The Bible

[betsy]

And I never said all of Genesis shouldn't be taken literally,either.

So?

That's the problem when you guys just pick and choose what you want to read....and take things out of context. Which by the way, is another defining characteristics of a New Atheist!

Did I post that characteristic already? I don't think so. Excuse me, gotta go next door. Gotta add that. Thanks for reminding me.

[g_bambino]

And I never said all of Genesis shouldn't be taken literally,either.

Ah, so it is as we've thought all along: literal when it suits you, not literal when it suits you. No wonder you believe you're always right!

[CANADIEN]

Ah, so it is as we've thought all along: literal when it suits you, not literal when it suits you. No wonder you believe you're always right!

Gotta love betsy's own particular brand of literalism. Taking a whole text as if it needs to be taken literally, then whenever it doesn't work chosing parts of the text, declaring that THOSE should not be taken literally, and cry out "See, I am not saying that we should take this literally", while continuing to oppose any non-literalist interpretation.

Edited August 27, 2011 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

Ah, so it is as we've thought all along

I'd be very surprised if you hadn't thought that....since I've plainly explained it before, on numerous occasion, that there are parts of the Bible that cannot be taken literally - such as the mustard seed as an example.

That's why I'm telling you guys.....you should read and try to understand the Bible (even if you don't believe in it), since you're criticizing it and arguing about it!

How can you criticise and argue about something you don't really understand. Mind you, you don't seem to understand your own position either....so I guess there shouldn't be any surprise there.

[DogOnPorch]

That's why I'm telling you guys.....you should read and try to understand Richard Dawkins (even if you don't believe in it), since you're criticizing it and arguing about it!

[CANADIEN]

That's why I'm telling you guys.....you should read and try to understand the Bible

YOUR problem is that you can't cope with the fact that I read it and I DO understand it.

How can you criticise and argue about something you don't really understand.

Perhaps you could explain how that can be done. After all, you keep elevating that art to new heights.

[betsy]

YOUR problem is that you can't cope with the fact that I read it and I DO understand it.

Okay, I'l grant that perhaps you did read it....but as your responses show - empirical evidences I must add - you didn't understand it.

Maybe you picked and choose? Skipped verses?

Didn't have Bible Study footnotes for explanations of customs, word meanings, significance, correlations etc..?

There is reading, you know. And then, there's actual reading....and comprehension.

This is my second attempt at it. I'm still studying and learning.

Edited August 27, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Okay, I'l grant that perhaps you did read it....but as your responses show - empirical evidences I must add - you didn't understand it.

From somebody who has proved unable to understand that the creation story in Genesis is allegorical. That's too precious.

This is my second attempt at it. I'm still studying and learning.

I can feel the collective shudder from everyone who tries to imagine how bad it must have been the first time.

Perhaps I should rephrase my previous statement. I understand it better than you. Which is actually not saying a lot.

[betsy]

From somebody who has proved unable to understand that the creation story in Genesis is allegorical. That's too precious.

I can feel the collective shudder from everyone who tries to imagine how bad it must have been the first time.

Perhaps I should rephrase my previous statement. I understand it better than you. Which is actually not saying a lot.

Well, if you insist to say so, then what can I say? There are indeed some Christians who think Genesis is allegorical.

[kimmy]

Btw, Why are we arguing about the flood at all? Is it listed as a fact???

Whether my supposition is right or wrong, it doesn't make any difference at this point. It is supposition.

I have not listed it as a fact, because there is still some contention going on.

If you hadn't noticed, all facts listed here have been accepted and proven true by science.

Before you start refuting that statement, please read the listed facts carefully.

I've already stated that in my view, Genesis is not a blow-by-blow account of how things came to be. It is some sort of a summary, and other verses by other authors in the Bible have given additional accounts about origin/universe that indicate that.

If the information in the Bible came from divine sources, then all of it must be correct, yes? So let's continue to look at this flood thing.

And I've stated that, at present, I tend to believe that the flood is localized - not global - but that my view could possibly change depending on further discoveries by science.

It can't have been a localized flood, for reasons I just explained.

Follow along:

-the mountains of Ararat are by far the tallest thing in their region.

-you can't create a flood that reaches the top of the mountains of Ararat without also flooding everything lower in the region.

-you can't flood everything lower in that region without the water flowing into the Black Sea

-you can't flood the Black Sea without the water flowing into the Mediterranean

-you can't flood the Mediterranean without the water flowing into every other ocean

Therefore: you can't create a flood deep enough to float a boat to the top of the mountains of Ararat without raising the sea level by at least 10,000 feet. There's no way to argue that it could have been anything other than a global flood.

Why? Do you know what happened to other parts of the world during that time of raining?

Is water only found in that region?

Since we know that it had to be a global flood, yes, we know what happened to other parts of the world at that time.

Like where all the water go after a massive flood.

After any normal flood, the water just flows back into the ocean. If the water from Noah's flood flowed back into the oceans, the sea level would be at least 10,000 feet higher than it is right now. The water can't have gone where other water goes after floods. Maybe God created the water for the flood then took it away later, but that would contradict your "fact".

-k

[CANADIEN]

There are indeed some Christians who think Genesis is allegorical.

correction. A LOT of Christians KNOW that the creation story in Genesis is allegorical. Or perhaps allegorical is the wrong word here. Let's say they know that there is nothing in there that contradicts other facts, like macro-evolution.

Edited August 27, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

If the information in the Bible came from divine sources, then all of it must be correct, yes? So let's continue to look at this flood thing.

It can't have been a localized flood, for reasons I just explained.

Follow along:

-the mountains of Ararat are by far the tallest thing in their region.

-you can't create a flood that reaches the top of the mountains of Ararat without also flooding everything lower in the region.

-you can't flood everything lower in that region without the water flowing into the Black Sea

-you can't flood the Black Sea without the water flowing into the Mediterranean

-you can't flood the Mediterranean without the water flowing into every other ocean

Therefore: you can't create a flood deep enough to float a boat to the top of the mountains of Ararat without raising the sea level by at least 10,000 feet. There's no way to argue that it could have been anything other than a global flood.

Since we know that it had to be a global flood, yes, we know what happened to other parts of the world at that time.

After any normal flood, the water just flows back into the ocean. If the water from Noah's flood flowed back into the oceans, the sea level would be at least 10,000 feet higher than it is right now. The water can't have gone where other water goes after floods. Maybe God created the water for the flood then took it away later, but that would contradict your "fact".

-k

You're discounting the fact that God can indeed do things that would appear impossible.

But teasing you aside, readig the text itself leaves no doubt that it talks about God unleashing a worldwide flood. One more reason why people of faith should not read the text trying to find ways to make it look like a description of a factual event. My faith tells me this distracts from the message in the story (and especially in its conclusion, the Alliance) - no matter how we stray away from God, God will not destroy humanity; such is His love.

Edited August 27, 2011 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

I'd be very surprised if you hadn't thought that....since I've plainly explained it before, on numerous occasion, that there are parts of the Bible that cannot be taken literally - such as the mustard seed as an example.

Once again: literal when you want it, not literal when you want it. No wonder you think you're always right.

[betsy]

If the information in the Bible came from divine sources, then all of it must be correct, yes?

To a believer, yes it is. Do we take it literally....or allegorically? Then of course, like in Genesis - there is evidence that God did not give a step-by-step account. Other verses from other authors give additional accounts or facts about the universe.

As an example:

FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSE

According to science, the universe is expanding, or "stretching out." There are at least 11 passages in the Bible written by five different authors that talked about God "stretching out the heavens," and all were made in the context of creation. These are all taken from the New International Version.

More....

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=45

EXPANDING UNIVERSE: Science uses the word, "STRETCHING/STRETCHES/STRETCHED!"

So once again, science proves that The Bible clearly described what science had only recently discovered. The Bible used the exact term, "STRETCHED/STRETCHES," in the right context pertaining to creation or design - the same term now being used by science!

Let me begin by saying that "expanding" isn't really the best word to describe what is happening to the universe, although that is the word that is often used - a word choice which I think leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion regarding what is already a difficult topic! A more accurate word for what the universe is doing might be "stretching".

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274

The theory which follows in this text stems from the idea that the notion of space curvature is better understood as "stretched space", and that it is the exact same property responsible for the expansion of the Universe.

http://www.science27.com/english/introduction1.html

Our modern ideas of space (and time) come from none other than Albert Einstein. The good Dr. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a potent set of physics ideas that gives us a completely new view of the nature of space. It also turns out to be the principal piece of physics needed for cosmology. Einstein, in all his genius, recognized that Space was not just emptiness but had its own separate reality. Space and time are a kind of "fabric" of reality and like any fabric they can stretch, bend and even fold.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=90

----------------------------------

So let's continue to look at this flood thing.

-k

No. There is nothing to argue about the Genesis flood for the reason I've stated earlier.

What's to argue?? I have not listed it as a fact, have I? Because I don't have any scientific evidence that irrefutably supports global flooding - there are still debates going on out there. Nothing conclusive yet.

Right now, I believe it's a localized - regional -flooding.

I also stated that my view may possibly change depending on future discoveries or conclusion.

Deal with the ones listed as facts.

After any normal flood, the water just flows back into the ocean. If the water from Noah's flood flowed back into the oceans, the sea level would be at least 10,000 feet higher than it is right now. The water can't have gone where other water goes after floods. Maybe God created the water for the flood then took it away later, but that would contradict your "fact".

What's the conditions in other parts of the world?

How many seas and oceans - all over the world - are there in those times?

Was there any wind when and while the waters were subsiding?

How sure are you that every drop of water was deposited right back into that sea - the Dead Sea.

Anyway, where did all that rainwater come from in the first place? Which brings us back to another listed fact.

FACT: Hydrological Cycle or Water Cycle

Before science, people must’ve seen the rain fall and rivers flowing into the sea and yet did not understand the rain’s origin and why the sea level never rose.

Modern science now understands the hydrological cycle which consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=45

Edited August 27, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

FACT: EXPANDING UNIVERSE

According to science, the universe is expanding, or "stretching out." There are at least 11 passages in the Bible written by five different authors that talked about God "stretching out the heavens," and all were made in the context of creation. These are all taken from the New International Version.

Interesting passages.

Now, it's not that I don't respect the NIV, but I went to the version I use, la Bible de Jrusalem (yes, it is in French - and do yourself a favour: do NOT argue I should be read the Bible in English if I want to post here).

And want I found looking at the verses you quote was, shall we say, interesting. The words used were those that would be used to describe not something expending, but rather something being laid out like a curtain or unfolded like a tent.

Then I took a look at he Oxford Concise Disctionary (I know, not a source about the Bible, but a very good one about the English language). And found out that the word stretch has more than one meaning, including:

1. draw or be drawn or admit of being drawn into greater lenght or size

3. place or lie at full lenght or spread out

Considering the use of the words canopy and tent in some of the verses you quoted, I think it is a fair assumption that they are talking about stretching out in the sense or laying out, which is different from having a Universe in constant expension.

So no, the Bible didn't describe the Universe constantly expending in size. Rather, it described the Universe as God's creation, using an imagery that would have made sense to the readers (or listeners) at the times and in the societies where He inspired those texts to be written. That should be good enough for a person of faith.

Edited August 28, 2011 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

So no, the Bible didn't describe the Universe constantly expending in size.

Well, duh! Didn't you know that's one of the verses you're supposed to interpret? You're meant to read it so that it sounds like it's talking about an expanding universe. Had you done that, you'd see how science has proven that passage to be a 100% accurate description of the universe written long before people had knowledge of space beyond what they could see with their bare eyes from the surface of the earth, therefore proving God exists. C'mon!

[+]

Edited August 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[jbg]

And if it were a local flood, why do they seem so convinced that the ark ended up on Mt Ararat? A local flood couldn't have floated the ark to the top of the highest peaks in the region.

Actually our experience from the latest hurricane in NYC, Hurricane Irene, did. There are reports of boats being left on top of docks by the tidal surge.

Did we ever get "facts" explaining the Adam's Rib story, or how Lot's wife was spontaneously transformed into a pillar of salt? These Bible stories certainly seem to contradict one of betsy's earlier "facts", a "finished creation" where matter can not be created.

I regard many of those kind of stories as "how it began" or "why it happened" legends, like much of the Indian, oops, First Nation lore.

[g_bambino]

Actually our experience from the latest hurricane in NYC, Hurricane Irene, did. There are reports of boats being left on top of docks by the tidal surge.

Mount Ararat is over 16,000 ft. high.

[jbg]

Mount Ararat is over 16,000 ft. high.

How high are the surrounding lowlands?

[g_bambino]

How high are the surrounding lowlands?

Does it matter? If you're talking about a storm surge, the quesdtion would be: how high is sea level?

[sp]

Edited August 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[jbg]

Does it matter? If you're talking about a storm surge, the quesdtion would be: how high is sea level?

[sp]

But if Ararat doesn't rise from the sea, but from a plausible level from which a flood could occur it makes a difference. Besiides, I consider that story, of Noah, to be a legend similar to the FN legends.

[g_bambino]

But if Ararat doesn't rise from the sea, but from a plausible level from which a flood could occur it makes a difference.

Are you suggesting the land around Ararat is thousands of feet below sea level and the peak only maybe a hundred or so above? I believe the elevation of 16,946 ft is above sea level; no tidal surge or tsunami or flood could reach that height.

[kimmy]

To a believer, yes it is. Do we take it literally....or allegorically? Then of course, like in Genesis - there is evidence that God did not give a step-by-step account. Other verses from other authors give additional accounts or facts about the universe.

Ok, let's keep that in mind for a little later.

No. There is nothing to argue about the Genesis flood for the reason I've stated earlier.

What's to argue?? I have not listed it as a fact, have I?

You have listed "a finished creation" as a fact.

But that "fact" is contradicted by the events described in Noah's flood.

So either your "fact" is wrong, or the account of Noah's flood is wrong.

Because I don't have any scientific evidence that irrefutably supports global flooding - there are still debates going on out there. Nothing conclusive yet.

Right now, I believe it's a localized - regional -flooding.

I also stated that my view may possibly change depending on future discoveries or conclusion.

That's utterly inane. There's no way for a regional flood to float a boat onto the tallest mountain in the region. The flood could only be global in nature.

Deal with the ones listed as facts.

We're discussing "fact: a finished creation" here, and asking how Noah's flood could have happened if God was finished creating matter after Creation was done.

What's the conditions in other parts of the world?

How many seas and oceans - all over the world - are there in those times?

Was there any wind when and while the waters were subsiding?

How sure are you that every drop of water was deposited right back into that sea - the Dead Sea.

All of this is irrelevant, because the volume of water required to get a boat to the top of Ararat is so immense that it would require the whole planet to be flooded. You can ask things like ... "b-b-but what if there was a drought somewhere else?" or "b-b-but what if there was another sea that was empty until the flood?" but all you are doing is demonstrating that you have no understanding at all of just how much water we are talking about.

To reiterate:

Noah's flood would require the sea level to raise by thousands of meters.

But there is only enough water in *the world* to raise the sea level by 60-75 meters. If every glacier melted and every drop of moisture in the air rained into the seas, the sea level would raise by no more than 75 meters, and yet Noah's flood requires the sea level to raise by *thousands* of meters.

Anyway, where did all that rainwater come from in the first place? Which brings us back to another listed fact.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=45

And as I've just explained, the hydrological cycle can't account for all that water. The clouds contain only the most miniscule fraction of the water necessary to float a boat onto Ararat. If it happened, then God must have created all of that water, then destroyed it later.

-k

[cybercoma]

Uh... the Lord works in mysterious ways. Duh.

[kimmy]

Uh... the Lord works in mysterious ways. Duh.

Well of course. "God can do whatever he likes" is certainly an adequate answer for most people who believe in God. But Betsy is trying to portray the Bible as a science text, and it's her rules (cut and pasted as they are from some Intelligent Design website or some crap like that) that we're discussing here.

-k