PDA

View Full Version : Age of Men in Genesis



hawksnest
Feb 24th 2011, 01:34 PM
I happened to enter a friendly debate with my stepmother about the validity that the men named in Genesis chapter 5 (Adam and his lineage) really did live centuries before dying.

First off, we both support creationism. Our only differences are that we disagree on the fact that Adam and his bloodline were actually able to live almost a millennium.

Her stance is that men could not possibly live to be 700, 800, and even 900+ years old. She would give maybe 150 years a good chance, but not possibly 5-6 times that.

My stance is that it could in fact be possible for people to live 10 times the maximum lifespan of modern humans for a few reasons. People thousands of years ago did not consume gratuitous amounts of pollution through air, food was all-natural without additives and preservatives, no prescription and illegal drugs, and crops were not sprayed with chemicals. Also, those people had to work the land to live, so they were most likely more physically fit and not in the slightest bit sedentary as we are. The only thing that may have been worse was drinking water, because of the lack of purification systems.

It also says in Genesis that as the numbers of people increased, God saw that they were wicked and regretted creating them (Gen. 6:7). This was a prelude to the Great Flood. Now, in Genesis 6:3, God says "My spirit will not contend with men forever, for he is mortal; his days will number one hundred and twenty years." Is this a prophecy about how much time is left before the flood?

My stepmother's point is that numbers in the Bible aren't to be taken literally. She took her source from a theology course she took in college when her professor kept saying "the Twelve Tribes of Israel", when she counted 18 (truth to that?). The professor said that in the Bible, the number 12 means "complete", not literally 10+2. I can't see how that is true considering the fact that there were twelve disciples, so does that translate to "complete disciples" in Bible speak? I don't know for sure, but it sounds sketchy.

The main point of the debate is whether or not men lived centuries. My stepmother believes the Bible is full of allegory, while I believe it has more fact than just confusing riddles (see 1 Corinthians 14:33).

nzyr
Feb 24th 2011, 02:16 PM
I happened to enter a friendly debate with my stepmother about the validity that the men named in Genesis chapter 5 (Adam and his lineage) really did live centuries before dying.

First off, we both support creationism. Our only differences are that we disagree on the fact that Adam and his bloodline were actually able to live almost a millennium.

Her stance is that men could not possibly live to be 700, 800, and even 900+ years old. She would give maybe 150 years a good chance, but not possibly 5-6 times that.

My stance is that it could in fact be possible for people to live 10 times the maximum lifespan of modern humans for a few reasons. People thousands of years ago did not consume gratuitous amounts of pollution through air, food was all-natural without additives and preservatives, no prescription and illegal drugs, and crops were not sprayed with chemicals. Also, those people had to work the land to live, so they were most likely more physically fit and not in the slightest bit sedentary as we are. The only thing that may have been worse was drinking water, because of the lack of purification systems.

It also says in Genesis that as the numbers of people increased, God saw that they were wicked and regretted creating them (Gen. 6:7). This was a prelude to the Great Flood. Now, in Genesis 6:3, God says "My spirit will not contend with men forever, for he is mortal; his days will number one hundred and twenty years." Is this a prophecy about how much time is left before the flood?Yes. As Abraham live to be 175 years old. (Genesis 25:7)


My stepmother's point is that numbers in the Bible aren't to be taken literally. She took her source from a theology course she took in college when her professor kept saying "the Twelve Tribes of Israel", when she counted 18 (truth to that?). The professor said that in the Bible, the number 12 means "complete", not literally 10+2. I can't see how that is true considering the fact that there were twelve disciples, so does that translate to "complete disciples" in Bible speak? I don't know for sure, but it sounds sketchy.

The main point of the debate is whether or not men lived centuries. My stepmother believes the Bible is full of allegory, while I believe it has more fact than just confusing riddles (see 1 Corinthians 14:33).
Yes I believed they lived that long. Some theologians don't believe what the bible says. If you've noticed. The people closer to Adam and Eve lived longer. Perhaps because their genes did not have as much accumulated damage as later generations. Or perhaps because the earth was more protective of people's health. One elderly minister once told me that God caused people to live longer back then so that they would populate the earth more.

Moses65
Feb 24th 2011, 03:35 PM
I have heard creation scientists quoting Genesis 1:7 stating that God, before the Flood had created a canopy of water in the atmosphere which was above the earth, they state this is what is meant in Genesis 7:11 "and the windows of heaven were opened." This canopy would easily explained the longer life cycle of the first humans. For they had a much better atmosphere of oxygen and the canopy would add extra protection from the destructive rays of the sun.

Psalms 104:6
Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
Perhaps this verse also refers to this canopy.

BrckBrln
Feb 24th 2011, 06:11 PM
Some theologians don't believe what the bible says.

Some theologians try to understand the Bible in it's original context. In this case, it seems the long lifespans are a play on the similarly long lifespans found in the Sumerian King List. If you don't believe the Kings in that list lived tens of thousands of years, why do you believe the people in Genesis 5 lived hundreds of years? The only answer to that is that one is found in the Bible and the other is not, and whatever is found in the Bible must be what you think to be 'true'. What gets me, though, is the pure speculation of the traditional view. Better oxygen in the air, purer genes, better protection from sun's rays, etc. Nothing but pure speculation, and yet my view, which has some evidence, is rejected as 'not believing what the Bible says'. :dunno:

Servant89
Feb 25th 2011, 01:26 PM
Listen, God knew from the beginning the arguments against his word. For that reason, he left evidence to demonstrate the foolishness of the critics.

Have you heard of Progeria?

There is a button inside DNA that controls the rate of aging in human beings. Progeria shows that button can be moved forward for there are plenty of children dying of old age by the time they are 12. Why if we can see the aging rate moving forward, why is it hard to believe it can be moved backward?

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Shalom

teddyv
Feb 25th 2011, 03:56 PM
Listen, God knew from the beginning the arguments against his word. For that reason, he left evidence to demonstrate the foolishness of the critics.

Have you heard of Progeria?

There is a button inside DNA that controls the rate of aging in human beings. Progeria shows that button can be moved forward for there are plenty of children dying of old age by the time they are 12. Why if we can see the aging rate moving forward, why is it hard to believe it can be moved backward?

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Shalom

It is a point mutation, not a "button".

Servant89
Feb 26th 2011, 12:12 AM
It is a point mutation, not a "button".

It has an effect on the rate of aging. Therefore, whatever it is, it can change that rate of aging. If it can be accelerated, it can be decelerated.

Peace

WSGAC
Feb 26th 2011, 02:38 AM
And besides that, it never rained before Noah too! If you believe that, I got a bridge I can sell you!

Phish
Feb 26th 2011, 03:03 AM
I amazed that some people can believe in God, yet can't believe in what he said. I think some things just have to be taken at his word. We have no idea what the Earth was like before the flood and what was possible in that enviroment. God did create man as a perfect man that would never die at least until man messed it up so why is it so hard to believe a man created to be eternal could live so long. We only understand the world in which we live from our perspective and conditions in which we live.

I personally think that conditions must have been alot different like no rain and thick canopy, could very well explain why people lived longer, but it is just specualtion. I have no reason to doubt what God has said in his word and if I did, why would I even believe in him in the first place?

BrckBrln
Feb 26th 2011, 03:10 AM
I amazed that some people can believe in God, yet can't believe in what he said.

I am amazed that some people can't see that it is not as simple as believing 'what God said'. There are interpretation issues that seem to go ignored by the 'God said it, I believe it' crowd.

I am also amazed that the same people that disregard the universal findings of science, then proceed to try and explain things like the Flood, and conditions before and after, scientifically. Why not just say 'God made it happen', I wonder?

Servant89
Feb 26th 2011, 05:06 PM
And besides that, it never rained before Noah too! If you believe that, I got a bridge I can sell you!

If we can not believe the Bible, if we can not trust the Bible, God can not judge us (John 12:47-48).

I want to go on record that I believe that. I really do believe that the earth was exactly the way Genesis describes it. God was there, he is the onlly witness we have of the event. I believe him.

The first words out of Satan's mouth were "Yeah, Has God said"? bringing to question the word of God. The birds in Mat 13 (Jesus interpreted it for us), are the wicked one that takes the word of God from the heart of the people. I know you mean well, and I know I am probably a worse sinner than anyone in this thread, but as the Scriptures state in the book of Haggai:

Hag 1:5 Now therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
Hag 1:7 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.

Shalom

Phish
Feb 26th 2011, 05:52 PM
I am amazed that some people can't see that it is not as simple as believing 'what God said'. There are interpretation issues that seem to go ignored by the 'God said it, I believe it' crowd.

I am also amazed that the same people that disregard the universal findings of science, then proceed to try and explain things like the Flood, and conditions before and after, scientifically. Why not just say 'God made it happen', I wonder?


Why isn't it that simple? Do we know more than Him? Have we reached the level in our understanding that we can begin question His word because it doesn't fit what we understand? Do we understand everything?

To stay on topic what evidence is there to suggest that men couldn't have lived that long? Why is the bible being mis-interpeted in this matter?

There is proof that our world was once different, how diffrent we don't know? Since we don't know, what gives us the right to say God must have meant this or he really didn't mean this where is says it. If you have to say that, why do you believe in him in the first place?

Unversal findings of science? Really, you want to trust this more than Him? Would you take the newest Scinece Text Book you can find and make that your Bible for the next 10 Yrs, 20....30? Would it change over that time period? Can you take a text book from 30 yrs ago and not deviate from what it says and teach new sudents science?

For me, I'm just gonna stick with what God says happened, who am I to say that it must be wrong.

BrckBrln
Feb 26th 2011, 06:16 PM
Why isn't it that simple? Do we know more than Him? Have we reached the level in our understanding that we can begin question His word because it doesn't fit what we understand? Do we understand everything?

To stay on topic what evidence is there to suggest that men couldn't have lived that long? Why is the bible being mis-interpeted in this matter?

There is proof that our world was once different, how diffrent we don't know? Since we don't know, what gives us the right to say God must have meant this or he really didn't mean this where is says it. If you have to say that, why do you believe in him in the first place?

Unversal findings of science? Really, you want to trust this more than Him? Would you take the newest Scinece Text Book you can find and make that your Bible for the next 10 Yrs, 20....30? Would it change over that time period? Can you take a text book from 30 yrs ago and not deviate from what it says and teach new sudents science?

For me, I'm just gonna stick with what God says happened, who am I to say that it must be wrong.

Thank you for illustrating exactly what it is I am amazed about. Let me just ask one question, do you think the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the Ancient Near Eastern world it came from?

Liquid Tension
Feb 26th 2011, 06:23 PM
I amazed that some people can believe in God, yet can't believe in what he said. I think some things just have to be taken at his word. We have no idea what the Earth was like before the flood and what was possible in that enviroment. God did create man as a perfect man that would never die at least until man messed it up so why is it so hard to believe a man created to be eternal could live so long. We only understand the world in which we live from our perspective and conditions in which we live.

I personally think that conditions must have been alot different like no rain and thick canopy, could very well explain why people lived longer, but it is just specualtion. I have no reason to doubt what God has said in his word and if I did, why would I even believe in him in the first place?

+1


Why isn't it that simple? Do we know more than Him? Have we reached the level in our understanding that we can begin question His word because it doesn't fit what we understand? Do we understand everything?

To stay on topic what evidence is there to suggest that men couldn't have lived that long? Why is the bible being mis-interpeted in this matter?

There is proof that our world was once different, how diffrent we don't know? Since we don't know, what gives us the right to say God must have meant this or he really didn't mean this where is says it. If you have to say that, why do you believe in him in the first place?

Unversal findings of science? Really, you want to trust this more than Him? Would you take the newest Scinece Text Book you can find and make that your Bible for the next 10 Yrs, 20....30? Would it change over that time period? Can you take a text book from 30 yrs ago and not deviate from what it says and teach new sudents science?

+1 again


For me, I'm just gonna stick with what God says happened, who am I to say that it must be wrong.

+1,000,000

Neanias
Feb 26th 2011, 06:25 PM
I agree with Phish and Servant on this.

There is 'evidence' for many things... But I think it's important to realize that the world has been given over to the devil, so why are we surprised when there is 'evidence' that goes against the word of God? Such is the work of the devil.

God is God. As simple as that sounds, it's not always understood. He can do whatever he pleases, that includes shortening the lifespan of man, making the earth and it's system function without rain... Then it becomes a matter of whether or not we believe him. If we cannot believe what he says about something we have seen nothing of and just hear some other men claim it is so, then how can we believe him when he says we can be like him although everything around us screams 'Impossible!'?

Neanias
Feb 26th 2011, 06:27 PM
Thank you for illustrating exactly what it is I am amazed about. Let me just ask one question, do you think the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the Ancient Near Eastern world it came from?

In other words, you don't believe it comes from God and was given to men by God, but you believe it came from the 'Ancient Near Eastern world'.

If that is true, you are right.

Only I think Phish believes it comes from God. :)

Phish
Feb 26th 2011, 06:35 PM
Thank you for illustrating exactly what it is I am amazed about. Let me just ask one question, do you think the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the Ancient Near Eastern world it came from?

Lets stay on topic, your more than welcome to start another thread. The question in this one is the age of men

Liquid Tension
Feb 26th 2011, 06:36 PM
There is 'evidence' for many things...

Yes!! Like the question I asked in another thread: What would "evidence" suggest as to what the age of the fish (beside the 2 the lad had) Jesus pulled out of the basket and gave to His diciples to feed the 5000?

Back to the topic, one either believes or not. Is this a salvation issue? I don't believe so. But as for me, unless someone can provide me with proof or "evidence" beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ages of the men in Genesis are false/allegory, I choose to believe the Word of God.

BrckBrln
Feb 26th 2011, 06:49 PM
In other words, you don't believe it comes from God and was given to men by God, but you believe it came from the 'Ancient Near Eastern world'.

If that is true, you are right.

Only I think Phish believes it comes from God. :)

I don't think coming from God and coming from the ANE world are mutually exclusive.


Lets stay on topic, your more than welcome to start another thread. The question in this one is the age of men

It is on topic. It's the basic presupposition of the whole issue. It's why you believe what you do. If you believe the Scriptures are 'from God' (what exaclty does that mean to you?) and not from any conceptual world, then you will end up interpreting the Bible in a mistaken way.

Neanias
Feb 26th 2011, 07:30 PM
I don't think coming from God and coming from the ANE world are mutually exclusive.



It is on topic. It's the basic presupposition of the whole issue. It's why you believe what you do. If you believe the Scriptures are 'from God' (what exaclty does that mean to you?) and not from any conceptual world, then you will end up interpreting the Bible in a mistaken way.

So something can come from God and yet be flawed? When God does something, is it not perfect? Can God lie?

I'm only interpreting the bible in a mistaken way if you are right, and if indeed the Bible is flawed (and therefore God's work is either imperfect or the Bible is not his word, whichever you like).

The scriptures are not from a conceptual world. They cannot be from God and from a conceptual world, otherwise you might as well call God a conceptual world :lol:

The scriptures are from God and were spoken into a conceptual world. If you believe this, they cannot then be a lie. Otherwise you are saying that they partially originate from God and partially from a conceptual world, in which case they are not wholly truth, and something that is not wholly truth is no truth at all... Lies are made of half-truths, at least the convincing ones.

Phish
Feb 26th 2011, 08:36 PM
Some theologians try to understand the Bible in it's original context. In this case, it seems the long lifespans are a play on the similarly long lifespans found in the Sumerian King List. If you don't believe the Kings in that list lived tens of thousands of years, why do you believe the people in Genesis 5 lived hundreds of years? The only answer to that is that one is found in the Bible and the other is not, and whatever is found in the Bible must be what you think to be 'true'. What gets me, though, is the pure speculation of the traditional view. Better oxygen in the air, purer genes, better protection from sun's rays, etc. Nothing but pure speculation, and yet my view, which has some evidence, is rejected as 'not believing what the Bible says'. :dunno:



Lets start Here, Do you believe what the Bible says? Do you believe it is God's word?

nzyr
Feb 26th 2011, 08:42 PM
Some theologians try to understand the Bible in it's original context. In this case, it seems the long lifespans are a play on the similarly long lifespans found in the Sumerian King List. If you don't believe the Kings in that list lived tens of thousands of years, why do you believe the people in Genesis 5 lived hundreds of years? The only answer to that is that one is found in the Bible and the other is not, and whatever is found in the Bible must be what you think to be 'true'. What gets me, though, is the pure speculation of the traditional view. Better oxygen in the air, purer genes, better protection from sun's rays, etc. Nothing but pure speculation, and yet my view, which has some evidence, is rejected as 'not believing what the Bible says'. :dunno:

The Sumerians didn't write the bible. And why is it so hard to believe that Adam and Eve lived so long? And some of their children too? Which is easier, a man to live to be 969 years old or someone rising back to life after being dead for three days? There's all kinds of miracles in the bible. I believe all of them. I don't try to explain them away because today's scientists or whoever say it isn't possible.

nzyr
Feb 26th 2011, 08:47 PM
...purer genes,...

Actually that's probably it right there.

Slina
Feb 26th 2011, 09:38 PM
Personally, I think the basic question here would be, which do you think is more reliable and trustworthy, science or the Bible?

WSGAC
Feb 27th 2011, 01:07 AM
Back to the topic, one either believes or not. Is this a salvation issue? I don't believe so. But as for me, unless someone can provide me with proof or "evidence" beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ages of the men in Genesis are false/allegory, I choose to believe the Word of God.

Did you know the earth is flat and does not move? This is the clear teaching of scripture. You either choose to believe the Word of God or you do not.

Consider:

Psalm 104 states that God, "laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." (Psalm 104:5)

and also:

"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world is also established that it cannot be moved." (Ps.93)

Clearly the word of God states that the earth has an immovable foundation. In other words, the earth does not move. Thus, any talk of the earth revolving about the sun is in contradiction to the clear word of God. This point is further supported by other scripture:

"The sun also rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

God's word is consistent. It is the earth that remains fixed, while the rest of the heavenly bodies move around the earth. Science has corrupted men's minds. There are things that have to be taken on faith. God's ways are above man's ways, His thoughts above man's thoughts.

Scripture also tells us that the earth is flat, and not a sphere. Flat surfaces have "edges" or "ends." Are there any passages from scripture that speak of the edges or ends of the earth? Why yes there are:

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (Job 38:13) Does a sphere have edges? And how can you grab the edges of a sphere? Only a flat disc could be grabbed and shaken by its edges!

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? (Job 38:44) If the earth were a sphere, the question to Job should read "Who stretched a measuring line around it?"

It is quite apparent from these passages that the earth is flat and does not move. Fallible scientists do not understand this because they choose not to believe God's word. When it comes to deciding between God's word and fallible man, it would be wise to choose for the Word of God!

____________________

So you see, it all depends on what you first bring to the text what your understanding of the text will be. ;)

BrckBrln
Feb 27th 2011, 01:32 AM
So something can come from God and yet be flawed?

All of creation comes from God and is still flawed. I don't think a perfect God can only create or produce perfect things. If he wants to create imperfect humans and give us an imperfect book, I don't see anything wrong with that.


Can God lie?

No, God cannot lie. Can God give us a book with errors in it? I don't see why he can't.


The scriptures are from God and were spoken into a conceptual world.

Yet this conceptual world means nothing when it comes to interpreting the Bible?


Lets start Here, Do you believe what the Bible says? Do you believe it is God's word?

Everybody believes 'what the Bible says'. What I think is the correct understanding of a particular passage is different from your understanding. This does not mean I don't believe what the Bible says. It means I don't agree with the way you are handling the text.

I do believe the Bible is God's word. That is, I believe what we have is exactly what God wants us to have.


The Sumerians didn't write the bible. And why is it so hard to believe that Adam and Eve lived so long? And some of their children too? Which is easier, a man to live to be 969 years old or someone rising back to life after being dead for three days? There's all kinds of miracles in the bible. I believe all of them. I don't try to explain them away because today's scientists or whoever say it isn't possible.

As hard as it may be for some of you to believe, I don't try to explain away things in the Bible based on what modern scientists tell us what can and cannot happen. If I did, I wouldn't believe in the Resurrection. I affirm that if God wanted people to live nearly a thousand years long, he could very well do it. I just don't believe that to be what has actually happened. And I believe that way primarily on the similarity of Genesis 5 with texts like the Sumerian King List. My goal is to try and properly understand the Bible, and to do that I need to pay great attention to the world it came from.


Personally, I think the basic question here would be, which do you think is more reliable and trustworthy, science or the Bible?

Setting up this dichotomy is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. If I want to know the age of the earth, I will look to science. If I want to know how to gain salvation, I will look to the Bible. If the writers of the Bible wrote with pre-modern scientific assumptions that have made there way into the text, I will recognize that and explain it so.

A more basic question is how should one interpret Scripture? Should we take seriously the world from which it came and allow that to throw some light on our interpretation? Or should we ignore the conceptual world it came from and interpret it according to our modern presuppositions?

Raybob
Feb 27th 2011, 02:44 AM
Did you know the earth is flat and does not move? This is the clear teaching of scripture. You either choose to believe the Word of God or you do not.

Please show one scripture that ever said it was flat. I can't find one. I know scriptures teach that the earth does not move. I believe that. There are many scientists that believe that as well. If you're interested in that topic, there's a good web site with many biblical references at Fixedearth.com (http://www.fixedearth.com/).

Flat earth was a concept introduced in the dark ages. Archeology shows that people were sea traders in pretty much every part of the world in days before the dark ages.


"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (Job 38:13) Does a sphere have edges? And how can you grab the edges of a sphere? Only a flat disc could be grabbed and shaken by its edges!That is twist of God's words. The bible says "ends" not "edges". Yes the earth has ends, north pole and south pole.

WSGAC
Feb 27th 2011, 03:18 AM
Please show one scripture that ever said it was flat. I can't find one. I know scriptures teach that the earth does not move. I believe that. There are many scientists that believe that as well. If you're interested in that topic, there's a good web site with many biblical references at Fixedearth.com (http://www.fixedearth.com/).

Flat earth was a concept introduced in the dark ages. Archeology shows that people were sea traders in pretty much every part of the world in days before the dark ages.
That is twist of God's words. The bible says "ends" not "edges". Yes the earth has ends, north pole and south pole.

My point is, you bring a certain world view to the scripture and you will find that world view confirmed by scripture. If you begin with a belief that the world is flat, you can find scriptures that confirm what you already believe. If you want to believe it never rained before Noah, go right ahead. I choose to believe that water evaporates...off of lakes, off of oceans, off of the ground....then it condenses as it rises in the atmosphere to form clouds....and then it returns to earth as rain. The properties of hydrology do not change just because there was a flood. Water evaporated then, as it does now. Why water would act any differently after the flood than before the flood is nothing more than trying to look for a flat earth in scripture.

No, men did not live 900 years.

Slina
Feb 27th 2011, 03:33 AM
Setting up this dichotomy is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. If I want to know the age of the earth, I will look to science. If I want to know how to gain salvation, I will look to the Bible. If the writers of the Bible wrote with pre-modern scientific assumptions that have made there way into the text, I will recognize that and explain it so.

A more basic question is how should one interpret Scripture? Should we take seriously the world from which it came and allow that to throw some light on our interpretation? Or should we ignore the conceptual world it came from and interpret it according to our modern presuppositions?

Well, obviously I wasn't implying by my question that you can only have one or the other. But at the end of the day, you need to have something that you measure everything else against. If both modern science and the Bible differ on something, then you need to choose which "side" you choose to believe. I don't think the Bible makes a good science textbook any more than anyone else, but that doesn't mean its historical accounts are in any way inaccurate. Yes it was written by ancient writers, and their personal styles as well as their contemporary cultures are very much reflected in the text. However, what they wrote was was also inspired by God, and is therefore fully reliable and true, and as the word of God himself, everything in the Bible should be treated as such.

Also, once you start putting science first before the Bible in anything, I have to start wondering where you draw the line. Just last semester I took a course in mythology and had a very knowledgeable professor. He knew all the patterns behind the development of myths and all about very ancient cultures, and I think even had a fair bit of archeological knowledge as well. However, based on all his scientific and historical knowledge, he knew for a fact that every last historical account in the Bible was a religious myth, and had a perfect explanation for how every single one came to be. Obviously I disagree with him, but that's part of my problem with putting science and cultural backgrounds before the Bible itself. If none of the accounts in the Bible are true, then how are we supposed to believe the teachings are any more reliable? For that matter, what would be the point? Jesus' death and resurrection were supposedly myths based on Apollo, but if that's the case, why even bother being Christians in the first place?

BrckBrln
Feb 27th 2011, 03:58 AM
Well, obviously I wasn't implying by my question that you can only have one or the other. But at the end of the day, you need to have something that you measure everything else against. If both modern science and the Bible differ on something, then you need to choose which "side" you choose to believe. I don't think the Bible makes a good science textbook any more than anyone else, but that doesn't mean its historical accounts are in any way inaccurate. Yes it was written by ancient writers, and their personal styles as well as their contemporary cultures are very much reflected in the text. However, what they wrote was was also inspired by God, and is therefore fully reliable and true, and as the word of God himself, everything in the Bible should be treated as such.

If modern science and the Bible differ on something, it's very probable that is because of the pre-modern scientific assumptions of the ancient writer.


Also, once you start putting science first before the Bible in anything, I have to start wondering where you draw the line. Just last semester I took a course in mythology and had a very knowledgeable professor. He knew all the patterns behind the development of myths and all about very ancient cultures, and I think even had a fair bit of archeological knowledge as well. However, based on all his scientific and historical knowledge, he knew for a fact that every last historical account in the Bible was a religious myth, and had a perfect explanation for how every single one came to be. Obviously I disagree with him, but that's part of my problem with putting science and cultural backgrounds before the Bible itself. If none of the accounts in the Bible are true, then how are we supposed to believe the teachings are any more reliable? For that matter, what would be the point? Jesus' death and resurrection were supposedly myths based on Apollo, but if that's the case, why even bother being Christians in the first place?

Again, I don't put science before the Bible. I completely reject that kind of thinking. And I never said that all of the stories in the Bible are untrue.

Phish
Feb 27th 2011, 05:11 AM
All of creation comes from God and is still flawed. I don't think a perfect God can only create or produce perfect things. If he wants to create imperfect humans and give us an imperfect book, I don't see anything wrong with that.

The Bible doesn't teach that the world was created flawed, It was created perfect. I'm sorry I have a real hard time with Perfection creating imperfection, doesn't make sense. I can create imperfection, because I'm not perfect. God cannot create imperfection, otherwise He would be imperfect.

Same goes with the Bible, if it is His word then it would be a perfect word, no imperfections. If He said it didn't rain and man lived to be 900 plus years then thats what must have happened. I wasn't there, you wern't there WSGAC wasn't there, He was. If this comes in to conflict with what I believe to be true, then I must be wrong or I don't have enough information. The same is true for the age of Man and whether it rained or not. Sure from a scientific prospective now this is impossible, couldn't happen, but I realize that things were most likely different so I don't have any business saying that what God said isn't true because it doesn't meet my scientific requirements or observations.

Raybob
Feb 27th 2011, 05:33 AM
My point is, you bring a certain world view to the scripture and you will find that world view confirmed by scripture. If you begin with a belief that the world is flat, you can find scriptures that confirm what you already believe.My point is there aren't any scriptures that say anything about the earth being flat.
If you want to believe it never rained before Noah, go right ahead. I choose to believe that water evaporates...off of lakes, off of oceans, off of the ground....then it condenses as it rises in the atmosphere to form clouds....and then it returns to earth as rain. The properties of hydrology do not change just because there was a flood. Water evaporated then, as it does now. Why water would act any differently after the flood than before the flood is nothing more than trying to look for a flat earth in scripture.

No, men did not live 900 years.The world was different before the flood. There isn't any mention of any clouds or any water coming from the sky until after the flood. Before the flood, mist came up from the ground to water it, not rain from clouds.

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
(Gen 2:6)


No, men did not live 900 years.
True, Methuselah lived to 969. :)

teddyv
Feb 27th 2011, 05:47 AM
The Bible doesn't teach that the world was created flawed, It was created perfect. I'm sorry I have a real hard time with Perfection creating imperfection, doesn't make sense. I can create imperfection, because I'm not perfect. God cannot create imperfection, otherwise He would be imperfect.I believe it says God created the world and called is "very good". I do not recall reading the word "perfect".

Liquid Tension
Feb 27th 2011, 05:58 AM
Did you know the earth is flat and does not move? This is the clear teaching of scripture. You either choose to believe the Word of God or you do not.

Consider:

Psalm 104 states that God, "laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." (Psalm 104:5)

and also:

"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world is also established that it cannot be moved." (Ps.93)

Clearly the word of God states that the earth has an immovable foundation. In other words, the earth does not move. Thus, any talk of the earth revolving about the sun is in contradiction to the clear word of God. This point is further supported by other scripture:

"The sun also rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

God's word is consistent. It is the earth that remains fixed, while the rest of the heavenly bodies move around the earth. Science has corrupted men's minds. There are things that have to be taken on faith. God's ways are above man's ways, His thoughts above man's thoughts.

Scripture also tells us that the earth is flat, and not a sphere. Flat surfaces have "edges" or "ends." Are there any passages from scripture that speak of the edges or ends of the earth? Why yes there are:

Well, apparently in my developmental years I missed where the earth is flat. Yeah...............suuuuuure. I will say that I have no problem believing in the possibility that the earth is the center of the universe, but that's another topic.


"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (Job 38:13) Does a sphere have edges? And how can you grab the edges of a sphere? Only a flat disc could be grabbed and shaken by its edges!

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? (Job 38:44) If the earth were a sphere, the question to Job should read "Who stretched a measuring line around it?"

It is quite apparent from these passages that the earth is flat and does not move. Fallible scientists do not understand this because they choose not to believe God's word. When it comes to deciding between God's word and fallible man, it would be wise to choose for the Word of God!

____________________

So you see, it all depends on what you first bring to the text what your understanding of the text will be. ;)

Let's see, Job 38:13....

Young's Literal Translation: To take hold on the skirts of the earth, And the wicked are shaken out of it, (ESV also uses the word skirts.)

Do only flat objects need a skirt?? Or can a sphere also have a skirt?? Still dosen't show me where the earth is flat.




My point is, you bring a certain world view to the scripture and you will find that world view confirmed by scripture. If you begin with a belief that the world is flat, you can find scriptures that confirm what you already believe. If you want to believe it never rained before Noah, go right ahead. I choose to believe that water evaporates...off of lakes, off of oceans, off of the ground....then it condenses as it rises in the atmosphere to form clouds....and then it returns to earth as rain. The properties of hydrology do not change just because there was a flood. Water evaporated then, as it does now. Why water would act any differently after the flood than before the flood is nothing more than trying to look for a flat earth in scripture.

No, men did not live 900 years.

Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that "men did not live 900 years"? As you said in an earlier post, "God's word is consistent". So if men did not live 900 years as the Bible claims, then apparently God's word is not consistent. Maybe it's just me, but what do I know...........

Phish
Feb 27th 2011, 06:03 AM
I believe it says God created the world and called is "very good". I do not recall reading the word "perfect".

Deu 32:4 [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he

BrckBrln
Feb 27th 2011, 06:14 AM
I'm not sure, but I would argue that a perfect God could only create something non-perfect. I mean this in the truest sense, not like we would say that something is perfect, like a perfect diamond or something (which, I think, is what is going on in that verse you quote above me). Regardless, what exactly does a perfect Bible mean? Wouldn't that imply the language used should be perfect? That it should have perfect grammar and such? Also, if God has given us a perfect book, why did he then essentially abandon it? Why didn't God preserve this perfect book? As I'm sure you are aware, we don't have the orginals and due to copying after copying there are something like 400,000 'imperfections' now in the Bible. So why give a perfect Bible if you are not going to preserve it in a perfect way?

Slina
Feb 27th 2011, 06:38 AM
If modern science and the Bible differ on something, it's very probable that is because of the pre-modern scientific assumptions of the ancient writer.

Again, I don't put science before the Bible. I completely reject that kind of thinking. And I never said that all of the stories in the Bible are untrue.

I never meant to say that you believe the Bible is a book of myths, I was simply showing some of my experience with the line of thinking you seem to be using, granted to the extreme that generally only the secular world is willing to take it.

My main issue though, is that yes, I believe that the Bible is fully reliable, whereas I see modern science as something that is constantly changing with each new discovery, not to mention that most scientific theories that contradict the Bible were developed with the presupposition that God could not have been even remotely involved with the creation of the earth. Meanwhile, the Bible easily stands the test of time, and when you consider that it was written by a perfect and all-powerful God, I think it's pretty hard to question that any part of its historical narratives might be anything but true as written. This isn't to say I reject science altogether, but when it starts contradicting the Bible, I have to assume that science simply hasn't gotten it right yet.

Phish
Feb 27th 2011, 06:44 AM
I'm not sure, but I would argue that a perfect God could only create something non-perfect. I mean this in the truest sense, not like we would say that something is perfect, like a perfect diamond or something (which, I think, is what is going on in that verse you quote above me). Regardless, what exactly does a perfect Bible mean? Wouldn't that imply the language used should be perfect? That it should have perfect grammar and such? Also, if God has given us a perfect book, why did he then essentially abandon it? Why didn't God preserve this perfect book? As I'm sure you are aware, we don't have the orginals and due to copying after copying there are something like 400,000 'imperfections' now in the Bible. So why give a perfect Bible if you are not going to preserve it in a perfect way?

I have seen some pretty amazzing things when it comes to the language of the Bible. There are all sorts of studies with equal letter distanceing and stuff. I think there was a study on Matt 1 with the geneologly of Adam to Jesus which would be mathmatically impossible to duplicate. Don't know that I agree with your number (400,000) The only thing i could find in a search was from the Jehovah's Witness's (of course they would argue that there are 400,000 inaccuracies, they practically rewrote the Bible), I believe the dead sea scolls proved that the bible was accurate to within 95%. There are some imperfections, but not from God, from Man copying over the ages. The message is still the same.

Its not like some one accidently added a 9 in front of Adams age and he went from 90 to 900.

an no, that passage is not talking about a Diamond, I think you thinking of a passage in pslams or proverbs.

nzyr
Feb 27th 2011, 02:11 PM
It is quite apparent from these passages that the earth is flat...

The bible teaches that the earth is round:

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (Isaiah 40:22)

The bible also teaches that the earth is suspended in space:

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. (Job 26:7)

Neanias
Feb 27th 2011, 06:06 PM
Now, I absolutely agree that our interpretation of the scriptures can be wrong, and so can NEA world's interpretation be wrong...
You do not believe that the bible is exclusively the word of God. You believe it's the word of God according to the NEA world's interpretation... That is what your words reveal. :)
You do not put science before the Bible, you just mix them.

Understand that I in no way are accusing you, I'm just telling you what I see in your words.

WSGAC
Feb 27th 2011, 06:20 PM
The bible teaches that the earth is round:

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (Isaiah 40:22)

The bible also teaches that the earth is suspended in space:

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. (Job 26:7)

A coin is also round...as it is flat. If the earth were spherical it would have been impossible for the devil to take Jesus to a high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the earth. It doesn't matter how high the mountain is, you cannot see around a sphere. You can only see what is stretched out below you. You obviously doubt the word of God. I choose to believe the world is flat because it's right there in scripture.

Scripture also says the earth shall not be moved. Clearly, then, any notion of the earth moving around the sun is not biblical. I choose to believe in God's word, while you choose to doubt it.

On top of that, if you doubt the earth is fixed and does not move, then where will you stop? If you reject what God's word makes clear then you have opened the door to doubting the resurrection too.

I choose to believe God's word!

BrckBrln
Feb 27th 2011, 06:47 PM
I have seen some pretty amazzing things when it comes to the language of the Bible. There are all sorts of studies with equal letter distanceing and stuff. I think there was a study on Matt 1 with the geneologly of Adam to Jesus which would be mathmatically impossible to duplicate.

So you think the Bible was written in perfect language?


Don't know that I agree with your number (400,000) The only thing i could find in a search was from the Jehovah's Witness's (of course they would argue that there are 400,000 inaccuracies, they practically rewrote the Bible), I believe the dead sea scolls proved that the bible was accurate to within 95%. There are some imperfections, but not from God, from Man copying over the ages. The message is still the same.

The 400,000 number is just for the New Testament. I agree the message is the same and I do believe the Bible is textually reliable, but what we have is far from a perfect Bible. I just don't understand why God would give us a perfect Bible and then let man bring all kinds of imperfections to it. What was the point in creating a perfect Bible in the first place?


an no, that passage is not talking about a Diamond, I think you thinking of a passage in pslams or proverbs.

I don't mean to say that passage is talking about a diamond. I'm saying that we often declare things perfect, you know? As I said before, how can a truly perfect God create something at the same level as he is?


You do not believe that the bible is exclusively the word of God. You believe it's the word of God according to the NEA world's interpretation... That is what your words reveal. :)
You do not put science before the Bible, you just mix them.

Understand that I in no way are accusing you, I'm just telling you what I see in your words.

I guess you missed the part where I affirmed my belief in the Bible as God's word to us, huh?

Phish
Feb 27th 2011, 07:00 PM
So you think the Bible was written in perfect language?



The 400,000 number is just for the New Testament.

I believe it was written perfectly, there are many evidences to this. I also believe God has a perfect plan, for some reason He decided to have his word passed down through the ages by imperfect man. I believe its supernatural that His word (His message) has stayed intact dispite the errors of man. Beit as it may this is part of his plan.

Like I said before the only evidence I can find for 400,000 errors comes from the Jehovah's Wittness's who hardly could be deemed a reliable source. Do you have any other source to back up this claim?

BrckBrln
Feb 27th 2011, 07:12 PM
I believe it was written perfectly, there are many evidences to this. I also believe God has a perfect plan, for some reason He decided to have his word passed down through the ages by imperfect man. I believe its supernatural that His word (His message) has stayed intact dispite the errors of man. Beit as it may this is part of his plan.

Well if that's what you believe, that's what you believe.


Like I said before the only evidence I can find for 400,000 errors comes from the Jehovah's Wittness's who hardly could be deemed a reliable source. Do you have any other source to back up this claim?

I didn't say 400,000 errors, I said imperfections. They are called textual variants.

http://ehrmanproject.com/misquoting-jesus

Go there and click 'more video' and you will see two boxes titled '400,000 variants 1' and '400,000 variants 2'. Watch them both.

Liquid Tension
Feb 27th 2011, 10:32 PM
You say this.......




I choose to believe God's word!

.......and yet you say this......




No, men did not live 900 years.

:o :B :B :B

WSGAC
Feb 27th 2011, 10:52 PM
You say this.......



.......and yet you say this......



:o :B :B :B

Apparently you miss my method. To illustrate absurdity, some times one needs to be absurd. I no more believe 900 year old men, than I do a flat earth, or that it didn't rain before the flood, or that there were no rainbows before the flood, or that Noah and Abraham were contemporaries....etc..etc..etc...

BrckBrln was correct. It would be helpful if people would read Genesis within the context of other Ancient Near Eastern texts, and not read it like you would a 21st Century morning newspaper.

Liquid Tension
Feb 27th 2011, 11:00 PM
Apparently you miss my method. To illustrate absurdity, some times one needs to be absurd. I no more believe 900 year old men, than I do a flat earth, or that it didn't rain before the flood, or that there were no rainbows before the flood, or that Noah and Abraham were contemporaries....etc..etc..etc...

BrckBrln was correct. It would be helpful if people would read Genesis within the context of other Ancient Near Eastern texts, and not read it like you would a 21st Century morning newspaper.

...............

BroRog
Feb 27th 2011, 11:40 PM
Apparently you miss my method. To illustrate absurdity, some times one needs to be absurd. I no more believe 900 year old men, than I do a flat earth, or that it didn't rain before the flood, or that there were no rainbows before the flood, or that Noah and Abraham were contemporaries....etc..etc..etc...

BrckBrln was correct. It would be helpful if people would read Genesis within the context of other Ancient Near Eastern texts, and not read it like you would a 21st Century morning newspaper.Why would anyone read Genesis within the context of other Ancient Near Eastern Texts? There must be a thousand ways to make a counterfit dollar bill. The conterfits are judged against a real dollar bill, not the other way around. Likewise, the Genesis account is the real account of what happened, and all other Ancient texts should be judged against the account in Genesis. If Genesis says that men lived longer than 900 years, they lived longer than 900 years, regardless of what other Ancient texts might say.

WSGAC
Feb 27th 2011, 11:53 PM
Why would anyone read Genesis within the context of other Ancient Near Eastern Texts? There must be a thousand ways to make a counterfit dollar bill. The conterfits are judged against a real dollar bill, not the other way around. Likewise, the Genesis account is the real account of what happened, and all other Ancient texts should be judged against the account in Genesis. If Genesis says that men lived longer than 900 years, they lived longer than 900 years, regardless of what other Ancient texts might say.

Because you might gain some fresh perspective on the ridiculous age-numbers of men in ancient texts if you looked. Just as you might gain understanding of the Law of Moses if you took a look at ancient Hittite suzerainty treaties. It has nothing to do with counterfits. It has to do with historical context.

So can you tell me when the great Flood was?

Phish
Feb 28th 2011, 12:20 AM
Because you might gain some fresh perspective on the ridiculous age-numbers of men in ancient texts if you looked. Just as you might gain understanding of the Law of Moses if you took a look at ancient Hittite suzerainty treaties. It has nothing to do with counterfits. It has to do with historical context.

So can you tell me when the great Flood was?

You might gain perspective on how amazing and complex the Bible is if you looked at in the context from the One who designed it.

BroRog
Feb 28th 2011, 12:36 AM
Because you might gain some fresh perspective on the ridiculous age-numbers of men in ancient texts if you looked. Just as you might gain understanding of the Law of Moses if you took a look at ancient Hittite suzerainty treaties. It has nothing to do with counterfits. It has to do with historical context.

So can you tell me when the great Flood was?Fresh perspective is not necessarily correct perspective. Your assertion that the ages of the men in the Bible is rediculous is a value judgment and reveals a bias in favor of your personal experience, and your dismissal of the analogy to counterfit money demonstrates that you do not give credence to the Old Testament as the authoritative record of the truth, but place the OT record on the same par as other Ancient texts.

Since the Bible offers it's own history, we understand the Law of Moses, not in terms of the Hittites but in terms of the Sons of Jacob and their history. The historical context of the Law of Moses is the Biblical accounts of the Exodus, the wandering in the wilderness, the entrance into the Promised Land, and God's promise to be their God and that they would be his people. The fact that the Hittites no longer exist should be clear evidence that the Hittites have nothing to offer us in our understanding of God and his will for mankind.

teddyv
Feb 28th 2011, 12:58 AM
Fresh perspective is not necessarily correct perspective. Your assertion that the ages of the men in the Bible is rediculous is a value judgment and reveals a bias in favor of your personal experience, and your dismissal of the analogy to counterfit money demonstrates that you do not give credence to the Old Testament as the authoritative record of the truth, but place the OT record on the same par as other Ancient texts.

Since the Bible offers it's own history, we understand the Law of Moses, not in terms of the Hittites but in terms of the Sons of Jacob and their history. The historical context of the Law of Moses is the Biblical accounts of the Exodus, the wandering in the wilderness, the entrance into the Promised Land, and God's promise to be their God and that they would be his people. The fact that the Hittites no longer exist should be clear evidence that the Hittites have nothing to offer us in our understanding of God and his will for mankind.

Despite this, archeological evidence strongly points to the language of the covenant following that of the covenant treaties between the Hittites and the Egyptians.

The Israelites were in Egypt for some 400 years. They probably barely knew who the God of their forefathers was anymore. Moses was raised and trained in the Egyptian court for some 40 years. The people were likely well steeped in Egyptian lore as well. God chose to speak to his people in the language of that day.

However he certainly went about correcting their likely erroneous presuppositions particularly through the book of Genesis. The first three chapters or so of Genesis basically frame out a worldview that is as true for them as it is for us, regardless of our scientific understandings.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 01:01 AM
You might gain perspective on how amazing and complex the Bible is if you looked at in the context from the One who designed it.

So when was the great Flood?

Phish
Feb 28th 2011, 02:06 AM
So when was the great Flood?

You know, I wasn't there but looking and calculating through the Bible I would estimate about 2500 BC. But I'm sure you going to have some this is so rediculous retort so lets have it, lay it on me.

Phish
Feb 28th 2011, 02:15 AM
Well if that's what you believe, that's what you believe.



I didn't say 400,000 errors, I said imperfections. They are called textual variants.

http://ehrmanproject.com/misquoting-jesus

Go there and click 'more video' and you will see two boxes titled '400,000 variants 1' and '400,000 variants 2'. Watch them both.

Hey, Just wanted to say thank you. I feel like I have learned mored about your perspective and although I don't agree, I certainly respect you and your position. I have found your posts to be spirit filled when they could have very well been otherwise. We are all brothers in Christ and I thank God for that.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 03:12 AM
You know, I wasn't there but looking and calculating through the Bible I would estimate about 2500 BC. But I'm sure you going to have some this is so rediculous retort so lets have it, lay it on me.

Mesopotamian history is rich and fascinating. Its principle inhabitants were the Sumerians, a non-Semitic people. For brevity, their history can be separated into periods, as seen in the listing below.

Ubaid period 5300 – 3900 BC
Uruk IV period 3900-3200 BC
Uruk III period 3200-2900 BC
Early Dynastic I period 2900-2800 BC
Early Dynastic II period 2800-2600 BC
Early Dynastic IIIa period 2600-2500 BC
Early Dynastic IIIb period 2500-2334 BC
Lagash Dynasty 2550- 2380 BC
Akkad Dynasty 2450-2250 BC
Gutian period 2250-2150 BC
Ur II period 2150-2000 BC


Each of these periods has a distinct history marked by differences in their pottery, trade routes and listings of kings. Of particular interest to me is that there is no distinguishing break in the history of these periods that would be characteristic of a human cultural catastrophe (i.e., the entire human population was wiped out by a natural disaster.) Some genealogical literalists posit the idea (through calculations of genealogies in Genesis) of a world wide flood occurring around 2350 BC…right smack in the middle of the Akkadian Dynasty…one of the richest in terms of archaeological discoveries. You give a date of 2,500 BC, which would be the Lagash dynasty. And yet there really is no such indication that Lagash or Akkad were wiped out by a flood.

In fact, if there were a universal Flood, wiping out all human beings in and around this time period one could hardly speak of a dynasty or even culture existing afterwards. And yet, there they are....rich with historical records.

And this doesn't even consider Egypt's history, which also shows no break in pharaohs or culture in the same time periods.

So when was this universal Flood?

Liquid Tension
Feb 28th 2011, 03:16 AM
Because you might gain some fresh perspective on the ridiculous age-numbers of men in ancient texts if you looked. Just as you might gain understanding of the Law of Moses if you took a look at ancient Hittite suzerainty treaties. It has nothing to do with counterfits. It has to do with historical context.

So can you tell me when the great Flood was?

OK, so what you're saying is that the information God gave Moses the wrong information regarding the pre-flood ages of men? That the word of God is inconsistent? That historical context is more important than the word of God? Again, the main question I ask is: Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ages of men listed in Genesis are false/allegory? Please enlighten us here.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 03:26 AM
OK, so what you're saying is that the information God gave Moses the wrong information regarding the pre-flood ages of men? That the word of God is inconsistent? That historical context is more important than the word of God? Again, the main question I ask is: Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ages of men listed in Genesis are false/allegory? Please enlighten us here.

So it doesn't matter what the history shows, you're going to simply say insist that the word (or your interpretation of the word) stands? And even if I can show the person who believes the "earth shall not be moved" that it indeed moves, it won't matter because the word of God states otherwise.

So when was the great Flood?

Liquid Tension
Feb 28th 2011, 03:32 AM
So it doesn't matter what the history shows, you're going to simply say insist that the word (or your interpretation of the word) stands? And even if I can show the person who believes the "earth shall not be moved" that it indeed moves, it won't matter because the word of God states otherwise.

So when was the great Flood?

If you can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ages of men in Genesis are wrong/false/allegory, then I will have to consider changing how I look at Genesis. Can you do that???? Did God give Moses the wrong information??? Did God lie to Moses???

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 03:34 AM
If you can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ages of men in Genesis are wrong/false/allegory, then I will have to consider changing how I look at Genesis. Can you do that???? Did God give Moses the wrong information??? Did God lie to Moses???

Sorry, life doesn't work that way. You can't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt...not even your own existence. Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? Nope, you can't. So let's not use that fallacy of argument.

BrckBrln
Feb 28th 2011, 03:34 AM
OK, so what you're saying is that the information God gave Moses the wrong information regarding the pre-flood ages of men?

This is where, I think, we go wrong. A lot of Christians believe that Moses was just minding his own business one day when God said, 'Moses, about a thousand years ago I sent a global flood to wipe out every living thing; write that down now!' Is this what you believe?


Again, the main question I ask is: Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ages of men listed in Genesis are false/allegory? Please enlighten us here.

Can you prove without a shadow of a doubt they really did live that long? The only thing you can do is point to your theory of inspiration. I've made a thread giving some evidence that the Genesis 5 genealogy is a mimetic genealogy. That is, it mimics the surrounding King lists and such.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 03:35 AM
Again, when was the great Flood? I'm even willing to spot anyone 300 years either side of their best scriptural estimate.

Liquid Tension
Feb 28th 2011, 03:51 AM
Sorry, life doesn't work that way. You can't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt...not even your own existence. Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? Nope, you can't. So let's not use that fallacy of argument.


Oh this is rich. :lol: Well, all we're having here is an air-biscuit contest. You believe what you believe, I'll believe what I believe. At least you admitted you can't prove that the ages of the men in Genesis is wrong/false/allegory.

Liquid Tension
Feb 28th 2011, 03:53 AM
This is where, I think, we go wrong. A lot of Christians believe that Moses was just minding his own business one day when God said, 'Moses, about a thousand years ago I sent a global flood to wipe out every living thing; write that down now!' Is this what you believe?



Can you prove without a shadow of a doubt they really did live that long? The only thing you can do is point to your theory of inspiration. I've made a thread giving some evidence that the Genesis 5 genealogy is a mimetic genealogy. That is, it mimics the surrounding King lists and such.

As with WSGAC, you believe the way you want to believe, I'll do likewise. I don't agree with what you're saying here, but oh well. I will check out that link you posted earlier a bit later.

Liquid Tension
Feb 28th 2011, 03:54 AM
Oops, double post.

nzyr
Feb 28th 2011, 04:46 AM
Mesopotamian history is rich and fascinating. Its principle inhabitants were the Sumerians, a non-Semitic people. For brevity, their history can be separated into periods, as seen in the listing below.

Ubaid period 5300 – 3900 BC
Uruk IV period 3900-3200 BC
Uruk III period 3200-2900 BC
Early Dynastic I period 2900-2800 BC
Early Dynastic II period 2800-2600 BC
Early Dynastic IIIa period 2600-2500 BC
Early Dynastic IIIb period 2500-2334 BC
Lagash Dynasty 2550- 2380 BC
Akkad Dynasty 2450-2250 BC
Gutian period 2250-2150 BC
Ur II period 2150-2000 BC


Each of these periods has a distinct history marked by differences in their pottery, trade routes and listings of kings. Of particular interest to me is that there is no distinguishing break in the history of these periods that would be characteristic of a human cultural catastrophe (i.e., the entire human population was wiped out by a natural disaster.) Some genealogical literalists posit the idea (through calculations of genealogies in Genesis) of a world wide flood occurring around 2350 BC…right smack in the middle of the Akkadian Dynasty…one of the richest in terms of archaeological discoveries. You give a date of 2,500 BC, which would be the Lagash dynasty. And yet there really is no such indication that Lagash or Akkad were wiped out by a flood.

In fact, if there were a universal Flood, wiping out all human beings in and around this time period one could hardly speak of a dynasty or even culture existing afterwards. And yet, there they are....rich with historical records.

And this doesn't even consider Egypt's history, which also shows no break in pharaohs or culture in the same time periods.

So when was this universal Flood?

All of those pottery shards don't exactly have dates on them. The flood occured sometime before the pyramids were built. Maybe 3,000 B.C. Maybe 4,000 B.C. I really don't know. It could have been 7,000 B.C. or earlier for all we know. The bible doesn't really say. But the flood did occur. It wouldn't be in the bible if it hadn't.

nzyr
Feb 28th 2011, 04:57 AM
Apparently you miss my method. To illustrate absurdity, some times one needs to be absurd. I no more believe 900 year old men, than I do a flat earth, or that it didn't rain before the flood, or that there were no rainbows before the flood, or that Noah and Abraham were contemporaries....etc..etc..etc...

BrckBrln was correct. It would be helpful if people would read Genesis within the context of other Ancient Near Eastern texts, and not read it like you would a 21st Century morning newspaper.

We're all familiar with Near Eastern texts. But they're not scripture. And most if not all only exist in fragments. As they didn't last. Probably because they really didn't benefit the people who wrote them.

BroRog
Feb 28th 2011, 04:57 AM
So when was the great Flood?During the time of Noah. What else do you need to know?

nzyr
Feb 28th 2011, 05:03 AM
Can you prove without a shadow of a doubt they really did live that long?


He doesn't have to prove it. It's in the word of God.

Liquid Tension
Feb 28th 2011, 05:14 AM
During the time of Noah. What else do you need to know?

I should've repped you for this post instead. :rofl:

Raybob
Feb 28th 2011, 05:53 AM
Sorry, life doesn't work that way. You can't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt...not even your own existence. Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? Nope, you can't. So let's not use that fallacy of argument.

This is totally off topic but needs to be said here. I can prove Jesus exists and every word of the bible is true by the miraculous change that happened to me in my life, the day I gave my heart to Jesus. Anyone that knew me before and after can also testify of that miraculous change. Each day since then, through my bible studies, that proof is all the more proved, every day, thank you Jesus.

Back to the topic, you know much about history and you must know much about science. Have you ever thought about how long people could live inside a hyperbaric chamber? If the bible were true and there were 'waters' above the firmament, that water could be found as an ice canopy surrounding the atmosphere. That could make the atmosphere a big hyperbaric chamber and also an excellent UV filter from the suns rays. People could grow to be giants, so could dragons (dinosaurs). That would also throw carbon dating out the window as they would have no idea of the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere under those conditions. Think about it sometime.

Liquid Tension
Feb 28th 2011, 06:00 AM
This is totally off topic but needs to be said here. I can prove Jesus exists and every word of the bible is true by the miraculous change that happened to me in my life, the day I gave my heart to Jesus. Anyone that knew me before and after can also testify of that miraculous change. Each day since then, through my bible studies, that proof is all the more proved, every day, thank you Jesus.

Back to the topic, you know much about history and you must know much about science. Have you ever thought about how long people could live inside a hyperbaric chamber? If the bible were true and there were 'waters' above the firmament, that water could be found as an ice canopy surrounding the atmosphere. That could make the atmosphere a big hyperbaric chamber and also an excellent UV filter from the suns rays. People could grow to be giants, so could dragons (dinosaurs). That would also throw carbon dating out the window as they would have no idea of the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere under those conditions. Think about it sometime.


Beware, the bolded quote may be considered "ridiculous" by some here. :P

Phish
Feb 28th 2011, 07:20 AM
Mesopotamian history is rich and fascinating. Its principle inhabitants were the Sumerians, a non-Semitic people. For brevity, their history can be separated into periods, as seen in the listing below.

Ubaid period 5300 – 3900 BC
Uruk IV period 3900-3200 BC
Uruk III period 3200-2900 BC
Early Dynastic I period 2900-2800 BC
Early Dynastic II period 2800-2600 BC
Early Dynastic IIIa period 2600-2500 BC
Early Dynastic IIIb period 2500-2334 BC
Lagash Dynasty 2550- 2380 BC
Akkad Dynasty 2450-2250 BC
Gutian period 2250-2150 BC
Ur II period 2150-2000 BC


Each of these periods has a distinct history marked by differences in their pottery, trade routes and listings of kings. Of particular interest to me is that there is no distinguishing break in the history of these periods that would be characteristic of a human cultural catastrophe (i.e., the entire human population was wiped out by a natural disaster.) Some genealogical literalists posit the idea (through calculations of genealogies in Genesis) of a world wide flood occurring around 2350 BC…right smack in the middle of the Akkadian Dynasty…one of the richest in terms of archaeological discoveries. You give a date of 2,500 BC, which would be the Lagash dynasty. And yet there really is no such indication that Lagash or Akkad were wiped out by a flood.

In fact, if there were a universal Flood, wiping out all human beings in and around this time period one could hardly speak of a dynasty or even culture existing afterwards. And yet, there they are....rich with historical records.

And this doesn't even consider Egypt's history, which also shows no break in pharaohs or culture in the same time periods.

So when was this universal Flood?


OK, Just doing a basic search on google I found this statment "The earliest listed ruler whose historicity has been archaeologically verified is En-me-barage-si of Kish, ca. 2600 BC" This is from wiki-pedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List

also I believe you are wrong, there a various places besides wikipedia where according to these so called experts there are huge time gaps take place including one called the black Millennium.

also, there are the Antediluvian Rulers who's reigns are measure in sars which is translated to ten's of thatousands of years each. Could it be there were long life spans after all? almost every culture recorded some type of flood.

Bottom line is this is unreliable as evidence.

It wasn't all that long ago when the experts mocked and ridiculed the Bible people because there wasn't any Hittite Empire and therefore the Bible was wrong. Guess what, the Bible was right after all.

Man really doesn't have a clue about his past yet arrogant enough to stick his nose up at God because they find a little peice of pottery or clay tablet with some writing on it and claim the bible is wrong.

When it comes to things like these I will trust Him who made it, was there when it happened, and will be there when it ends. He is perfect, doesn't lie, doesn't trick us and loves us. Why should I doubt Him or anything that he says?

Phish
Feb 28th 2011, 07:43 AM
Mesopotamian history is rich and fascinating. Its principle inhabitants were the Sumerians, a non-Semitic people. For brevity, their history can be separated into periods, as seen in the listing below.

Ubaid period 5300 – 3900 BC
Uruk IV period 3900-3200 BC
Uruk III period 3200-2900 BC
Early Dynastic I period 2900-2800 BC
Early Dynastic II period 2800-2600 BC
Early Dynastic IIIa period 2600-2500 BC
Early Dynastic IIIb period 2500-2334 BC
Lagash Dynasty 2550- 2380 BC
Akkad Dynasty 2450-2250 BC
Gutian period 2250-2150 BC
Ur II period 2150-2000 BC


Each of these periods has a distinct history marked by differences in their pottery, trade routes and listings of kings. Of particular interest to me is that there is no distinguishing break in the history of these periods that would be characteristic of a human cultural catastrophe (i.e., the entire human population was wiped out by a natural disaster.) Some genealogical literalists posit the idea (through calculations of genealogies in Genesis) of a world wide flood occurring around 2350 BC…right smack in the middle of the Akkadian Dynasty…one of the richest in terms of archaeological discoveries. You give a date of 2,500 BC, which would be the Lagash dynasty. And yet there really is no such indication that Lagash or Akkad were wiped out by a flood.

In fact, if there were a universal Flood, wiping out all human beings in and around this time period one could hardly speak of a dynasty or even culture existing afterwards. And yet, there they are....rich with historical records.

And this doesn't even consider Egypt's history, which also shows no break in pharaohs or culture in the same time periods.

So when was this universal Flood?

One more thing, I can't find one shread of evidence to support these dates. Like someone just decided that this must have been 5000 BC. The only thing I can find come from 2600 to 2150 BC meaning thats when it was actually recorded.

Liquid Tension
Feb 28th 2011, 08:12 AM
Man really doesn't have a clue about his past yet arrogant enough to stick his nose up at God because they find a little peice of pottery or clay tablet with some writing on it and claim the bible is wrong.

When it comes to things like these I will trust Him who made it, was there when it happened, and will be there when it ends. He is perfect, doesn't lie, doesn't trick us and loves us. Why should I doubt Him or anything that he says?

This my friends is what you call "game, set, match".

Phish
Feb 28th 2011, 09:29 AM
This my friends is what you call "game, set, match".

Somehow I don't think it's going to be the end

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 11:40 AM
He doesn't have to prove it. It's in the word of God.

Ok, if it's in the word of God, then let's have a date.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 11:41 AM
Oh this is rich. :lol: Well, all we're having here is an air-biscuit contest. You believe what you believe, I'll believe what I believe. At least you admitted you can't prove that the ages of the men in Genesis is wrong/false/allegory.

So let's have a date. Come on LT, give us a date!

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 11:46 AM
All of those pottery shards don't exactly have dates on them. The flood occured sometime before the pyramids were built. Maybe 3,000 B.C. Maybe 4,000 B.C. I really don't know. It could have been 7,000 B.C. or earlier for all we know. The bible doesn't really say. But the flood did occur. It wouldn't be in the bible if it hadn't.

You might want to check Jericho. Strata going back to 9,000 BC to its foundations...earliest time in the transition to Neolithic. And guess what? No water problems! So if a universal deluge occurred, it will have to predate 9,000 BC. Other problems are created by this, but I'll save it for now.

There is NO archeological evidence of a universal wipe out of the human species. Present any date and you will find evidence of human habitation somewhere in the Ancient Near East. Sorry...them's the facts!

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 11:49 AM
We're all familiar with Near Eastern texts. But they're not scripture. And most if not all only exist in fragments. As they didn't last. Probably because they really didn't benefit the people who wrote them.

No, they're not scripture. But their existence does demonstrate no water problems at the time periods. If you find buildings and evidence of habitation, but no washover by water, that should tell you something!

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 11:51 AM
Beware, the bolded quote may be considered "ridiculous" by some here. :P

Not only ridiculous, but the other problems which would be created by it are legion.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 11:54 AM
OK, Just doing a basic search on google I found this statment "The earliest listed ruler whose historicity has been archaeologically verified is En-me-barage-si of Kish, ca. 2600 BC" This is from wiki-pedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List

also I believe you are wrong, there a various places besides wikipedia where according to these so called experts there are huge time gaps take place including one called the black Millennium.

also, there are the Antediluvian Rulers who's reigns are measure in sars which is translated to ten's of thatousands of years each. Could it be there were long life spans after all? almost every culture recorded some type of flood.

Bottom line is this is unreliable as evidence.

It wasn't all that long ago when the experts mocked and ridiculed the Bible people because there wasn't any Hittite Empire and therefore the Bible was wrong. Guess what, the Bible was right after all.

Man really doesn't have a clue about his past yet arrogant enough to stick his nose up at God because they find a little peice of pottery or clay tablet with some writing on it and claim the bible is wrong.

When it comes to things like these I will trust Him who made it, was there when it happened, and will be there when it ends. He is perfect, doesn't lie, doesn't trick us and loves us. Why should I doubt Him or anything that he says?


You might want to check Jericho's history. No water problems!

ProDeo
Feb 28th 2011, 11:56 AM
Ubaid period 5300 Ė 3900 BC
Uruk IV period 3900-3200 BC
Uruk III period 3200-2900 BC
Early Dynastic I period 2900-2800 BC
Early Dynastic II period 2800-2600 BC
Early Dynastic IIIa period 2600-2500 BC
Early Dynastic IIIb period 2500-2334 BC
Lagash Dynasty 2550- 2380 BC
Akkad Dynasty 2450-2250 BC
Gutian period 2250-2150 BC
Ur II period 2150-2000 BC

All these numbers come from C14 dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating) measurements. The first thing that springs to mind is that the method is only reliable till 5730 years provided the atmosphere has not changed.

Genesis tells us God divided the waters, a part went up in the air. It's this layer of water that protected Earth against the (deadly) cosmic ray, thus not only influenced C14 dating measurements but also the life span on Earth.

Is it no a huge coincidence God after the Flood declared men life span to be max 120? It did not happen at once, but gradually, the layer of water that protected Earth had come down and cosmic ray could do its deadly work, ruining genes and all of that.

C14 atoms rely on cosmic ray. And if the cosmic ray wasn't constant we have a classic case of circular reasoning. And Genesis just suggests that, less cosmic ray, perhaps even none.

Bottom line, with Scripture in hand I seriously doubt your time table without committing intellectual suicide.

Bottom line (2), I learned to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt in cases like these, there are always explanations.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 11:59 AM
One more thing, I can't find one shread of evidence to support these dates. Like someone just decided that this must have been 5000 BC. The only thing I can find come from 2600 to 2150 BC meaning thats when it was actually recorded.

So let's have a date for the Flood then, since there isn't any shread of evidence to support these dates. Come on, give a date and let's check the archeological grids around the Ancient Near East of the time to see if there's corroborating data to confirm a universal water problem.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 12:04 PM
All these numbers come from C14 dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating) measurements. The first thing that springs to mind is that the method is only reliable till 5730 years provided the atmosphere has not changed.

Genesis tells us God divided the waters, a part went up in the air. It's this layer of water that protected Earth against the (deadly) cosmic ray, thus not only influenced C14 dating measurements but also the life span on Earth.

Is it no a huge coincidence God after the Flood declared men life span to be max 120? It did not happen at once, but gradually, the layer of water that protected Earth had come down and cosmic ray could do its deadly work, ruining genes and all of that.

C14 atoms rely on cosmic ray. And if the cosmic ray wasn't constant we have a classic case of circular reasoning. And Genesis just suggests that, less cosmic ray, perhaps even none.

Bottom line, with Scripture in hand I seriously doubt your time table without committing intellectual suicide.

Bottom line (2), I learned to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt in cases like these, there are always explanations.


Actually, it's not simply C14 dating that is used. One doesn't need to rely on C14, for instance, to date the strata at Megiddo.
C14 often confirms what's already there.

And can you tell us why C14 decay suddenly changes when lots of water presents itself? And suspended water in or above the atmosphere? Are you aware of the problems this creates? What held that water in suspension?

Let's have a date on the Flood then, since you doubt the table.

Raybob
Feb 28th 2011, 12:21 PM
Actually, it's not simply C14 dating that is used. One doesn't need to rely on C14, for instance, to date the strata at Megiddo.
C14 often confirms what's already there.

And can you tell us why C14 decay suddenly changes when lots of water presents itself?


According to Wikipedia on Radiocarbon dating:


A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere.[12] In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's 14C fraction.

Aside from these changes due to natural processes, the level has also been affected by human activities. From the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century to the 1950s, the fractional level of 14C decreased because of the admixture of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, due to the excavated oil reserves and combustion production of fossil fuel. This decline is known as the Suess effect, and also affects the 13C isotope. However, atmospheric 14C was almost doubled during the 1950s and 1960s due to atmospheric atomic bomb tests.


Let's have a date on the Flood then, since you doubt the table.Why would you care about a date? There are no records of years back then. Why would you ask us for a date? You tell us. We know it was at least before the pyramids were built.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 12:26 PM
According to Wikipedia on Radiocarbon dating:


A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere.[12] In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's 14C fraction.

Aside from these changes due to natural processes, the level has also been affected by human activities. From the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century to the 1950s, the fractional level of 14C decreased because of the admixture of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, due to the excavated oil reserves and combustion production of fossil fuel. This decline is known as the Suess effect, and also affects the 13C isotope. However, atmospheric 14C was almost doubled during the 1950s and 1960s due to atmospheric atomic bomb tests.
Why would you care about a date? There are no records of years back then. Why would you ask us for a date? You tell us. We know it was at least before the pyramids were built.

You and others seem to place all your eggs in the C14 basket, attempting to show it unreliable and thus falsifying all of archeological discovery? Set C14 aside and show me anything in the archeological strata that would confirm a universal water problem at some point in the past.

Raybob
Feb 28th 2011, 12:28 PM
You and others seem to place all your eggs in the C14 basket, attempting to show it unreliable and thus falsifying all of archeological discovery? Set C14 aside and show me anything in the archeological strata that would confirm a universal water problem at some point in the past.

The Grand Canyon! Rivers don't flow uphill over much time. The surrounding terrain goes uphill. If that river was evolved, it didn't evolve uphill

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 12:50 PM
The Grand Canyon! Rivers don't flow uphill over much time. The surrounding terrain goes uphill. If that river was evolved, it didn't evolve uphill

Some have suggested the Grand Canyon is the result of cavitation, rather than erosion. Nevertheless, when was the Grand Canyon formed? If it was formed by a universal deluge...the same which destroyed all human life on earth except for Noah and family...then about when would you place that Flood?

But this still doesn't address my first question. I'm asking for archeological confirmation of a Flood, and not geological or natural history type evidence. Archeological evidence of a universal Flood would be something like finding numerous cities from the Ancient Near East, all buried in an enormous amount of silt. We should find Egpytian and Mesopotamian cities of the time of the Flood buried in silt. We don't find anything of the kind. And when you consider Jericho alone, which dates back some 11,000 years...showing no silt or water problems...we're going to have to place a universal Flood before Jericho.

What is the archeological evidence for a universal Flood?

Slina
Feb 28th 2011, 04:01 PM
You know, I remember hearing about the eruption of Mount Saint Helens, and how after the fact, for whatever reason they went in and tried dating some of the petrified trees and things they knew couldn't be very old. Go figure, they came up with unreasonably old dates. The point is, crazy environmental changes like volcanoes or world-changing floods have drastic effects, and certainly affect the results of a test that assumes things have always stayed the same.

Archeological finds have generally been dated by evolutionists who assume that the world is 4.5 billion years old and that man's been alive for what, 1 million years or something? Of course they're going to date things based on their timeline, the same way scientists use bones to "prove" that evolution really happened. Meanwhile, we're assuming a much younger earth that began with creation because the Bible says so, and I'd say that makes us no more biased than all those people assuming an older earth.

And one of my favorite proofs (though not the only one out there by any means) of a universal flood problem is all the "fishy" fossils all around the world. Right here in Kansas, about as far from the ocean as you get, I've personally dug up a few fish fossils of the sort you'd expect to find in the ocean, so I know they're here.

ProDeo
Feb 28th 2011, 04:18 PM
Actually, it's not simply C14 dating that is used. One doesn't need to rely on C14, for instance, to date the strata at Megiddo. C14 often confirms what's already there.

And how is the strata at Megiddo dated? C14? Circular reasoning again.


And can you tell us why C14 decay suddenly changes when lots of water presents itself? And suspended water in or above the atmosphere? Are you aware of the problems this creates? What held that water in suspension?

As said before, the waters above (Gen 1:6) protected Earth from (deadly) cosmic ray. You missed it?


Let's have a date on the Flood then, since you doubt the table.

Can't tell you, neither is it important. A global Flood (per Gen 6-7) needs a lot of supernatural anyway. Science ALSO tells us it's impossible to come back from death, yet you believe (contrary to science) that Jesus resurrected while there is no shred of scientific evidence for that.

So why question the mysterious waters above and not the resurrection of Jesus? From a scientific point of view these are equal questions. If you accept one, accept the rest or accept none, not something in between. But he, that's just my logic.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 04:28 PM
You know, I remember hearing about the eruption of Mount Saint Helens, and how after the fact, for whatever reason they went in and tried dating some of the petrified trees and things they knew couldn't be very old. Go figure, they came up with unreasonably old dates. The point is, crazy environmental changes like volcanoes or world-changing floods have drastic effects, and certainly affect the results of a test that assumes things have always stayed the same.

Archeological finds have generally been dated by evolutionists who assume that the world is 4.5 billion years old and that man's been alive for what, 1 million years or something? Of course they're going to date things based on their timeline, the same way scientists use bones to "prove" that evolution really happened. Meanwhile, we're assuming a much younger earth that began with creation because the Bible says so, and I'd say that makes us no more biased than all those people assuming an older earth.

And one of my favorite proofs (though not the only one out there by any means) of a universal flood problem is all the "fishy" fossils all around the world. Right here in Kansas, about as far from the ocean as you get, I've personally dug up a few fish fossils of the sort you'd expect to find in the ocean, so I know they're here.


Again, I'm talking about archeological evidence, not natural history evidence. When you dig into a mountainside and find a fishbone, this is natural history. When you dig into a mountainside and find a piece of pottery or an ancient wall, this is archeological evidence.

There is NO archeological evidence for a universal Flood!

ProDeo
Feb 28th 2011, 04:31 PM
You and others seem to place all your eggs in the C14 basket, attempting to show it unreliable and thus falsifying all of archeological discovery? Set C14 aside and show me anything in the archeological strata that would confirm a universal water problem at some point in the past.

Can we really imagine (measure) what a world-wide flood would do to Earth? What would be the traces?

A good starting point to discuss would be the Black Sea Deluge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory) which often is linked to Noah's Flood as LOCAL. What traces has been found? Nothing conclusive.

We have no clue.

Phish
Feb 28th 2011, 04:31 PM
Again, I'm talking about archeological evidence, not natural history evidence. When you dig into a mountainside and find a fishbone, this is natural history. When you dig into a mountainside and find a piece of pottery or an ancient wall, this is archeological evidence.

There is NO archeological evidence for a universal Flood!

So if the fish had built a house or a Jar it would be archeological?

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 04:37 PM
And how is the strata at Megiddo dated? C14? Circular reasoning again.

It is not circular reasoning. If we found something in Megiddo that could be linked to the reign of Solomon, we would not need C14 dating to confirm a Solomonic date. On the other hand, if we did a C14 test on the artifact from Solomon's day, and it in fact matched the date of Solomon, then C14 confirms the archeological record. No circular reasoning at all!



As said before, the waters above (Gen 1:6) protected Earth from (deadly) cosmic ray. You missed it?

Nope, didn't miss it. Apparently you missed my comment about the problems such suspended water would bring? Can you tell us how such a large volume of water can remain suspended above the earth? Water, in the form of clouds can do it, because clouds are vapor. But how was this pre-deluvian canopy of water suspended above the earth? And, where did it go after it fell to the earth?




A global Flood (per Gen 6-7) needs a lot of supernatural anyway.

Indeed! This is how God of the gaps science works. When the theory cannot be supported by reality, simply defer to the miraculous to make it so!


Science ALSO tells us it's impossible to come back from death, yet you believe (contrary to science) that Jesus resurrected while there is no shred of scientific evidence for that.

And this argument is simply used to solidify the God of the gaps argument. When you cannot explain your theory, defer to the miraculous. When that doesn't work, defer to the resurrection.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 04:48 PM
Can we really imagine (measure) what a world-wide flood would do to Earth? What would be the traces?

A good starting point to discuss would be the Black Sea Deluge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory) which often is linked to Noah's Flood as LOCAL. What traces has been found? Nothing conclusive.

We have no clue.

If a world wide flood wiped out all human life, we should be able to find something left behind....ie., artifacts from various places which all point to a deluge.

The Black Sea Deluge is a possibility for Noah's Flood, but that was not a universal Flood (ie., covered the entire earth).

If there was a universal deluge, then we must date it to pre-Jericho times (ie., before 9,000 BC). But when we're talking pre-Jericho times, we're looking at a time period that pre-dates modern man, before cities were even built.

The city of Jericho alone demonstrates there was no universal wipe out of human beings by a universal Flood.

Phish
Feb 28th 2011, 04:51 PM
If a world wide flood wiped out all human life, we should be able to find something left behind....ie., artifacts from various places which all point to a deluge.

The Black Sea Deluge is a possibility for Noah's Flood, but that was not a universal Flood (ie., covered the entire earth).

If there was a universal deluge, then we must date it to pre-Jericho times. But when we're talking pre-Jericho times, we're looking at a time period that pre-dates modern man, before cities were even built.

The city of Jericho alone demonstrates there was no universal wipe out of human beings by a universal Flood.


Got a question for you. How are fossils formed?

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 05:00 PM
Got a question for you. How are fossils formed?

Fossils have nothing to do with my question on archeology. Again, what is the archeological evidence (NOTE: archeological is NOT the same as geological, or fossil, or C14, or paleontological evidence). What is the archeological evidence for a universal Flood?

Phish
Feb 28th 2011, 05:16 PM
Fossils have nothing to do with my question on archeology. Again, what is the archeological evidence (NOTE: archeological is NOT the same as geological, or fossil, or C14, or paleontological evidence). What is the archeological evidence for a universal Flood?

So I take it you really don't want to talk fossils

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 05:22 PM
So I take it you really don't want to talk fossils

What do fossils have to do with Genesis and the Ancient Near East? We might just as well talk about toothpaste.

BroRog
Feb 28th 2011, 05:51 PM
Fossils have nothing to do with my question on archeology. Again, what is the archeological evidence (NOTE: archeological is NOT the same as geological, or fossil, or C14, or paleontological evidence). What is the archeological evidence for a universal Flood?Genesis 6. Just because you didn't dig up your Bible out of the ground, doesn't mean your Bible isn't evidence.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 06:44 PM
Genesis 6. Just because you didn't dig up your Bible out of the ground, doesn't mean your Bible isn't evidence.

Genesis 6 has nothing to do with fossils. The Creation Research Institute wants to make Genesis 6 about fossils, so that they can build a pseudo scientific system from the Flood story. Indeed, it seems crucial for CRI to make this case, for from there they try to falsify any scientific inquiry which points to an old earth. Problem: You can't build a scientific theory from an *interpretation* of Genesis 6.

But more to the point, if CRI and others want to build a scientific theory from the Flood, then please indicate when that Flood occurred.

Many here tell of pre and post Flood environments, and the great differences between those environments. In fact the argument goes, "We cannot trust such things as C14 testing, because the decay rate of C14 may be completely different after the Flood, than the rate of decay before the Flood." Indeed, everything changed since the Flood, to the point that no scientific discovery confirming an old earth can be trusted.

Well, if this is true, that all systems and natural phenomena changed with the Flood, then let's begin by locating the time of the Flood.

When did the great Flood occur? If such a date can be determined in the Bible, we should be able to confirm such a disaster in the archeological record. Alas, there is none!

RabbiKnife
Feb 28th 2011, 06:46 PM
The date cannot be determined by the Bible.

So what?

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 06:52 PM
The date cannot be determined by the Bible.

So what?

Well, it's not just that. It can't be determined by anything. Folks will insist it was universal and wiped out all life, but it just ain't there in the archeological record.

Simply put, Noah's flood was most likely a really big local flood. Probably something like the Black Sea Flood.

RabbiKnife
Feb 28th 2011, 07:06 PM
Says you.

Jesus said otherwise.


You get to pick faith or not. Don't understand what the big deal is all about.

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 07:23 PM
Says you.

Jesus said otherwise.


You get to pick faith or not. Don't understand what the big deal is all about.

The big deal comes when little kids ask their sunday school teachers,

student: "When was Noah's Flood?"
Teacher: "About 4300-4500 years ago."
student: "But the Egyptians were building pyramids at that time."
Teacher: "Yes, but God flooded the world and everyone drowned."
student: "How come the pryamids are still there if God wiped them out in a Flood?"
Teacher: "He wiped out the Egyptians, not the Pyramids."
student: "But you said everything was buried in dirt when the flood waters washed over everything."
Teacher: "Well, the pyramids got uncovered later."
student: "But who uncovered them?"
Teacher: "Other Egyptians after the Flood."
student: "But you said God wiped out the Egyptians and everyone else in the flood."
Teacher: "But he saved Noah and his family."
student: "But Noah went ashore up by Mt. Ararat, which is in Turkey. How did Noah's family make more Egyptians?"
Teacher: "Noah and his family repopulated the earth."
student: "But how could Noah repopulate the earth so fast that Egyptians could be building pyramids again in less than 100 years?
Teacher: "Because the Bible says so!"


Later, in his high school years, student leaves church because sunday school teacher lacked credibility with answers. Sounded much like the Santa Clause stories his parents used to tell.

RabbiKnife
Feb 28th 2011, 07:26 PM
Then Sunday School teacher shouldn't say 4300-4500 years ago.

SS teacher should say "I don't know, but the Bible says that it happened, and the Bible is always true, even when we don't understand exactly how things happened."

Raybob
Feb 28th 2011, 10:01 PM
...What is the archeological evidence for a universal Flood?

How about the man footprints found together with dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy River in Texas (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm)?

WSGAC
Feb 28th 2011, 10:48 PM
How about the man footprints found together with dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy River in Texas (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm)?

Even the highly literal/conservative site Answersingenesis has recognized that the Paluxy prints are not what they were made out to be. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use

Still, this isn't archeological evidence of a Flood. Give me a city unearthed that was buried by a flood...and 5 other cities that were buried by the same flood. That would be archeological evidence!

ProDeo
Mar 1st 2011, 12:02 AM
The big deal comes when little kids ask their sunday school teachers,

student: "When was Noah's Flood?"
Teacher: "About 4300-4500 years ago."
student: "But the Egyptians were building pyramids at that time."
Teacher: "Yes, but God flooded the world and everyone drowned."
student: "How come the pryamids are still there if God wiped them out in a Flood?"
Teacher: "He wiped out the Egyptians, not the Pyramids."
student: "But you said everything was buried in dirt when the flood waters washed over everything."
Teacher: "Well, the pyramids got uncovered later."
student: "But who uncovered them?"
Teacher: "Other Egyptians after the Flood."
student: "But you said God wiped out the Egyptians and everyone else in the flood."
Teacher: "But he saved Noah and his family."
student: "But Noah went ashore up by Mt. Ararat, which is in Turkey. How did Noah's family make more Egyptians?"
Teacher: "Noah and his family repopulated the earth."
student: "But how could Noah repopulate the earth so fast that Egyptians could be building pyramids again in less than 100 years?
Teacher: "Because the Bible says so!"

:)

What about this conversation:

God - There was a global flood.
WSGAC - no

God - men lived hundreds of years.
WSGAC - no

God - I divided the waters above and under the firmament.
WSGAC - IMPOSSIBLE!

You have guts, I give you that :)

BroRog
Mar 1st 2011, 01:02 AM
Genesis 6 has nothing to do with fossils. The Creation Research Institute wants to make Genesis 6 about fossils, so that they can build a pseudo scientific system from the Flood story. Indeed, it seems crucial for CRI to make this case, for from there they try to falsify any scientific inquiry which points to an old earth. Problem: You can't build a scientific theory from an *interpretation* of Genesis 6.

But more to the point, if CRI and others want to build a scientific theory from the Flood, then please indicate when that Flood occurred.

Many here tell of pre and post Flood environments, and the great differences between those environments. In fact the argument goes, "We cannot trust such things as C14 testing, because the decay rate of C14 may be completely different after the Flood, than the rate of decay before the Flood." Indeed, everything changed since the Flood, to the point that no scientific discovery confirming an old earth can be trusted.

Well, if this is true, that all systems and natural phenomena changed with the Flood, then let's begin by locating the time of the Flood.

When did the great Flood occur? If such a date can be determined in the Bible, we should be able to confirm such a disaster in the archaeological record. Alas, there is none!I'm not interested in what CRI does. The book of Genesis is inspired scripture. Jesus says that it is true. And since I am a follower/servant of Jesus Christ, I believe Genesis. I don't why this would be a problem for a Christian.

Also, the date of the flood isn't an interesting question as it relates to the Genesis account. When it happened isn't relevant to what the text of Genesis asserts. We know it took place in the time of Noah, whenever that was. The actual date it took place wasn't important to the author of Genesis and so it isn't important to me.

I agree, the book of Genesis isn't a scientific paper, but as it doesn't make this claim, I see no problem.

But your assertion that we must find evidence in the archeological record sounds reasonable except it isn't likely or probable. Since no human being has ever seen a worldwide flood, we have no basis for comparison. We could be staring at the evidence and not see it, because we don't know what to look for. Anyone who claims to know what such evidence should be found is simply guessing and doesn't really know what he is talking about. So any scientific argument that the flood did or didn't happen is bogus, as it would be filled with too many assumptions to be a useful valid conclusion.

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 01:49 AM
I'm not interested in what CRI does. The book of Genesis is inspired scripture. Jesus says that it is true. And since I am a follower/servant of Jesus Christ, I believe Genesis. I don't why this would be a problem for a Christian.

Also, the date of the flood isn't an interesting question as it relates to the Genesis account. When it happened isn't relevant to what the text of Genesis asserts. We know it took place in the time of Noah, whenever that was. The actual date it took place wasn't important to the author of Genesis and so it isn't important to me.

I agree, the book of Genesis isn't a scientific paper, but as it doesn't make this claim, I see no problem.

But your assertion that we must find evidence in the archeological record sounds reasonable except it isn't likely or probable. Since no human being has ever seen a worldwide flood, we have no basis for comparison. We could be staring at the evidence and not see it, because we don't know what to look for. Anyone who claims to know what such evidence should be found is simply guessing and doesn't really know what he is talking about. So any scientific argument that the flood did or didn't happen is bogus, as it would be filled with too many assumptions to be a useful valid conclusion.

Well that's fine, just as long as your position doesn't change and you start telling someone else that the earth can't possibly be 4.5 billion years old because of what Genesis says, or that there were dinosaurs on the ark. We're ok then.

Raybob
Mar 1st 2011, 02:05 AM
Well that's fine, just as long as your position doesn't change and you start telling someone else that the earth can't possibly be 4.5 billion years old because of what Genesis says,Genesis doesn't tell us how old the earth appeared to be when it was created, just as it doesn't say how old Adam was when he was created. Obviously, Adam was created as a full grown man, not a baby, as he was big enough to tend a garden. The earth must have been created to appear many many moons old as well.

or that there were dinosaurs on the ark. We're ok then.

Dinosaurs on the ark were obviously baby ones so they would fit on the ark. How else could we have Behemoth with a tail like a cedar tree?

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
(Job 40:15-18)

And Leviathan, the fire breathing dragon?

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? ... . His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
(Job 41:1-21)

BroRog
Mar 1st 2011, 02:08 AM
Well that's fine, just as long as your position doesn't change and you start telling someone else that the earth can't possibly be 4.5 billion years old because of what Genesis says, or that there were dinosaurs on the ark. We're ok then.What you need to know about scientists is that these folks are always the last to know things. You can lead them by the hand and draw them a picture and yet they still don't get it. Sometimes they eventually come around. A case in point is the idea of rogue waves, which were known by mariners for years, but scientists just found out about them as if they discovered them. All we can do is pat them on the head and let them believe they discovered them. Another case in point is the question of David's existence, whom archaeologists didn't believe existed until they found something with his name on it. Any body who reads the Bible could have told them that. But again, our society feels sorry for these folks who can't hold down a real job, giving them welfare in the form of research grants. By giving them this money we hope that these poor folks will eventually come to know what the rest of us already know, I guess, because we feel sorry for them.

Slina
Mar 1st 2011, 03:32 AM
Yes, I do believe in an earth that's well under 4.5 billion years old. I also think there probably were dinosaurs on the ark since I see no evidence in the Bible that there weren't, and it does say 2/7 of every kind of animal (with the possible exception of fish, I'll give you that). Who's to say the dinosaurs didn't die out after the flood, possibly because the new environment was completely unfit for them? Also, Raybob already pointed out the Job passages, which seem to describe dinosaurs pretty well. (And I agree that the sunday school teacher in your example sounds very ill-informed. Don't think I know too many creationists who'd give answers like that...)

Not quite sure what kind of archeological evidence you expect to find for a universal flood though. It's safe to say that the sheer size of it would be far more destructive than your average local flood that you'd be comparing it to, so it's entirely possible that any archeological artifacts were completely obliterated beyond all recognition by the intense activity. That, and we don't even know what the cultures were necessarily like back then. All that survived the flood in terms of that would be what an 8-member family brought with them (a God-fearing family no less, which would certainly affect what they took with them), so who's to say we'd even recognize anything that did survive? We do have a whole lot of cultures throughout the world that have flood stories of some kind in their mythology, and one very realistic and Biblical explanation is that all these stories originated with the same flood, namely the world-wide flood in Genesis.

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 03:36 AM
Yes, I do believe in an earth that's well under 4.5 billion years old. I also think there probably were dinosaurs on the ark since I see no evidence in the Bible that there weren't, and it does say 2/7 of every kind of animal (with the possible exception of fish, I'll give you that). Who's to say the dinosaurs didn't die out after the flood, possibly because the new environment was completely unfit for them? Also, Raybob already pointed out the Job passages, which seem to describe dinosaurs pretty well. (And I agree that the sunday school teacher in your example sounds very ill-informed. Don't think I know too many creationists who'd give answers like that...)

Not quite sure what kind of archeological evidence you expect to find for a universal flood though. It's safe to say that the sheer size of it would be far more destructive than your average local flood that you'd be comparing it to, so it's entirely possible that any archeological artifacts were completely obliterated beyond all recognition by the intense activity. That, and we don't even know what the cultures were necessarily like back then. All that survived the flood in terms of that would be what an 8-member family brought with them (a God-fearing family no less, which would certainly affect what they took with them), so who's to say we'd even recognize anything that did survive? We do have a whole lot of cultures throughout the world that have flood stories of some kind in their mythology, and one very realistic and Biblical explanation is that all these stories originated with the same flood, namely the world-wide flood in Genesis.


:oNo fish:o

I knew I felt left out.

Heres something to think about. If there was no rain, what kind of shelter would you need if any?:hmm:

Liquid Tension
Mar 1st 2011, 03:43 AM
So let's have a date. Come on LT, give us a date!


OK, I'm not a mod but this gone off topic far enough. If you want to give us uneducated believers in the bible a date you can prove as far as when Noah's flood was, have at it. Start your own thread. I figure you should be able to get the date correct within a 5 year radius since you are sooooooooooooo knowledgeable about this. Come on WSGAC, give us a date that can be proven. :rolleyes:

As far as this thread, it's titled "The Age of Men in Genesis"........please try to keep up.

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 03:47 AM
OK, I'm not a mod but this gone off topic far enough. If you want to give us uneducated believers in the bible a date you can prove as far as when Noah's flood was, have at it. Start your own thread. I figure you should be able to get the date correct within a 5 year radius since you are sooooooooooooo knowledgeable about this. Come on WSGAC, give us a date that can be proven. :rolleyes:

As far as this thread, it's titled "The Age of Men in Genesis"........please try to keep up.

I think WSGAC is saying there was no flood at all, at least not world wide, because that would be supernatural and stuff.

Liquid Tension
Mar 1st 2011, 04:00 AM
I think WSGAC is saying there was no flood at all, at least not world wide, because that would be supernatural and stuff.

Yep, just too wacky to believe apparently. It's like the things written in the bible never happened. I wonder if he/she believes Christ arose from the dead........quite supernatural and stuff.

teddyv
Mar 1st 2011, 04:04 AM
Yep, just too wacky to believe apparently. It's like the things written in the bible never happened. I wonder if he/she believes Christ arose from the dead........quite supernatural and stuff.

Here we go again.:rolleyes:

Liquid Tension
Mar 1st 2011, 04:20 AM
Here we go again.:rolleyes:

Yeah, and your point is.........http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-rolleye-smileys-725.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/skype-emoticons.html)

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2011, 04:48 AM
I think WSGAC is saying there was no flood at all, at least not world wide, because that would be supernatural and stuff.

I don't believe there was ever a global flood. Does that mean I hold that belief because I lack belief in the supernatural? I think some of you could be more charitable to the views of those you disagree with. By that I mean you could make an effort to actually understand those beliefs and care enough not to caricature and mock the beliefs of your fellow brothers and sisters.

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 04:52 AM
I don't believe there was ever a global flood. Does that mean I hold that belief because I lack belief in the supernatural? I think some of you could be more charitable to the views of those you disagree with. By that I mean you could make an effort to actually understand those beliefs and care enough not to caricature and mock the beliefs of your fellow brothers and sisters.

You are right, That post came out wrong and was in poor taste.

Liquid Tension
Mar 1st 2011, 05:09 AM
I don't believe there was ever a global flood. Does that mean I hold that belief because I lack belief in the supernatural? I think some of you could be more charitable to the views of those you disagree with. By that I mean you could make an effort to actually understand those beliefs and care enough not to caricature and mock the beliefs of your fellow brothers and sisters.

I can agree with this........to a point.

Slina
Mar 1st 2011, 07:16 AM
:oNo fish:o

I knew I felt left out.

Heres something to think about. If there was no rain, what kind of shelter would you need if any?:hmm:

Aww, I'm sure it's entirely possible Noah had an awesome tank system going on in that ark. :P

And this is true. A world with no rain and possibly moderate temperatures would have probably developed very different cultures than what we got post-flood. The Bible mentions cities back then, but who knows what those cities even looked like?

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 12:16 PM
Genesis doesn't tell us how old the earth appeared to be when it was created, just as it doesn't say how old Adam was when he was created. Obviously, Adam was created as a full grown man, not a baby, as he was big enough to tend a garden. The earth must have been created to appear many many moons old as well.


Dinosaurs on the ark were obviously baby ones so they would fit on the ark. How else could we have Behemoth with a tail like a cedar tree?

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
(Job 40:15-18)

And Leviathan, the fire breathing dragon?

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? ... . His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
(Job 41:1-21)

If Behemoth and Leviathan were dinosaurs we would see and read of dinosaurs in other human literature/pictures. Ever seen a dinosaur relief on any Babylonian or Assyrian walls?

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 12:33 PM
Yes, I do believe in an earth that's well under 4.5 billion years old. I also think there probably were dinosaurs on the ark since I see no evidence in the Bible that there weren't, and it does say 2/7 of every kind of animal (with the possible exception of fish, I'll give you that). Who's to say the dinosaurs didn't die out after the flood, possibly because the new environment was completely unfit for them? Also, Raybob already pointed out the Job passages, which seem to describe dinosaurs pretty well. (And I agree that the sunday school teacher in your example sounds very ill-informed. Don't think I know too many creationists who'd give answers like that...)

Not quite sure what kind of archeological evidence you expect to find for a universal flood though. It's safe to say that the sheer size of it would be far more destructive than your average local flood that you'd be comparing it to, so it's entirely possible that any archeological artifacts were completely obliterated beyond all recognition by the intense activity. That, and we don't even know what the cultures were necessarily like back then. All that survived the flood in terms of that would be what an 8-member family brought with them (a God-fearing family no less, which would certainly affect what they took with them), so who's to say we'd even recognize anything that did survive? We do have a whole lot of cultures throughout the world that have flood stories of some kind in their mythology, and one very realistic and Biblical explanation is that all these stories originated with the same flood, namely the world-wide flood in Genesis.

Well if the destruction was as great as you say, and there was nothing left (ie., no archeological artifacts remain), then the Flood must have pre-dated Jericho (9,000 BC). But if so, then you run into some big problems, as modern man hasn't been around very long. Another problem is the fossil record. Why is it we find fish bones atop mountains and even in Kansas, but we don't find any land mammal bones, or human bones, mixed in with those fish bones? I mean if it was one giant soup mix of Flood victims we should expect to see some kind of even dispersion of debris. Why don't we find elephant bones alongside whale bones, or rhinoceros bones with clam shells? Why is it we only find fish and other water/ocean fossils atop mountains?

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 12:36 PM
OK, I'm not a mod but this gone off topic far enough. If you want to give us uneducated believers in the bible a date you can prove as far as when Noah's flood was, have at it. Start your own thread. I figure you should be able to get the date correct within a 5 year radius since you are sooooooooooooo knowledgeable about this. Come on WSGAC, give us a date that can be proven. :rolleyes:

As far as this thread, it's titled "The Age of Men in Genesis"........please try to keep up.

Because the topic of 900 year old men has something to do with Flood dating by the so-called "biblical worldview." That worldview really isn't biblical. It's a 20th/21st Century worldview imposed onto an ancient text.

I'm keeping up.

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 12:38 PM
I don't believe there was ever a global flood. Does that mean I hold that belief because I lack belief in the supernatural? I think some of you could be more charitable to the views of those you disagree with. By that I mean you could make an effort to actually understand those beliefs and care enough not to caricature and mock the beliefs of your fellow brothers and sisters.

Well said! And I appreciate your contributions!

Servant89
Mar 1st 2011, 12:42 PM
Guinness Book of World records back up Genesis: Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Progeria backs up the fact that the rate of aging in human beings is controlled by something in DNA.

Fosil records show that before the flood everything was different (there were giants, 17 inch span insects, 18 foot tall rinoceronts, etc.)

It is all about faith in his Word. Do you believe it? That makes a difference.

Shalom

Raybob
Mar 1st 2011, 01:24 PM
If Behemoth and Leviathan were dinosaurs we would see and read of dinosaurs in other human literature/pictures. Ever seen a dinosaur relief on any Babylonian or Assyrian walls?

Ever read about the Chinese killing fire breathing dragons?

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 02:12 PM
Guinness Book of World records back up Genesis: Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Progeria backs up the fact that the rate of aging in human beings is controlled by something in DNA.

Fosil records show that before the flood everything was different (there were giants, 17 inch span insects, 18 foot tall rinoceronts, etc.)

It is all about faith in his Word. Do you believe it? That makes a difference.

Shalom

There were also dinosaurs before the flood (long before the flood, actually)....dinosaurs which supposedly were on Noah's ark with the rest of the animals.

Question: If the ark was built to house and preserve life on earth (2 of every animal, male and female), why is it all the dinosaurs are now extinct? Every single dinosaur is gone! Seems the ark wasn't too successful for preservation of dinosaurs. Why did the ark preserve mammalian life, but not one Brontosaurus, T-Rex, Triceratops, Stegasaurus, Allosaurus...etc., made it after their exit from the ark?

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 02:20 PM
Ever read about the Chinese killing fire breathing dragons?


Hindu mythology speaks of a giant tortoise at the beginning of the world. Similarly the Lenape creation story speaks of a great turtle.

If dinosaurs and great tortoises once walked with men, we'd know about it!

RabbiKnife
Mar 1st 2011, 03:41 PM
You doubt Barney and TMNT... that figures.

Easy question...if you do not believe in a worldwide flood, do you believe that Jesus was wrong when he referenced it? Or Peter? Or the writer of Hebrews?

How does your faith reconcile these apparent discrepancies?

Liquid Tension
Mar 1st 2011, 03:56 PM
You doubt Barney and TMNT... that figures.

Easy question...if you do not believe in a worldwide flood, do you believe that Jesus was wrong when he referenced it? Or Peter? Or the writer of Hebrews?

How does your faith reconcile these apparent discrepancies?

Great question. However, you'll probably just get "What was the date of Noah's flood?" as a response.

Liquid Tension
Mar 1st 2011, 04:00 PM
Because the topic of 900 year old men has something to do with Flood dating by the so-called "biblical worldview." That worldview really isn't biblical. It's a 20th/21st Century worldview imposed onto an ancient text.

I'm keeping up.

Nice try. Come on WSGAC, give us a date of Noah's flood.

teddyv
Mar 1st 2011, 04:02 PM
Can a story carry truths, regardless of its absolute historic veracity?

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2011, 05:24 PM
You doubt Barney and TMNT... that figures.

Easy question...if you do not believe in a worldwide flood, do you believe that Jesus was wrong when he referenced it? Or Peter? Or the writer of Hebrews?

How does your faith reconcile these apparent discrepancies?

I would explain it by saying Jesus was a first century Jew. Paul apparently believed the names of the Egyptian magicians were Jannes and Jambres. I don't think that just because Jesus or a writer of the NT references something, that automatically makes it historically true. And I don't really see the problem in saying Jesus believed in a global flood when nothing of the sort ever happened. We do affirm Jesus' humanity, don't we? We should expect him to believe what other first century Jews believed, shouldn't we?

nzyr
Mar 1st 2011, 05:30 PM
I would explain it by saying Jesus was a first century Jew. Paul apparently believed the names of the Egyptian magicians were Jannes and Jambres. I don't think that just because Jesus or a writer of the NT references something, that automatically makes it historically true. And I don't really see the problem in saying Jesus believed in a global flood when nothing of the sort ever happened. We do affirm Jesus' humanity, don't we? We should expect him to believe what other first century Jews believed, shouldn't we?

Sounds like you are denying the deity of Christ. Are you?

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2011, 05:31 PM
Sounds like you are denying the deity of Christ. Are you?

Sounds like you are denying the humanity of Christ. Are you?

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 05:51 PM
I would explain it by saying Jesus was a first century Jew. Paul apparently believed the names of the Egyptian magicians were Jannes and Jambres. I don't think that just because Jesus or a writer of the NT references something, that automatically makes it historically true. And I don't really see the problem in saying Jesus believed in a global flood when nothing of the sort ever happened. We do affirm Jesus' humanity, don't we? We should expect him to believe what other first century Jews believed, shouldn't we?

Jesus in John chapter 1 is refered to as the Word meaning that the Word and God can be interchangable. If the Word is God, how can any of his Word be infallable?

nzyr
Mar 1st 2011, 06:00 PM
Sounds like you are denying the humanity of Christ. Are you?No I'm not. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. Now I'm asking you. Was Jesus God in human form? Did he exist before being born to Mary?

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2011, 06:05 PM
Jesus in John chapter 1 is refered to as the Word meaning that the Word and God can be interchangable. If the Word is God, how can any of his Word be infallable?

Well the Word became flesh and lived as a first century Jew, did he not? Shouldn't we affirm that he dressed, spoke, and thought like a first century Jew would?


No I'm not. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. Now I'm asking you. Was Jesus God in human form? Did he exist before being born to Mary?

Yes, I belive in the diety of Jesus. That doesn't negate his humanity, though.

nzyr
Mar 1st 2011, 06:13 PM
Yes, I belive in the diety of Jesus. That doesn't negate his humanity, though.

Yes but you said that you really didn't see the problem in saying Jesus believed in a global flood when nothing of the sort ever happened.

You're saying that Jesus believed in something that wasn't true. Or that he taught something that wasn't true.

OK I'm going to add that we may never find any evidence that may convince scientists that the flood occurred. But you know what? That may be because God wants it that way.

RollTide21
Mar 1st 2011, 06:17 PM
Why isn't it that simple? Do we know more than Him? Have we reached the level in our understanding that we can begin question His word because it doesn't fit what we understand? Do we understand everything?

To stay on topic what evidence is there to suggest that men couldn't have lived that long? Why is the bible being mis-interpeted in this matter?

There is proof that our world was once different, how diffrent we don't know? Since we don't know, what gives us the right to say God must have meant this or he really didn't mean this where is says it. If you have to say that, why do you believe in him in the first place?

Unversal findings of science? Really, you want to trust this more than Him? Would you take the newest Scinece Text Book you can find and make that your Bible for the next 10 Yrs, 20....30? Would it change over that time period? Can you take a text book from 30 yrs ago and not deviate from what it says and teach new sudents science?

For me, I'm just gonna stick with what God says happened, who am I to say that it must be wrong.Because Salvific Faith allows us to speculate what happened in Genesis. Upon placing my Faith in the Blood of Christ, I am led by the Holy Spirit into the Will of God for my life. I received this Spirit through what happened on the Cross and after, not based on how God formed the World. Frankly, the Holy Spirit hasn't convicted me to believe that Genesis is a purely literal event. Maybe creation happened in 7 literal days. Maybe it didn't. However, if science were to theorize that it happened over a longer period of time, I'm not convicted to say "God said it was 7 days in Genesis. So, that theory CAN'T be right."

For those who speculate that if we begin choosing some passages to interpret literally and others figuratively, then we have no solid foundation of Truth, our Guide and Counselor is the Holy Spirit. THAT is how we are led into perfect righteousness. Scripture is used BY the Spirit. We can trust that the Spirit of Truth will guide us into the perfect Will of God for our life. God didn't call all of us to either believe the literal interpretation of Scripture or question our Salvation.

RollTide21
Mar 1st 2011, 06:23 PM
Did you know the earth is flat and does not move? This is the clear teaching of scripture. You either choose to believe the Word of God or you do not.

Consider:

Psalm 104 states that God, "laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." (Psalm 104:5)

and also:

"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world is also established that it cannot be moved." (Ps.93)

Clearly the word of God states that the earth has an immovable foundation. In other words, the earth does not move. Thus, any talk of the earth revolving about the sun is in contradiction to the clear word of God. This point is further supported by other scripture:

"The sun also rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

God's word is consistent. It is the earth that remains fixed, while the rest of the heavenly bodies move around the earth. Science has corrupted men's minds. There are things that have to be taken on faith. God's ways are above man's ways, His thoughts above man's thoughts.

Scripture also tells us that the earth is flat, and not a sphere. Flat surfaces have "edges" or "ends." Are there any passages from scripture that speak of the edges or ends of the earth? Why yes there are:

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (Job 38:13) Does a sphere have edges? And how can you grab the edges of a sphere? Only a flat disc could be grabbed and shaken by its edges!

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? (Job 38:44) If the earth were a sphere, the question to Job should read "Who stretched a measuring line around it?"

It is quite apparent from these passages that the earth is flat and does not move. Fallible scientists do not understand this because they choose not to believe God's word. When it comes to deciding between God's word and fallible man, it would be wise to choose for the Word of God!

____________________

So you see, it all depends on what you first bring to the text what your understanding of the text will be. ;)Those are horrible interpretations of Scripture to prove your point, WG...

RollTide21
Mar 1st 2011, 06:25 PM
Also, once you start putting science first before the Bible in anything, I have to start wondering where you draw the line. At the Holy Spirit. Where did early Christians draw the line?

RollTide21
Mar 1st 2011, 06:28 PM
Deu 32:4 [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] heWhat is your idea of "perfect"? Does that mean without human-conceived flaw, or "perfect" in that it is exactly right for the purpose of Almighty God?

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 06:33 PM
Well the Word became flesh and lived as a first century Jew, did he not? Shouldn't we affirm that he dressed, spoke, and thought like a first century Jew would?



Yes, I belive in the diety of Jesus. That doesn't negate his humanity, though.

Yes the Word became flesh, but was still fully the Word. Fully God and Fully man (without sin (or imperfection) which is why His sacrifice is able to cover us)

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 06:34 PM
What is your idea of "perfect"? Does that mean without human-conceived flaw, or "perfect" in that it is exactly right for the purpose of Almighty God?

Perfection means without flaw

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 06:35 PM
It always comes to this! If someone disagrees with your interpretation of scripture, simply place Jesus at your side. That way, when someone disagrees with you they are in fact disagreeing with Jesus, or questioning the deity of Jesus. Classic!

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 06:38 PM
It always comes to this! If someone disagrees with your interpretation of scripture, simply place Jesus at your side. That way, when someone disagrees with you they are in fact disagreeing with Jesus, or questioning the deity of Jesus. Classic!

I think its Jesus in your heart, Just Sayin

God and Jesus are the same, if you doubt one you have to doubt the other. Both were involved in creation

RollTide21
Mar 1st 2011, 06:38 PM
During the time of Noah. What else do you need to know?Nothing, really.

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 06:41 PM
Perfection means without flaw



“Who touched me?” Jesus asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.” Luke 8:45

Obviously Luke presents an imperfect and flawed Jesus here. If Jesus is God, shouldn't he have omniscience? But he didn't know who touched him?

Jesus was a 1st Century Jew. He learned his scriptures, and the faith stories of his scriptures. One of those stories was the Flood story. It isn't likely that Jesus had knowledge of Noah's day, other than it was corrupt...and perhaps the rabbinic traditions surrounding the story. I doubt Jesus knew there were once dinosaurs that walked the earth too! Again, He was a 1st Century Jew, bound by his own historical context. That's a part of what it means to be human!

RollTide21
Mar 1st 2011, 06:46 PM
So why question the mysterious waters above and not the resurrection of Jesus? From a scientific point of view these are equal questions. If you accept one, accept the rest or accept none, not something in between. But he, that's just my logic.Now we're getting somewhere. Why do you suppose one would question the literal interpretation of Scripture yet revolve their very life around the impossible Resurrection event?

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 06:47 PM
“Who touched me?” Jesus asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.” Luke 8:45

Obviously Luke presents an imperfect and flawed Jesus here. If Jesus is God, shouldn't he have omniscience? But he didn't know who touched him?

Jesus was a 1st Century Jew. He learned his scriptures, and the faith stories of his scriptures. One of those stories was the Flood story. It isn't likely that Jesus had knowledge of Noah's day, other than it was corrupt...and perhaps the rabbinic traditions surrounding the story. I doubt Jesus knew there were once dinosaurs that walked the earth too! Again, He was a 1st Century Jew, bound by his own historical context. That's a part of what it means to be human!

Jesus asked who touched me, it does not say he didn't know who touched him. If you read that passage carefully you will see he was drawing out the faith of the woman.

RollTide21
Mar 1st 2011, 07:03 PM
Perfection means without flawWhat you consider flaw, God may consider perfect.

When you see a dying tree, do you see that tree as being flawless? How could something perish that is flawless? Maybe that's a bad example, but the point is that God's ideas are perfect and that perfection is not based on standards that we have the ability to gauge.

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2011, 07:08 PM
OK I'm going to add that we may never find any evidence that may convince scientists that the flood occurred. But you know what? That may be because God wants it that way.

Well then you shouldn't be upset when scientists say there was no global flood. If God has made it so there is no evidence, it's not the fault of scientists, who study God's general revelation, when they say no such evidence exists.


Yes the Word became flesh, but was still fully the Word. Fully God and Fully man (without sin (or imperfection) which is why His sacrifice is able to cover us)

Wouldn't Jesus being fully man imply that he thought as a human in the first century would?

nzyr
Mar 1st 2011, 07:09 PM
It always comes to this! If someone disagrees with your interpretation of scripture, simply place Jesus at your side. That way, when someone disagrees with you they are in fact disagreeing with Jesus, or questioning the deity of Jesus. Classic!

This is a bible forum. We are trying to teach what Jesus taught.

RollTide21
Mar 1st 2011, 07:17 PM
This is a bible forum. We are trying to teach what Jesus taught.Jesus taught that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So did the Disciples and the Apostles. Furthermore, Jesus, and His followers taught what it means to Abide in Christ.

nzyr
Mar 1st 2011, 07:22 PM
Well then you shouldn't be upset when scientists say there was no global flood. If God has made it so there is no evidence, it's not the fault of scientists, who study God's general revelation, when they say no such evidence exists. I'm not upset. We are teaching what the bible says here. Not what science says. The revelations in the bible are way beyond what science can explain. My faith is in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not science.



Wouldn't Jesus being fully man imply that he thought as a human in the first century would? He was the word of God made flesh. Mary was his mother and God was his Father. Genesis said the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. That and Jesus talking about the flood is enough for me. I don't know why it isn't enough for you.

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2011, 07:29 PM
I'm not upset. We are teaching what the bible says here. Not what science says. The revelations in the bible are way beyond what science can explain. My faith is in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not science.

It's nice to know you completely disregard the study of God's general revelation.


He was the word of God made flesh. Mary was his mother and God was his Father. Genesis said the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. That and Jesus talking about the flood is enough for me. I don't know why it isn't enough for you.

The reason you don't know why it isn't enough for me is because you don't understand my position. And I don't think you even want to try to understand my position. So we'll leave it at that, then.

Firefighter
Mar 1st 2011, 07:32 PM
“Who touched me?” Jesus asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.” Luke 8:45

Obviously Luke presents an imperfect and flawed Jesus here. If Jesus is God, shouldn't he have omniscience? But he didn't know who touched him?

Jesus was a 1st Century Jew. He learned his scriptures, and the faith stories of his scriptures. One of those stories was the Flood story. It isn't likely that Jesus had knowledge of Noah's day, other than it was corrupt...and perhaps the rabbinic traditions surrounding the story. I doubt Jesus knew there were once dinosaurs that walked the earth too! Again, He was a 1st Century Jew, bound by his own historical context. That's a part of what it means to be human!

I guess God is a 1st Century Jew as well...

Genesis 3:11 - And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

Just because He asked doesn't mean that he doesn't know. :B

Firefighter
Mar 1st 2011, 07:32 PM
Obviously Luke presents an imperfect and flawed Jesus here.

...and while we are at it. TREAD LIGHTLY.

Raybob
Mar 1st 2011, 07:33 PM
There were also dinosaurs before the flood (long before the flood, actually)....dinosaurs which supposedly were on Noah's ark with the rest of the animals.

Question: If the ark was built to house and preserve life on earth (2 of every animal, male and female), why is it all the dinosaurs are now extinct? Every single dinosaur is gone! Seems the ark wasn't too successful for preservation of dinosaurs. Why did the ark preserve mammalian life, but not one Brontosaurus, T-Rex, Triceratops, Stegasaurus, Allosaurus...etc., made it after their exit from the ark?That's quite simple. Man didn't eat animals before the flood so they flurished. After the flood, man was told to eat animals. There's an awful lot of meat in one of them dragons (dinosaurs) so they were the first to go.

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
(Gen 9:1-3)

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 07:35 PM
Well then you shouldn't be upset when scientists say there was no global flood. If God has made it so there is no evidence, it's not the fault of scientists, who study God's general revelation, when they say no such evidence exists.



Wouldn't Jesus being fully man imply that he thought as a human in the first century would?

I don't think it would. He was also fully God so he would have knowledge of all times or time periods which he is in full control of.

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2011, 07:41 PM
I don't think it would. He was also fully God so he would have knowledge of all times or time periods which he is in full control of.

I wonder how you explain this passage, then?

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Matthew 24:36

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 07:43 PM
Well then you shouldn't be upset when scientists say there was no global flood. If God has made it so there is no evidence, it's not the fault of scientists, who study God's general revelation, when they say no such evidence exists.

This is a good point! If there was indeed a Global Flood, and yet no evidence for it in the archeological record, nor the animal/plant record (a mass extinction of all creatures), then what's the point? Someone once said, "God could have destroyed the earth last week with a massive fireball from space, and then miraculously restored everything as was, leaving no trace or memory of it in our minds....BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF IT?"

If God sent a Global Flood, but erased all the evidence, WHY?

Raybob
Mar 1st 2011, 07:46 PM
...If God sent a Global Flood, but erased all the evidence, WHY?But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
(1Co 1:27)

nzyr
Mar 1st 2011, 07:52 PM
It's nice to know you completely disregard the study of God's general revelation. Do you mean science? I use it all of the time. I use Ohm's law when doing electrical wiring. I'm not anti-science. I'm just saying science can't explain the miracles in the bible. And that we should not have faith in science but in God.




The reason you don't know why it isn't enough for me is because you don't understand my position. And I don't think you even want to try to understand my position. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. And I'm not trying to put anyone down or anything. That's not why I'm posting here.

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 07:54 PM
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
(1Co 1:27)

And God chose to deceive, by erasing the evidence? You don't have a problem with this?

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 07:58 PM
And God chose to deceive, by erasing the evidence? You don't have a problem with this?

Lack of evidence does not prove something to be true, How do you know there is no evidence. Just because its not found in your eyes mean it does not exsist?

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 08:00 PM
I wonder how you explain this passage, then?

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Matthew 24:36



That is a good passsage, hard to explain. How can Jesus not know something if he is God.

RabbiKnife
Mar 1st 2011, 08:02 PM
That is a good passsage, hard to explain. How can Jesus not know something if he is God.

How can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?

Jesus, in the incarnation, could choose when to exercise his divinity and when to leave it in the bag. That's not really very complicated.

Servant89
Mar 1st 2011, 08:04 PM
There were also dinosaurs before the flood (long before the flood, actually)....dinosaurs which supposedly were on Noah's ark with the rest of the animals.

Question: If the ark was built to house and preserve life on earth (2 of every animal, male and female), why is it all the dinosaurs are now extinct? Every single dinosaur is gone! Seems the ark wasn't too successful for preservation of dinosaurs. Why did the ark preserve mammalian life, but not one Brontosaurus, T-Rex, Triceratops, Stegasaurus, Allosaurus...etc., made it after their exit from the ark?

When the canopy of water above our atmosphere fell, these things happened.

1. The green house effect was gone. That is why there are petrified tropical forests in antartica, siberia, alaska, etc.
2. The atmospheric pressure dropped to about half what it used to be (following Boltzman distribution of physical chemistry, atmospheric pressure).

When the pressure is twice what we have today, healing is faster (remmeber Michale Jackson's pressure chamber?). But the big animals with large bodies and small nostrils could not handle the drop in air pressure, they did not have enough oxygen. Lots of animals that were huge, could not survive the pressure drop.

P.S. I am a Chemical Engineer with 31 years of experience in rocket motor solid fuel design, qualitication, testing and production.

Shalom

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 08:05 PM
How can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?

Jesus, in the incarnation, could choose when to exercise his divinity and when to leave it in the bag. That's not really very complicated.

Yes that is what I believe, but can it be used as evidence?

Servant89
Mar 1st 2011, 08:14 PM
And God chose to deceive, by erasing the evidence? You don't have a problem with this?

Haven't you heard?

2The 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

When God created Adam, he made him an adult. He looked 20 years old, but in reality, he was 20 minutes old, (20 minutes after he was created). The scientist would say, how can you believe he is only 20 minutes old?

When Jesus made the wine at the feast, he made old wine instantly. See Luke 5:39 and John 2:10. Those in the laboratory will tell you the wine was 20 years old, but we know it was 20 minutes old.

The theory of relativity has been demonstrated with the travels in space. Likewise, the time in the galaxies that are travelling at .9 the speed of light is actually much less than the time we measure. Time is relative. As God stated in 2Pe 3:8.

Shalom

Raybob
Mar 1st 2011, 08:31 PM
And God chose to deceive, by erasing the evidence? You don't have a problem with this?

The Grand Canyon is more than enough evidence that I didn't even ask for, of a world wide flood.

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 08:38 PM
Lack of evidence does not prove something to be true, How do you know there is no evidence. Just because its not found in your eyes mean it does not exsist?

If there were a universal wipe out of all life (human, animal, plant) there would be evidence. Modern humans have only been around some 10,000 - 12,000 years (Neolithic Revolution). If a Global Flood occurred anywhere between now and then, wiping out all humans, animals and plants, we would see it. In the White Mountains of California, we have Bristlecone Pine Trees that are nearly 5,000 years old. There are others there which are no longer living, but whose lives can be traced back even further...as far back as 9,000 - 10,000 years ago. If the White Mountains were at one time under water, killing the trees and all life, then there is no record of it in the trees themselves.

So when was this Flood that covered all the mountains of the earth, killing all life? There is no evidence of it. If there is, and we've missed it, then the Bristlecone Pines must have been able to hold their breath a very long time, OR the Flood predates the trees. But therein is another problem. Again, Modern man, of which Noah is a member, hasn't been around for very long. Bristlecone Pines and Modern man are pretty much contemporaries. But there's no sign that Bristlecones had to endure an underwater environment. Such would kill the trees in short order.

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 08:41 PM
If there were a universal wipe out of all life (human, animal, plant) there would be evidence. Modern humans have only been around some 10,000 - 12,000 years (Neolithic Revolution). If a Global Flood occurred anywhere between now and then, wiping out all humans, animals and plants, we would see it. In the White Mountains of California, we have Bristlecone Pine Trees that are nearly 5,000 years old. There are others there which are no longer living, but whose lives can be traced back even further...as far back as 9,000 - 10,000 years ago. If the White Mountains were at one time under water, killing the trees and all life, then there is no record of it in the trees themselves.

So when was this Flood that covered all the mountains of the earth, killing all life? There is no evidence of it. If there is, and we've missed it, then the Bristlecone Pines must have been able to hold their breath a very long time, OR the Flood predates the trees. But therein is another problem. Again, Modern man, of which Noah is a member, hasn't been around for very long. Bristlecone Pines and Modern man are pretty much contemporaries. But there's no sign that Bristlecones had to endure an underwater environment. Such would kill the trees in short order.

I didn't say there was no evidence, Just no evidence that you would accept as proof.

I believe there to be plenty of evidence.

RabbiKnife
Mar 1st 2011, 08:44 PM
If there were a universal wipe out of all life (human, animal, plant) there would be evidence. Modern humans have only been around some 10,000 - 12,000 years (Neolithic Revolution). If a Global Flood occurred anywhere between now and then, wiping out all humans, animals and plants, we would see it. In the White Mountains of California, we have Bristlecone Pine Trees that are nearly 5,000 years old. There are others there which are no longer living, but whose lives can be traced back even further...as far back as 9,000 - 10,000 years ago. If the White Mountains were at one time under water, killing the trees and all life, then there is no record of it in the trees themselves.

So when was this Flood that covered all the mountains of the earth, killing all life? There is no evidence of it. If there is, and we've missed it, then the Bristlecone Pines must have been able to hold their breath a very long time, OR the Flood predates the trees. But therein is another problem. Again, Modern man, of which Noah is a member, hasn't been around for very long. Bristlecone Pines and Modern man are pretty much contemporaries. But there's no sign that Bristlecones had to endure an underwater environment. Such would kill the trees in short order.

Scripture does not teach that all animal and plant life were wiped out. Read the text.
Further, the time period that the water covered everything in the text was extremely short.

What if modern man, as you describe him, was around for a long time before the flood, and the flood eliminated all traces of those societies? Starting over with Noah and his small clan would take a while to repopulate.

You seem to have a great deal of faith...in arguments from silence.

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 08:47 PM
When the canopy of water above our atmosphere fell, these things happened.

1. The green house effect was gone. That is why there are petrified tropical forests in antartica, siberia, alaska, etc.
2. The atmospheric pressure dropped to about half what it used to be (following Boltzman distribution of physical chemistry, atmospheric pressure).

When the pressure is twice what we have today, healing is faster (remmeber Michale Jackson's pressure chamber?). But the big animals with large bodies and small nostrils could not handle the drop in air pressure, they did not have enough oxygen. Lots of animals that were huge, could not survive the pressure drop.

P.S. I am a Chemical Engineer with 31 years of experience in rocket motor solid fuel design, qualitication, testing and production.

Shalom

Then tell me how such a canopy of water was suspended above the earth. If it's in vapor form we've got a problem. If it's in liquid form, we've got an even bigger problem.

If vapor, the greenhouse effect would have raised temperatures extremely. If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels. The heat generated and the atmospheric pressure created by such a canopy would probably be enough to boil off the waters of the oceans.

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 08:48 PM
Then tell me how such a canopy of water was suspended above the earth. If it's in vapor form we've got a problem. If it's in liquid form, we've got an even bigger problem.

If vapor, the greenhouse effect would have raised temperatures extremely. If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels. The heat generated and the atmospheric pressure created by such a canopy would probably be enough to boil off the waters of the oceans.

How does an atom hold itself together?

keck553
Mar 1st 2011, 08:53 PM
How does an atom hold itself together?

What makes someone's tongue stick to the roof of their mouth?

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 08:53 PM
Scripture does not teach that all animal and plant life were wiped out. Read the text.
Further, the time period that the water covered everything in the text was extremely short.

What if modern man, as you describe him, was around for a long time before the flood, and the flood eliminated all traces of those societies? Starting over with Noah and his small clan would take a while to repopulate.

You seem to have a great deal of faith...in arguments from silence.

The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days. Genesis 7

If the entire earth were flooded for 150 days, and this meant every mountain on earth was underwater, then everything would die. Submerge any tree, any plant, any animal, any human in water for nearly half a year and see if it lives. If Bristlecone Pinetrees were underwater for that long, we would know about it!

RabbiKnife
Mar 1st 2011, 08:54 PM
What makes someone's tongue stick to the top of their mouth?

Peaut buuer...........

RabbiKnife
Mar 1st 2011, 08:56 PM
The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

If the entire earth were flooded for 150 days, and this meant every mountain on earth was underwater, then everything would die. Submerge any tree, any plant, any animal, any human in water for nearly half a year and see if it lives. If Bristlecone Pinetrees were underwater for that long, we would know about it!

Scripture does not teach that the entire surface of the earth was under water for 150 days. Read chapter 8. At the end of the 150 days, the waters had receded significantly.

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 09:06 PM
Scripture does not teach that the entire surface of the earth was under water for 150 days. Read chapter 8. At the end of the 150 days, the waters had receded significantly.

If all mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits for even 30 days, there ain't gonna be any trees alive after the water recedes. If the White Mountains were once under water in the last 10,000 years, we would know about it.

Phish
Mar 1st 2011, 09:11 PM
If all mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits for even 30 days, there ain't gonna be any trees alive after the water recedes. If the White Mountains were once under water in the last 10,000 years, we would know about it.

Two questions

1. What is the oldest tree alive today?

2. How do you know there were white mountains?

RabbiKnife
Mar 1st 2011, 09:12 PM
If all mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits for even 30 days, there ain't gonna be any trees alive after the water recedes. If the White Mountains were once under water in the last 10,000 years, we would know about it.

Nothing in Scripture says that any mountains were under water for 30 days. we know from the Biblical narrative that olive trees survived. Oh, that's right. You don't believe the narrative.

How would you know if a mountain was under water for 3 hours? Today. How would you know, today, that a mountain had at some point more than 2000 years ago been under water for 3 hours?

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 09:19 PM
Two questions

1. What is the oldest tree alive today?

2. How do you know there were white mountains?


1. Oldest living tree is one that has the oldest root system in Sweden, dating back almost 10,000 years. Oldest living tree is the Bristlecone Pine, nearly 5,000 years old.
2. I learned about them in grade school.

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 09:25 PM
Nothing in Scripture says that any mountains were under water for 30 days. we know from the Biblical narrative that olive trees survived. Oh, that's right. You don't believe the narrative.

How would you know if a mountain was under water for 3 hours? Today. How would you know, today, that a mountain had at some point more than 2000 years ago been under water for 3 hours?

Ok, point taken. Trees could have survived 3 hours underwater, and for that matter so could animals, but we know they all died. Things must have been pretty quiet on those mountains for some time with all those animals, birds, insects, most plants, dead!

GitRDunn
Mar 1st 2011, 09:47 PM
The Grand Canyon is more than enough evidence that I didn't even ask for, of a world wide flood.
Could you explain to me how the Grand Canyon is evidence of a world wide flood?

Slina
Mar 1st 2011, 10:35 PM
Well if the destruction was as great as you say, and there was nothing left (ie., no archeological artifacts remain), then the Flood must have pre-dated Jericho (9,000 BC). But if so, then you run into some big problems, as modern man hasn't been around very long. Another problem is the fossil record. Why is it we find fish bones atop mountains and even in Kansas, but we don't find any land mammal bones, or human bones, mixed in with those fish bones? I mean if it was one giant soup mix of Flood victims we should expect to see some kind of even dispersion of debris. Why don't we find elephant bones alongside whale bones, or rhinoceros bones with clam shells? Why is it we only find fish and other water/ocean fossils atop mountains?

Exactly, the flood must have pre-dated Jericho, though I don't think Jericho was necessarily as old as you're making out. Not sure what a recent modern man has to with anything though, since we pretty much started from scratch after the flood. Science's age of man is based on the evolutionary timeline anyway, which I believe contradicts with the Bible (not looking to start debate there; we're all on enough of a tangent I think :P).

Fish aren't the only fossils we find, there's just the most unusual sort to be finding in places like this so they kind of stand out. Also take into account that the flood had a lot of geographical effects that no one can ever know for sure (since it hasn't exactly happened again for us to scientifically observe), and that could have had all sorts of strange effects on the locations of various fossils. That along with the fact that fish obviously came from different sources (namely the ocean) from land animals (namely land), and I think it makes sense their fossils don't always end up in quite the same spot.

RabbiKnife
Mar 1st 2011, 10:58 PM
Ok, point taken. Trees could have survived 3 hours underwater, and for that matter so could animals, but we know they all died. Things must have been pretty quiet on those mountains for some time with all those animals, birds, insects, most plants, dead!

Then if point taken, then your previous premise fails. I didn't know that lack of quietness was a problem for the mountain.

Raybob
Mar 1st 2011, 11:36 PM
Could you explain to me how the Grand Canyon is evidence of a world wide flood?

A topo map shows the surrounding land goes up hill. Water doesn't flow uphill. If a natural flow formed the river, it would have taken a different route, probably to the west. That wasn't carved by slow erosion over millions of years. It came from a massive gush of water receding from the flood is the most logical explanation.

Servant89
Mar 1st 2011, 11:44 PM
Then tell me how such a canopy of water was suspended above the earth. If it's in vapor form we've got a problem. If it's in liquid form, we've got an even bigger problem.

If vapor, the greenhouse effect would have raised temperatures extremely. If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels. The heat generated and the atmospheric pressure created by such a canopy would probably be enough to boil off the waters of the oceans.

This is what I have to say:

1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Shalom

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 11:52 PM
Then if point taken, then your previous premise fails. I didn't know that lack of quietness was a problem for the mountain.

No, it's not settled. If there was a universal extinction of birds, animals, creeping things, man, all caused by a Global catastrophic Flood, we would know it. Can you point to a time or approximate date of such a universal wipe-out of life?

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 11:53 PM
A topo map shows the surrounding land goes up hill. Water doesn't flow uphill. If a natural flow formed the river, it would have taken a different route, probably to the west. That wasn't carved by slow erosion over millions of years. It came from a massive gush of water receding from the flood is the most logical explanation.

So then tell us when the Grand Canyon was formed.

WSGAC
Mar 1st 2011, 11:56 PM
This is what I have to say:

1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Shalom

But anybody can propose such a thing, and then pretend to back it up with the Corinthian passage. I could just as easily say that an ice sheet, two miles thick, completely encircled the earth, but provide nothing in the way of explaining how such a thing could be. If then, someone were to ask how such a thing could be, I could simply quote the same Corinthian passage you quoted.

And I could do the same with anything really.

1 Corinthians 3:19 does not a theory make!

nzyr
Mar 2nd 2011, 12:15 AM
No, it's not settled. If there was a universal extinction of birds, animals, creeping things, man, all caused by a Global catastrophic Flood, we would know it. Can you point to a time or approximate date of such a universal wipe-out of life?

Not necessarily. Especially if the same type of animals were saved to replenish the earth therewith.

For a date I like about 4,000 B.C. But it could be a lot farther back. I don't really dwell on this that much.

WSGAC, can you explain to me how Jesus turned the water into wine at the marriage at Cana? Can science explain it? Can you or science explain how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after four days? Does science have to prove everything in the bible before you will believe it?

teddyv
Mar 2nd 2011, 12:42 AM
A topo map shows the surrounding land goes up hill. Water doesn't flow uphill. If a natural flow formed the river, it would have taken a different route, probably to the west. That wasn't carved by slow erosion over millions of years. It came from a massive gush of water receding from the flood is the most logical explanation.

The earth's surface is not static. Plate tectonics results in uplift, tilting and folding of the earth's strata resulting in hills, valleys and mountain rainges. You are presupposing a completely static surface.

teddyv
Mar 2nd 2011, 12:54 AM
WSGAC, can you explain to me how Jesus turned the water into wine at the marriage at Cana? Can science explain it? Can you or science explain how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after four days? Does science have to prove everything in the bible before you will believe it?I, of course cannot speak for WSGAC but to this point, those miracles you state are impossible to test since they are singular events with no recordable evidence outside of the witness of the observers. I would not expect a scientific explanation and would likely be a waste of time.

For matters of the Flood, science could yet identify such a thing. However, at present there is no consistent correlatable evidence that such an event has occurred. If it was a truly one-off supernatural event, such that all physical effects of the flood waters was removed or normal physical laws were suspended, then again it is fully outside the scope of science. We can only test using reliable physical laws that govern the universe.

However, when people start trying to point physical features (i.e. Grand Canyon) that they believe are attributable to the Flood, then they have entered the realm of scientific inquiry and are subject to it, as they are making testable claims. And it is up to them to make the case.

Servant89
Mar 2nd 2011, 12:57 AM
But anybody can propose such a thing, and then pretend to back it up with the Corinthian passage. I could just as easily say that an ice sheet, two miles thick, completely encircled the earth, but provide nothing in the way of explaining how such a thing could be. If then, someone were to ask how such a thing could be, I could simply quote the same Corinthian passage you quoted.

And I could do the same with anything really.

1 Corinthians 3:19 does not a theory make!

It is also prophesied and quite correctly...

2Pet 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Shalom

thethirdtuttle
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:39 AM
Being a very logical/analytical/rational kind of person by nature, I have read through this thread with a great deal of interest. I would argue that while it seems ridiculous/unreasonable/illogical to our post-modern society that human beings could ever live to be hundreds of years old or that there could be a worldwide flood in the days of Noah that wiped out all living things, the thing we have to keep in mind is that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. He is fully capable of suspending the laws of physics, which He created in the first place by the way, for however long He needs to, do whatever He needs to do, and then reinstate them. All while keeping the universe completely intact. He is just that awesome, powerful, and wise. Another thing we need to remember is that, as it says in Isaiah, that His ways are much higher than our ways, and His thoughts are much higher than our thoughts. That means that no matter how hard we try, we won't be able to fully understand how or why He does certain things. We just need to trust that He is trustworthy, faithful, and loving. Is there anything wrong with studying what we refer to as general revelation (i.e., creation/nature)? Absolutely not, as long as we remain humble and teachable, and do it to bring honor, glory and praise to God, not to try to disprove the Bible. Also, we need to remember to trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not on our own understanding, as Proverbs 3:5,6 teach. IMHO, there has been WAY too much leaning on our own understanding being done by certain members of these boards. Of course, that is just my perception of what's going on. I could be wrong, so please forgive me if I am. Related to that, we need to recognize that no matter how good a scientific theory is, no matter how much of the evidence it encompasses, as long as it contradicts what the Bible clearly teaches, then it is wrong, no matter how convincing/logical/reasonable the argumentation for it might be. That is because every part of our humanity was tainted/corrupted/twisted by the Fall, including our reason and logic, so we are capable of deceiving even ourselves if we are not careful. If God said something happened, then I believe it happened exactly the way He said it did. My fallen/sinful/finite/corrupted human mind might not be able to understand HOW He did it, but that is where faith comes in. That is because faith and reason come from two very different parts of myself. Faith comes from my spirit, which is where I commune with God via the Holy Spirit living inside of me, while reason and logic reside in my intellect, which is one of three parts of my soul. The other two parts are my feelings/emotions, and my will. My will is where I make choices both big and small throughout the course of the day, and feelings are pretty self-explanatory. As Christians, we are called to walk by faith, not by sight, as the apostle Paul teaches. That means we are called to rely, not on our intellects and reason, but on the Spirit of God who lives in our spirit and communes with us there. Does that mean we are called to never think or use our brains? Absolutely not! I'm not one of those who advocates that Christians "check their brains at the church door," so to speak. After all, God blessed us with brains in order to use them. The choice we have to make on a daily basis, however, is HOW we use them. We can either use them to glorify, honor and please ourselves by attempting to advance our own selfish ambitions and pleasures, OR we can choose to use them to glorify, honor and please God by submitting them to His will and Word. After all, Paul teaches that we are not to be conformed to this world's way of thinking about things. Instead, we are commanded to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. How does that happen? By constantly being in His Word and letting Him, through it, transform our thought processes and way of thinking so they line up with the way He thinks about and sees the world. Only then will we be able to go out and make a true difference in the world for Him and His kingdom.

As far as the date of the worldwide flood goes, there is a very reliable, rational, scientific method for figuring this out. Since it has been shown scientifically that human population growth happens according to a very precise and highly accurate exponential formula, all you have to do is plug in the original number of people on the ark into the formula (eight including Noah, his three sons, and their respective wives), and then see what that gives you after various numbers of years. Then, starting with the population of the earth right now, you can work backward to figure out exactly when the flood happened. WSGAC, as far as the "no archaeological evidence" argument goes, why do you need archaeological evidence to believe what the Bible clearly teaches? Would it bolster my faith if it did exist and was found? Sure, but I don't need it to believe that it happened the way God said it did. Just because there isn't the kind of evidence you are so adamantly demanding, doesn't mean it didn't happen. There's lots of other evidence that people have brought up in this thread. It seems, at least to me, that you are bound and determined NOT to believe in God when it comes to the worldwide flood, unless He provides you with the kind of evidence you are demanding. Why might that be? Could it be that Him taking sinfulness that seriously makes you extremely uncomfortable, so you sublimate that by arguing against a literal worldwide flood to assuage your conscience? I'm just speculating here, so please forgive me if I'm way off base. I only said that because I care about you and want the best for you. I hope you realize and understand that.

That's about all for now. I'll get down off of my soapbox, at least for the time being. God bless you all, and may you have a great day in the Lord!

Yours in Him,

Benjamin

ProDeo
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:58 AM
I would explain it by saying Jesus was a first century Jew. Paul apparently believed the names of the Egyptian magicians were Jannes and Jambres. I don't think that just because Jesus or a writer of the NT references something, that automatically makes it historically true. And I don't really see the problem in saying Jesus believed in a global flood when nothing of the sort ever happened. We do affirm Jesus' humanity, don't we? We should expect him to believe what other first century Jews believed, shouldn't we?

Matt 22:29 Jesus answered them, You are deceived, because you donít know the scriptures or the power of God.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. (please read in context)

Even after the resurrection the apostles had to be explained. They still did not get it and needed special revelation by the risen Jesus. And these were not dumb people.

Bottom line, Jesus fully endorsed the Scriptures. Why do you choose to live dangerously?

ProDeo
Mar 2nd 2011, 12:14 PM
Haven't you heard?

2The 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


Excellent answer. Life is a test. It separates sheep from goats. It's what God wants.

Not saying Christian Global Flood deniers are goats.

ProDeo
Mar 2nd 2011, 12:59 PM
Benjamin is making a good point regarding population. So let's talk about traces that favor a Global Flood, say somewhere 2500-4000 BC.

1) Population growth. The scientific model of evolution fails the test. If men lived for 100,000 to millions of years population would have been trillions after 100,000 years. Same with the Flood, if it happened 10,000 years ago, the population graph is not in sync with the scientific model. A 2500-4000 BC model just fits nicely. I am too lazy to look up the evidence, it's a long time ago.

2) The Sahara dessert. It enlarges and enlarges. Calculating back it fits the 2500-4000 BC model. Another evidence the world was re-booted.

3) Civilization. It's not old. Mesopotamia. It fits the 2500-4000 BC model. I am following the data of the Wiki here.

PS, I reject C14 datings older than 5730 years. It's proven they become unreliable after that. As explained earlier.

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 01:31 PM
As far as the date of the worldwide flood goes, there is a very reliable, rational, scientific method for figuring this out. Since it has been shown scientifically that human population growth happens according to a very precise and highly accurate exponential formula, all you have to do is plug in the original number of people on the ark into the formula (eight including Noah, his three sons, and their respective wives), and then see what that gives you after various numbers of years. Then, starting with the population of the earth right now, you can work backward to figure out exactly when the flood happened.

This really doesn't work. It doesn't take into account certain things that occur in nature like plagues, famine, pestilence, disease, weather...etc., that can signficantly alter a growth curve. Introduce a single bacteria onto a petri dish culture and it will grow exponentially, and follow a certain upward population curve. At some point it maxes out and the colony will no longer grow. Or introduce an antibiotic (a natural disaster for bacteria) and see how this affects the growth curve.

Regardless, if it were possible to extrapolate back in time using your method, can you give me an approximate date for the Flood?


WSGAC, as far as the "no archaeological evidence" argument goes, why do you need archaeological evidence to believe what the Bible clearly teaches? Would it bolster my faith if it did exist and was found? Sure, but I don't need it to believe that it happened the way God said it did. Just because there isn't the kind of evidence you are so adamantly demanding, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If there were a universal sterilization of the planet (i.e., all life destroyed) within the last 11,000 years, we would know about it. Mass extinctions, especially universal ones which supposedly occurred so close to our present day, would be easy to see in the natural history record.


There's lots of other evidence that people have brought up in this thread.

Such as?


It seems, at least to me, that you are bound and determined NOT to believe in God when it comes to the worldwide flood, unless He provides you with the kind of evidence you are demanding. Why might that be?

Because I'm curious about the Bible and natural history, in the same way archeologists are curious about the Bible and human history and use the Bible as a reference for their inquiry. Yet the Global Flood has left no evidence (natural history or archeological) of its occurrence. And there's just no place in all human records for such an event to have occurred.


Could it be that Him taking sinfulness that seriously makes you extremely uncomfortable, so you sublimate that by arguing against a literal worldwide flood to assuage your conscience? I'm just speculating here, so please forgive me if I'm way off base. I only said that because I care about you and want the best for you. I hope you realize and understand that.

Nope, this really has nothing to do with any desire to disprove the Bible, or disparage faith. Nor does it have anything to do with guilt over sin. It seems it always comes to this, however. When questions cannot be answered, go after the motives or sinfulness of the questioner.

There is no evidence for a universal Flood in the last 11,000 years (which just about covers all of modern man's history). We are left then to conclude that it was either a very large local flood at the beginnings of human history (perhaps the Black Sea Flood), or it's a story.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 01:43 PM
No, it's not settled. If there was a universal extinction of birds, animals, creeping things, man, all caused by a Global catastrophic Flood, we would know it. Can you point to a time or approximate date of such a universal wipe-out of life?

1. You have demonstrated that at least a significant portion of your premise is based on an erroneous reading of the Genesis text. Your presupposition is faulty, resulting in an incorrect outcome.

2. What is your fascination with dates? Are you lonely? Do you like North African palm fruits? Who gives a flying flip about when the universal flood occurred, its mechanism, or its effect on the planet other than as is described in Scritpure?

3. There was not a universal extinction of birds, animals, creeping things, and man. God handled it. That's in the text, too.

4. Why the arrogance of man? IF THERE WAS...blah, blah, blah...WE WOULD KNOW IT. Really? Where was man when the dinosaur was created? Where was man when the hippo was built? Where was man when the foundations of the universe were laid? Man ain't all that and a bag of chips. Stop worshipping the creation more than the creator.

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 01:46 PM
Benjamin is making a good point regarding population. So let's talk about traces that favor a Global Flood, say somewhere 2500-4000 BC.

1) Population growth. The scientific model of evolution fails the test. If men lived for 100,000 to millions of years population would have been trillions after 100,000 years. Same with the Flood, if it happened 10,000 years ago, the population graph is not in sync with the scientific model. A 2500-4000 BC model just fits nicely. I am too lazy to look up the evidence, it's a long time ago.

Are you aware that we have clear continuity of human populations and civilizations existing in the Ancient Near East during this time period? If someone were to say to you that a large flood wiped out all life on the North American continent in AD 1770, and the Grand Canyon is proof of it, how might you counter such a statement?

If it were me, I would say, "Nope, not possible! There is strong evidence of life existing on the North American continent at that time. Indeed, something called the Declaration of Independence was signed just a a few years after this supposed flood! So the Grand Canyon argument doesn't wash!"



2) The Sahara dessert. It enlarges and enlarges. Calculating back it fits the 2500-4000 BC model. Another evidence the world was re-booted.

No, not really. You're assuming a straight line growth curve, and nature doesn't work that way. If I were to use your same assumption with a receding tide, I could come to the conclusion that the ocean would be empty in less than a year.


3) Civilization. It's not old. Mesopotamia. It fits the 2500-4000 BC model. I am following the data of the Wiki here.

Again, see my answer to your point #1


PS, I reject C14 datings older than 5730 years. It's proven they become unreliable after that. As explained earlier.

Too much is made of C14 dating. It is simply one means used to date an artifact. There are other means used, which happen to be confirmed via corelation, to date artifacts. Archeology is not falsified by a full on frontal attack of C14 dating.

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:04 PM
1. You have demonstrated that at least a significant portion of your premise is based on an erroneous reading of the Genesis text. Your presupposition is faulty, resulting in an incorrect outcome.

This is quite an overstatement! The text states all birds, animals were killed when the waters covered the mountains to a height of 15 cubits. You pointed out that the waters didn't remain for 150 days. The end of Genesis 7 states 150 days, but you made clarification from what is further described in chapter 8. I conceded the point, but not the premise. A significant portion of my premise is not based on an erroneous reading. My premise is your own premise, that all life was wiped off the face of the earth. If Bristlecone pine trees survived, the premise still stands. If all life...birds, animals, creeping things, men, were wiped out, then we would see it. Mass extinctions are not difficult to see in the natural history records.


2. What is your fascination with dates? Are you lonely? Do you like North African palm fruits? Who gives a flying flip about when the universal flood occurred, its mechanism, or its effect on the planet other than as is described in Scritpure?

Are you a moderator on this site?


3. There was not a universal extinction of birds, animals, creeping things, and man. God handled it. That's in the text, too.

Apart from the male and female representatives of each animal species that made it onto the ark, yes, the text is clear that there was a universal extinction. If all Grizzly bears in North America were wiped out, except the one Grizzly bear couple that made it to Mesopotamia, we would see it in the natural history records of North America.


4. Why the arrogance of man? IF THERE WAS...blah, blah, blah...WE WOULD KNOW IT. Really? Where was man when the dinosaur was created? Where was man when the hippo was built? Where was man when the foundations of the universe were laid? Man ain't all that and a bag of chips. Stop worshipping the creation more than the creator.

Arrogant to ask questions? Man wasn't around when the dinosaur was created! Hippos are probably concurrent with human beings. Man wasn't around when the universe came into being. Not worshipping the creation. You're assigning false motives.

Firefighter
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:16 PM
Are you a moderator on this site?

Actually, he is a moderator on this site.

thethirdtuttle
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:14 PM
This really doesn't work. It doesn't take into account certain things that occur in nature like plagues, famine, pestilence, disease, weather...etc., that can signficantly alter a growth curve. Introduce a single bacteria onto a petri dish culture and it will grow exponentially, and follow a certain upward population curve. At some point it maxes out and the colony will no longer grow. Or introduce an antibiotic (a natural disaster for bacteria) and see how this affects the growth curve.

Regardless, if it were possible to extrapolate back in time using your method, can you give me an approximate date for the Flood?

I'm not exactly sure, since I don't know the formula off-hand (I do know it's based on the irrational number e, honoring the mathematician Leonhard Euler), but it's probably somewhere around 2500 B.C.




If there were a universal sterilization of the planet (i.e., all life destroyed) within the last 11,000 years, we would know about it. Mass extinctions, especially universal ones which supposedly occurred so close to our present day, would be easy to see in the natural history record.What about the fossil record itself, then? After all, we only have the word of evolutionary paleontologists that each layer in the record represents hundreds of thousands of years. How do we truly know that for sure? Because they say so? What independent, scientifically verifiable evidence can they point to, that unequivocally proves that each layer represents what they say it represents? Personally, I don't think there is any. To be honest, I think, if you were to rationally, dispassionately and logically looked at the evidence, it would point more towards them representing a mass extinction over a very short period of time, with the animals' bodies then being covered in silt. After all, if each layer DOES represents hundreds of thousands of years, like the evolutionary scientists would want us to believe, then the top part of it would be exposed to the elements for all that time. As a result, it would be all bumpy, uneven and jagged. Instead, what do you see? Just the opposite. Each layer is smooth and even, suggesting it was laid down very quickly, over a very short period of time. Besides, what do you think caused all that mass extinction, anyways? Did all the animals all over the world engineer a massive suicide pact, where they agreed, at a specific time on a specific day, to just keel over and die? And then, to make sure they would be found thousands of years later by human scientists, they covered their own dead bodies with a thick layer of silt? Come on! Get real. They were killed by a world-wide flood. I'm sorry you have such hard time believing that. Maybe that is something you should talk to the Lord about. Just my two cents.


Such as?The Grand Canyon for one. Niagra Falls, for another. I have a couple of questions for you about the evidence, myself: What about the oceans? Where did they come from? After all, if there was a global flood, all that water had to go somewhere! While it is true that it is pure speculation that there was some sort of watery mantle around the outside of the earth's atmosphere before the flood, at least we know for sure from the text that water came from two sources: rain, and the "fountains of the deep," which were most likely huge underground reservoirs. If all that extra water that covered the entire surface of the earth didn't go back up into the sky or into the underground reservoirs from which it originated, it had to go somewhere else. It couldn't have just vanished. My personal theory, and I empasize the word "personal" here because I don't know if it it accurate or not, is that before the flood, all the continents on the earth were all together in one super-continent. I believe the geologists call it something like "Pangea". Also, there were no oceans at that time. So, once the flood waters were in place, God decided to do a little continental shuffling and very quickly moved the continents to pretty much where they are today. That is why we have mountain ranges today, because as two continental plates pushed against each other, the edges of each were thrust up, thus creating mountains. Also, it's possible that at the same time, God used the quickly moving continental plates to somehow gouge out the enormous hollows that became filled with water as the flood waters receded from the land and became what we now know as oceans. Of course, I'm no geologist, so I could be off on that point. Maybe He did it with glaciers during the ice age. I'm not entirely sure. The point is that the evidence points towards more towards a world-wide flood if you are willing to come to it with an open mind and heart.


Because I'm curious about the Bible and natural history, in the same way archeologists are curious about the Bible and human history and use the Bible as a reference for their inquiry. Yet the Global Flood has left no evidence (natural history or archeological) of its occurrence. And there's just no place in all human records for such an event to have occurred.Just because no records as of yet have been found doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides, in the end, it all boils down to belief. Who you are going to believe? A human scientist, whose presuppositions about evolution cause him to be biased towards the evidence that does exist, and thus misinterprets it, and therefore denies such a thing could happen? Or God, who was there, made it all happen, and divinely inspired Moses to record it for us to read about thousands of years later, so that we can understand and know just how seriously God takes sin, and yet loves sinners? My bet will always be with God, but that's just me.


Nope, this really has nothing to do with any desire to disprove the Bible, or disparage faith. Nor does it have anything to do with guilt over sin. It seems it always comes to this, however. When questions cannot be answered, go after the motives or sinfulness of the questioner.Well, I'm glad to hear that. Of course, you understand that I'm obliged to ask, since you are my brother in Christ, and am therefore concerned about your spiritual health and well-being. I hope nothing I said offended you. If I did, I hope you can forgive me. I was merely trying to exort us all, myself included, to a deeper level of faithfulness to God and His Word. I hope you can understand and appreciate that.


There is no evidence for a universal Flood in the last 11,000 years (which just about covers all of modern man's history). We are left then to conclude that it was either a very large local flood at the beginnings of human history (perhaps the Black Sea Flood), or it's a story.I would humbly and respectfully disagree, yet again. Just because there isn't the kind of evidence that man may want, doesn't mean it didn't happen. As I said before, God can do anything He wants, as long as it doesn't conflict with His nature and character. Just because we can't explain, much less understand how He did it, doesn't mean He didn't do it. Honestly, He didn't owe us anything, much less scientific proof that He did what He said He did. It is only by His infinite mercy and grace that there is anything at all, much less human beings capable of debating whether the flood was worldwide or not. I'm just incredibly thankful He saved me and set me free from sin and death in order to freely serve Him and His people.

That's about it for now. Hopefully, that helps explain my thought process a bit better. God bless, and have a great day in the Lord!

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

Liquid Tension
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:47 PM
1. You have demonstrated that at least a significant portion of your premise is based on an erroneous reading of the Genesis text. Your presupposition is faulty, resulting in an incorrect outcome.

2. What is your fascination with dates? Are you lonely? Do you like North African palm fruits? Who gives a flying flip about when the universal flood occurred, its mechanism, or its effect on the planet other than as is described in Scritpure?

3. There was not a universal extinction of birds, animals, creeping things, and man. God handled it. That's in the text, too.

4. Why the arrogance of man? IF THERE WAS...blah, blah, blah...WE WOULD KNOW IT. Really? Where was man when the dinosaur was created? Where was man when the hippo was built? Where was man when the foundations of the universe were laid? Man ain't all that and a bag of chips. Stop worshipping the creation more than the creator.

And there we have it. WINNER.

Liquid Tension
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:48 PM
2. What is your fascination with dates? Are you lonely?


:rofl: :lol: :rofl: :lol: :rofl:

RollTide21
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:16 PM
Modern humans have only been around some 10,000 - 12,000 years (Neolithic Revolution). Explain....................

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:28 PM
Maybe Adam was just a prototype.

You know.

Adam
Fred Flintstone
RollTide

RollTide21
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:22 PM
Being a very logical/analytical/rational kind of person by nature, I have read through this thread with a great deal of interest. I would argue that while it seems ridiculous/unreasonable/illogical to our post-modern society that human beings could ever live to be hundreds of years old or that there could be a worldwide flood in the days of Noah that wiped out all living things, the thing we have to keep in mind is that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that God is both omniscient and omnipotent.Stopping here for a sec. I too believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. What does this mean, however? That everything in the Scriptures is perfectly accurate from a historical perspective or that everything in the Scripture is perfectly in accordance for the Word that God has for each of His Children?

He is fully capable of suspending the laws of physics, which He created in the first place by the way, for however long He needs to, do whatever He needs to do, and then reinstate them. All while keeping the universe completely intact. He is just that awesome, powerful, and wise.OK...sure. I don't think it's necessary to apply that line of thinking here, though. If God caused a Universal Flood, then likely it happened longer ago than people think. If that causes New Earthers to be wrong, then so what? Does Scripture become less divinely inspired because the Earth is older than what Genesis generalizes? The point is, we shouldn't have to resort to "God can do whatever He wants because He's God" as a fallback when science conflicts with our interpretation of Scripture. Multiple possibilities of how events actually occurred doesn't challenge who God is and certainly doesn't challenge our relationship to Christ.
Another thing we need to remember is that, as it says in Isaiah, that His ways are much higher than our ways, and His thoughts are much higher than our thoughts. That means that no matter how hard we try, we won't be able to fully understand how or why He does certain things. We just need to trust that He is trustworthy, faithful, and loving. Again, no need to place this thought process here. God's ways certainly are not our ways, but, IMO, that speaks more to His general purpose rather than addressing the fact that we can't explain physical things.
Is there anything wrong with studying what we refer to as general revelation (i.e., creation/nature)? Absolutely not, as long as we remain humble and teachable, and do it to bring honor, glory and praise to God, not to try to disprove the Bible.It's not about disproving the Bible. It's about being able to trust that Scripture is the divinely inspired Word of God, despite the fact that it offers very little as a technical manual. In other Words, God isn't concerned about whether or not we question how long the Earth took to create or when and how large the Flood was so long as we seek Him in our daily Walk with Christ Jesus. I personally believe in a global flood because I think that part is literal. I also think that if science says it couldn't have happened in the last 10000 years, then fine. It happened before that. If that disrupts a New Earth hypothesis, then, again, fine. The Earth is older than that. Whatever. That doesn't effect in the slightest my relationship with Christ.
Also, we need to remember to trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not on our own understanding, as Proverbs 3:5,6 teach. IMHO, there has been WAY too much leaning on our own understanding being done by certain members of these boards.I agree...on both sides of the coin, I would say.
Of course, that is just my perception of what's going on. I could be wrong, so please forgive me if I am. Related to that, we need to recognize that no matter how good a scientific theory is, no matter how much of the evidence it encompasses, as long as it contradicts what the Bible clearly teaches, then it is wrong, no matter how convincing/logical/reasonable the argumentation for it might be.Depends on how you feel something is "contradicting" Scripture.
That is because every part of our humanity was tainted/corrupted/twisted by the Fall, including our reason and logic, so we are capable of deceiving even ourselves if we are not careful. If God said something happened, then I believe it happened exactly the way He said it did. My fallen/sinful/finite/corrupted human mind might not be able to understand HOW He did it, but that is where faith comes in. That is because faith and reason come from two very different parts of myself. Faith comes from my spirit, which is where I commune with God via the Holy Spirit living inside of me, while reason and logic reside in my intellect, which is one of three parts of my soul. The other two parts are my feelings/emotions, and my will. My will is where I make choices both big and small throughout the course of the day, and feelings are pretty self-explanatory. As Christians, we are called to walk by faith, not by sight, as the apostle Paul teaches. That means we are called to rely, not on our intellects and reason, but on the Spirit of God who lives in our spirit and communes with us there. Does that mean we are called to never think or use our brains? Absolutely not! I'm not one of those who advocates that Christians "check their brains at the church door," so to speak. After all, God blessed us with brains in order to use them. The choice we have to make on a daily basis, however, is HOW we use them. We can either use them to glorify, honor and please ourselves by attempting to advance our own selfish ambitions and pleasures, OR we can choose to use them to glorify, honor and please God by submitting them to His will and Word. After all, Paul teaches that we are not to be conformed to this world's way of thinking about things. Instead, we are commanded to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. How does that happen? By constantly being in His Word and letting Him, through it, transform our thought processes and way of thinking so they line up with the way He thinks about and sees the world. Only then will we be able to go out and make a true difference in the world for Him and His kingdom.What you say here is very important. You are absolutely correct in that we are to live by the Spirit. The Spirit testifies to the Truth. The question is, does the Spirit leading us to place our Faith in the Glorious Impossibility of the Resurrection automatically lead us to Job being a real person? Or that Jonah literally lived inside of a whale for 3 days? I believe in God and I trust Him through the Spirit. That Spirit can speak to me the lesson of obedience in Jonah outside of my theories on whether or not that was physically possible. The Spirit guides us into righteousness before God through Jesus. I don't need to abandon logic and reason unless the Spirit guides be to do so. Has He done that? Sure. Otherwise, how would I believe in the Resurrection? Do I believe Faith in the Resurrection assumes Faith in a New Earth? No. The Spirit doesn't lead me in that way. I don't see that God purposes to lead anybody that way. Of course He wants us to trust Him with all of our heart and mind, but in what way? I would say that We are called to trust Him to guide our lives, not that all Scripture written thousands of years ago is literally and physically reconcilable to what we understand with our carnal minds today. His Word is outside of that realm.

RollTide21
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:23 PM
Maybe Adam was just a prototype.

You know.

Adam
Fred Flintstone
RollTidelol..........................

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:18 PM
I'm not exactly sure, since I don't know the formula off-hand (I do know it's based on the irrational number e, honoring the mathematician Leonhard Euler), but it's probably somewhere around 2500 B.C.

Adab, Eridu, Eshnuna, Tutub, Akshak, Kutha, Kish, Nippur, Larsa, Umma, Uruk...just to name a few cities of ancient Mesopotamia. Check their histories and the year you propose for a Global Flood - 2,500 BC, and see if such an event would have allowed any of these cities to exist!



What about the fossil record itself, then? After all, we only have the word of evolutionary paleontologists that each layer in the record represents hundreds of thousands of years. How do we truly know that for sure?

Answer: Limestone! Are you aware of what kind of heat would be involved/generated in laying down all that limestone supposedly deposited by the Flood, in which so many fossils reside?


What independent, scientifically verifiable evidence can they point to, that unequivocally proves that each layer represents what they say it represents?

Answer: Limestone! Let's just begin there.


Personally, I don't think there is any. To be honest, I think, if you were to rationally, dispassionately and logically looked at the evidence, it would point more towards them representing a mass extinction over a very short period of time, with the animals' bodies then being covered in silt.

Then we should expect to see all kinds of fossils mixed together, since they were all from the same soup mix (aka - Flood Waters). But why don't we find elephant bones alongside of echinoderms? Or why don't we find tiger bones in diatomaceous earth? Why is it those layers are so neatly divided rather than a hodgepodge of creatures?


if each layer DOES represents hundreds of thousands of years, like the evolutionary scientists would want us to believe, then the top part of it would be exposed to the elements for all that time. As a result, it would be all bumpy, uneven and jagged. Instead, what do you see? Just the opposite. Each layer is smooth and even, suggesting it was laid down very quickly, over a very short period of time.

But we don't. Ever find a Whooly mammoth or saber toothed tiger bones alongside of Pterodactyls, T-Rex, or Brontosaurus bones? If it all happened at once we should find everyone buried together. We don't.

And again, Limestone. There's something peculiar about all that limestone being deposited in one moment of time.


Besides, what do you think caused all that mass extinction, anyways? Did all the animals all over the world engineer a massive suicide pact, where they agreed, at a specific time on a specific day, to just keel over and die? And then, to make sure they would be found thousands of years later by human scientists, they covered their own dead bodies with a thick layer of silt? Come on! Get real.

Now you're just being silly!


They were killed by a world-wide flood. I'm sorry you have such hard time believing that. Maybe that is something you should talk to the Lord about. Just my two cents.

Limestone! Check out Limestone!


The Grand Canyon for one. Niagra Falls, for another.

If a Global Flood caused the Grand Canyon, then when? And if it the Great Flood's violent activity carved out the Grand Canyon in the last 10,000 years, then how did cities like Jericho remain unscathed?


I have a couple of questions for you about the evidence, myself: What about the oceans? Where did they come from? After all, if there was a global flood, all that water had to go somewhere!

That's actually one of my points. If every mountain was covered by water...the highest mountains by 15 cubits of water, then where did all that water go to when the Flood receded? The earth's crust is very thin, and the heat beneath that crust is very hot. If all the flood waters went underground we would know about it. It would be boiling to the surface everywhere!


While it is true that it is pure speculation that there was some sort of watery mantle around the outside of the earth's atmosphere before the flood, at least we know for sure from the text that water came from two sources: rain, and the "fountains of the deep," which were most likely huge underground reservoirs. If all that extra water that covered the entire surface of the earth didn't go back up into the sky or into the underground reservoirs from which it originated, it had to go somewhere else. It couldn't have just vanished. My personal theory, and I empasize the word "personal" here because I don't know if it it accurate or not, is that before the flood, all the continents on the earth were all together in one super-continent. I believe the geologists call it something like "Pangea". Also, there were no oceans at that time. So, once the flood waters were in place, God decided to do a little continental shuffling and very quickly moved the continents to pretty much where they are today. That is why we have mountain ranges today, because as two continental plates pushed against each other, the edges of each were thrust up, thus creating mountains. Also, it's possible that at the same time, God used the quickly moving continental plates to somehow gouge out the enormous hollows that became filled with water as the flood waters receded from the land and became what we now know as oceans. Of course, I'm no geologist, so I could be off on that point. Maybe He did it with glaciers during the ice age. I'm not entirely sure. The point is that the evidence points towards more towards a world-wide flood if you are willing to come to it with an open mind and heart.

See previous post. Where did all that water go? Where are these great reservoirs? They can't be deep enough to contain all that water without coming into contact with the heat below the earth's crust.


Just because no records as of yet have been found doesn't mean they don't exist.

Such a cataclysm would leave signs everywhere...especially in the human record. Again, see Mesopotamian cities from my first statement above.


I Besides, in the end, it all boils down to belief. Who you are going to believe? A human scientist, whose presuppositions about evolution cause him to be biased towards the evidence that does exist, and thus misinterprets it, and therefore denies such a thing could happen?

What does this have to do with evolution? I'm simply looking for a Flood in the natural history book of planet earth. God wrote that book too!

keck553
Mar 2nd 2011, 09:29 PM
WSGAC, you can search the globe under the sun until the cows come home, but until to look up you'll not find the truth. Why would you want to repeat the sad journey Solomon wrote about? I am telling you this not from arrogance, but from experience. An experience which stopped me from serving the Most High for half of my life. I do not relish the fact that I lived so many years in vain pursuits, and it's somewhat troubling watching others who proclaim faith in God (as I did) to stumble down the same path.

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:05 PM
WSGAC, you can search the globe under the sun until the cows come home, but until to look up you'll not find the truth. Why would you want to repeat the sad journey Solomon wrote about? I am telling you this not from arrogance, but from experience. An experience which stopped me from serving the Most High for half of my life. I do not relish the fact that I lived so many years in vain pursuits, and it's somewhat troubling watching others who proclaim faith in God (as I did) to stumble down the same path.

What makes you think I'm not serving the Most High? And why is searching the wonders of His creation a vain pursuit? He called it "Good" afterall.

Dani H
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:20 PM
Okay so let's assume for argument's sake that you're right.

"You" means anybody in this here thread debating this subject, feeling particularly spoken to by this post.

Then what? What does it specifically change, and in what way? What does it matter enough and change enough to go round and round debating over it?

Other than you get to pat yourself on the back and snicker quietly to yourself.

???

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:40 PM
Okay so let's assume for argument's sake that you're right.

"You" means anybody in this here thread debating this subject, feeling particularly spoken to by this post.

Then what? What does it specifically change, and in what way? What does it matter enough and change enough to go round and round debating over it?

Other than you get to pat yourself on the back and snicker quietly to yourself.

???

Another comment suggesting some sinister motive on my part? We are talking about the Bible here in Bible Chat, and in this particular thread we are considering the question of how the text relates to the history in which it was written. Questions about how men could live 900 years, or the extent of Noah's Flood, are fair questions to ask. If such questions bother you, or I am the devil for asking them, then maybe you shouldn't read my contributions and save yourself the turmoil I obviously cause you?

Vhayes
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:48 PM
I'm not the lady in purple. I'm not even a moderator of this area of the board. This type of discussion causes me no turmoil one way or the other. What DOES cause me turmoil is brothers who are gonna have to spend eternity together acting like kids throwing spit-balls at each other. Sheesh - have a discussion. Have a heated debate even - just please, do so politely. Otherwise I would guess that when we all go home, there will be decades spent on a celestial couch, side by side, explaining to God that it wasn't REALLY a spit ball, it just LOOKED like it.

We all learn, we all grow. We can alllllll grow better with no insults being hurled, no ones salvation being questioned, no ones motives being help up to ridicule.

Dani H
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:09 PM
Another comment suggesting some sinister motive on my part? We are talking about the Bible here in Bible Chat, and in this particular thread we are considering the question of how the text relates to the history in which it was written. Questions about how men could live 900 years, or the extent of Noah's Flood, are fair questions to ask. If such questions bother you, or I am the devil for asking them, then maybe you shouldn't read my contributions and save yourself the turmoil I obviously cause you?

You're not causing me any turmoil. And maybe I'm no expert on the male psyche. But I'm having a hard time understanding how an area of personal curiosity (valid though that may be) can turn into a debate of right/wrong, when nobody present was there, and it don't make one lick of difference in the validity and authority of the Bible, where God has already told us that He is going to judge us on how we treat one another, and not on how old we believe the earth/universe is, give or take a year or twelve or million. I don't think there's going to be a quiz.

Granted, I also realize that the male species loves to have debates over sports that don't matter one bit, down to the tiniest detail, and so perchance you might enlighten me a little on how all that works and what the point of it is as I do see some interesting parallels here in how things are being conducted 'round here.

Then again I possibly just answered my own question and so ... carry on. :)

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2011, 12:51 AM
As I said earlier, both Jesus and the Apostles believed in a world wide flood that destroyed everything.



3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with [their] mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For [ever] since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God [the] heavens existed long ago and [the] earth was formed out of water and by water , 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

The basis for accepting the verity of this statement is a prior affirmation that Jesus is the son of God sent from God himself, and that God assures us, through his Spirit that his Apostles speak for him. If a person doesn't believe in a world wide flood, that person disagrees with God himself and should know better.

Peter not only claims that the world was destroyed with a flood, but he declares that in the last days mockers would come and teach a steady state universe, i.e. everything that exists has always existed. All continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.

So then, Peter talks about it as if a global flood took place, and he warns us about people who would come and claim that nothing has changed since ancient times. It seems to me that modern scientists have this presupposition and given this presupposition would not even consider that catastrophic events happen regularly and tend to wipe out evidence of previous conditions. But modern Christians don't need to fall for the steady state presupposition and neither do they need to call into question the veracity of Jesus or his apostles.

Servant89
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:20 AM
1. You have demonstrated that at least a significant portion of your premise is based on an erroneous reading of the Genesis text. Your presupposition is faulty, resulting in an incorrect outcome.

2. What is your fascination with dates? Are you lonely? Do you like North African palm fruits? Who gives a flying flip about when the universal flood occurred, its mechanism, or its effect on the planet other than as is described in Scritpure?

3. There was not a universal extinction of birds, animals, creeping things, and man. God handled it. That's in the text, too.

4. Why the arrogance of man? IF THERE WAS...blah, blah, blah...WE WOULD KNOW IT. Really? Where was man when the dinosaur was created? Where was man when the hippo was built? Where was man when the foundations of the universe were laid? Man ain't all that and a bag of chips. Stop worshipping the creation more than the creator.

Thank you brother, I am doing my Donkey Dance now... Hee Haw! This donkey loves you.

Deut 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Shalom

WSGAC
Mar 3rd 2011, 01:21 PM
As I said earlier, both Jesus and the Apostles believed in a world wide flood that destroyed everything.


3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with [their] mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For [ever] since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God [the] heavens existed long ago and [the] earth was formed out of water and by water , 6 through which the *world at that time* was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
The basis for accepting the verity of this statement is a prior affirmation that Jesus is the son of God sent from God himself, and that God assures us, through his Spirit that his Apostles speak for him. If a person doesn't believe in a world wide flood, that person disagrees with God himself and should know better.

Peter not only claims that the world was destroyed with a flood, but he declares that in the last days mockers would come and teach a steady state universe, i.e. everything that exists has always existed. All continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.

So then, Peter talks about it as if a global flood took place, and he warns us about people who would come and claim that nothing has changed since ancient times. It seems to me that modern scientists have this presupposition and given this presupposition would not even consider that catastrophic events happen regularly and tend to wipe out evidence of previous conditions. But modern Christians don't need to fall for the steady state presupposition and neither do they need to call into question the veracity of Jesus or his apostles.


I am not mocking, and my questions have nothing to do with any lust! Nor do I doubt the promise of His coming.

I am not saying that all continues just as it was from the beginning!

And what was the "world at that time"? (ie. Noah's time) I doubt it included South America, North America, Asia, or even Egypt. Noah's world was that spot on the world where Biblical man began...the cradle of civilization. A large local flood would have devastated Noah's entire world.

thethirdtuttle
Mar 3rd 2011, 02:55 PM
There's quite a bit I could say in regards to this issue, in an attempt to defend my position. But, I'll limit myself to some general comments and leave it at that. Otherwise, I might be tempted to say or do something un-Christlike out of frustration and/or anger, and I don't want to do that.

First of all, thank you Vhayes and DaniH for your gentle and loving rebukes. I don't know if they were directed specifically at me or not, but I definitely took them to heart. I sure hope everyone else here did so, as well. After all, an important thing we need to remember is that no matter how much we might disagree with each other on specific nonessential issues, we are still and always will be brothers and sisters in Christ, and therefore need to treat each other as such. So, if there's anybody here I've offended by any of my comments, please forgive me! That was not my intention in any way, shape or form. I was merely attempting to passionately, yet lovingly, explain my position on this particular issue. I didn't mean to impugn anybody's character, motives, or anything else for that matter. So, if anyone took my comments in that way, please forgive me. That was not my intention.

As far as what RollTide21 had to say, I see where you are coming from, brother, but what I see going on in your comments is that you are setting up a false, unscriptural dichotomy, and then using that to interpret the text. What dichotomy am I talking about? So glad you asked! It seems as though, and please feel to correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that the stories in the Bible have to be either actual/literal/historical fact, OR they are metaphors/symbolic, meant to teach us great spiritual truths but not meant to be interpreted literally, and should be understood as such. My question to you would then become: Why can't they be both at the same time? God is big enough, powerful enough, and wise enough to encode several layers of meanings into the text. Why can't they be both actually historically accurate renditions of what truly happened to flesh-and-blood people as they related to each other, God, and His creation, as well as written to teach us deeper spiritual truths that we can apply to our day-to-day lives. That would be a heck of a lot more consistent with the way He does things elsewhere throughout the Bible. For example, when Jesus started His public ministry, He preached everywhere He went that the kingdom of God had arrived. But, it won't be fully consummated/set up/fulfilled/completed until His second coming. That means that His kingdom is a both/and kind of concept, rather than an either/or concept. After all, I doubt you'd find too many preachers worth their salt today trying to suggest that God's kingdom hasn't even started yet, or ones that state that it is already fully here. If they tried, I'm sure they would be quickly corrected for not being biblically consistent. I'm sure there are other examples, but none come immediately to mind.

Another thing I'd like to mention is that while it might not seem all that big of a deal to some people whether the flood was worldwide or not, I personally think it does matter to God. That's because I see not interpreting everything in the Scriptures as literally as possible, except where there is abundant textual evidence to the contrary, as a form of intellectual compromise. Will it endanger your salvation? Probably not. After all, there are people on these boards who I proudly call my brothers and sisters in Christ who are scattered all over the theological spectrum, and I don't worry about them losing their salvation, just because they believe differently than me on some issues. What I do think happens, though, is that when we begin not interpreting things in the Bible as literally as possible, we give ground in our minds and hearts to Satan, because we begin compromising intellectually, maybe because we're, as I've said before, leaning too much on our own understanding. When we compromise with Satan by believing his lies, no matter how little or insignificant they may seem to us, we hinder our own spiritual growth and development, as well as start to head down a slippery slope of further compromise in the future. Just because we, as fallen/sinful/finite human beings, can't understand how God caused a worldwide flood that wiped out all living things, yet didn't seem to leave any traces behind in the archaeological record, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It is the height of arrogance and presumption to tell God, "I won't believe you did what You said You did until You give me the kind of proof I want!" That is not a very mature, godly, or Christlike attitude, IMHO. Sounds a bit like a petulant child taking his toys and stomping off home because he doesn't like the way a playground game was going. Instead, we should be saying to Him, "I don't understand how You created a worldwide flood without leaving the kind of scientific evidence I, using my common sense and logic, would expect to find, but I trust You that You are wiser, more powerful, and more loving than I, and know better what's best for me than even I do. So, I will trust that it did happen the way You say it did, and give You all the glory, honor, and praise, because You are the only one who fully deserves it." Besides, why is scientific evidence so all-fired important for those who don't believe in a worldwide flood? I'm not asking to be judgmental or critical. I genuinely am curious. After all, more is coming in each and every day, debunking and disproving some scientific theories while bolstering and confirming others. Until Jesus returns, we will never have all the evidence, anyways, so why make it determinative/normative for your faith? Instead, we should be making the truths of the Bible what we trust and believe, not what men happen to dig up out of the ground. Am I against scientific research? Absolutely not! After all, those who first instituted the use of the scientific method, such as Sir Isaac Newton, did so to discover the incredible amount of order and beauty in the natural world, as well as the laws that govern it. But, to say that you won't believe something in the Bible is literal unless God provides you with the kind of scientific evidence you want, is not just putting the metaphysical cart before the horse, IMHO. As I said in another thread, in a slightly different context, it's also unhooking the horse from the cart, leading him to the stable, and then expecting the cart to pull itself. Not gonna happen, if you ask me.

That's about it for now. I hope that explains my thinking a bit better, and I hope I didn't offend anybody with any of my comments. If I did, please forgive me! I'm just trying to express my opinions on this issue. We are here to debate/discuss various topics related to the Bible and spirituality, after all! God bless, and have a great day in the Lord!

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

WSGAC
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:25 PM
There's quite a bit I could say in regards to this issue, in an attempt to defend my position. But, I'll limit myself to some general comments and leave it at that. Otherwise, I might be tempted to say or do something un-Christlike out of frustration and/or anger, and I don't want to do that....

I took no offense!


I didn't mean to impugn anybody's character, motives, or anything else for that matter. So, if anyone took my comments in that way, please forgive me. That was not my intention.

This is something we all struggle with. Since your replies were to me, I can only assume you're addressing me here. I was not offended, but thank you!


When we compromise with Satan by believing his lies, no matter how little or insignificant they may seem to us, we hinder our own spiritual growth and development, as well as start to head down a slippery slope of further compromise in the future. Just because we, as fallen/sinful/finite human beings, can't understand how God caused a worldwide flood that wiped out all living things, yet didn't seem to leave any traces behind in the archaeological record, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Wait a minute! Are you implying my questions spring from Satan, and my conclusions are lies from Satan?


It is the height of arrogance and presumption to tell God, "I won't believe you did what You said You did until You give me the kind of proof I want!" That is not a very mature, godly, or Christlike attitude, IMHO. Sounds a bit like a petulant child taking his toys and stomping off home because he doesn't like the way a playground game was going.

So are you implying I'm something like an arrogant, petulant child who stomps off the playground when he doesn't get his way? But I haven't stomped off; I'm still here. I have answered your questions without getting emotional or stomping off. What have I said to you that exhibits un-Christlikeness?


Besides, why is scientific evidence so all-fired important for those who don't believe in a worldwide flood?

I'm not sure what you mean. Many archeologists will stand with a Bible in one hand as they dig into the dirt with the other. Many of our archeological finds in Israel and the Near East today use the Bible as a historical resource. I do the same when it comes to the Flood. But there's nothing in archeology or natural history that shows such a Flood, while there is evidence for a very large local flood in the time period we're considering.


I'm not asking to be judgmental or critical. I genuinely am curious.

Calling me an arrogant, petulant child who stomps off the playground, is not judgmental?


After all, more is coming in each and every day, debunking and disproving some scientific theories while bolstering and confirming others. Until Jesus returns, we will never have all the evidence, anyways, so why make it determinative/normative for your faith?

I don't make it normative for faith. In fact, I happen to believe there was a flood....just not a Global Flood.


....That's about it for now. I hope that explains my thinking a bit better, and I hope I didn't offend anybody with any of my comments.

No offense taken, but the "Satan's lies" thing, and the "arrogant child" thing really weren't necessary.


If I did, please forgive me! I'm just trying to express my opinions on this issue. We are here to debate/discuss various topics related to the Bible and spirituality, after all! God bless, and have a great day in the Lord!

Apology accepted!

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:33 PM
I am not mocking, and my questions have nothing to do with any lust! Nor do I doubt the promise of His coming.

I am not saying that all continues just as it was from the beginning!

And what was the "world at that time"? (ie. Noah's time) I doubt it included South America, North America, Asia, or even Egypt. Noah's world was that spot on the world where Biblical man began...the cradle of civilization. A large local flood would have devastated Noah's entire world. You can rationalize it any way you want if it makes you feel better. But you ARE mocking us with your question, "When did the flood take place?" with the clear, implied answer, "you can put a date on it so it didn't happen and you can't put a date on it because you can't find a place in history where things have changed." You ARE saying that "all continues just as it was from the beginning" just as Peter warned us you would.

WSGAC
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:36 PM
You can rationalize it any way you want if it makes you feel better. But you ARE mocking us with your question, "When did the flood take place?" with the clear, implied answer, "you can put a date on it so it didn't happen and you can't put a date on it because you can't find a place in history where things have changed." You ARE saying that "all continues just as it was from the beginning" just as Peter warned us you would.

For the record, and for clarification, I believe there was a really big flood. I don't believe it was Global. That is not mocking.

RollTide21
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:39 PM
As far as what RollTide21 had to say, I see where you are coming from, brother, but what I see going on in your comments is that you are setting up a false, unscriptural dichotomy, and then using that to interpret the text. What dichotomy am I talking about? So glad you asked! It seems as though, and please feel to correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that the stories in the Bible have to be either actual/literal/historical fact, OR they are metaphors/symbolic, meant to teach us great spiritual truths but not meant to be interpreted literally, and should be understood as such.I don't know that Scripture HAS to be anything aside from God's Word to His Children. I believe the Bible contains references to fact as well as metaphors. The problem that I have is with two different lines of thought: A. That the Bible is completely a literal historic record of events and that the person who doesn't agree with that cannot have true Faith in God. and B. We as human beings are called by God to reconcile all Scripture into a single "Word (singular) of God". Part B of this isn't really relevant to this discussion, so I won't elaborate on that, now.
My question to you would then become: Why can't they be both at the same time? God is big enough, powerful enough, and wise enough to encode several layers of meanings into the text. Why can't they be both actually historically accurate renditions of what truly happened to flesh-and-blood people as they related to each other, God, and His creation, as well as written to teach us deeper spiritual truths that we can apply to our day-to-day lives. That would be a heck of a lot more consistent with the way He does things elsewhere throughout the Bible. For example, when Jesus started His public ministry, He preached everywhere He went that the kingdom of God had arrived. But, it won't be fully consummated/set up/fulfilled/completed until His second coming. That means that His kingdom is a both/and kind of concept, rather than an either/or concept. After all, I doubt you'd find too many preachers worth their salt today trying to suggest that God's kingdom hasn't even started yet, or ones that state that it is already fully here. If they tried, I'm sure they would be quickly corrected for not being biblically consistent. I'm sure there are other examples, but none come immediately to mind.
They can certainly be both. I just don't agree that we are required by God to believe that they HAVE to be both. I don't know exactly how or when creation happened. I don't know when the flood happened. I believe that God created everything and I believe in the global flood. I THINK it probably happened a lot longer ago than some suspect. Heck, I don't know. I'm speculating. I tend to believe that Job wasn't an actual person. I tend to think that Jonah was real, but the spending three days in a whale was a story to illustrate a point. Have I thought much about this? No. Do I think my stance on these things is vital to my Faith? Absolutely not. My point is that I feel no calling to have a definitive stance on the manner in which physical events occurred that are outside my Spirit-led Faith in Christ. I believe in the impossibility of the Resurrection because I have the Holy Spirit living inside me which does not allow me to believe otherwise. That Spirit leads me in my daily Walk with Christ in this world today...which is what God intends for all of us, I think. Scripture aids us in that Walk in that God speaks to us through the lessons in the Scripture, not by demonstrating to us that what He said actually happened. Does the person who studies about Jonah become quickened by the Spirit to learn how to survive in a whale? Does the Spirit lead us to the truth of how much oxygen is present in the belly of a whale under water? Or...does the Holy Spirit teach us what it means to be obedient to God when we think our ways are more efficient? Strong Faith is not exhibited when we ignore reason and say "I have Faith that God did it this way. So there." Faith pleasing to God is about trusting Him to guide our footsteps in life and having the Hope that He will bring us to Eternity. I don't see where His calling is greater than that. I like what Dani H said. I think she is right on target. She may believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture across the board, but she understands what God TRULY wants His followers to concern themselves with in this World.

Dani H
Mar 3rd 2011, 03:39 PM
For the record, and for clarification, I believe there was a really big flood. I don't believe it was Global. That is not mocking.

Does the Bible say it was global?

Because "all flesh" implies "inhabited".

thethirdtuttle
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:10 PM
Hoo boy! It's obvious that the more I try to explain myself here, the more I end up getting misunderstood, as well as feeling like I'm sticking my foot in my mouth. It happens to be my personal conviction that it is a form of spiritual compromise, by way of giving ground in our minds and hearts to the devil, when we don't interpret everything in the Bible as literally as possible, except where there is ample textual evidence to the contrary. Is that conviction anti-Scriptural or ungodly in any way, shape or form? I certainly hope not, but I would be open and willing to listen to people who could show me otherwise via the Scriptures. Am I trying to force that conviction down anyone's throat here. Absolutely not, but I apologize and ask for forgiveness if that's what it seemed like I was doing. We are all in different places in our walks with God, so for me to push my personal hermeneutical convictions on anyone else would simply be wrong. I, personally, believe that there was a worldwide flood. Some others on here don't. That's their prerogative, but that clashes with my personal conviction on how to interpret the text, and that was what I was trying to express in my previous post. Again, I wasn't trying to impugn anyone's character or integrity. I was merely attempting, to the best of my ability, to express loving and godly concern for their spiritual health and well-being. Did I do this as well as I could have? Probably not, and for that I am sorry, and hope everyone on here can forgive me for anything I said that was offensive in any way. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone.

For the record, I agree with DaniH, as well. I just think there is more going on here than people are willing to admit. We are, after all, in a spiritual war with the enemy of our souls (i.e., the devil), and the battleground for that war is our minds. IMHO, the more we are willing to compromise on the truths of the Bible by believing that they couldn't possibly be true, the more ground we give to Satan and the more spiritually ineffective we become. Also, we head down a slippery slope of compromise where we could very easily end up like the Jesus Seminar folks, where they believe that something like only 10% of what the gospel writers say Jesus said were actually said by Him. That is the height of arrogance and presumption, IMHO. After all, who are we fallen/sinful/finite human beings to tell God incarnate what He did and didn't say? Of course, I could be wrong. It's happened before, and it'll definitely happen many more times in the future.

That's about it for now. God bless, and have a great day in the Lord.

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

Dani H
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:19 PM
I personally think that in order to have a fruitful discussion, it's a good idea to not read worse into another person's word than they actually said. That holds true in person, and in writing.

Can we maybe assume the best of each other, and go from there? It would really help to cut out a lot of unneccesary offense. I know from experience that most of our posters that I've had the pleasure of interacting with on this forum, are neither hostile nor malicious (except for the occasional intentional trouble maker, and those are usually pulled aside and sent on their way if it becomes clear they're not here in the interest of community).

So ... let's use that fact as a platform, and seek to understand one another as we TOGETHER journey into the truth of God's Word so we can build each other up in the faith as God puts it on each of us to contribute our part to the whole.

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:29 PM
For the record, and for clarification, I believe there was a really big flood. I don't believe it was Global. That is not mocking.Peter says it was global.

keck553
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:42 PM
What makes you think I'm not serving the Most High? And why is searching the wonders of His creation a vain pursuit? He called it "Good" afterall.

How did you twist my post to say that? I referenced myself, not you. If you're not using proper hermeneutics on my post, perhaps you should evaluate what are you doing with God's Word? Just sayin'.....

RollTide21
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:58 PM
Hoo boy! It's obvious that the more I try to explain myself here, the more I end up getting misunderstood, as well as feeling like I'm sticking my foot in my mouth. It happens to be my personal conviction that it is a form of spiritual compromise, by way of giving ground in our minds and hearts to the devil, when we don't interpret everything in the Bible as literally as possible, except where there is ample textual evidence to the contrary.I think this thought process is common among Christians. Do I believe that God is displeased with this thought process? Well, I think that depends. ***Keep in mind, I don't presume to speak for the Holy Spirit to your convictions. I am just offering a viewpoint. This is my understanding and opinion.

As I have said in this thread and many others, I think that our primary focus as Christians should be to abide in the Spirit. I believe that God calls us to have salvific Faith in the Blood of Christ and then secondly to Walk in Him. We are to love each other, care for others, be gentle-hearted, have self-control, etc. Basically...Galatians 5:22. In my estimation, that sums up who God wants us to be and he wants us to do so by utterly handing ourselves over to the Spirit. All other ideas and actions in our lives follow this.

Now, being led by the Spirit certainly involves Scripture. I believe that God speaks to us in many ways, but a primary method is obviously Scripture. I believe that God intends us to view Scripture as His method for guiding us in the Spirit. I do NOT believe that Scripture is intended to be a gigantic, complicated textbook that we must reconcile and intellectually scrutinize in order to understand God's single "Truth". That doesn't mean that I don't believe in studying the Scripture. In fact, the study of Scripture is one area where I believe we draw closest to God. But...what should be the purpose of studying Scripture? To hear the Word that God has for us in our Walk in the Spirit. That is it's purpose, I think.

With that being said, I believe that we need not assume this "battle" of Holy verses Secular. As you said, you feel that it is a form of "spiritual compromise", or "giving ground in our minds and hearts to the devil". In saying that, Christians place restrictions on the text that God never intended, IMO. The idea that we must guard our hearts against "science" and "the wisdom of the world" is one of THE most important concepts in Scripture, I think. However, the primary meaning in that concept is in guarding against the wisdom of the flesh with the Truth of the Spirit. I don't believe that this meaning extends to battling those who simply offer that Scripture is not always literal because whether or not Scripture is always literal doesn't affect our relationship to the Spirit. I don't believe that I am offering anything of myself to the Enemy until I allow Him to start affecting my thoughts with my wife, my kids, my choices, my attitude, etc.
Is that conviction anti-Scriptural or ungodly in any way, shape or form? I certainly hope not, but I would be open and willing to listen to people who could show me otherwise via the Scriptures. Am I trying to force that conviction down anyone's throat here. Absolutely not, but I apologize and ask for forgiveness if that's what it seemed like I was doing. We are all in different places in our walks with God, so for me to push my personal hermeneutical convictions on anyone else would simply be wrong. I, personally, believe that there was a worldwide flood. Some others on here don't. That's their prerogative, but that clashes with my personal conviction on how to interpret the text, and that was what I was trying to express in my previous post. Again, I wasn't trying to impugn anyone's character or integrity. I was merely attempting, to the best of my ability, to express loving and godly concern for their spiritual health and well-being. Did I do this as well as I could have? Probably not, and for that I am sorry, and hope everyone on here can forgive me for anything I said that was offensive in any way. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone.I certainly don't think that conviction is ungodly. If our purpose is to please God, the He knows our hearts. I do think that we develop traditions and habits that are of our own making and do not directly line up with God's purpose in our lives. Not saying that this is you, specifically, but I think it happens to those with otherwise good intentions.
For the record, I agree with DaniH, as well. I just think there is more going on here than people are willing to admit. We are, after all, in a spiritual war with the enemy of our souls (i.e., the devil), and the battleground for that war is our minds. IMHO, the more we are willing to compromise on the truths of the Bible by believing that they couldn't possibly be true, the more ground we give to Satan and the more spiritually ineffective we become. Also, we head down a slippery slope of compromise where we could very easily end up like the Jesus Seminar folks, where they believe that something like only 10% of what the gospel writers say Jesus said were actually said by Him. That is the height of arrogance and presumption, IMHO. After all, who are we fallen/sinful/finite human beings to tell God incarnate what He did and didn't say? Of course, I could be wrong. It's happened before, and it'll definitely happen many more times in the future.I would say that when our hearts and minds are renewed in the Spirit and we are abiding in Christ, we need not fear being duped by Satan.
[/QUOTE]

thethirdtuttle
Mar 7th 2011, 12:42 AM
RollTide21:

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my points. I truly appreciate your input and perspective. You see, exhortation is one of my main spiritual gifts, but I'm still not very proficient with it yet, so I guess I have a tendency to step on people's toes from time to time. So, if I've offended anyone on here as a result of trying to explain my perspective on this particular issue, I'm truly sorry, and I hope you can forgive me. Having said that, I guess I allowed myself to get a little overly frustrated with those who don't agree with me. My thought process goes something like this: I know that I know that I know deep down in my spirit that I'm right factually, and if I could only get those who disagree with me to see it my way, then all would be right with the world. Can anyone empathize with a brother here? The thing is, I also understand and realize that it's much more important to show love than to always win the argument or to be factually correct and beat everyone else up about it. So, instead of continuing to needlessly beat my head against a wall by perpetuating this debate, I'm going to graciously and respectfully bow out by agreeing to disagree with those who don't think the flood was global in nature. God bless, and everybody have a great night in the Lord!

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

1of7000
Mar 7th 2011, 02:58 AM
And besides that, it never rained before Noah too! If you believe that, I got a bridge I can sell you!


Is it a nice bridge?

1of7000
Mar 7th 2011, 03:24 AM
Ok, if it's in the word of God, then let's have a date.


Genisis 7 or 2348-2347 B.C. (human years, 365 periods of 24 hours)

RollTide21
Mar 7th 2011, 02:42 PM
RollTide21:

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my points. I truly appreciate your input and perspective. You see, exhortation is one of my main spiritual gifts, but I'm still not very proficient with it yet, so I guess I have a tendency to step on people's toes from time to time. So, if I've offended anyone on here as a result of trying to explain my perspective on this particular issue, I'm truly sorry, and I hope you can forgive me. Having said that, I guess I allowed myself to get a little overly frustrated with those who don't agree with me. My thought process goes something like this: I know that I know that I know deep down in my spirit that I'm right factually, and if I could only get those who disagree with me to see it my way, then all would be right with the world. Can anyone empathize with a brother here? The thing is, I also understand and realize that it's much more important to show love than to always win the argument or to be factually correct and beat everyone else up about it. So, instead of continuing to needlessly beat my head against a wall by perpetuating this debate, I'm going to graciously and respectfully bow out by agreeing to disagree with those who don't think the flood was global in nature. God bless, and everybody have a great night in the Lord!

Yours in Christ,

BenjaminNo need to apologize to anyone on here, brother.

thethirdtuttle
Mar 7th 2011, 10:02 PM
No need to apologize to anyone on here, brother.

Thank you, RollTide21! You have no idea how much I appreciate you saying that. It's nice to know somebody hears my heart, and understands where I am coming from. God bless, and have a great day in the Lord!

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin