There Was No Worldwide Flood, By Robert R. Cargill, Ph.D.
Christian Bible thumpers need to listen to their own scholars.
There was no worldwide flood. Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it’s impossible. It is time for Christians to admit that some of the stories in Israel’s primordial history are not historical. It is ok to concede that these stories were crafted in a pre-scientific period and were designed to offer ethical answers to questions of why and not questions of how. Link.
18 comments:
I have a new online hobby - watching Christians argue with each other on really serious, important theological issues. This is a wonderful example. The daily bloody battles on BioLogos is another.
Of course they have been arguing and fighting like this for the last 2 000 years, but now it is more public, more transparent and, in my view, much more damaging to them. These are not brotherly debates about matters of mutual interests, mere ecumenical little chats - these are debates on a macro and micro level that is putting more and more holes in the creaking old ship.
If you want to accuse me of suffering from a bad case of schadenfreude I will plead guilty. With a smile.
And 20,000 years from now when Jesus has STILL not come back and the world is beyond religion, humanity will say the same thing about the New Testament and stories about Jesus. They were just metaphors produced by a prescientific people about how they thought we should treat each other.
Although if Christianity survives that long, it would be interesting to see what it morphs into. I bet the Christians of today would not even recognize the Christianity of 22000 CE.
Jim the Prophet, oh well.
There are other consistent views as to the extent of the flood, but the straw, well you know.
http://www.reasons.org/exploring-extent-flood-part-one
And since atheist do not argue with each other, I'll assume you are all on board with this.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/07/17/atheist-leader-wields-the-blow-dryer-of-reason-to-de-baptize/
Jim, I doubt the Christianity of 2200 CE would be recognizable to Christians of today.
The myty of the great flood reminded me of this article which recently ran in the Boston Globe, later the story also aired on National Public Radio.
The story mainly deals with political beliefs but the salient concept is that it applies equally well to all beliefs, particularly religious. The gist: facts seldom change people's opinions.
How facts backfire -
Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains
The last Ice Age never happened?
Mark
Let's look at the Big Flood - do you believe that it happened as described in the Bible, as a literal, historical fact?
Lucian, of course there have been many ice ages. Without the last one to lower ocean levels people would not have been able to migrate all around the world, as is described in the Bible.
Mindyourmind, I do believe the flood that is described in the Bible, happened, but that being wrong would not me a deal breaker for me. Show that Jesus was not crucified and resurrected, that would be a deal breaker. You should check out the link and read up on how the historical record and the Biblical record can be well reconciled. For one, it show why Y chromosomal Adam (Noah) is much younger that Mitochondrial Eve.
Look, I get that the young earth creationist are an easy target, but that is not the only view, just the easiest one to make fun of.
If you are interested in examinations of a deeper level than mockery, go, read, then let's discuss.
Oh for goodness gracious Mark! How deep have you stuck your head in the sand in recent times? Do you actually believe, ..."You should check out the link and read up on how the historical record and the Biblical record can be well reconciled. "
As I posted on a previous thread in DC, and is completely fitting on this one:
"Science and modern investigative research methods and higher textual criticism of the gospels are beginning to put religious claims, once considered inviolable and inerrant, to the test, and rightly so, asking such questions as;
"If the evidence clearly supports the historical accuracy of the gospels, where is the need for faith? And if the historical reliability of the gospels is so obvious, why have so many scholars failed to appreciate the incontestable nature of the evidence?
Theologians have been at each other's throats for ages between the allegorical believers and the literal believers.
You must try and get out a little more for your own emotional and mental health.
Are you under the impression that only recently the claims of Christianity are being put to the test? The fact is that Christianity has stood up well to testing since it's beginning and the New Angry Atheist, like you, have done nothing to change that.
Just because someone believes that Christianity or the historical accuracy of the Gospels is false, does not make it false. It's true or false based on it congruence with reality, and that is determined by the examination of evidence, not by vote.
The post, though, was about the Flood. Did you have have some arguments against an interpretation of the flood as universal in it's destruction of mankind, but not geographical global, as the articles describe?
When you say "Theologians have been at each other's throats," were you being allegorical or literal?
Mark,
universal . . , but not geographical global . . .
I can't believe you guys actually use crap phrases like this with a straight face.
Jim, sorry, what is wrong with the way I phased that?
Have you never used an expression, with "a straight face" like, "that was a nice sunrise," knowing full well that the sun is not actually rise or setting? (I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, that you know the Sun is not actually moving around the Earth)
Every people, in every language, use expressions as normal parts of communication.
I get that this blog is mostly "Preachin' to the Choir", but has it completely degenerated to unsubstantiated assertions, ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments?
Please, somebody, use a "fact" or make an "argument?"
Please, somebody, use a "fact" or make an "argument?"
You first . . .
Mark
I find it very odd to find a Christian online that actually wants to defend the Flood as described in the Bible. It has been so debunked and shown to be utter rubbish, by Christians included, that it really says a lot about your powers of credulity to want to defend it here. But, of course, that is your right. The article you quoted is also really not of much assistance to you, and given the relative lack of space I will conclude by saying that it is clear that the author thereof values apologetics more than facts.
If you are interested in a scholarly, modern exposition of why you should rather expend your apologetic energy more wisely, have a look at this article at BioLogos, by an established scientist and seemingly devout Christian :
http://biologos.org/blog/the-flood-not-global-barely-local-mostly-theological-i/
I love his description of the Flood as "not global, barely local, mostly theological".
While you are there have a look at their other articles on the same topic, including of course the influence that Gilgamesh's little tale had on the whole myth.
I can well understand that you have difficulty in accepting any of this from one of us heathens, but your own religion is jettisoning the bad science and even worse theology of myths like these.
Are those enough facts and reasoned arguments? You seem to be all in a huff about how we are dealing with the issue here, but yet I don't really see you addressing John's central point - that even Christians are saying that this is bunk. Adding an apologetic screed to the debate shows exactly what in relation to that?
OK Mark, Biblical "Facts". There are two distinct versions of the flood story in Genesis. Which one is the correct one?
I had no idea some still thought the flood really happened...
HERE'S a little quick summary of discrepancies between current geological finding and 'flood geology.'
Mark, I'd be curious to know when you believe the flood happened?
- I'm not sure if you're a young earth creationist or not
- If not, do you think it happened millions of years ago or actually 6-10k years ago?
The resurrection not happening would be a deal-breaker? Great! There is stacks of evidence that the story of the resurrection was made up. Firstly, the earliest gospel, Mark, does not mention *any* post-resurrection appearances by Jesus (the current ending to Mark is a fake, as all scholars readily attest). Secondly, we know from Matthew's donkey gaffe that he was an enthusiastic embellisher of the story, so anything he says has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Thirdly, we know that the authors of Luke and John were removed by decades, even from Mark, and writing at a time when Christian communities already believed the tittle-tattle of a resurrection. Fourthly, the actual accounts that we do have are hopelessly inconsistent.
The only conclusion is that Jesus did not rise from the dead; instead, all we have are ghostie stories and chinese whispers.
Inserted between Mark 16: 8 and 9 in my NIV Bible:
"(The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16: 9-20.)"
Post a Comment