tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7353548542083572474..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The flood and the flat-earthRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16621346424977417922010-06-09T02:30:28.398-04:002010-06-09T02:30:28.398-04:00I'm not contesting that they have what they th...I'm not contesting that they have what they think is a defense of each issue. That's a red herring. I'm contesting that there isn't anything incoherent about tackling both issues from a skeptical perspective.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59165739057448598842010-06-05T16:15:08.601-04:002010-06-05T16:15:08.601-04:00YECs and OECs both deal with each issue (Gen 1 as ...YECs and OECs both deal with each issue (Gen 1 as well as Gen 6-9).stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73919593807070555732010-06-05T12:22:11.671-04:002010-06-05T12:22:11.671-04:00""World-wide" in reference to what?...<i>""World-wide" in reference to what? In reference to modern cosmography, or to the triple-decker cosmology which unbelievers impute to Scripture?"</i><br /><br />Bible believers tend to disagree with both points and so it is a more practical approach to treat them as separate issues. <br /><br />BenBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31193736601473678122010-06-05T11:56:45.284-04:002010-06-05T11:56:45.284-04:00WAR_ON_ERROR SAID:
"You're basically say...WAR_ON_ERROR SAID:<br /><br />"You're basically saying the Bible can't be wrong in more than one way."<br /><br />Either you lack reading proficiency or your atheism has blinded you.<br /><br />"Otherwise, skeptics are being inconsistent with themselves."<br /><br />I stated exactly how they are self-contradictory.<br /><br />"And that's ridiculous. The Bible could teach a false cosmology in addition to giving an account of a world-wide geological event which never occurred."<br /><br />"World-wide" in reference to what? In reference to modern cosmography, or to the triple-decker cosmology which unbelievers impute to Scripture? That's for illustrating your intellectual confusion.<br /><br />"This is not a difficult concept and I'm really surprised that you think it is. Or at least, you explained yourself really horribly in the post."<br /><br />An alternative explanation is that I was perfectly clear, but your intellectual limitations impede your level of comprehension.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52418219898423551822010-06-05T11:40:08.997-04:002010-06-05T11:40:08.997-04:00Steve,
There are some skeptical approaches that I...Steve,<br /><br />There are some skeptical approaches that I don't appreciate on these issues. For instance, it is a very common objection that goes, "Where did all the water come from and where did it go?" If the Bible is painting a vastly different picture of the pre-Flood world that happens to account for where the water came from and if there are some verses (from Psalm 104, I think) that speak of God raising the mountains after the Flood, and since 75% of the earth is covered in water today, it's not hard to imagine that everything would be covered if you mushed all the land down. <br /><br />And other cliche' skeptical objection to the logistics of the Bible: there's "where did Cain get his wife?" even though clearly there's a verse that says Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters, there was plenty of incest in Genesis, and the commandments against it didn't come till later. Obviously those kinds of skeptical objections are idiotic. They may touch on other actual problems that could be pursued, but obviously we have to understand the actual claims being made if we want to appropriately criticize them. <br /><br />But that doesn't appear to be what you are arguing here. You're basically saying the Bible can't be wrong in more than one way. Otherwise, skeptics are being inconsistent with themselves. And that's ridiculous. The Bible could teach a false cosmology in addition to giving an account of a world-wide geological event which never occurred. This is not a difficult concept and I'm really surprised that you think it is. Or at least, you explained yourself really horribly in the post.<br /><br />BenBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13603431310008529682010-06-05T08:27:19.340-04:002010-06-05T08:27:19.340-04:00The sceptic's objections are mutually contradi...The sceptic's objections are mutually contradictory. So he has to choose one objection or another. It's hardly asking too much that a critic be logically consistent.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76309387798211119422010-06-04T06:14:25.965-04:002010-06-04T06:14:25.965-04:00Steve,
I'm not sure how a skeptic is losing i...Steve,<br /><br />I'm not sure how a skeptic is losing if the parameters of the Flood actually only make sense in terms of a false cosmology. Doesn't that just add even more fodder to the argument that the Bible teaches a false cosmology? <br /><br />BenBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79487029422105518722010-06-03T09:01:43.033-04:002010-06-03T09:01:43.033-04:00Scott,
You’re simply committing the same confusio...Scott,<br /><br />You’re simply committing the same confusion. To begin with, there are generally two types of people who attack the flood account.<br /><br />On the one hand you have apostates who used to be YECs. Babinski is a case in point.<br /><br />But even though they lost their faith in the Bible, they continue to interpret the Bible the same way they did back in their YEC days.<br /><br />Then you have critics who were never Christian. They don’t consult scholarly commentaries on the Bible. Since they’ve already made up their mind that Scripture is nonsense, they don’t invest time and money in the standard exegetical literature.<br /><br />Instead, they get their information filtered through an easy target like Ken Ham. They take all his interpretations for granted, then proceed to expatiate on the unscientific consequences of his interpretation–which they equate with the meaning of Gen 6-9.<br /><br />Since, moreover, both groups tend to get their anti-Christian arguments from secondary sources, they pick up other stock objections along the way, like the triple-decker universe. That’s just one more item on their miscellaneous stockpile.<br /><br />They don’t stop to consider how, if at all, these random objections go together. They just want to throw whatever is handy at the Bible.<br /><br />But, in principle, there are two separate questions:<br /><br />i) Is the flood account coherent on its own terms? Given the narrator’s view of the world, are those events possible within the operating assumptions of the narrative?<br /><br />ii) Does the narrator’s view of the world cohere with what we “really” know about the world?<br /><br />But critics of the flood account don’t distinguish those issues. Instead, they simply act as if the flood account is internally consistent given what “we” know is possible. <br /><br />That, however, is fundamentally confused. And it’s even more confused when the same critics imputed a triple-decker cosmography to the narrator.<br /><br />What the critics really do is to take their own view of the world, map that back onto Gen 6-9, then draw attention to the mismatch–as if the narrator contradicted himself at various points. <br /><br />They don’t begin with the “author’s interpretation of how events happened.” Rather, they begin with their own conception of the world, superimpose that on the flood account, then “disprove” the flood account.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-724776367461929812010-06-02T16:08:56.075-04:002010-06-02T16:08:56.075-04:00I think you have misunderstood the nature of these...I think you have misunderstood the nature of these two arguments. I am not arguing in favor of these ideas but just to clarify in order to better deal with them.<br /><br />The first, is describing how the author could have believed in a legendary worldwide flood because the author was working from an wildly incorrect understanding of the order of the universe.<br /><br />The second, is arguing that our more informed understanding of the universe makes it clear that the descriptions given of the flood in Genesis are not possible.<br /><br />These are two arguments from people who believe that the flood account in Genesis is unreliable. One is an attack on the literary credibility and the other is an attack on the physical probability. <br /><br />The second argument is not nullified by the first. They might go something like this: "So obviously the author had an incorrect understanding of the universe and as such his story is scientifically flawed. Nonetheless, even if one were to concede that the author's interpretation of HOW the events happened does not remove the possibility that the events actually happened, one could argue that there are a number of serious physical obstacles that would need to be overcome in order to collect all of those animals and place them in a single ark."Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06759667280025997344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10781868449254101212010-06-02T11:18:00.471-04:002010-06-02T11:18:00.471-04:00That's one of the targets. However, critics ta...That's one of the targets. However, critics target the flood account itself, and not simply the flood account as filtered through creation science/flood geology.<br /><br />And since YECs don't subscribe to a triple-decker universe, critics need to distinguish between the physical consequences of each model.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77305964566765657312010-06-02T11:14:53.053-04:002010-06-02T11:14:53.053-04:00Are the objections not being made against 'mod...Are the objections not being made against 'modern creationist' interpretations of the flood, most of which hold to a modern cosmology?Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01700593764042418061noreply@blogger.com