Contradiction begins in the first two chapters

[Alzael]

I don't have any time left but let me clarify something. 

I have always understood that the "world" that was destroyed was not the earth itself, but rather the "world of mankind".  I believe this misunderstanding is what causes some believers to think that God is going to destroy the earth with fire in the future.  This is not so, according to my beliefs.  The "world or mankind", minus any of those God chooses to spare, will be destroyed but not the earth itself.

Let me clarify something. Who cares? How do you know your beliefs are real? That's what you keep avoiding. How do you justify this with actual evidence. What makes your beliefs anymore right than any other Christian who says different. If you can't answer that you're all you're doing is babbling like a lunatic. So why should anyone care?

I have known for a long time that at that time people did not populate the entire earth.  However, when picturing the flood I always pictured people living all over the globe, so out of necessity the "entire earth" had to have been flooded.  Sometimes I am so blonde.  But a global flood need not be the case if all of mankind was localized.

But they weren't. This another one of those things you avoided before. There were many civilizations that were alive and well when the flood was supposed to have occured. The Chinese empire went on throughout the entire time period and never noticed. It certainly didn't effect the Egyptians.The Jomon period started in Japan, the first Korean civilizations were forming. Not one of them even noticed the entire Earth being swallowed up by water, which you think is something they would have written about.

And I have always accepted that large parts of the Bible are written from the point of view of a human, in this case Noah.  So the entire earth as he knew it was destroyed.

Except it's not. It's written from the third person narrative perspective. That's because the author is detailing things from the perspective of both Noah and god and is in both of their heads. It is not written from Noahs perspective and it certainly isn't written by Noah, so this is just ridiculously ignorant. This isn't even an interpretation thing, it's a basic education of english literacy thing.

2.  Did Noah have anvance warning?
3.  Did Noah build an ark and survive it?

Neither of these matter at all unless the bible and flood are true.

4.  Did all the flood myths originate from an original?  If so then is the Bible's version accurate.

No on both counts. The evidence is clear.

What was the "watery deep"?  I've often asked this question to myself and I never could figure it out, and didn't really do any research on the matter.  But now I am reasonbly sure it referred to either a tsunami or the sea.  And I think most likely the latter, or even a combination of the two.

However you have never researched it. And you still have failed to respond to where all of the water came from. There is not enough water on earth to even begin to do that. And we know that there are no underground fissures containing more water than the earth's surface about five times over.

I think I've mentioned this before but you always seem to avoid the real questions and points. Why is that, Jst?

[kaziglu bey]

jst, please take a moment to read what I posted in another thread a few minutes ago regarding floods, water and math. The flood is just not possible. You want proof? There is mathematical proof. Unless you can show me the math to refute what I present there, then it's time you admit defeat. It's incredible that you even buy your own desperate apologetics here.

[ParkingPlaces]

Jst, lets try this again. According the Genesis, the ark came to rest on "The Mountains of Araret". The base of those mountains is at 5,000 feet. The peaks go as high as 16,000 feet. A flood that was deep enough to float the ark just up to the 5,000 foot level, would, by necessity, put 5,000 feet of water everywhere else on the planet that was that height or below. So most of the rest of the world would, by necessity, also be under water. This could not be a local event. That is not an option.

[Omen]

The sun can evaporate ( estimate ) 1 trillion tons of water in a 24 hour period over the earth.  There are 10,266,195,028,681,000,000 tons of water on earth.  In order for the flood to even remotely occur ( and ignoring the fact that there isn't enough water present on earth to accomplish the task ), there would need to be 10.2 million times the amount of energy delivered in a single day to evaporate that amount of water ( again ignoring we're not calculating for the extra water needed to even flood the earth ).

The result is that there wouldn't be water, so much as there would be an atmosphere comprised of nothing but super heated plasma.

[Add Homonym]

[4] There were giants in the earth in those days;

Wrong, but there were pygmies. Why were there no giants in Australia?

[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Apparently, marsupials in Australia were beyond reproach, even though God regretted making animals in ANE.

[11] The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Check. Pretty much the whole Earth had violence and fornication in it. Were people of the ANE simply worse than Chinese, or are Chinese still awesome? Perhaps we should buy Great Wall of China cars.

[12] And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Pretty much

[13] And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

All flesh

[17] And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Good plan.

[18] But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

And the Chinese and Australian aboriginals were above reproach, and had an implicit covenant.

[20] Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Why save birds, if they can fly to Australia?

[1] And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Also, the Chinese and Amerindians were righteous.

[4] For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

At least we know how to interpret the prophecies of Daniel, when he says something, it could mean anything.

[6] And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Or 42. When you add up the digits of 600, it actually means 42 in ancient Hebrew numbers known only to me.

[8] Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

At least we know what the Bible means by 'every': some. This helps interpret Revelation.

[19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Now we have new definitions for Biblical "all", and "whole".

[20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Now we have a new definition of "cubit". A mountain is 15 cubits high.

[15] The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

The ark is 20 times as long as a mountain. I never noticed that bit of stupid before.

[23] And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

[1] And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark:

Wish I had a photographic memory like God.

[3] And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

The waters rolled off the side of the Earth.

[5] And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

After 10 months, the water is down to 15 cubits again.

[17] Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

When you cover plants, even locally with 15 cubits of water, they die. No mention of how the plants came back to feed the cattle.

[19] Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

Great. Still the new definition of Biblical "every" is about 100.

[21] And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

And even if God did smite 'every' living thing, 'every' means about 100, so no problems for most people.

[10] And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
[11] And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
[12] And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

So, the covenant was only established with those animals on the ark. He could flood others again.

[14] And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

He made rainbows everywhere.

blah blah.

[jaimehlers]

Also, the ark was 30 cubits high.  You know, twice the height of the mountains that were covered by the floodwaters.

[Iamrational]

I read a scientist say that in order for all the granite (that houses the fossils for instance) to be created during the short span of the flood, it would have created so much heat it would have boiled the oceans away a thousand times over. The energy would have been unimaginable, let alone survivable for Noah and his wood boat. That is something seldom mentioned.

[screwtape]

I've said this before - I do not understand why the churchies don't just claim magic when it comes to the flood.  Instead, they try to justify it rationally, making all kinds of violence upon reason and science, torturing the English language in unspeakable ways to try to make it plausible that it actually happened.  I cannot understand why they never, ever just say "it was a fuckin' miracle!" and be done with it. 

Oh, no.   Instead we get treated to "well, there is a theory that there are caverns at the bottom of the oceans that the water shot out of...." or "well, the windows of heaven is not a literal term, it is figurative and just means it rained heavily..." or "you see, back then there was just one continent and the Earth was smaller.  As the water entered the earth by accretion, the earth expanded and the tectonic plates shifted and that is how the continents drifted...".  Puuuh-leeeeze. 

Attention xians: Just throw down your Get Out Of Reason Free card and say "Miracle".  All those other explanations make you look crazy and stupid.  I know, "magic" is crazy and stupid too.  And as a 21st century person you know you should have very good reasons for believing things.   But it just isn't working, and I think you know that. 

[Seppuku]

Agreed. I thought the whole point of faith was to believe without evidence? It seems all people want to do is butcher science because it's able to provide back up to its claims whereas religion can't. When somebody has to make these explanations with poor and most of the time, idiotic, reasoning it says to me that their faith is so weak that they have to try and rationalise it. I think the 'true' believers of Christ and if God is real, the kind of people that will have earned tickets to board the angel express are people who simultaneously have faith in God and accept all of the sciences, because that takes real faith. To still believe in God when you've got so much to challenge it. Self deceit or even lying to others and twisting science is not faith, it's delusion.

[screwtape]

Agreed. I thought the whole point of faith was to believe without evidence?

Holy shit, Sep, don't get me started on faith.  They haven't a clue what they mean when they say "faith".  They are so confused.  They are told to have faith, but not blind faith.  But they describe faith exactly as they would describe blind faith, which they know is a fraud.  Or they describe faith so ambiguously as to be meaningless.  And then they turn around and start to justify everything because they know they have to, but they also aren't supposed to.  Ugh.  It must suck being religious.  I'm surprised they don't get dizzy and fall down all the time.  It's like a dog chasing his own tail.

[kaziglu bey]

I've said this before - I do not understand why the churchies don't just claim magic when it comes to the flood.  Instead, they try to justify it rationally, making all kinds of violence upon reason and science, torturing the English language in unspeakable ways to try to make it plausible that it actually happened.  I cannot understand why they never, ever just say "it was a fuckin' miracle!" and be done with it. 
<snip>

I think it is interesting that people of faith, who by definition believe without evidence, would look to reason, logic, and science to provide them with the evidence for their beliefs. I can see only two possible outcomes. Evidence for their beliefs could be found, at which point it would no longer be faith, or that evidence contrary to their faith would be found, at which point their faith would just seem silly. We have yet to see a single example of the first case. Yet we see here in this forum, multiple times a day, that people of faith try to use science and evidence to justify their beliefs, and they have failed every single time. Not one believer of any faith has ever been able to provide actual evidence of their beliefs.

Time and time again we see believers of all stripes dismissing thorough, significant, and yet unrefuted scientific evidence and the conclusions drawn from them, in favor of the "evidence" provided to them in their Holy Book, of which also no believer has been able to show which version of scripture is the correct one, and why. Again, it's a matter of faith that they trust that they are being force fed the correct bullshit.

[Omen]

Agreed. I thought the whole point of faith was to believe without evidence? It seems all people want to do is butcher science because

I look at it as Christian hubris, a result of cognitive dissonance with the kind of equivocating rationale where as long as you can insert 'something' ( regardless of how asinine it is ) it's ok to believe.  Notice that most of their apologia are thinly veiled arguments against intellectualism, education, and science.

[ParkingPlaces]

Though screwtape made a great point about god just providing the water, it there really were a god and he were that omni-upset with humans, a very simple "poof"of the David Copperfield variety, but real, could have disposed of the problem instantly. It's not like the dude was powerless or something.

But of course, not actually existing puts the kibosh on a lot of his plans...

Added:

Not only that, but he hand picked a small family, made them get busy for a few years, drowned the planet, and that family did what? Went bad almost immediately. I can't blame Noah for getting drunk, of course, but everything went downhill fast and soon humans were back on track to be a**holes again. It was all for naught.

Couldn't god see that coming?

[Alzael]

Though screwtape made a great point about god just providing the water, it there really were a god and he were that omni-upset with humans, a very simple "poof"of the David Copperfield variety, but real, could have disposed of the problem instantly. It's not like the dude was powerless or something.

But of course, not actually existing puts the kibosh on a lot of his plans...

Added:

Not only that, but he hand picked a small family, made them get busy for a few years, drowned the planet, and that family did what? Went bad almost immediately. I can't blame Noah for getting drunk, of course, but everything went downhill fast and soon humans were back on track to be a**holes again. It was all for naught.

Couldn't god see that coming?

I think this here is why religious people still look to reason and logic to support their god. Because they kind of have to. Even if you just shrug your shoulders and say god did it, it still doesn't make any sense.

For instance let's say that god did just create all the water. As PP points out there was no reason for it. God could have just poofed everyone out of existence with no need to do things the long and stupid way. So the story still makes no sense, all you've done is chage which part becomes nonsensical.

[velkyn]

Evidence of a deluge:  Some evidence is that people, aside from Judaism and Christianity have passed down similar stories.

We all know it exists in Christianity and Judaism.  But similar accounts exist in Babylon, Greece, the Finish, Chinese, Korea, Islam and the Mandaeans of Northern Iraq.  Native Americans also expressed this belief in their early encounters with Europeans, though they had not written it down previously.  In Hindu mythology, texts like the Satapatha Brahmana mention the story of a great flood.  There are many others but this is just from a quick search from Wikipedia.   I think there must be some hint of truth in these "myths".  Geologists (aka scientitsts) seem to accept this as will be shown later.

Jst, please explain how the Egyptians didn’t notice any flood.  You keep avoiding this and it makes you look like an idiot and a poor liar.  And no geologists do not “seem to accept this as will be shown later”. 

Other evidence includes finding seashells on tops of mountains.  Some later came to believe it was because of glacial periods.  But there is no way of telling whether glaciers, a flood, pr both are actually accountable.  The only fact is that seashells have been found on tops of mountains.

  You show your willful ignorance.  As truthseeker has shown you, it was plate tectonics, not glaciers and not your magical and baseless flood.  There are plenty of ways to tell what makes something happen and your theist lies that there are not are amusing and utterly wrong.   

And ideas have been put out to explain this "hint" of truth:

alterate theorys of flooding mechanisms cut for space. And yep, no evidence of the flood as claimed by your bible here in any one of the other theories on how a large flood could have occurred. All fail to fit the nonsense in the bible. Lake Agazziz is the funniest one though, being in North America.  Might be fun for the Mormons though. 

If there is no evidence at all like you claim then why so many hypothesis from geiologists?  I can only assume that geologists do not agree with you.

  Well, jst, geologists do agree with me, in all of the above since not a one of them supports the biblical lie of a world wide flood that covered all of the mountains. 

It should be obvious that SOMETHING happened to cause all these myths.
So there IS evidence or geologists would dismiss it entirely.

No, there is no evidence for the flood in the bible.  Not one scrap. You seem unable or unwilling to admit you and your bible are wrong. There’s lots of floods that can be documented all over the place and yep, those examples above have evidence of one kind or another.  Your magical bible flood does not. Your attempts to claim that the events above “could” have caused some flooding, are amusing since they are spread all over time and poor Jews and Christians can’t even begin to figure out when they want it to “really” have occurred. 

Floods occur often and since civilizations are often established on rivers, they get exposed to floods.  If they want to make up a story that accounts for their need to make up a myth about how their god shows it’s power and how to take care of the problem of evil, they simply extrapolate that if a small flood kills and destroys, then a really ridiculously big one would be what their god would use.   No god needed only human propensity to make stories up to explain things. 

Well first notice rain is not the only thing the Bible says caused the flood.  "The floodgates of the watery deep were opened."

No evidence of anything that could be construed to be this.  Oh and it’s “And the springs of the watery deep and the floodgates of the heavens became stopped up, and so the downpour from the heavens was restrained.” per the ridiculous Watchtower website.

There is also the theory that only the world, as Noah knew it, suffered this calamity.  Or even all of civiliation at that time was the extent of the "world" flood.

So your bible is wrong again and has propagated a lie.

The more I learn the more I'm coinvinced it's true.  So we know that a flood "could" have occurred and we have Noah saying a flood "did" occur.  Is this not evidence?

No, a world wide flood covering mountains could not and has not occurred.

So SOMETHING did happen to Noah.  He described it as a flood.  At what point do we stop believing his record?  As soon as he mentions God?

As soon as one sees that there is no evidence.  No evidence for a “Noah” at all.  No evidence for any big boat. No evidence of animals being gathered. No evidence of 40 days of rain nor of any springs or floodgates or fountainsn being opened.  No evidence of any bottleneck in humanity’s genetics at any of the times that Christians would desperately try to claim the flood occurred. 

I don't have any time left but let me clarify something.
I have always understood that the "world" that was destroyed was not the earth itself, but rather the "world of mankind".  I believe this misunderstanding is what causes some believers to think that God is going to destroy the earth with fire in the future.  This is not so, according to my beliefs.  The "world or mankind", minus any of those God chooses to spare, will be destroyed but not the earth itself.

and more excuses and “interpretations” from a Christian.  Yep, all without any evidence that you are any more correct than anyone else, but lots of evidence that you like all Christians have to make up things to excuse your god’s failures.

I have known for a long time that at that time people did not populate the entire earth.  However, when picturing the flood I always pictured people living all over the globe, so out of necessity the "entire earth" had to have been flooded.  Sometimes I am so blonde.  But a global flood need not be the case if all of mankind was localized.

No, you are not “so blonde”, you are willfully ignorant.  And I do like to see you again evidently claiming that your bible is lying when it’s convenient for you.

And I have always accepted that large parts of the Bible are written from the point of view of a human, in this case Noah.  So the entire earth as he knew it was destroyed.

Ah, the magic decoder ring method of how a Christian decides that they know what was “really” meant by their god.

So to me the only possible questions left are:
1.  How local was the flood?  Was the "world of mankind" really destroyed in it's entirety?

Then your bible was wrong.  And which one of the events that Christians want to claim, events with real evidence btw, do you want to claim was the “real” one?

2.  Did Noah have anvance warning?

no evidence of Noah at all so the question is moot.  Shall we also discuss if the citzens of Athens had any “advance” press about when Poseidon and Athena were going to compete for the chance to have the city named after them?  It’s just as “real” of an event as your nonsense.

3.  Did Noah build an ark and survive it?

well, jst, your bible lies about a world-wide flood covering mountains, so why not have it lie about an ark that could not survive as described and that Christians can’t even agree on?

4.  Did all the flood myths originate from an original?  If so then is the Bible's version accurate.

No evidence for a world-wide flood as described in the bible again.  Ancient Egyptians themselves show your claims of every culture having such a myth to be nonsense so no reason to assume an original.

What was the "watery deep"?  I've often asked this question to myself and I never could figure it out, and didn't really do any research on the matter.  But now I am reasonbly sure it referred to either a tsunami or the sea.  And I think most likely the latter, or even a combination of the two.

And no reason you should think that the “springs of the watery deep” aka “fountains of the deep”  is “reasonably” tsunami or the sea.  Quite an amusing variation of your “reasonableness”   We get your “reasonable” claim and then others from Christians who are sure you are wrong and they are right, and all sure that they are “reasonable”.  There is no reason to think that the authors of Genesis didn’t think that there were literally gushing fountains of extra water from magical sources, since we have no evidence or such things now.  There is no reason to claim a tsunami was “really” what the fountain was since they knew what waves looked like.  Even the Boxing Day tsunami didn’t look like a fountain.  Fountains were around since at least the 6 century BCE and since the oldest copy of Genesis we have seems to be from around the 2nd century BCE, they would have known what fountains were.  And again, no ability to agree when this “should” have happened.   

[velkyn]

If I noted it, as you say, does that not mean that I have shown you that my understanding is the correct one?

Not even remotely.  Really, thinking that if you get one part of something right, that means you get it all right automatically?  No, Jane. It doesn’t work like that.  For such an accomplished scholar, one would have thought you would have known that. 

Let's see. I have repeatedly claimed that the RCC is the only right one. But not really. You know this because I believe what I say!  Well, there is no arguing with that.

So, where have you said that the RCC isn’t the only right one, Jane.  Where is this caveat of your “not really”.   Since you seem to indicate that you don’t believe what you say, I find that fascinating, that you proselytize something that you have evidently no trust in.  Or is it simply that you are trying your best to avoid responsibility for your claims by now claiming that they are really only unsupported opinions like any other theist’s claims?

But if you want evidence of your own words, I’m happy to oblige:

[quoe]The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach.

You claiming the RCC is right.

Thanks to Dictionary.com, I can demonstrate that you have misunderstood:
it strikes me that
Fig(urative). it seems to me that. ...
Thus, when I wrote:  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach. my meaning was:It seems to me that the CCC approach is correct.  Thus your claim that I am stating that it is correct is shown to be incorrect. I stated my opinion.

  Ah, so you don’t actually believe what the RCC says?  You only think it “might” be true? Interesting.  Seems that someone might be as agnostic as many here.   It just “strikes” you as the right approach but you have nothing to support that it is, they might be correct, they might not. Thanks for the evidence that even such a theist as you has nothing to support their beliefs as being the truth that they want to claim.     

Yes. You need to explain to me why I must account for every difference of opinion on a subject, when I make a statement or express my opinion. It will slow things down mightily if I must restate what I have already said

  Jane, you claim that your beliefs are the only right ones for a Christian.  You have made statements that are absolute, that God does this, that God does that with no caveats of “I think that God does this or that”.  You have tried to establish yourself as an authority.  Other Christians do the same thing and none of you have any evidence to support your claims.  In this instance about free will. 

Beyond that, the vast majority of Christendom does believe in free will. Evidence for that statement? Go to adherents.com (or any one of many other statistical sites) and look up which body of Christians is the largest in the world. Not by a little but by a lot. Then tell me why I must account for the views of small clusters of sects and a few denominations before I post anything here.

Nice appeal to popularity fallacy there, Jane.  You need to show that your claims of being the right brand of Christianity, and yep, you’ve done it again with your attempts to support your claims of being right with such pathetic fallacies, is the only right one.  Now, since JC said that his followers would be able to do miracles just like him and even greater, that should be easy for you.  You can start by healing an amputee.  Otherwise, no matter how many people might believe something, it simply isn’t true.   

What claims have I made? What lies?

I’ve shown you, Jane. Repeatedly.  Playing dumb like this is funny to watch but doesn’t remove your lies. 

Re tombs: Christ’s is not particularly important because he is not there. St. Peter’s is important because he is there. Christians venerate all the sites associated with Jesus, either real or legendary. They always have and always will. The fact that there are a couple of places that contend for the honor of being his temporary tomb is irrelevant to me and to many others.

Oh yes?, then show me that St. Peter is there, Jane.  And it’s amusing again to see you declare things irrelevant to you.  It’s a sure indication that you simply have no answer and realize the problem you have.  Your religion is built on special places and bits and piece of human bodies and claims of magical relics. But that one special place where the most important act of your religion supposedly took place, darn you have no idea where it is.   Since your religion lost that location, what else has it made mistakes in or made up?  Why believe that any of your myths occurred at all?   

Since I have not so much as breathed a word about any of this, what is the relevance of this to me? Why are you writing long posts that jump from one unrelated subject to another? Why the accusations that I am desperate to connect my claims (what claims???) to your posts? What on earth does that even mean? I am not attempting to create an atheist straw man (whatever that is supposed to mean). You have gone so far beyond anything that I have written that I am utterly baffled.

  Because your entire religion is based on the claims that these events are true.  No exodus, no events around the cruxifiction to be notice, then your religion falls apart since it is based on lies.  And if you are too ignorant of the English language to realize the times you’ve claimed something, then alas I can do little for you.  A claim is when you say something happened or something is real etc.  Until you can support those claims with evidence, those claims are by definition baseless, no more than the claim of a child that they’ve seen the “real” Santa Claus in their living room. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

What a verbose way of saying that you aren't listening to me or anyone else. It doesn't matter what we actually say. You see theist and you react like a bull reacts to a red flag. You simply launch into a confused tirade that has nothing to do with what has actually been written. If others want to indulge you, that is their call. I won't bother any further, although I will continue to correct your egregious errors of fact, if it amuses me to do so.

[Historicity]

[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Apparently, marsupials in Australia were beyond reproach, even though God regretted making animals in ANE.

Uhhh, this actually came up in my confirmation class in America.

The answer supplied to me was that God (maybe) made a network of land bridges and the kangaroos hopped back.  Then the land bridges sunk.

I objected that it would take less energy to out some kangaroos into suspended animation and keep them under a force field dome at the bottom of the ocean for the duration.

A more modern YEC answer which I have seen on some site cites the Bible:

Gen 10:22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber. And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,

Missed it, I'll bet.  "for in his days was the earth divided"   See? Plate tectonics.  The Noachian Flood happened in Pangaea.  The marsupials hopped to the Australian region of Pangaea and then it split away with only a little massive uncovering of lava from the mantle that would boil the seas.

[Ivellios]

Re tombs: Christ’s is not particularly important because he is not there. St. Peter’s is important because he is there. Christians venerate all the sites associated with Jesus, either real or legendary. They always have and always will. The fact that there are a couple of places that contend for the honor of being his temporary tomb is irrelevant to me and to many others.

Oh yes?, then show me that St. Peter is there, Jane.  And it’s amusing again to see you declare things irrelevant to you.  It’s a sure indication that you simply have no answer and realize the problem you have.  Your religion is built on special places and bits and piece of human bodies and claims of magical relics. But that one special place where the most important act of your religion supposedly took place, darn you have no idea where it is.   Since your religion lost that location, what else has it made mistakes in or made up?  Why believe that any of your myths occurred at all?

Plain Jane, please answer this. The Pope was once the only person on Earth worthy to have god speak to him, so everything he said was from god. The pope was infallible. Then one day, after many many years the RCC had to change thier position to that he is only infallible with moral issues. It makes you wonder how somone who gets exposure to a source of All-Knowing-ness, yet get reduced to knowing only what was already in thier head, and personally feel. Why? Because they were so wrong about everything. They didn't just stop being infallible with everything.... they never were to begin with. Yet, for over a thousand years, they had every Christian hoodwinked. It's like tradition: the longer you believe something, the more true it is. People believed disease was caused by sin, or demons, or judgement from god... yet it took someone who once believed that[1], to find out that wasn't true. Why didn't the Pope know where the Plague came from, how to treat/cure it, how to prevent it? Despite having an All-Knowing and All-Powerful god on his side, he had to rely on a physican. Christianity, and the RCC is a beakon of truth, just as much as the 'Church of the Holy Chicken'. Heck, 'The Engine that Could,' is just as true[2] as the bible. I guess this means there really are sentient talking train engines? No, we know with the evidence we have, train engines are not sentient and they do not talk.

You know why 'Appeal to Popularity' is a fallacy do you not? It's 'Lemming Syndrome.' ie. If everybody was jumping off a cliff, would you? You betcha, and I'm damn proud of it! 

1.	and trying to cure it under that premise.
2.	"spritually true," too

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Plain Jane, please answer this. The Pope was once the only person on Earth worthy to have god speak to him, so everything he said was from god. The pope was infallible. Then one day, after many many years the RCC had to change thier position to that he is only infallible with moral issues.

This is simply not true. That was never the position of the pope. In fact up until the Renaissance, popes and kings were always fighting. Many popes were incredibly weak. Some were taken prisoner by rulers. This vague notion you have of some immensely powerful figure who ruled the world carrying out all sorts of cruel punishments of everyone who got in his way is pure mythology and is primarily the work of the reformers who needed to justify their heresies.

Why didn't the Pope know where the Plague came from, how to treat/cure it, how to prevent it? Despite having an All-Knowing and All-Powerful god on his side, he had to rely on a physican.

Where do you get this stuff? The Pope is just a man and a sinner just like everyone else. Infallibility is a very limited doctrine  and means that when he pronounces authoritatively on some matter of doctrine or morals, it is binding on the Church. He does not do this by himself. Such pronouncements (and there are only two) are the result of years, sometimes centuries of discussion among the bishops and theologians.

Jack Chick is not the best source of information about Catholicism.

[velkyn]

What a verbose way of saying that you aren't listening to me or anyone else. It doesn't matter what we actually say. You see theist and you react like a bull reacts to a red flag. You simply launch into a confused tirade that has nothing to do with what has actually been written. If others want to indulge you, that is their call. I won't bother any further, although I will continue to correct your egregious errors of fact, if it amuses me to do so.

Jane, your response is quite gratifying.  I see you cannot refute anything I have said.  And you continue to lie ineptly since by my post and in it, my direct responses to you, one can see that I do respond to exactly what you have said.  If you wish to claim that my response was "confused", I do expect evidence.  I have requested evidence repeatedly for many things you have claimed and you have failed consistently.  So much for your false claims of ever correcting anyone of "egregious errors of fact". and in your last post more evidence where you again repeat that you are sure that your religion is the only right one with your claim of heresies

primarily the work of the reformers who needed to justify their heresies.

Your ignorance of your own religion is quite amusing.  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

The pope's universal coercive jurisdiction
Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter head of the Church, but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven," He indicated the scope of this headship.
The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the kingdom over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its necessary accompaniment judicial authority.

Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter's authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The sentences which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven. They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the Master who appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the promise of the keys which immediately precedes. They explain in what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ's kingdom, the Church, by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to pardon sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges. The gift of this particular power, however, is not expressed with full clearness in this passage. It needed Christ's words (John 20:23) to remove all ambiguity. Further, since the Church is the kingdom of the truth, so that an essential note in all her members is the act of submission by which they accept the doctrine of Christ in its entirety, supreme power in this kingdom carries with it a supreme magisterium — authority to declare that doctrine and to prescribe a rule of faith obligatory on all. Here, too, Peter is subordinated to none save his Master alone; he is the supreme teacher as he is the supreme ruler. However, the tremendous powers thus conferred are limited in their scope by their reference to the ends of the kingdom and to them only. The authority of Peter and his successors does not extend beyond this sphere. With matters that are altogether extrinsic to the Church they are not concerned.

Protestant controversialists contend strenuously that the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.", confer no special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift, they allege, is conferred on all the Apostles (Matthew 18:18). It is, of course, the case that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the Twelve. Yet there is a manifest difference between the gift to Peter and that bestowed on the others. In his case the gift is connected with the power of the keys, and this power, as we have seen, signified the supreme authority over the whole kingdom. That gift was not bestowed on the other eleven: and the gift Christ bestowed on them in Matthew 18:18, was received by them as members of the kingdom, and as subject to the authority of him who should be Christ's vicegerent on earth. There is in fact a striking parallelism between Matthew 16:19, and the words employed in reference to Christ Himself in Apocalypse 3:7: "He that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth." In both cases the second clause declares the meaning of the first, and the power signified in the first clause by the metaphor of the keys is supreme. It is worthy of note that to no one else save to Christ and His chosen vicegerent does Holy Scripture attribute the power of the keys. 

If your god existed, and cared to help humanity, your god could have told his viceregent on earth how to stop the Plague. It didn't.  Indeed, your religion was part of the problem, in its fear of the supernatural. The expected answer from a theist is usually where they claim that their god has the “right” to do this, kill millions and that it must be part of some “plan”.   It's also amusing that this god of yours evidently can't make itself clear so it takes the RCC "centuries" to figure it out.    Oh and there seem to have been at least 4 intances of speaking "ex cathedra", not "two" as you've claimed

The Pope is just a man and a sinner just like everyone else. Infallibility is a very limited doctrine  and means that when he pronounces authoritatively on some matter of doctrine or morals, it is binding on the Church. He does not do this by himself. Such pronouncements (and there are only two) are the result of years, sometimes centuries of discussion among the bishops and theologians.

Jack Chick is not the best source of information about Catholicism.

But you are indeed right, popes are just men.  Nothing special about them at all or their pronoucements, which change as society changes.  I’ve been enjoying watching "The Borgias" to see that in Technicolor.    Jack Chick isn't much of a source, and neither are you.

[velkyn]

for someone who was wondering where "stuff" was got, Jane, you seem to have found other threads more interesting than this one after the "stuff" was shown to you. 

[Ivellios]

Well, at least she responded to 33% of the points I made. It's considerably more than I'm used to. Of course, my first point wasn't my own, but re-stated via bolding since she made a blanket dismissive response for the post that I pulled it from. 

[jeremy0]

At least she did what every other theist does is respond with ignorance or rubbish, completely dodging the argument and then tucking tail to a different place.  A happy place..   

[velkyn]

I do see that she checked in yesterday.  I know she can't post here if she's still in the ER.  She could have posted in there though.   

[AI-0010]

Velkyn:

Have you noticed that all religions follow a certain trend?  If you were getting your terot cards read, this is the same kind of language that the surviving religions all use - it's generic enough so it can be applied to almost anything, thereby relating to the individual.

In all situations, religious leaders use the religion to push their own agendas.  The 'followers' of that religion just go along with it as though the leader has the authority to tell them what to do.  Religions are detesting to me - the fact that I can't get into a decent 1-1 conversation with any religious person without it becoming a heated conversation is a problem.  Especially when the belief system of the individual is so disconnected from reality that they either don't listen, refute what you say with nonsense, or try to prove themselves by preaching their own beliefs.  This is both aggrivating and irritating - so I tend to get angry. 

I guess from now on I need to stop talking when I get pissed, even if it's online..

[Graybeard]

Plain Jane, please answer this. The Pope was once the only person on Earth worthy to have god speak to him, so everything he said was from god. The pope was infallible. Then one day, after many many years the RCC had to change their position to that he is only infallible with moral issues.

This is simply not true. That was never the position of the pope. In fact up until the Renaissance, popes and kings were always fighting. Many popes were incredibly weak.

Which makes you wonder why God inspired the College of Cardinals to elect them in the first place.

This vague notion you have of some immensely powerful figure who ruled the world carrying out all sorts of cruel punishments of everyone who got in his way is pure mythology and is primarily the work of the reformers who needed to justify their heresies.

Maggie, you are a Liar for Christ – it isn’t “pure mythology” – you are thinking of Christianity in general; that is “pure mythology”.

The pope titles himself, Christ’s vicar on earth. He claims to be “in touch with God.” He claims that he and his priests are the only way to Jesus – how does he know this? Well, mainly because he made it up to establish a rich living for himself and his cronies.

Why didn't the Pope know where the Plague came from, how to treat/cure it, how to prevent it? Despite having an All-Knowing and All-Powerful god on his side, he had to rely on a physican.

Where do you get this stuff? The Pope is just a man and a sinner just like everyone else.

Answer the question! Why didn't the Pope know where the Plague came from, how to treat/cure it, how to prevent it?

Could it be because the pope and God are idiots when it comes to medicine and science?

Jack Chick is not the best source of information about Catholicism.

and neither is the pope – he makes it up as he goes along to protect his business’s own interests.

Do we forget how the RCC is the largest and most profitable business in the world?
Do we forget how the RCC is listening to accountants and lawyers to avoid having to pay out $$$$Billions for child abuse?
Do we recall how the Vatican welcomed Hitler’s diplomats?
Do we remember the investments they make in the German pornography industry?

They are deluded liars and hypocrites selling snake oil to the poor and gullible.

Would you take money of someone who you have told will burn in Hell for ever unless they join your club? I don't know about you, Maggie, but my morals would not let me.

[euroclydon]

Most of the confusion surrounding these two chapters is based on the following assumption: Chapter 2 is re-telling the story of the Sixth Day in Chapter 1.

But that is not logically conclusive. Logically, these are two different peoples.

Genesis 1:25-27.

Gen 2:18-19.

Genesis 2:5.

P: the first humans Gen 1:25-27.

Q: foragers

R: tillers of the ground

~R: NOT tillers of the ground Gen 2:5.

IF the "men and women" "created" on the sixth day were the first humans (P), THEN they were foragers (Q), OR they were tillers of the ground (R).

"and there was NOT a man to till the ground." (~R).

THEREFORE, IF the "men and women" "created" on the sixth day were the first humans (P), THEN they were foragers (Q).

P -> (Q ^ R) : (P -> Q) v (P -> R)
~R
P -> Q

VALID REASONING. ARCHAEOLOGICALLY and ANTHROPOLOGICALLY SOUND

Foraging precedes Agriculture in human history

No time is articulated between the 7th day and the formation of "eth ha Adam" - we don't know how long that was.

To "keep the garden" and to eat "of the garden". (Gen 2:15-16) When you eat what you tend and grow, that's Agriculture, not Foraging. This was not said of the sixth day.

The Sixth Day creation were foragers.

Eve is called the mother of all "living".

Eve is NOT called the mother of all "mankind".

Therefore, when Cain went to the land of Nod, clearly a placed already named by somebody (Cp 2:11-14), he could take a wife from among the Sixth Day creation.

The folks in Chapter two were a different people entirely from the Sixth Day Creation, They were a family of Agriculturists. (This will limit quite a bit the scope of the flood of chapter 9).

[One Above All]

<snip>

euroclydon, I'm going to give you a piece of advice: stop trying to make yourself look smart by using "P" and "Q" and whatever. It's not working. All it does is make your posts confusing and impossible to understand, which, IMO, amounts to little more than preaching.