There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

You need to select words a bit more cautiously. 'Most scientist' have absolutely no opinion on the floods validity, from a scientific perspective. The only scientist that may have an opinion would be geologist.Your statement should read, 'Some geologist have claimed there is evidence for a global flood'.Now your next step is to show evidence for this claim.Show enough evidence, or at least cite a paper, that shows the sediment throughout the Earth shows equal signs of a global flood, and at equal time frames. That way you are not thought to be making assertions about geological events that may or may not have occured.* See that would be 1 way the Biblical story of a global flood can be disproven, give Coyote a bit to respond and he'll point out a few other reasons which he has shown before in this forum.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

On what basis can you say that the Bible is an eyewitness testimony? How can Genesis possibly be an eyewitness testimony? Humanity wasn't even created until the sixth day, so how can accounts of the previous days be eyewitness testimony?The Bible is a collection of material from many different sources, written long after the (often entirely fictional) events they describe supposedly took place. Because scepticism is the normal way of approaching historical sources. This is entirely proper. Neither you nor I was there at the time and not every historical source is going to be correct. That is why we need to carefully assess the evidence in ancient texts like the Bible, weighing it against other sources, archaeological findings, etc.The Bible should not get a free pass when it comes to evidence of this kind. If it is accurate, there should be evidence to confirm it. If there is no evidence, then it is entirely reasonable to doubt the Biblical accounts. Listen to what you're saying. You don't believe that ancient records are sufficient to prove that any historical character existed. Thus, you will believe the Bible, apparently without much question. If you don't mind my saying, that is both contradictory and credulous.Taking the Bible's word for it may be just fine with you, but it's not good enough for me. Furthermore, the purpose of this thread is to demonstrate evidence for the existence of Biblical figures, evidence that is comparable with the evidence for Julius Caesar for example. If you are not interested in providing such evidence, you are wasting your time posting here. The Bible's flat Earth is supported by rather more than just that one quote. Take a look here at an interesting article on the subject. Of particular interest is the material towards the bottom of the page about the Book of Enoch. Although it is non-canon, 1 Enoch gives a very clear description of the kind of Hebrew cosmology that existed in the vivid imaginations of the Bible's authors. The Earth in 1 Enoch is very definitely flat. Read Genesis again, but this time try to imagine it from a flat Earth viewpoint. It make much more sense, especially if you imagine the sky as being the dome-like cover of a flat Earth cosmos. From the above source;

quote:

---

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.

---

What would really be surprising would be if the ancient Hebrews knew something that no-one else knew, yet chose to keep quiet about it. If they knew the Earth was a sphere, why did they not mention that? I would have thought it would be worth mentioning.Face it, pulling out Genesis as a bastion of historical evidence is just laughable. Sorry.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Gday, Nope.
In fact there were TWO different MSS of Isaiah found in the DSS.One,
very different to out modern copy.The other,
more similar, but with quite a few significant differences.These differences in the DSS Isaiah has lead recent Bible translation committees to CHANGE the text of the Bible as a result.Here are some examples :Isaiah 3:24
The RSV and NRSV consider the meaning of the MT difficult and find clarification in 1QIsaa, which adds bsht (shame) following ky, understood in its usual meaning of “for” or “because,” translating, “for shame shall take the place of beauty.” However, HOTTP points out that ky can be understood as a noun meaning “branding mark,” and the MT can be translated, without resorting to the 1QIsaa reading, as does the NJV, “a burn instead of beauty.” This would mean that the 1QIsaa scribe may have been unfamiliar with the rare meaning of ky as a noun and supplied the Hebrew word for “shame” as a reasonable complement.Isaiah 7:14
NIV, alone, makes note of the 1QIsaa reading, wqr’ (masculine) for the MT wqr’t (apparently second person feminine singular, but perhaps third person). It seems clear that 1QIsaa is once again seeking to simplify a difficult form (Rosenbloom 1970:125). There seems little reason to provide a textual note here.Isaiah 8:2
The MT and 4QIsae have a first person future verb form for “I will call as witness(es),” while 1QIsaa reads wh’d, an imperative form, “and have it attested,” as in NRSV. The NIV translates the MT (with 4QIsae), “And I will call in Uriah the priest and Zechariah . as reliable witnesses for me.” Some translations translate the consonants of the MT, but change the vowel of the first letter from we to wa, changing it to the past tense. The future tense of the NIV, however, is a legitimate tense shift in prophetic literature, reflecting the prophet’s certainty that he will be the agent of God’s message. In any case, it does not seem necessary to resort to the 1QIsaa reading.Isaiah 11:6
The MT and 4QIsac add to the list of two animals, “calf and beast of prey (lion),” a third, wmry’ “and the fatling.” Early commentators proposed that this noun be emended to a verb, ymr’w “will feed.” This reading is now found in 1QIsaa and is recommended by the HOTTP committee for translation, as in the GNB, “Calves and lion cubs will feed together.” The NJV mentions this Qumran reading in a note. The NIV also notes this reading in a footnote but fails to mention the Qumran evidence.Isaiah 14:4
The NJV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV all follow 1QIsaa in the text. It is the only Qumran reading followed by all eight of the translations studied by Clark (1984). The NJV provides the explanation of this remarkable unanimity: “madhebah (the MT) is of unknown meaning.” It is likely that one letter, d, in the MT is incorrect, and the text should read r, a letter that is quite similar in shape. In fact, this is the reading of 1QIsaa: marhebah, and is translated “insolence” (NRSV), “fury” (NIV), or in similar terms. In many cases the MT presents difficulties for the translator because of certain obscurities in Hebrew grammar or lexicography. But in some cases, as here, the difficulty is created by textual corruption, and the Qumran evidence provides valuable assistance.Isaiah 14:30
The RSV and NRSV follow 1QIsaa in translating, “I will slay,” instead of “he/it will slay.” The Isaiah scroll seems to better fit the context in which this passage is preceded by another first person singular verb. Among the ancient versions, only the Latin agrees with 1QIsaa. Burrows finds the Qumran reading quite convincing (1955:307), and the NEB/REB concur. However, HOTTP prefers the MT, explaining the shift to third person as a reference back to “the venomous serpent” of 14:29.Isaiah 15:9
In Isaiah’s oracle against Moab, the well-known Moabite city of Dibon is mentioned in 15:2. In 15:9 Dimon is mentioned twice in the MT. 1QIsab agrees with the MT, but is only extant for the first occurrence. The RSV and NRSV follow the 1QIsaa reading, “Dibon,” and the NIV cites this Qumran evidence in a note. Should the translator follow 1QIsaa or 1QIsab? Dimon may be understood as an alternate name for Dibon, using this name as a literary device to sound like the Hebrew word dam (blood) in the same verse. This explanation is plausible, since name puns are used elsewhere in the OT. It is also possible that this is another city in Moab, although it is otherwise unknown. The RSV opted for the 1QIsaa harmonization with 15:2. Burrows (1955:307-308) implies that this is one of the thirteen 1QIsaa readings adopted by the RSV committee that he would reject upon later reflection. However, the NRSV retains Dibon. The NEB translates “Dimon,” while the REB renders “Dibon,” but fails to offer any textual note, in contradiction to their general policy of citing Qumran evidence.Isaiah 19:18
In a note, NIV cites Q (= Qumran), along with some MSS of the MT in support of the reading “City of the Sun.” Other versions, including RSV and NRSV, read “City of the Sun” in the text without adding a textual note. This follows the general practice of many translations that do not cite textual variants if there is any manuscript support in the Masoretic tradition.Isaiah 21:8
The NJV offers an English rendering of the difficult MT, “And [like] a lion he called out.” The bracketed “like,” which is not part of the MT, makes “lion” a simile and helps it to fit the context. Otherwise, “lion” hardly seems appropriate here. Earlier translations resorted to conjectural emendation here, but now 1QIsaa offers a more intelligible reading, hr’h (the lookout/watcher/sentry) for the MT ’ryh (lion). The NIV, GNB, RSV, and NRSV all follow the Qumran reading in the text. HOTTP suggests that translators may follow 1QIsaa, although it believes that this is “certainly not the original text.”Isaiah 23:2-3
1QIsaa differs from the last word of verse 2 in two letters, adding kaph and reading yodh instead of waw, “your messengers,” instead of “they filled you.” 1QIsab appears to offer the same reading, although 4QIsaa reads ml’k, probably in agreement with the MT. The NAB, RSV, and NRSV follow Qumran, connecting “messengers” with the “merchants” of the previous line. The NJV and NIV translate the MT, and NIV gives the Qumran reading in a note. It is reasonable to assume that 1QIsaa preserves the better reading here.Isaiah 29:5
The RSV translates the first line of the verse, “But the multitude of your foes,” adding a footnote to explain that “foes” is based on a conjecture for the MT zryk (your strangers). The NRSV has made no change here, but the NAB follows 1QIsaa zdyk “your arrogance,” and the NJV cites the same Qumran evidence in a footnote. Apparently, the NRSV did not find the Qumran evidence compelling and retained the conjecture to clarify the more difficult reading of the MT. The GNB translates it “foreigners,” a rendering that is appropriate to the context.Isaiah 33:8
The RSV, NRSV, NAB, and NIV follow 1QIsaa in reading ’dym “witnesses” instead of the MT ’rym “cities.” “Witnesses” seems appropriate to the meaning of the passage, and the interchange of resh for daleth is understandable in light of the similarity of the letter shapes. The NJV also calls attention to this reading in a footnote.Isaiah 34:5
The NJV cites the 1QIsaa variant, “be seen,” in a note. The NEB and REB place the Qumran reading, tr’h, in the text. Other modern translations follow the MT, “be drunk,” although the GNB, “The Lord has prepared his sword in heaven” may be based on a conjecture that adds mem to the beginning of the word.Isaiah 37:25
Although the NIV generally follows the MT more often than other modern translations, in this case the NIV alone puts the reading of 1QIsaa, zrym (foreign), in its translation, “I have dug wells in foreign lands and drunk the water there.” While this is a plausible reading, it may be a case of assimilation to a parallel passage in 2 Kings 19:24. 1QIsaa contains a number of other examples of assimilation to parallel passages in Kings.Isaiah 37:27
The RSV and NRSV translators were influenced in their translation here by the parallel passage of 2 Kings 19:26, preferring “blighted” for the MT “field.” The NJV and NIV cite 1QIsaa’s reading, hnshdp, and translate “blasted/scorched,” which appears to be the preferred reading.Isaiah 45:2
The second line in the MT reads, “I will level the swellings/rough places.” The Hebrew word rendered “swellings” occurs only here in the OT. 1QIsaa reads hrrym “mountains,” which is followed by the NIV, NAB, and RSV/NRSV.Isaiah 45:8
The RSV and NRSV follow the 1QIsaa reading wyprch for the MT wyprw, a difference of only one letter, cheth for waw, which yields the translation, “that salvation may sprout forth [RSV]/spring up [NRSV],” instead of, “that they may bring forth salvation.” The NAB follows the same Qumran reading. The NEB and GNB, in dynamic equivalent renderings, demonstrate that both the MT and Qumran express a common idea. The NEB translates, “that it may bear the fruit of salvation,” and the GNB has, “[it] will blossom with freedom and justice.” Neither translation has a textual note here. HOTTP prefers the Qumran reading, but as can be seen, there may be little difference in the translation of the MT or Qumran.Isaiah 49:12
The MT says that the people of “Sinim” will come to Zion, but this place name is otherwise unknown. 1QIsaa gives the name as “Syene” which is located in Egypt and is known today as Aswan. This was the location of a Jewish settlement known as Elephantine. The NAB, NIV, and RSV/NRSV all follow the Qumran reading here. The NEB also translates “Syene,” identifying this as a scroll reading. The REB retains “Syene,” but has dropped the footnote. This is either an oversight or an exegetical decision on the part of the translators to identify the MT “Sinim” as “Syene/Aswan,” without resorting to a textual variant. The NJV cites the variant in a footnote.Isaiah 49:24
The phrase “captives of the just” in the second half of 49:24 is somewhat awkward in this context. The NIV, RSV/NRSV, NEB/REB, and NAB all follow the 1QIsaa reading, ’ryts (tyrant/ruthless), citing the manuscript evidence from Qumran. GNB also translates “tyrant” without a textual note, since GNB does not cite textual variants that have the support of at least one Hebrew manuscript. HOTTP recommends that translations follow the Qumran reading.Isaiah 51:19
This verse ends in the MT with the question, “How can I comfort you?” In 1QIsaa the word for “comfort” begins with the letter yod instead of aleph (third person instead of first). The NAB, NIV, RSV/NRSV, and NEB/REB all follow the Qumran reading, although HOTTP believes the MT should be followed in translation and considers the 1QIsaa reading an assimilation to the third person verb used earlier in the verse. There is no compelling reason to doubt that in the prophetic style, God would be speaking in the second half of the verse. The acceptance by most modern translations of this Qumran variant illustrates how an evaluation of manuscript evidence can be combined with a decision regarding literary appropriateness. This has been the traditional approach of translators when dealing with textual problems. A newer trend, as exemplified by HOTTP, tends to evaluate variants such as found in 1QIsaa here, as just as likely to be the result of an ancient scribe adjusting the text in response to some perceived difficulty. Accordingly, modern translators would be advised to be a bit more cautious in accepting textual variants of this type.Isaiah 53:11
Many recent translations, including the NIV, NAB, NEB/REB, and NRSV, accept the addition of the word ’wr “light,” in both 1QIsaa and 1QIsab. Not only is the weight of the manuscript convincing to these translators, but the balance of the parallelism is improved as well. HOTTP agrees that translators should follow the Qumran reading here. Morrow (1973:143), however, disagrees, calling attention to the fact that “light” plays a significant role in the theology of the Qumran community. The assumption that the Qumran scribes would have added “light” to the text presupposes that both copies were made at Qumran, which is not necessarily the case.Isaiah 60:19
The NJV and RSV/NRSV follow the addition of blylh “in the night” in 1QIsaa. As in several other cases such as 53:11, this Qumran addition gives the parallelism of the verse better balance. However, one must be cautious about accepting readings that could have been motivated by the scribe’s sensitivity to Hebrew poetic style. This is why HOTTP does not advise translators to follow 1QIsaa here, even though many modern translations do.Harold P. Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament, ( Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993).

Are you trying to say the Bible is an eye-witness record?
All of it?Please explain in detail.Kapyong

This is explained quite well by other posters. It was mentioned by another poster that "most scientists" shouldn't be considered here, only geologists. I disagree. The scientists who should have the opinion here are archaeologists and sedimentologists (soils experts).But you are clearly wrong that most scientists place the flood at least 8,000 years ago because science has failed to find evidence for the flood at all! The few scientists who do find evidence are, not surprisingly, bible literalists who will see evidence whether it is there or not. The opinions of bible literalists can't be trusted in science.But the evidence against the global flood at the date most often suggested by biblical scholars, 4,350 years ago, or even at 8,000 years ago, is overwhelming.If there had been such a flood you would have evidence for it in your back yard; so would everyone else. There would be erosional and depositional evidence everywhere! But archaeologists and sedimentologists have poked into the ground pretty much everywhere in the world in have failed to find that evidence.They do find other evidence of floods, however. In the Pacific Northwest, at the end of the last ice age, a series of ice dams around the Idaho panhandle backed water east into Montana. When those dams broke the resulting floods scoured major parts of southern and eastern Washington. Those floods can be tracked and dated reasonable well. Why can't a more recent flood be found as easily? Or at all?Because it didn't happen! The idea of a global flood a few thousand years ago is a religious belief not an actual event that has been confirmed by science. Unlike religion, science uses evidence to differentiate between the "fors and againsts." Not all ideas or claims have equal evidence supporting them, and some ideas can be readily disproved (falsified) and discarded. The idea of a global flood was examined by science, and was discarded by the early 1800s.(ps. I have been doing archaeology for nearly 40 years, so I have some experience to bring to bear on this question.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Coyote,I certainly do not wish to challenge the knowledge of someone working as an archaeologist for 40 years but... Since im not an expert in the field I went with the wiki definition of geologist which included sedimentologists and other fields which I deemed important to.Geologist - Wikipedia,

quote:

---

Their undergraduate training typically includes significant coursework in physics, mathematics, chemistry and possibly biology, in addition to classes offered through the geology department; historical and physical geology, igneous and metamorphic petrology and petrography, hydrogeology, sedimentology, stratigraphy, mineralogy, palaeontology, physical geography and structural geology are among the many required areas of study. Most geologists also need skills in GIS and other mapping techniques. Geology students may spend portion of summers living and working under field conditions with faculty members (often referred to as "field camp"). Geology courses are also highly valuable to students of geography, engineering, chemistry, urban planning, environmental studies, and other fields.

---

Without having to name all of the above mentioned fields, I went with geology.How bout it, do I get a pass on this one?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Sure.It was geologists who originally studied all earth-related subjects, before our modern era of specialization.And none of those many specialists you mentioned have found evidence of a global flood in the last 10,000 years.Odd that that evidence can only be found by those who are also bible literalists, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I just want to add that the evidence against any global flood since the Precambrian cuts across not just many subdisciplines in geology besides sedimentology but also across all disciplines of natural science and beyond into even history and linguistics.And of course it violates virtually everything consituting evidence in prehistoric archeology.I would argue that nearly all of science either is, or is dependent upon a framework or understanding, that directly contradicts the concept of such a global flood.The overwhelming amount of evidence from so many different disciplines and subdisciplines within and even outside of science clearly show there was no global flood, not 4,350 years ago, not 8,000 years ago, not even 600,000,000 years ago nor anytime since.See Message 7 as to the reasoning behind these statements.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I'm sorry, but there's plenty of precedent to say that a day is simply a unit of time... clearly it couldn't have meant 24 earth hours since there was no earth. We are talking about relatively crude language trying to explain a complex thought. I think they did the best they could. Remember we are talking for the most part about iron-age nomads.If you're looking for a modern scientific treatise and nothing less, I guess there's no convincing you. I would think that any reasonable person would have to admit that it is very much in tune with modern "big bang" theories.You're simply ignoring the fact that for the most part, early man somehow had real knowledge they couldn't possibly have known first hand. And this is only the first paragraph of the Bible.

Then...we agree

I'm not so interested in proving that there was a "world wide flood, as this is clearly supposed to support the Noah story, which most likely came from a story about a regional flood. It really doesn't matter as it was clearly written to pass on a lesson to us that God did/can/will destroy mankind when evil permeates the race.The literal truth is not important to the story and I believe that when you go back in time so far, evidence becomes scant and theories that can never be proven abound. I'm afraid there are details about early man, we will never know for sure. We just need to accept that.

Thank you for all that info. I think my point is that there were no attempts to purposely change the text. What you describe are honest difficulties with translation and doesn't substantially change the story for the average reader. Assuming this is as true for at least the old testament, we have a pretty accurate historical record and if you choose to accept it, a good source of inspiration.

Funny that geology is simply thrown out as a science because it often doesn't match the accepted theories. Science is science and geology is as valid as any other. If it doesn't square with the other scientific evidence, clearly something is wrong. As for a global flood, I won't argue that, as it is clearly a reference to the Noah story, which certainly could be as true even if it was actually a regional flood.I will say that in the Noah story it states that before the flood, there was no such thing as rain. A mist covered the earth instead. So we are talking about a time very long ago, before any other recorded history. Apparently the atmosphere was quite different. Gravity too may have been different. It could actually have been before the continents divided.Your argument attempts to pin down the dates of the flood unfairly, to a relatively recent date, using the calculations of unnamed "scientists" who have no authority to assign such dating. Then you go on to demonstrate evidence that it didn't happen in that time frame, so it must not have happened.I am pointing out that the evidence in the story itself would indicate a much earlier time frame, and thus your evidence against the flood is quite flawed.

Yes, the flood story was most likely inspired by a local event. A mist? I can't seem to remember ANYWHERE in the bible where it says that, would you be so kind as to point it out to me? Yes, which is why it shouldn't be taken for granted, oral transmission is very unreliable. Please show evidence for this. Gravity has remained the same for earth since it was fully formed. It only changes if the earth's mass changed significantly, since that didn't happen, gravity remained the same. No it couldn't, since man only emerged on the earth LONG after the continents divided. It couldn't have been before modern man emerged (i.e. Homo Sapiens) , as there wouldn't have been anyone to orally transmit the story. Since the earliest Homo sapiens is thought to have emerged somewhere around 200.000 years ago, it would have to have been between that time and today. NO evidence exist to point to a global flood in that time period. Furthermore the more in the past it lies, the more unreliable it becomes, as oral transmission of stories is notoriously unreliable.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hi Olletrap,At EvC Forums threads are closed around 300 messages and we're close to that now. If you post five messages to the next set of replies that will be just about be it, so one word for you: consolidation. Most especially, please, no three word messages like "Then...we agree". You don't need to produce a treatise, just describe the evidence upon which your conclusions are based, otherwise it looks like you have no reasons based upon facts for what you believe. What real knowledge is that? Here's the first paragraph of Genesis: What scientifically accurate knowledge is contained in this paragraph? The passage of time does tend to destroy, obscure or hide evidence, but not all evidence. Concerning the possibility of a world wide flood a few thousand years ago, the evidence we have in hand rules this out. The evidence we already had in hand a couple hundred years ago ruled this out. Did you really just say that the science of geology doesn't match the accepted theories of geology? Or did you mean that geology theories conflict with theories from other fields of science? Whichever one it is, neither is correct. Significant conflicts of a field of science with its own theories is just silly, and significant conflicts between theories from different branches of science would be big news. Yes, exactly, and this is why theories are constructed around evidence and not the other way around. Theories explain, interpret and generalize from evidence, and theories that don't do that are rejected. If you really believe modern geology theories conflict with evidence then you should take this issue to a thread in the [forum=-7] thread. This is not the proper thread for such a discussion. So your interpretation of Genesis is that the atmosphere was quite different some thousands of years ago. Do you have any evidence of this, since the topic of this thread concerns the evidence for Biblical accounts? Again, and what's the evidence? A couple things. First, what is your evidence that the flood occurred much earlier than four or five thousand years ago? And second, you do realize, I hope, that that flood date is a creationist date, not a scientific one. If you disagree with that date then you're not disagreeing with scientists but with other Biblical literalists.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.