Fact and Fiction --- A Difficult Relationship

by hamilcarr 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JCanon
    JCanon

    The issue of the Flood is a difficult one because it is hard to absolutely prove it or disprove it. I believe it is part of the river disgorged by Satan to try to down the anointed, who are represented as a woman with the wings of an eagle in Revelation. If Satan's propaganda wasn't compelling it would offer little threat. Thus she is only saved by her absolute faith in the Bible. The Bible represented by the earth, is what swallows up the river of propaganda.

    So in practice, many Christians simply dismiss a lot of pseudo-science when it contrdicts the Bible. Otherwise, some of these things we can't proove or that seem to be truly contradictatory to the Bible from a scientific point of view as presented by science, often not understanding scripture, would tend to drown out our faith in the Bible.

    But even so, there are details that those who do believe the Bible understand that make it easier to accept even something like a global flood, that not understood by those challenging it. For instance, two things:

    1. THE WATER CANOPY: The water canopy per the Bible was "firm" or solid, suggesting it was solid ice. Thus it encased the earth like a glass case. This eliminates all those arguments about the earth's temperature and the pressure that would be created if a massive amount of water was being help up by the atmosphere. If it were solid, then the barometric pressure could be easily adjusted to its normal state. Therefore, I'm out of hte loop of those arguments that imagine the canopy was liquid. I don't have to contradict that scientific obsrervation.

    2. WHERE DID ALL THE WATER GO? The Bible says, to assist the dissipation "winds" were involved. Well I don't limit those winds. We know that winds include tornadic formations. A tornador over water is called a "water spout" which could have been used to funnel the excess waters into outer space. And we know there is water in the solar system because comets are surrounded in ice. So that theory works and explains were the excessive waters went if they were able to cover over the tops of the highest mountains. So that's another argument I don't have to deal with that some use to help confirm their disbelief in a global flood.

    Now there are still other issues, obviously, but still, if you believe the water canopy was solid instead of liquid and that tornadic water spouts were used to funnel excessive water into outer space, the flood is more believable.

    Of course, some of the arguments are biased. Some think, for instance, that if there was a global flood there would be clear evidence of massive erosion seen. But at that time there likely were no real deserts with most of the earthly very heavily vegetated. So the massive erosions would likely have been minimal during the dissipation phase, though, the grand canyon could be explained as massive erosion during a global flood.

    So there is only so close we can get to an absolute dismissal or acceptance of this reality that the Bible presents. Those of faith just take the Bible's word for it, and without necessarily rejecting the "interpretations" of scientists as far as they understanding something they don't know more specifically about, those questions can likely be answered on Judgment Day. So we just don't worry about it, put faith in the Bible, and the flood propaganda doesn't drown us, but is swallowed up.

    Subjectively, I looked into evolution and a what's out there now as far as the age of the earth and what not. I was reading about the ice cores and how they were dated, etc. Then just in passing they said that underneath all those layers of ice in Antartica was evidence of lush, tropical vegetation! I just laughed!! That proved to me there must have been a water canopy in place over the entire earth for tropical vegetation to exist at one time in the earliest life of the South Pole. So scientists will come to their conclusiosn and use their instruments that they will revise every year, change their theories or what not, but we likely won't get to the bottom of confirming the flood, which is difficult to believe, but not if you know Antartica was once a tropical place!

    So I'm basically done with Satanically fooled scientists. I'm glad I can believe the Bible and accept what it says and that faith has paid off as we approach the final stages leading up to Armgeddon. It's nice not to be distracted by Satan's propaganda, but also to have a little practical application for what the Bible says as well. I think I'm capable of blind faith, but once you really look into a lot of history and archaeology you find they are propagandists also, who manipulate and hide information because they are also anti-Biblicalists. As a result, the more I research and learn academically, the more I can relate it to the Bible's historical accounts. Otherwise, you are just left with one side of the argument, which usually is geared to be quite compelling.

    JC

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    So I'm basically done with Satanically fooled scientists. I'm glad I can believe the Bible and accept what it says and that faith has paid off as we approach the final stages leading up to Armgeddon. It's nice not to be distracted by Satan's propaganda, but also to have a little practical application for what the Bible says as well. I think I'm capable of blind faith, but once you really look into a lot of history and archaeology you find they are propagandists also, who manipulate and hide information because they are also anti-Biblicalists.

    In light of this thread this post is remarkable since you equal anti-Biblicalists with anti-literalists, just like the WTS does, thereby limiting Biblical hermeneutics to a strict literal reading. Do you mean that all non-literalist readings are Satan's tools?

  • VM44
    VM44

    Our Readers Ask --- Was the Flood of Noah's Day Really Global?

    Was the WT's answer purely to use the Greek Scriptures to show that the Flood had to have taken place? Was any attempt made to provide some PHYSICAL evidence that the earth once experienced a global flooding?

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    In light of this thread this (JCanon's)post is remarkable

    It is remarkable, too, as a reminder that "insanity" (real or pretended, actually beyond that difference) remains a possible way, perhaps the only possible one, to get around the modern dichotomy between "fact" and "fiction".

  • oompa
    oompa

    Our Readers Ask --- Was the Flood of Noah's Day Really Global?

    If it was....the Satan had already kicked Gods ass all over the place. The universal issue was solved....more people wanted to do things their own way (satans way?) than listen to Noah (God...or his channel). So God got pissethed and wanted a do-over! Now who is winning again?......................oompa

  • VM44
    VM44

    This raises an interesting question.....why was Satan's claim concerning Job (and all humans) raised AFTER the Flood?

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    Was any attempt made to provide some PHYSICAL evidence that the earth once experienced a global flooding?

    The article contained a poor attempt to provide evidence that a global flood may be a possibility. No mention of 2370 BC though. (Btw I wonder if anyone still cares about the biblical timeline?) Decide for yourself:

    Some may wonder if the story of the whole earth being covered with water is a myth or at least an exaggeration. Not at all. Indeed to some extent the earth is still flooded. Seawater covers about 71 percent of the earth's surface. So in reality the Flood waters are still here. And if the glaciers and polar icecapswere to meltthe sea level would rise to cover cities like New York and Tokyo.

    Geologists studying the landscape of the north western United States believe that as many as 100 catastrophic floods once washed over the area. One such flood is said to have roared through the region with a wall of water 2,000 feet high traveling at 65 miles an hour: a flood of 500 cubic miles of water weighing more than 2 trillion tons. Similar findings have led other scientists to believe that a global flood is a distinct possibility.

    I don't know what they wonna prove with these conditional constructions if ... then, a possibility, ...

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    I'd say instead that the Bible itself claims to be inspired and true, and that builds up hope in its believers.

    The Bible, as we understand it today, did not claim to be infallible. Paul claimed all Scriptures, as he understood them, to be inspired. His concept of what constituted "Scripture" was far different from that of fundamentalist Christians today. For instance, his concept of "Scripture" did not include any of his own writings.

    The connotation of inspiration equating to infallibility is unnecessary in understanding Paul's words, and the context shows that it is the benefit that we can derive from consideration of the writings that show them to be guided, motivated, impelled, urged on, etc. by God.

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • VM44
    VM44

    Similar findings have led other scientists to believe that a global flood is a distinct possibility.

    What "other scientists"?

  • VM44
    VM44

    I think the Watchtower writer who wrote this "answer" didn't know what he was talking about!

    The writer claims that a flood caused by 500 cubic miles of water shows that a global flood could have happened. But what percentage of the total earth's water is 500 cubic miles of water?

    The web site, http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html, gives as an estimate of the total volume of water on the earth the value 332,500,000 cubic miles.

    A quick calculation gives, 500/332500000 = 0.0000015, which is only 0.00015% of the earths total!

    So the writer claims that because a flood caused by 0.00015 OF ONE PER CENT of the TOTAL EARTH'S WATER SUPPLY occurred in the past, that a GLOBAL FLOOD is a possibility?!

    This Watchtower writer also got the height of the surging flood waters wrong. For the particular flood he mentions, it was NOT a 2,000 foot wall of water, but more like 500 feet! The 2,000 foot figure is the estimate of how deep the ice reservoir was before the ice dam broke!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit