The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[Thief]

I believe the Bible can very well be understood literally. There is nothing wrong about it.
Unless it's Prophecy. Jesus, for instance, isn't a literal sheep, I think.
The flood I would take literally.
However, I don't think that the high hills that were covered were the same as today.
2 Peter 3:5-6 tells that Jesus swapped earthes after or during the Flood.
This makes sense, because God likes order and he wants an orderly planet, not a flooded one in which the water just disappeared and that's it. This is at least what I suggest.

ok....but.....

if salt water rises enough to be ankle deep on farm land......

that would be enough to kill.....a LOT of people

 

[thomas t]

ok....but.....

if salt water rises enough to be ankle deep on farm land......

that would be enough to kill.....a LOT of people

yeah, you're right probably,
but since Jesus swapped earthes afterwards, see 2 Peter 3:5-6... he swapped the surface also, I think.
But you're right: according to the Bible most everyone died.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe the Bible can very well be understood literally. There is nothing wrong about it.
Unless it's Prophecy. Jesus, for instance, isn't a literal sheep, I think.
The flood I would take literally.
However, I don't think that the high hills that were covered were the same as today.
2 Peter 3:5-6 tells that Jesus swapped earthes after or during the Flood.
This makes sense, because God likes order and he wants an orderly planet, not a flooded one in which the water just disappeared and that's it. This is at least what I suggest.

A claim for a global flood does not hold up based on the available evidence. Global geology and geography have to be completely re-invented, and on no evidence, to support a global flood. I would accept a local event, but based on the evidence, I cannot see a global event.

 

[thomas t]

A claim for a global flood does not hold up based on the available evidence. Global geology and geography have to be completely re-invented and on no evidence to support a global flood. I would accept a local event, but based on the evidence, I cannot see a global event.

but 2 Peter 3:5-6 tells us that Jesus exchanged the earthes afterwards.
This is what a landlord would do for a severely damaged house after a flooding: he would probably have it replaced by a new one.
This is what happened to the old earth that was flooded according to said Bible verse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

but 2 Peter 3:5-6 tells us that Jesus exchanged the earthes afterwards.
This is what a landlord would do for a severely damaged house after a flooding: he would probably have it replaced by a new one.
This is what happened to the old earth that was flooded according to said Bible verse.

That is not how I am interpret that passage. Seasonal floods wipe away an old world and replace it with a new one all the time.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I imagine the authors would have said that their writing was inspired by God, or at least their personal experience of "God".

From what I've read, the authors of the Old Testament were writing during the Babylonian captivity. They wanted to put down some sort of history of their people in order to give them some sort of identity that wouldn't disappear when they started intermarrying with the Babylonians and other races. Not many people know the Hebrews were an offshoot of the Sumerian empire 2000 years earlier. The Jews were polytheistic and Yahweh was just another god in a plethora of Sumer gods which they later adopted as their chief god. This is all man-made stuff. There is no "God-breathed" anything about the Bible. It's just another holy book like the Shreemad Bhagavad Gita and the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

but 2 Peter 3:5-6 tells us that Jesus exchanged the earthes afterwards.
This is what a landlord would do for a severely damaged house after a flooding: he would probably have it replaced by a new one.
This is what happened to the old earth that was flooded according to said Bible verse.

How do you know this means that the house that replaces the flooded house is going to be somehow radically different than the flooded house? All the claims propose a radically different earth, yet there is no evidence for those claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the title of this thread is broad reaching

Yes, but we were discussing the Noah's Ark Myth at the time. Try agian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the Bible can very well be understood literally. There is nothing wrong about it.
Unless it's Prophecy. Jesus, for instance, isn't a literal sheep, I think.
The flood I would take literally.
However, I don't think that the high hills that were covered were the same as today.
2 Peter 3:5-6 tells that Jesus swapped earthes after or during the Flood.
This makes sense, because God likes order and he wants an orderly planet, not a flooded one in which the water just disappeared and that's it. This is at least what I suggest.

Let's ignore your failed claim about 2 Peter 3 5-6 for now. Answer me this question first:

When did the God magic stop? Or in other words when did God quit covering up his evil act?

 

[halbhh]

For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally.

You did something unexpected and kinda interesting to me here.

You were laying out a pretty good argument until this unneeded/unnecessary extra claim you made (just above), which is not going to do well on close examination....

And you didn't have to include such a shaky assertion.... It was extraneous to your argument.

And so then...because of your own standard you created...you end up refuting your own post in general, if we apply that standard to your post you applied to books in the bible -- that if there is a flaw or 2 in your own post, then that "mere fact ___... refutes" (your own standard you imposed).

So, this is the old commonplace problem you fell into, just like everyone else has at times, of overgeneralizing.

Taking some real thing, and then over extending it past the areas where it definitely does work...speculatively extending it further past the clear instances...onto 100% of a bunch of books, where of course it won't hold true.

 

[thomas t]

How do you know this means that the house that replaces the flooded house is going to be somehow radically different than the flooded house? All the claims propose a radically different earth, yet there is no evidence for those claims.

I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

 

[thomas t]

Let's ignore your failed claim about 2 Peter 3 5-6 for now. Answer me this question first:

When did the God magic stop? Or in other words when did God quit covering up his evil act?

we had a discussion and it stopped at this post here:
Is the Bible Trustworthy?
I won't repeat it.
I hope you won't take offence.
Regards,
Thomas

 

[Subduction Zone]

we had a discussion and it stopped at this post here:
Is the Bible Trustworthy?
I won't repeat it.
I hope you won't take offence.
Regards,
Thomas

You never answered that particular question. You sensed a trap (it was by the way) and since there was no reasonable answer you ran away from that particular question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did something unexpected and kinda interesting to me here.

You were laying out a pretty good argument until this unneeded/unnecessary extra claim you made (just above), which is not going to do well on close examination....

And you didn't have to include such a shaky assertion.... It was extraneous to your argument.

And so then...because of your own standard you created...you end up refuting your own post in general, if we apply that standard to your post you applied to books in the bible -- that if there is a flaw or 2 in your own post, then that "mere fact ___... refutes" (your own standard you imposed).

So, this is the old commonplace problem you fell into, just like everyone else has at times, of overgeneralizing.

Taking some real thing, and then over extending it past the areas where it definitely does work...speculatively extending it further past the clear instances...onto 100% of a bunch of books, where of course it won't hold true.

I seriously do not understand. Are you trying to say that ice does not float in your world?

 

[halbhh]

I seriously do not understand. Are you trying to say that ice does not float in your world?

Let's look at the verse you are using, and the translation. Show me. (if it is in Job, I'm just going to be laughing, but I'll do my best to explain that you are correct in your bigger point that there's a lot of metaphor...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's look at the verse you are using, and the translation. Show me. (if it is in Job, I'm just going to be laughing, but I'll do my best to explain that you are correct in your bigger point that there's a lot of metaphor...)

No particular verse. You were not following the discussion. You jumped to an incorrect conclusion of what was being debated. I was referring to the fact that there was no worldwide flood and yet the Bible claims that there was one.

 

[halbhh]

No particular verse. You were not following the discussion. You jumped to an incorrect conclusion of what was being debated. I was referring to the fact that there was no worldwide flood and yet the Bible claims that there was one.

I'm guessing you accidentally responded to someone else in this above ^

This is what I'm asking about:

For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally.

Are you trying to say that ice does not float in your world?

What verse do you see as saying ice doesn't float? I'd like to see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm guessing you accidentally responded to someone else in this above ^

This is what I'm asking about:




What verse do you see as saying ice doesn't float? I'd like to see.

Okay, sorry, I forgot that was in the OP. But it is still accurate. It was a reference to the Noah's Ark myth.

No verse needs to say that ice floats. Do you understand this?

 

[halbhh]

Okay, sorry, I forgot that was in the OP. But it is still accurate. It was a reference to the Noah's Ark myth.

No verse needs to say that ice floats. Do you understand this?

No -- I definitely do not "understand" that is is irrelevant to your argument that no verse says ice sinks or such, because:

You yourself said:

For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally.

So...it sounds like you are saying no such verse exists now? So...does that mean you need to edit your OP and remove an huge error?

?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No -- I definitely do not "understand" that is is irrelevant to your argument that no verse says ice sinks or such, because:

You yourself said:


So...it sounds like you are saying no such verse exists now? So...does that mean you need to edit your OP and remove an huge error?

?

If you asked proper questions you would get proper answers. When you have an incorrect assumption buried in a question it becomes improper.