Hakai Magazine, an ancient flood

[SteveB]

It is the one you are advocating.

And?
Why wouldn't I advocate a view defined in the bible, which is further described in scientific articles?

Or at least, that is your faith position. Given the writings attributed to Moses include his own death, I have always been dubious of that.

I think you have some seriously erroneous ideas.
My "faith position" is in YHVH himself, through Jesus Christ.
The only reason I have no problem with the events and ideas presented in the bible is because I know YHVH, through his investment in my life for the past 45+ years.

As you don't know him, your incredulity is a gimme.

I am going to believe what the evidence points to. Not what some blowhard on the internet is trying to bully me into believing.

You have this completely backwards.
I want you to meet, and know YHVH.
What you do with the history and events, and ideas described in the bible are an after-the-fact set of issues.


The bible simply describes what God did in that era/period of history.

I agree that much of it seems utterly impossible.

UNTIL.....

You actually meet him and he demonstrates himself to you. As your experience base with him increases, what you read in the bible becomes less and less troublesome.

Jesus was quite clear about this...

Nothing is impossible for God. Literally!

Apologies if I gave that impression; it was certainly not meant that way. Science can be wrong. But it has an extremely good track record, and our ability to discuss it over such huge distances is testament to that.

In general I would agree. Science isn't the problem here.
Scientism is.

People today who have bought the scientism mindset treat the bible as absolutely impossible.
They treat my repeated recovery from multiple recurrences of my cancer impossible.
Yet, both are clearly documented and testified to by scientists, each in their respective disciplines and fields of study and work.

There are many highly educated people who are scientists who have been able to scientifically verify the biblical narrative, and have been doing so since Copernicus, all the way through to today.
Just because the political institution of the church and Hollywood's vilification of the institution as a magisterium have eviscerated the believers and then their discoveries, doesn't mean that the bible has been disproven.

That technology works is very good evidence that science is, for the most part, right.

For the most part....
This I think is important to note.
Most part doesn't mean ALL part...

The most recent evidence of the failure of science is in the covid pandemic.

The sheer volume of fear-inducing actions by certain scientific institutions, the news media and politicians was a global fuster-cluck (switch the f, and the cl positions if that does make sense to you)!
In my youth, the number of acceptable deaths, and severity of side effect illnesses and deaths were much much lower per capita.
It was pretty clear that they removed the cap, and whatever happened was acceptable. It became clear pretty early on that the drugs used have caused extensive injuries, subsequent damage and deaths to many patients.

Furthermore, politicians and the news media vilified many who refused to accept the narrative.
This was the first globally scaled clinical trial in the history of the human race.

It's actually the perfect example of scientism run amok.

It certainly helps my arguments that you have not.

It helps you confirm your biases. That's a you thing. I'm not particularly concerned about this. It's a belief system you'll have to decide for yourself what you're going to do about it.
I guarantee clinging to it won't help you resolve the issues associated with your eternity.

Okay. But the timing in the article says it was glaciers first, and rising sea levels later.

I understood that.
I'm not bothered by that.
As I stated yesterday, they need a source of water to explain it.
The water's being chemically unbound by God, from the rocks, with the release of the pressure, as evidenced by the Tongan volcanic eruption earlier this year, isn't a problem.
Remember, this isn't about what you're being told.
It's about what actually happened, but the actual order of occurrence is unknown, so it's being speculated about.

The bible says that the water was released from the atmosphere and from the earth through a geologic cataclysm.

Which you would know if you had bothered to read the article.

I did read the article.
I saw the word pattern describing a series of flood events in a time before modern understanding. The point where the writer was saying that it's time to pay attention to the ancient stories in humanity's history.

Or did you miss that part?

Go back to the beginning of the article.

And yet the Bible tells us God is perfectly capable of forgiving sin and preventing a person from going to hell, if God chooses to.

He is.
Turn to him from your sin and place your trust in Jesus Christ.
You will immediately be "translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of the son of his dear love."

It's an instantaneous change from death to life. Based on my experience, I'd say that it takes longer for the realization to sink in than it does for God to do it.

As far as I can see, hell is just God inflicting intense pain to punish those who reject him. Or torture them in other words.

Well, since you obviously know everything, I'd say that the truth doesn't actually matter, and this is a done deal.
Do you actually want to base your eternity on "as far as I can see" thinking?
That seems rather stupid to me.

What the article describes is:

• a rise in sea levels up to their present level
• that rise happened due to glaciers melting
• it occurring very slowing over about 10,000 years

Yeah, you clearly ignored the first several lines.

The reasoning behind writing the paper is stated up front.
There are numerous anecdotal narratives of flooding that isolated a spit of land from France, creating the now present day island of Jersey. They started with an anecdote about the island previously being separated by only a creek that one could literally step across, and iirc, not get their feet wet.
Looking at the map right now, it appears to be a good mile or so off the north west coast of France. The anecdotes are the basis for the exploration and investigation into past narratives.
Dating back a few hundred years the people who talked about it laugh at the idea of Jersey being a creeks width from the mainland. But the evidence shows it actually was.

So, I again, reiterate my comfort with my submission of the article and my purpose for doing so.

What the Bible describes.

• a rise in sea levels to cover all mountains
• that rise happened prior to the ice age
• it occurring very rapidly over just 40 days

There's no mention of an ice age.
There's no mention of the altitudes of the mountains.
There's mention of two events that resulted in the mountains being covered.
1- a rain storm that lasted 40 days/nights.
2- an opening of the fountains of the deep.

Scientists have subsequently discovered that there are "several oceans' worth of water stored in the mantle. Presently bound chemically, in rock formation known as ringwoodite.
It's long been known that pressures in the mantle are exceedingly high. I recently ran across an article that discusses diamond formation in the mantle.
So, as diamonds require carbon, heat, and pressure, I'm thinking that water, under high heat and high pressure would become rock (a solid). Once released to the atmosphere, the pressure and the heat are gone.

It's not that difficult to consider a change in state would result.

Considering that there's a sublimation that occurs when water reaches the triple point, and can be vapor, solid and liquid simultaneously, I'm thinking that this would happen under the conditions described in the bible.

You are pretending the article say things it does not, presumably because you failed to read it and just assumed it must agree with your worldview.

And you've actually provided the best possible means that you are so caught up in your biases and preconceptions that you ignored the reason why the article was written in the first place.
Anecdotal reports over the course of antiquity should be given greater credence.

None of whom were there! All they have to go on is the same accounts that you and I do.

Bingo! 8 people survived that event.
Based on the ages listed in the bible, Abraham met Shem. Noah was alive until Abraham was in his late 50's. It's possible that he met, and talked with Noah too.
So, the narrative would have survived through the descendants of Noah, and his family.

 

[SteveB]

And if I want an in depth understanding of those accounts, I will go to Biblical scholars (such as Helmut Koester or Ray Brown), and not to lawyers, retired cops, legal journalists, religious philosophers, linguists.

If you're going to stop there, I'd say you have a serious bias problem.
There are many theologians who have been highly educated and are experienced in biblical theology.
Mike Licona
DA Carson,
NT Wright
RC Sproul
Gary Habermas
for a handful.

Seriously, why would anyone think a retired cop is an expert in the New Testament?

I think a retired cop has a great idea of how to investigate beyond the surface, to get to the truth.

I further think that because a retired cop, and indeed lawyers are skilled in dealing with laws, they understand the importance of making distinctions in wording.
They're actually quite anal about such things.

I have no idea what you point is here.

Do you?

Of course not. You're so caught up in your biases and preconceptions, you're not able to think beyond your beliefs.
It's a pity you can't understand so simple a scientific issue.
I thought you swore on the ease of which you understood science.

If you find that amusing, you have a bizarre sense of humour.

Yeah. It's on the sarcasm side of dry. In the old days, it was known as wry.
You make the most hilarious comments, so I thought it important to note that I recognize the sheer hilarity of the things you say.
Wryly so.

Sure. But if you have already decided the Global Flood must necessarily be true, and carefully cherry-pick the data, or just assume articles agree with you without bothering to read them, well, by golly, it looks like there really was a flood.

I didn't previously decide anything.
YHVH introduced himself to me as quite real, and very knowable.
Over the course of the past 45 years, I've found that he's exactly who he described himself as in the bible and is quite dependable in his dealings with me.

It's the nature and character of YHVH that gives credence to the historical events described in the bible.

Once I knew that he actually existed, as I became increasingly aware of the things described in the bible, it wasn't as difficult to take the descriptions in the bible seriously. The problem I had after that was- how did these things happen, and wow, that'd be so cool to be able to travel back in time and actually watch them unfold and transpire.

Again, no idea what your point is here.

Pity.
It's pretty common sense.
You're trusting people with whom you have no familiarity, over matters buried deep in antiquity, about things that are keeping you from experiencing the truth and grace of Jesus Christ.

Instead of simply engaging YHVH for yourself.

 

[The Pixie]

And?
Why wouldn't I advocate a view defined in the bible, which is further described in scientific articles?

And hence it is your position in the debate.

I think you have some seriously erroneous ideas.
My "faith position" is in YHVH himself, through Jesus Christ.
The only reason I have no problem with the events and ideas presented in the bible is because I know YHVH, through his investment in my life for the past 45+ years.

Nevertheless, that is your faith position. We know it is not based on evidence because whenever we ask for evidence, all you can do is quote Bible verses that depend on your faith that the Bible is true.

I am going to believe what the evidence points to. Not what some blowhard on the internet is trying to bully me into believing.

You have this completely backwards.
I want you to meet, and know YHVH.
What you do with the history and events, and ideas described in the bible are an after-the-fact set of issues.

Thank you for admitting that in your view believing what the evidence points to is "completely backwards" and that I should start with faith, and fit the evidence to that.

I did read the article.
I saw the word pattern describing a series of flood events in a time before modern understanding. The point where the writer was saying that it's time to pay attention to the ancient stories in humanity's history.

Or did you miss that part?

Go back to the beginning of the article.

Right. You cherry-picked the bits you wanted to support your faith position, and ignored the rest.

That is fine with you. You have your way of looking at the world, which is to believe the Bible is true on faith, and then hunt out the evidence that, at least at first blush, supports that view.

As you say, I have that "completely backwards". I start with the evidence, and see what it points to as being true.

Yeah, you clearly ignored the first several lines.

No I did not. The whole article supports my position. Nothing in the article contradicts sea levels rising over thousands of years as the glaciers melted.

The reasoning behind writing the paper is stated up front.
There are numerous anecdotal narratives of flooding that isolated a spit of land from France, creating the now present day island of Jersey. They started with an anecdote about the island previously being separated by only a creek that one could literally step across, and iirc, not get their feet wet.
Looking at the map right now, it appears to be a good mile or so off the north west coast of France. The anecdotes are the basis for the exploration and investigation into past narratives.
Dating back a few hundred years the people who talked about it laugh at the idea of Jersey being a creeks width from the mainland. But the evidence shows it actually was.

All of which fits with sea levels rising over thousands of years as the glaciers melted.

And it does NOT fit with a global flood that completely submerged the island and indeed all of France. If the global flood happened, everyone for miles around drowned. So where does this cultural memory come from? Are you claiming Noah remembered the land bridge from Jersey to France, and he passed the story down to his descendants, and the ones who settled in the area happened to connect the stories of great great great grandfather Noah with their own little island?

Did you actually THINK about this at all, Steve?

Of course not. That would be "completely backwards". You start with what you want to be true, your faith position, and hunt for articles that support it, without bothering to read them or think at all.

So, I again, reiterate my comfort with my submission of the article and my purpose for doing so.

There's no mention of an ice age.
There's no mention of the altitudes of the mountains.
There's mention of two events that resulted in the mountains being covered.
1- a rain storm that lasted 40 days/nights.
2- an opening of the fountains of the deep.

No mention of an ice age? Wow! You really are great at ignoring evidence you do not want to see. The article has "ice age" literally in the title:

Memories of the End of the Last Ice Age, from Those Who Were There | Hakai Magazine

As Earth’s ice melts once more, heed these ancient tales of land lost to the sea.

hakaimagazine.com

 

[The Pixie]

If you're going to stop there, I'd say you have a serious bias problem.
There are many theologians who have been highly educated and are experienced in biblical theology.
Mike Licona
DA Carson,
NT Wright
RC Sproul
Gary Habermas
for a handful.


I think a retired cop has a great idea of how to investigate beyond the surface, to get to the truth.

I further think that because a retired cop, and indeed lawyers are skilled in dealing with laws, they understand the importance of making distinctions in wording.
They're actually quite anal about such things.

We have now established that your approach is to believe the Bible is true on faith, and then to find evidence to support that, while I have that "completely backwards". In the light of that, I think it safe to ignore pretty much all you say here.

 

[SteveB]

And hence it is your position in the debate.

😳🙄🤣🤣🤣🤦🏾‍♂️
There is no debate here Pixie.
This is simply explaining the terms and conditions of YHVH's position and the invitation for you to receive the gift of eternal life.

There will never be anything remotely close to the kinds of debates that are held in high schools and colleges or in professional venues.

The statement of the gospel of Jesus is quite clear.

The entire human race is in exactly the same state before God.


Rom 6:23 WEB For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Nevertheless, that is your faith position. We know it is not based on evidence because whenever we ask for evidence, all you can do is quote Bible verses that depend on your faith that the Bible is true.

And?
I believe YHVH. I believe Jesus.
He's inviting you to come and receive the gift of eternal life.

Joh 3:16-21 WEB 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only born Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only born Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God.”

It's a simple invitation. Do you, or do you not want to enjoy eternal life?

Thank you for admitting that in your view believing what the evidence points to is "completely backwards" and that I should start with faith, and fit the evidence to that.

I'm not the one who keeps changing what you want to believe.
To me, making sure that YHVH is actually real, and has any interest in knowing me was far more important than the book's content.
Once I got through the reality of YHVH and Jesus, I could focus more easily and readily on which book was theirs or not.

Thus, as you have so eloquently, and repeatedly demonstrated, you have repeatedly stated that I'm only believing what my parents told me to believe. Ignoring what I've stated several times..
In my day, I didn't think anyone existed among the gods.
Religion was nothing but a pile of bs and I wanted nothing to do with it.
It wasn't until the serious possibility that YHVH and Jesus could exist that I asked him.
I didn't ask people. I didn't ask Ray priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, etc....

So, I'd say that you have completely lost perspective on what's going on here.

This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with a relationship with the true and living God, YHVH, through Jesus Christ, his son.

Right. You cherry-picked the bits you wanted to support your faith position, and ignored the rest.

That would indeed make your ignorance position more tenable, but considering that your entire world view is based entirely on your ignorance of YHVH, you have a much greater problem than you realize.

Let's see if this makes sense.
You're being invited to a bbq, and you're arguing about your beliefs that the hardware required to lock a door doesn't exist.

That is fine with you. You have your way of looking at the world, which is to believe the Bible is true on faith, and then hunt out the evidence that, at least at first blush, supports that view.

Actually, after having met YHVH personally, the bible was a matter of becoming familiar with it, and learning how to do what is described within.

As you say, I have that "completely backwards". I start with the evidence, and see what it points to as being true.

You're trying to find evidence of door hardware, and I'm inviting you to a bbq.

So, if you're going to claim evidence, while ignoring the bbq invitation, I'd say you're not paying attention.

No I did not. The whole article supports my position. Nothing in the article contradicts sea levels rising over thousands of years as the glaciers melted.

🤣🙄
Keep telling yourself that. It's obvious you wouldn't know evidence if it slapped you on the face, jumped on you and then proceeded to beat the pulp out of you.

In the meantime, I'm going to continue enjoying the bbq Jesus has invited us to.

Not sure if you like baby back ribs, but this sauce is incredible! Oh man! You have no idea what you're missing here!
Oh, and the lemonade..... I've had plenty of different flavors of lemonade, but hands down, this is the bomb!
There's potato salad, baked beans, and the dip for the chips (not fish, but potato chips) is incredible! I offered to make mine, but this is way better than my dip...
🤤🥰😁😋
So, have you found any door hardware yet?🤔

 

[SteveB]

All of which fits with sea levels rising over thousands of years as the glaciers melted.

As does my description, and then gives more than enough water for glaciers, after the fact.

And it does NOT fit with a global flood that completely submerged the island and indeed all of France. If the global flood happened, everyone for miles around drowned. So where does this cultural memory come from? Are you claiming Noah remembered the land bridge from Jersey to France, and he passed the story down to his descendants, and the ones who settled in the area happened to connect the stories of great great great grandfather Noah with their own little island?

It doesn't fit your preconceptions. I'm not worried about this.
You keep pushing the missing door hardware angle and I'm telling you that you're missing the bbq.

Have you found the hardware yet?

Did you actually THINK about this at all, Steve?

🤣
It's obvious you haven't. It's pretty clear that you have previously decided that the door hardware doesn't exist.

There're plenty of ribs, and salad. You sure you don't want any?

Of course not. That would be "completely backwards". You start with what you want to be true, your faith position, and hunt for articles that support it, without bothering to read them or think at all.

Amusing.
It must be incredibly painful to be so desperate to make it to be anything other than what it is.

Man these ribs are good! 🤤😋😎

Any hardware for the door yet?

No mention of an ice age? Wow! You really are great at ignoring evidence you do not want to see. The article has "ice age" literally in the title:

Memories of the End of the Last Ice Age, from Those Who Were There | Hakai Magazine

As Earth’s ice melts once more, heed these ancient tales of land lost to the sea.

hakaimagazine.com

Wow.... you clearly don't know how to read.

What the Bible describes.
a rise in sea levels to cover all mountains
that rise happened prior to the ice age
it occurring very rapidly over just 40 days

The bible doesn't say anything about an ice age.

Come on Pix! Focus.
In 45 years, I've never been able to find anything that mentions an ice age.

Tell me if you can find it mentioned in this passage.

Gen 7:11-12 WEB 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the sky’s windows opened. 12 It rained on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Gen 8:1-14 WEB 1 God remembered Noah, all the animals, and all the livestock that were with him in the ship; and God made a wind to pass over the earth. The waters subsided. 2 The deep’s fountains and the sky’s windows were also stopped, and the rain from the sky was restrained. 3 The waters continually receded from the earth. After the end of one hundred fifty days the waters receded. 4 The ship rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on Ararat’s mountains. 5 The waters receded continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were visible. 6 At the end of forty days, Noah opened the window of the ship which he had made, 7 and he sent out a raven. It went back and forth, until the waters were dried up from the earth. 8 He himself sent out a dove to see if the waters were abated from the surface of the ground, 9 but the dove found no place to rest her foot, and she returned into the ship to him, for the waters were on the surface of the whole earth. He put out his hand, and took her, and brought her to him into the ship. 10 He waited yet another seven days; and again he sent the dove out of the ship. 11 The dove came back to him at evening and, behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the waters were abated from the earth. 12 He waited yet another seven days, and sent out the dove; and she didn’t return to him any more. 13 In the six hundred first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth. Noah removed the covering of the ship, and looked. He saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.

I'm looking, but I don't see where the ice age is mentioned in the bible.

Here's one of those biased, "Christian" articles about it.

What does the Bible say about the ice age? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about the ice age? Was the ice age the result of the flood in Noah’s day?

www.gotquestions.org

Still have ribs, potato salad, etc.... sure you don't want any?
Jesus is here and keeps saying he'd love to have you come.

He finds your inability to find the hardware curious. He's wondering why you're so caught up in the hardware and continue to ignore the invitation to come and see for yourself.

 

[SteveB]

We have now established that your approach is to believe the Bible is true on faith, and then to find evidence to support that, while I have that "completely backwards". In the light of that, I think it safe to ignore pretty much all you say here.

It's the nature of experience with actually doing what Jesus said and finding that it actually works in exactly the way he describes.

I have a novel idea.
Ever done any programming?
In C++?

// Your First C++ Program

#include <iostream>

int main() {
    std::cout << "Hello World!";
    return 0;
}

If this code is perfectly formed, and works as it's designed to work, is there a reason why I should not continue to believe it's good code for the purpose it was designed? Is there any reason why I should not have faith in it?

Seems like the problem here is that you don't actually know what you're talking about and have a problem with conflating concepts.

 

[The Pixie]

There is no debate here Pixie.

Then why are you still posting?

You started this thread claiming that article supports your position on a Global Flood. That is - or was - your position.

I joined the thread to pint out that actually the article supports the mainstream view that sea levels rose to their present height when glaciers melt over the course of thousands of years.

If there is no debate, I assume that is because you have now conceded? I note that you have made two lengthy posts, and yet neither of them discuss that article at all. Because you got beat; it is as simple as that.

This is simply explaining the terms and conditions of YHVH's position and the invitation for you to receive the gift of eternal life.

Thanks for making clear what your post is doing in one sentence. Looks like I can just ignore the rest, because as you admit, you are no longer debating whether the article supports a global flood.

You're trying to find evidence of door hardware, and I'm inviting you to a bbq.

So, if you're going to claim evidence, while ignoring the bbq invitation, I'd say you're not paying attention.

I am trying to focus on the claim of the OP. But then, I have the luxury of being right. You have been proven wrong, so I guess are pretty keen to talk about something else.

To extend your analogy, you were originally claiming there is no door hardware. I conclusively proved you wrong. Hilariously you even cited an article to support you that had "door hardware is real" right in the title! Now you want to save save by changing the discussion to an invitation to a make-believe barbeque.

Just admit you lost the argument and move on Steve.

Keep telling yourself that. It's obvious you wouldn't know evidence if it slapped you on the face, jumped on you and then proceeded to beat the pulp out of you.

And yet I am the one who keeps citing the evidence, and you are the one, well, is reduced to this vacuous and rather pathetic bluster.

You are the guy who said of an article called "Memories of the End of the Last Ice Age, from Those Who Were There":

"There's no mention of an ice age."​

Got to say, out of the two of us, it looks more like you are the one who would fail to identify "evidence if it slapped you on the face, jumped on you and then proceeded to beat the pulp out of you"!

In the meantime, I'm going to continue enjoying the bbq Jesus has invited us to.

Not sure if you like baby back ribs, but this sauce is incredible! Oh man! You have no idea what you're missing here!
Oh, and the lemonade..... I've had plenty of different flavors of lemonade, but hands down, this is the bomb!
There's potato salad, baked beans, and the dip for the chips (not fish, but potato chips) is incredible! I offered to make mine, but this is way better than my dip...
So, have you found any door hardware yet?

And yet when I ask you to show me the ribs, you cannot! Hmm, almost as though it is just a fantasy in your head...

And yes, I found the door hardware, and proved you were wrong. Want me to do it again?

My position is that the article supports the mainstream view that sea levels rose to their present height when glaciers melt over the course of thousands of years.

For Jo Brendryen, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Bergen in Norway who has studied the effects of deglaciation in Europe following the end of the last ice age, the idea that traditional oral histories preserve real accounts of sea level rise is perfectly plausible.​

​

During the last ice age, he says, the sudden melting of ice sheets induced catastrophic events known as meltwater pulses, which caused sudden and extreme sea level rise. Along some coastlines in Europe, the ocean may have risen as much as 10 meters in just 200 years. At such a pace, it would have been noticeable to people across just a few human generations.​

 

[SteveB]

Then why are you still posting?

Because I enjoy talking about Jesus.
Why, aren't I allowed to post things I think matter?

You started this thread claiming that article supports your position on a Global Flood. That is - or was - your position.

And?
You haven't actually demonstrated otherwise.
You've definitely thrown a major hissy fit, but that's all.

I joined the thread to pint out that actually the article supports the mainstream view that sea levels rose to their present height when glaciers melt over the course of thousands of years.

And?
That's just YOUR opinion.
Did you become God at some point in the past several days?
Because if not, then it strikes me that your opinion is nothing more than an opinion.
That opinion and $7 will get you a cup of coffee at your local barista shop.

If there is no debate, I assume that is because you have now conceded? I note that you have made two lengthy posts, and yet neither of them discuss that article at all. Because you got beat; it is as simple as that.

No. There's no debate because choosing to spend your eternity with or without Jesus isn't debatable.
It's a simple matter of where you want to spend your eternity.

Thanks for making clear what your post is doing in one sentence. Looks like I can just ignore the rest, because as you admit, you are no longer debating whether the article supports a global flood.

Well, if you're not actually interested in knowing YHVH and Jesus, then you can indeed disregard the rest.

It's a simple question of where you want to spend your eternity.

I am trying to focus on the claim of the OP. But then, I have the luxury of being right. You have been proven wrong, so I guess are pretty keen to talk about something else.

Seems like you're afraid of learning the truth and need debates to hide behind.

To extend your analogy, you were originally claiming there is no door hardware.

No. You are.
You're the only one who can open the door from inside your own life.
Jesus has been knocking on the door to your life for years now.
He was pretty clear about this.

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, then I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with me.

You have to decide whether you want to spend your eternity with Jesus or in your self-constructed fiery prison.

I conclusively proved you wrong.

Actually, ....
You conclusively proved that you are filled by biases, preconceptions, self-belief, aka arrogance and under no circumstances whatsoever will you come to Jesus.

Hilariously you even cited an article to support you that had "door hardware is real" right in the title! Now you want to save save by changing the discussion to an invitation to a make-believe barbeque.

It's your door.
He's given us the opportunity to engage him on his terms, and when we decide to do so, we're going to experience him on levels that apparently terrify you.

Just admit you lost the argument and move on Steve.

🤣🤦🏾‍♂️
Thank you for so illustrious a demonstration of your biases, and preconceptions. You guys accomplish this so regularly, it's getting closer and closer to clockwork.

And yet I am the one who keeps citing the evidence, and you are the one, well, is reduced to this vacuous and rather pathetic bluster.

You keep citing your own bias and preconceptions about what happened.

You are the guy who said of an article called "Memories of the End of the Last Ice Age, from Those Who Were There":

"There's no mention of an ice age."​

Nope.
You stated that the bible talked about an ice age.

I said that the bible doesn't mention anything about the ice age.
You can continue to believe that it does. But no ice age is referred to, alluded to, inferred or implied.

One article I found that discussed why said it's likely because the region of Israel is at a lower latitude, below the latitudes where large amounts of ice were.

Got to say, out of the two of us, it looks more like you are the one who would fail to identify "evidence if it slapped you on the face, jumped on you and then proceeded to beat the pulp out of you"!

As it's obvious you can't recognize that it's your biases and preconceptions that are blinding you, I'm not having a problem with this.

And yet when I ask you to show me the ribs, you cannot! Hmm, almost as though it is just a fantasy in your head...

Considering that you don't actually want to come visit me, why would I?

Furthermore, I'm not allowed to post images. So, just how do you think you're going to be able to see?

And yes, I found the door hardware, and proved you were wrong. Want me to do it again?

Then open the door and let Jesus in. Invite him in and he'll bring you to the Father where the celebration is.

My position is that the article supports the mainstream view that sea levels rose to their present height when glaciers melt over the course of thousands of years.

For Jo Brendryen, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Bergen in Norway who has studied the effects of deglaciation in Europe following the end of the last ice age, the idea that traditional oral histories preserve real accounts of sea level rise is perfectly plausible.​

​

During the last ice age, he says, the sudden melting of ice sheets induced catastrophic events known as meltwater pulses, which caused sudden and extreme sea level rise. Along some coastlines in Europe, the ocean may have risen as much as 10 meters in just 200 years. At such a pace, it would have been noticeable to people across just a few human generations.​

Yep. You've repeatedly stated that you are convinced that their myopic beliefs are correct, but since neither you nor they were present to observe the events, it's pretty clear that you have nothing but speculation.

 

[The Pixie]

Because I enjoy talking about Jesus.
Why, aren't I allowed to post things I think matter?

As long as we are clear that it is not because you think your position on the thread topic is still valid.

And?
You haven't actually demonstrated otherwise.

Yes I have. I showed that the article says that sea levels rose to their present level (not covering mountains) over thousands of years (not 40 days), due to glaciers melting (not God opening holes in the firmament).

Want to see the quote from the article you linked to but did not read? Here it is again.

For Jo Brendryen, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Bergen in Norway who has studied the effects of deglaciation in Europe following the end of the last ice age, the idea that traditional oral histories preserve real accounts of sea level rise is perfectly plausible.​

​

During the last ice age, he says, the sudden melting of ice sheets induced catastrophic events known as meltwater pulses, which caused sudden and extreme sea level rise. Along some coastlines in Europe, the ocean may have risen as much as 10 meters in just 200 years. At such a pace, it would have been noticeable to people across just a few human generations.​

It agrees with me. It refutes you.

You've definitely thrown a major hissy fit, but that's all.

More vacuous bluster.

And?
That's just YOUR opinion.

No, Steve, it is not just MY opinion. It is also the opinion of virtually all scientists. That is why it is mainstream science.

It is also the opinion of the authors of the article you linked to in the OP.

For Jo Brendryen, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Bergen in Norway who has studied the effects of deglaciation in Europe following the end of the last ice age, the idea that traditional oral histories preserve real accounts of sea level rise is perfectly plausible.​

​

During the last ice age, he says, the sudden melting of ice sheets induced catastrophic events known as meltwater pulses, which caused sudden and extreme sea level rise. Along some coastlines in Europe, the ocean may have risen as much as 10 meters in just 200 years. At such a pace, it would have been noticeable to people across just a few human generations.​

Did you become God at some point in the past several days?
Because if not, then it strikes me that your opinion is nothing more than an opinion.
That opinion and $7 will get you a cup of coffee at your local barista shop.

More vacuous bluster.

No. There's no debate because choosing to spend your eternity with or without Jesus isn't debatable.
It's a simple matter of where you want to spend your eternity.

Do I want to spend my eternity with an egomaniacal god who is torturing for eternity the billions of people who, for whatever reason, chose not to worship him?

No. Why would I?

Why do you?

Oh right. You turn a blind eye to evil. Pretend it is not really torture. Because apparently it is perfectly fine if God inflicts intense pain (as from burning in a lake of fire) to punish billions of people, just as long as we do not label it as "torture".

You have to decide whether you want to spend your eternity with Jesus or in your self-constructed fiery prison.

I thought God created the lake of fire.

Certainly that is what the Bible says, but I am coming to realise Christians get to pretend it says what they want.

Nope.
You stated that the bible talked about an ice age.

I said that the bible doesn't mention anything about the ice age.
You can continue to believe that it does. But no ice age is referred to, alluded to, inferred or implied.

I never said that.

Again you are reduced to just making stuff up. If I can see that Christians routinely make things up as and when convenient, what do you think I am going to conclude about the gospel accounts?

Spoiler alert: They are probably just made up too

One article I found that discussed why said it's likely because the region of Israel is at a lower latitude, below the latitudes where large amounts of ice were.

So therefore Israel likely had local flooding.

So in fact this is saying where the myth of a global flood came from.

So in fact this article is arguing AGAINST a global flood.

As it's obvious you can't recognize that it's your biases and preconceptions that are blinding you, I'm not having a problem with this.

And yet you just cited an article that supports me, in the mistaken belief that it supports you. Why is that?

Your biases and preconceptions that are blinding you.

 

[SteveB]

As long as we are clear that it is not because you think your position on the thread topic is still valid.

Sounds like you're afraid that the initial point of the article is a problem.

It wasn’t long after Henry David Inglis arrived on the island of Jersey, just northwest of France, that he heard the old story. Locals eagerly told the 19th-century Scottish travel writer how, in a bygone age, their island was much more substantial, and that folks used to walk to the French coast. The only hurdle to their journey was a river—one easily crossed using a short bridge.​

​

“Pah!” Inglis presumably scoffed as he looked out across 22 kilometers of shimmering blue sea—because he went on to write in his 1832 book about the region that this was “an assertion too ridiculous to merit examination.” Another writer, Jean Poingdestre, around 150 years earlier, had been similarly unmoved by the tale. No one could have trod from Jersey to Normandy, he withered, “vnlesse it were before the Flood,” referring to the Old Testament cataclysm.​

​

Yet, there had been a flood. A big one. Between roughly 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, massive flooding caused by melting glaciers raised sea levels around Europe. That flooding is what eventually turned Jersey into an island.​

​

Rather than being a ridiculous claim not worthy of examination, perhaps the old story was true—a whisper from ancestors who really did walk through now-vanished lands. A whisper that has echoed across millennia.​

​

That’s exactly what geologist Patrick Nunn and historian Margaret Cook at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia have proposed in a recent paper.​

​

In their work, the pair describe colorful legends from northern Europe and Australia that depict rising waters, peninsulas becoming islands, and receding coastlines during that period of deglaciation thousands of years ago. Some of these stories, the researchers say, capture historical sea level rise that actually happened—often several thousand years ago. For scholars of oral history, that makes them geomyths.​

Yes I have. I showed that the article says that sea levels rose to their present level (not covering mountains) over thousands of years (not 40 days), due to glaciers melting (not God opening holes in the firmament).

You really aren't paying attention to what the author is saying.

In their work, the pair describe colorful legends from northern Europe and Australia that depict rising waters, peninsulas becoming islands, and receding coastlines during that period of deglaciation thousands of years ago. Some of these stories, the researchers say, capture historical sea level rise that actually happened—often several thousand years ago. For scholars of oral history, that makes them geomyths.​

You're stuck on the point where it becomes about a flood caused by an ice age, my emphasis is on the oral traditions and history.
The fact of the matter is that present day people are guessing that the flood was caused by the ice melt.
The bible says that the flood was caused by a massive, 40 day/night rain, and the geo-cataclysm.

I realize that the biblical narrative terrifies you, and forces you to consider matters you're clearly bothered by. That however is not a problem for me.

Want to see the quote from the article you linked to but did not read? Here it is again.

For Jo Brendryen, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Bergen in Norway who has studied the effects of deglaciation in Europe following the end of the last ice age, the idea that traditional oral histories preserve real accounts of sea level rise is perfectly plausible.​

​

During the last ice age, he says, the sudden melting of ice sheets induced catastrophic events known as meltwater pulses, which caused sudden and extreme sea level rise. Along some coastlines in Europe, the ocean may have risen as much as 10 meters in just 200 years. At such a pace, it would have been noticeable to people across just a few human generations.​

Pity you're focusing on the probably, and ignoring the geomyths, oral history element.
well, yesterday you did make it clear that you're a big believer in the probably.
I don't go for probably. I want to know what actually happened. This is exactly why I have no problem whatsoever with waiting until YHVH actually shows me.
this is exactly what he said he would do for those who believe him.

1Co 13:12 WEB For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known.

It agrees with me. It refutes you.

Only the part that you're so bitterly focused on.
It's a pity you're so focused on winning something that you lost at the resurrection of Jesus that you're afraid of learning, understanding and life itself.

More vacuous bluster.

Well, considering that you're the one who believes in probably, I'm not having a problem with your fear of learning to understand reality.

Quite frankly, all your fluff and blathering about science, I'm surprised that you are so ready to accept probably and so readily oppose actually.

No, Steve, it is not just MY opinion. It is also the opinion of virtually all scientists. That is why it is mainstream science.

Yet yesterday, you made it clear that mainstream science says probably.
So, why would I accept probably when YHVH says that he'll show us actually.
It's simply a matter of waiting until we go be with Jesus.

Especially since you're always going to have to take by faith the probably of the scientific community.

It is also the opinion of the authors of the article you linked to in the OP.

For Jo Brendryen, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Bergen in Norway who has studied the effects of deglaciation in Europe following the end of the last ice age, the idea that traditional oral histories preserve real accounts of sea level rise is perfectly plausible.​

​

During the last ice age, he says, the sudden melting of ice sheets induced catastrophic events known as meltwater pulses, which caused sudden and extreme sea level rise. Along some coastlines in Europe, the ocean may have risen as much as 10 meters in just 200 years. At such a pace, it would have been noticeable to people across just a few human generations.​

Actually, I'd say that it's Joe Brendryen who holds that opinion. I have to say, I'm seriously impressed by your deep and abiding faith in a guy named Jo Brendryen. Are you acquainted with him? Have you sat down with him and actually spoken with him at length about his opinions on these things?
because if you haven't, it seems like you have an inordinately high level of faith in them.... which literally means that it's still a matter of probably, and you are a troo believer!

More vacuous bluster.

And you're stuck on probably.
Probably is an ok starting point. But it's a stupid ending point.
YHVH says that he will actually show us what really happened when we come home to be with Jesus.

 

[SteveB]

Do I want to spend my eternity with an egomaniacal god who is torturing for eternity the billions of people who, for whatever reason, chose not to worship him?

🤣🤦🏾‍♂️
Sounds like you're the egomaniac.
You believe what you've never actually tested for yourself, because the priesthood of your beliefs told you so.
Well, since you are terrified of the truth, you're actually going to choose to spend your eternity in misery, along with the real egomaniac who has spent millennia deceiving the human race, just to make sure they never actually learn the truth.

No. Why would I?

Why do you?

Because I'm not interested in, nor have I ever seen any value in "probably."
I actually want to know what the real truth is, regardless of how uncomfortable, and disturbing it is.
It's why I don't believe in atheism, Mormonism, jehovah's witnesses, Catholicism, lutheranisn or the other isms out there.
I engage in discussion with YHVH about this stuff, so I can learn the truth. And when I come to a place where I realize I need to wait, I can then learn what carries greater importance and focus on that.
Because I actually enjoy learning how much he loves us.
I enjoy knowing peace, joy, satisfaction, hope, encouragement, comfort, compassion, integrity, honor, life, and so many more things that YHVH is and seeks to give to everyone who comes to Jesus.

Oh right. You turn a blind eye to evil.

No actually. It's why I'm talking to you about Jesus.
If I turned a blind eye towards evil, I'd watch you silently descend into hell, and not say a single word.

It is after all, your sin sending you to hell.
It's your refusal to follow Jesus that will guarantee you spend your eternity in the lake of fire.

He pleads with you daily to turn to him from your sin and place your trust in Jesus Christ.

Pretend it is not really torture.

Oh. Well, I don't think that regardless of how impressive an imagination you have, that'll help.

Because apparently it is perfectly fine if God inflicts intense pain (as from burning in a lake of fire) to punish billions of people, just as long as we do not label it as "torture".

Except he's not going to be there to do anything. Those who do spend their eternity in the lake of fire will be all alone.
So, he can't inflict anything on you.
He created humans to enjoy life, love, peace, etc....
The pain is because God isn't there.
His lack of presence is exactly why you would experience pain.

I thought God created the lake of fire.

Well, according to Jesus, it was "prepared for the devil and his angels."

The word in greek for "prepare" is not the same Greek word for "create."


There's nothing that would imply or state, or infer that any thought of humans going there.
Nothing was given for the comfort or ease of humans.

It appears to be that way, because every thought was given to preparing the human race for a Kingdom.... all the way back to the foundation of the world.

Mat 25:34 WEB Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

So, why wouldn't you want to dwell in such a realm?
Jesus has done everything necessary to make sure that you are welcomed by God to spend your eternity in a paradise designed explicitly with your needs in mind.

Certainly that is what the Bible says, but I am coming to realise Christians get to pretend it says what they want.

That only makes sense when you are the one who keeps saying that you are into probably, keep choosing your biases, and preconceptions.

I never said that.

Actually you did.
You were quite clear.

You listed two things. In each list, you stated 3 different things.
For the bible's list, you stated

Again you are reduced to just making stuff up. If I can see that Christians routinely make things up as and when convenient, what do you think I am going to conclude about the gospel accounts?

Spoiler alert: They are probably just made up too

There's that word again!
Probably...

For someone who swears that science is the only objective truth, you sure have a penchant for probably!

This is going to be interesting on judgment day when you stand before God to answer for your life.

I'm guessing that you're probably going to say to him....
Uh....
..... I was told by people I don't know that you probably didn't actually exist, so I probably wasn't going to have a problem.

Considering that YHVH explicitly stated that he WILL give you a heart to know him, and Jesus said that by continuing in his teachings you WILL know the truth and the truth WILL set you free....

Furthermore, YHVH says that whosoever shall call on his name SHALL be saved.
Not probably. Not maybe. Not- well, if you catch me on a good day I'll consider it.
SHALL BE SAVED.
It's a guarantee!

I'd encourage you to decide if you actually want to know the truth or just continue living your life with probably.

YHVH doesn't do probably.
As we read in the new testament letter of 2 Corinthians, chapter 1,
The promises of God in Christ are yes and so be it!

So therefore Israel likely had local flooding.

Really. That's interesting.
Mostly because Noah wasn't in Israel when the flood happened.
And next because you keep using that word...
Likely...
I'm thinking that it's likely that you're going to live forever, even after all your probably's and likely's.
Oh..... wait...
YHVH says that you actually will continue to exist.... forever. Where that is, he's giving you the opportunity to choose your eternal address.

So in fact this is saying where the myth of a global flood came from.

Well, since you love the words likely and probably, you're going to have to excuse me for disregarding your beliefs.
Especially since you really have no idea beyond what Jo Brendryen told you.

So in fact this article is arguing AGAINST a global flood.

So says the guy who takes the word of people whom they have absolutely no acquaintance with.
Talking about blind faith! Wow!
I just don't have that kind of faith.
God knows I've tried over the years. Even after he warned me about the unreliability of people, I kept trusting what they told me.
Now.... after decades of heartbreak and disappointment and betrayal.... I've found that YHVH is the only one who is completely reliable and utterly trustworthy.

So... if you ever get tired of being lied to with probably and likely, and want shall, will, and yes and so be it....
Come follow Jesus.
In 45 years, he has never betrayed or lied to me.

And yet you just cited an article that supports me, in the mistaken belief that it supports you. Why is that?

Did it ever occur to you that I wanted to see how much faith and belief you have in probably and likely?
You are a dyed-in-the-wool faither in scientism.

Your biases and preconceptions that are blinding you.

Except mine aren't based on probably or likely.

Mine are based entirely on
Shall
Will
Yes and so be it!

Thank you for clarifying your beliefs.

It's always nice to see when people expose their beliefs in seeking to win arguments and corrupt conversations into debates.

 

[The Pixie]

Sounds like you're afraid that the initial point of the article is a problem.

The "initial point"? Sounds like you are cherry-picking what you want to be true from the article.

The entire article supports the mainstream position that sea levels rose to their present height over the course of thousands of years as the glaciers melted.

For Jo Brendryen, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Bergen in Norway who has studied the effects of deglaciation in Europe following the end of the last ice age, the idea that traditional oral histories preserve real accounts of sea level rise is perfectly plausible.​

​

During the last ice age, he says, the sudden melting of ice sheets induced catastrophic events known as meltwater pulses, which caused sudden and extreme sea level rise. Along some coastlines in Europe, the ocean may have risen as much as 10 meters in just 200 years. At such a pace, it would have been noticeable to people across just a few human generations.​

The whole article supports my position, and that includes the initial point.

You really aren't paying attention to what the author is saying.

And yet I am the one who can quote them supporting my position. Here it is again:

For Jo Brendryen, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Bergen in Norway who has studied the effects of deglaciation in Europe following the end of the last ice age, the idea that traditional oral histories preserve real accounts of sea level rise is perfectly plausible.​

​

During the last ice age, he says, the sudden melting of ice sheets induced catastrophic events known as meltwater pulses, which caused sudden and extreme sea level rise. Along some coastlines in Europe, the ocean may have risen as much as 10 meters in just 200 years. At such a pace, it would have been noticeable to people across just a few human generations.​

That supports my position, and refutes yours. You are the one who is not paying attention, despite me posting this quote about a dozen times.

You're stuck on the point where it becomes about a flood caused by an ice age, my emphasis is on the oral traditions and history.

And by "my emphasis is on" you mean you have cherry-picked from the article what you want to be true.

Without actually thinking about it.

Mainstream view: Sea levels rose to their present height over the course of thousands of years as the glaciers melted. There is an oral tradition dating back to that time recalling when the sea level rose to cover the land bridge from the Channel Islands to France.

SteveB view: Sea levels rose to cover even the tallest mountains over the course of forty days, killing all but eight people. There is an oral tradition dating back to that time recalling when the sea level rose to cover the land bridge from the Channel Islands to France. Er, so that means the people who lived there before the flood and who were killed in it somehow managed to pass on that oral tradition to the people who centuries later settled on the islands. Because, er, well, you are going to get tortured in hell unless you believe my BS so just shut up, okay??

Do please correct me if I have misunderstood your position.

 

[The Pixie]

I realize that the biblical narrative terrifies you, and forces you to consider matters you're clearly bothered by. That however is not a problem for me.

Right, because it is so scary to think of God opening holes in a solid dome to make it rain.

Only the part that you're so bitterly focused on.
It's a pity you're so focused on winning something that you lost at the resurrection of Jesus that you're afraid of learning, understanding and life itself.

Well, considering that you're the one who believes in probably, I'm not having a problem with your fear of learning to understand reality.

Quite frankly, all your fluff and blathering about science, I'm surprised that you are so ready to accept probably and so readily oppose actually.

Your version of "actually" is myth, Steve. The idea that rain is due to God opening holes in a solid dome is just plain wrong.

Not probably wrong, but actually wrong.

Yet yesterday, you made it clear that mainstream science says probably.

In contrast, the Bible say that rain is due to God opening holes in a solid dome.

I will stick with mainstream science. It is probably right, which is way better than definitely wrong.

So, why would I accept probably when YHVH says that he'll show us actually.
It's simply a matter of waiting until we go be with Jesus.

Jam tomorrow. Always jam tomorrow.

Again, I will stick with probably right today.

Especially since you're always going to have to take by faith the probably of the scientific community.

But I can read what their claims are based on, and look at the evidence. Real evidence, not just what someone promises to have at some unspecified time in the future.

If it comes to that, I can look around at all the marvels of modern technology - such as this internet forum we are communicating on - and see just how powerful "probably right" really is.

Actually, I'd say that it's Joe Brendryen who holds that opinion. I have to say, I'm seriously impressed by your deep and abiding faith in a guy named Jo Brendryen. Are you acquainted with him? Have you sat down with him and actually spoken with him at length about his opinions on these things?
because if you haven't, it seems like you have an inordinately high level of faith in them.... which literally means that it's still a matter of probably, and you are a troo believer!

You are the one who started a thread that cited the guy as an authority.

Have you forgotten that?

And you're stuck on probably.
Probably is an ok starting point. But it's a stupid ending point.
YHVH says that he will actually show us what really happened when we come home to be with Jesus.

And "will actually" is an empty promise of jam tomorrow.

🤣🤦🏾‍♂️
Sounds like you're the egomaniac.

Why Steve? Because I think mainstream science is probably right? Talk us through your logic here.

I would like to point out that I have no desired to hurt anyone who fails to love and worship me, let alone torture them for ternity. Oh, and I should also point out that I have never said mankind's greatest command is to love me. So with that in mind, do please say why I am the egomaniac here.

You believe what you've never actually tested for yourself, because the priesthood of your beliefs told you so.

Actually I do read up on this stuff to see why the priesthood - or scientists as I call them - believe mainstream science is probably true.

It is worth noting that these scientists are honest enough to admit they might be wrong. No other priesthood does that. Christian preachers are adamant that they are right, just as certain as the leaders of Hinduism, Islam, etc. Of all the priesthoods, it is only scientists who have the humility to acknowledge their doubt.

Which is odd, when they have so much evidence to support their position and so much technology exists based on their tenets, when all the rest have three quarters of diddy squat.

Well, since you are terrified of the truth, you're actually going to choose to spend your eternity in misery, along with the real egomaniac who has spent millennia deceiving the human race, just to make sure they never actually learn the truth.

What makes you think I am terrified of the truth?

Remember all those web pages you find? I am the one who actually reads them. You are the one who does not. Seems to me I am the one less scared of the truth. Admittedly they nearly always agree with me, but I do not know that - not for sure - until I read them.

It is after all, your sin sending you to hell.

No it is not. The Bible is quite clear it is God sends people to hell, and he does so because they failed to love and worship him.

It's your refusal to follow Jesus that will guarantee you spend your eternity in the lake of fire.

So why did you just say it was my sin?

Well, according to Jesus, it was "prepared for the devil and his angels."

The word in greek for "prepare" is not the same Greek word for "create."

So who created it?

And really, so what? The point is the Bible says God sends people there to torture them for eternity because they failed to love and worship him. Does it make it morally acceptable if his torture chamber was prepared by him, rather than created by him?

There's nothing that would imply or state, or infer that any thought of humans going there.

So that makes it okay for God to torture billions of people there for eternity?

As long as he did not plan to do that when he made the place, you think he is morally in the clear?

There's that word again!
Probably...

Well done, you spotted it. Why is that such a problem for you? Life holds a lot of undoubtedly. We can either accept that or, well, turn to religion and pretend it is not so.

For someone who swears that science is the only objective truth, ...

I never said that.

Again, you are obliged to just make stuff up. Why is that, Steve?

Something for you to think about: Lies make Baby Jesus cry