Religion and science

[Lyehopper]

You know what's funny?.... I'm a Bible believing Christan and I disagree with NBB about many things he says.... I disagree with Karel about many things that he says.... And I actually agree with much of what Park says. Not the part about atheism, as clearly I believe in Almighty God as the intelligent designer and creator of the universe (although I don't know how many literal 24 hour days he did it in)..... But what I'm hearing Park say (and Frank Zappa say).... I also say.... Organized religion (not just Christianity) is a problem in the world today due to it's involvement with politics and political movements. Yes, it is indeed a huge problem and source of warfare and strife. Now on the other hand, as I've also said, it's not Gods fault.... It's not the Bible's fault.... It's the men running these organizations fault.... Remember this; Jesus Christ was non-political and he actually exposed the religious leaders of his day for the very same things....

Yes, I do believe God made the earth in six literal, 24 hour days as Genesis account says, "it was morning and evening, the second day . . . the third day, etc."

NBB, do you have a bachelor's degree from an American university? Did you ever take a science class either in high school or in college? Have you ever heard of the current-day science of geology and its basic body of knowledge?

Religionists are at it on all fronts; watch out for the next Inquisition

I did not mean to say that every legend agrees on every detail on the list, although reading it back I can see where it could be taken that way. Nevertheless, there is an uncanny similarity and common thread that runs through ancient legends from virtually every place on earth.

Do you mean to say "from virtually every place on earth with a civilization related to and descended from the Mesopotamian peoples"? Such as relating to the story of Gilgamesh, the precursor to the Biblical story of the Flood? Isn't that a more accurate statement? There have been lots of riverine cultures that have come and gone over the millenia, especially in pre-history. So it's not surprising that such a culture, with probably limited technology to react to, much less control, the flooding of the neighborhood river, would have built into its local mythology some serious teachings to respect the power of flooding water and that this is due to catastrophic local flooding in that tribe's own undocumented past. It's quite a stretch to reason, using any mythology found from these peoples, that each is pointing to a specific event in real past time.

This is all voodoo talk. This is also why religion-based geopolitics needs to be globally called out for being a failed, and extremely dangerous, basis for sustainable and rational decision-making all around the world, regardless of the society.

I would rather not debate religion on a stock chat board, but you guys have set a revealing precedent.

There is a core group of atheist "public intellectuals" who have decided to place the religious establishments around the world (or should I say at least the English-speaking world) on notice that they're not going to "play nice" about these issues. Wired magazine picked up on this several months ago in this article:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

This is indeed a competition of ideas, but one that does not have to result in violence or overt aggression. To the extent that a participant in this competition of ideas allows the interaction to devolve into aggression, that participant should be "disqualified" from further participation in the competition. There is far too much for the aggregated human race to lose.

For more products of this "engagement" between atheists and religionists see:

http://www.edge.org/

Here's another little item in the recent news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061211/ts_nm/usa_pentagon_religion_dc_1

And another:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20061231_chris_hedges_americas_holy_warriors/

As a humorous aside, watch this discussion on an episode of CNN's "Crossfire" program from 1986 in which the musician Frank Zappa lets the cat out of the bag by anticipating the possibility of "theocratic fascism" gaining political ascendancy in the U.S.

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/02/frank_zappa_ver.html

Here's another interesting topic, regarding a particular series of debates in the mid-1960s between scholars of ancient Mid-East societies and the religion-based "catastrophist" author Immanuel Velikovsky:

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vsachs.html

(Abraham Sachs was for the latter part of his career a colleague of Otto Neugebauer -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_E._Neugebauer --, the renowned scholar of exact sciences in antiquity, in the history of mathematics department at Brown Univ, in Providence, RI.)

Who was Immanuel Velikovsky?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velikovsky

//
Velikovsky was a passionate Zionist, and this did steer the focus of his work, although its scope was considerably more far-reaching than this. The entire body of work could be said to stem from an attempt to solve the following problem: that there appeared to be insufficient correlation in the written or archeological records between Jewish history (as recorded in Biblical and other sources) and the history of the adjoining nations (especially Egypt).

Velikovsky searched for common mention of events within literary records, and in the Ipuwer Papyrus, he believed he had found a contemporary Egyptian account of the Israelite Exodus - moreover, he interpreted both accounts as descriptions of a great natural catastrophe. Velikovsky attempted to investigate the physical cause of the Exodus event, and extrapolated backwards and forwards in history from this point, cross-comparing written and mythical records from cultures on every inhabited continent, using them to attempt synchronisms of the historical records, yielding what he believed to be further periodic natural catastrophes which can be global in scale.

He arrived at a body of radical inter-disciplinary ideas which might be summarized as:

* Planet Earth has suffered natural catastrophes on a global scale, both before and during mankind's recorded history.
* There is evidence for these catastrophes in the geological record (here Velikovsky was espousing Catastrophist ideas as opposed to the prevailing Uniformitarian notions) and archeological record. The extinction of many species had occurred catastrophically, not by gradual Darwinian means.
* The catastrophes which occurred within the memory of mankind are recorded in myths, legends and written history of all ancient cultures and civilisations. Velikovsky pointed to striking concordances in the accounts of many cultures, and proposed that they referred to the same real events, all couched in the individual religious and cultural viewpoints of their authors. He put forward the psychoanalytic idea of "Cultural Amnesia" as a mechanism whereby these literal records came to be regarded as mere myths and legends.
* The cause of these natural catastrophes were close encounters between the Earth and other bodies with the solar system - not least what were now the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Venus and Mars, these bodies having moved upon different orbits within human memory.
* To explain the celestial mechanics necessary to permit these changes to the configuration of the solar system, Velikovsky proposed that electromagnetic forces played a much greater role than acknowledged in a purely Newtonian (gravitation-only) model.
* Velikovsky argued that the conventional chronology of the Near East and classical world, based upon Egyptian Sothic dating and the king lists of Manetho, was wholly flawed. This was the reason for the apparent absence of correlation between the Biblical record and those of neighbouring cultures, and also the cause of the enigmatic "dark ages" in Greece and elsewhere. Velikovsky shifted several chronologies and dynasties from the Egyptian Old Kingdom to Ptolemaic times by centuries (a scheme he called the Revised Chronology), placing the Exodus contemporary with the fall of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. He proposed numerous other synchronisms stretching up to the time of Alexander the Great. He argued that these eliminate phantom "dark ages", and vindicate the biblical accounts of history and those recorded by Herodotus. For further details, see the Ages in Chaos article.

Some of Velikovsky's specific postulated catastrophes included:

* A tentative suggestion that Earth had once been a satellite of a "proto-Saturn" body, before its current Solar orbit.
* That the Deluge (Noah's Flood) had been caused by proto-Saturn entering a nova state, and ejecting much of its mass into space.
* A suggestion that the planet Mercury was involved in the Tower of Babel catastrophe.
* Jupiter had been the culprit for the catastrophe which saw the destruction of the "Cities of the Plain" (Sodom and Gomorrah)
* Periodic close contacts with a cometary Venus (which had been ejected from Jupiter) had caused the Exodus events (c.1500 BCE) and Joshua's subsequent "sun standing still" incident.
* Periodic close contacts with Mars had caused havoc in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE.
//

And just to add a little more spice to the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

This article gives you some sense of the difficulty of admitting "facticity" to the language used in the Hebrew Old Testament, as opposed to approaching the text more as a literary work of many authors over a long stretch of time, but with the need for a religious elite to derive from the text a meaningful, coherent, authoritative theology and practical doctrines. In other words, you see the inherent difficulty of attempting to construct, then later to hold together, a religion derived from a set of ancient texts, especially when the cultural and historical context of the writing of those works is to a great extent lost to those of us in the present day.

My basic thesis here is that religion can quite readily be recognized today for what it has, in fact, always been: a man-made social movement used to integrate people into hierarchical societies. Thought control, to cause the many to serve the few (an inherently anti-democratic regime, an idea which, in the case of the founding of the American nation, was finally in human history thrown over by creating, unlike the Greeks, a foundation for a set of political institutions that is "agnostic" about the practice of religion by its citizens). Or, Karel, am I neglecting the precursor example of the Netherlands in the 17th and 18th centuries (though ignoring the anachronism of the monarchy, of course). ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands/history )

There is the presumption among religions that "revelation supersedes reason." Religion also invents a supernatural rationale as the basis for, and practice of, the "natural" human sense of the (practical) need for "ethical" conduct as part of being a member of a social group. And this is a very "useful" function, speaking objectively, of a religion for that social group. Of course, the end-result of this approach is that the non-elite members of the religion-based society are de fact "sheep" and at the mercy of the elites at the "top" of the hierarchy.

On the other hand, there is "value" in having these inherently intolerant religions to the extent that, until there is an even greater degree of communication and shared understanding of humanity's past among the planet's various peoples, religious wars keep a lid on the planet's human population. The problem with warfare among large groups of people today is that, with nuclear weapons available, the geographical extent and toxic residue from any world-wide war is a threat to the great majority of present-day human populations; this has been recognized since the early days of the existence of thermonuclear weaponry. To combine worldwide religion-driven geopolitical power-grabs with nuclear weaponry is a dire and present emergency.

It will probably be very bad for the ongoing social cohesiveness of American society in the next couple of decades as the majority becomes aware of the bad faith and ethical hypocrisy shown by the cultural and political elites of the present day with respect to their utilizing evangelical Christianity for nothing less than a profoundly and destructively disruptive power grab by certain social groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

(Before Haggard's "fall" he was actually intereviewed by Richard Dawkins for his documentary TV series.)

Thus spake Torquemada ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torquemada and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14783a.htm ), the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition:

"When you are sure you are right, you have a moral obligation to impose your will on anyone who disagrees with you."

[peanuts]

Peanuts, I believe Jesus is the Son of God, thus not his equal...

... an endless debate in which no one is convinced and feelings get hurt.

Thank you, Rob. I'm really glad that you answered that question. But it makes my mind wander to a thought which is related. I hope you will be kind enough to answer this, as well, but I understand if you don't:

To reiterate some of your beliefs:
You say that Christ is the firstborn creature, right?

So, was the body that we all know as Jesus a shell for the firstborn creature? And which received a "holy injection" on the Earth by God at a predetermined time according to His plan through the geneology which was listed in the Bible? Is there anything in the Bible which says anything about the time that Jesus' flesh became divine, or is that completely impossible?

I ask, because like many of us, I am on an unending search for truth. Unfortunately, I don't really find too many complete truths in life. I prefer to keep some things as dreams, some as ideas, and some as beliefs. Realizing, of course, that the # of each decreases as I go down the line. So, I ask because I want ideas. Your beliefs are important ideas for me to explore, and I thank you for sharing them.

[Lyehopper]

Lye, I am not out to question your faith, and I am quite ready to respect it. The problem is that you asked me a very specific question, out of curiosity I suppose, and my answer is at odds with your belief. I can't and won't help that, but it is my position and I ask and expect no one to adopt it who is firmly convinced that things are different. But when people ask, I am quite ready to explain my position.

I have also expressed a wish to end the discussion, mainly because it is off-topic for the forum, but also because this can be a very difficult and emotionally charged discussion. So I feel no need to go after your stones

Regards,

Karel

I'm not asking you to accept my belief either.... and I'm not getting emotionally charged. I just wanted to make a simple statement about my personal belief about the flood. And I am pretty sure that at one time in history the mountains here were indeed covered with swift moving water and river rocks were deposited in the soil around here.... Some are the size of a basketball, but most are about three to six inches in diameter. Again, these are not your basic flat field stones, these are rounded like a ball and smooth. I find this very interesting....

Of course those anti-creationist who beleive in the apemen might say that I simply live where there once was a HUGE caveman sporting goods factory that made rock balls for fun and profit.... and these are just relics left behind from that enterprise....

[Rob]

Karel, forgive me for the ambiguous wording. What I meant was, all of the flood legends agree on multiple central points, among which are .... etc. I did not mean to say that every legend agrees on every detail on the list, although reading it back I can see where it could be taken that way. Nevertheless, there is an uncanny similarity and common thread that runs through ancient legends from virtually every place on earth.

And why did you ignore my other points?

While I didn't answer them, neither did I ignore them. It took me two hours to gather up and type that previous post, at the end of which I said it "appears neither of us will convince the other of the real or alleged deficiencies in the bases for his beliefs." It is apparent we have reached an impasse, and I'm willing to let it lie.

[Rob]

Since you mention Jesus' geneology, could you please tell me whether he was divine or created? Is he equal with God the father, or lesser, or more?

Peanuts, I believe Jesus is the Son of God, thus not his equal. I believe he is, as Colossians 1:15 says, "the firstborn of every creature." He himself said "my Father is greater than I." (John 14:2 And at John 20:17 he said to Mary after his resurrection: "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." In Revelation 3:12 he refers to the Father as his God four times in that single verse. At 1 Cor. 15:28 Paul shows that after all things are fulfilled, Jesus is still subject to his Father.

This is a question and a subject which is more sorely contested than that of the historicity of the flood and of Adam and Eve's ceation, and I will write no more about it, because this is most definitely not the proper place to carry on such an arguement.

There are counter arguments to this position based in Scripture, which sound belivable on the surface—and believe me, I've dealt with them all—but I have found satisfying, sound, and logical explanations for each apparent contradiction.

I'll give you just one example: People will point to John 20:28, where, after putting his finger in the holes in Jesus' hands, "Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], My LORD and my God," and they will say this proves Jesus is God. If you apply this same logic to Matthew 16:23, though, then you would have to conclude that the apostle Peter is Satan.

I choose not to open that can of worms here, because I've been through it on message boards too many times. It's an endless debate in which no one is convinced and feelings get hurt.

[Karel]

Rob, you give just under 40 examples of flood stories, while the collection I referenced gives over 6 times as many. The collator of the stories gives these conclusions:

1. Flood myths are widespread, but they are not all the same myth. They differ in many important aspects, including

* reasons for the flood. (Most do not give a reason.)
* who survived. (Almost none have only a family of eight surviving.)
* what they took with them. (Very few saved samples of all life.)
* how they survived. (In about half the myths, people escaped to high ground; some flood myths have no survivors.)
* what they did afterwards. (Few feature any kind of sacrifice after the flood.)

2. Flood myths are likely common because floods are common; the commonness of the myth in no way implies a global flood. [snip vapid comment]

These were more or less the points you mentioned:

they all agree on certain central elements. For example: that God was angry at mankind due to their wickedness; that it was he who brought the great flood; that only a few righteous individuals were spared, and they survived by building a huge vessel in which they also saved the many different kinds of animals; that after a time birds were sent out in search of land; that the vessel came to rest on a mountain, and the people offered a sacrifice to God after they came out.

Not even the stories you mention agree on all these elements. Presumably the count becomes even lower when you add the 200+ other stories, if the collator did his job. And what do you intend to prove by accepting each and every single agreements as proof, while rejecting all the rest? What is your methodology?

And why did you ignore my other points?

Please accept my apologies for unintentionally offending you. I was just worried, if you can accept that.

And your question about the genealogy just doesn't make sense to me. Honestly.

Regards,

Karel

[peanuts]

I have one question though, and you may treat it as rhetorical if you like: In Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam in the third chapter of Luke, at what point does it jump from real, flesh-and-blood people to make-believe people? (Obviously my contention is that it doesn’t.)

Rob,

I find this conversation fascinating.

May I ask your belief on something? If you don't care to share, I understand. However, being the informed and personally respected person that I think you are, I would appreciate your response.

Since you mention Jesus' geneology, could you please tell me whether he was divine or created? Is he equal with God the father, or lesser, or more?

Thank you.

[Karel]

KAREL:
I hate to interrupt the flood like this but . . . some deviant is posting XXX photos on MM forums. Can you correct this? Thanks!

Sure thing, thank you for alerting me! BTW, a PM is guaranteed to get my attention, though this thread happens to have my attention right now, too.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

Karel,

Re Flood legends, samples from six continents and the islands of the sea (hundreds of such legends are known):

Australia - Kurnai
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Babylon - Berossus’ account
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Babylon - Gilgamesh epic
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Bolivia - Chiriguano
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Borneo - Sea Dayak
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Burma - Singpho
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Canada - Cree
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Canada - Montagnais
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

China - Lolo
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Cuba - original natives
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

East Africa - Masai
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Egypt - Book of the Dead
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Fiji - Walavu-levu tradition
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

French Polynesia - Raïatéa
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared

Greece - Lucian’s account
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Guyana - Macushi
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Iceland - Eddas
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

India - Andaman Islands
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

India - Bhil
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

India - Kamar
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Iran - Zend-Avesta
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared

Italy - Ovid’s poetry
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Malay Peninsula - Jakun
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Mexico - Codex Chimalpopoca
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Mexico - Huichol
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

New Zealand - Maori
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Peru - Indians of Huarochirí
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared

Russia - Vogul
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

U.S.A. (Alaska) - Kolusches
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

U.S.A. (Alaska) - Tlingit
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

U.S.A. (Arizona) - Papago
Destruction by Water
Warning Given
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

U.S.A. (Hawaii) - legend of Nu-u
Destruction by Water
Divine Cause
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Vanuatu - Melanesians
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Vietnam - Bahnar
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

Wales - Dwyfan/Dwyfach legend
Destruction by Water
Humans Spared
Animals Spared
Preserved in a Vessel

“Even greater similarities to the Genesis account are present in another Babylonian epic whose hero bears the name Gilgamesh. . . . It most likely came into existence around the beginning of the second millennium. . . . [Clay tablet XI] is virtually intact, thus providing the most complete version of the deluge story in cuneiform script.”—Encyclopædia Judaica.

“Like the Hebrews, Babylonians, Greeks, Norsemen, and other peoples of the Old World, many Indian tribes of North and South America had traditions of the Deluge. . . . ‘When the earliest missionaries came’ . . . , the Reverend Myron Eells reported in 1878, ‘they found that those Indians had their traditions of a flood, and that one man and his wife were saved on a raft.’”—Indian Legends of the Pacific Northwest.

Aztec mythology spoke of four previous ages, during the first of which the earth was inhabited by giants. (That is another reminder of the Nephilim, the giants referred to in the Bible at Genesis 6:4.) It included a primeval flood legend in which “the waters above merge with those below, obliterating the horizons and making of everything a timeless cosmic ocean.” The god controlling rain and water was Tlaloc. However, his rain was not obtained cheaply but was given “in exchange for the blood of sacrificed victims whose flowing tears would simulate and so stimulate the flow of rain.”—Mythology—An Illustrated Encyclopedia

The Incas had their Flood legends. British writer Harold Osborne states: “Perhaps the most ubiquitous features in South American myth are the stories of a deluge . . . Myths of a deluge are very widespread among both the highland peoples and the tribes of the tropical lowlands. The deluge is commonly connected with the creation and with an epiphany [manifestation] of the creator-god. . . . It is sometimes regarded as a divine punishment wiping out existing humankind in preparation for the emergence of a new race.” The book Sociografia del Inkario states: “All the traditions of the people of the Andean altiplano speak of a flood that had submerged the whole earth.”

“A world cataclysm during which the earth was inundated or submerged by water [is] a concept found in almost every mythology in the world. . . . In Inca mythology it was provoked by the supreme god, Viracocha, who was dissatisfied with the first men and decided to destroy them.”—Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend.

The Maya in Mexico and Central America had their Flood legend that involved a universal deluge, or haiyococab, which means “water over the earth.” Catholic bishop Las Casas wrote that the Guatemalan Indians “called it Butic, which is the word which means flood of many waters and means the final judgment, and so they believe that another Butic is about to come, which is another flood and judgment, not of water, but of fire.”

Various stories among the Haida tell of a great flood that covered the highest peaks, and only by building a big log raft and loading it with supplies did anyone survive. “Many of our people know this story of the Flood,” says a Haida elder, “for it is the truth. It really happened, a great many years ago.”

In India, there is the Mahabharata’s story of Manu, who saved humanity from a global deluge. The flood was “the most important landmark in the history of the ancient world, and common flood legends suggest that the same event has been described in Indian, Hebrew, and Babylonian accounts.”—The Vedic Age

I have much, much more where this came from, which I hope would at least disabuse you of the notion that I am ill-prepared. (And shame on you, by the way, for resorting to ad-hominem.) But you are correct that this forum is not the place to hash this out, and appears neither of us will convince the other of the real or alleged deficiencies in the bases for his beliefs.

I have one question though, and you may treat it as rhetorical if you like: In Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam in the third chapter of Luke, at what point does it jump from real, flesh-and-blood people to make-believe people? (Obviously my contention is that it doesn’t.)

[New-born baby]

Karel

KAREL:
I hate to interrupt the flood like this but . . . some deviant is posting XXX photos on MM forums. Can you correct this? Thanks!

[Karel]

I believe that the flood was a real historical event as described in the Bible.... [...]

Lye, I am not out to question your faith, and I am quite ready to respect it. The problem is that you asked me a very specific question, out of curiosity I suppose, and my answer is at odds with your belief. I can't and won't help that, but it is my position and I ask and expect no one to adopt it who is firmly convinced that things are different. But when people ask, I am quite ready to explain my position.

I have also expressed a wish to end the discussion, mainly because it is off-topic for the forum, but also because this can be a very difficult and emotionally charged discussion. So I feel no need to go after your stones

Regards,

Karel

[skiracer]

Hi Lye, of course not. Attempts to date the flood with the aid of the Bible (and what other source should we use when we consider a historically inerrant Bible) result in a date in the second half of the 3rd millenium BC, except when you give the Septuagint precedence over the extant Hebrew texts, then it moves back a millenium or so. Both dates fall well within the reach of calibrated Carbon dating, and this shows that

1. No evidence for a worldwide disruption like the flood has occurred in this time or these times; indeed, civilizations seem to continue as if nothing happened;
2. What is usually pointed out as evidence of the flood (fossils, evidence of major disruptions) falls mainly very far before this time or these times. (No longer datable by C14, but for instance by the self-calibrating isochron dating methods

There are more reasons, of course, but this should suffice for the moment.

Now I would like to caution you in case you want to quote texts like Matthew 24:37-38 to me, with the implication that Jesus obviously considered the flood to be a historical event. It is well known that in Jesus' time people didn't make the distinction between allegorical/symbolical descriptions of the past and strictly historical descriptions past, as we do. So if you would claim that Jesus believed in the flood, I would agree, but I would not be convinced that His words could only be interpreted in a strictly historical sense. And in case someone would insist that we should interpret His words so: the evidence from science still remains, and we are faced with the dilemma: do we reject science, without any good scientific reason, just on the force of a certain interpretation of the Bible, or do we reject the Bible, because some Biblical inerrantists hold that if the Bible would contain just one significant error, it would fall apart completely. When I see dilemma's like that coming up, I would be inclined to ask whether we didn't take a wrong turn somewhere.

Regards,

Karel

Karel,
So as a strict Catholic would you disagree with their doctrine and the Bible as written if there were irrefutable scientific evidence disputing what has been written in the scriptures. I see instances where what the Bible states and what seems rock solid scientific evidence to the contrary differ. My faith and belief in God and how he created heaven and earth and started all of this and what a strictly scientific point of reference states sometimes collide and leave me with questions that are hard to answer. I'm sure many feel the same way caught between their faith and science. Is that the price of intelligence and being an inquisitive open minded personality.
God created the heavens and earth and Adam and Eve in that first 6 days and from that point Adam and Eve propogated the earth up until Noah and his ark and the flood. But on the other hand scientific evidence seems to show there were numerous periods when areas of the planet were completely under water and considered seas/oceans and over the course of time those same areas changed over to arid desert and visa versa. Thus providing us with examples of sea dwelling life at one time or another present in what is now desert and land living creatures where it was once water. Evidence of more than one flood or just a changing planet evolving into what it is today and still evolving as we add our own present day influences.
I see many with unwavoring faith that hold to what the Bible states and will not consider the scientific point of view or any evidence of another concept. I cannot say they are wrong in what they believe. On the other hand at times it is very hard for me to not appreciate the scientific point of view at least to some degree. Can you live in both concepts of faith in God and the Bible as written and stated and while doing so still accept what seems to be solid evidence of other ideas and concepts?
I see that the opposing views and sides of the commentary are becoming harder and more steadfast in their beliefs and positions. I think the thread is quite interesting and is providing us with plenty of decent insight on both sides of the coin. For years I have debated the opposing views inside my own mind and, although not a dilema that I cannot live with, it has given me concern about my own beliefs and faith and what is true. I do firmly believe that man's interpretation of the scriptures and Bible has been influenced by his own agenda whatever that might be at the time. I would hate to see the commentary stop because we are not able to maintain the required decorum as intelligent minds to continue discussing it in a uncompromising fashion. Personally I feel that we all need to understand each other's beliefs without the typical adversity that can come from presenting each sides views on the topic.

[Lyehopper]

I believe that the flood was a real historical event as described in the Bible.... I believe it because I believe the Bible. I have faith that it is "God's word" and I believe God has preserved the Bible for our instruction and benefit.... and it is a book of truth. This does not mean that I think that the KJV was sent from God himself and I do think some Bible translators had/have a personal agenda to further their own belief system and are less interested in promoting the truth. But the truth is out there if you look hard enough.

Back to the flood of Noah's day and my own "redneck reasoning".... I see evidence of a great flood on my own farm and in the entire valley here. Now realize this, I have seen "real floods" in my lifetime. I experienced the great flood of 1985 here in SW VA for example. This flood was known as a 200 year event, it was pretty bad and it is still talked about around these parts. But the flooding I see evidence of here, is something that makes that flood in 1985 look like a piss stream. I see evidence of a flood that covered mountain peaks. Send your best scientists to Bedford County VA and I'll show them where to find thousands of smoothly rounded river rocks (on dry land) miles from any river and at 2,000 feet above sea level. And if one can indeed admit that what I see was caused by flooding? Then why not by that particular Biblical event?