The debate "If we accept that God exists everything in the is Bible literally true" was started by
October 29, 2015, 11:01 pm.
By the way, PsychDave is disagreeing with this statement.
30 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 48 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Monster posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 6 arguments, Alex posted 5 arguments, Lane posted 1 argument, erikD9921 posted 1 argument, pajrc1234 posted 1 argument, AngryBlogger posted 1 argument, Dctheentrepreneur posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
WaspToxin, ajayachu1, liberalssuck, TheChosenProphecy, karishmarathod, historybuff, windu2420, Ramna_Ayesha, jjrocks1738, Monster, katiefgrace, Rebelis12, multishooterftw, ReedMurphy, MlgLeprechaun69 and 15 visitors agree.
PsychDave, Alex, Anas, pajrc1234, ThePraxeologist, Lane, AstroSpace, sdiop, erikD9921, action007man, calebtanner, thecries, Nury, Rokai, Dctheentrepreneur, wmd, rob5998, Rakesh, M, AngryBlogger, Chanakya, ReadyToBegin, mandala, Anandapadmanabhan, mafiajo, LucyTheDebatorQueen and 22 visitors disagree.
The bible is so flawed the belief in at least the Christian god should be considered as insanity, or just plain ignorance if science. As a side note every Abrahamic religion is nonsense.
that's your belief / religion but the earth didn't come with a date on it so you can't prove how old it is you can only interpolate.
Not all would be true. In elementary school when I was little, we did an social experiment to where we all formed a side by side line and the first person was give a sentence to whisper into the person beside him ear. Well, he whispered that sentence given by the teacher and the next person had to whisper that same exact sentence. You couldn't repeat the sentence either. By the time it reached the end, what was originally said was so out of context and wron. So what I am simply saying is not everything would be true and rumors would go throughout the cities and totally be taken out of context on what happened. So some of the stuff in the bible is clearly over exaggerated and some of its nothing mm ore than rumors that probably not even true lol.
look in the life after death debate. It should point out the flaw you make.
right the earth is really old. some people believe the earth is 6000 years old and science disproves that, and they are wrong. the earth being old does not disprove the Catholic God.
God does not exist, and newsflash. the earth is not 6000 yrs ol
Floods are a fairly common occurrence, so it wouldn't be surprising that they would appear in stories from all over the world. The problem is that there is no evidence to support a global flood. I don't doubt that the story of Noah is based on a kernel of truth, but I have never seen evidence that the story could be literally true and historically accurate. I am inclined to believe that there was a man who was caught in a flood with a boat full of livestock, and the story grew from there. I don't actually have evidence to back it up, but from more recent examples of folklore we can see how a story grows with telling until the subject reaches mythical proportions. Paul Bunion and John Henry are both examples of this to differing degrees.
As to whether there would be bodies, it depends how long the flood went on. According to the Bible it rained for 40 days. That is more than enough time for all of the bodies to wash away. In normal floods there are often bodies that are never found.
@historybuff you are correct; we don't actually know what happened. But flood stories are very prominent in religion, which makes me wonder if there has got to be some truth to it. Whether or not it "destroyed all human life" will probably always remain a question, but it probably would have looked that way if most people in the general area did not survive. I would not expect people back then to have traveled far distances to check for survivors haha. So when they say it destroyed every living thing, they meant every living thing that they knew about. People on other continents tell stories of one major, ancient flood. Obviously, people did survive it, if it actually happened. Again though, the ancient people did not know everything we know today. What they recorded and what has been passed down are stories told the way they were originally interpreted. That can be expressed in my earlier example that in the bible it says "breathed spirit" we know you do not breathe spirit on people. But that's what it looked like to them, so that's what was passed down. When they say a huge flood killed everybody... think about it. If only Noah and his family survived, and Noah said it was a vision or something that told him he needed to build an ark, then of course his family and descendants would pass that down. They are grateful to be alive, and they owe it to the fact that their father(or husband as it may be) was told by God. When they got off the ark, who would have been around? Where was Noah on the map? Would he have been around other people from other continents who could have survived? Another interpretation thing could be that... didn't the waters supposedly reach the top of the highest mountain? For people with knowledge on the topic, do the tallest mountains even have clouds above them? Wouldn't it have been difficult to breathe, with all the animals on board too? When they say the tallest mountain, they are talking about the tallest one they knew of, which may not have even been all that tall compared to the ones we now know of. So, perhaps the extremity of the flood could have been over exaggerated. In South America, where natives live in high mountains, would the flood have reached them? Is it impossible that natives in lower areas may have known to move up during a flood?
Also, a question/proposal for anyone who has knowledge on this... when the waters finally receded, would there have been bodies on the ground?
there are floods recorded all over the world at different times. to my knowledge there is no evidence for a word wide flood destroying all Human life.
I don't think that what was written in the bible word for word is true. Back when the bible was written, they didn't exactly have the science we have today; they used other ways to express the events. For example, I believe there is a story about Moses that contained "breathed his spirit" forgive me for not knowing the exact context. Anyways, we know that you can't "breathe spirit" onto other people. They just did not know how else to express this. This is perhaps a reason as to why it is so hard to actually prove religion; we don't actually know what happened, even though it is technically recorded.
@Dave I can attempt your question... I do not have all my facts perfectly straight but anyone feel free to pitch in and set me right if I say something incorrect... The flood occurred when Noah was around. I would guess that Noah was probably around in the time that there was some organized society? There would have needed to be proper tools and certain technologies to actually get an ark built. I don't know what time period that would be in, but that sounds pretty reasonable to me. But we do know that some sort of flood does appear to have happened, right?
You still haven't answered the question. How many years ago was the flood?
God revealed creation to adam, adam knew the earth was round, most likely.
he then only told the part of creation we see in the bible. at the time the roundness earth was not important.
remember the tower of babel? God created new lauguages and scattered them around the earth.
and plus, how did the natives get there? It never mentions that there was another continent. Remember, the guys who wrote the book still thought the Earth was flat, so how did they know how it was created?
When did the flood happen. For you to claim it predates native settlements, you must first say when it occurred.
Noah was before the native americans. God wiped out all people exept Noah. all the people at that time were in the same place.
Fair enough. Does that mean that the native Americans were righteous, even though they did not worship God? I'm not criticizing your argument, which is far more reasonable than many people I have debated with about the subject, I am just curious why they would have been spared.
we should not take the bible literally, the flood only had to be big enough to wipe out human life in the area humans lived, which was a small area. God, because he is God could have taken all of the water on the earth and put it in the one spot. he also could have created extra water to cover the whole earth, and then uncreated it. Noah had no idea if on the other side of the earth, it was dry, he only knew that as far as he could see, there was water.
There are some parts of the Bible that are contradicted by physical evidence. Among the most obvious is Noah's flood.
I phrased the topic the way I did because, while the issue of God's existence is closely tied to the accuracy of the Bible, I felt that area had been addressed in other debates recently. I would like this debate to be about its historical accuracy.