Part 9 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Look if there were any kind of a civilization prior to the Great Flood it got wiped out and so I don't know what you're talking about when you claim there was no interruption.

The only plausible explanation for a civilization to exist without interruption is that, that civilization had to have started way after the Great Flood. Anything prior got wiped out.

 

Except for the fact that you just emitted a false statement because Egyptian civilization started before the flood and still exists today.

 

Okay, so how do you explain the evidence that there had been multiple existing nations and peoples that were contentemporaries of the period when the Flood supposedly happened?

 

No, sorry that can't be possible. According to Scripture after the Great Flood there were only 8 human beings alive in the entire world.

So again, logic tells you that the Egyptian civilization had to have begun sometime after the Great Flood.

Whatever dates you have that begins the civilization, well then the Great Flood occurred well before those dates.

 

Exactly! I have always said that all the questions we have now that can't be answered by any of us simply because we don't have insight into 100% of all knowledge, can be answered someday by Almighty God when we ask Him in Heaven.

We'll be there with Him for all eternity and so I'm sure He'll have lots of time to answer all those questions.

 

Proof.

Really that's all I need.

See this is how science works: you set out to uncover the reason behind something, you find evidence, you use that evidence to construct a theory, and if that evidence is conclusive or inarguable enough your theory is effectively fact. This is why we have science - to explain things.

If you want me to take any claims your religion makes seriously I need scientific evidence to back any of it up. As far as I know, none is forthcoming, namely because your book was written before we knew much about how the world worked so basically it just threw up its hands and made stuff up. Stuff we know is somewhere between extremely unlikely and impossible now that we know how things work.

Until your book has any scientific evidence to back itself up, and that outweighs every scientific theory it contradicts, I see no reason to think it is truthful.

 

Well, since we still have insects today, that means they survived the Great Flood.

In this life we will not be able to know all of the details of how God worked it out for insects to survive the Noachian flood.

But we can point out plausible explanations, for example, many insects could have survived on floating vegetation and animal carcasses.

You have to figure that the ark itself had insects living with the rest of the inhabitants.

If the ark was without insects that came aboard on their own it would truly be a miracle. Just think about trying to make your house completely insect free. If you ever succeeded your house would not be a healthy place for you to live!

So, yes, insects were on the ark.

Most survived through natural processes that God established when He created insects. Some may have survived through God’s direct intervention—a miracle.

So I could go on and on but the fact remains, the insects survived the Great Flood.

 

You can't be seriously attempting to dismiss the entire science of archeology are you?
You can't be seriously attempting to dismiss the entire academic discipline of history are you?

There is hard evidence that there was no catastrophic genocidal flood in Egyptian history.
There is hard evidence that there was no catastrophic genocidal flood in Chinese history.
There is hard evidence that there was no catastrophic genocidal flood in Indian history.
There is hard evidence that there was no catastrophic genocidal flood in Babylonian history.

Attempting to apply deductive reasoning to "prove" a myth is quite amusing.

 

right.


In addition to archeology, history, physics, ecology, climatology, you are completely comfortable disregarding zoology and biology, in the name of a millennia old book of myths written by people who were profoundly ignorant of these subjects. Hence the myths.

It is a sad statement that the faithful can disregard truth in the name of truth.

 

Not so fast my friend. There is evidence it's just that you're in denial of them.

Here is just one of many, studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted while they were still wet and soft.

For this to occur on a global scale, and on sediment thousands of meters thick, it would have required a catastrophic global flood.

 

There is only one true holy being, and that being is Almighty God!

The birth, life, the teachings of His ministry, the miracles He performed, the death by crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord Savior is not based on imagination, it is based on a real life historical figure as told by first-hand witness accounts.

There is historicity of Jesus outside of biblical writings.

So you could either say they (first-hand witness accounts) were lying or telling the truth. It's obvious you believe they lied, but for me, I truly believe they were telling us the truth and nothing but the truth because God had revealed Himself to them and they seen the truth and they wrote the truth!

 

If you don't buy what He's selling then you won't be forgiven and you won't go to heaven. You have to ask for forgiveness of your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord Savior.

So if you don't believe in Him, how could He forgive you?

 

Hey Mitt....I can understand and respect the fact you have Faith....but is it possible for you to at least admit the fact that your faith is supported by what you have been indoctrinated into?

I have no issue with people of various Faiths other than when they do not give me...an Agnostic....the same respect for my Scientific Methodology dictated reality.

AboveAlpha

 

talking to xians is often like talking to 9 year olds.

in fact, no. most 9 year olds are past this sort of puerile nonsense.

 

Your belief is your perogative and I respect that.

As to historicity of Jesus apart from the bible, the only non religious reference I am familiar with Josephus, who wasn't even born when Jesus was supposedly alive.

If you have other direct references outwith of the bible, I would be most appreciative if you could reference them for me.

The content of your belief on the other hand I perceive as mythic. I believe that the "miracles" describe in both testaments are nothing more than a) broken telephone exaggerations, b) complete ignorance of the causes of natural occurences or c) the product of imagination in the absence of knowledge.

There isn't a single shred of scientific evidence supporting any of the biblical myths, while on the other hand there is an enormous volume of scientific evidence that refutes them.

I rest easy in my non religious belief in how we humans achieved apex predator status and what the purpose of sentient life is in this universe.

You rest easy with your religious belief. Lets us agree to completely disagree, and yet at least respect each other's right to whatever belief we may hold.

 

Sorry, get back to me when you gain a rudimentary understanding of geology.
You are currently talking nonsense.

 

The bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah's family had one language and by living in one place were disobeying God's command to "fill the earth"

God blessed Noah and his sons and told them, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth"--Genesis 9:1 NLT.

God confused their language, causing a break-up of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the earth (Refer to Genesis 11:8-9).

Modern genetics show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. (I suggest you do some research into the field of genetics to get a thorough understanding)

The term race is often used to classify people based almost solely on physical characteristics. According to evolutionary ideas, these so-called races descended from different ancestors separated by location and time.

However, based on biblical history, the term race must be incorrect. We are all one race "one blood" the human race, descended from two ancestors, Adam and Eve.

'From one man He created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and He determined their boundaries---Acts 17:26 NLT.

 

Not only is it possible, it's a fact. Logic actually tells us that the scripture is in error. You're attempting to pound a square peg into a round hole and force fit your narrative to make it correspond to reality. There was no "great flood". It's a story. Get over it already. You still haven't accounted for what took place on Day 4. According to you, everything that was announced as happening on Day 4 had already been done on day 1. If that's true, then what was done on Day 4? Your explanations of everything is crumbling around you. You use text that isn't even recognized as valid, and you can't deal with the difference between a story and reality.

 

Then what is the purpose of this thread? Why are you presuming to have any authority on explaining scripture to everyone? You've just admitted that it's not possible.

Why is that necessary, when you presume to have all the answers?

 

There is another possibility. The insects survived because there never was a flood. That would be the logical answer. Nobody has to suspend reason to accept it. Your answer requires the complete suspension of logic and reason and forces us to apply pretzel logic and indulge in totally irrational explanations in order to maintain your belief. And what is that belief based on? A book? What justifies the book...besides the book? You're using the book to prove the book. That's called circular reasoning. The Bible is true, because it's the Bible. The conclusion is used to prove the premise which is that the Bible is true. Except that you haven't proven the premise yet in order to come to that as a sound conclusion.

 

There seems to be a flagrant disregard and distrust of science involved here. I don't know his politics but I'd wager he's a conservative. They seem to have a dislike for science.

 

The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC due to waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosporus Strait. The hypothesis made headlines when The New York Times published it in December 1996, shortly before it was published in an academic journal.[1] While it is agreed that the sequence of events described did occur, there is debate over the suddenness, dating and magnitude of the events. Two opposing hypotheses have arisen to explain the rise of the Black Sea: gradual, and oscillating.[2]:15 The oscillating hypothesis specifies that over the last 30,000 years, water has intermittently flowed back and forth between the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea in relatively small magnitudes, and does not necessarily presuppose that there occurred any sudden "refilling" events.

In 1997, William Ryan and Walter Pitman published evidence that a massive flooding of the Black Sea occurred about 5600 BC through the Bosporus, following this scenario.[3] Before that date, glacial meltwater had turned the Black and Caspian Seas into vast freshwater lakes draining into the Aegean Sea. As glaciers retreated, some of the rivers emptying into the Black Sea declined in volume and changed course to drain into the North Sea.[citation needed][4] The levels of the lakes dropped through evaporation, while changes in worldwide hydrology caused overall sea level to rise. The rising Mediterranean finally spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosporus. The event flooded 155,000 km2 (60,000 sq mi) of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. According to the researchers, "40 km3 (10 cu mi) of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls... The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days."
Samplings of sediments in the Black Sea by a series of expeditions carried out between 1998 and 2005 in the frame of a European Project ASSEMBLAGE[5] and coordinated by a French oceanographer, Gilles Lericolais,[6] brought some new inputs to the Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis. These results were also completed by the Noah project led by the Bulgarian Institute of Oceanography (IO-BAS).[7] Furthermore, calculations made by Mark Siddall predicted an underwater canyon that was actually found.

This event is the source of the Noah's Arc Story.

It is a nice story but JUST A STORY as what is detailed id PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

AboveAlpha

 

Assuming that a miracle is a favorable change in the natural order then we can conclude that a miracle is a disturbance or interruption in the expected and established course of things. This could involve anything from the sun rising in the west to a dog suddenly bursting into playing a piano concerto. Very well, then, free will also involves decision. If you seem to witness such a thing, there are TWO possibilities. The first is that the laws of nature have been suspended (in your favor). The second is that you are under a misapprehension, or suffering from a delusion. Thus the likelihood of the second must be weighted against the likelihood of the first.

If you only hear a report of the miracle from a second or third party, the odds must be adjusted accordingly before you can decide to credit a witness who claims to have seen something that you did NOT see. And if you are separated from the "sighting" by many generations, and have no independent corroboration, the odds must be adjusted still more drastically. At this point, we probably want to consult with Ockham who warned us not to multiply unnecessary contingencies. You did not witness these events. You haven't witnessed a UFO sighting either. Would you believe me if I told you that I had witnessed a UFO?

The action of a man who volunteers to die for his fellow creatures is universally regarded as noble. The extra claim not to have "really" died makes the whole sacrifice tricky and meretricious. Those that say "Christ died for my sins" when he did not really "die" at all, are making a statement that is false in its own terms. Having no reliable or consistent witnesses, in anything like the time period needed to certify such an extraordinary claim, we are finally entitled to say that we have a right, if not an obligation, to respect ourselves enough to disbelieve the whole thing. That is unless or until superior evidence is presented, which it has not been. And exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.

You...have been making some pretty exceptional claims and offered zero evidence. You need more than the book to do that. The book cannot prove the book. You would need exceptional evidence to support these kind of exceptional claims including your claims regarding the creation and the book of Genesis itself.

 

Currently??

 

Well most fish didn't survive the Flood. But certainly some fish did survive, we see their descendants in the oceans today.

There are many areas in the world today where we see freshwater and salt water together, and the two waters don't mix. So it's possible that certain organisms survived in pockets of fresh or salt water.

Even though there is much we don't know about what went on during the Flood, we can see that there is at least a plausible answer that can be proposed to such questions.