Would We Believe This Time?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Now, Ethelred, that's not fair. One need not believe in the literal occurences of the Bible to be a Christian.

He wasn't being fair either and he was harping on good vs evil. He was creating a straw man to argue against.

His version of god really isn't supported by the Bible. Not even Jesus in the New Testament can support that version of god.

I may not have been FULLY fair but I wasn't unfair either. Read some of things about Jesus wanting people to deny their families if need be to follow him. Or the two followers in the New Testament that were struck dead for not giving ALL their money to the cause.

I didn't say what I said just based on Genesis or even just on the Old Testament.

It simply means one believes in the message and is a follower of Jesus Christ. One can even call one's self a Christian and not believe in Christ's being divine (I know a few like that). What one says is "Christian" is as subjective as what one thinks is "evil" or "good"

Well almost all christians would disagree with you on the divinity of Jesus. Its a basic tenet of allmost all christian religions. Jesus figuratively brought a sword and REALLY brought a whip remember. He was not all luvy duvy sweetness and light. He really did not fit that warm and fuzzy version of god.

[monkspider]

Hi Boris,
Those are certainly some valid points to raise. I think it should be remembered that since this was just a local flood, there wouldn't be nearly as many animals to fit on the Ark. I think it is certainly feasible to consider that the animals from the area that the black sea flood affected would have fit on the Ark. Certainly it is nowhere as unthinkable as the kangaroos hopping all the way from Australia.
It also should be noted that the Ark was simply built for stability, not mobility. It was just something designed to stay a float for bit. Here is something I pulled off of a website, I don't know much about Naval stability theory, so I honestly can't comment on it personally, it seems to be reasonable enough though.
"A flat-bottomed barge like the Ark wouldn’t have problems with sag. If the lower deck were made of logs, four layers deep, it would have been very sturdy. If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy. Woodmorappe points this out too, and much more, so Isaak is dishonest to ignore that. Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m (S.W. Hong et al., “Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway”, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):26–36, 1994. All the co-authors are on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Taijon.)"

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider

I'm not asking that Kit hide from reality, only from your deceit. Nothing personal of course Ethel ol' chum.

Show deceit. You can't. Thats why you engaged in that straw man arguement.

I distorted nothing. I deceived no one nor did I try to. Your evasion of the things actually said should make it clear to any reading this that I did not distort anything.

In other words I dare you to deal with I said. Show where the deceit is. Give evidence. Other wise it is you that just engaged in deciet.

[Lincoln]

"Any smart God would have..."

Maybe he isn't as smart as you. Perhaps you can teach him how to be God. God is by definition above the laws because he made them. In any event he claims to violate them so it is foolish to reproach him for doing what he said he would do.

[monkspider]

How did I present Strawmen though Ethel? I presented valid and common rebuttals from the Atheist camp.
"it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist. "
That's not a strawman
"the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible, but nevertheless it is highly improbable. The extent and depth of evil in the world are so great that it is improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it is improbable that God exists. "
That's definitely not a strawman
I think those are two of the most common rebuttals from the Atheist camp, therefore I think you are just throwing around the term "strawman" for the fun of it Ethy.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by monkspider
How did I present Strawmen though Ethel? I presented valid and common rebuttals from the Atheist camp.
"it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist. "
That's not a strawman

You assume only one definition of God. The argument is against a God specifically omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, which many Christians claim of their God. In that case it is a valid argument. It shouldn't be applied to other definitions of God.

I think those are two of the most common rebuttals from the Atheist camp, therefore I think you are just throwing around the term "strawman" for the fun of it Ethy.

Sometimes those arguments are made as you stated, but I haven't seen them from Ethelred in this thread. He has been pretty clear that to make his argument against Jehovah (as defined in the old testament), not God or a deity in general. You are twisting his words so that you can argue against them. Isn't that what a strawman argument is? (not really familiar with the term here)

[monkspider]

Well, what good ol' Ethy was saying, aside from his flood comments, essentially boiled down to is a question of how God could allow evil to exist. To wit, if the wages of sin are death (eg. the flood victims), why allow sin to exist then? It's true that I didn't address him word for word, but the overall conclusion is still the same.

[Aeson]

No, it's a rather different conclusion overall.

An omniscient God would by definition know the actions of his creation before they were created. All-knowing is a common attribute given to the Christian God, but not always.

An omnipotent God could do anything he wanted by definition. So he could have created us to do whatever he wanted us to do. Since he knew what he was doing (omniscient) then he basically chose what would happen. There was no doubt when he created us that he would have to destroy most of his creations in the flood.

He would have also known how to prevent having to do that, and had the ability to create us in a more efficient manner.

Finally you have omnibenevolent. This means that God would be an all loving, all caring God. He would never do anything to harm anyone. When combined with the first 2 traits, this means he could only create that which he would never have to harm. Otherwise he would have known his creation was going to need to be destroyed, had the power to avoid such a situation, but chose to harm others. Which can't fit with the definition of omnibenevolent.

So it is a valid argument to say "An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God can't allow suffering to exist." Because he would have created that suffering.

Now if your definition of God is otherwise, then the argument doesn't apply.

[monkspider]

Well those are good points to bring up Aeson, as I stated before, We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for the evils that occur: As finite persons, we’re limited in space, time, intelligence, and insight, but the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to be justly permitted within God’s wider framework. A brutal murder of an innocent man, for example, could produce a sort of ripple effect throughout history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a particular evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

Also, The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.In the Christian view, this life is not all there is. Jesus promised eternal life to all who place their trust in him as Savior and Lord. In the afterlife God will reward those who have borne their suffering in courage and trust with an eternal life of unspeakable joy. The apostle Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, lived a life of incredible suffering, and yet he wrote: "We do not lose heart. For this slight, momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. For we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal" (II Cor. 4. 16-18). Paul imagines a scale, as it were, in which the sufferings of this life are placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory which God will bestow upon His children in heaven. The weight of glory is so great that the sufferings of this life literally cannot even be compared to it! Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of this life shrink toward an infinitesimal moment. And that’s why Paul could refer to them as a "slight" and "momentary" affliction. Despite what he suffered, his sufferings were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes upon those who trust him.

So, I'm sorry if I misunderstood Ethy's original posts a bit, but My point was that, because of our limitations in space and history, we may not see God’s purposes emerge in our lifetime. Therefore we’re not in a good position to assess the probabilities of why He permitted a certain evil. But I see no basis on the atheistic view for thinking that it’s improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.
Thanks for hearing me out Aeson et al.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
Also Ethel I think your main problem in accepting Christianity is the fallacies of the flood story , at least this is a problem that you seem to reiterate.

I reiterate it because its the most clear and the hardest for a Fundamentalist to waffle on. Fundamentalists can distort Genesis one and two much easier than the Flood. Its why they don't like talking about it anymore.

I have done some research on the flood story, and I now am quite certain that it was, in fact, a localized flood.

Then you don't believe in the Bible because its quite clear. It is followed by the equally untenable Tower of Babel story.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that it was the legendary Black Sea Flood.

I don't really need you to tell me about it. I have posted links on it. I am fairly sure it inspired the story in the Bible. Which does nothing about my stand on this. If its just a legend then what else is just a legend? There is nothing special in the Bible if its no more right than Gilgamesh. I might as well worship a Zoratrian god by what you are saying.

Oh here is th link I post and its much better than yours because it the the guy doing the work.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news165.htm[/url])
Now it is interesting to note that this is at about the exact time and place of Noah .

False in both respects. The Biblilcal Flood is clearly and necisarrily a world wide event. It happened acording to biblical chronology around 4400 years ago. Long after the Black Sea Flood.

But the Bible makes it clear that it has to be a worldwide flood..or does it?

Yes it does. It not only says it covered the highest mountain it also was intended to kill ALL land life. Both of those mean the Flood had to be world wide and not local.

Let's examine the verses a bit.
Those who argue a biblical case for a local Flood believe that Scripture can support this position. They believe terms used in Genesis do not force one to believe in a universal Flood.

Very few people think that way that believe in the Flood. No fundamentalist would. The terms are clear.

1.All Does Not Always Mean All
Though the word all is found throughout the Flood account, it is not necessary to assume that it is used in a universal sense. There are many places in the Bible where all does not mean every last one. For example.

It does mean all in Genesis. Its very clear.

Joel 3:2 reads:

I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them concerning my inheritance, My people Israel, for they scattered My people among the nations and divided up my land (Joel 3:2).
Though the Scripture says all nations, we know from the context that the nations are limited to those around Judah and Jerusalem.

Which is completely unrelated to the Flood. Even for an apologist this is reaching. The best you can manage in this endeavor of yours is to show another contradiction in the Bible because Genesis is very clear.

Skipping more things not related to the Flood.

2.Universal Language Is Often Hyperbolic

In Scripture, universal language is often hyperbolic - deliberate exaggeration for effect. For example, the Apostle Paul wrote:

So then your are saying its fraudulent to the core.

The universal terms could have been used to emphasize that this was no normal flood. Though local in extent, it nevertheless was devastating in its destruction.

That is not what the Bible says. Nor does it match the alleged intent of Jehovah.

3.The Hebrew Word Earth Can Be Translated Land

The Hebrew term eretz translated earth in Genesis 6-8 should be translated land instead of earth. The word eretz is used more than 2,500 times in the Old Testament with 80% of the time being translated land rather than earth. Therefore, the Hebrew writers employed the wordrather than earth. Therefore, the Hebrew writers employed the word with its much more restricted meaning about four times as frequently as they employed it with a broader meaning. What is in view, in the Flood account, is not the entire earth, but the land around Noah.

Very nice try. But wrong. I am not going on Earth or ERETZ but highest mountain and all life that crawled or breathed.

If you have to rewrite the Bible like this you don't believe it any more than I do.

If the word land is substituted for earth in the Flood account then the passage has an entirely different sense. Consider how the passage would then be understood.

Unfortunalty land and earth are not the only issues. I note that you are avoiding actual passages and are rewriting everything in your own words. Isn't adding to the Bible supposed to be grounds for eternal damnation? You have a lot of nerve to say I engaged in deciet.

Now the land was corrupt in God's sight, and the land was filled with violence. And God saw that the land was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the land. For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the land, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the land shall die (Genesis 6:11,12,17). The point is as follows: the extent of the Flood cannot be decisively settled based upon the Hebrew word for earth.

Thats OK I wasn't using the word.

Skipping more stuff about the irrelevant word 'earth'.

Not As Clear As It Seems
Consequently, the words all and the whole earth, which are found throughout the Flood narrative, may not really be as widespread in their implications as the text seems to state. The Hebrew language cannot, by itself, be decisive in determining the extent of the Flood.

Yeah it can. You are just evading the inconvenient words.

More skipping.

Consequently a local Flood that covered the Promised Land is consistent with his emphasis.

The Promised Land came AFTER the Flood and it wasn't the land that is NOW covered by the Black Sea Flood. That land has been covered ever since the Flood. The Black Sea Flood never covered what later became Israel.

Therefore, I think your qualms with the biblical flood are illfounded, in fact, I think this account of the black sea flood gives the bible even more clout as being historically accurate. I hope that perhaps this information will help you view the bible in a more positive light in the future Ethy.

No the Black Sea Flood only inspired the original story and that story inspired the Biblical one. Gilgamesh is the older of the two.

I note they engaged in a major rewrite and focused on one single world and showed no congruence between the Black Sea Flood and the Biblical one. Not in time or space.

Now for what the Bible says instead your own special version.

First the word you think is in question.

0776 'erets {eh'-rets}

from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; TWOT - 167; n f

AV - land 1543, earth 712, country 140, ground 98, world 4, way 3,
common 1, field 1, nations 1, wilderness + 04057 1; 2504

1) land, earth
1a) earth
1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
1b8) city (-state)
1c) ground, surface of the earth
1c1) ground
1c2) soil
1d) (in phrases)
1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
1d3) level or plain country
1d4) land of the living
1d5) end(s) of the earth
1e) (almost wholly late in usage)

1e1) lands, countries
1e1a) often in contrast to Canaan


Now that give you a lot of leaway but Erets is not the only word used in the story that shows it to be a world wide flood.

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Note the lack of limits.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Note the creation of man in the first place. Showing that Jehovah does indeed mean ALL mankind. That entails the whole world. Like or not men covered the earth long before the Flood even the Black Sea Flood which is much too early to match the Bible.


Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Note the intent to slay all, even the birds. In both 6:6 and 6:7 Man is 'adam in the Hebrew. He also clearly is saying he blew the job of creation. Even Jehovah knows he is not perfect so whats your problem?

Gen 6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

I tossed that one just to show the impossible size of the Ark. The largest wooden ship ever made was 350 feet. Considerably smaller than the Ark. It leaked and cracked. It was not fit to stand weeks of the worst storm that ever hit the Earth.

You don't have to take my word for it. Just do a search on Google for the largest wooden ship.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

More clarity of intent to kill all not on the ship. If its mere hyperbole it sure is WAY overdone as they keep adding more of it.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Pretty specific on the times. Are you claiming they lied about that? I mention this because of your false claim that the Black Sea Flood happened at the right time to match the Bible. It didn't.

Note also the reference to the windows of heaven. Thats rain which is not overflowing riverbanks which is what actually happened in the Black Sea Basin. Rain had nothing to do with the Black Sea Flood.

But

Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Now thats a lot of rain.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.

Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Note that the mountains were covered. Which fits Jehovahs clearly stated intent to kill all.

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.

And there they are. All dying. Everything that breathed. Which does fit exactly with the stated intent of Jehovah.

Man is 'adam again. Making it clear just how thoroughly it means all of mankind. Everone not on the Ark.

Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

Again the same. Pretty thorough about the slaughter of all. Not surpising then that you only wanted to deal with a single word in your total rewrite of the story.

Gen 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

The waters are STILL there in the Black Sea. Not exactly the same as in this passage. So do you believe in the Bible or the Archeology. They don't agree.

Gen 8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that [is] with thee, of all flesh, [both] of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

None of that would have been needed if it was a mere local flood.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Jehovah promising never to again kill everything. He doesn't agree with you either on this issue. You seem to be without support. All you have is one word that you chose to change the usual meaning off. You just ignored all the others and the clearly stated intent of Jehovah. I guess you don't believe Jehovah either.

Now for some expert opinions that don't agree with you either.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp

Unfortunately, he handles the biblical record carelessly. Noah's Flood was not a local flood in the Black Sea area, but a world-wide flood that has left its mark on every continent on this planet.

Not my fault he is wrong about "mark on every continent on this plane".

Specifics about the Flood being worldwide

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4104.asp

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.

If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn't rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2

If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of 'all' men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.

And the final and pretty darn good bit of reasoning:

If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.

Now if you don't want to believe what Gensis actually says thats fine by me. I sure don't. However don't pretend your rewrite has anything to do with what the Bible really says. If it has to be rewitten and the meaning changed to fit reality its not exactly a convincing book with any special meaning or value.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
How did I present Strawmen though Ethel?

Yes you did.

I presented valid and common rebuttals from the Atheist camp.

You presented someone elses view. Nothing that anyone on this thead had said. That is a Straw Man in the context of this thread. You could not argue against what was said here so you went out and found someone elses words. Not common either. You only claim its common.

"it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist. "
That's not a strawman

Sure it is. No one here said it. It had no relevance to what anyone was saying. You wanted to participate without actually doing so since you could not rebut what was said here.

I think those are two of the most common rebuttals from the Atheist camp, therefore I think you are just throwing around the term "strawman" for the fun of it Ethy.

The fact is thought they are NOT common. That is where the Straw Man arises. You had to import some weak arguement since you couldn't deal with anyone on the thread. You even LIED and said that people on THIS thread were using it. If that isn't Straw what the heck is.

Just to back myself up.

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.

You said that and its lie. No one egaged in that incredibly weak arguement you imported.

Try discussing what WE HAVE SAID not some future converts incompotent and weak claims. Don't EVER claim that weak arse crap came from someone on this thread.

Well unless some wimp actually does try it. Its really lame. Its much better to show that Jehovah actually does evil. The evidence is overwhelming in the Bible.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
Well, what good ol' Ethy was saying, aside from his flood comments, essentially boiled down to is a question of how God could allow evil to exist.

Isn't lying a sin? I never said evil was merely allowed to exist. I said Jehovah did evil. The Bible itselfs says Jehovah created evil.

I mention that evil for one reason. To show what kind of thing you are accepting when you accept the Bible. I NEVER use it to disprove any god. Genesis has more than enough mistakes to make it very clear the Bible is not worth one cent more than Gilgamesh in understanding a possible creator.

To wit, if the wages of sin are death (eg. the flood victims), why allow sin to exist then? It's true that I didn't address him word for word, but the overall conclusion is still the same.

Straw man how can you ever stand up
Straw man you burned so well up
Straw man you made it all up


Quite inventing my side of the arguement Straw Man. Deal with what I say not some wimpy Atheist that couldn't out argue Oral Roberts and his 800 foot Jesus.

[monkspider]

Good post Ethy ol buddy, that one took a lot of work, let me properly address your concerns one at a time though.

Originally posted by Ethelred

False in both respects. The Biblilcal Flood is clearly and necisarrily a world wide event. It happened acording to biblical chronology around 4400 years ago. Long after the Black Sea Flood.

Hmm, the Arafat mountains are in Turkey, the Black Sea flood was in Turkey, I see no problems on that account. I don't think we can be sure when either Noah lived. 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." (source: http://www.naplesnews.com/today/religion/d321241a.htm)

Yes it does. It not only says it covered the highest mountain it also was intended to kill ALL land life. Both of those mean the Flood had to be world wide and not local.

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. They were high mountains from his perspective on the plain. If this is the case, then it would not force us to assume that the entire world was under water. It is certainly not unthinkable to see something as huge as the black sea flood covering lower lying mountains. 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.

Which is completely unrelated to the Flood. Even for an apologist this is reaching.

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.

Very nice try. But wrong. I am not going on Earth or ERETZ but highest mountain and all life that crawled or breathed.

Well thanks Ethy, it's very rare of you to show compliments of any sort to us silly Christian-types.
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.

The Promised Land came AFTER the Flood and it wasn't the land that is NOW covered by the Black Sea Flood.

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

No the Black Sea Flood only inspired the original story and that story inspired the Biblical one. Gilgamesh is the older of the two.

Interesting theory Ethy, but P.J. Wiseman presents an interesting theory in this regard in his book Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1985).
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 breaks Genesis into parts according to the phrase "These are the generations" (KJV; "This is the history" - NKJV; "This the account" - NASB; NIV; Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12,9; 36:1,9; 37:2).
He compares the use of this phrase and the structure of each section to the stone tablets written in cuneiform script. Many of these tablets have been discovered and they date to the third millenium BC.
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.
The narratives of the Fall and subsequent events would have been written on another tablet by Adam as an eye-witness of the events. Adam then passed each of these tablets on to his descendant Seth. Seth then recorded the events of Gen 5 and passed the tablets to his descendant Noah.
Noah then recorded the events of Gen 6-9 and passed the tablets to his descendant Shem, and so one until Joseph. Joseph then recorded the final chapters of Genesis and placed all of the tablets in the library of the pharaohs. Moses then, while in pharaoh’s court, would have had access to these tablets. He then translated them into his native Hebrew.
The above theory "fits" with various evidences in the Scriptures. For instance, it would explain such passages as Exod 6:3: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD [YHWH], I was not known to them."
But the Tetragrammaton appears in Genesis, making for an apparent contradiction. However, this problem is easily explained if Moses, but did translatednot write, Genesis. While translating, when Moses came across the name for God in the cuneiform tablets, he used the Name God revealed to him to translate it. So the Name YHWH was not known to Abraham and other Genesis figures.
Also, note that in the Bible Genesis is never said to be written by Moses, whereas the other four books of the Torah are. For instance, in Matt 18:4-5 Jesus refers to two quotes from Genesis. He introduces them with the general phrase, "Have you not read...." But in verse 8, when referring to a passage from Deuteronomy, Jesus specifically attributes the statement to Moses.
In addition, Wiseman's theory is consistent with the relationship of Gilgamesh and Genesis. There are some similarities between the two, yet many important differences.
More specifically, if Genesis was translated from stone tablets written by the main characters of the events, then these tablets would pre-date the writing of Gilgamesh. Meanwhile, Gilgamesh was based on oral transmission of the events.
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.
Wiseman's theory also fits with the archeological evidence of the character of the ancient cuneiform, stone tablets as compared to the Genesis narratives. There are many similarities in the writing structure between them. He summarizes all of the evidences on pages 144-148 of his book.
He concludes by stating:
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.
Here is more info on the cuneiform tablets if you desire.

http://www.v-a.com/bible/old-testament.html

http://www.dtl.org/bible/ng-post/gilgamesh.htm

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

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!

I tossed that one just to show the impossible size of the Ark. The largest wooden ship ever made was 350 feet.

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.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

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

.

Pretty specific on the times. Are you claiming they lied about that? I mention this because of your false claim that the Black Sea Flood happened at the right time to match the Bible. It didn't.

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

Note also the reference to the windows of heaven. Thats rain which is not overflowing riverbanks which is what actually happened in the Black Sea Basin. Rain had nothing to do with the Black Sea Flood.

I understand that melting icecaps were involved too, but there is no way you can say that rain wasn't involved as well. In fact, rain combined with these melting ice caps probably could have created a flood which could cover medium-sized mountains. Here is a quote from http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smi...nom_apr00.html "It was this event that Pitman and Ryan believe could be the flood recorded in the Book of Genesis. The salt water poured through the deepening channel, creating a waterfall 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls (anyone who has ever traveled to the base of the falls on the Maid of the Mist will have a sense of the power involved). In a single day enough water came through the channel to cover Manhattan to a depth at least two times the height of the World Trade Center, and the roar of the cascading water would have been audible at least 100 miles away. Anyone living in the fertile farmlands on the northern rim of the sea would have had the harrowing experience of seeing the boundary of the ocean move inland at the rate of a mile a day.
World Trade Center? That could probably reach the top of a mountain or two me thinks.

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. The people included speakers of Indo-European, the language from which most modern European and Indian languages are derived. Pitman and Ryan suggest that these people might, in fact, represent a diaspora of Black Sea farmers who were driven from their homes by the flood, and that the flood itself might have been the cause of the breakup of Indo-European languages. " While they speculate that it could be the flood, it also could have been the Tower of Babel. In fact, the Tower of Babel is in the next chapter right after Noah's Flood isn't it?

....the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

The waters are STILL there in the Black Sea. Not exactly the same as in this passage. So do you believe in the Bible or the Archeology. They don't agree.

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

Gen 8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that [is] with thee, of all flesh, [both] of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

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.

.

Jehovah promising never to again kill everything. He doesn't agree with you either on this issue.

Now this is a good point Ethy. Many devastating local floods have happened since Noah's time killing thousands in their destruction afterall.

However, the purpose of the Genesis Flood was to destroy all life, not simply to cover the globe with water. Since the time of Noah there have been no more floods that have destroyed all life. Therefore, even if the Genesis Flood was local, the promise to Noah has not been broken. I think at that time about the only civilizations in the world would have been destroyed. The indus, egyptian, and chinese civilizations have not appeared yet, 6000BC and all. Perhaps god simply destroyed civilization up to that point? Alternatively, God has never had a flood which wiped out an entire "land" of people. I live in the midwest, and we have some bad floods, from time to time. But never to the point the entire state of Kansas is wiped out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp

Not my fault he is wrong about "mark on every continent on this plane".

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

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

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.

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

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

Now if you don't want to believe what Gensis actually says thats fine by me. I sure don't. However don't pretend your rewrite has anything to do with what the Bible really says. If it has to be rewitten and the meaning changed to fit reality its not exactly a convincing book with any special meaning or value.

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.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ethelred

Straw man how can you ever stand up
Straw man you burned so well up
Straw man you made it all up


Quite inventing my side of the arguement Straw Man. Deal with what I say not some wimpy Atheist that couldn't out argue Oral Roberts and his 800 foot Jesus.

I love you Ethy, but you know you only wish you could devise an arguement as effective as my so-called strawman.
Anyhow, sorry if I misinterpreted you, honest! I'll try not to assume your arguements fit into typical archetypes I'm well accustomed to defeating in the future.

[Jack the Bodiless]

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.

Not "hyperbole", just the way they thought the world was. It was supposedly flat and centered around the Mediterranean. There was nothing worth mentioning outside that area. When they said "all the kingdoms of the world", they were not speaking figuratively.

No the Black Sea Flood only inspired the original story and that story inspired the Biblical one. Gilgamesh is the older of the two.

Interesting theory Ethy, but P.J. Wiseman presents an interesting theory in this regard in his book Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1985)...

...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. The narratives of the Fall and subsequent events would have been written on another tablet by Adam as an eye-witness of the events...

This is a reliable source? You seem to be quoting a Young-Earth Creationist to support a non-Biblical local flood. Didn't you just say "I generally don't take these young-earthers too seriously"?

If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

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.

I have no problems with the theory that the Black Sea flood may have inspired the Gilgamesh and Genesis stories. But the Ark is a ridiculous addition. The Black Sea flood never left the Black Sea, and is still there: the waters did not abate. In the time it took Noah to build the Ark, he could have just walked away instead: Noah, his family, and any number of animals could have walked to China if they wanted to!

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

It took years to build the Ark, then Noah magically summoned the birds. He could have strolled down into Turkey and summoned them there instead. Or taken his time catching a few the hard way. He wasted so much time building the Ark.