Would We Believe This Time?

[Kit]

can i just point out to ethel darling I aint no him sorry me's a girlie

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Kit
can i just point out to ethel darling I aint no him sorry me's a girlie

I didn't call you a 'him' did I?. However you are welcome to point it out.

Girlie? Is this to say you are not yet an adult?

I might as well point out that calling me 'ethel' can lead to a mistake in gender. I think my avatar should make that less likely. Its why I have that one. I had some guy freaking out about not being to figure out my gender on the Maximum PC forum. I don't know why it was important to him. This is the internet not a pick up bar.

Even with that picture and a link to who the best known Ethelred was he still didn't get it. I figured he was so dense I wasn't going to enlighten him with a direct answer. It was amusing to watch the results.

[Boris Godunov]

You mean, you're NOT Ethel Merman??!!

[Ethelred]

Hmm, the Arafat mountains are in Turkey, the Black Sea flood was in Turkey, I see no problems on that account.

Except that you also said the Promised Land was flooded and that is not Turkey.

I don't think we can be sure when either Noah lived.

Only if you don't believe the Bible.

But here is an excerpt from a news article I found regarding the black sea flood and it's relations to Noah. "But geological research does find reason to believe there was indeed a vast, sudden and deadly flood around 5,600 B.C., close enough to the possible time of Noah to fascinate biblical literalists and liberals alike."

That was not written by a literalist. I allready gave you EXACTLY what literlasts have to say about the Black Sea Flood. Interesting how you ignore that.

Either ignore the Bible or don't.

Now for some of what the Bible says about the time.

This is a link to a Creationist web timeline. The timeline is based on the Bible. The only part you can evade is the time BEFORE Adam as all the rest is based on ages of parents at the birth of the next generation. Exactly as it is in the Bible. The only room for error is the time year the birth occured and the most that can be off is one year per generation and it would be more likely to average out. Of course if you can't except the results then you don't really believe in the Bible.

http://www.cynet.com/jesus/timeline/timeline.htm

There are other timelines. They are very close to this one. The range for the flood is about 100 years. There is room for some more difference based on the few points that can be fixed in the Egyptian timelines. The most you can add is another 300 years there and the theory justifying that is still open to question. According to the Bible Noah was still alive when Abraham was born. Noah lived 950 years. Abraham is thought to have been born 1945 years before Jesus. That limits the Flood to three to four hundred years before Abraham or 2400 BC not 5000.

Unless you can show otherwise you cannot justify in anyway a date of 5000 for Noah's Flood. Not without denying the Bible.

Now the highest mountain bit is a good point to bring up. But If Noah lived in the plains, then the term high mountains could refer to mountains that were relatively low - a few hundred feet.

Nice dodge but thats a hill and the Bible referenced hills seperatly. So they meant mountains not hills there.

It is certainly not unthinkable to see something as huge as the black sea flood covering lower lying mountains.

Only the Bible is clear that ALL mountains were covered.

And who knows, perhaps the black sea flood was big enough to reach medium sized mountains as well. Certainly our knowledge of it is fairly limited at this point.

We know exactly how far the flood went. It went to the level its at today. Its never been higher than it is today. Its a basin that is now full of water. Thats the limit. You ability to weasle does look open to question though.

Not at all, showing that hyerbole was sometimes used when mentioning the phrase "the world" amongst old testament writers is perfectly relevent to our discussion.

Actually all you did was show that the Bible can't be trusted.

Anyhow, in regards to all life that crawled, etc, there is no reason to think that it wasn't referring to all life that crawled in the area affected by the black sea flood. Especially when we have already shown that earth is simply a mistranslation of "land" and the highest mountains in the land aren't nescarrily Mount Everest.

You didn't show there is a mistranstlation. You asserted it. You showed a possibility IF all the other stuff was not there. You can't fit the Black Sea to the time and nothing in the Bible fits a local Flood. One single word might be able to be construed that way. Only one.

True, but it is showing how the promised land and the history of the Hebrew people came about.

Except that it showed the land being flooded and it wasn't. So it can't be restricted to the Black Sea even if 'erets' meant land not the whole Earth.

He believes that Moses did not WRITE Genesis but rather TRANSLATED it from ancient stone tablets written in Cuneiform script. The tablets each would have been originally written by eye-witnesses of the particular events, or those who received their information from eye-witnesses.

He has nothing to support him. Moses was an Egyptian or a Jew living in Egypt. There is no indication in the Bible that he could read cunieform nor that he knew Sumerian. Nor could ANYONE have written it down if you are pretending the Black Sea Flood is the Biblical Flood since it occured well over a thousand years before the first writing in the world. The Gilgamesh story is based on oral tradition not on any eyewitness acount. That is one heck of a bad source you are using. Remarkably unable to think things out.

Many of these tablets have been discovered and they date to the third millenium BC.

Which is not the fifth millenium when the Black Sea flooded. You are thinking well on this. You conveniently forget the things you have allready said when the contradict the next item.

Wiseman's theory is that Genesis is translated from individual tablets which would have contained the material before each occurrence of the above phrase. So the narratives of the creation of the universe (Gen 1) and of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2) would have been written on one tablet by Adam as these events were revealed to him by the only Eye-witness of the events, God Himself.

Interesting the way you remake your time scale with each paragraph. How could possibly fail to notice the distortion? Were you hoping I wouldn't notice or are you really this talented at compartmentalizing the things you say so you can avoid letting the contradictory statements get together?

You have now put Adam as existing in the third Millenium. After the Black Sea Flood. This is the worst time distortion I have seen in any attempt to rewrite the Bible.

Also, note that in the Bible Genesis is never said to be written by Moses, whereas the other four books of the Torah are.

Well then the thats another error. The Penteteuch has many authors based on stylistic changes. Clearly Moses could not have written all of Exodus since he died before the end of it. I am not laboring under any delusion that Moses wrote it all so you are going nowhere with that.

So the record in Genesis would be the accurate record; whereas Gilgamesh would be a somewhat "twisted" record. Being based on oral traditions passed over centuries, the latter would be expected to keep some of the main points intact but alter many of the details.

Except of course that it isn't accurate. Sumerian was the first written language and Egyptian was next. Gilgamesh is the oldest epic. It far predates Moses and there is nothing to support that rampant speculation you are giving. It is purest fantasy. Even the Bible has more going for it.

These twenty-four strands woven together make a cumulative muster of evidences, so exceptional both in character and importance, that they establish the antiquity of Genesis as a contemporary record of events upon a sure foundation. This foundation is the internal testimony of the book itself, supported by the external corroboration of archeology.

Sorry but the Bible is not internally consistant and archeology only supports some of the mundane parts. The archeology does not match any of the divine claims and clearly shows the Flood wrong your rewriting notwithstanding.

And God saw taht the wickedness of man was great in the land.
Hey thanks Ethy for bringing this verse up! It really helps subtaniate that Land works perfectly well, arguably better even, in these verses too!

You don't really believe the Bible do you? It said all mankind not just a bunch of local yahoos. It not only didn't support you at all it showed you wrong.

Well, I it can at least float in theory, unlike the cubed-ship that appears in Gilgamesh. And, since God is telling him how to make it, I'm sure God will make sure he puts glue-type substances in the right areas, he will make sure that the ship is generally stable. It is God after all, after creating a universe, I'm sure he can give Noah advice on how to make an admittedly, rather large ship

It would take more than knowledge. It would take a miracle to make that thing stand up to a 40 day storm of the titanic proportions the Bible needs for the Flood. Its not big enough for the animals of the Biblical Flood and much larger than the Black Sea Flood would need. You might want to decide on which flood you believe in. You sure are denying the Bible for a believer.

AKA, and behold I do bring a flood of waters upon the land...and everything that is in the land shall die.

Can't be everything if its local. Make up your mind. You have distorted the time in two different directions simultaneously now. You moved Adam to after the Black Sea flood so you might as well give up with this radical rewrite of yours.

It's tough to say when someone, who is only mentioned in the old testament, actually lived.

You haven't read the Bible then. Its easy. You just add up the numbers. I find it interesting how little believers actually believe when they don't like the results of what the Bible actually says. You sure had balls to claim I was distorting things Oh Great Rewriter.

I understand that melting icecaps were involved too, but there is no way you can say that rain wasn't involved as well.

Just ordinary rain. Besides you have allready made it clear that you understand when the Black Sea was flooded. You haven't patched the timeline. If you can do that you will be the first and there plenty of believers that are aware of the problem. They just don't have a way to patch the time problem. So they pretend its archeology that is wrong.

World Trade Center? That could probably reach the top of a mountain or two me thinks.

But it still doesn't fit what the Bible says or the time frame.

You really might as well quite telling things about the Black Sea that I allready know. I am not the one with a time and space problems. You must deal with both the time and the clearly stated intent to kill all that breathed and all of mankind.

The Tower of Babel is substantiated in this same link. "a number of people and new customs suddenly appeared in places as far apart as Egypt and the foothills of the Himalayas, Prague and Paris.

That is not substantiated the Tower story. New languages and customs occur all the time in archeology. There is nothing there matching the Tower of Bable story which has all of mankind living in the one place.

Besides again the time doesn't the Bible. Its thousands of years too early.

Perhaps they were simply referring to the water that covered the land abated, not the entire black sea. Silly Ethy.

Well it says the flood and the Black Sea is still flooded to the exact same degree it has been for millenia. Silly distortionist. Those waters have NEVER abated.

Every animal within the range of the flood, i'm sure there were quite a few species native to that region and it's perfectly reasonable they could have all fit on the ark.

The Ark is pretty large for that job. Its pretty small for the Flood that is in the Bible. Not my fault it doesn't make any sense either the Biblical way or your distortionist way. Jehovah was really clear about killing ALL of mankind.

However, the purpose of the Genesis Flood was to destroy all life, not simply to cover the globe with water.

Funny how you have been denying that all along. Destroying all life with a flood does indeed require that it be world wide and reach quite high even it didn't say it covered the HIGHEST mountains.

I think at that time about the only civilizations in the world would have been destroyed.

Wrong. There were no large civs yet but there were cities. They weren't flooded.

The indus, egyptian, and chinese civilizations have not appeared yet, 6000BC and all.

Switching times again I see. That is not compatible with your claim that it was written by eyewittnesses in cunieform nor is it compatible with the times and ages given in the Bible.

By the way the city in question is Jericho. Its over 8000 years old. It predates the Black Sea Flood. It was never flooded.

Alternatively, God has never had a flood which wiped out an entire "land" of people.

Well then you are denying the Bible. Again.

I generally don't take these young-earthers too seriously.

Well that is what you just used as sources for your attempts to rewrite the Bible. If you don't like what the Bible says thats OK by me. However the youung earthers are only going on what the Bible actually says. They aren't rewriting it like you are. As I mentioned the only place in the Bible that you can change the YEC timeline is the time before Adam. After that its all quite clear via births and deaths and ages. The only way to modify the time before Adam is to make some heavy duty intrepations and to deny that a day means a day even when it has a morning and and evening.

It would be fairly tough to walk to some area unaffected by the black sea flood and take all the animals, particularly those native to the region with you.

They had plenty of time. They only had to move a mile or two a day. Not only that the Black Sea flood took a lot more than 40 days and it never abated.

I don't think many birds could have survived the sudden level of flooding that occured either.

So suddenly birds can't fly in your distorionist view of the world. Pretty ridiculous statement. Note that Jehovah's clearly stated intent was to kill all the birds. That takes a world wide flood since most of the birds would have simply flown to another place that was not flooding.

You are aware aren't you that nearly every single spiecies of bird can actually fly aren't you? You sure don't seem to.

Actually, the more and more I debate with you Ethy ol pal, the more accurate it is looking, in fact I predict one day you will convert to Christianity too. You'll see.

The more you debate me the more you are rewriting and changeing. You can't even keep the same timeline for two paragraphs at a time.

When will you be publishing the Monkspider's Gospel: a New Testament of God not to be confused with any other testament or the Book of Mormon or Diurectics by L. Ron Humjob.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by paiktis22
I was reading about a quest by some scientists to discover the "limits" of the laws of the material world.

In other words, when, if ever, does chance or "divine interferance" take over.

They ended up in the sub-molecular atomic substance of a metal IIRC the name of which escapes me at this moment.

The nucleus of this atom is very unstable.
It has EXACTLY a 50% propability that it will destabilize something that will lead to the rotting (don't know the word in english) of the metal.

And of course it has EXACTLY 50% propability that it will remain stable and the metal will remain intact.

It was at this point that they said they "discovered" one point where "God" can actually interfere and change the course of the material world without violating the laws of physics.

Or plain luck.

It was somewhat interesting.

Get a grip, paiktis

If you are referring to some sort of radioactive material that has a 50% probability of decaying at any given moment, how can that be contrived to be the Christian god intervening.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
I am not going to comment too much in this thread, but from just browsing over it I just want to comment on the archetypal "arguement from evil" some posters are presenting here. Essentially what some of the posters are are saying is If God does exist, why is there so much evil in the world? God is all-knowing, and of perfect morals, right? Why does he allow evil to exist?

comrade,

It is indeed unfortunate that you keep harping your explanation here, for I am still waiting for your response to my own framing of the Problem of Evil.

I can post it again if you want.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You fail to consider Boris that the God of the Bible claims to perform miracles. Why do atheists ignore this when they claim to be refuting the claims of scripture?

Because there is no evidence for such assertions?

Originally posted by Lincoln
A miracle by definition ignores or supercedes the laws of physics so unless you can prove that Jesus did not claim to walk on water of raise the dead or make the universe then you are barking up the wrong tree.

Who cares if Jesus made such assertions or not? How is that relevant?