Myth About the Bible - Busted!

[CoreyD]

This is one of the better foot in mouth jobs I have come across in a while.
You ask a question which I answered and then you seek clarification on GPS, geodetic data, thermochronology, strath terrace dating, sediment analysis, isostatic compensation and geological markers thinking you have me in gotcha moment because they are models based on assumptions.
The joke is well and truly on you as they are not models based on assumptions but experimental and observational methods which generate evidence or data which is used to either support the model in question or disprove it.

To put it in a language you understand evidence ≠ assumptions.
You are surely familiar with GPS and use to navigate from point A to point B which is based on the data supplied by GPS and not a model based on assumptions.

Oh. I speak a 'foreign' language. Sorry about that.
Certain assumptions are used when using these various methods or models... whatever they are called.

You are a scientist, so I do not have to post what those assumptions are... but if you are clueless, I do not mind helping you out.
Just let me know.

Once again you struggle to differentiate between evidence and assumptions.
Take a look at the graph in post #148, it is based on evidence using various methods such as described earlier in this post which you mistook for being models.
The evidence clearly shows mountain ranges such as the Himalayas are not moving at a constant slow gradual rate for the reasons also described in that post.

No. It is just that you do not understand what I am saying.
I do not fault you for not understanding a 'different' language.
Is the above still 'foreign', or is it clear?

No you used a false dichotomy fallacy in an attempt to justify the existence of the flood.

I would not agree with that.

You are doing yourself no favours with this exhibition of dishonest quote mining.

Dishonest quote mining?
Are you resorting to personal attacks... saying that I am dishonest?

The source of where water comes from is determined by its isotopic ratios deuterium/hydrogen ratio D/H and ¹⁸O/¹⁶O.
Water on the surface and in the atmosphere have different ratios to water in the mantle as it is affected by the hydrological cycle.

If the flood came from the mantle around 4500 years ago the ratios would be lower.
The source of water coming from the mantle as determined by the isotopic ratios comes from volcanos instead in minimal amounts.

Well I wasn't actually saying the water burst from the mantle, miles deep in the earth, but as I said, water does go into the mantle of the earth, so if you are of the view that all the water is in the oceans and lakes, I think you have missed a factor.

Then there is the obvious problem if the flood came from the mantle explain how it disappeared after a year and don’t use Geneses as a reference.

The flood came from above, and below, is what you read. I said nothing about water coming from the mantle.
I believe water came from the mantle when earth was created, and thus we have oceans.
I believe when the water drained from the earth during the flood, much of that water went into the mantle of the earth.

The factors that should be taken into consideration is the lack of evidence which supports a flood which you have avoided like the plague like no evidence of mass extinctions, no evidence of global sedimentation, no evidence of erosion caused by the flood, no evidence of global marine deposits on mountain tops, no evidence of the disruption of tree ring patterns or no evidence of disruption of volcanic ash in ice core samples.

I do not agree.
I believe you simply do not accept the evidence for the flood... regardless of what is given.

If you actually attempted to understand the link you provided, the assumption being made is science is based on naturalism as its origins come from Greek philosophy.

What you have made perfectly clear amongst the confusion in your post is the zero understanding of how theories work.

Common retort - "You are just ignorant, basically", is what you are saying.
That does not do what you think it does, you know. Yes, people do inflate their ego, but there are still the same place they were before.

While scientific theories are based on assumptions called postulates they must be falsifiable or in other words testable.
This is the part you don’t get, experiments and observations generate evidence which either supports or disprove theories.

I have emboldened the final sentence in your post as your conclusion is nonsense.
Let me reiterate evidence ≠ assumptions.

I do agree evidence ≠ assumptions. Thank you very much.
If your intent is to demoralize me, and like the other user, treat me like a child, and disrespect me, I am not a child, and beneath your feet. Okay?

Assuming an even geometric distribution while using a method, is not an assumption, but evidence? No. it is not evidence.
Assuming logarithmic decay as a function time since the main shock of an earthquake, is not an assumption, but evidence? No. it is not evidence.
To assume the topography is approximated by a Bouguer plate and omits much of the topographic variation, is not an assumption, but evidence? No. it is not evidence.
Assuming of constant topographic density, etc., is not an assumption, but evidence? No. it is not evidence.

Many geodetic techniques and the theories, assumptions, and simple models behind them are significantly degraded when used under steep slopes and/or high elevations.

The elevations and geoid models encountered and employed in this investigation are often based on slightly different definitions, approximations, and assumptions.

Many authors have investigated how to more closely evaluate (2) in a practical sense resulting in rigorous orthometric heights (Kingdon et al. 2005; Santos et al. 2006; Flury and Rummel 2009; Odera and Fukuda 2015). In addition to this definitional difference, it should be highlighted that even a fairly modest error in of 20 mgal leads to an error of 0.084 m in the Helmert orthometric height for the mountains over 4267 m that are investigated in this paper.

....the coordinates with the maximum elevation are assumed to represent the summit. This assumption is not without some concern: unattached boulders/rocks, ice, vegetation, buildings, etc. are all features that can be above the desired highest point of the solid-earth.

The non-centered residuals violate one of the key assumptions of least squares and signify the existence of an unmodeled effect. It is well known (c.f. Bomford 1962; Heiskanen and Moritz 1967; Torge 2001) that zenith angle observations are prone to errors caused by atmospheric refraction, and an assumption is made that this is the most likely cause of these systematic residuals. So, while the data does not have true reciprocal angles, it is likely these observations were observed under fairly similar atmospheric conditions (out of necessity they required clear visibility for the long sight lines with no adverse weather), in similar afternoon hours of the day (Gossett 1959), and are undertaken at high altitudes with sightlines well above the Earth’s surface where refraction is slightly less variable (Hirt et al. 2010).

...and so on, and so forth. Source
Let me hear how I do not understand what I read.

Let me just say, if it is you are angry, and unable to have a respectful conversation, I encourage you to either take some deep breaths, and calm yourself... I think the rules suggest leaving your computer, until you calm down, or simply do not speak to me.
If one causes your blood to boil, it is best to just be silent around that person... or go away, where you cannot hear their nonsense. Okay? I hope that helps.

 

[CoreyD]

Not at all.
Go to post 179, 181, 184, 191, 195

Yes, 179 was a strawman that was used to deflect from the subject.
Why did you do that? I'd like to hear your explanation, since I already know why post #174 was designed.

 

[CoreyD]

It's a point worth clearing up, don't you think? The way you speak of faith in God and acceptance of literal inerrancy (in this case a literal global flood) it's as if you thought the two were interchangeable.

I'm not sure how you got there. If this isn't one of those deflectors, perhaps you can explain how you arrived at me speaking about faith.

 

[CoreyD]

This is a weird obsession or misunderstanding that you share with others. Science works by making the best model of some system or object or process based on the best available information and data and continuing to check those results and update the model. Modifying the conclusion to include additional or better measured data is not only part of the process.

Not new calculations or a new age for the universe, but a new method for measuring distance finds a value of the Hubble constant. A value, that within the *presented* error bars, on the edge of consistency with the previously measured value. The paper referenced in the NBC news article does not actually give an age for the Universe. It was the first time out for a new and untested method with unknown issues.

That whole study was built upon a model for the evolution of the "standard objects" that was grossly erroneous as I discussed in a different thread many months ago. Short answer, that study is junk built on a pile of garbage.

Nope, you take entirely the wrong lesson from the refinement of understanding from new data in science.

A conclusion that does not change when confronted with contradictory data is not a good conclusion.

I have no idea what your point is, honestly... and I do not mean that in any bad way.
I honestly do not know what it is, you are trying to say, and why. I'm truly sorry.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes, 179 was a strawman that was used to deflect from the subject.
Why did you do that? I'd like to hear your explanation, since I already know why post #174 was designed.

Your wrong about the design of that post.
As you read my reply you can see that what I was responding to was your "Nor does the argument absence of evidence mean evidence of absence" statement. And I gave an example using the Bible Noah Flood where total and complete absence of evidence of that Flood proves that there was no such flood.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have no idea what your point is, honestly... and I do not mean that in any bad way.
I honestly do not know what it is, you are trying to say, and why. I'm truly sorry.

I am aware you don't understand how science works.

 

[CoreyD]

Your wrong about the design of that post.
As you read my reply you can see that what I was responding to was your "Nor does the argument absence of evidence mean evidence of absence" statement. And I gave an example using the Bible Noah Flood where total and complete absence of evidence of that Flood proves that there was no such flood.

I have no desire to argue about this.
Please see this thread.

 

[CoreyD]

I am aware you don't understand how science works.

No. You are not aware of anything of the sort.
Ego inflation is actually a sin, and haughtiness is not a very good quality actually.
Are there any more reasons why it's not better to be a Christian? Just look at the difference. The evidence is clear, isn't it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No. You are not aware of anything of the sort.

Of course I am. I have seen your sort here before and I will see them again after you leave. I also have 25 years of professional experience to know the difference.

Ego inflation is actually a sin, and haughtiness is not a very good quality actually.

I don't believe in sin.

Are there any more reasons why it's not better to be a Christian? Just look at the difference. The evidence is clear, isn't it.

It is best not to base your life on what you cannot believe, so I don't.

 

[CoreyD]

Of course I am.

You believe so, but I am telling you it is a mere belief. It is not correct, simply because you believe.
That certainly is not how science works.

I have seen your sort here before and I will see them again after you leave.

My sort, are everywhere... including in the scientific community,
So, whether here, or in the scientific community, atheists will label anyone they debate, as "not understanding how science works".
That's their ego speaking.

I also have 25 years of professional experience to know the difference.

I've had about 15 years of experience with atheists who cannot accept that understanding how science works has nothing to do with disagreeing on what scientists believe.

I've actually witnessed atheists accuse scientists - go figure - of not understanding how science works. Why? Simply because they repeat that line to everyone they are arguing against.
They can't seem to help it.

I don't believe in sin.

That does not change anything.
People are not programed to tell you only things that you believe.

It is best not to base your life on what you cannot believe, so I don't.

It's your choice, Because someone states something to you, that you do not accept, does not mean the person is asking you to accept it.

For example, if you insisted on walking a path, and someone said to you, it's a path to unstable ground leading to a garbage landfill, because you do not believe the person, that does not mean what the person said is not true.

They did not say it because they want you to base your life on it.
They said it, because it's a fact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You believe so, but I am telling you it is a mere belief. It is not correct, simply because you believe.
That certainly is not how science works.

The assumptions you have made and misinterpretations of scientific results in this thread alone are enough to demonstrate your failure to understand the mechanism of science.

My sort, are everywhere... including in the scientific community,

People who don't understand how science works or claim things that aren't true about how it works. I don't think one can survive in science professionally with that poor an understanding of the way things work.

So, whether here, or in the scientific community, atheists will label anyone they debate, as "not understanding how science works".
That's their ego speaking.

This has nothing to do with atheists (or christians).

I've had about 15 years of experience with atheists who cannot accept that understanding how science works has nothing to do with disagreeing on what scientists believe.

This has nothing to do with atheists (or christians). It has everything to do with arguing contrary to reality about how science works.

I've actually witnessed atheists accuse scientists - go figure - of not understanding how science works. Why? Simply because they repeat that line to everyone they are arguing against.
They can't seem to help it.

There is nothing about not believing in a god that would cause one to know how science works or not acquire non-scientific or anti-scientific views of things. No reason they can believe in healing crystals, naturaopathy, or be anti-vax and attack science and scientists when their notions are challenged by data-backed science.

 

[sjastro]

Oh. I speak a 'foreign' language. Sorry about that.
Certain assumptions are used when using these various methods or models... whatever they are called.

You are a scientist, so I do not have to post what those assumptions are... but if you are clueless, I do not mind helping you out.
Just let me know.

Now seriously who are trying to kid?
You are not fooling anyone, you made a blanket statement about assumptions being made in test methods you knew absolutely nothing about and this includes the concluding part of your post which I will address which was an afterthought and not a demonstration of knowledge of any of the test methods.

No. It is just that you do not understand what I am saying.
I do not fault you for not understanding a 'different' language.
Is the above still 'foreign', or is it clear?

Isn’t it a remarkable coincidence that other posters have also had to deal with your 'foreign language’ but have come to the same conclusion you don’t know what you are talking about.
This says more about you rather than questioning the intelligence of people in this thread.

Dishonest quote mining?
Are you resorting to personal attacks... saying that I am dishonest?


Well I wasn't actually saying the water burst from the mantle, miles deep in the earth, but as I said, water does go into the mantle of the earth, so if you are of the view that all the water is in the oceans and lakes, I think you have missed a factor.


The flood came from above, and below, is what you read. I said nothing about water coming from the mantle.
I believe water came from the mantle when earth was created, and thus we have oceans.
I believe when the water drained from the earth during the flood, much of that water went into the mantle of the earth.

You referred to a link which claims the origin of water on earth originates from the mantle which is not the mainstream view where asteroids and comets are the source.

What has this got to do with the Biblical flood, does it make inferences for its existence or how the floodwaters rapidly dissipated?
No it doesn’t, you have engaged in a blatant distortion of the link in trying to establish some bizarre connection with the flood which is the very definition of quote mining which is dishonest.

I do not agree.
I believe you simply do not accept the evidence for the flood... regardless of what is given.

Another ignorant comment, I don’t accept the Exodus either because there is no archaeological evidence but I accept the Babylonian captivity or the military campaigns of the pharaoh Shishak as mentioned in the Bible as it is attested to by archaeological evidence.

Common retort - "You are just ignorant, basically", is what you are saying.
That does not do what you think it does, you know. Yes, people do inflate their ego, but there are still the same place they were before.

Wrong your ignorance is evidenced by your posts and by defending your ignorance is a transition to wilful ignorance.

I do agree evidence ≠ assumptions. Thank you very much.
If your intent is to demoralize me, and like the other user, treat me like a child, and disrespect me, I am not a child, and beneath your feet. Okay?

Assuming an even geometric distribution while using a method, is not an assumption, but evidence? No. it is not evidence.
Assuming logarithmic decay as a function time since the main shock of an earthquake, is not an assumption, but evidence? No. it is not evidence.
To assume the topography is approximated by a Bouguer plate and omits much of the topographic variation, is not an assumption, but evidence? No. it is not evidence.
Assuming of constant topographic density, etc., is not an assumption, but evidence? No. it is not evidence.

Many geodetic techniques and the theories, assumptions, and simple models behind them are significantly degraded when used under steep slopes and/or high elevations.

The elevations and geoid models encountered and employed in this investigation are often based on slightly different definitions, approximations, and assumptions.

Many authors have investigated how to more closely evaluate (2) in a practical sense resulting in rigorous orthometric heights (Kingdon et al. 2005; Santos et al. 2006; Flury and Rummel 2009; Odera and Fukuda 2015). In addition to this definitional difference, it should be highlighted that even a fairly modest error in of 20 mgal leads to an error of 0.084 m in the Helmert orthometric height for the mountains over 4267 m that are investigated in this paper.

....the coordinates with the maximum elevation are assumed to represent the summit. This assumption is not without some concern: unattached boulders/rocks, ice, vegetation, buildings, etc. are all features that can be above the desired highest point of the solid-earth.

The non-centered residuals violate one of the key assumptions of least squares and signify the existence of an unmodeled effect. It is well known (c.f. Bomford 1962; Heiskanen and Moritz 1967; Torge 2001) that zenith angle observations are prone to errors caused by atmospheric refraction, and an assumption is made that this is the most likely cause of these systematic residuals. So, while the data does not have true reciprocal angles, it is likely these observations were observed under fairly similar atmospheric conditions (out of necessity they required clear visibility for the long sight lines with no adverse weather), in similar afternoon hours of the day (Gossett 1959), and are undertaken at high altitudes with sightlines well above the Earth’s surface where refraction is slightly less variable (Hirt et al. 2010).

...and so on, and so forth. Source
Let me hear how I do not understand what I read.

If you truly understood the references, you would have realised the assumptions being made were in addressing the systematic and statistical errors in the measurements due to external factors which has nothing to do with making assumptions of the test procedures themselves.

Furthermore it doesn’t lead to the conclusion the measurement itself is suspect and is therefore an assumption going by your twisted logic.
Let’s use Mt Everest as an example.

What do you notice about the height measurements where stated?
Each measurement has its individual systematic and statistical errors but the measured heights using the different methods are consistent with each other so we confidently assert the height is not an assumption.

Even blind Freddie can see your use of the references has been motivated by quote mining, confirmation bias and the false dichotomy fallacy where the inability of providing a single shred of evidence for the flood is replaced by arguments even if 100% accurate which clearly they are not doesn’t prove the flood occurred.

Let me just say, if it is you are angry, and unable to have a respectful conversation, I encourage you to either take some deep breaths, and calm yourself... I think the rules suggest leaving your computer, until you calm down, or simply do not speak to me.
If one causes your blood to boil, it is best to just be silent around that person... or go away, where you cannot hear their nonsense. Okay? I hope that helps.

Your gaslighting is duly noted, if I was angry I suppose I would be doing the same things as you by using a large font size in bold which is indicative of shouting or questioning the intelligence of posters in this thread.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are some myths about the Bible, that are repeated by religious skeptics.
Here is a place where these can be addressed. What are some of these myths?

#1 is a common objection.
Objection: The Bible give PI as 3.

1 Kings 7:23

Using the units of conversion from this website, we will convert 1 cubic to inches.​

Convert cubit [English] to inches - Conversion of Measurement Units​

​

1​	cubit [English]​
​ 1 ft. 6 inch​	​
18​	inches​

1 cubit [English] to inches = 18 inches​

The Jews used 17.5 inches, but that's okay, we will use 18 inches.​

​

Using this calculator, which has the circumference to diameter formula.​

Diameter and circumference are lengths related to each other — the higher the diameter, the higher the circumference. The circumference to diameter formula connects these variables in a single equation:​

d = c/π​

where:​

• d stands for the diameter;
• c stands for the circumference; and
• π is the pi number.

If, on the other side, you're interested in how to calculate circumference from the diameter, you can solve for c in the above equation:​

c = π × d​

​

We type in the circumference, which is 540 inches (30 cubic - 18 in x 30 in.). Which gives us a diameter of 171.88 inches, which is 10 cubic.​

They say...​

Did you know?​

As you can imagine from the above equations, the number π is a constant equal to the circumference-to-diameter ratio of a circle (π = c/d). If you divide the circumference by the diameter, independently of the size, it'll always be 3.14159265...​

​

Using my calculator to divide the circumference of 540, by 3.14159265, gives me a diameter of 171.8873387356569.​

The Jews were accurate to a T.​

Edit:
Error in calculations above, which I did not double check. My apologies. Please Ignore.

Fact: The Bible's calculation works out accurately to 3.14159265, or 3.1416, even though it is not a science text book. This is because God is its divine author. Proven! Jews used a whole number, rather than concern themselves with decimal points, which did not concern them since they are not Mathematicians.
So, they used a whole number which would represents PI, and how is that a problem?

OP corrected.
Is it okay, or should I change anything else?

The rim of the tub had a curved lip at the top and it was “a handbreadth thick” which adds another variable to the equation that could account for the discrepancy. So when it says “from brim to brim we don’t know if that’s from inside to inside or from outside to outside and we don’t know how thick it was or how much the lip folded outward. So there’s a lot of reasons why the measurements might not add up because we’re not given enough information about the thickness or the bend of the lip.

 

[BCP1928]

The rim of the tub had a curved lip at the top and it was “a handbreadth thick” which adds another variable to the equation that could account for the discrepancy. So when it says “from brim to brim we don’t know if that’s from inside to inside or from outside to outside and we don’t know how thick it was or how much the lip folded outward. So there’s a lot of reasons why the measurements might not add up because we’re not given enough information about the thickness or the bend of the lip.

Or they could just be approximate values.

 

[ViaCrucis]

With the issue with pi, this doesn't require some sort of fancy new math or complicated explanation. Ancient people could do math, they had to use math to deal with things like economics, logistics, and construction the same as we do today. Ancient people also were quite capable of using approximate numbers, or simply speaking in generalities. Rounding the number, or giving an approximate number to describe things isn't weird.

This would only be a problem if one subscribes to a very particular form of biblical inerrancy where every minute detail for every possible thing requires absolute inerrant precision. But that's a weird thing to project onto the Bible. The Bible frequently is written in a mundane way--in a way that would be readily accessable to the people for whom the original target audiences would be. The letters of Paul, for example, are a pretty vulgar form of Greek (vulgar doesn't mean obscene, but simply common, we even call the common form of Greek of the time Koine, meaning "common"); and we even get internal evidence from the text that when Paul is writing without the use of an amanuensis (a secretary or scribe) that he's not very good at writing Greek. He explicitly says so. In other words, the texts which make up the Bible are written, often, in such a way that would be easily accessable to the original target audience. There's no reason to impose things onto the text to make it "better".

When the Psalmist says God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, the point isn't to give us a precise accounting of how many hills' worth of cattle belongs to God; "a thousand hills" simply means "a lot of hills" or even "all of the hills"--God already owns all the cattle because God created all the cattle. It would be weird to impose on the text the idea that God owns, literally, a thousand hills worth of cattle.

As far as the story of the flood is concerned. Flood stories were a ubiquitous part of the cultures of the ancient near east. The Biblical version of that flood story exists not to tell us about a literal global flooding event (for one, the idea of "the globe" as we understand it today wasn't part of the ancient world view of the near east); but serves several purposes in the larger narrative of Genesis.

1) Firstly we have to remember that the book of Genesis is, like Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy a "Book of the Law", aka Torah. The chief purpose of the books of the Torah is to give instruction to the people of Israel on how to live their lives as a people in Covenant with God. This isn't a strange or modern interpretation of Genesis, it's literally how Genesis has always existed as part of the sacred Canon of both the Jewish people and, later, the Christian Church. It's why it is referred to as one of the books of the Law, or Torah, or one of the books of Moses, or Pentateuch, etc.

2) Secondly we have to remember that the narrative function of Genesis is as a book of beginnings. In Hebrew the book was called B'reishith, from the first word of the book which we translate often as "in the beginning". The English name "Genesis" is from the Greek translation of that name (γένεσις - genesis), meaning "beginning" or "origin". It's the book of beginnings, and thematically it is chiefly the book of Israel's beginning. Almost the entire book is focused on the person of Abraham, and Abraham's family until we get to Israel's foundation as a people who were slaves in Egypt whom God redeems and gives His Torah and Covenant. To get there the text starts wide, talking about how Israel's God is the God who brought order from disorder, from the unordered chaos of the pre-created universe in which the earth was "formless and void" with only the vast primordial waters of pre-creation over which there existed only God; whose chief creative act is the ordering of humanity to bear the Divine Image and act as agents of divine goodness and order within the created space. The focus narrows to two people, spoken of as the first man and woman, placed in a garden, as caretakers of the garden who exist in freedom and a free relationship with God. So free was this relationship that they were naked and could talk to God who simply "walked" in the garden with them. The story talks about the original goodness, and then subsequent loss, with their expulsion from paradise and to live in a world of toil and suffering where there is sin and death. The story narrows again talking about Adam's sons, specifically Seth, and continues to narrow on the figure of Noah.

3) Then we get the Hebrew version of the flood story, which relates to the problem of evil; but the twist in the flood story is that the problem of evil never gets fixed with the flood. No sooner than the flood waters recede, Noah steps onto dry land and builds an altar, that things immediately falls to pieces. It's very strange, that if the purpose of the flood was to eradicate evil from the world and leave the only truly righteous people that existed to start over again, that it didn't do that. Noah and his family aren't, as we read, exactly all that righteous. Noah gets so drunk that he passes out naked in his tent, then Noah's son comes in and Noah in a drunken rage pronounces a curse on his own grandson. In fact, the story's next bump is about how after people multiplied again they were so arrogant that they thought they could build a tower to heaven, they thought they could build their way up to godhood. So read strictly literally, the flood story seems like a total failure on God's part. If the point was to cleanse the world of evil and create a new lineage of righteous people, that definitely isn't what happened. But it does make sense if the point of the flood story in Genesis is to show that the problem of evil can't be fixed by destroying the world and eradicating all the bad people. Because "the knowledge of good and evil" exists in every person, including "righteous Noah", and that means so-called "righteous people" are not entirely all that righteous. Instead, the real solution, the actual answer to this problem, begins when the story finally narrows down again to the son of Terah, a nomadic pastoralist named Abram, and his barren wife Sarai. Because that's where the narrative of Genesis has been trying to get us to all along. Because ultimately it is about a story of a God of faithfulness who will call this Abram from "the land of the Chaldeans", establish a covenant promise, which leads to the story of Israel and Israel's redemption from Egypt, and Israel's identity as the people given Torah. The Christian reading of this story goes further, because all the way back here we see all the flags pointing to Jesus.

And, from a Christian perspective, worrying about mountain tops and if there was a literal global flood seems really trivial in comparison to the main focus and theme: the Good Creator God who intends to work in the midst of history to ultimately heal and restore the good creation, through the story of Abraham, Israel, and ultimately the Messiah: Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[eclipsenow]

The waters rose and covered the mountaintops to a depth of fifteen cubits. Genesis 7:20

Thanks for that.

#2 The Global Flood - Mountains
Myth: During the Biblical flood, mountains were as tall as Mount Everest, and could not have been covered by water, up to 270 inches.

Fact:

Mountain Ranges Rise Dramatically Faster Than Expected​

Two new studies by a University of Rochester researcher show that mountain ranges rise to their height in as little as two million years -- several times faster than geologists have always thought.​

​

"We've always assumed that the folding and faulting in the upper crust produced high elevation mountains. Now we have data on ancient mountain elevation that shows something else is responsible for the mountains' uplift."​

Geologists raise the speed limit for how fast continental crust can form

Study suggests parts of the Sierra Nevadas formed in a “geologic instant,” more than twice as fast as previously thought.​

The assumptions on how things happened or progressed in the past, has led to errors in conclusions reached.
There is no evidence that mountains were as tall as Mount Everest, thousands of years ago.
The height of mountains then, are not known, and so, an assumption cannot be used as evidence to claim that the flood waters did not indeed rise and cover the mountaintops to a depth of fifteen cubits, as stated in the Bible.

MYTH

That was a good one. Short and sweet.

The Noah story is simply not literal, but literary. Something happened - some big flood - big even by Mesopotamian standards. But the whole story is ‘dressed up’ in both Chiastic structure and Ancient Cosmology.

CHIASTIC STRUCTURE: The most obvious is Chiastic structure. This is a famous literary formula where the events leading up to the MOST important bit of the story are then mirrored coming out the other side of that story. It’s like a hamburger with the meat patty in the middle being the important bit, and yet the sauce, cheese and bread mirror each other as they come out above and below.
Chiastic structure - Wikipedia

ANCIENT MIDDLE EASTERN COSMOLOGY: Just as we might still use the terms ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ even though we know the earth is the thing that is moving around the sun, this story is dressed up in AME cosmology. It’s not about science, but theological poetry. There are the ‘spheres’ - like crystal domes over the earth keeping the heavens up, waters over those domes, and floodgates to let the water through! Needless to say - NASA didn’t find those spheres or floodgates when they went to the moon! Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

MISSING THE POINT: So both the sceptic and the hyper-literalist Young Earth Creationist are missing the point. This is a highly ‘dressed up’ genre of writing. Let’s switch it to something less divisive - say Shakespeare: “But soft! What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.”
Imagine a debate about how Juliet could possibly have been a giant ball of hydrogen fusing into helium a million miles across on that balcony? What - were balconies REALLY big back then? Or did miles mean something else? Or was Shakespeare just having us on, and this whole thing is fraudulent - and not actually saying anything real about anything?

SO WHAT IS THE ‘MEAT’ IN THE ‘SANDWHICH’?

The bible opens with the world already there but an unformed chaotic ocean. (The ocean is often referred to by Hebrew writers as a symbol for chaos and disorder.) The author is saying there was this awful flood that he is interpreting as God resetting the world to the start position. Only this time - there’s a remnant - a saviour figure - floating on top of the water. That’s when God remembers Noah. The story pauses here - and reflects on what has happened.

Smart dudes discussing all this here.

The Flood

Undeceptions Episode 72: Do you have to choose between the Bible and Science when it comes to Noah’s Ark and The Flood?

undeceptions.com

Note that there are even echoes of this in the Moses story. Moses arrives in a little floating 'ark' - and also leads the Israelites through the waters.

 

[eclipsenow]

3) Then we get the Hebrew version of the flood story, which relates to the problem of evil; but the twist in the flood story is that the problem of evil never gets fixed with the flood. No sooner than the flood waters recede, Noah steps onto dry land and builds an altar, that things immediately falls to pieces. It's very strange, that if the purpose of the flood was to eradicate evil from the world and leave the only truly righteous people that existed to start over again, that it didn't do that. Noah and his family aren't, as we read, exactly all that righteous. Noah gets so drunk that he passes out naked in his tent, then Noah's son comes in and Noah in a drunken rage pronounces a curse on his own grandson. In fact, the story's next bump is about how after people multiplied again they were so arrogant that they thought they could build a tower to heaven, they thought they could build their way up to godhood. So read strictly literally, the flood story seems like a total failure on God's part. If the point was to cleanse the world of evil and create a new lineage of righteous people, that definitely isn't what happened. But it does make sense if the point of the flood story in Genesis is to show that the problem of evil can't be fixed by destroying the world and eradicating all the bad people. Because "the knowledge of good and evil" exists in every person, including "righteous Noah", and that means so-called "righteous people" are not entirely all that righteous. Instead, the real solution, the actual answer to this problem, begins when the story finally narrows down again to the son of Terah, a nomadic pastoralist named Abram, and his barren wife Sarai. Because that's where the narrative of Genesis has been trying to get us to all along. Because ultimately it is about a story of a God of faithfulness who will call this Abram from "the land of the Chaldeans", establish a covenant promise, which leads to the story of Israel and Israel's redemption from Egypt, and Israel's identity as the people given Torah. The Christian reading of this story goes further, because all the way back here we see all the flags pointing to Jesus.

And, from a Christian perspective, worrying about mountain tops and if there was a literal global flood seems really trivial in comparison to the main focus and theme: the Good Creator God who intends to work in the midst of history to ultimately heal and restore the good creation, through the story of Abraham, Israel, and ultimately the Messiah: Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

Great points - especially 3!
Also - ever since God promised Eve that there would be a serpent-crusher - we're looking for this person. Is it Noah? He's the 'saviour' floating on the chaotic waters - our last hope. Oh - he's rolling around drunk. Nope. Not him. He was 'a' saviour - but he's not THE saviour. Is it Abraham? Is it this judge or that judge? Is it King David? King Solomon? On and on we go - waiting for the serpent crusher.... great point!