"The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible says it MUST be local" (for theist and atheist)
Offline There will be some reading involved. This is my first post. Athiests have the right to believe as they choose....as long as the abide by the rules of a free society like everyone else could and should. America is a free country...in fact Christianity is free...take it or leave it. The Bible never even remotely suggests that someone could or even should be forced to 'submit' to Christ. It would be a total falsehood if so.
This doesn't mean that people claiming to be Christians have always taken that view point...far from it....but how did what they do and say stack up to what Christ said? That humans are fallible is not the test of Christianity, rather the words, teaching, and example of Christ are the standard.
"Come now, and let us REASON together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool."
Isaiah 1:18 New American Standard
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, ACCURATELY handling the word of truth."
2 Timothy 2:15 New American Standard
Atheists seem to love quote the KJV (like many Christians). While it's affect, and it's lovely archaic English have had a huge effect on the English language today it is very very easy to misread passages and take passages out of context.
This is post is not an attempt to get you to believe in the story of Noah so much as it is to answering the" Bible claims the whole EARTH was flooded". I was taught that growing up, or that image was certainly represented to me.
The point arises when should you reject something based on what someone else told you about it? Or something you thought? Without further information? It's very possible to be deeply convicted on an issue and discover that I just didn't have enough knowledge. I think many people today become athiests or agnostics because of bits of stuff from past things in their life...maybe past hurts....maybe someone who claimed to be a Christian REALLY let you down? There is a lot of disinformation, misinformation, and curious constructs of stuff pieced together about what people THINK the Bible says for sure.
The Bible is quite complex in many respects, but it's basic message is very simple on the other hand.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html#4tqWqyKqQOv0
"This paper has shown that the Bible declares the Genesis flood to be local in extent, though universal in its judgment of humans (with the exception of Noah and his family). The evidence presented here is purely biblical, although a strong case could also be given for extra-biblical reasons. A global interpretation of the Genesis flood requires that certain non-flood-related verses of the Bible contradict each other. In addition, a global interpretation of the Genesis flood would require the Genesis text to contradict itself. The lack of global references in the book of Genesis through chapter 11 (with the exception of Genesis 1), reveals that all the early events of Genesis occurred in a small geographic area. In addition, an examination of the original Hebrew text of the Genesis flood passage demonstrates that the global wording of our English translations misrepresents the original intent of the account. Your assignment at this point is to re-read the Genesis flood text with the words "land" or "people" (depending upon the context) substituted where for the word "earth." When you are finished, you will discover a remarkably different flood account than what you have read before."
- Login to post comments
Big deal. Happens all the time. Some are really spectacular...
The last Missoula Flood was 15,000 years ago - there were around 40 floods from this one glacial lake. I used to live in central Washington. Dry Falls, Palouse Falls are a must see if you like geologic puzzles. There was an old flood channel about 3 blocks from my house.
I have always believed the bible was describing a local flood. Even when I was church going and in junior high. Makes a lot more sense as a local legend - a story some what garbled over the years, but having some historical fact as a kernel of truth.
There is some historical truth to the bible. But you have to realize the people who wrote it didn't understand biology, genetics, geology, or cartography, didn't have satellite pictures, and didn't keep written historical records about any other culture but their own. The bible is and always has been strictly about a bunch of goat herders in the bronze age.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
As long as the vast majority of Christians hold the view that the flood is meant to be interpreted as global, I will continue to debate that story.
I'm not sure why you are really posting this here. As an atheist, I don't really care about whether one specific interpretation of the Bible is more likely to be the intended account than another. All I care about is whatever the specific Christian I am talking believes. As far as I'm concerned, untill there is evidence to believe in Christianity, all interpretations are just works of fiction.
Perhaps you meant to put this post in the Biblical Errancy section?
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
[lies]I'm going to point a gargantuan mass driver at Earth's Pacific Ocean because of what you just said. I'll probably fire it, as well... just to prove a point.[/lies]
You've just earned yourself some room in my signature (if that's ok with you
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I enjoy reading ignorance when it comical. Not when it is just plain sad. It makes me sad to note your idea of what is real about a book that has been plagarized and reinterpreted to suit someones tastes. You claim atheists quote the kjv but we should quote some newer version. Who interpreted this newer version? Mix too much water in your sauce and it loses it's consistency and overall flavor. Put enough water in and it may not taste like the original at all.
They try to rewrite the bible to suit the times, keeping in mind it was written by men to suit their time in the original, when human life had less overall value. In years to come will there be a pink bunny laying eggs in the bible? Oh forget that, the pink bunny might lay bibles instead of eggs, wouldn't that be grand.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
i guest i just falsified the bible right
Oh Joy! Yet another theist who has no clue where the bible came from telling us how we should be allowed to read it.
Well BookofJob, if you stick around long enough (and I doubt that you will), you will come to learn that about half the people here were fairly deep into religion at some point in their lives. Many of us, in fact know quite a bit about the history of religion.
So you think that the KJV is nice but subject to misinterpretation. Well, that may be fair enough. However, from where was it sourced? Honestly, it comes from what is known as the “received text” which was basically the last commonly accepted version of scripture in Europe prior to the reformation. Oddly enough, pretty much all of the modern translations come from the received text (which really is not complete so the rest is usually taken from the Vulgate).
Which brings us to another question. Specifically, why is there more than one modern translation if they are all sourced identically?
If the reason for a modern translation is to get to something that can be understood easily enough, then one translation per 50 or so years should be enough. The motivation would even be a noble one. Yet there are several and they do not all agree in detail with each other. Why do you think this should be?
The answer is simple. There are many groups of christians and they do not all agree in detail on what doctrine should be. The RCC is huge into the virgin Mary. The baptists consider that saying a prayer to Mary is idolatry. There are many other examples but that is sufficient to make the point.
So each group has their own version which has been tweaked by the translators to conform to what they think it should say.
For that matter, why was the bible standardized into the received test in the 1450's? Mainly because the process of adjusting the bible had been going on since the last time that it was standardized in about CE 400 or so.
In those days, every copy of the bible was handwritten and copied from another copy. During the process, mistakes (in copying) were made and carried over to later copies. Sometimes, different copies were consulted to determine what might be a mistake and when one was found, the bible would have to be adjusted to “return it to the original”.
However, since the real originals were lost centuries before, the monks who were making the copies, could not get to what the originals said with any degree of certainty. Rather, they would adjust the text to say what they thought it should say, which obviously was going to be in agreement with the doctrine as espoused by whomever was in control of the local church at the time.
Since doctrine changes over time, by the 1450's, the existing copies of the bible were quite divergent from each other. So the received text was made, again in an attempt to get back to what it ought to say, which curiously enough was pretty much what the pope felt on all matters.
So that is what the received text is about and it is what all the modern versions use as the root text. Then, as I say, each new translation again changes the bible to be more in agreement with what the translators expect the bible really ought to say.
=
Can I refer you to:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14919
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Sure, glad you like it.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
The bible doesn't threaten people who don't believe? Why hell then?
What about "I bring not peace, but a sword". What about Jesus telling his followers to abandon their own family members if they don't follow him?
The god/s of Abraham are not voted into an office, they are absolute rulers. You have a choice with them like a victim of a street mugger has a choice.
Mugger, "You have two choices. You can give me your wallet, and I wont harm you. Or, you have the choice of not giving me your wallet and I will blow your head off".
The end of your book of convoluted malarkey has daddy frothing up humanity in an orgy of violence, and genocide where he saves his chosen people at the expense of torturing the outsiders, not only on the planet during the "end times" but forever after that.
According to that horrible fairy tale, going by our current population, most of the 6 billion on this planet will die horrible torturous deaths and then go on to be tortured for eternity.
It is just a myth, and a horrible myth at that, and lacks human empathy and morality, and is a book worthy of scorn.
I do not worship tyrants. Fortunately for humanity such a being is fictional. Unfortunately humanity has yet to discard such horrible stories.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Once Peter Gabriel left the band... it was all down hill...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com