Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 114

Thread: Evidence For a Flood

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,481

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    For DD:
    My view is the same as Ramm's, as I quote from "The Christian View of Science and Scripture." This book is quite old, but I read it and adopted Ramm's views of a Local Flood decades ago.

    "[Dawson]...sternly rejects a universal flood.
    'Such universality could not have been in the mind of the writer, and probably has been claimed knowingly by no writer in modern times.'
    "Much of the weight of evidence for the local flood consists in showing the imponderable difficulties of a universal flood... It is not a question as to what God can or cannot do... The question is not: 'What can God do?' but 'What did God do?' The problem is one of interpretation, not inspiration...
    "The universality of the flood simply means the universality of the experience of the man who reported it..."

    Ramm goes on to show how the Scriptures speak of a natural event with naturalistic explanations, all supervised by God. This is in stark contrast to the super-miracle of creating 6 times the volume of water needed to cover the mountains of the earth, let alone the miracle of providing for all the species of life on earth for a year. The problems associated with enabling the survival of fish and plants require miracle after miracle, along with lots of rationalization and theorizing about different conditions on the earth only 4-5,000 BC. And denying geologic evidence, such as rock dating, is running contrary to actual science.

    You're welcome to your world, Durbin. Anything can be rationalized. But not everything will be respected by those we wish to witness to.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,481

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Hi Randyk, moved our discussion here from the end-times thread.
    https://bibleforums.org/showthread.p...01#post3483501

    Yes I was losing my patience, not sure if I am supposed to apologise or not, because I had mentioned the PT boundary in two previous posts as key to my point of view. Only at the third impatient mention, did you actually start to take an interest in my terminology and points of view I had been clearly expressing in two previous posts. Maybe the apology should come from you, not me?

    I believe in compressing the timeframes of the geologic column into biblical timeframes, unlike the popular Christian model which explains the fossil record via flood deposits, my view only has the late Permian, PT boundary, and early Triassic as flood deposits. The PT boundary being the major extinction event between the Permian and Triassic. (you must have heard of "Triassic" in the USA?). Scientists debate the cause of the extinctions of the PT boundary, but no-one denies the trigger event , an event called the Siberian Traps, the greatest volcanic event in history. (the fountains of the great deep burst forth)

    Being a bible literalist I believe all the Genesis 1 lifeforms including plants were created in one literal week, and so all the plants in the fossil record including the Cambrian/Carboniferous/Permian/Triassic/Jurassic were AFTER creation week within the last 7000 years. This bible view contradicts generally accepted scientific timeframes which you base your view on.
    Yes, clearly I'm not as adept as you in scientific vocabulary with respect to the universal vs local Floor argument. I apologize for not knowing anything about the PT Boundary, or about the various ages. I could try to do a quick study, because I have, at various times, had a limited interest in this kind of thing. I got "eaten alive" by a Jewish intellectual whose brother was, in fact, a scientist on the subject of Creation vs. Evolution--I still believe in Creation. But I can't engage in a discussion of things like retaining retrovirus markers across species with the skill of a scientist who is trying to prove macro-evolution.

    I'm not looking for an apology--just a cessation of the angry rhetoric. We were discussing a different subject, on the subject of the Olivet Discourse, and the conversation was going south. I suggest you stick with subjects that you can engage in without feeling compelled to use insulting rhetoric?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,242

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, clearly I'm not as adept as you in scientific vocabulary with respect to the universal vs local Floor argument. I apologize for not knowing anything about the PT Boundary, or about the various ages. I could try to do a quick study, because I have, at various times, had a limited interest in this kind of thing. I got "eaten alive" by a Jewish intellectual whose brother was, in fact, a scientist on the subject of Creation vs. Evolution--I still believe in Creation. But I can't engage in a discussion of things like retaining retrovirus markers across species with the skill of a scientist who is trying to prove macro-evolution.

    I'm not looking for an apology--just a cessation of the angry rhetoric. We were discussing a different subject, on the subject of the Olivet Discourse, and the conversation was going south. I suggest you stick with subjects that you can engage in without feeling compelled to use insulting rhetoric?
    I don't feel the rhetoric was insulting, if someone is trying to engage you in discussion, and you gloss over their points without even a moment's curiosity as to what they are actually saying, then you are literally wasting their time because the discussion becomes pointless. I pointed that out. The problem is not that you didn't know about the PT boundary, but you showed no interest in my repeated fact that there were just a few insignificant mountain ranges back then for the flood to cover over.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,242

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    For DD:
    My view is the same as Ramm's, as I quote from "The Christian View of Science and Scripture." This book is quite old, but I read it and adopted Ramm's views of a Local Flood decades ago.

    "[Dawson]...sternly rejects a universal flood.
    'Such universality could not have been in the mind of the writer, and probably has been claimed knowingly by no writer in modern times.'
    "Much of the weight of evidence for the local flood consists in showing the imponderable difficulties of a universal flood... It is not a question as to what God can or cannot do... The question is not: 'What can God do?' but 'What did God do?' The problem is one of interpretation, not inspiration...
    "The universality of the flood simply means the universality of the experience of the man who reported it..."

    Ramm goes on to show how the Scriptures speak of a natural event with naturalistic explanations, all supervised by God. This is in stark contrast to the super-miracle of creating 6 times the volume of water needed to cover the mountains of the earth, let alone the miracle of providing for all the species of life on earth for a year. The problems associated with enabling the survival of fish and plants require miracle after miracle, along with lots of rationalization and theorizing about different conditions on the earth only 4-5,000 BC. And denying geologic evidence, such as rock dating, is running contrary to actual science.

    You're welcome to your world, Durbin. Anything can be rationalized. But not everything will be respected by those we wish to witness to.
    There is more than enough water to cover a flatter landscape if there were no deep ocean trenches. The water has currently filled the ocean trenches but if those somehow closed over, we would have a deep problem, pun intended. Those ocean trenches formed during tectonic activity during and after the PT boundary. Both the Permian and Triassic had plants, so as a bible literalist occurred within the last 7000 years.

    The ocean currently covers the earth at an average depth of 3688M over 71 percent of the earth's surface. If we could spread it out a little more to cover the whole earth it would cover the whole earth by 2.6 km. That is fact, so much for not enough water for a flood, that argument is based on high mountain ranges and deep ocean trenches.

    All the big mountain ranges, Rockies, Andes, Himalayas formed after the PT boundary. The Alps began earlier, but only reached significance after the PT boundary.
    The supercontinent Pangea only started breaking up after the PT boundary, and much of the ocean's water is situated in the resulting oceans that never existed before. So there certainly was enough water during the PT boundary to cover the lower mountain ranges.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,523

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Wow. Are we starting up this discussion again? It's been a long time.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,242

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    Wow. Are we starting up this discussion again? It's been a long time.
    Well Randyk mentioned some things about the flood in the End times forum , so I thought we should move that chat here. Feel free to add comments.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Yuma, AZ where chocolate melts in the fridge
    Posts
    16

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Lots of specially trained smart people have looked hard for evidence of a world wide flood. They found two. Neither of them was Noah's flood of 2349 BC. Nevertheless, people all over the world recorded a flood that year and they all agreed on all the details. You might be surprised to learn what actually happened. This is long, but it's all there: http://www.saturniancosmology.org/

    If you don't care to read the whole book, here is the section about Noah:
    http://www.saturniancosmology.org/noah.php

    Lots of specially trained smart people have looked hard for evidence of a world wide flood. They found two. Neither of them was Noah's flood of 2349 BC. Nevertheless, people all over the world recorded a flood that year and they all agreed on all the details. You might be surprised to learn what actually happened. This is long, but it's all there: http://www.saturniancosmology.org/

    If you don't care to read the whole book, here is the section about Noah:
    http://www.saturniancosmology.org/noah.php

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,451
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    In which way is my view "not according to scripture?"
    Because you said this

    « Hi , interesting theory. I am not sure of the science. » and this « My theory is that the ocean bed was quite flat, the continents existed only because of huge ice caps forming ».

    If you would watch the documentary — which I will promise is not a waste of your time — you wouldn't have said it.

    So are you saying that Jesus was God's son, before he came to earth? Interesting. Maybe we should discuss that outside this thread. Yes sure the ages were made by Jesus, Jesus terminated the Old covenant, and brought in the age of salvation, and will bring in the Messianic Age too.
    First not « Jesus » made the aions but « Elohim » which we know to be the « Son » from the N.T.. The name « Jesus » is His name in humiliation. Heb. 1:2 says « ... by whom (the Son) also he made the aions ». The aions were of course made before there was a universe, because that is part of the aions. They have been renewed already after the first aion ended. If you realize that the second aion started ± 6000 years ago, I wonder why you are surprised and say « So are you saying that Jesus was God's son, before he came to earth? » Isn't He the firstborn of all Creation? (Col. 1:15) Both in Psa. 2:7 and Heb. 1:5 it says « ... Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee », to which Hebrews adds « ... I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son ».

    Interesting things you say about the aions, but I don't think courts can be a very convincing form of analogy/symbolism. Some people rather use that analogy to represent our walk with God, so that is subject to debate.
    The entire O.T. is filled with shadows of the real thing, I'm surprised you see this otherwise. There are more things the Temple or Tabernacle shows, for example:

    The temple — The most Holy (Holy of Holies)
    Jerusalem — The Holy
    Israel — The inner Court
    The « world » — The outer Court
    Ends of the earth — Outside the outer Court

    But I have no actual objection to your view of the aions, yes Satan fell to earth a long time ago and it is possible to see the parallels with the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28. I doubt whether that "spiritual life" would have affected the early state of the planet though.
    It is quite clear God deals with a number of aions with which He will come to fulfill His purpose of the aions. It's really a shame hardly anybody is aware of it nor see the importance of it. Despite my advice to study Scripture with respect to this subject, nobody does.

    So you didn't read Eze. 28 I presume? In the first aion the covering Cherub became Satan because he sinned. He wanted to be equal to God as we read in Isa. 14:14 « I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the MOST HIGH », this was a serious sin, so serious God cast down the earth, from Gen. 1 we know the heavens weren't spared from God's judgement as well. It was a total destruction of the surface of the planet earth, it was completely covered with water. The ice age came at Noah's flood as the documentary explains. Again I'm not saying they got everything correct, but it makes a lot more sense then believing we are living on « islands » floating on read hot liquid magma.

    Aristarkos

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,523

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Prospector View Post
    If you don't care to read the whole book, here is the section about Noah:
    http://www.saturniancosmology.org/noah.php
    Looks like a whole lot of woo in there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prospector View Post
    If you don't care to read the whole book, here is the section about Noah:
    http://www.saturniancosmology.org/noah.php
    Looks like a whole lot of woo in there.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,523

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    Because you said this
    If you would watch the documentary — which I will promise is not a waste of your time — you wouldn't have said it.
    Hydroplate theory is a waste of time because it's simply too much energy in too short a time. It's not unlike catastrophic plate tectonics that, the other leading YEC hypothesis.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,451
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    Hydroplate theory is a waste of time because it's simply too much energy in too short a time. It's not unlike catastrophic plate tectonics that, the other leading YEC hypothesis.
    It could well be but plate tectonics is mocking with our intelligence and the Bible.

    Aristarkos

  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,523

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    It could well be but plate tectonics is mocking with our intelligence and the Bible.

    Aristarkos
    What is that supposed to mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    It could well be but plate tectonics is mocking with our intelligence and the Bible.

    Aristarkos
    What is that supposed to mean?
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,451
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    What is that supposed to mean?
    Is this a serious question?

    Aristarkos

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    True north strong and free
    Posts
    6,523

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    Is this a serious question?
    Yes. I feel I may be misinterpreting that sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    Is this a serious question?
    Yes. I feel I may be misinterpreting that sentence.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.



  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,451
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Evidence For a Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by teddyv View Post
    Yes. I feel I may be misinterpreting that sentence.
    The whole tectonic plate theory is so ridiculous, it is surprising any serious Christian — i.e. one that studies God's word — would fall for it. That's why I said it is mocking with our intelligence and the Bible.

    Aristarkos

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. evidence for God not enough....
    By ilovemetal in forum Apologetics and Evangelism
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Nov 5th 2018, 04:29 AM
  2. Evidence of God
    By Boomerang in forum Christians Answer
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Mar 23rd 2018, 07:53 PM
  3. Genesis chapter 6- Global Flood vs. Local Flood
    By DeafPosttrib in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Apr 1st 2011, 01:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •