Was The Flood Story Copied From Babylonia?

[ixoye_8]

here are those pyramid dates ..
my guess is Unas & Teti are slightly older then given .. as pyramid building was consecutive, then stopped abruptly (at the matching time) .. then took an almost a 400 year hiatus before resuming consecutive building

Djoser 2668-2649
Sneferu 2613-2589
Khufu 2589-2566
Khafre 2558-2532
Menkaure 2532-2504
Unas 2375-2345
Teti 2345-2333

Amenemhet I 1991-1962
Senwosret I 1971-1926
Senwosret II 1897-1878
Senwosret III 1878-1841
Amenemhet III 1842-1797

 

[ixoye_8]

There's a reason the world's scientists have reached this conclusion for over 200 years, and it's not because they all "hate God", are conspiring, or are under some satanic spell. The simple explanation is....it's what all the information all over the earth shows.

the worlds scientist have reached the conclusion there was a flood for over 200 years as well .. and what all the data all over the world shows .. you act like there is some kind of consensus .. there never was nor will there ever be ..

 

[ixoye_8]

If my younger sister is sad over a lost boyfriend and I say "Remember, Cinderella found her Prince Charming. You will too.", do you think she would honestly think my point was that Cinderella was a true story? Do you think she'd look at me and say that what I said makes no sense?

lol .. you are making me laugh .. admit it .. you think Jesus lied ..

Mat 24:37 “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
Mat 24:38 “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
Mat 24:39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man
Mat 24:40 “Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.
Mat 24:41 “Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.
Mat 24:42 “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.

READ THE CONTEXT .. IT IS A PROPHECY OF THE RAPTURE ..

1Cr 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written,
“HE IS THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS”;

 

[RiverJordan]

here are those pyramid dates ..
my guess is Unas & Teti are slightly older then given .. as pyramid building was consecutive, then stopped abruptly (at the matching time) .. then took an almost a 400 year hiatus before resuming consecutive building

Djoser 2668-2649
Sneferu 2613-2589
Khufu 2589-2566
Khafre 2558-2532
Menkaure 2532-2504
Unas 2375-2345
Teti 2345-2333

Amenemhet I 1991-1962
Senwosret I 1971-1926
Senwosret II 1897-1878
Senwosret III 1878-1841
Amenemhet III 1842-1797

Now you're just making things up to suit your needs. You've completely eliminated the Old Kingdom, Sanakhte, and Neitiqerty Siptah, as well as the First Intermediate Period and the first part of the Middle Kingdom. I mean...geez. The Old Kingdom was known as the first time Egypt had a continuous peak of civilization!

Sorry, but you're kinda making my point for me about flood history.

the worlds scientist have reached the conclusion there was a flood for over 200 years as well

Show me one scientific organization that has endorsed this view.

and what all the data all over the world shows

You've utterly failed to demonstrate that at all. I've shown the fundamental problems with the arguments you've brought up, and so far you have not addressed them at all. For example, I've mentioned the problem with your "smooth earth" idea and how much energy would be required to do all that, and the extreme problems it causes (inhabitable earth). What is your answer to that? I've also described what should be apparent in the genetic record of all animal organisms, yet isn't. What is your answer to that?

You can't say "the science supports a global flood" and then ignore all the massive scientific problems that follow.

you act like there is some kind of consensus .. there never was nor will there ever be

Sorry, but there isn't a single scientific organization that has endorsed flood geology. Not one. The only people who advocate it are all young earth creationists who sign "statements of faith" that they will reject any and all data that conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible.

 

[ixoye_8]

Another was the Rev. William Buckland, the first professor of geology at Oxford University. He wrote in 1837 (I highly recommend reading the entire article)...

"Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcilable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals."

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred.

 

[ixoye_8]

Now you're just making things up to suit your needs. You've completely eliminated the Old Kingdom, Sanakhte, and Neitiqerty Siptah, as well as the First Intermediate Period and the first part of the Middle Kingdom.

I posted what was relevant ..
if my data is incorrect .. then show me WHICH pyramids should be between them ..

be careful not to bare false witness ..

 

[ixoye_8]

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it.

 

[ixoye_8]

"No meteorites have been found in the geological column."

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE .. OOPS

perhaps meteors always missed the earth before

 

[calvin]

Sorry, but there isn't a single scientific organization that has endorsed flood geology. Not one. The only people who advocate it are all young earth creationists who sign "statements of faith" that they will reject any and all data that conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible.

Well even your disclaimer is somewhat messed up don't you think? If an organization has an item within its statement of faith, then surely that organization endorses that item. "Rocket science"??
http://creation.com/about-us
A good many scientist and other well educated persons endorse the statement of faith. These scientists have put their credibility out there for peer and public scrutiny, acceptance or rejection. I don't think anyone should belittle them for taking a stand for what they believe.

 

[ixoye_8]

I wonder how many scientific organizations endorse a non-flood geology ..
I would like to see a couple ..

 

[ixoye_8]

One of the famous examples is the so-called Lewis Overthrust in Glacier Park, Montana. The Lewis Overthrust—a block of rock that is supposed to have been thrust up and out over the shale deposit beneath it—is about 35 miles wide and 6 miles thick. According to geologists, this massive formation has ridden over the shale deposit below it for a distance of about 40 miles. The problem is very simple. This enormous mass of rock is so-called Pre-Cambrian limestone that according to them, is supposed to be about 500,000,000 years older than the rock on which it rests, which is a very thin layer of so-called Cretaceous shale. In an effort to avoid the obvious negating of their arbitrary dating theories, they have come up with this idea. How could eight hundred thousand billion tons of rock slide over a thin layer of soft shale for great distances without entirely obliterating the shale layer?

Dr. Walter Lammerts made a survey of the area in the early l980s. His conclusion was: “At the actual contact line very thin layers of shale were present. This seems to clearly indicate that just before the Altyn limestone was deposited and after the tilting of the Cretaceous beds, a thin wafer-like 1/8th to 1/16th inch layer of shale was deposited . . . Likewise careful study of these intercalations showed not the slightest evidence of abrasive activity such as one would expect to find if these were shoved forward in between layers of shale as the overthrust theory demands.” He goes on to echo Hubert and Ruby by saying that the overthrusting of the limestones “.appears to be a mechanical impossibility.”

 

[ixoye_8]

In other cases, these same geologists have the massive Swiss Matterhorn being moved upward and sideways for more than forty miles, in order to explain why it is out of place in the geological time column. But that is only a small thing when compared to the Mythen Peak of the Alps, which has a number of strata which are all out of order. Eocene is on the bottom, then Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous. This is a contradiction of the geological time column’s fanciful dating of these rock formations. In order to try to work their way out of this, historic geologists have arbitrarily moved this mountain, in tact, thousands of miles from Africa into Switzerland! Well, now! Certainly the Genesis Flood did enormous geological work, but to move a whole mountain thousands of miles and set it down in perfect conformability with, and cemented to the strata below it with no valid indication of its ever having moved?

 

[ixoye_8]

Dr. Spieker was not trying to do Creationist any favor and he would not agree with our views, but the confessions and admissions that he made are startling:
1. The geological evidences mean nothing in terms of a time scale.

2. This time scale was developed by Lyell and his followers, who made it up arbitrarily without broad knowledge or significant evidence.

3. Since then men have blindly followed these ideas, which practice must be religion since it certainly does not follow natural law.

4. What historic geologists have come up with is not science at all but a willful bending of the evidence, even in areas where anyone can see that it does not fit, to make it conform to a preconceived formula that they are determined to protect at all costs.

5. And so the witness of the geological evidence, that many have thought clearly speaks to them of evolution, really says nothing to them at all because they are blinded by the brainwashing and indoctrinating they have had into their religious beliefs and have been fully committed, even against plain evidence to the contrary, that their beliefs are right.

“How dare they do this in the name of science?” the good doctor chides. “My, my,” he mocks, “how easy it is to bend our theories and how easily they accommodate to every new and imaginary hunch. Such,” he says, in scathing tones, literally dripping with sarcasm, “are the ‘facts’ of geology.”

 

[ixoye_8]

Dr. Spieker was not trying to do Creationist any favor and he would not agree with our views, but the confessions and admissions that he made are startling:
1. The geological evidences mean nothing in terms of a time scale.

2. This time scale was developed by Lyell and his followers, who made it up arbitrarily without broad knowledge or significant evidence.

3. Since then men have blindly followed these ideas, which practice must be religion since it certainly does not follow natural law.

4. What historic geologists have come up with is not science at all but a willful bending of the evidence, even in areas where anyone can see that it does not fit, to make it conform to a preconceived formula that they are determined to protect at all costs.

5. And so the witness of the geological evidence, that many have thought clearly speaks to them of evolution, really says nothing to them at all because they are blinded by the brainwashing and indoctrinating they have had into their religious beliefs and have been fully committed, even against plain evidence to the contrary, that their beliefs are right.

“How dare they do this in the name of science?” the good doctor chides. “My, my,” he mocks, “how easy it is to bend our theories and how easily they accommodate to every new and imaginary hunch. Such,” he says, in scathing tones, literally dripping with sarcasm, “are the ‘facts’ of geology.”

 

[RiverJordan]

Ixoye,

I'm not following you down every rabbit trail you throw out there. You still haven't addressed the very first two fundamental problems raised with your posts.

I've mentioned the problem with your "smooth earth" idea and how much energy would be required to do all that, and the extreme problems it causes (inhabitable earth). What is your answer to that?

I've also described what should be apparent in the genetic record of all animal organisms, yet isn't. What is your answer to that?

As far as the Egyptian history, you deliberately omitted two of the main periods in their history, and part of another in order to claim that there's a "gap". But the gap simply doesn't exist. Why did you omit the entire Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period, and part of the Middle Kingdom?

Address these questions before spamming the thread with more copied material.

 

[RiverJordan]

Well even your disclaimer is somewhat messed up don't you think? If an organization has an item within its statement of faith, then surely that organization endorses that item. "Rocket science"??

Not at all. When an organization declares "If any data contradicts our religious beliefs, we automatically reject that data", they aren't doing science and cannot be referred to as a scientific organization.

A good many scientist and other well educated persons endorse the statement of faith. These scientists have put their credibility out there for peer and public scrutiny, acceptance or rejection. I don't think anyone should belittle them for taking a stand for what they believe.

They are doing apologetics and working for a Christian apologetics organization. That's the exact opposite of science.

As far as scientific organizations issuing statements against "creation science" and such, CLICK HERE for a pretty darn good list.

 

[ixoye_8]

Address these questions before spamming the thread with more copied material.

no ..
I'm done on the topic, I said what I wanted to say ..
but will pursue off-topic issues as I see fit ..

here is my statement on the matter ..
the OT says in various places that it happened ..
the NT says in various places that it happened ..
I checked the Hebrew & Greek, and the men who put it in English translated it correctly ..

the HS told me it happened ..

shall I have no Faith ???
shall I continue in unfruitful dialogue on the matter ???
NO ..
if anyone WITH FAITH that it happened asks me specifics, I will do my best to give them the answer God willing ..

perhaps God is using this for some to test their Faith .. I cannot help them with that .. for Faith over-rides the natural law .. as Peter whom stepped from the boat to go out to Jesus on the water .. do you not see this is the same thing ???
did Peter say NO JESUS, I can't because science tells me I can't ???
INCREASE YOUR FAITH ..

Jesus said "COME TO ME AS A CHILD" ..
this means "COME TO ME IN INNOCENCE OF FAITH" ..
science can be helpful sometimes ..
but also hurtful sometimes ..

so I will answer the thread title ..
Was The Flood Story Copied From Babylonia?
no .. Scripture IS the inspired word of God, and God is NOT a plagiarist, but the source of ALL THINGS ..

God Bless All as we learn to put our Trust in God ..

 

[RiverJordan]

Ixoye,

Now you're back to what I talked about earlier...defending the global flood from a faith-based, "I don't care about the science, all that matters is what the Bible says" perspective. If you'd have done that when I first brought it up, you'd have saved yourself a lot of bother.

But for some reason I've yet to figure out, a lot of Christians feel compelled to try and justify a global flood from a purely scientific perspective. Why is that? Do you think a scientific argument is superior to a faith-based scriptural one? If not, then why not just say "the Bible says so, and that's all that matters"? Why the need to spend so much effort on trying to make the science fit?

What's worse, is imagine yourself a young or new Christian and you've been told by people you respect that "Oh yes, there is a totally solid scientific case to be made for a global flood. Just look at salt in the pyramids, sea shell fossils on mountains, a break in Egyptian history, etc. That all makes sense if the earth was smooth before the flood and all the geologic features are post-flood."

So you go out into the world, perhaps to college, confident that you have the answers to those pesky scientists and atheists who don't believe the Bible. Then you come across one of those pesky people who knows something about these subjects, and every single one of those arguments you were told were so solid turn out to be absolute junk. The non-believer tells you, "Smooth earth? LOL! Do you have any idea how much energy would be required and heat generated to do that for even just one mountain range? You'd boil off the atmosphere!! Har, har, har!" Then "You've omitted entire Egyptian dynasties in your timeline. Why'd you do that? Sheesh!" And on and on it goes....

So this young Christian goes back to the people who told him all these things and says, "Um, these science-based flood arguments are terrible. They don't make any sense and are...well, just wrong." Then the leaders respond, "You just have to have faith and believe no matter what. Either the Bible is 100% literally true, or it's 100% a lie." What do you think that does to a young believer?

I'll tell you what it does in the next post....

 

[RiverJordan]

Davis Young is an evangelical Christian and geologist. He's written extensively about this question of "creation science" and the harm it does to evangelism...

"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done."

 

[RiverJordan]

Glenn Morton is an evangelical Christian scientist who used to be a young-earth creationist, but then...

"Within a year, I was processing seismic data for a major oil company.

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers and wonder how the flood could have deposited all that sediment and still given time for footprints to be formed if it was all deposited in one year. One could follow beds with footprints from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by such thicknesses of sediment that much time would have been required. I would see buried mountains which had experienced more than ten thousands of feet of erosion, which required more time than a single year. Yet, my belief system required that the sediments in those buried mountains had to have been deposited by the flood...

Over the next several years, I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a biblical perspective...In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would work more closely with geologic data. My horror only increased. The data I was seeing at work was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday.

Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. In general, they were not interested in discussing the difficulties and they did not want to read any material that contradicted their cherished position."

Glenn eventually abandoned young-earth creationism and presented a paper at a creationist conference. It didn't go well...

"The talk was not well received. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, and the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data! One person, claiming to have worked in the oil industry, came to the stage to challenge me. His challenge was insignificant and his claim of having worked in the industry was false. I was bothered by a Christian making false claims.

It appeared that the more questions I raised, the more they questioned my Christianity."

Gee, sounds familiar, doesn't it?