-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Yes, it can be interesting conversation until it devolves into a bunch a wise cracks and put-downs about someone's speculation.
Back to the topic of the thread, I speculate that the story scripture tells sure seems to indicate the flood was global.
Right Divider
Body part
I would add that the scientific evidence firmly supports what the Bible says... as would be expected.
Some say yes and some say no to the scientific evidence.
But the story in scripture gives no indication it wasn't, so I leave the story as is.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
That does not change the scientific evidence. Some opinions are better than others based on sound reasoning.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
The Bible clearly states that the flood was global.
That's what I said.
The story in scripture gives no indication it wasn't global.
Right Divider
Body part
I disagree, the Bible clearly says that it WAS global.
That is a big difference between those two concepts.
No indication that it wasn't global is a double negative.
No indication that it was not global.
Right Divider
Body part
Indication that is was global.
Double negatives are not good.
Why are you afraid to say that the Bible indicates that the flood was global?
Right, not that it wasn't global.
Sorry my words are not technical enough for you to understand.
If you want to take it that I am saying the Bible does not say the flood was global, be my guest.
Right Divider
Body part
Why are you so in love with this double negative? Just say that the Bible says that the flood was global. Double negatives are, at best, confusing.
Everyone knows that it is far more clear and simple to not use a double negative.
I have said no such thing.
Speculation is terrific. It can really be super useful, even in a purely scientific endeavor.
The problem comes when the scientist gets speculation confused with observational science and starts pretending like they're the same thing, which seems to be the basic premise that the Discovery Channel (and other producers of main stream science programming content) operates under.
Last edited:
The point Right Divider is making here is that stating that there isn't any indication that it wasn't global ignores the fact that it affirmatively states that it was global.
Your statement is like standing in a room with the lights on and saying that there's no indication that the light is turned off. It makes no sense to say it that way.
Profanity or implied profanity is not allowed.
Hi, Clete!
I don't think he was being malicious by doing so.
But while we are speculating and giving perspectives, I would have to say that common folks would understand it whether it was said with the precise grammatical structure or not.
Especially when I had already said this:
So when one comes along to say "You're not talking right" just gets on my nerves.
Makes me want to do what Charlene did on an old episode of the TV show, Designing Women.
The southern talking, Charlene, boards a plane and sits next to a well dressed lady and her friend.
She says "Hi, I'm Charlene from Georgia. Where are y'all from?"
The lady next to her looks down her nose at Charlene and says "We are from a place that does not end a sentence with a preposition".
Charlene says "Let me rephrase ...... "Where are y'all from -----?".
ha!
But I'm probably a little more put off by people doing that recently because my granddaughter who is a late teen now finally got interested in studying scripture, so she went to a theology site to talk.
And some tried to shame her by pointing out that she didn't use proper grammar and (horrors!) misspelled a word.
She felt so low that she no longer wanted to study scripture because she felt she was too stupid to do so.
So to lift her spirits I told her that when people have waxed cold of compassion she should take out her pellet rifle and unload it on their ass.
That made her laugh and she cheered up.
Not to mention that even scripture does not use proper grammar, like Ezekiel switching from 1st person to 3rd person.
What are we supposed to do, tell him he doesn't talk right?
I just think it's petty for that sort of attitude to be dragged into posts on discussion sites where people are looking to learn and share ideas.
I don't need people to use proper grammar to get the gist of what they are saying, nor do I need them to spell every word properly.
But that's just me.
It seems to have great importance to others.
The world is full of diversity.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
@Tambora The point was not the poor grammar, it was the poor argument. Particularly when the clear and affirmative argument is far better.
Gen 7:19-20 (AKJV/PCE)
(7:19) And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. (7:20) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
It is clear and unambiguous that the flood was global.
Gen 7:19-20 (AKJV/PCE)
(7:19) And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. (7:20) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
It is clear and unambiguous that the flood was global.
I never made an argument that the flood was not global.
I proclaimed that the flood was global, and still do.
Right Divider
Body part
AGAIN, I never said that you made such an argument.
Yes, I know... so why do you use this poor argument?
"The Bible does not say that the flood was not global".
When this is so much better!
"The Bible says that the flood covered the whole earth, making it global".
You and I don't communicate well and I don't wish to keep being repetitive over this with you.
We just don't click.
That's the way it is sometimes.
Right Divider
Body part
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but there has been nothing wrong with the way that I communicate. That you think that I claimed that you were denying the the global flood... that is you seeing something that was not there.
I didn't suggest otherwise.
You're just being stubborn.
That is, there's nothing to suggest that you are being something other than stubborn just like there's nothing to suggest that you're abusive to your spouse or that you have dead bodies buried in your back yard or that you were abducted by aliens during your teens or that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny aren't brothers or that the Empire State Building won't collapse next week.
Are you started to get the point here?