Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?

[exchemist]

It is just illogical. Oceanic crust is allegedly 3 mi thick, and continental crust 20 mil. To them "float" on same level on a surface would mean continental rock is over 6 times denser. The density of continental rock is about 2500 kg/m3. So, oceanic rock should be over 15000 kg/m3 (more than lead). Is there some way to measure that?

But, how could it be, wouldn't the extra weight of a mountain compress the crust below it so that the crust would be actually denser below mountain than below an ocean?

Sorry, I think it is just not believable to think that 3 mi crust is heavier or as heavy as 20 or even 30 mi of crust.

"The crust of Earth is of two distinct types:

1. Oceanic: 5 km (3 mi) to 10 km (6 mi) thick[4] and composed primarily of denser, more mafic rocks, such as basalt, diabase, and gabbro.
2. Continental: 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and mostly composed of less dense, more felsic rocks, such as granite. In a few places, such as the Tibetan Plateau, the Altiplano, and the eastern Baltic Shield, the continental crust is thicker (50 km (30 mi) to 80 km (50 mi))."

Earth's crust - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the modern plate tectonic theory is idiotic, but it does not necessary mean that all geophysicists are also.

Both oceanic and continental crust float on the denser asthenosphere, which is the upper, more fluid, part of the mantle. The asthenosphere has a density ~3.3g/cm³. Continental crust has a density ~ 2.7g/cm³ while oceanic crust has a density ~3g/cm³.

Oceanic and continental crust do not float at anything like the "same level" at all. That is why we have deep oceans and continental land masses.

You need to rethink this entirely.

As for plate tectonics:-
-We actually measure the rates of motion of the plates, which are of the order of cm/yr.
- We can see from the alternate directions of magnetisation of the sea floor that it spreads out from mid-ocean ridges
- We plot the increasing depth of earthquakes behind ocean trenches, which show us the plates are subducted and descend at convergent plate boundaries.

And of course the theory accounts very well for why we have volcanoes at both types of plate margin and why they have lava of different composition, leading to different sorts of volcanic activity. It also accounts for the distribution of earthquakes around the globe and the direction of motion of the waves given off when earthquakes occur.

It is one of the scientific triumphs of the c.20th. So to describe it as "idiotic" says a lot more about the speaker than about the theory.

 

[Audie]

Those texts haven’t received anywhere near the ostracism the Bible has generated… and today it’s a top seller. And published in the most languages — more than any other book…
Manuscripts that were transmitted onto perishable materials, like vellum, papyrus, etc., copies after copies after copies after copies beginning over 3500 years ago, and it still is mostly word-for-word — very few discrepancies — from their origin til now (read Dead Sea Scrolls), all this is evidence we’d expect to see from a divinely inspired book.

That has nothing to do with the " by that standard"
I noted.

Nevertheless..durability does seem something a god would want to assure.
What other features do you think could be expected?

 

[Audie]

It is just illogical. Oceanic crust is allegedly 3 mi thick, and continental crust 20 mil. To them "float" on same level on a surface would mean continental rock is over 6 times denser. The density of continental rock is about 2500 kg/m3. So, oceanic rock should be over 15000 kg/m3 (more than lead). Is there some way to measure that?

But, how could it be, wouldn't the extra weight of a mountain compress the crust below it so that the crust would be actually denser below mountain than below an ocean?

Sorry, I think it is just not believable to think that 3 mi crust is heavier or as heavy as 20 or even 30 mi of crust.

"The crust of Earth is of two distinct types:

1. Oceanic: 5 km (3 mi) to 10 km (6 mi) thick[4] and composed primarily of denser, more mafic rocks, such as basalt, diabase, and gabbro.
2. Continental: 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and mostly composed of less dense, more felsic rocks, such as granite. In a few places, such as the Tibetan Plateau, the Altiplano, and the eastern Baltic Shield, the continental crust is thicker (50 km (30 mi) to 80 km (50 mi))."

Earth's crust - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the modern plate tectonic theory is idiotic, but it does not necessary mean that all geophysicists are also.

You are looking in the wrong direction for
idiotic ideas.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Manuscripts that were transmitted onto perishable materials, like vellum, papyrus, etc., copies after copies after copies after copies beginning over 3500 years ago, and it still is mostly word-for-word — very few discrepancies — from their origin til now (read Dead Sea Scrolls), all this is evidence we’d expect to see from a divinely inspired book.

Over 3500 years ago? Really?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The only part of mild interest is that anyone could make up such transparently ridiculous stuff

What I find interesting is how faith modifies thought.

Those texts haven’t received anywhere near the ostracism the Bible has generated

What ostracism has the Bible received? Teaching religion is not permitted in the public schools of many Western liberal democracies, and many individuals reject it as authoritative or even instructive, but believers are free to own and read Bibles and to teach one another from them. I believe that Bibles appear in public libraries and are sold openly by booksellers.

and today it’s a top seller. And published in the most languages — more than any other book…

Top seller? It seems to me that most copies are purchased by people who give them away rather than read them, such as all of those Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms. And I'd bet most copies received for free aren't read. This isn't a book that people want to buy a copy of. This is a book that others have an interest in you believing.

Manuscripts that were transmitted onto perishable materials, like vellum, papyrus, etc., copies after copies after copies after copies beginning over 3500 years ago, and it still is mostly word-for-word — very few discrepancies — from their origin til now (read Dead Sea Scrolls), all this is evidence we’d expect to see from a divinely inspired book.

But this book is lacking what I would require to call it divinely inspired. Its content is very human, and replete with internal contradictions and errors in science and history. Here are a couple of opinions on what a divinely authored book should look like:

[1] "Imagine how spectacular a book would be if it were authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived. So what does that say when anyone can improve on the Bible and Qur'an, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?" - anon

[2] From R. G. Ingersoll on the subject of what a such a book of divine origin would be like:

It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.
It should contain the perfection of philosophy.
It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.
There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.
Its morality should be the highest, the purest.
Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly
adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.
It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.
It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.
It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.
It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.
It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.

I think the modern plate tectonic theory is idiotic

What the skeptic translates that comment into is that the science contradicts biblical creationism. Three theories do that, though evolution gets attacked the most. Nevertheless, Big Bang cosmology and plate tectonics contradict Genesis as well. I doubt that you can give any argument in support of that opinion, and dismissal without rebuttal is not meaningful to others.

No water needs to be added. When the flood happened, water had not compressed material below the water yet, that is why this amount of water was enough to cover everything. After the flood, water that weights a lot, has compressed material below it, which is why ocean floors have gone down, causing the illusion that mountains rise. And material below the water has been compressed means, air has escaped causing the material to be in more compact form.

Your "science" is creative, but is vague and lacks understanding of what is known. Mountains rising is not an illusion. I can't picture what you claim is happening. Are you imagining water coming up from below rock that it will later compress with its weight and that this will somehow cause the illusion of mountains rising when actually is the sea floor being compressed and taking the oceans down with them while leaving the mountain unaffected as if it were not also part of the descending crust?

By what the Bible tells, God wanted to have free individuals.

According to biblical theology, that is not in fact a gift. Because of it, the vast majority of souls will offend their creator and be lost to perdition. I would say that Satan had the greater interest in man having free will.

Why do you believe it is rising and not that the reference point is going down?

The dimensions of the earth can be measured. You seem to be imagining earth releasing water from below rock which then compacts the earth, and then somehow scurries back, leaving the mountain appearing taller than before. It's not a coherent model.

 

[Audie]

Over 3500 years ago? Really?

Creationists can be very creative.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That’s a necessary question, isn’t it?!!

I think part of that answer can be found in Jesus’ words at Luke 10:21, where Jesus said it’s his “Father” , ie., Jehovah in English aka Yahweh in Hebrew, who reveals truth…. or hides it. (Notice, it’s not Jesus.)

So, wouldn’t a person need His (Jesus’ Father’s) blessing to gain an accurate understanding of it?

And didn’t Yahweh call Himself a jealous God, at Exodus 20:1-6?
IOW, that would preclude worship of any other god….making anything else a god.

So it seems to me, that if a person wants to gain accurate knowledge of the Bible, they must find the group that follows Yahweh‘s requirements for worship. Those requirements used to include sacrifices at the Tabernacle, then the Temples….now it includes exercising faith in only Jesus’ sacrifice. John 14:6, “No one goes to the Father except through me.”

In Revelation ch 5 it states that no man on earth or in heaven can unseal the meanings of the Book. That would explain the conflicting sects.

 

[Brian2]

Why do you believe that? What if the reference point is moving and mountain remains the same? How could you know?

I'm not up on how mountain heights are measured.
Why do you think that the changing heights are wrong? Do you have other beliefs that suggests to you that the heights are not changing and/or that plate tectonics is not true?

 

[1213]

Your "science" is creative, but is vague and lacks understanding of what is known. Mountains rising is not an illusion. I can't picture what you claim is happening. Are you imagining water coming up from below rock that it will later compress with its weight and that this will somehow cause the illusion of mountains rising when actually is the sea floor being compressed and taking the oceans down with them while leaving the mountain unaffected as if it were not also part of the descending crust?

I am sorry that I don't know how to explain my idea more clearly. But, I hope I am able to publish better version of this soon.

 

[1213]

...
Why do you think that the changing heights are wrong? Do you have other beliefs that suggests to you that the heights are not changing and/or that plate tectonics is not true?

Main reason for me to think mountains are not rising generally is that things tend to go down. I think good example of this is concrete slump test. Obviously concrete is not exactly the same as earth, but, this shows how material goes down, or slumps. To prevent that, or to rise something, force greater than the weight of the material is necessary. Without such force, things will level up.

Much easier is to see the force that compresses sunken material, which would push the ocean floor down, causing the illusion that mountain or land is rising. Here is a nice demonstration what water pressure causes.

So, when the flood happened, lot of stuff sunk and got under great pressure. Eventually that pressure has squeezed out lot of gas/air out of the sunken material, which has led the water level go down.

 

[Brian2]

Main reason for me to think mountains are not rising generally is that things tend to go down. I think good example of this is concrete slump test. Obviously concrete is not exactly the same as earth, but, this shows how material goes down, or slumps. To prevent that, or to rise something, force greater than the weight of the material is necessary. Without such force, things will level up.

Much easier is to see the force that compresses sunken material, which would push the ocean floor down, causing the illusion that mountain or land is rising. Here is a nice demonstration what water pressure causes.

So, when the flood happened, lot of stuff sunk and got under great pressure. Eventually that pressure has squeezed out lot of gas/air out of the sunken material, which has led the water level go down.

So is it something to explain where the water of Noah's flood went?

 

[joelr]

It's what critical scholars refer to as the '4 source theory' reflecting differing styles of writing and names for God. 1st Creation story belongs to the 'P' or priestly authors, 'J' for a Yahwist writing the 2nd creation story. The other two are Elohist, and 'D', Deuteronomist.



I believe it was written during the Exile. The Pentateuch represents the final editing during exile, but from very ancient sources.

Yes, I just read The Composition of the Pentateuch by Dr Joel Baden.

 

[joelr]

You don't seem to know anything but what Biblical minimalist scholars and anti Bible skeptics say in the books you read.

There is no such thing as " Biblical minimalist scholars", there is the Biblical historicity field.
I don't care about anti-Bible skeptics, I am interested in actual scholarship.

If you have to create a conspiracy theory around real scholars and even the Yale Divinity lectures then you are most certainly following a false narrative.
They are not skeptics, they present what evidence shows. Same with archaeologists. The fundamentalist narrative just isn't supported. You don't find truth by holding beliefs and attempting to make them true.
You do not care about what is actually true.

 

[joelr]

Yes the first 11 chapters of Genesis are seen as residing in pre history and cannot be confirmed or denied. That does not mean that they are not true however.
Many scholars do see them as not literally true however.
And no, it's not proven beyond doubt that Genesis is re-working Mesopotamian myth. But you say that beyond doubt stuff about most of what you cut and paste, and yes many who deny the Bible and look for justification, do say the conclusions of these scholars are "beyond doubt". That's their faith.

Historical scholars do not have faith. They go by what the facts and evidence present.
Please show me a historian who believes otherwise. Not an apologist who doesn't study historical evidence and will not even look at it. Your answer reflects this attitude, you won't even consider it.
I am looking for truth not bias.
It is proven way beyond doubt.
Dr Bowen says there is no doubt. 2:57 - NO QUESTION


Flood Myths Older Than The Bible - Dr. Joshua Bowen

Assyriologist who specialized in Sumerian literary and liturgical compositions



1:25

OT scholars will say Genesis is using a Mesopotamian background and apologist will say

“Well no, there is no literary evidence that shows it borrowed, we cannot show literal evidence”…”it was in the air”….”how do you know it wasn’t true”…….somehow downplaying the Mesopotamian background…

2:57 Dr Josh Bowen - there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia.

References monograph - Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible by Z. Zevit. Explains intertexuality and what Hebrew Bible is doing. Not seen as plagiarism in the ancient world.

21:00

Enuma Elish, Babylonian creation myth Genesis 1 borrows from, is recited every year at the New Years festival. Exiled Israelite kings were in captivity in Babylonia. Genesis was written after the Exile.

Genesis demythicizes the Babylonian stories.

23:22

“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A……”



Does the Bible Borrow from other Myths?

Megan Lewis explains how the Bible is borrowing from the Mesopotamian stories. This intertextuality is usually ignored or rationalized by Jewish/Christian Apologist to say that the other cultures borrowed from the Bible instead of visa-versa



7:14 further explanation on intertexuality, ancient Israelites would be using original source material (Mesopotamian) and using it and expanding on it. Israelites use this story to create new version with a more just deity. Basically same story.

 

[joelr]

They seem all explainable to me. Even Numbers 14 is explainable if you are open to it.
I cannot do it now because of time constraints but if you want I will try to explain it or any of the others.

You cannot use a re-translation like NLB, he's using the Hebrew.
If you have to come up with a convoluted story you are just admitting there is a problem.
There is a convoluted apologetics about Caleb and Joshua and entering at different times but it's ridiculous.









The third category of narrative problems may be called discontinuities. In these cases, the natural course of events of a story is interrupted by what appears to be an unrelated narrative. In Exodus 24:1–2, Yahweh commands Moses to go up the mountain with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the Israelite elders. They do so—but not until 24:9. In between, in vv. 3–8, Moses performs a cov- enant ceremony with the people on the basis of the laws in Exodus 20:19–23:33 that Yahweh gave to Moses on the mountain—the same mountain that Moses is told to go up in 24:1 before he has even come back down (in v. 3). In vv. 9–11, Moses and the others go up the mountain, as instructed in vv. 1–2; in v. 12, however, Moses is again instructed to ascend the mountain, even though he is already there.

These types of discontinuities can also have significant and troublesome chronological components. The story of Isaac’s blessing of Jacob instead of Esau in Genesis 27 takes place as Isaac is dying (v. 1), as Esau explicitly recog- nizes (v. 41). Yet Isaac does not die until Genesis 35:28–29—at least twenty-one years later (the time that Jacob served Laban).11 Although perhaps not always technically contradictions, these discontinuities prevent the natural reading of the narrative as a continuous whole.

Alone, the evidence of the narrative problems that plague the pentateuchal text speaks only to the discontinuity of the whole and results in the isolation of one passage from the next, or the compositional distinctiveness of one pericope in relation to another. One might, on this basis, think that the Pentateuch is no more than a compilation of individual elements, originally independent from one another: Genesis 1 would be one text, and Genesis 2 another; Numbers 20 a third, and Deuteronomy 10 a fourth. Such a theory was, in fact, proposed early in scholarship. Suggested in part by scholars of the seventeenth century, the Fragmentary Hypothesis, as it came to be known, reached its fullest expression in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.12

Yet this theory was short-lived. It was quickly recognized that alongside the narrative difficulties in the text—indeed, hand in hand with them—are marked continuities, historical claims of one passage that are assumed and incorporated and developed in another.13 Thus the story of Aaron’s death in Numbers 20:23– 29, although contradicted by Deuteronomy 10:6, is explicitly referred back to




in Deuteronomy 32:50–51. At the same time, Numbers 20:23–29 presumes in- formation from earlier passages: Aaron is said to be stripped of his vestments, which are then placed on his son Eleazar (vv. 25–26, 28); these are the official priestly garments first described in Exodus 28, made in Exodus 39, and placed on Aaron in the ceremony of Leviticus 8:6–9. The watery chaos of Genesis 1, although contradicted by the description of the earth in Genesis 2, is a central image for part of the flood story, in which the destruction of the world is repre- sented as a return to the primordial chaos (Gen 7:11; 8:1–2a). At the same time, the rain that brings life to the dusty earth in Genesis 2 becomes, ironically, the agent of its destruction in other passages of the flood story (7:4, 12). Jacob’s naming of Bethel in Genesis 35, although a doublet of the previous naming in Genesis 28, is recalled in detail by Jacob on his deathbed in Genesis 48:3–4 (see further case study V); this latter passage, in turn, in which Jacob calls the deity El Shaddai, is connected with God’s statement to Moses in Exodus 6:3: “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai.” This brief list points out only some of the most obvious links, and only for a handful of texts; of course every one of these passages depends on many others and is itself the basis for yet others.

When the Pentateuch is read with a careful eye toward the narrative incon- sistencies and continuities alike, the individual fragments coalesce into four strands or sources, each of which is internally consistent, and markedly dis- tinct, in its historical claims. Furthermore, each of these sources is recognizable as an independently composed text—a document that once stood on its own, only later to be incorporated with the others.

 

[joelr]

Yes, not reasonable evidence shown. It would be nice to see even one evidence, but, it seems to be too much asked.

So you are not an honest interlocker. I presented 3 speakers from the Yale Divinity lectures explaining Mesopotamian connections and other known historical issues with Genesis. You didn't comment on one single example (I gave time stamps), offer any critique with historical sources, nothing. Literally ziltch.
Last time.
Then AGAIN, you come back with one line stating it isn't "reasonable evidence" yet not only do you not take each example and counter it with a historical source you don't speak on anything at all. Putting your fingers in your ears is one way to respond, don't think it isn't completely shallow. You have no response. Ok? Over your head, I get it.
The kicker at the end where you pretend like I cannot offer evidence, is that supposed to fool someone?

You didn't even explain to what exactly the evidence isn't comprehendible?
When you figure out how to debate try again maybe?


These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs,


John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”


The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

 

[joelr]

1. Modern continents as the result of broken and collapsed original continent. Flood came when the continent was broken and sunk and water that was below the original continent was released.
2. Oil, gas and coal fields, the results of all organic material that sunk during the flood.
3. Marine fossils on high mountain areas, evidence for that the area was under water once.
4. Vast sediment formations and orogenic mountains.
5. Vast glaciers. Climate cooled because of the rain and flooding water, which caused the ice age and glaciers.

Which is all debunked by modern geology. -


Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines use the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.[5][6][7][8][9] Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying these principles, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth's history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale).[111][112]

In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[113]

Erosion​

The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly.[113]

Geochronology​

Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.

Paleontology​

If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.[85] Creationists argue that evidence for the geological column is fragmentary, and all the complex layers of chalk occurred in the approach to the 150th day of Noah's flood.[115][116] However, the entire geologic column is found in several places, and shows multiple features, including evidence of erosion and burrowing through older layers, which are inexplicable on a short timescale. Carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.[7]

Geochemistry​

Proponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.[117]

Sedimentary rock features​

Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[118] A single flood could also not account for such features as angular unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top.

Physics​

The engineer Jane Albright notes several scientific failings of the canopy theory, reasoning from first principles in physics. Among these are that enough water to create a flood of even 5 centimetres (2.0 in) of rain would form a vapor blanket thick enough to make the earth too hot for life, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas; the same blanket would have an optical depth sufficient to effectively obscure all incoming starlight.[

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@joelr , your post #355 appears to be, at least in part, a cut-n-paste of Joel S. Baden, which begs the question: is this you, or did I miss the attribution?

 

[joelr]

No water needs to be added. When the flood happened, water had not compressed material below the water yet, that is why this amount of water was enough to cover everything. After the flood, water that weights a lot, has compressed material below it, which is why ocean floors have gone down, causing the illusion that mountains rise. And material below the water has been compressed means, air has escaped causing the material to be in more compact form.

By what the Bible tells, God wanted to have free individuals. And second plan is that He wants to give eternal life for those who become righteous. Others will have only limited time.

Why do you believe it is rising and not that the reference point is going down?

The flood myth is a reworking of Mesopotamian stories:

Flood Myths Older Than The Bible - Dr. Joshua Bowen

Assyriologist who specialized in Sumerian literary and liturgical compositions

1:25
OT scholars will say Genesis is using a Mesopotamian background and apologist will say


“Well no, there is no literary evidence that shows it borrowed, we cannot show literal evidence”…”it was in the air”….”how do you know it wasn’t true”…….somehow downplaying the Mesopotamian background…


2:57 Dr Josh Bowen - there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia.

References monograph - Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible by Z. Zevit. Explains intertexuality and what Hebrew Bible is doing. Not seen as plagiarism in the ancient world.

21:00


Enuma Elish, Babylonian creation myth Genesis 1 borrows from, is recited every year at the New Years festival. Exiled Israelite kings were in captivity in Babylonia. Genesis was written after the Exile.


Genesis demythicizes the Babylonian stories.


23:22

“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A……”




Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.


Noah - And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.



Gilamesh - . When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned. Then I loosed a swallow, and she flew away but finding no resting-place she returned. I loosed a raven, she saw that the waters had retreated, she ate, she flew around, she cawed, and she did not come back. Then I threw everything open to the four winds,



Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 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.


Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.



Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.


12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, 26 Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood


Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.



Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Gilamesh - I looked for land in vain, but fourteen leagues distant there appeared a mountain, and there the boat grounded; on the mountain of Nisir the boat held fast,


Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned.


Noah - And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Gilamesh - Gilgamesh, the son of Ninsun, lies in the tomb.

 

[pearl]

Historical scholars do not have faith. They go by what the facts and evidence present.

This is not true. Within the 'historical critical' scholars many are men and women of faith.
They are exegetes who search layer after layer through extant manuscripts distinguishing
what is historical from what is myth, legend, folk, etc. There is a distinction between biblical exegetes
and biblical apologists. The late are predisposed to defend the faith.