Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Biblical inerrancy


Doug1066
 Share

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Not a bad compilation except for the fact that the flood stories as written are Mesopotamian in origin which makes the Egyptian flood irrelevant to same. At least you didn’t claim the 6080 BP event was The Great Flood this time. 

cormac

As I noted, the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone controls weather in both regions.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

So was the Biblical flood. 
 

cormac

The Flood story took a real flood, exagerated it and added a boat.  In that sense, you are right.  It's that real flood I want to now more about.

What were the "fountains of the deep?"  The Atrahasis version may just have the answer.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

So was the Biblical flood. 
 

cormac

One thought here:  the Egyptians invented hieroglyphics in about 5000 BP.  If The Flood occurred much after that date, we'd have an Egyptian record of it.  In fact, there is an Egyptian record of what might have been a flood about 4860 BP.  We have to put The Flood somewhere and later than 5000 BP won't work.  So that leaves before.

Maybe you're not familiar with climate change in that part of the world.  After the Younger Dryas was the Climatic Optimum in which the Sahara was a grass-covered savana.  There were some gigantic lakes in what is now the Sahara.  About 6100 BP this began to change.  The Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone moved southward and the Sahara became hyper-arid.  The three floods, of which the 6080 BP flood was the first, could not have occurred much after 5500 BP.  That doesn't leave a lot of room to squeeze in a super-flood.

This was a world-wide climate shift.  It happened in North America and South America too.  Climate change is linked together world-wide.  The long-term averages change together.  

Under your system, The Flood could not have occurred at all, because there is no time it could have happened.

So how do you explain a flood happening after the invention of writing, yet nobody wrote about it?

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While not definitive it should be pointed out that Enmebaragesi of Kish is the first archaeologically attested king who fought Gilgamesh per Shulgi Hymn O. Considering that Enmebaragesi is 20+ in line and contemporary to Gilgamesh circa 2600 BC this would place the beginning of the First Dynasty sometime around 2900 - 3000 BC and nowhere near 4080BC. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

One thought here:  the Egyptians invented hieroglyphics in about 5000 BP.  If The Flood occurred much after that date, we'd have an Egyptian record of it.  In fact, there is an Egyptian record of what might have been a flood about 4860 BP.  We have to put The Flood somewhere and later than 5000 BP won't work.  So that leaves before.

Maybe you're not familiar with climate change in that part of the world.  After the Younger Dryas was the Climatic Optimum in which the Sahara was a grass-covered savana.  There were some gigantic lakes in what is now the Sahara.  About 6100 BP this began to change.  The Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone moved southward and the Sahara became hyper-arid.  The three floods, of which the 6080 BP flood was the first, could not have occurred much after 5500 BP.  That doesn't leave a lot of room to squeeze in a super-flood.

This was a world-wide climate shift.  It happened in North America and South America too.  Climate change is linked together world-wide.  The long-term averages change together.  

Under your system, The Flood could not have occurred at all, because there is no time it could have happened.

So how do you explain a flood happening after the invention of writing, yet nobody wrote about it?

Doug

Closer to 3100 BC. No we wouldn’t as the oldest attested text we have from Egypt is the Diary of Merer which dates to the time of Khufu circa 2550 BC. 
 

You’d be surprised by what I know. 
 

How do you know WHAT people wrote about as no actual written account exists in Egypt before the Diary of Merer? It’s considered almost a miracle that it even exists. 
 

ETA:  The Instructions of Shuruppak are amongst the oldest extant texts in Mesopotamia dating circa 2600 - 2500 BC. 
 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Closer to 3100 BC. No we wouldn’t as the oldest attested text we have from Egypt is the Diary of Merer which dates to the time of Khufu circa 2550 BC. 

3100 BC = 5050 BP.

2550 BC = 4600 BP.

We've got a thousand years to squeeze in a megaflood.  By 3100 BC the two subsequent megafloods had happened and the Near East was drying out.  The Yellow Nile became a dry wadi about 4000 BP.

25 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

How do you know WHAT people wrote about as no actual written account exists in Egypt before the Diary of Merer? It’s considered almost a miracle that it even exists. 

Would they write about something when they couldn't write?  There's really not much difference between 2550 BC and 3000 BC.  450 years is quite a small error in geology.  Back about 6000 BP, most 14C dates have roughly a 150-year standard error.  The 6080 date's 40-year error was the result of taking many 14C readings.

32 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

ETA:  The Instructions of Shuruppak are amongst the oldest extant texts in Mesopotamia dating circa 2600 - 2500 BC. 

Are they an account, or are they're a fanciful tale?  Guess I'll have to read them.

Anyway, it's getting late and I need some sleep.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

3100 BC = 5050 BP.

2550 BC = 4600 BP.

We've got a thousand years to squeeze in a megaflood.  By 3100 BC the two subsequent megafloods had happened and the Near East was drying out.  The Yellow Nile became a dry wadi about 4000 BP.

Would they write about something when they couldn't write?  There's really not much difference between 2550 BC and 3000 BC.  450 years is quite a small error in geology.  Back about 6000 BP, most 14C dates have roughly a 150-year standard error.  The 6080 date's 40-year error was the result of taking many 14C readings.

Are they an account, or are they're a fanciful tale?  Guess I'll have to read them.

Anyway, it's getting late and I need some sleep.

Doug

Irrelevant to the fact there are no extant texts anywhere near 6000 BP. 
 

150 years is not 450 years no matter how you wish to parse it. 
 

Does it really matter, they’re written texts and nowhere near 6000 BP. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it so interesting that you boys are focusing on the flood. But, whatever moves you is alright with me.  I think of the flood as this.  It is one of the top ten proofs that the God of the Bible is not the real God.  
 

Really, God understands that the world is wicked, but he decides to kill everyone, but keep some people of the world alive?  That is so dumb.  That is like a failed science experiment.  Really?  You want me to believe that the God who made everything wasn’t smart enough to realize that if he started over with the same things he had, he’d get a different result?

OMG.  That is so dumb, but people believe it because of Santa Claus.  No God who had any sense would start over with the same damn thing, then expect something different. It’s dumb.  The real God doesn’t need a flood that can be  confirmed by science.  If people need killing, and there’s a God?  You’re done.  There’s no discussion, you’re done.  Oh, you believe that God bows to freewill?  I don’t think so, but yalll believe whatever you want.  I don’t believe God kills people, requires blood sacrifice or was dumb enough to not know that Adam needed a mate.  But whatever, that’s just my opinion.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that according to the first six chapters of Genesis, the God who made the universe knew how to make all species, except for the one made in his image.  He didn’t know what man was because he only added Eve after Adam spent a long time alone, working really hard.  Really?  The God who made us didn’t know that Adam couldn’t mate with animals successfully?  OMG.  The whole thing is false.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I find it so interesting that you boys are focusing on the flood. But, whatever moves you is alright with me.  I think of the flood as this.  It is one of the top ten proofs that the God of the Bible is not the real God.  
 

Really, God understands that the world is wicked, but he decides to kill everyone, but keep some people of the world alive?  That is so dumb.  That is like a failed science experiment.  Really?  You want me to believe that the God who made everything wasn’t smart enough to realize that if he started over with the same things he had, he’d get a different result?

OMG.  That is so dumb, but people believe it because of Santa Claus.  No God who had any sense would start over with the same damn thing, then expect something different. It’s dumb.  The real God doesn’t need a flood that can be  confirmed by science.  If people need killing, and there’s a God?  You’re done.  There’s no discussion, you’re done.  Oh, you believe that God bows to freewill?  I don’t think so, but yalll believe whatever you want.  I don’t believe God kills people, requires blood sacrifice or was dumb enough to not know that Adam needed a mate.  But whatever, that’s just my opinion.

Our debate doesn’t involve God or a reason “why”, it’s just about whether or not the story was based on a real flood and if so which one might it be. The religious trappings don’t really enter into it. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Our debate doesn’t involve God or a reason “why”, it’s just about whether or not the story was based on a real flood and if so which one might it be. The religious trappings don’t really enter into it. 
 

cormac

But everyone knows floods are real.  Of course a flood happened when people were learning how to write.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Guyver said:

But everyone knows floods are real.  Of course a flood happened when people were learning how to write.

True, but in this case Doug just HAS to find a mega-flood to pin the story on as no other flood is good enough regardless of the timeframe. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Guyver said:

OMG.  That is so dumb, . . ."  No God who had any sense would start over with the same damn thing, then expect something different. 

YHWW did get something different. He got rid of the "Nephilim." Wicked spirit creatures from heaven that impregnated the daughters of men. He had to eliminate them; otherwise, we would have had freaks running around. Than's one of the reasons for the flood, Guyver.

Edited by larryp
the details
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, larryp said:

YHWW did get something different. He got rid of the "Nephilim." Wicked spirit creatures from heaven that impregnated the daughters of men. He had to eliminate them; otherwise, we would have had freaks running around. Than's one of the reasons for the flood, Guyver.

You can't even get that right.:rolleyes:

The nephilim were human+angel hybrids. It wasn't wicked spirits. God's own angels did that. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Guyver said:

But everyone knows floods are real.  Of course a flood happened when people were learning how to write.

The thread seems stuck on a literal flood, preferably having occurred nearly within the span of literacy in the area affected.

If you'd like a really big flood, then Robert Ballard's Black Sea flood (searchable) might serve. It's from preliterate time, but may have shaped storytelling patterns among the survivors. Meh, it's also an excuse to take annual grant-funded excursions to what is (except recently because of the war) among the nicest cruising destinations in the world.

But I think if you found your flood in a storybook, as is the overall premise of the thread, then please consider that The Flood is archetypal: not any specific real event but an "event template" onto which real events can be projected, among many other ways archetypes find expression. In particular, a very popular dream motif is the "private refuge on great waters." This popularity has something to do with "great waters" being among the source-of-dreams' favorite images of itself.

You're looking for the "source" of a fairy tale, derivative of earlier fairy tales, in some wet spell somewhere in the ancient Near East around the invention of writing. Meanwhile, much better sources were dreamt afresh a million times within the last month, if it was a slow month for Great Waters dreams.

There are plenty of big floods, and always have been. There is no "The Flood," not in the literal sense. At best, you'll get a head-turning headline when you promote your research (it worked for Ballard, maybe it'll work for you, too.) I am not a child, I understand that attracting head-turning headlines is part of science. Not the "truthy" part of science, however.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

150 years is not 450 years no matter how you wish to parse it. 

5050 - 4600 = 450

 

9 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Irrelevant to the fact there are no extant texts anywhere near 6000 BP. 

That's why we use geology.  It's records go back well into the Ice Age (Actually farther if you want to dig that deep.).

 

9 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Does it really matter, they’re written texts and nowhere near 6000 BP.

They were written perhaps thousands of years after the fact:  "It was a tale my grandfather told me...."  Accuracy is nowhere guaranteed.  And for that reason, they don't make good data sources.

 

9 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

True, but in this case Doug just HAS to find a mega-flood to pin the story on as no other flood is good enough regardless of the timeframe. 

There's no guarantee that it was a megaflood.  But 100-year floods, when they make it into the geologic record, leave mixed flood layers, if they leave any.

But there was that flood at Ur.  Was it a megaflood, or just a minor belch from Wadi al-Batin?  Whatever it was, it now seems the best bet for Noah's flood.

We are talking about a flood that supposedly covered the whole world.  While 6080 didn't do that, it was the biggest thing to hit the area during the mid-to-late Holocene.

Doug

P S.:  Somewhere I read of a sediment core that showed the entire Mesopotamian strat column down to the Younger Dryas.  If showed four flood layers.  I have not been able to relocate the paper.  If any of you could enlighten me on that, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

5050 - 4600 = 450

 

That's why we use geology.  It's records go back well into the Ice Age (Actually farther if you want to dig that deep.).

 

They were written perhaps thousands of years after the fact:  "It was a tale my grandfather told me...."  Accuracy is nowhere guaranteed.  And for that reason, they don't make good data sources.

 

There's no guarantee that it was a megaflood.  But 100-year floods, when they make it into the geologic record, leave mixed flood layers, if they leave any.

But there was that flood at Ur.  Was it a megaflood, or just a minor belch from Wadi al-Batin?  Whatever it was, it now seems the best bet for Noah's flood.

We are talking about a flood that supposedly covered the whole world.  While 6080 didn't do that, it was the biggest thing to hit the area during the mid-to-late Holocene.

Doug

P S.:  Somewhere I read of a sediment core that showed the entire Mesopotamian strat column down to the Younger Dryas.  If showed four flood layers.  I have not been able to relocate the paper.  If any of you could enlighten me on that, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks

Doug

Geology can help find “a” flood, it will not make it “the” flood without further supporting evidence especially the further away from written records it gets. 
 

How do you know that? There’s evidence within Shulgi Hymn O, for example, as well as the Epic of Gilgamesh that would only place the flood story within the confines of the early 3rd millennium BC at best. It would be best served to concentrate research within that 400 year period, 2600 - 3000 BC IMO. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

You can't even get that right.:rolleyes:

The nephilim were human+angel hybrids. It wasn't wicked spirits. God's own angels did that. 

That's what made them wicked. They left their natural dwelling place and materialized bodies to have sex with the daughters of men. By the way, this is Scriptural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, larryp said:

YHWW did get something different. He got rid of the "Nephilim." Wicked spirit creatures from heaven that impregnated the daughters of men. He had to eliminate them; otherwise, we would have had freaks running around. Than's one of the reasons for the flood, Guyver.

Is that the story your minister told you that emphasises the Evilness of women, because they mated with nephalim?   How manipulative.   

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, larryp said:

That's what made them wicked. They left their natural dwelling place and materialized bodies to have sex with the daughters of men. By the way, this is Scriptural.

What book, paragraph, and page?   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Geology can help find “a” flood, it will not make it “the” flood without further supporting evidence especially the further away from written records it gets. 

True.  It can identify a bunch of candidates, but cannot choose among them.

 

38 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

How do you know that? There’s evidence within Shulgi Hymn O, for example, as well as the Epic of Gilgamesh that would only place the flood story within the confines of the early 3rd millennium BC at best. It would be best served to concentrate research within that 400 year period, 2600 - 3000 BC IMO. 

Woolley's estimate was 3500 BC.  So was Kramer's and Mallowan's.  Early third millennium would be contemporaneous with the pyramids - the Egyptians would have noted and recorded it,

The Palermo Stone shows a high-water mark about 2900 BC.  That would be a flood in that period.  It happened, but water-level at Thebes only reached 14 cubits.  That's not a very impressive flood.  There are two unexplained water marks on the temple that show much higher water levels.

We badly need a 14C or OSE date on those flood layers.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 10:17 PM, Doug1066 said:

There is a school of thought that the Bible, being “the Word of God,” is error free (inerrant).  Is this true?

Before we start, let us put this in scientific terms which distinguish between “error,” which is built into the measuring system and “mistake” which is a human-induced deviation from truth.  A tall man reads a temperature gauge low because he looks downward past the hand to the dial.  He does this every time without thinking about it, so when his readings are averaged they are inherently low.  A short man reads the gauge high and produces an average biased to the high side.  This is “error,” an inaccuracy built into the system by the heights of the two men, or the heights of the platform on which they stand.  It is nobody’s fault; it just is.

Mistakes are created by inverting two digits, like reading “29” and writing “92” on the form.  Oklahoma Weather Bulletins from the early 1900s have many arithmetic mistakes created by inadvertently switching lines in the middle of data entry.  These, while unintentional, render data difficult or impossible to use.

Another concept we need is “evidence.”  Evidence must bear directly on the question being addressed:  Is there a god?  Yes Or No.  And it must be clear enough that unbiased observers from opposite sides of the issue can agree on its meaning.

For the question of biblical inerrancy, our evidence is the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) itself.

Joshua 15:33-36

33 And in the valley, Eshtaol, and Zoreah, and Ashnah,

34 And Zanoah, and Engannim, Tappuah, and Enam,

35 Jarmuth, and Adullam, Socoh, and Azekah,

36 And Sharaim, and Adithaim, and Gederah, and Gederothaim; fourteen cities with their villages:

 

There are fifteen cities listed, but verse 15:36 says there are 14.  This is a simple counting mistake.

 

Joshua 15:48-51

48 And in the mountains, Shamir, and Jattir, and Socoh,

49 And Dannah, and Kirjathsannah, which is Debir,

50 And Anab, and Eshtemoh, and Anim,

51 And Goshen, and Holon, and Giloh; eleven cities with their villages:

 

There are 12 cities listed, but verse 15:51 says there are 11.

 

 

But the author of Joshua isn’t done yet.

Joshua 15:23-32

23 And Kedesh, and Hazor, and Ithnan,

24 Ziph, and Telem, and Bealoth,

25 And Hazor, Hadattah, and Kerioth, and Hezron, which is Hazor,

26 Amam, and Shema, and Moladah,

27 And Hazargaddah, and Heshmon, and Bethpalet,

28 And Hazarshual, and Beersheba, and Bizjothjah,

29 Baalah, and Iim, and Azem,

30 And Eltolad, and Chesil, and Hormah,

31 And Ziklag, and Madmannah, and Sansannah,

32 And Lebaoth, and Shilhim, and Ain, and Rimmon: all the cities are twenty and nine, with their villages:

 

There are 31 cities listed (Hazor/Hezron is listed twice.), but verse 15:32 says there are 29.

These are three counting mistakes, admittedly trivial, but they serve to prove that the Bible contains mistakes.  If the Bible contains mistakes, it can’t be inerrant; hence inerrancy is disproven.  QED.

From an ex-Catholic's perspective, it is believed that some sections are inerrant while others are not. The Pope can make the decision whether or not something is considered inerrant. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

for Shurrupak (Fara) a deposit of clay and sand of about 60 cm. thickness over an “ordinary patch of charcoal and ashes” above the Jamdat Nasr level and below the Early Dynastic: it is dated to c. 2850 B.C. AS these levels are dated c. 3000 B.C. and c. 2850 respectively,

For Ur the table records flood deposits from 3·72 to 0·72 metres thick in c. 3500 B.C. at the end of the ‘Ubaid period (the text records greater depths) and deposits of unknown depth dated to c. 2700 B.C.

Raikes quoting Mallowan

Suggests three different floods (3500 BC, 2850 BC and 2700 BC).  Probably a fourth one about 2350 BC.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I wanted @larryp to answer where he has found it in scripture as he seems to disagree about who the Nephalim were and is the one who claims what he says is in scripture.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.