Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314151617 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 245

Thread: Location: Garden of Eden

  1. #226
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,236

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I didn't say anything about "translation." We would both translate the words into English "all the world" and "under the whole heaven." I'm talking about what the primitive people of that time would've meant by it, and what pre-scientific people would mean by those phrases. They would *not* think "global." Rather, they would think "local." Their sense of an all-encompassing, or universal, experience would consist of their immediate environment being completely submerged, and not of a "globe" of the earth being completely flooded.

    Picture a round ball of a "globe" on your desk. And then picture yourself standing in the middle of a desert. If I told you the whole earth would be flooded, what would that mean to you? If you thought in terms of the globe on your desk, you would think "Universal Flood." But if you thought in terms of primitive man, standing in the middle of a desert, you would think the entire region around you would be inundated, destroying all the creatures there.

    Modern scientific Man recognizes the importance of an entire region being flooded, because a very large habitat like that would likely cause the extinction of the creatures that live only there. And so, God had Noah save them.

    I certainly would not think that all the things necessary for the survival of these animals were destroyed as well. Some thing could be imported later, by God, from surrounding regions--things like plants and insects. All these would've been destroyed by a Flood in this one large habitat.



    What am I saying we're missing? I pointed out that universal language is qualified by the context in which they are used. This is easily proven. For some here I've provided examples. If I said, for example, the "whole world was taxed," I would not be referring, literally, to the whole "globe" of the earth. Rather, in context I would be referring to the Roman Empire, which ruled that entire part of the world.

    Some things certainly do have true universal value, such as "Christ died for all sinners." This did not just happen for some sinners in one region or on one part of the earth. The application of Christ's redemption is truly universal. It is the context that decides how this "universal language" is to be applied.



    I've referred to all of the wording you've quoted. Every bit of it can be understood in the sense of the experience of primitive Man, and in the sense of a Local Flood experience. That's what Ramm argued, and he convinced me personally. That's why I personally gave up my own belief in a Universal Flood--it was just common sense after that.

    I've never felt that I abandoned belief in the Bible. I've never felt that I was giving up orthodoxy. On the contrary, I recognized that God can use science to aid in the proclamation of the Gospel. We don't have to look like fools. (Being a "fool" for Jesus is a different thing entirely. It has to do with belief in a God whose Son was crucified.)



    I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. We agree on the essentials of the Gospel--that's more important.



    There are other scientific assumptions that you will have to dismiss besides the legitimacy of radiometric testing. You will have to dismiss the uniformitarian model of constructing how long certain processes would likely take, based on their observable processes today. For example, at the present rate of mountain forming by the collision of tectonic plates, how long would you say it took for the major mountain ranges of the earth to form? And how long would you say it took for some of the older mountain ranges to erode, based on present rates of erosion?

    Usually, Young Earth Creationists refer to catastrophism, which may be somewhat legitimate, to explain how things took place gradually--quite unlike we see during present conditions on earth. However, it is then critical to ignore radiometric dating, as you suggested, which is a pretty solid science. To dismiss that one has to appeal to a "possibility" that space radiation interfered with that date uniformly so as to make things only "appear" to be old.

    Why on earth can they simply not *be old?* The Creation Story, contrary to popular opinion, is not a science text book. It is simply true. How Moses intended to apply his words has to be understood as a combination of how Primitive Man understood things and the truth as God relayed it to him.
    It's easy to understand the concept of the entire expanse of ground that mankind lives on, and the entire sky that mankind lives under. So is the concept of all living creatures an easy concept. I don't see guys like Noah, Abraham, Moses, or Solomon as primitive.

    They may have been less educated than us, but their minds were just as healthy, maybe even healthier. Even Abraham lived to 175 years old. Healthy body, healthy mind, why would they not be able to understand the most basic of concepts?

    Regarding science, I'm dismissing radiometric dating because unknown factors are affecting what used to be regarded as a constant. One cannot be confident in an unknown effect unless it has been measured under all circumstances.

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Sandmountain Alabama
    Posts
    588
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by Slug1 View Post
    To make sense of an event that is miraculous in nature, isn't always logically explained. You use Jesus as an example in use of logic. Sure, you have a point WHEN ONLY the natural is happening. However, what did logic do for Nicodemus when Jesus explained the miracle of redemption (being born again) to Nick's logical mind? He kept pressing on in logic, failing to understand what Jesus was teaching.

    Logic doesn't always work, can't work when God's supernatural power is involved.

    Because I don't want to fail in understanding the flood, ACCORDING to the scripture.

    If I try to logically understand the flood, then LIKE Nick in trying to understand redemption and the re-birth of one's spirit, I can only fail to EVER understand, if I apply only logic.

    YES ! There have been many supernatural events in the Bible and supernatural things are happening to and around God's people in this time too . The limitations man places on God I just don't understand .

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Sandmountain Alabama
    Posts
    588
    Blog Entries
    3

    Lightbulb Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Logic has been brought up in this thread .

    Who's logic was it to flood the earth and wipe the slate clean ?

    Who's logic was it to preserve Noah and his family and pets on the Ark ?

    The Master Planner , GOD !

    Our logic is nothing compared to God's logic !

    God planned it and it worked exactly like it was suppose to .

    We are too much concerned with how things worked inside the Ark , when God had already planned everything out !

    Do any of you have any doubt about God's planning ?

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,288
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I never said they diversified 1000 years before the flood happened.
    Actually you did:

    https://bibleforums.org/showthread.p...88#post3517088

    "That's before dogs even existed, they were only created +-6000 years ago"

    The flood was roughly 5000 years ago so if dogs existed about 6000 years ago then they existed prior to the flood and that means two wolves can't represent all "dogs" so within a thousand years we could have tens of thousand of different types of dogs plus the dif types of wolves.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  5. #230
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,236

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Actually you did:

    https://bibleforums.org/showthread.p...88#post3517088

    "That's before dogs even existed, they were only created +-6000 years ago"

    The flood was roughly 5000 years ago so if dogs existed about 6000 years ago then they existed prior to the flood and that means two wolves can't represent all "dogs" so within a thousand years we could have tens of thousand of different types of dogs plus the dif types of wolves.
    You are projecting too much of your own logic into my comment that creation occurred around 6000 years ago. I have no idea when diversification started happening, but Noah just put animals of every kind on the ark, not of every breed and sub-species within a "kind". Still waiting for your evidence that the ark isn't big enough. Please include each animal kind, the weight, height, food quantities required, size of pens and cages. Also your ideas on melted glaciation, and how drinkable ocean surface water would be after an ice cap melt.

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,197

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    It's easy to understand the concept of the entire expanse of ground that mankind lives on, and the entire sky that mankind lives under. So is the concept of all living creatures an easy concept. I don't see guys like Noah, Abraham, Moses, or Solomon as primitive.

    They may have been less educated than us, but their minds were just as healthy, maybe even healthier. Even Abraham lived to 175 years old. Healthy body, healthy mind, why would they not be able to understand the most basic of concepts?

    Regarding science, I'm dismissing radiometric dating because unknown factors are affecting what used to be regarded as a constant. One cannot be confident in an unknown effect unless it has been measured under all circumstances.
    Not what I meant by "primitive." No connotation of "inferiority." "Primitive" means old and prior to scientific knowledge of the world, such as "globalism."

  7. #232
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,288
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    You are projecting too much of your own logic into my comment that creation occurred around 6000 years ago. I have no idea when diversification started happening, but Noah just put animals of every kind on the ark, not of every breed and sub-species within a "kind".
    That's your own assumption to lessen the amount of animals needed. If the flood was global, he would have had to save every kind of animal and their various breeds or else some would be extinct. Others have done the math, and saving all the kinds of animals was impossible. Thus, the flood was not global and Noah's task was possible.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,236

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    That's your own assumption to lessen the amount of animals needed. If the flood was global, he would have had to save every kind of animal and their various breeds or else some would be extinct. Others have done the math, and saving all the kinds of animals was impossible. Thus, the flood was not global and Noah's task was possible.
    No its not my assumption, it's what the bible says. Kinds were made in creation week, maybe they diversified since.

    But instead of putting all these sub-species into the ark, the ark story is clear there were only two of every kind. What kinds? Well obviously the kinds made in creation week.

    But it doesnt really matter if we disagree on this point or every other point, you seem to want to inflate the numbers, but even then you don't do the maths. Why make a statement that the ark can't fit all animals, if you are not prepared to do the maths?

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,288
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Why make a statement that the ark can't fit all animals, if you are not prepared to do the maths?
    Second time I said others have done the math for this. Where is your math? Kind after kind doesn't support your view that there were no diversified animals under the "kinds"...history and archeology (dogs diversified from wolves LONG before the flood) supports my view that the Ark couldn't hold all of the Earth's animals for a global flood.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,236

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Second time I said others have done the math for this. Where is your math? Kind after kind doesn't support your view that there were no diversified animals under the "kinds"...history and archeology (dogs diversified from wolves LONG before the flood) supports my view that the Ark couldn't hold all of the Earth's animals for a global flood.
    Doesn't matter what your view is, the bibles view is that the ark only held two of each kind, kinds were created during creation week. So if your view is that there were kinds plus every subsequent subspecies, then you are claiming more than the Bible.

    Please post your links to the maths, I want to see if they also base their calculations on incorrect assumptions.
    Someone else posted a link in this thread showing how it could be done. Noah had time on his side, it wasn't an impossible task, and of course God assisted as per bringing the animals in pairs. God's supernatural intervention could have assisted in other areas as well.

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    15,563

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The Scriptural context is the civilization in which Noah lived--the reference to the "whole earth," from the standpoint of primitive Man, referred to the land as far as one could see, and not to a "globe." So, you change the context when you infer a "globe."
    That suggest that the bible was written only by man, from man's perspective. Yet, the flood is from God's perspective. We have direct quotes from God in that passage.


    Are you to insinuate that Noah's civilization encompassed the whole globe? Hardly! His experience was subject to where he lived, and the reference is to that civilization--not to any other civilization, nor to the whole globe.

    To insinuate that the people of Noah's day, as experienced by Noah, stretched across the whole planet would be to suggest Noah had the modern capacity to traverse the world or to communicate across the earth in order to know what all people groups were doing.

    No, he just referred to his own experience within the civilization that he was part of. And the point was, that whole civilization, where Noah lived, was extremely wicked. It was worthy of destruction. The point is, the entire civilization was wicked, through and through, and not worth preserving. There is no intension to reference the globe as a whole, or any other possible civilizations. This was *Noah's experience.*
    I am asking, according to context, since you appealed to it multiple times, what context in the passage makes you think it is local. Then we also have Peter's Holy Spirit inspired word as well.

    If it's more than just context (which your explanation goes far beyond typical exogesis context), then just say so. That's OK. But I personally don't think you can hold to the context mantra and stick with a local flood. You need evidence outside of scripture (which isn't context) to come to that conclusion. I am not convinced using extra biblical evidence is wrong, but I am convinced it is not textual context.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,197

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    That suggest that the bible was written only by man, from man's perspective. Yet, the flood is from God's perspective. We have direct quotes from God in that passage.
    I'm not at all suggesting the Scriptures were untrue or uninspired. It is a matter of how God chose to use language in a time when Man was not yet given to look at the earth as a "globe." The words "the earth" mean something different today than it did in primitive times.

    How would you understand "the earth" before Copernicus and Galileo? You would refer to it as the ground below your feet, and not as a "globe!"

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with divine inspiration, but rather, with how words are understood. To see the earth as the "ground below your feet" is absolutely true, and makes sense in the use of "the earth." The lack of knowledge about the "globe" does not reflect negatively on how "the earth" was used in Noah's time.

    Would God have used words that conveyed scientific truths that were not yet understood, nor appreciated, in Noah's time? No. One did not have to understand that the world was round in order to use the words "the earth" in reference to the dirt platform that existed beneath the feet of all who lived in Noah's day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark
    I am asking, according to context, since you appealed to it multiple times, what context in the passage makes you think it is local. Then we also have Peter's Holy Spirit inspired word as well.
    I answered that question. The context is determined by the language as used in Noah's day. The reference is not to a "globe" but to the earth beneath the feet of those who lived in Noah's civilization.

    Therefore, we are talking in universal terms only about Noah's experience and Noah's civilization. We are not talking about people or animals who may have lived on the other side of the planet. Though the terms used are universal, they are qualified by the persons having this experience, and by the civilization encompassing this experience. Again, the context is Noah and his civilization. That is *local.*

    To show that this is a Universal Flood would require that a *globe* is in context, which was not even understood at that time. The use of universal language cannot prove a Universal Flood, because universal language is qualified by the context in which it is used.

    Again, "all the furniture is destroyed" is a reference to "all the furniture." But it does not refer to "all the furniture universally, across the whole globe." If the context is a furniture store fire, then "all the furniture was destroyed" applies universally only within the store that was burned down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark
    If it's more than just context (which your explanation goes far beyond typical exogesis context), then just say so. That's OK. But I personally don't think you can hold to the context mantra and stick with a local flood. You need evidence outside of scripture (which isn't context) to come to that conclusion. I am not convinced using extra biblical evidence is wrong, but I am convinced it is not textual context.
    It certainly goes beyond explicit references to a Local Flood! I'm saying the context is local because the reference is explicitly to Noah and to his own civilization. Noah and his civilization did not extend around the globe, because Noah could *not* traverse the planet, nor communicate across the planet.

    So we are left with common sense, that not only is the context Noah's local environment, but also that Noah would not be asked by God to preserve the "balance of nature," but only to preserve a representative sampling of creatures from his own local habitat.

    We know, from modern understanding of the globe, that creatures are so diverse, and the balance of nature so complex, that Noah could not have preserved all life in the ark. A global Flood would've destroyed plants and animals.

    The diversity of life requires a great variety of habitats and temperatures and conditions that would not have been available on the ark. We must understand the intent of the story, which was to destroy a local region, due to its wickedness, but not to destroy all life. It was the destruction of all life only within Noah's immediate environment, which was, in context, a *local environment.* The use of universal terms does not change that, since Noah obviously did not refer to the entire planet. You are imposing the word "planet" for earth when you say that the context is a Universal Flood.

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Sandmountain Alabama
    Posts
    588
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Just showing you how the author of scripture uses figures of speech.



    All it means is the mountains under the sky, the visible area of the world and sky Noah lived in.




    The point is that the Chinese and Egyptians would have been wiped out if the flood was literally global. The fact that the flood did not kill them proves it wasn't global.



    "for pyramids could never withstand a worldwide flood."

    lol, what? They couldn't survive 5 months of being under water? Nonsense.




    The only issue here is misinterpreting the flood to have been global rather than localized just like the example of Lot the NT uses alongside the example of Noah...same basic thing will happen the day Christ returns. Global death of all unbelievers? Nope. Localized death especially at Armageddon. That's where the armies will be, so that's where most death's occur.
    The Chinese and Egyptians were in their countries at the time of Noah's flood ?

    I have not seen an indication of this in my Bible studies . Can you help me to understand what you are saying ?

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,236

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by hawkman View Post
    The Chinese and Egyptians were in their countries at the time of Noah's flood ?

    I have not seen an indication of this in my Bible studies . Can you help me to understand what you are saying ?
    He seems to be saying that Noah wasn't the ancestor of the Chinese.

    Genetics says that all mankind is descended from one later man who isn't even the first male. He is referred to as Y-MRCA in science. ie it's proven that the huge variety of race groups observed today comes from one genetic male.

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    15,563

    Re: Location: Garden of Eden

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I'm not at all suggesting the Scriptures were untrue or uninspired. It is a matter of how God chose to use language in a time when Man was not yet given to look at the earth as a "globe." The words "the earth" mean something different today than it did in primitive times.

    How would you understand "the earth" before Copernicus and Galileo? You would refer to it as the ground below your feet, and not as a "globe!"

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with divine inspiration, but rather, with how words are understood. To see the earth as the "ground below your feet" is absolutely true, and makes sense in the use of "the earth." The lack of knowledge about the "globe" does not reflect negatively on how "the earth" was used in Noah's time.
    Since Moses wrote the book, we are to assume that when Moses penned "All of mankind" that he only meant "the earth" as in under his feet? The problem is, Moses was a well traveled man. He went from Egypt to Israel. Abraham, was a well traveled man too. Any flood big enough to cover what these two men walked would have been large enough to be world wide.

    Also, you think that early man didn't understand the "world" was larger than there small area? yet, Moses penned the words "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". He went on to write of the sun and the stars. This man had a much bigger view of creation than you are giving him credit for.

    So, again, within context, what portion of the scripture suggests a local flood? You keep going back to how "primitive man" would understand it. Yet, when I read what Moses wrote, he had a view of civilization that was much broader than just his own small area. He knew of the cannites, of Ur, of mesopatmia, of Egypt, and so on. Any flood large enough to cover all that Moses knew about, would have been large enough to cover the entire world.

    Would God have used words that conveyed scientific truths that were not yet understood, nor appreciated, in Noah's time? No. One did not have to understand that the world was round in order to use the words "the earth" in reference to the dirt platform that existed beneath the feet of all who lived in Noah's day.
    Noah didn't write the book. Moses did, under the inspiration of God and God was well aware of what He was saying when he said "I repent that I have made mankind" and that He would destroy "all mankind". There was only one man that found grace during that time.

    I answered that question. The context is determined by the language as used in Noah's day. The reference is not to a "globe" but to the earth beneath the feet of those who lived in Noah's civilization.
    That's a very large assumption, especially given that Moses wrote the book and the small area that Moses traveled, if covered with water, would have required a world wide flood.

    To show that this is a Universal Flood would require that a *globe* is in context, which was not even understood at that time. The use of universal language cannot prove a Universal Flood, because universal language is qualified by the context in which it is used.
    Gen 1 begs to differ on what they were aware of. They knew that there was a heaven and an earth larger than their small area. So what chapter and verse suggest it? The context surely seems to suggest a world wide event.

    Question... do you think King David and Jesus saw it as a local flood? What about Peter with what he wrote in his books?

    Again, "all the furniture is destroyed" is a reference to "all the furniture." But it does not refer to "all the furniture univesally, across the whole globe." If the context is a furniture store fire, then "all the furniture was destroyed" applies universally only within the store that was burned down.
    Sure. Moses wrote "all the earth". He didn't limit it to a small area. And he was well aware that the earth was very, very large.

    It certainly goes beyond explicit references to a Local Flood! I'm saying the context is local because the reference is explicitly to Noah and to his own civilization. Noah and his civilization did not extend around the globe, because Noah could *not* traverse the planet, nor communicate across the planet.

    So we are left with common sense, that not only is the context Noah's local environment, but also that Noah would not be asked by God to preserve the "balance of nature," but only to preserve a representative sampling of creatures from his own local habitat.
    Again, Moses was the one inspired to write the books, not Noah. So what about Moses view?

    We know, from modern understanding of the globe, that creatures are so diverse, and the balance of nature so complex, that Noah could not have preserved all life in the ark. A global Flood would've destroyed plants and animals.
    That's what scripture said happened, right?

    The diversity of life requires a great variety of habitats and temperatures and conditions that would not have been available on the ark. We must understand the intent of the story, which was to destroy a local region, due to its wickedness, but not to destroy all life. It was the destruction of all life only within Noah's immediate environment, which was, in context, a *local environment.* The use of universal terms does not change that, since Noah obviously did not refer to the entire planet. You are imposing the word "planet" for earth when you say that the context is a Universal Flood.
    Again, please establish the context within the written word. And if you insist on using the limited knownedge of the author, then please do it from Moses perspective since he is the author. However, keep in mind that Moses was told by God what happened at creation, the flood, etc.

    God bless!

    Mark
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Location of Eden?
    By trance750 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Jan 22nd 2016, 10:05 PM
  2. Garden of Eden found ?
    By Protective Angel in forum Breaking News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Aug 3rd 2013, 05:27 PM
  3. The Garden of Eden
    By buster in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Apr 6th 2012, 05:55 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
  •