How the Great Flood many have happened?

[_LittleNipper]

If Joseph Smith can concoct a fake history and call it the Book of Mormon --- and I believe he did, then civilizations can fabricate fake histories to uplift their own place in the world. What ruler would not wish to be considered a god. Egyptians, Chinese and Romans did it. Don't believe the Bible, but accept fables about dynasties that attempt to support the glories of kings.

Did You read Your comment before You submitted it?

You wrote: "civilizations can fabricate fake histories to uplift their own place in the world"
QED.

You accept one of them.
What makes it more acceptable than the other thousands?
Civilizations under Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl (together with Tlaloc, Tezcatlipoca and Huitzilopochtli, I like them because of beautiful names and not because they were likeable in any way) and others.

Why Jehovah?
(Yehowah, Yahweh, YHWH, Adonai, יהוה , יְהֹוָה , Elohim, Κύριος , Dominus, Je-ho’vah, the LORD, אֲדֹנָי , אֱלֹהִים , ha-Shem, the name, Iehouah, Iehovah )
Has he (she? it?) more name than other gods? Does IT counts?

_________________
My additional signature:
"Where is the Graveyard of Dead gods? (link)"
I have a dime You will not read that.

I am pointing out the flawed logic that accepts a few ancient "secular" histories, showing lines of monarchy decending down through the ages, but rejecting the Bible because it tells a different story. Clearly they are not all correct, but why must the Bible be in error?

[_Themis]

I am pointing out the flawed logic that accepts a few ancient "secular" histories, showing lines of monarchy decending down through the ages, but rejecting the Bible because it tells a different story. Clearly they are not all correct, but why must the Bible be in error?

They are all going to be incorrect to some degree. There is plenty of evidence that shows civilizations existing before and after any supposed global flood(not to mention mountains of other evidence) that shows the biblical account is not accurate. I do think the biblical story will have a particle of truth in it. It is most likely a story based on a real flood in the past. You quoted articles that bring up a couple of possibilities.

[_Gunnar]

Though a secular point of view, it is funny how they think...
Please see: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/di ... reat-flood

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature ... flood1.htm

What you fail to recognize is that even if the author's speculation is correct, the scenario he described comes far short of a world-wide flood that covered the tops of the highest mountains and wiped out all human beings and land creatures on the entire face of the earth except for those supposedly saved by being passengers on a single boat.

Literal acceptance of the Flood myth in Genesis ignores the well documented fact that several ancient civilizations have continuous written histories that began well before any credible date for the Flood (based on a literal interpretation of Biblical chronology) and continue without interruption or mention of any such flood until well after the supposed date of the flood. If such a flood actually occurred, one would have to conclude that the ancient Sumerian, Elamite, Egyptian and other ancient civilizations (who all developed systems of writing well before the flood supposedly occurred) all cooperated in a massive conspiracy to falsify their own histories in order to mislead future generations into believing that this flood never occurred. Does anyone seriously believe that such a conspiracy is even slightly plausible?

If Joseph Smith can concoct a fake history and call it the Book of Mormon --- and I believe he did, then civilizations can fabricate fake histories to uplift their own place in the world. What ruler would not wish to be considered a god. Egyptians, Chinese and Romans did it. Don't believe the Bible, but accept fables about dynasties that attempt to support the glories of kings.

That apologetic is a very blatant "grasping at straws" (exceedingly flimsy ones at that). One huge problem with that argument is that modern archaeologists have successfully learned how to translate the languages of these ancient civilizations and deciphered their calendar systems, and know how they relate to current calendar systems. The age of their documents, as determined by modern carbon dating, thermoluninescence dating and other techniques matches the claimed dates of origin of their documents throughout their histories. In order for these ancients to have successfully pulled off such a deception, they would have to have anticipated and known enough about quantum theory and modern dating techniques to somehow doctor their documents to fool modern scientists, or that modern scientists studying these ancient artifacts all are involved in deliberately furthering their deception. This dishonestly and unreasonably stretches credulity way beyond the breaking point.

Arguing that modern dating techniques just happened to yield erroneous results that accidently matched the deliberately deceptive dates of origin claimed by the ancients would be an equally unreasonable and dishonest stretch of credulity, and is merely a weak and dishonest attempt to salvage dearly cherished, but false, preconceptions.

[_Gunnar]

I am pointing out the flawed logic that accepts a few ancient "secular" histories, showing lines of monarchy decending down through the ages, but rejecting the Bible because it tells a different story. Clearly they are not all correct, but why must the Bible be in error?

They are all going to be incorrect to some degree. There is plenty of evidence that shows civilizations existing before and after any supposed global flood(not to mention mountains of other evidence) that shows the biblical account is not accurate. I do think the biblical story will have a particle of truth in it. It is most likely a story based on a real flood in the past. You quoted articles that bring up a couple of possibilities.

True! The witings produced by these ancient civilizations, though very compelling evidence in themselves, constitute only a very small fraction of the available evidence against the Biblical deluge described in Genesis.

[_Gunnar]

Re: ancient written documents: Another thing to keep in mind about these earliest written documents deciphered by modern scholars and scientists is that many of them (perhaps most of them) were not deliberately intended as historical accounts. Indeed, our present concept of objective, historical documentation is a relatively recent development. These documents included things like contracts, bills of sale, deeds, inventories, codes of law, royal proclamations, etc. But many of them were dated, and we have been able to infer much about the history of the ancients from the content of these documents, though they were not necessarily intended as historical accounts to be preserved for the benefit of future generations.

[_LittleNipper]

Please see : http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

How do we know that carbon 14 has any accuracy at all? One method of verifying is through comparison with tree ring samples. One of the oldest species of trees in north america and also in the world is the bristlecone pine (latin name pinus longaeva). The oldest known specimans being in the range of 4800 years old. Except on extremely rare occasions the tree adds one growth ring per year. Simple counting of the rings from the tree can determine its age. Scientists have confidence in the absolute age of that tree within a tiny fraction of one percent accuracy. Material from a particular growth ring year can be extracted with a coring machine and sent to labs for carbon dating. Thus a very accurate cross check can be made.

[_LittleNipper]

Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iGcpgwf76o

[Guest]

So, LittleNipper, you are actually, seriously proposing that the earliest known civilizations that invented writing anticipated and knew enough about quantum mechanics and modern science to doctor their documents to successfully fool modern scholars and scientists, or that modern scholars all (or at least a sizeable majority of them) agreed to further their deception, or that modern dating techniques, though erroneous, accidentally yielded results that matched their falsely claimed dates of origin? Incredible!!

[_LittleNipper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

Though I do find some fault with this site, I do feel that they have made an honest attempt to present the general history of why we presently have the theories we now have. I do feel that most of the fossils found formed at some point during the Flood --- as a result of the Flood, or in the early years just after the Flood and maybe prior to the Flood. They mention a high density of life; however, these are opinion based estimations on the number of fossils found, and assuming for every one found there must be millions not found and zillions of deceased animals that never formed a fossil. The Fossils found dumped together may actually represent the vast majority of the lives lost and that bodies tended to wash together. Also the oceans may have been vastly smaller prior to the Flood. So that there was more actual land to support more animals... Again, my thought is that most fossils were formed as a direct result of the Flood and that conditions were such that a high percentage of terrestial animals drowned by the Flood formed fossils. Fossil formation is very likely a much rarer occurrence now. So, one cannot use uniformitarian methods to establish a "truth" about an unseen past that most likely has little relevance to what one witnesses today.

[Guest]

One of the ironic aspects about the current creationists' obsessive determination to dismiss modern concepts of geology as inherently anti-religious is that James Hutton, the Father of Modern Geology, was far from anti-religious. He was a devout theist and Christian who claimed his views were inspired, in part, by his religious convictions. See http://www1.umn.edu/ships/religion/hutton.htm.

Here is a quote from the article I linked to:

Can we separate Hutton's science from his theology or religion? Yes, perhaps, we can do so. But it is hard to imagine how it would have been otherwise for Hutton. To dismiss Hutton's theology would be to dismiss his discoveries.

Time allows us a certain luxury: we can erase from our stories of past scientists any feature that does not fit our own preferred conceptions of science and religion. Thus many textbooks, in their effort to convey today's notion of scientific concepts, have elided the theology of Hutton's arguments. To suggest that Hutton--or even Lyell--crusaded against naïve religious belief misrepresents history. Ultimately, it is misrepresents the process of science, as well.

The fact is that the vast majority of even devoutly religious geologists accept the conclusions of modern geology, including the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. They accept that the Bible was never intended to be a science textbook, and is full of allegories and parables that were probably never intended by their authors to be taken literally.

Why, then, do some cling so tenaciously to literal and uncritical acceptance of every word in the Bible? Are they really afraid that they will suffer an eternity of torment in Hell for doubting Biblical inerrancy? Why should the Judeo/Christian scriptures be unquestioningly given more credence than any other ancient, "holy scriptures", some of which are of even greater antiquity?