It is Christians who claim the Bible is literal and absolute truth. I know that it is an embarrassing, plagiarized fairy tale by ignorant people, and a truly horrible piece of literature.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Where's your supporting evidence to prove that your 'authority' in this matter knows the whole truth behind the story he/she set down on paper?

There isnt any. What in the world are you crybabying about now? It is Christians who claim the Bible is literal and absolute truth. I know that it is an embarrassing, plagiarized fairy tale by ignorant people, and a truly horrible piece of literature.

People like you are the one's demanding that the story is literal son. Then you can't even muster up enough evidence to support your claims? Do you always run around like Chicken Little?

Then you whine when people such as myself show supporting evidence that there may very well have been a worldwide flood and go into denial. Why don't you take your diaper of Appeal to Authority and find a place to bury your stinky mess.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[james bond]

.

How else can one explain 200+ huge flood stories from around the world.

How else can one explain -


simple, they can't, there were no survivors ...

that can not be the one referred to in your book of forgeries, there were no survivors to record the event other than who were on the particular ark and they left no recordings either.

the OP is correct, it was a regional flood and no on board animals and the pre - 4th century christians were all drowned, little good it did after their comeback in the 4th century. we're waiting for the encore. haha bond, good riddance. once and for all.

Atheists are usually wrong. Noah and his family with 2 of each kind of animals that God called survived. They passed down the story.

Furthermore, the percentages favor the story that they told.

Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?

I saw the regional flood story from Robert Ballard on abc news. It was more than that. He discussed ancient shorelines and carbon dating the shells. He mentioned tsunamis and the damage it can do. However, geologists Ryan and Pitman did not go far enough. They used the evidence of the global flood to sell their books. They will pay the ultimate price for their false testimony.

None of them did a good job of explaining the flood stories. But he did talk about villages underwater and I've linked a youtube for it already (ziggurat).

So far, no one has explained how the earth has so much water. We've sent many probes to other parts of the galaxy and we have not found a planet quite like earth.

All this evidence and atheists deny it all and continue to say it's a myth. Only p&s will make you believe that it was not a myth.

 

[james bond]

I would say that it's people like yourself, Taz , and Fort Fun Indiana , who take everything in the Bible literally.

then you either have reading or memory problems, as there a there are several Bible lliteralists in this thread and onthis board

funny how parts of the Bible become myths, once they are refuted by science, but not one second before...

It has not been refuted by science. What the atheists did is present their logic without God. It is dishonest. Science does not accept God, the supernatural or the Bible hypotheses as I've said many times. This is not science and that's why they and you cannot present any observational evidence to refute it. I'm still waiting for an explanation of 3/4 of the eath covered by water and fossils found way above sea level.

 

[james bond]

In fact they were likely more educated than either you or I.

Are you joking? No man at that time was more educated than the average 3rd grader today.

"A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape." Proverbs 19:5

Tsk, Fort Fun Indiana

 

[BreezeWood]

How else can one explain 200+ huge flood stories from around the world.

Noah and his family with 2 of each kind of animals that God called survived. They passed down the story.

for that event only Noah and his family could pass down the event details as everyone else were its victims, no survivors ...

forget your book bond either it was regional or there were 200 Noah's " from around the world ".


it is the religion of Antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil

who are you to circumvent the religion of Antiquity for one that you have no control over for your own destiny but must worship a false idol "christ" you made up and happens to favor your world view. politically.

 

[james bond]

How else can one explain 200+ huge flood stories from around the world.

Noah and his family with 2 of each kind of animals that God called survived. They passed down the story.

for that event only Noah and his family could pass down the event details as everyone else were its victims, no survivors ...

forget your book bond either it was regional or there were 200 Noah's " from around the world ".


it is the religion of Antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil

who are you to circumvent the religion of Antiquity for one that you have no control over for your own destiny but must worship a false idol "christ" you made up and happens to favor your world view. politically.

Ha ha. I let you call the Bible "antiquity" in regards to it being an old historical book of non-fiction. But now you refer to "religion" of antiquity. My religion is much more current than yours. Its beliefs only go back around 6,000 years. These beliefs are backed up by observational science. Your beliefs of singularity, big bang, life from non-life goes back 13.7 B years and 4.6 B years for the planet earth. Thus, evolutionary thinking and ToE is the religion of antiquity. Its beliefs are not backed up by observational science nor historical science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People like you are the one's demanding that the story is literal son.

Wrong, of course. When you imply that it is all fairy tale and allegory, I agree with you.

I hope that clarifies for you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In fact they were likely more educated than either you or I.

Are you joking? No man at that time was more educated than the average 3rd grader today.

"A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape." Proverbs 19:5

Tsk, Fort Fun Indiana

“He too was exceedingly arrogant. ... Strutting around the place with his friends and admirers … The resemblance between you is uncanny." - Snape on you and Jaysus, Harry Potter Series

 

[Damaged Eagle]

People like you are the one's demanding that the story is literal son.

Wrong, of course. When you imply that it is all fairy tale and allegory, I agree with you.

I hope that clarifies for you.

Yet their fairy tale as you say describes creation long before scientists thought up the big bang.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet their fairy tale as you say describes creation long before scientists thought up the big bang.

That's quite a leap that only a person of faith could make. Also, it makes you appear inconsistent and dishonest, as now you are picking one factoid (the beginning of everything ) form the Bible and claiming it as literal, while claiming anything else that doesn't fit the facts as metaphor and allegory. You are giving yourself quite a credibility problem. Before science debunked the other bits, you would have been claiming them true, as well.

Of course, nothing about the Bible creation story matches up with any empirical knowledge we have attained. To say it was true that we had a beginning does not lend any more or less credibity to any creation myth going. In fact, the Hindu version matches up more well with the facts, so maybe it's time you converted to a more accurate religion.

 

[LittleNipper]

Geez, it's about you left, you have no proof for any kind of a flood that would have needed animals to be saved. So what if other cultures have flood stories, are you saying that the bible is just copied bullshit. Like you? :biggrin;

You keep saying this and maybe you will convince yourself! However, the Grand Canyon (as well as others), and aquatic fossils on mountains, petrified trees running through layer after layer of sediment, a whale fossil found standing on its head through layers of sediment are all proof that something out of the ordinary happened. You "believe" what you wish, but there iare more and more things found that point to a terrible cataclysm.

You don't like what real science says about the erosion of the GC, and all the other stuff, so you live in a fantasy world. How does denying reality get you closer to a god?

CORRECTION! I don't agree with what Uniformitarian scientists have theorized from the data that they have regarded. So you may call everything that ignores GOD as scientific, but I do not. How does believing only secular science can be reality get you closer to GOD?

You want everything to be literally as the Bible says it. A book largely written by nomadic tribes thousands of years ago, edited by a group of religious/political leaders, and without the benefit for centuries of scientific advancement. I do not understand why you think that gets you closer to God.

You want the beginning to be God waving his magic wand and everything appearing. But if God is as you say, he could have just as easily planted a seed and made the world grow as the scientists say it did. Would that be less miraculous?

I would say that it's people like yourself, Taz , and Fort Fun Indiana , who take everything in the Bible literally. Yet there's been so many translations of the story that no one really knows what the original stated. It may very well have been that it was two of each domesticated animal determined by the authority who was considered a great man or even a god at that time. Therefore I find your logic faulty with your Appeal To Authority when you're not really quoting the original authority that created the story/legend.

*****CHUCKLE*****

We have the Hebrew. Read the Flood story in any version you wish! It was still a global event.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You keep saying this and maybe you will convince yourself! However, the Grand Canyon (as well as others), and aquatic fossils on mountains, petrified trees running through layer after layer of sediment, a whale fossil found standing on its head through layers of sediment are all proof that something out of the ordinary happened. You "believe" what you wish, but there iare more and more things found that point to a terrible cataclysm.

You don't like what real science says about the erosion of the GC, and all the other stuff, so you live in a fantasy world. How does denying reality get you closer to a god?

CORRECTION! I don't agree with what Uniformitarian scientists have theorized from the data that they have regarded. So you may call everything that ignores GOD as scientific, but I do not. How does believing only secular science can be reality get you closer to GOD?

You want everything to be literally as the Bible says it. A book largely written by nomadic tribes thousands of years ago, edited by a group of religious/political leaders, and without the benefit for centuries of scientific advancement. I do not understand why you think that gets you closer to God.

You want the beginning to be God waving his magic wand and everything appearing. But if God is as you say, he could have just as easily planted a seed and made the world grow as the scientists say it did. Would that be less miraculous?

I would say that it's people like yourself, Taz , and Fort Fun Indiana , who take everything in the Bible literally. Yet there's been so many translations of the story that no one really knows what the original stated. It may very well have been that it was two of each domesticated animal determined by the authority who was considered a great man or even a god at that time. Therefore I find your logic faulty with your Appeal To Authority when you're not really quoting the original authority that created the story/legend.

*****CHUCKLE*****

We have the Hebrew. Read the Flood story in any version you wish! It was still a global event.

Which is demonstrably false.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yet their fairy tale as you say describes creation long before scientists thought up the big bang.

That's quite a leap that only a person of faith could make. Also, it makes you appear inconsistent and dishonest, as now you are picking one factoid (the beginning of everything ) form the Bible and claiming it as literal, while claiming anything else that doesn't fit the facts as metaphor and allegory. You are giving yourself quite a credibility problem. Before science debunked the other bits, you would have been claiming them true, as well.

Of course, nothing about the Bible creation story matches up with any empirical knowledge we have attained. To say it was true that we had a beginning does not lend any more or less credibity to any creation myth going. In fact, the Hindu version matches up more well with the facts, so maybe it's time you converted to a more accurate religion.

The only one with a credibility problem here is yourself. As far as I'm concerned the following passage...

Genesis 1:3 Context

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. 6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

...is a pretty accurate description of creation from a layman. Sounds like the 'Big Bang' theory was stolen from the Bible to me or did the Flying Spaghetti Monster provide inspiration for those scientists to come up with their grand theory?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

..is a pretty accurate description of creation from a layman. Sounds like the 'Big Bang' theory was stolen from the Bible

What a ridiculous notion. there is literally nothing accurate at all about that passage. And -- pay attention this time -- every word of it is grifted from existing creation myths. Gee, gods created light? And how is one to form a creation myth, without creating light? And space? And heavens, and earth? It sure would have been odd, if they had said light was not created, don't you think? I award you and the plagiarist author of that myth zero points.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

..is a pretty accurate description of creation from a layman. Sounds like the 'Big Bang' theory was stolen from the Bible

What a ridiculous notion. there is literally nothing accurate at all about that passage. And -- pay attention this time -- every word of it is grifted from existing creation myths. Gee, gods created light? And how is one to form a creation myth, without creating light? And space? And heavens, and earth? It sure would have been odd, if they had said light was not created, don't you think? I award you and the plagiarist author of that myth zero points.

So now you're demanding that I'm the one doing the Appeal To Authority for the story of creation? I thought you didn't believe that was necessary since you wish to take the flood story literally.

The only ridiculous point being made here is by you not giving credit to a people that were barely out of the stone age, .....if they even were, coming up with a concept that pretty accurately describes the beginning of the universe in layman terms. I give you a nine on the denial scale and be happy you didn't rate the full ten.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So now you're demanding that I'm the one doing the Appeal To Authority for the story of creation?

Not at all, please pay attention. Now, given the failure of your rhetoric thus far, you have retreated to a position of giving legitimacy to a bronze age myth by pointing out that it mentions creation of light, and, gee, so does the best scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe. As laughable as that already is on its face, it also reveals a deep self delusion on your part. Anyone with functioning faculties of reason would understand that any explanation of the beginning of the universe would explain what is in the universe. For someone to point at an illiterate, plagiarized myth and say it deserves credibility because it includes this inherent necessity belies a deep delusion on his part.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So now you're demanding that I'm the one doing the Appeal To Authority for the story of creation?

Not at all, please pay attention. Now, given the failure of your rhetoric thus far, you have retreated to a position of giving legitimacy to a bronze age myth by pointing out that it mentions creation of light, and, gee, so does the best scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe. As laughable as that already is on its face, it also reveals a deep self delusion on your part. Anyone with functioning faculties of reason would understand that any explanation of the beginning of the universe would explain what is in the universe. For someone to point at an illiterate, plagiarized myth and say it deserves credibility because it includes this inherent necessity belies a deep delusion on his part.

It describes a lot more than the creation of light. Which means that your illiteracy and inability to grasp the simple concepts relayed in the single paragraph describing creation in the Bible suggests that your inner city public school education was the standard of today. Needless to say you are severely lacking in the most rudimentary skills of analytical abilities.

*****CHUCKLE*****