Good reason

[nobspeople]

In a different thread (listed below), when discussing, in part, if the bible is true, TRANSPONDER said " It is a well known argument that asserting what is in the Bible is true because it is in the Bible is a fallacy. A Lawyer would know that a witness statement is not going to be accepted as true just because he or she has said it. Nor of course rejected without good reason."

The above bolded section caused me to think (not claiming this is TRANSPNDER's assertion): is there good reason to think the bible isn't true?

For discussion: Is there good reason (define what is 'good reason' to you) to think the bible is or is not true*?

*TRUE here being used as 'legitimate, real word of God which was written by men, inspired by God' - this would assume everything written in it is true and agreed upon by God - in other words, nothing written is personal opinion of the writer.



Reference viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38540&start=10

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #81]

If you agree , I have no issue with your posts. I would however point out that the answers to theological questions cannot usually be found in science. They are philosophical questions based on the contents of religious texts /traditions not in scientific journals. If you ask a theological question you will get a theological anwser and it would be disengineus to then turn around and dismiss the answer because it is not scientific.

Yes ... as Steven Jay Gould put it, science and religion are two nonoverlapping magisteria. Since science can establish that Noah's flood could not possibly have occurred as described in the bible under natural laws of nature, and you have argued that the explanation for why there is no geological evidence for such a flood is miracle activity by a god, I'm asking what theology says (as this is in the Christianity and Apologetics section and not the Science and Religion section which has been quiet lately) about why a flood mechanism was chosen for the destruction and "reset."

Even from a theological standpoint, it would seem difficult to explain this choice of mechanism, given the omnipotence of this particular god (the biblical god) who could choose any method, and the primary reason for it to instigate this event which was to destroy the wicked humans he'd created. What justification is there for also destroying all other air breathing animals in the process that didn't happen to live within walking distance of the ark? Were they also wicked sinners?

Surely the whole story is allegorical and not meant to be literal fact.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #81]

Surely the whole story is allegorical and not meant to be literal fact.

WAS THE FLOOD ACCOUNT MERE ALLEGORY?

Opinions differ on this question but in my opinon the biblical account is very much presented as a literal factual event. Rather than present Noah and his family in vague mystical terms, Noahs lineage and decendants are specifically listed. Although his location is not presented, the events are documented within a specific timeframe, logging months and years to that effect. The record includes where and in what mannet the vessel came aground and more importantly for Christians, Jesus refered to the account in speaking of prophecy involving future real word events, indicating he believed it an actual historical event.

The universiality flood myths can also be seen as indicative that there was indeed some kind of global event that impacted mankinds historical "memory".

CONCLUSION : As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe that the authour is not presenting allegory but rather was recording a real historical event.


RELATED POSTS

How does one determine what is or is not literal?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p890395

Are Jehovah's Witnesses "biblical listeralists"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 28#p868428

Was the biblical flood story mere allegory?[this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1048372#p1048372

Is there metonym in scripture?
viewtopic.php?p=998339#p998339

Did Jesus ever use metaphor?
viewtopic.php?p=1048251#p1048251

Did Jesus ever use hyperbole?
viewtopic.php?p=1056274#p1056274

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY , KILLING and ... BIBLICAL LITERALISM

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #81]

Surely the whole story is allegorical and not meant to be literal fact.

WAS THE FLOOD ACCOUNT MERE ALLEGORY?

Opinions differ on this question but in my opinon the biblical account is very much presented as a literal factual event. Rather than present Noah and his family in vague mystical terms, Noahs lineage and decendants are specifically listed. Although his location is not presented, the events are documented within a specific timeframe, logging months and years to that effect. The record includes where and in what mannet the vessel came aground and more importantly for Christians, Jesus refered to the account in speaking of prophecy involving future real word events, indicating he believed it an actual historical event.

The universiality flood myths can also be seen as indicative that there was indeed some kind of global event that impacted mankinds historical "memory".

CONCLUSION : As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe that the authour is not presenting allegory but rather was recording a real historical event.




RELATED POSTS

How does one determine what is or is not literal?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p890395

Are Jehovah's Witnesses "biblical listeralists"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 28#p868428

Was the biblical flood story mere allegory?[this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1048372#p1048372

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY , KILLING and ... BIBLICAL LITERALISM

And yet you try to pass off the guarantee uttered by Jesus that a prayer made with faith even as small as a mustard -seed (apparently the Disciples had less even than that) will enable one to relocate real -estate for land -reclamation as 'metaphor' (quote) and yet you want to present the Flood - nonsense as fact, with God faking the world up afterwards to look like it never happened (unless one denies the science). And you even seem to regard Job as factual and I'm pretty sure it's regarded more as a polemic poem.

[Zerilos]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #82]

We also have different types of conflicts between science and the Bible. For instance, while the every scientist would agree that the resurrection is impossible on scientific grounds; they cannot say that an all-powerfully God could not do it. Nor should a scientist set limits of the theological definitions religious people have for their gods.

On the other hand, the flood of Noah is not just impossible based on what we know about physics and the Earth; research also shows that it simply did not happened. This is an instance where science and faith do in fact overlap. Most of our scientific fields of research have to be scrapped if the flood event actually happened while being undetectable by science.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #82]

We also have different types of conflicts between science and the Bible. For instance, while the every scientist would agree that the resurrection is impossible on scientific grounds; they cannot say that an all-powerfully God could not do it.

Nor can anyone say an all-powerful god did anything, and then put truth to the claim.

Nor should a scientist set limits of the theological definitions religious people have for their gods.

Other'n to define the claimed God as just that - claimed. There's not one person who can show a god exists.

On the other hand, the flood of Noah is not just impossible based on what we know about physics and the Earth; research also shows that it simply did not happened. This is an instance where science and faith do in fact overlap. Most of our scientific fields of research have to be scrapped if the flood event actually happened while being undetectable by science.

Agreed.

And welcome to the forooms

[otseng]

Do you habitually post and read posts without using any time and without any prospect of anaylsing the anwsers?

Moderator Comment

Please debate without making personal comments about others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

WAS THE FLOOD ACCOUNT MERE ALLEGORY?

Opinions differ on this question but in my opinon the biblical account is very much presented as a literal factual event. Rather than present Noah and his family in vague mystical terms, Noahs lineage and decendants are specifically listed. Although his location is not presented, the events are documented within a specific timeframe, logging months and years to that effect. The record includes where and in what mannet the vessel came aground and more importantly for Christians, Jesus refered to the account in speaking of prophecy involving future real word events, indicating he believed it an actual historical event.

The universiality flood myths can also be seen as indicative that there was indeed some kind of global event that impacted mankinds historical "memory".

CONCLUSION : As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe that the authour is not presenting allegory but rather was recording a real historical event.

Considering how it is, we know floods occur, that ain't fancy to tell. But then we get into the story of ol' Noah there, and the animals two by two, and how such might well be allegorically inclined. And how the entire planet got it's head dunked neath the waters.

To say some old guy built him a boat, upon or within which he fussed him up two of every animal, and they cranked up REO's "Riding the Storm Out", well we gotta think on if they just couldn't do them allegory real good.

Or, if it be claimed the entire story is "history writ", well that's it a whole nother fussing.

[brunumb]

Or, if it be claimed the entire story is "history writ", well that's it a whole nother fussing.

I'm convinced that the account was meant to be recorded history. As you said, floods are common events and in ancient times catastrophic floods would probably have been interpreted as resulting from the actions of angry gods. If raging storms were combined with the destructive effects of something like a tsunami* then the imagination could easily run wild. Told and retold over the centuries the stories would most certainly develop their own personal character until we get the likes of Noah and his ark.

* Tsunamis are incredibly destructive and equally common. Here are a few from recent times:
Sunda Strait, Indonesia 2018: Java and Sumatra, Indonesia.
Palu, Sulawesi, Indonesia 2018: Palu bay, Indonesia.
Sendai, Japan 2011: Japan and other countries.
Maule, Chile 2010: Chile and other countries.

[JoeyKnothead]

Or, if it be claimed the entire story is "history writ", well that's it a whole nother fussing.

I'm convinced that the account was meant to be recorded history. As you said, floods are common events and in ancient times catastrophic floods would probably have been interpreted as resulting from the actions of angry gods. If raging storms were combined with the destructive effects of something like a tsunami* then the imagination could easily run wild. Told and retold over the centuries the stories would most certainly develop their own personal character until we get the likes of Noah and his ark.

* Tsunamis are incredibly destructive and equally common. Here are a few from recent times:
Sunda Strait, Indonesia 2018: Java and Sumatra, Indonesia.
Palu, Sulawesi, Indonesia 2018: Palu bay, Indonesia.
Sendai, Japan 2011: Japan and other countries.
Maule, Chile 2010: Chile and other countries.

Yep. It's not unreasonable to think an area of relatively low lying lands'd see a flood of such magnitude that tales and stories'd -ahem- rain down afterwards. This is where we can think on how a truth could be exaggerated upon multiple retellings.

Then we compound that with the god belief, and next thing ya know, every animal magically found em a ticket on what must suredly've been one of the loudest, smelliest cruises in the history of the world.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #82]

We also have different types of conflicts between science and the Bible. For instance, while the every scientist would agree that the resurrection is impossible on scientific grounds; they cannot say that an all-powerfully God could not do it. Nor should a scientist set limits of the theological definitions religious people have for their gods.

On the other hand, the flood of Noah is not just impossible based on what we know about physics and the Earth; research also shows that it simply did not happened. This is an instance where science and faith do in fact overlap. Most of our scientific fields of research have to be scrapped if the flood event actually happened while being undetectable by science.

(bolding mine)

The bolded sections are the crux of the problem. If an omnipotent god is brought into the equation who can do "anything", then virtually every scenario imaginable can be explained easily, including things like a god creating a global flood, then cleaning up the aftermath so subsequent scientific investigations would never find any evidence. There is no argument against this kind of explanation because of the initial premise that an omnipotent god being exists (other than arguing that such a being does not exist in order to get back to the idea of explaining things scientifically).

The second bolded statement above is also negated if an onmipotent god is admitted, for the same reason. All one has to do is is claim (as has been done) that the omnipotent god made the flood event and its aftermath undetectable by science. Then it boils down to whether or not someone believes that the omnipotent god exists, or not, as far as accepting that as an explanation.