Anti-Neocons

I'm indifferent about the actual evidence and data for/against a global flood. I was only interested (as I said on the 2nd page of this thread) in discussing the physical possibility of a global flood, not whether it actually happened or not.

Whether there is any geological, archaeological or historical evidence to support such a thing as actually happening or not, makes no difference to me.

The flood is a supporting event for series of events of that magnitude, if not greater. If the flood is not believed neither will the other things.

The NT makes it clear that even Apostles were allowed to be shown proof (in a specific way) before something would be believed with no penalty other than they were somewhat less than the ones called blessed from that point forward. Thomas was still part of the group.

Do you think GOD has a problem with logistics? Too busy is not found in Scripture. Is the resurrection of those going to be less of an event?

That’s the point.

Many claims made in the Bible and the Qu’ran have been proven false. Followers like sheep believe despite common sense.



This is a red herring as the data (physical evidence) to support that a flood never happened isn't dependent on how 'god' feels about logistics. From a practical standpoint, 'god' certainly has a technical problem of logistics because there is no data whatsoever to support his/her/its claim that the Earth was ever entirely covered with water.

Phys, it's time for your circular logic circle picture.

"If you believe part you must believe the rest."

That is the opposite of rational:

"If part is wrong, the rest can't be taken on faith."

_________________
Is your view of the world in sync with what you 'know' about the world?

"The state breaks everything and then blames freedom.
The state destroys everything and then blames those who interact voluntarily for that destruction."
-- Stefan Molyneux

I would say the fallacy is more a converse fallacy of accident.
Out of context that is true.

However, the entire Bible (all) is supposed to be the inspired word of god. If you start to poke holes in that, such as the flood never happened, the Earth is more the 5 thousand years old and so and so, then it is a reasonable conclusion to assume the entire thing is flawed because it was set up on the premise the entire thing was correct. The Bible is an absolute not a sometimes all I have to do is show one occurrence that it is not.


How I would have said it:

If the flood is not believed neither should the other things.

And that is truly the very best way to put things. Some books can be viewed and they eventually turn out to be factual or misleading. Rather than loony-toony it might be better to view my words as toony (in that land is an ally to God and it will do what He bids it to do ((swallow))so that is more 3D manipulation than hard acting skills.)

That still leaves a lot of words that might be more than just meaningless chatter.

For instance, Daniel 11, when that sort of program begins to unfold, reverberations have already been determined. When last seen it was headed toward the clouds, the return will be from the same direction. The gifts brought is what determines if it is foe or friend.

If the same level of detail (start time-end time, given in timed events, and somewhat un-jointed until other text is included.)

In ways of precision there is a set time, attempts to change or alter from what was originally laid down will not carry any effect, to any great extent.


These are the types of details you would prefer had no discussion? or made fanciful so as to not be believable by default.


(previous post)
The next two covenants come into play at the end of the 7th seal (It is done) and at the end of Judgment Day, both times "It is done" is uttered indicating a completion of a set of events, the last two of three events determined.