Mythological Scripture accepted as History

[The Nice Centurion]

A post in this thread made me think:
viewtopic.php?t=25006

Note that there is a difference between discussion of religion and discussion of history (though either can contain some reference to the other).

Few, if any, scholars or theologians regard the bible as a historical document. However, uninformed or minimally informed believers often regard it as historical.

The bible was indeed seen as History by western culture for longer than most people know.
A remarkable example here is the english empyre.
The empyres absolute thrust in biblical historicity sustained its might to swallow other cultures.
Officially all english scholars and scientist believed the whole bible to be history until Darwins works came out.
Then slowly thrust in the bible began to lose its attractivity.
(No wonder christians tend to despise him so!)

Before Darwin young earth creationism reigned supreme.
Though flat earth was the first thing christians had to officially let go a long time before Darwin.
(Therefore flat earth is the first biblical fact christians want to distance themselves from until today!)

Remarkable is the Paradox that scientific minds and studied Scholars for so long accepted the bible without question.

A hundred years ago from now european history schoolbooks still presented Jedus godliness and resurrection as historical fact.

What are the resons for above Paradox?

What other Cultures do and did take for how long scriptural evidence as history?
(I am sure that for example non-secular mohammedan states schoolbooks still present mohammeds phropheteness and quranic historicalicity as proven facts. I am also sure that Brigham Young University does the same with Mormon Phophets propheteness and BoM historical accuracy.)

What about ancient greece for example? Were Ilias and Odyssee or Tales of the greek gods interacting with humans taken as historical fact ?

Arguments from the bible are until today so common that this verx forum had to set a rule concerning them.

But for christians Arguments from the bible remain good weapons of course for apologetics.

Also christians do understandably have to fight for the historicity of Jesus resurrection, at the very least!

Most of christianitx had to let go good things like:
Flat earth
Geocentricism
Young earth

And strong under fire is the historicity of OT heroes like Moses as well as important OT happenings like Exodus which is essentially disproven.

How long can a religion outlive the dwindling historicity of its scripture?

[1213]

1. the original continent was broken. It means the water below the dry land escaped and flooded the earth. At the same time vast amount of water vapor was released, which caused the heavy rain. Flooding water obviously carried material away from the point where earth was broken, presumably one of these points is the Mid Atlantic ridge. This means sediment layers were formed to those places that the water went first.

Based on that scenario the earth would have remained covered with water. There was nowhere for it to go. Also, the sediments would not have been carried anywhere because the earth had to be covered with water and the water level was rising, not running away from anywhere.

At the beginning of the flood, water didn't cover instantly whole earth and it is said the water burst out of the "fountains of great deep". I understand that is basically something like geyser, a hot spring in which water intermittently boils, sending a tall column of water and steam into the air. When the fault line got bigger, the water was flooding faster from that point and carried stuff away from the fault line, which I think can be seen in the bottom of Atlantic ocean that is relatively clean of sediments. (water was under great pressure, which caused it to be hotter and when it was released, it forms water vapor that would cause rain).

2. After the continent was broken, it begun to sunk slowly. Collapsing parts of the continent that form the current continents compressed each others edges, which caused then orogenic mountains to the same locations where the water had carried sediments first.

Continents do not float on water. The crust of the earth is solid matter over a molten mantle underneath. Oceanic water is contained in depressions in the crust. No continent could ever break up and sink.

Today it is so. I don't think that is what it was before the flood.

3. Eventually all dry land was below water and obviously all kind of water animals found the new shallow areas in the areas of mountain tops.

Huh? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Sorry. I tried to say, at one point water covered all former dry land. And during that time water animals would have been near the top of the modern mountains. And when the water level begun to settle, some animals were captured to the mountain areas and became the marine fossils that we can now find there.

4. And after everything had settled, water level started to get lower, for example because water compressed all drowned stuff and because it was collected to the great glaciers that were the result of cooled climate and ice age that was result of the flood. And then some water animals on high mountain areas were captured to fresh sediments when the water level decreased.

Another impossibility. The bulk of the matter under water could not have been compressed. The fact is that there was nowhere for all that flood water to go. Water contained in glaciers would have to have taken a very, very long time to collect as snow and ice. That would not account for the amount needed to recede anyway. To create the biblical flood scenario it would take more than four times the total amount of water that is present on the earth. The whole thing is impossible. Whatever the point you are making about water animals I have no idea.

In current form we would need more water. But not when the flood happened. And I think it is ridiculous to claim water would not compress the sunken material. For example 100 m water weights about 100000 kg (100 metric tons) (Today average depth of oceans is 3,688 meters (12,100 feet). Here are good videos to show what great pressure like that can cause https://www.youtube.com/c/HydraulicPressChannel/videos

[1213]

I think it is ridiculous belief to think that mountains rise only because of the modern convection theory. It requires magical forces that doesn't really exist in the nature.

Unlike biblical magic, there are real forces at play on the crust of the earth. The convection currents within the molten mantle produce horizontal pressure on the crustal plates. When two plates are pushed towards each other the edges are forced upward where they collide. You can easily demonstrate this for yourself. Roll out two slabs of clay or dough and butt the straight edges against each other. Apply horizontal pressure on each slab pushing them towards each other. They will buckle and rise up at the interface. That's how mountains form.

If we believe continents are like slabs floating on spherical surface, the weight of the mater would level all mountains in that scenario. The convection can't over come for example the weight of Himalaya. Plates would act more like concrete in this test:



If you try to push it, ti only would spread to other direction and level automatically because of the weight. World surface would be flat, if the modern continent theory would be true.

[1213]

...
Yes, and if add up all that water that is in the crust, it won't be nearly enough. In fact, the water in the crust is not free flowing , but bound up into the structure of a rock they call 'ringwood'. .. which makes that scenario physically impossible. And, it's still not enough water to 'come up from the fountains of the deep, ' nor is there any evidence that 'fountains of the deep' exist or exists. ...

I think the "ringwood" is interesting additional evidence for the great flood, but the water for the great flood was different matter. And obviously, the fountains don't exist anymore, at least not in that size. But, for example the geysers in Iceland may be the last remains of the fountains of great deep.

[1213]

...
Solids and liquids are extremely difficult to compress.

Good that we can agree on one point. I think that is a crucial information to understand why the dry land could have been on top of vast water mass, if the water could not have escaped from below it.

[1213]

If the entire earth was covered with water, then God had some floating above, which then broke and sank, how was it that the entire earth did not return to being covered in water? Your scenario makes no sense

Because the stuff that is covered with water, is under great pressure that compresses the matter, which then causes the level of water to get down and it looks like mountains rise from the ocean.

[brunumb]

If the entire earth was covered with water, then God had some floating above, which then broke and sank, how was it that the entire earth did not return to being covered in water? Your scenario makes no sense

Because the stuff that is covered with water, is under great pressure that compresses the matter, which then causes the level of water to get down and it looks like mountains rise from the ocean.

Solids and liquids do not get compressed even under great pressure. There is no space between the molecules to allow it to happen.

I have not addressed all the errors in your other posts as it is clearly a waste of time. All the science that we know and the evidence we have collected conclusively demonstrate that not only did the biblical flood not occur, it could not have occurred.

[The Nice Centurion]

If the entire earth was covered with water, then God had some floating above, which then broke and sank, how was it that the entire earth did not return to being covered in water? Your scenario makes no sense

Because the stuff that is covered with water, is under great pressure that compresses the matter, which then causes the level of water to get down and it looks like mountains rise from the ocean.

And you know all that, and yet you still deny flat earth ?

[1213]

Solids and liquids do not get compressed even under great pressure.

Ok, that is true. What has been compressed is most of the air and gas out of the sunken matter, which is why the water level has gone down after the great flood.

...All the science that we know and the evidence we have collected conclusively demonstrate that not only did the biblical flood not occur, it could not have occurred.

I disagree with that.

[brunumb]

Solids and liquids do not get compressed even under great pressure.

Ok, that is true. What has been compressed is most of the air and gas out of the sunken matter, which is why the water level has gone down after the great flood.

Please consider just how much sunken matter containing gas would be needed to achieve what you are suggesting. Not a chance.

...All the science that we know and the evidence we have collected conclusively demonstrate that not only did the biblical flood not occur, it could not have occurred.

I disagree with that.

Of course you do, but that is irrelevant. It is the unavoidable truth.

[TRANSPONDER]

Solids and liquids do not get compressed even under great pressure.

Ok, that is true. What has been compressed is most of the air and gas out of the sunken matter, which is why the water level has gone down after the great flood.

...All the science that we know and the evidence we have collected conclusively demonstrate that not only did the biblical flood not occur, it could not have occurred.

I disagree with that.

That doesn't work in claiming any extra or special compression of what was already there when the lid was on (when it broke up it would sink in the water even if one accepts the rock - rooved ocean model with the roof supposedly supported by the water). If anything, the rains would wash more stuff (in a non -stratified mess) into the ocean and make the water rise rather than sink. To make the 'walls' appear as the mountains, you have to explain where all that water went.

P.s I do rather like the "Evilooshun" debate (1) but it is irrelevant, as proving a Creator still leaves us with "Which one?" . I have seen the apologetics. Proof of Genesis then leaps wildly to accepting Jesus. Some Christians know that it is not needful to try to maintain belief in Genesis, and to me , Genesis - literalism it is become an article of Faith. I think these people think that one can either be a Christian or accept evolution and deep time geology, but not both.

True, if Genesis is rejected, then the whole doctrine of sin -death and the need to redeem it goes out of the window. But since the Creationists haven't though that far yet, we won't tell 'em eh?

We will however consider some aspects of the Hydroplate theory.



(1) Evolution a scientific Theory of biodiversity "Evilooshun" A Darwinist religion only a theory claim that everything appeared out of nowhere, for no reason." We have to understand that the two 'Theories' are different things.