Flood: Global or Local

[Socrates]

:huh:

[reyvin]

Universal. Not global.

[Socrates]

Global: covered the globe.
Local: covered only parts of it.

Don't play word games. The poll has already been distorted by Avatar of Evil posting here despite my explicit instructions that only those eligible to post in this forum should vote.

[truthman]

I agree that it was global.

[Abigail]

Howcome after we have voted in a poll we can no longer see who is voting for what?

[$cirisme]

Howcome after we have voted in a poll we can no longer see who is voting for what?
You can if you click the number

[Socrates]

And you can find out that some of the voters can't even read!!

I said "(only for those eligible to post in Cosmogony, please)", i.e. creationists only, not evolutionists, theistic or otherwise. But at least two people have voted who have already been asked not to post in Cosmogony because of their evolutionary stance.

[bar Jonah]

Anything other than a global flood makes not the slightest bit of sense. If God didn't wipe out all of mankind (except for Noah's family), there is no real purpose for the Deluge. If it was only local, human beings would have needed only to head to the nearest mountain, which would have been within on the horizon. And there would have been no reason to bring all those animals to the ark, with most of an animal-filled world not being flooded.

All in all, completely nonsensical in the context of these chapters of Genesis.



For those not in the know, Soc, can you just really briefly illuminate this stupid and misleading term of equivocation, "universal flood?" Not to lend them credence, but to point out what a dishonest misnomer it is?

[Socrates]

For those not in the know, Soc, can you just really briefly illuminate this stupid and misleading term of equivocation, "universal flood?" Not to lend them credence, but to point out what a dishonest misnomer it is?
Sure thing. Some claim to believe in a "universal flood" because it wiped out all humanity living at that time not on the Ark. They may also claim the flood was "universal" because it wiped out all the known world, or the whole "land" which was only a part of the planet. But the Hebrew grammar, including the double kol, makes it clear that the whole planet under the entire heavens was flooded, and all land nephesh animals were wiped out, only those on the Ark survived.

I deliberately used the word "global" to avoid this dodge. Watch for it if you're ever applying for a Bible college and you want to check out its soundness.

[Socrates]

Sure thing. Some claim to believe in a "universal flood" because it wiped out all humanity living at that time not on the Ark. They may also claim the flood was "universal" because it wiped out all the known world, or the whole "land" which was only a part of the planet. But the Hebrew grammar, including the double kol, makes it clear that the whole planet under the entire heavens was flooded, and all land nephesh animals were wiped out, only those on the Ark survived.

I deliberately used the word "global" to avoid this dodge. Watch for it if you're ever applying for a Bible college and you want to check out its soundness. Similarly, it's not enough to ask whether they believe in six literal days -- you have to ask whether they believe the days were the same length as those of our working week as Exodus 20:8-11 says.

[bar Jonah]

Right. So, folks, "universal flood" means only a small part of the world was flooded, it was not global... and only some of the animals died. Don't be fooled.

Thanks, Soc!

[Socrates]

BTW, if I say universal flood, I actually mean it -- "global".

[bar Jonah]

Wow, so the entire universe filled up with water? :riwink:

[reyvin]

Yea, but the text is also clear that the animals that had been effected by humanity is what had to die. If humanity at the time of the flood hadn't spread to where polar bears existed, there was no need to wipe them out and start again. When I say universal I agree with you that 'all humanity of that time' had to go, but the question is: where was all humanity?
I'm not falling for any YEC word games either.

[Solly]

Yea, but the text is also clear that the animals that had been effected by humanity is what had to die.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

Another expert at reading between the lines it seems. perhaps you could point out where your eisegesis is to be found? Seems categorical to me that God means all flesh, all that has the breath of life, including birds that could have flown away to the mountains - other than Kiwis and emu of course. :poke: Everything that is in the earth shall die.

[kuboes1831]

You force scripture to make the flood global

[$cirisme]

I've always found the arguments for a local flood to be interesting, not paticularly persuasive but they are interesting. The whole "all flesh" that Solly brings up is an excellent point. Thanks :thumb:

[bar Jonah]

You force scripture to make the flood global
After reading the devastating scriptural passage Solly just gave, how can you possibly say that? :lmbo:

You can't be serious?

[Socrates]

H.C. Leupold, Professor of Old Testament Theology at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, in his 1942 commentary on Genesis, wrote:

[Genesis 7:19] A measure of the waters is now made by comparison with the only available standard for such waters—the mountains. They are said to have been "covered." Not a few merely but "all the high mountains under all the heavens." One of these expressions alone would almost necessitate the impression that the author intends to convey the idea of the absolute universality of the Flood, e. g., "all the high mountains." Yet since "all" is known to be used in a relative sense, the writer removes all possible ambiguity by adding the phrase "under all the heavens." A double "all" (kol) cannot allow for so relative a sense. It almost constitutes a Hebrew superlative. So we believe that the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood.

By way of objection to this interpretation those who believe in a limited flood, which extended perhaps as far as mankind may have penetrated at that time, urge the fact that kol is used in a relative sense, as is clearly the case in passages such as #Ge 41:57; Ex 9:25; 10:15; De 2:25; 1Ki 10:24. However, we still insist that this fact could overthrow a single kol, never a double kol, as our verse has it.

....

But still it is maintained that when the Scriptures refer to the Flood they speak only of the universal destruction of mankind and not of its universal extent. The passages employed are #Isa 54:9; Mt 24:39; 2Pe 2:5; 3:6 and the apocryphal passage #/APC Wis 10:4. However, if these passages be scanned closely, it will be seen that in none of them is there occasion to refer to other than the human beings as objects of destruction. But silence on the subject of the destruction of the rest of the physical world is by no means proof that the physical world was not included as a whole. Besides, no one actually knows to what extent men had spread abroad upon the face of the earth. The general assumption still seems to be that in seventeen centuries men had gotten but little beyond the region of the Tigris and the Euphrates, and this when the known longevity of at least some men gave the human race opportunity for more rapid expansion. Men may have colonized the Western Hemisphere before the Flood, for all we know.

[Socrates]

After reading the devastating scriptural passage Solly just gave, how can you possibly say that? :lmbo:

You can't be serious?
Quite so. Another reason to vote for Solly! (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/alumnus.php?do=vote&u=12)

[Socrates]

Yea, but the text is also clear that the animals that had been effected by humanity is what had to die.

Romans 8:20-22 makes it clear that the Fall had cosmic repercussions.


If humanity at the time of the flood hadn't spread to where polar bears existed,

Polar bears are a post-flood variety of bears. They can hybridize with other varieties of bears, showing they are the same created kind. All you need to produce them is natural selection of existing information plus information losses of skin pigmentation and the dividing of digits (producing webbed paws).


there was no need to wipe them out and start again. When I say universal I agree with you that 'all humanity of that time' had to go, but the question is: where was all humanity?

And you claim it was only in Mesopotamia? Even though dating methods you and Ross (wrongly) accept place the Aborigines in Australia before the Flood?

And as Solly said for the rest.

[Socrates]

The likes of Hugh Ross have regurgitated Mesopotamian flood nonsense by 19th century compromisers like Hugh Miller and John Pye Smith. But the same exegetical and scientific problems remain:
Ross claims that his local Flood left no evidence. But if so, then why are the scoffers morally culpable (2 Peter 3 says they are willingly ignorant of the previous cataclysmic destruction by water)?
Any proposed Mesopotamian flood would be far more catastrophic than the Spokane Flood (you can tell from the land gradients) where the Ice Age Lake Missoula burst through a barrier and carved out the Channeled Scablands. So since this lesser flood left such graphic evidence, how could the Mesopotamian flood leave no trace?
Mesopotamia is a half-bowl. And the gradient would make the waters pour down towards the south. So how did the Ark land in the opposite direction, and how was it levitated several hundred feet above the level of the proposed Mesopotamian flood? Local flood advocates do not generally argue that walls of water were held up supernaturally (but the attached cartoon shows the logical consequence of this compromise). The anticreationist Glenn Morton made these points in a review of Ross's book The Genesis Question, although they're nothing new -- Whitcomb and Morris made the same sort of points over 40 years ago in The Genesis Flood.

[Dee Dee Warren]

"Comprimisers" just isn't necessary Soc so often as a descriptive of those who hold different views, even if true, it is serving to inflame rather than educate and inform. If the subject of the post is exactly how someone is comprimising then the adjective may well be appropriate but to throw it in as a blanket adjecitve in a basically unrelated post is not necessary. I would ask that you ease up on that please.

[A Beautiful Truth]

For those of you willing to hear another view on the Flood, I posted in the "Apologetics" Forum concerning the Flood. I believe the Flood was local. I do not know how to do links to other threads, so I'll tell you that, if you are interested in hearing another view, it is post #64 in the Apologetics Forum in the thread entitled "When was the Sun Created." Mind you this is in a forum with many atheists so we can "show we are Christians by our love", no?

:smile:

~Charleen

[bar Jonah]

For those of you willing to hear another view on the Flood, I posted in the "Apologetics" Forum concerning the Flood. I believe the Flood was local. I do not know how to do links to other threads, so I'll tell you that, if you are interested in hearing another view, it is post #64 in the Apologetics Forum in the thread entitled "When was the Sun Created." Mind you this is in a forum with many atheists so we can "show we are Christians by our love", no?

:smile:

~Charleen
And show our love by the Truth.

[Socrates]

For those of you willing to hear another view on the Flood, I posted in the "Apologetics" Forum concerning the Flood. I believe the Flood was local.
Who doesn't know that. And I have shown how the Mesopotamian flood is not only anti-scriptural, but even fails to on its own raison d'être -- to fit in with secular geology.


I do not know how to do links to other threads,
Open another window, find the thread or post you want, then click on the aqua @ button in the reply window. Then insert first the title of the link then the URL.


Mind you this is in a forum with many atheists so we can "show we are Christians by our love", no?

As RI says. And see my post Compromising WFJs are ineffective witnesses, and misunderstand biblical agapè love (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=214125#post214125) And how 'loving' was it of your mentor Ross to portray the saintly scholar Ussher as someone counting on his toes and advocating Amway? I don't care that it was a comic.

[A Beautiful Truth]

...Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

Another expert at reading between the lines it seems. perhaps you could point out where your eisegesis is to be found? Seems categorical to me that God means all flesh, all that has the breath of life, including birds that could have flown away to the mountains - other than Kiwis and emu of course. :poke: Everything that is in the earth shall die.

Well, let's see. If a Bible skeptic came to you with the following verses, how would you respond?

"When the famine was spread over all the face of the earth...And the people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth." Gen. 41:56,57

But it does say, "all" the earth, does it not? Do you believe that at the time of Joseph that New Zealand and South America also suffered famine and the inhabitants actually made it to Egypt to buy grain? Well, it says "all" doesn't it? Context, context, context.

And what of Solomon? Yes, He was wise, but did men from all peoples really come? (I Kings 4:34) Do I doubt the Bible if I were to say, "no"? Or do I rightly recognize the importance of context?


Mankind did not spread out and fill the earth until after the Tower of Babel, therefore Noah's context was that area spoken of by geographical place names *in the scriptures*. Noah's world was Mesapotamia, and the ark did not rest on Mt. Ararat, but the "mountains of Ararat." BIG difference. Context, needs to be considered. A local flood would have wiped out ALL of mankind, because that is where ALL of mankind resided until after God dispersed people at the Tower of Babel. It is interesting that this area is called the "Cradle of Civilization". It is known that this area was indeed the first civilization and evidence of the first farming and domesticated animals.... (Keep in mind that unlike Socrates, I do not believe the primates that walked on two legs were human. I am talking of *humans*, not smart apes that used tools. So the fossil finds in Africa of primates do not count as humans spreading the globe before the Tower of Babel. I assume this was the evidence that was implied in one of his quotes about mankind spreading to the Western Hemisphere before the flood. What nonsense! I guess he got his information from more YE "science" journals...)

In addition, what would you say to the skeptic who asks also about Luke 2:1, "Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth."

Well, it does say of all the inhabited earth, does it not?

And what of Col.1:23? "...the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven..."

Does this mean the animals, too? It says "all" does it not?

And what of Romans 1:8? "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. But it says the "whole world" so how can you deny that the Aborigines heard about the faith of the Romans? How can you deny that the Incas in Peru heard about the faith of the Romans, it says the "whole world" after all? Do you have to "read between the lines" to say that the "whole world" back then did not mean the "whole world" as today? Today's man has a different "take" on what the "whole world" means. Back then, it mean their world. Today we have modern travel and the internet so I can communicate with some guy in England without even getting out of my chair.

There is something going on here, and my guess is that you would have an apt answer to a skeptic who would inquire of you about these issues. Can you not also see the reason a Bible believer could also believe that the Flood was local, without having to "read between the lines"?

When considering this argument, please consider that mankind did not fill the earth until after the Tower of Babel. We do not have evidence that mankind filled the earth until after this time.

[Socrates]

Well, let's see. If a Bible skeptic came to you with the following verses, how would you respond?
By citing Leupold above. A single kol may not be universal, but a double kol rules out anything but a global perspective.


In addition, what would you say to the skeptic who asks also about Luke 2:1, "Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth."

Well, it does say of all the inhabited earth, does it not?
Nope, because here the Greek is oikoumenh (oikoumenè), which when used by a Roman means "the Roman empire". And indeed, Caesar Augustus decreed that all the oikoumenh / Roman Empire was to be taxed. Remember, it's the original language that counts!

[Socrates]

Oh, and welcome back, Steadele :highfive:

[A Beautiful Truth]

By citing Leupold above. A single kol may not be universal, but a double kol rules out anything but a global perspective.

He is entitiled to his take on the matter....



Nope, because here the Greek is oikoumenh (oikoumenè), which when used by a Roman means "the Roman empire". And indeed, Caesar Augustus decreed that all the oikoumenh / Roman Empire was to be taxed. Remember, it's the original language that counts!

I knew you'd come through, Soc. :smile:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Romans 8:20-22 makes it clear that the Fall had cosmic repercussions.

Romans 8:20-22 speaks only of mankind's sinful corrupt rule now enslaving the earth, it speaks nothing of animal death. You read your "no animal death" interpretation into Romans 8:20-22. But as I found out when I started a thread about Romans 8:20 that not all young earth creationists have a problem with animal (even soulish) death before the Fall.




Polar bears are a post-flood variety of bears.

So the webbing on their feet is NOT a design feature? It just popped up from natural processes? I believe God made Polar Bears with special webbed feet. You believe God made a Bear kind that evolved into Polar Bears and that webbed feet evolved naturally. (Surival of the fittest?)



They can hybridize with other varieties of bears, showing they are the same created kind.

Now, say IF--what IF (the following is not for the weak stomached) some scientist was able to hybridize an ape and a human...would that mean that they were orginially from the same kind?


And you claim it was only in Mesopotamia? Even though dating methods you and Ross (wrongly) accept place the Aborigines in Australia before the Flood?

And the dating method used to date those Aborigines, what is the margin of error for that method? That would be a detail to be included.

I only bring it up because that particular method is very prone to problems and has a large margin of error, in case you did not know.

But it is not unlike YEC to fail to bring stuff like this up...(remember that little issue with the piece of wood from the "ark"? Margin of error is not one of those details YEC like to mention....)

[reyvin]

Charleen just stole all the words out of my mouth. (Hey wait a sec! Does that mean she stole all the related TO THIS POST words, or every word I've ever spoken!?)

[kuboes1831]

Brilliant reply Charlene , you must be one of the few on this forum who took reading beyond KS1 and can work out and de-code the letters in Romans 8. You also stole my words so I will report you to the thought police

[A Beautiful Truth]

Brilliant reply Charlene , you must be one of the few on this forum who took reading beyond KS1 and can work out and de-code the letters in Romans 8. You also stole my words so I will report you to the thought police

Thanks...I think.

What does "reading beyond KS1" and how does one "de-code" the letters in Romans 8?

You may contact me off list if you like so as not to take this thread too far off topic.

~Charleen

[kuboes1831]

KS1 is Key Stage one the level of a 7 year old, "de-code" means you can work out the letters.
Or simply put you have the intelligence to work out what Romans 8 actually says, rather than misreading it.
My warped sense of humour.
Your posts are always worth reading and full of sound Christian sense.

[Warcraft3]

Oh, and welcome back, Steadele :highfive:
Hey man thanks for the welcome. :smile:

Right now I am in New Mexico and should be leaving fo Kuwait (where I will be for a year---Im not going to Iraq afterall) sometime this month.

I usually just lurk and read stuff cause if I start posting too much Ill be on the computers alot and sometimes I dont have much time.

So Ill be lurking around for a while, but Ill try to get a post in here and there.

Its good to be back at TWEB with all you guys. :thumb:


Russ

[A Beautiful Truth]

Thanks, kuboes1831.

And welcome back, Steadele!

~Charleen

(We were just in New Mexico--man, it was cold!)

[A Beautiful Truth]

..."all flesh" that Solly brings up is an excellent point.

Well, sure--"all flesh" in that region (which included all of mankind!) :smile:

[A Beautiful Truth]

After reading the devastating scriptural passage Solly just gave, how can you possibly say that? :lmbo:

You can't be serious?

I believe I gave a reasonable answer to Solly's objection in post #27.

[bar Jonah]

I believe I gave a reasonable answer to Solly's objection in post #27.
So you look at a passage that says that the whole planet under the entire heavens was flooded.... and you take that to mean that "all flesh in that region" was flooded and destroyed? :rihrm:

And this is a "brilliant" response, people? Egad, if you are willing to interpret scripture that ridiculously liberally and loosely, I wouldn't want you teaching Sunday school to kindergartners. :doh:

The truth is, you know darn well what it says, and you don't want it to say that because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions. This is so absurdly simple to understand, and you are doing back-breaking gymnastics to get around it... :no:

[Socrates]

Romans 8:20-22 speaks only of mankind's sinful corrupt rule now enslaving the earth, it speaks nothing of animal death. You read your "no animal death" interpretation into Romans 8:20-22. But as I found out when I started a thread about Romans 8:20 that not all young earth creationists have a problem with animal (even soulish) death before the Fall.
Nope, that they didn't have a problem agreeing that certain passages spoke only of human death. This one talks of the whole creation being cursed, and commentators have long linked this with the Fall.


So the webbing on their feet is NOT a design feature? It just popped up from natural processes?
It's a beneficial information loss as I explained, just like eyeless fish in caves (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4361news8-9-2000.asp) or wingless beetles on windswept islands (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/beetle.asp) .


I believe God made Polar Bears with special webbed feet.
Believe what you want. Webbing is still an incomplete division of digits. Just as whiteness is the lack of fur pigmentation.


You believe God made a Bear kind that evolved into Polar Bears and that webbed feet evolved naturally.
I believe they AROSE naturally, but not EVOLVED because there is no new information. But of course I'm used to the deceitful equivocation of evolutionary propagandists that Ross and his adoring throng parrot.


(Surival of the fittest?)
Natural selection was theorised by creationists before Darwin. So there is no need for your knee-jerk reaction to this observable phenomenon.


Now, say IF--what IF (the following is not for the weak stomached) some scientist was able to hybridize an ape and a human...would that mean that they were orginially from the same kind?
Not gonna happen, when you understand the hybridization criterion. And Charleen has the problem that she has no coherent definition of the created kinds, if they are allowed to interbreed.


And the dating method used to date those Aborigines, what is the margin of error for that method? That would be a detail to be included.
Radiocarbon dating (via Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS)), which Ross defends, ‘dates’ Aborigines in Australia to 41,000 BP (before present) -- O’Connor, S., Carpenter’s Gap rockshelter 1: 40,000 years of Aboriginal occupation in the Napier Ranges, Kimberley, WA, Australian Archaeology 40, June 1995.

Ross dates the Flood to ‘between twenty thousand and thirty thousand years ago’ (The Genesis Question p. 177).

If you have any indication that the proponents of the radiometric dates allow 50% error bars, please produce it.


I only bring it up because that particular method is very prone to problems and has a large margin of error, in case you did not know.
I know that, but you old earthers are the ones who defend radiocarbon dating! :bonk:


But it is not unlike YEC to fail to bring stuff like this up...(remember that little issue with the piece of wood from the "ark"?
No I don't actually. Should I?


Margin of error is not one of those details YEC like to mention....)
Why don't you tell us then?

[A Beautiful Truth]

So you look at a passage that says that the whole planet under the entire heavens was flooded.... and you take that to mean that "all flesh in that region" was flooded and destroyed? :rihrm:

And this is a "brilliant" response, people? Egad, if you are willing to interpret scripture that ridiculously liberally and loosely, I wouldn't want you teaching Sunday school to kindergartners. :doh:

Well, actually, post #27 was on the last page......:whistle:

(I don't think you read it?--it was NOT the post I mentioned "all flesh in that region" The post numbers are in the top right side of the posts...)

[A Beautiful Truth]

Nope, that they didn't have a problem agreeing that certain passages spoke only of human death. This one talks of the whole creation being cursed, and commentators have long linked this with the Fall.

You are right that Romans 8:20 is referring to the Fall, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with you adding that animals started dying after the Fall. Even some YEC I've encountered on this board agree with me concerning this.



I believe they AROSE naturally, but not EVOLVED because there is no new information. But of course I'm used to the deceitful equivocation of evolutionary propagandists that Ross and his adoring throng parrot.

You do not believe webbing on a Polar bear was new information.



Natural selection was theorised by creationists before Darwin. So there is no need for your knee-jerk reaction to this observable phenomenon.

Yes, but you extroplate tremendous speciation in a very limited time off the ark. If you were right, we should see far more species "arrising" under our noses. (and not the lame mosquito species argument again. There is a difference between that and getting polar bears and panda bears arising naturally)



...coherent definition of the created kinds, if they are allowed to interbreed.

My problem is that you say they interbreed...but yet you give examples of human intervention. It does not happen naturally. And my point is "so what". Because they are similar does not mean they were related. I think it can be argued that God has a set of "templates" and has created theses species similar but unique. I know that they can change over time in small ways, but you believe in big ways.



Radiocarbon dating (via Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS))...If you have any indication that the proponents of the radiometric dates allow 50% error bars, please produce it.

and what about "via Accelerator Mass Spectromety"--is there an error bar to be considered?



I know that, but you old earthers are the ones who defend radiocarbon dating! :bonk:

At least we are upfront with the margin of errors...

There are margin of errors, but with so many tests confirming the age of the earth, for example, to say they are all wrong and all off by millions is silly. That is saying because there is a margin of error, there is no truth whatsoever.



No I don't actually. Should I?

Why don't you tell us then?

It was a television show on Noah's ark (CBS, I think) where they claimed to have found a piece of wood possibly from Noah's ark and they subjected it to dating but made the dates fit their time of the flood by not including the margin of error (and they picked the most extreme limits to make a case). I am pretty sure there is a book out as well...I could dig and find more info, if you would like.

[Socrates]

You are right that Romans 8:20 is referring to the Fall, I have no problem with that.
Right, and this clearly points to a cosmic curse.


You do not believe webbing on a Polar bear was new information.
Of course not -- it is a partial failure of apoptosis to divide the digits. I also don't believe that shrivelled eyes in cave fish is new info.


Yes, but you extroplate tremendous speciation in a very limited time off the ark. If you were right, we should see far more species "arrising" under our noses.
Actually, the observed rapidity of speciation has been a surprise for long-agers.


(and not the lame mosquito species argument again. There is a difference between that and getting polar bears and panda bears arising naturally)
Please tell us more.


My problem is that you say they interbreed...but yet you give examples of human intervention. It does not happen naturally.
What do you mean? Mules have been produced for millennia "naturally". Artificial insemination was certainly not needed. But this is a problem for your lot -- we know the different breeds of dogs came from a common dog ancestor. They are still classified as the same species, although AI is needed to interbreed a Chihuahua and Great Dane.


And my point is "so what".
So what? If kinds can interbreed, you have no criterion to distinguish them. You may as well be an evolutionist.


Because they are similar does not mean they were related. I think it can be argued that God has a set of "templates" and has created theses species similar but unique. I know that they can change over time in small ways, but you believe in big ways.
No, I believe that size is not the issue, but direction!


and what about "via Accelerator Mass Spectromety"--is there an error bar to be considered?
I gave the figures -- you prove that the error bar is 50%!


At least we are upfront with the margin of errors...
Why don't you tell us then!


It was a television show on Noah's ark (CBS, I think) where they claimed to have found a piece of wood possibly from Noah's ark and they subjected it to dating but made the dates fit their time of the flood by not including the margin of error (and they picked the most extreme limits to make a case). I am pretty sure there is a book out as well...I could dig and find more info, if you would like.
Yeah, please do. I bet it has nothing to do with reputable creationist organisations like AiG.

[kuboes1831]

Sorry Romans 8 does not point to a cosmic curse due to the Fall, but only to humanity. Clear from the word ktisis which often means humanity rather than world

[A Beautiful Truth]

With regard to Romans 8:

Nope, that they didn't have a problem agreeing that certain passages spoke only of human death. This one talks of the whole creation being cursed, and commentators have long linked this with the Fall.

Romans 8 does not mean animals began to die only after the fall, but that the earth was now subject to man's sinful, corrupt rule over it. If you see animal death there, it is because you put it there. Romans 8 is not in regard to animal death but to the creation's futility in being subject to man's sinful rule instead of God's original purpose for it to be ruled by Adam in righteousness.

Regarding webbing on Polar Bears:


It's a beneficial information loss as I explained, just like eyeless fish in caves (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4361news8-9-2000.asp) or wingless beetles on windswept islands (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/beetle.asp) .


Believe what you want. Webbing is still an incomplete division of digits. Just as whiteness is the lack of fur pigmentation.


I believe they AROSE naturally, but not EVOLVED because there is no new information. But of course I'm used to the deceitful equivocation of evolutionary propagandists that Ross and his adoring throng parrot.

Aside from the insults, please explain how you determine that this is a decrease of information.



Now, say IF--what IF (the following is not for the weak stomached) some scientist was able to hybridize an ape and a human...would that mean that they were orginially from the same kind?


Not gonna happen, when you understand the hybridization criterion. And Charleen has the problem that she has no coherent definition of the created kinds, if they are allowed to interbreed.

So if "kinds" are able to interbreed, which WOULD be required for the speciation YEC need off the ark, as you readily admit, you have to admit that if Apes and humans were able to be hybridized that they were of the same kind.

Do you remember the following?


This is copied from another forum (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=971357#post971357), with credit due to the poster known as zthibault.

==========================================================
Definition of fertilization from the Life Science Dictionary (http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search.phtml?title=fertilization):
fertilization: The union of male and female gametes.

From FertiliText (http://www.fertilitext.org/glossary/glossary.html#fertilization)
Fertilization:
union of the male gamete (sperm) with the female gamete (egg)

From Medicine.Net (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?li=MNI&ArticleKey=3413)
Fertilization: Fertilization is the process of combining the male gamete, or "sperm," with the female gamete, or "ovum."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...1&dopt=Abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=409311&dopt=Abstract)

Anat Rec 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87
Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.



Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro. On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. For the failure of human spermatozoa to attach to the zona surface of all non-hominoid oocytes stands in contrast to the behaviour of spermatozoa of the several other mammals studied which, in most combinations, adhered readily to foreign oocytes, including those of man. Taxonomically, the demonstration of a compatibility between the gametes of man and gibbon, not shared with cercopithecids, constitutes further evidence for inclusion of the Hylobatidae within the Hominoidea.


According to the text of the article, the fertilized zygotes were destroyed after this research.

==========================================================

According to this new finding, AiG's definition of created kinds... makes humans and apes the same kind. But as they say in showbiz, them's the brakes.

If AiG is right, then what does this say for mankind? AiG is on a slippery slope to allow so much evolution in its interpretation of scripture of how the 30,000 species off the ark "arose" to the millions we see today and in the fossil record.

I say God created many similar species that do change in small ways with respect to time, but that 30,000 animal species do not "arise" into all the millions of species in a few thousand years as required by your young earth/global flood interpretation of the Bible.

[Socrates]

With regard to Romans 8:

Romans 8 does not mean animals began to die only after the fall, but that the earth was now subject to man's sinful, corrupt rule over it. If you see animal death there, it is because you put it there. Romans 8 is not in regard to animal death but to the creation's futility in being subject to man's sinful rule instead of God's original purpose for it to be ruled by Adam in righteousness.
It shows that the curse was not limited to man, but would apply to the whole creation.


Regarding webbing on Polar Bears:

Aside from the insults,
:cry::baby: from an emotional anti-YEC who condones Ross's degredation of Ussher.


please explain how you determine that this is a decrease of information.
The information to destroy the tissue between the digits by apoptosis was corrupted so the process was incomplete.


So if "kinds" are able to interbreed, which WOULD be required for the speciation YEC need off the ark,
Nope. By definition, the different created kinds cannot interbreed. Descendents of these kinds may not always be interfertile with other descendants of the same kind.

So what do YOU mean by 'kind' since you think that one kind can interbreed with a different kind?


Do you remember the following?
How could I not forget it when I demolished this teenage atheist rebel in the same thread!!!

Obviously misotheists need spoonfeeding: what "true fertilization" means (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=102657&postcount=13)

Typical of the Bible-haters above not to understand what AiG is talking about, although they provided references. For the definition of created kind, baramin, or "basic type", they often refer to Dr Frank Marsh's book Variation and Fixity in Nature. On p. 37, Marsh explains (emphasis in original):


I suggested to him [Dobzhansky] that in final test, in every care where true fertilization of the egg occurs, the parents are members of the same Genesis kind (basic type).

True fertilization is necessary because in hybridization the union of the gametes may result in an embryo which does not live beyong the gastrula stage; or the fetus may die at full period; or the hybrid may be a healthy individual in every way except that it is sterile; or the hybrid may be a completely normal, fertile individual. The requirement of true fertilization is met when the chromosome groups of both parents take part in formation of the early blastomeres of the embryo. This is a distinguishing requirement for a true hybrid because offspring may be produced where the germs cells of the male take no other part in the development of a new individual than to stimulate an artificial parthenogenesis whereby the egg will proceed with its development into an embryo. ....

The reader should not confuse true fertilization of gametes with DNA hybridization. ...

AiG has also referred to the criteria of Dr Siegfried Scherer, professor of microbial ecology and director of the Institute of Microbiology of the University of Munich and a YEC. As Dr Scherer puts it, he further developed Dr Marsh's criteria in his chapter "Basic Types of Life" in Mere Creation: Science Faith and Intelligent Design, ed. Wm. Dembski, IVP 1998:


Two individuals belong to the same basic type if embryogenesis of a hybrid continues beyond the maternal phase, including subsequent co-ordinated expression of both maternal and paternal morphogenetic genes.

So humans and apes are definitely NOT the same basic type according to standard criteria, meaning there is no need for creationists to revise them.


If AiG is right, then what does this say for mankind?
That mankind is unique. And note, it is "If AiG is right" not "If a teenage atheist abetted by a churchian compromiser are right in their ignorant distortions of what AiG claims" :punch:


AiG is on a slippery slope to allow so much evolution in its interpretation of scripture of how the 30,000 species off the ark "arose" to the millions we see today and in the fossil record.
<Yawn, stretch> :zzz: -- the 30,000 species on the Ark (we would now say 16,000 pairs of genera) apply to land vertebrates, while the "millions" apply to ALL types of living thing. One day Charleen may surprise us all by not spruiking a Ross furphy.

I won't repeat my simple genetics lesson about how varieties can arise by sorting out pre-existing genetic information and loss.


I say God created many similar species that do change in small ways with respect to time, but that 30,000 animal species do not "arise" into all the millions of species in a few thousand years as required by your young earth/global flood interpretation of the Bible.
No problem explaining how the 8000 genera of land vertebrates gave rise to the ~30,000 extant species, given the observed rates of speciation.

[Robyn Banks]

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

Another expert at reading between the lines it seems. perhaps you could point out where your eisegesis is to be found? Seems categorical to me that God means all flesh, all that has the breath of life, including birds that could have flown away to the mountains - other than Kiwis and emu of course. :poke: Everything that is in the earth shall die.

Quite right, Solly. For perhaps the second time in recorded history, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

You may have noted that kol “all/every” is repeated remarkably often in the text: of the wickedness of “all flesh” (also 6:12, 13, 17; 7:21; 8:21) or “living things” (7:4, 21, 22, 23), and (6:5) of “every thought”; and in respect of all Noah’s family and all animals to be saved (6:19, 20, 21; 7:1, 2, 3, 8, 14, 15, 16; 8:1, 17, 18, 20) and of Noah’s obedience (6:22, 7:5).

Furthermore, the repopulation of the entire world through the 3 sons of Noah only makes sense if the flood is global. Indeed, the Table of Nations includes all major peoples of the world known to Israel, from the North, East and South/West.

Those who insist on a 'local flood' deliberately abuse the text of scripture.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

Robyn you know full well you are not eligible to post in Cosmogony

[Dee Dee Warren]

Socrates you are being rude. This is not the purpose of this "protected" area of the forum. The standards of behaviour are to be as between brethren. This area of the forum is not going to be dragged down. Also, you have been on notice of the gratuitous use of "Bible-hater" and "misotheist" - such inflammatory characterizations are not conducive to maintaining order on a forum such as this, and should only be used when absolutely necessary and with a lot of proper context - yes I realize that you were quoting a past thread, it could have been quoted without the attacks which were since that time asked to be toned done.

[A Beautiful Truth]

It shows that the curse was not limited to man, but would apply to the whole creation.

Still, Romans 8 does not say animals started dying after the Fall, but that creation was subject to man's corrupt rule. Because animals are subject to man's sinful rule does not mean they started dying only after the Fall. What do you believe kept them alive forever before the Fall, anyway? The Tree of Life was needed to keep mankind alive--animals were not give the Tree of Life. Animals would have died naturally under the same laws of physics that would have killed Adam and Eve had it not been for the Tree of Life.


The information to destroy the tissue between the digits by apoptosis was corrupted so the process was incomplete.

The tissue was not destroyed so how is this a loss?? The truth is, there is no loss, but additional tissue making the webbing. This is no loss, it is an increase of information. I say it is a design feature, you cannot say so.

Additionally, there are many such "design features" you cannot contribute to a designer, but to a loss of information. If Christians understood what you were saying about speciation by loss of information, I think they would be suprised. You cannot invoke design by God in species, to you it is mere loss of information.


So what do YOU mean by 'kind' since you think that one kind can interbreed with a different kind?

I do not believe that in nature, under normal circumstances, members of different species interbreed. No wolphins, no Ligers or whatever you call them. Mules are mostly infertile, big deal if once in a while one is fertile. It is no strength to your case, it is the exception, not the norm. I believe you need species interbreeding with one another as the rule, not the exception, in order to make a case for your position.


Obviously ... need spoonfeeding: what "true fertilization" means [/url]

Well, I did not know how far you would go with your beliefs. You say even if the hybrization is of man's intervention that it proves your case of how the animals interbred and made new species off the ark.


So humans and apes are definitely NOT the same basic type according to standard criteria, meaning there is no need for creationists to revise them.

But if it can happen in a lab, it would destroy your worldview, period. Truth is, they destroy those zygotes so we will never know if they will mature. Since I do not believe species are fleshed out from "kinds" like you, I am not threatened by this research. I believe God created mankind special, just as He created orangutans special, just as He created gorillas special. Taking your "kinds" argument on a "scientific" basis as you try to do, you would need to make apes and man in the same kind. You don't of course, because of your Bible interpretation, but then you are not consistnent with your science. One or the other. Stop trying to make a scientific case but then stopping short because your Bible interpretation does not allow you to carry your theory through. You need to be consistent.


I won't repeat my simple genetics lesson about how varieties can arise by sorting out pre-existing genetic information and loss.

But where is your standard to judge if information goes up or down? Give me something, even a link to AiG--do they at least have information defined in such a way so as to know if information is increasing or decreasing? I don't want what it is "sort of" like, you need a testable definition if you are to be taken seriously.

You YEC's have it great--you can decide if information goes up or down depending on how it fits into your young earth creationist/global flood/ speciation interpretation.

[Socrates]

What do you believe kept them alive forever before the Fall, anyway?
Who knows? Why should I speculate where Scripture is silent? Best to believe Scripture where it is NOT silent, rather than long-age teaching, including the clear statements that animals were created vegetarian.


The Tree of Life was needed to keep mankind alive--animals were not give the Tree of Life. Animals would have died naturally under the same laws of physics that would have killed Adam and Eve had it not been for the Tree of Life.
Ipse dixit, as usual lacking biblical support, like so many Rossian teachings.


The tissue was not destroyed so how is this a loss??
:dufus: In normal digit formation, the process of apoptosis is designed to destroy the cells between the digits in an orderly manner. In fact, even calling this process destroying and death is an anthropomorphic misunderstanding of a designed process. So of course it's an information loss if this orderly process is hindered or halted. It just happens that this information loss is advantageous to the polar bear.


The truth is, there is no loss, but additional tissue making the webbing. This is no loss, it is an increase of information. I say it is a design feature, you cannot say so.
I say that the additional tissue is the result of a normal mammalian process not operating. Evidently you have no idea what information means if you think more tissue means more information. Similarly, poodles grow long fur because a process that normaly sheds hair at a certain length is halted. The Belgian Blue cattle grow far more muscle mass than is healthy because the gene that produces myostatin is deactivated -- J. Travis, ‘Muscle-bound cattle reveal meaty mutation’, Science News 152(21):325, 22 November 1997.


Additionally, there are many such "design features" you cannot contribute to a designer, but to a loss of information. If Christians understood what you were saying about speciation by loss of information, I think they would be suprised. You cannot invoke design by God in species, to you it is mere loss of information.
Please be more specific instead of flaying around.


I do not believe that in nature, under normal circumstances, members of different species interbreed. No wolphins, no Ligers or whatever you call them.
Why not? The wholphin was produced naturally, and is fertile. Ligers are also produced naturally. Whereas breeds of dogs, which presumably even Ross would accept as the same species, can in some cases only interbreed with human intervention.


Mules are mostly infertile, big deal if once in a while one is fertile.
It is a big deal! If you try to define kinds as mutually infertile, one exception is all that's needed.

Not all of us are gullible enough to equate the created kinds with man-decreed "species", as Ross does. This falls flat in the face of numerous examples of speciation.


But if it can happen in a lab, it would destroy your worldview, period. Truth is, they destroy those zygotes so we will never know if they will mature.
So there is not the slightest proof that they satisfied the creationist hybridization criterion!


Since I do not believe species are fleshed out from "kinds" like you, I am not threatened by this research. I believe God created mankind special, just as He created orangutans special, just as He created gorillas special. Taking your "kinds" argument on a "scientific" basis as you try to do, you would need to make apes and man in the same kind. You don't of course, because of your Bible interpretation, but then you are not consistnent with your science.
No, you are too ignorant of science to realise that the case you cited has no bearing on the issue, as I showed! Stop wasting my time.


One or the other. Stop trying to make a scientific case but then stopping short because your Bible interpretation does not allow you to carry your theory through. You need to be consistent.
You need to learn science, and I don't mean from the likes of Ross or the infudgel wolf-pack here! :bonk:


But where is your standard to judge if information goes up or down? Give me something, even a link to AiG--do they at least have information defined in such a way so as to know if information is increasing or decreasing?
:zzz: Already done -- see Information Theory Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp)


I don't want what it is "sort of" like, you need a testable definition if you are to be taken seriously.
:haha: And you need to listen and learn (I don't mean to bigoted atheists) if you want to be taken seriously. And judging by my pearl count, alumnus of the month and runner-up alumnus of the year wins, I am taken seriously by far more than some want to admit.

It should be clear even to a demented dryopithecine that loss of sight or flight, or the apoptotic processes resulting in digits, is a loss of information. However, some, including Jerry Coyne and evolutionists here claim that shrivelled eyes is evidence of evolution Loss of eyes does not prove goo to you evolution (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=203493&#post203493).

Similarly, in the vast majority of cases of adaptation, pre-existing information is sorted out -- see How information is lost when creatures adapt to their environment (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=349389&#post349389). You and the infudgels persist in calling that sort of diversification "evolution", yet no new genes are produced. If you can't understand even this simplified example involving the sorting out of short-fur and long-fur genes, then don't waste my time whinging about mathematical definitions that would clearly go above my head. And that goes for all the antitheists reading this -- you've gotta show me that you can walk before I'll teach you to run! :bounce:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Socrates, I have warned you once already on this thread, that these are debates between brethren on a volatile subject and we expect you to be less rude. And referring to an opposing belief as "Rossian" is just as illegitimate and unhelpful as referring to yours/my beliefs as "Hammian." Also goading posters who cannot post here in this section is completely inappropriate and must cease - that has always been a rule specific to this section that may not apply across the board and was one of the conditions in creating this "protected" area.

[A Beautiful Truth]

It just happens that this information loss is advantageous to the polar bear.

Just happens?

Who's side are you on? I say it was a design feature. I say God created Polar Bears with webbed feet to be a better swimmer in its environment. You say webbed feet "just happens."

I say new information because God put the information there. You give up alot to keep your flood speciation!



Similarly, poodles grow long fur because a process that normaly sheds hair at a certain length is halted.

So you put the length of a poodle's hair up there with webbing on Polar Bear Paws?


Why not? The wholphin was produced naturally, and is fertile. Ligers are also produced naturally. Whereas breeds of dogs, which presumably even Ross would accept as the same species, can in some cases only interbreed with human intervention.

Well, let's see. Were the wholphins parents in captivity? How about the Tiger and Lion? Was this observed in the wild or in captivity?

As far as dogs go, if you put them all back in the wild, would you get more or less kinds of dogs? They would naturally go back to the mean. Teacup Poodles would not survive, Great Dane's would not survive.



It is a big deal! If you try to define kinds as mutually infertile, one exception is all that's needed.

Would the mule kind last very long in the wild if it was only fertile once in a great while?


Not all of us are gullible enough to equate the created kinds with man-decreed "species", as Ross does. This falls flat in the face of numerous examples of speciation.

Where are the kinds of examples of rapid "off the ark" speciation in the wild? Give me examples of the kinds off the ark and the kinds of species "fleshed out"--we should still see this kind of speciation if it were true. I do not count your examples in captivity because that is not how animals normally behave.


You need to learn science

I'll give you that. But I do not trust young earth creationists to teach me. You say science, but you really mean your Bible interpretation.

I am an old earth creationist. I believe God created in six days (days were long like the seventh day is long and still continues--ref. Heb.4) and that God designed creatures, being the artist that He is, and did this over a long period of time (long according to our standards, not His). I believe information has increased as God is the programmer and increased that information.

I believe the fossil record shows the created species changing somewhat, going extinct, then being replaced by new species better suited to earth's changing environment and conditions. I believe it was God who replaced those species in the fossil record, and not that some "kind" was being fleshed out "naturally" as you believe.

I believe that whales are most likely to go extinct, given their size, number of offspring per adult, and life span and therefore God replaced extinct whale species often. I do not believe as you that all these whales came from one super-packed information "kind" that fleshed out all these whales by happenstance as you do.


And judging by my pearl count, alumnus of the month and runner-up alumnus of the year wins, I am taken seriously by far more than some want to admit.

No, indeed. I see you are taken quite seriously by Christians who don't care that much about science. Soc, while I disagree with you about science, I agree with you on your stand on morality. My bet is you got most of those pearls because of your stand on such issues. I was even tempted to give you pearls myself about non-science issues but knew the "look how many pearls I got" argument would eventually come up and I did not want to have contributed to your arrogance.

I disagree with the way you witness, as I disagree with the way AiG witnesses. I am saddened at the witness you and AiG have provided for unbelievers. I think the Socrates/AiG attitude has been not only just a poor witness for unbelievers, but an unnessesary stumbling block.


If you can't understand even this simplified example involving the sorting out of short-fur and long-fur genes, then don't waste my time whinging about mathematical definitions that would clearly go above my head.

I want a clear definition. I'd like to have it and get feedback from Reasons to Believe--it would not go over their heads.

[Socrates]

Just happens?

Who's side are you on?
Yours mainly, despite appearances. I have consistently pulverized chemical evolution and defended extensive design in nature.


I say it was a design feature. I say God created Polar Bears with webbed feet to be a better swimmer in its environment. You say webbed feet "just happens."
The Bible is silent on this, so we should be free to think of the best scientific explanation. And I think this is that a carefully designed process of ordered removal of cells broke down. If you can't grasp that a breakdown of such an orderly coordinated multi-step process controlled by a number of genes is a loss of information, then I can't help you any further. Sheesh, a bug in programming code might cause the program not to work, and no one would dispute that this is a loss of info even if it couldn't be quantified.

Similarly, one might say that the loss of wings on a beetle on a windswept island "just happens" and it happens to be beneficial. Once again, an information loss. Or that the musclebound Belgian Blue cattle "just happened" as a result of a mutation disabling myostatin production.


I say new information because God put the information there. You give up alot to keep your flood speciation!
I give up nothing -- one thing that is not negotiable is the teaching of Scripture. I will not abandon that even if it allegedly "gives up" some alleged apologetic benefits.


So you put the length of a poodle's hair up there with webbing on Polar Bear Paws?
Yep, both are information losses in the sense that a complicated coordinated process under the control of genes is disrupted.


Well, let's see. Were the wholphins parents in captivity? How about the Tiger and Lion? Was this observed in the wild or in captivity?
What does it matter? It still didn't require any artificial insemination. So on what basis do you decree that they are different kinds? Evolutionists have no problem showing the problems with Ross's arguments, but if he would cease equating the biblical kinds with modern taxonomic species he would be far more effective. Some of his fellow progressive creationists such as Walter Bradley are less naive about this, and recognize that kinds were broader than "species".


As far as dogs go, if you put them all back in the wild, would you get more or less kinds of dogs? They would naturally go back to the mean. Teacup Poodles would not survive, Great Dane's would not survive.
Yep, because the different varieties have lost information!!! But neither the atheist wolf pack eavesdropping :teeth: nor Ross seem to understand that this process can't explain evolution from goo to you via the zoo, but does explain rapid production of varieties.


Would the mule kind last very long in the wild if it was only fertile once in a great while?
There is no mule kind. It is a variety of eqine kind. It's an example of where a mutation has made different descendants of the same kind with a low success rate of breeding.


Where are the kinds of examples of rapid "off the ark" speciation in the wild? Give me examples of the kinds off the ark and the kinds of species "fleshed out"--we should still see this kind of speciation if it were true. I do not count your examples in captivity because that is not how animals normally behave.
It matters not whether animals are naturally or artificially isolated into small populations, which later are unable to interbreed (so form new species). I've given you the example of mozzies isolated in the British underground that could no longer interbreed with the parent species.


I'll give you that. But I do not trust young earth creationists to teach me. You say science, but you really mean your Bible interpretation.
I mean the teachings of the Bible as derived from the text via the historical grammatical approach, not imposed upon the text because of uniformitarian "science".


I am an old earth creationist. I believe God created in six days (days were long like the seventh day is long and still continues--ref. Heb.4)
Nonsense already refuted and not held by any Hebrew scholars. I believe they were days like those of the working week because of the direct comparison in Exodus 20:8-11, as well as the fact that yôm in Genesis 1 had an evening/morning and numeric.


I believe the fossil record shows the created species changing somewhat, going extinct,
I won't dispute that although I might mean something a bit different.


I believe that whales are most likely to go extinct, given their size, number of offspring per adult, and life span and therefore God replaced extinct whale species often.
Oh yeah, that's right, God loves whales so much (according to Ross) that he let them go extinct.


I do not believe as you that all these whales came from one super-packed information "kind" that fleshed out all these whales by happenstance as you do.
I believe that baleen whales, toothed whales, Basilosaurus are all apobaraminic (i.e. from different created kinds), so please don't exaggerate my taxonomic "lumping".


No, indeed. I see you are taken quite seriously by Christians who don't care that much about science.
Or rather, Christians who care to distinguish between the real operational science (in which I have high qualifications) and the dubious historical science which is so open to interpretation depending on one's framework about the past.


Soc, while I disagree with you about science, I agree with you on your stand on morality. My bet is you got most of those pearls because of your stand on such issues.
Quite a variety of issues actually, including Jesus on the authority of Scripture, yeah lots of pro-life ones, wine in the Bible, anti-KJVO. Shows my wide-ranging interests, despite some attempts to dismiss me as a single-issue fanatic.


I was even tempted to give you pearls myself about non-science issues but knew the "look how many pearls I got" argument would eventually come up and I did not want to have contributed to your arrogance.
It's hardly arrogant to defend myself with facts! E.g. a record number of pearls, that can't be explained away by alleged pearl hoarding, since I gave you some for your posts on morality. I thought they should stand on their own merit, and unlike you I wasn't prejudiced against them because of disagreements in an unrelated area.


I disagree with the way you witness, as I disagree with the way AiG witnesses.
But you agree with RTB's attack on the great saintly scholar Archbishop Ussher, portraying him as a dunce wearing an "ask me about Amway" dunce cap and needing to count on his toes. :punch:

So really, it is double standards to attack YEC witnessing while condoning unethical tactics from your own.


I am saddened at the witness you and AiG have provided for unbelievers. I think the Socrates/AiG attitude has been not only just a poor witness for unbelievers, but an unnessesary stumbling block.
As I've shown, many people disagree with you. A recent example is the testimony on the second part of www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0206.asp


I want a clear definition. I'd like to have it and get feedback from Reasons to Believe--it would not go over their heads.
Once again, until you have shown that you can walk by grasping even simple qualitative aspects, you are in no position to learn to run by detailed qualitative case-by-case analysis. For goodness's sake, what part don't you understand about a programmed coordinated multi-step process was disrupted somehow, so apoptosis didn't happen? And loss of such processes will never add up to new kinds. And RTB has already shown that it's above their heads -- on one radio program ostensibly to deal with it, it was only 3/4 of the way through their tedious breadcast that Rana even attempted to address it. And in the process he managed to get off-side with the IDM, whose favor RTB tries to curry.

[kuboes1831]

What is uniformitarian science?

It is a silly myth you hold and is non-existent.

Get some some solid arguments behind what you say

[Socratism]

What is uniformitarian science?

It is a silly myth you hold and is non-existent.

Get some some solid arguments behind what you say

Apparently revisionist history is alive and well.

[kuboes1831]

Apparently revisionist history is alive and well.


What has revisionist history got to do with this?

Please explain

[A Beautiful Truth]

I will not abandon that even if it allegedly "gives up" some alleged apologetic benefits.

How do you feel about the ID movement? Will you further distance yourself because it gives up so much young earth apologetics for these benefits?


What does it matter? It still didn't require any artificial insemination.

Because behavior is important to consider. If they don't behave that way now in the wild, by what basis do you assume they acted differently only the few thousands of years ago that you proclaim? You only have your interpretation of the Bible, which is only that--an interpretation. Question of the day: why do you even bother with science, anyway? What do you hope to "prove" by it when your interpretation of the Bible has all the science you need in it?


So on what basis do you decree that they are different kinds? Evolutionists have no problem showing the problems with Ross's arguments, but if he would cease equating the biblical kinds with modern taxonomic species he would be far more effective. Some of his fellow progressive creationists such as Walter Bradley are less naive about this, and recognize that kinds were broader than "species".

For example, orangutans, gorillas, Neadertal. Of the same "kind"? How can you tell, according to your theory on "kinds"? They all seem pretty similar to me.



Yep, because the different varieties have lost information!!!

Thing is, Socartes, it is not a loss of information that is hard to explain, but the increase. From what I have read, the atheists are hard pressed to show how information can increase. The ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations is pretty extreme.

I say God is the programmer who has supernaturally increased information. You walk a strange line.


It's an example of where a mutation has made different descendants of the same kind with a low success rate of breeding.

Does not "low success rate of breeding" mean anything?



It matters not whether animals are naturally or artificially isolated into small populations, which later are unable to interbreed (so form new species). I've given you the example of mozzies isolated in the British underground that could no longer interbreed with the parent species.

I have no problem with "sub species". And often it is not that they "could no longer" but that they "would" no longer interbreed. Behavior is important. Even so, this is a far cry from the speciation required in your "how did Noah get all those animals on board, anyway" apologetic.



I mean the teachings of the Bible as derived from the text via the historical grammatical approach, not imposed upon the text because of uniformitarian "science".

There are excellent arguments for an old earth that are scripturally based. You don't need science to come to the conclusion that the days in Genesis are not 24 hours long. The argument for the continuing seventh day is indeed a strong one. If you take issue, please contribute to the thread "Analogous Day Interpretation". Socratism and I had a great discussion about it, we missed you there half way through. It would be good to talk it over with you.


I believe they were days like those of the working week because of the direct comparison in Exodus 20:8-11, as well as the fact that yôm in Genesis 1 had an evening/morning and numeric.

Yes, we should continue this discussion. I hope you will start the "Analogous Day Interpretation" back up for us.


Oh yeah, that's right, God loves whales so much (according to Ross) that he let them go extinct.

The death before the fall issue...

Natural Law Theodicy answers this well. We could start a thread perhaps in Apologetics. Let me know if you do (maybe PM me in case I miss it.)


I believe that baleen whales, toothed whales, Basilosaurus are all apobaraminic (i.e. from different created kinds), so please don't exaggerate my taxonomic "lumping".

Is there a set standard you or AiG has developed--like a chart or something? I'd very much like to see it.

If there were no set guidelines, you will have people like me who would not see any difference between your whale example and say, humans, apes, monkeys, gorillas, Neandertals being of the same "kind"...(Of course, as it is, I do not even see Neandertal and human as being the same species as you do.


Quite a variety of issues actually, including Jesus on the authority of Scripture, yeah lots of pro-life ones, wine in the Bible, anti-KJVO. Shows my wide-ranging interests, despite some attempts to dismiss me as a single-issue fanatic.

And I do agree with you on many subjects, I am sure.



It's hardly arrogant to defend myself with facts! E.g. a record number of pearls, that can't be explained away by alleged pearl hoarding, since I gave you some for your posts on morality. I thought they should stand on their own merit, and unlike you I wasn't prejudiced against them because of disagreements in an unrelated area.

It was not my disagreement with you in science, but in your attitude, that prevented me from giving you the pearls for the posts about morality. I can't tell you how YEC's who operate in the same mode as you have given me much personal grief, even in my own church. It's the attitude, not that I could not overlook our disagreements in science.

I am concerned for your witness--the way in which you witness. I am also concerned for AiG.

AiG's "Operation Refute Compomise" is as "one who stirs up strife between brethern" and has and will be a root of division between Christian brethern.

No, it was for this that I could not give you pearls, so you could advertise your great pearls of "wisdom" when in actuality, your manners have stumbled many by now.


But you agree with RTB's attack on the great saintly scholar Archbishop Ussher, portraying him as a dunce wearing an "ask me about Amway" dunce cap and needing to count on his toes. :punch:

So really, it is double standards to attack YEC witnessing while condoning unethical tactics from your own.

You have the double standard to call a comic "unethical tactics" when AiG continues to send out "attack packs" and what not against their brethern and encourages its followers to "challenge" their church leadership to take a stand against the day/age interpretation. AiG is guilty of stirring up strife, I can testify to that in my own church.


Once again, until you have shown that you can walk by grasping even simple qualitative aspects, you are in no position to learn to run by detailed qualitative case-by-case analysis. For goodness's sake, what part don't you understand about a programmed coordinated multi-step process was disrupted somehow, so apoptosis didn't happen? And loss of such processes will never add up to new kinds. And RTB has already shown that it's above their heads -- on one radio program ostensibly to deal with it, it was only 3/4 of the way through their tedious breadcast that Rana even attempted to address it. And in the process he managed to get off-side with the IDM, whose favor RTB tries to curry.

Hey, I am not claiming to be able to "walk", but I know of people who can run marathons, and I would very much like to have clear model to show them. It's science, right? Science is suppose to be testable.

(If you happen to have the ear of AiG, you may want to tell them that it would be great to have their information model in regard to the relationship between "kinds" and "species" in a scientifically testable format so that it can be critiqued. If it withstands (as it should if it was how God actually did it) then more power to you. What could you loose?

[Socrates]

How do you feel about the ID movement?
Has its good points and defects. AiG put it well at www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_idm.asp


Will you further distance yourself because it gives up so much young earth apologetics for these benefits?
What do you mean? Their stuff doesn't impinge on the age of the earth. In any case, AiG's design articles at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/design.asp are clearly better anyway!


Because behavior is important to consider. If they don't behave that way now in the wild, by what basis do you assume they acted differently only the few thousands of years ago that you proclaim?
The reason tigers and lions don't interbreed normally is that they live on different continents! And their differences are due to isolation and selection from pre-existing genes. But in our zoos they manage to interbreed perfectly well. E.g. in the Samsung Everland safari park in South Korea, Saryong the lion and Myoung Rang the tigress fell in love at first growl, and produced ligers. They mature to become the world's largest cats, with the strength of a lion and speed of a tiger.

This is evidence that the original big cat kind was closer to the liger, and the lions and tigers have depleted gene pools. The same is true of the breeds of dogs compared to wolves, bottlenose dolphins and false killer whale compared to wholphins, and white and black humans compared to the mid-brown of Adam and Eve.

The principle of sorting out existing genetic information is the same in all cases. Ross has to resort to a God-of-the-gaps explanation to explain God planting human skin color variation at Babel to aid separation. However, the main pigment in skin is melanin, and people merely have different amounts of this. Similarly eye and hair color is mainly due to different amounts of melanin. Note the eye colors are caused not by differential absorption by pigments but by differential scattering by melanin granules in the iris (sky color is also cause by differential scattering). So the explanation in principle is the same as for the origin of skin colors -- Where did the human races come from? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html). The punnett square below (from AiG) assumes that there are two loci for genes controlling the amount of melanin, and there are two possible alleles each. Therefore it gives the shades of skin colour possible with AaBb X AaBb. If anything, this is an understatement.

Note that the combinations aaBB X aaBB and AAbb X AAbb will be able to produce ONLY medium-brown-skinned children. But AaBb parents can produce all the skin colors in the square. In fact, even in India today, this is quite common.


You only have your interpretation of the Bible, which is only that--an interpretation.
Please spare us this boring existentialism. I've already explained that the YE/global flood view is the only one that follows from Scripture alone without imposing uniformitarian "science" over it. If you disagree, show us all from Scripture.


Question of the day: why do you even bother with science, anyway? What do you hope to "prove" by it when your interpretation of the Bible has all the science you need in it?
Yawn :zzz: I've already explained ministerial v magisterial uses of science to you on this thread. Science is fine if it is ministerial (submitting to the propositions of Scripture and deducing theorems from them) rather than magisterial (presuming to sit in judgment upon Scripture).


For example, orangutans, gorillas, Neadertal. Of the same "kind"? How can you tell, according to your theory on "kinds"? They all seem pretty similar to me.
Nope, all different, and this is true of their development too. The creationist paleoanthropologist Dr Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer assigned Neandertals to the basic type Homininae along with us; gorillas to Gorillinae and orangs to yet another. This is in the IDM book edited by Dembski, Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design, IVP 1998, where Ross is also a contributor, so check for yourself!


Thing is, Socartes, it is not a loss of information that is hard to explain, but the increase. From what I have read, the atheists are hard pressed to show how information can increase. The ratio of beneficial to harmful mutations is pretty extreme.
Who doubts that? And even these beneficial mutations in almost all cases turn out to be information losses, as explained about wingless beetles and blind cave fish.


I have no problem with "sub species". And often it is not that they "could no longer" but that they "would" no longer interbreed. Behavior is important. Even so, this is a far cry from the speciation required in your "how did Noah get all those animals on board, anyway" apologetic.
Why? Prove it. And I don't mean, claiming that a few thousand kinds of land vertebrates on the Ark could give rise to millions of kinds of ALL creatures!


There are excellent arguments for an old earth that are scripturally based. You don't need science to come to the conclusion that the days in Genesis are not 24 hours long.
So why didn't any Christian exegete come to this conclusion before the rise of uniformitarian geology? Apart from a few in the Alexandrian school who tried to compress the Hexaëmeron into an instant, the opposite of what day-ages claim!


Is there a set standard you or AiG has developed--like a chart or something? I'd very much like to see it.
The Baraminology Study Group have a number of additive and subtractive criteria, the former in their hybrid database.


Of course, as it is, I do not even see Neandertal and human as being the same species as you do.
As do a number of paleoanthropologists who claim that hybrids have been found.


It was not my disagreement with you in science, but in your attitude, that prevented me from giving you the pearls for the posts about morality.
Pearls and reps are ostensibly to reward posts not people. I acted in the spirit of this by rewarding one of yours.


I can't tell you how YEC's who operate in the same mode as you have given me much personal grief, even in my own church. It's the attitude, not that I could not overlook our disagreements in science.
Don't blame me for what happens in your church. And how do we know that your agressive anti-YEC attitude is not responsible.


AiG's "Operation Refute Compomise" is as "one who stirs up strife between brethern" and has and will be a root of division between Christian brethern.
Why? Paul identifies the those who bring divisions as those who bring doctrines contrary to the Apostles' (Romans 16:17). And I know for a fact from eye-witness reports that Ross does just what you whinge about. In a large church in my country, he had a double session: the first, he preached these unctious warm things about unity and not dividing over the age issue; in the second, he attacked YECs by name. No doubt Charleen will find some way to justify it, since anything goes when attacking YECs, even abetting atheists.


You have the double standard to call a comic "unethical tactics" when AiG continues to send out "attack packs" and what not against their brethern and encourages its followers to "challenge" their church leadership to take a stand against the day/age interpretation. AiG is guilty of stirring up strife, I can testify to that in my own church.
Rubbish -- the nearest thing would be the Progressive Creationism Attack Pack (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/4055ad1a004ace412719ccfd844c067e/Product/View/40&2D1&2D035). Note, attack on the false teaching, not people! Ross also kills thousands of trees attacking the YEC view. But he went further and mocked a saintly and scholarly person, Ussher.


(If you happen to have the ear of AiG, you may want to tell them that it would be great to have their information model in regard to the relationship between "kinds" and "species" in a scientifically testable format so that it can be critiqued.
If you happen to have the ear of RtB, you may want to tell them that it would be great to explain what they mean by "species" in a scientifically testable format so that it can be critiqued. At present, they have no answer to observed speciation, but would have no trouble if they were not so dogmatic in equating kinds with modern taxonomic species, which is just a man-made designation.

[kuboes1831]

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Beautiful Truth " There are excellent arguments for an old earth that are scripturally based. You don't need science to come to the conclusion that the days in Genesis are not 24 hours long."

To which Socrates aka we all know "So why didn't any Christian exegete come to this conclusion before the rise of uniformitarian geology?"

What is uniformitarian geology and when did it start? Be clear about this.
At the risk of oversimplifying Hutton introduced it in about 1780 but most geologists didn't accept it and worked away at the rocks as non-uniformitarians, until the 1830s when Lyell published Principles of Geology and many partially bought into Uniformitarianism. These were the old-earth catastrophists who were anti hutton and anti- uniformitarian.

So did Chrsitan exegetes accept an old earth before Uniformitariansim? Those who accepted the days were more than 24 hr days were Burnett and Whiston in the 1690s - they couldnt have heard of Hutton unless they had the gift of prophecy.
Fr J Needham in the 1750s - an excellent work in French, with a careful discussion of Genesis
Now Buffon (who kept his Christianity out of his bed) knew his exegesis and took over other pepoles ideas and expounded them in the 1760s
Also Jean de Luc writng to Queen Caroline of Britain from 1776 and thus too early to have read Hutton. de Luc was a good geologist and exegete.

And then theree are the post-Hutton catastrophists Geoerge Faber in 1816, and the Christian geolgists Buckland, Conybeare and sedgwick among others from 1815 to 1830 . and Joseph Townsend in 1810.

Now these are some who accepted a long day . Then there were alos lots who accepted first the creation of chaos and then a subsequent re-creation in 6 days and there a loads from 1600 until 1850 as it was the dominant view.
Not especially Bishop Patrick in 1690 a fine exegete.

In fact from 1600 onwards 6 24 hour day exegetes like Ussher were in the minority, but were a large minority until about 1810 or so when they all but disappeared.

Soc wrote "Why? Paul identifies the those who bring divisions as those who bring doctrines contrary to the Apostles' (Romans 16:17). "
Where do the apostles say that one has to be young earth? Nowhere in the canonical New Testament but only in the Gospel according to YEC.

Socrates get your facts right.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Please spare us this boring existentialism. I've already explained that the YE/global flood view is the only one that follows from Scripture alone without imposing uniformitarian "science" over it. If you disagree, show us all from Scripture.

I'll start another thread. But I have shown from scripture already in posts in various threads. I'll have to condense in one thread.



Yawn :zzz: I've already explained ministerial v magisterial uses of science to you on this thread. Science is fine if it is ministerial (submitting to the propositions of Scripture and deducing theorems from them) rather than magisterial (presuming to sit in judgment upon Scripture).

Again, why bother?



Nope, all different, and this is true of their development too. The creationist paleoanthropologist Dr Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer assigned Neandertals to the basic type Homininae along with us; gorillas to Gorillinae and orangs to yet another. This is in the IDM book edited by Dembski, Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design, IVP 1998, where Ross is also a contributor, so check for yourself!

What, did you think I thought they were related or something! That has been my beef with you YEC's! (regarding primates that walk on two legs!)

My point was that with your flood speciation model, it seems you group them morphologically. If so, then gorillas, orangutans, Neandertal, and humans are all kind of similar. My question was to show how precarious you definition can be taken, not that I actually take it.



Why? Prove it. And I don't mean, claiming that a few thousand kinds of land vertebrates on the Ark could give rise to millions of kinds of ALL creatures!

I have never said all creatures, but land dwelling, air breathing creatures.



Pearls and reps are ostensibly to reward posts not people. I acted in the spirit of this by rewarding one of yours.

You use yours for the wrong reason, (like boasting) that is why I refrained. I did not want to be a part of it.



Don't blame me for what happens in your church. And how do we know that your agressive anti-YEC attitude is not responsible.

I was not agressive, by any means. Most people in my church do not even know I am an old earth creationist. This brother could not stand that my husband is an elder at church and that I teach women's studies, though my husband and I never held a class on creation or anything related.

The thing is, he knew my stand through a discussion we had on science and then he badgered our poor pastor for years with AiG info. He was the agressive one. He finnally left because He could not get his way (Hence my poll about leaving a church if it did not take a stand against (non-evolution)old earth creationism).

Now my husband and I have spoken about our old earth/day age beliefs more in the past two months than we have in the last five years combined because of the strife this brother has caused and people asking us questions. When he left the church he spoke in typical AiG fashion so people have been curious as to my husband and my beliefs ("Could they really be compromisers, I mean, they have been here in leadership and have taught nothing but the gospel...?). Prior to this, they had no idea. So, in actuality, AiG's Operation refute compromise may have actually worked to further the case for old earth creationism in my church. :smile:



Why? Paul identifies the those who bring divisions as those who bring doctrines contrary to the Apostles' (Romans 16:17). And I know for a fact from eye-witness reports that Ross does just what you whinge about. In a large church in my country, he had a double session: the first, he preached these unctious warm things about unity and not dividing over the age issue; in the second, he attacked YECs by name. No doubt Charleen will find some way to justify it, since anything goes when attacking YECs, even abetting atheists.

I'd have to hear the details and his side of the story.



If you happen to have the ear of RtB, you may want to tell them that it would be great to explain what they mean by "species" in a scientifically testable format so that it can be critiqued. At present, they have no answer to observed speciation, but would have no trouble if they were not so dogmatic in equating kinds with modern taxonomic species, which is just a man-made designation.

I'll see what I can do! :smile:

[kuboes1831]

Charleen, keep at it and try to sort out Socrates ' nonsense. It is you who are the orthodox creationist not him. He twists and turns and distorts all he says and wont answer hard quesxtions but bludgeons his way through.
also you demonstrate that love and truth cnnot be seperated

Kuboes, I have asked Soc to not be rude and now he has complied. You also keep the spirit of this section of the forum and do not be rude as this post was. Leave it to the moderators to clear up disciplinary issues and do not make posts that are nothing more than an attack upon another poster. Take it to the Locker Room.

[bar Jonah]

Yeah, take a look at the history of the church and tell us that the billions-of-years view is the orthodox view! Puh-lease! :lmbo:

Who gives a rat's tuchis if one view or the other is "orthodox?" Being the mainstream view doesn't make one correct! Fallacy of majority! :shrug:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yeah, take a look at the history of the church and tell us that the billions-of-years view is the orthodox view! Puh-lease! :lmbo:

Who gives a rat's tuchis if one view or the other is "orthodox?" Being the mainstream view doesn't make one correct! Fallacy of majority! :shrug:

I believe William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Norm Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, Francis Shaffer, Chuck Colson, John Ankerburg, Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser to be competent thinkers and scholars--and they have not the problem you and Socrates has about the days being long ages.

You may call it a "fallacy of majority" but I would call it having wise councel. They may differ on the particulars, but they do not see the big deal about it.

[Socrates]

Soc wrote "Why? Paul identifies the those who bring divisions as those who bring doctrines contrary to the Apostles' (Romans 16:17). "
Where do the apostles say that one has to be young earth? Nowhere in the canonical New Testament but only in the Gospel according to YEC.

Jesus and the Apostles taught a young earth. Jesus says in Mark 10:6,

‘But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.’
In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.
Romans 1:20 makes it plain that people can clearly see God’s power by looking at the ‘things that are made’, and that people have been able to see this ‘from the creation of the world’.

All these examples say that Adam and Eve, the prophets, and man's observation of God's power were around at the beginning, not billions of years after creation. For example, Adam and Eve were created on Day 6, which is about 0.0004% away from the beginning on a 4 ka time line. But if Homo sapiens date from 160 ka in a 15 Ga old universe, that's almost at the end of the number line, as the graphic below shows.


Socrates get your facts right.
So why not demonstrate long-age belief in the church before the rise of uniformitarian-deistic thinking and I don't just mean Hutton. Note that I don't mean anti-Christians like Buffon. Also, prove that Ussher was in the minority. People like Kepler and Newton likewise were YECs. Fact is, Ussher's date was in a long line of Church Fathers and Reformers. I'm heartily sick of Ross and his followers who claim lots of long-day belief in the Church, thoroughly refuted at What did the early writers say about Genesis? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2747).

[kuboes1831]

There is no reply to Socrates who misreads scripture and gets his facts wrong

[bar Jonah]

Misreads? He's quoting it pretty directly.

You, on the other hand, are bragging about a bunch of fallible men who are your "wise council." Who gives a flying fig what a bunch of fallible men believe? Give me God's infallible word, any day.

Mere men are NOT authority for doctrine! Not in history, not today, not ever. SO many men in the history of the church have spouted falsehoods, it makes one's head spin.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Misreads? He's quoting it pretty directly.

You, on the other hand, are bragging about a bunch of fallible men who are your "wise council." Who gives a flying fig what a bunch of fallible men believe? Give me God's infallible word, any day.

Mere men are NOT authority for doctrine! Not in history, not today, not ever. SO many men in the history of the church have spouted falsehoods, it makes one's head spin.

You are fallible, too.

I do not believe your Bible interpretation. Now, are you going to say like Socrates that your interpretation actually is the text? I don't doubt that you would confuse one's interpretation with the actual text, but I just wanted to be sure.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Jesus and the Apostles taught a young earth. Jesus says in Mark 10:6,

‘But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.’

Do you believe He was wrong? Adam and Eve were not created at the beginning, but five days later. No, use the context--He is speaking of the institution of marriage.



In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


Was Jesus mistaken again? Abel was not slain at the foundation of the world. He was probably at the very least a young man by the time he died. Was Jesus mistaken? No, of course not. Context would be important.

[A Beautiful Truth]

You have the double standard to call a comic "unethical tactics" when AiG continues to send out "attack packs" and what not against their brethern and encourages its followers to "challenge" their church leadership to take a stand against the day/age interpretation. AiG is guilty of stirring up strife, I can testify to that in my own church.




Rubbish -- the nearest thing would be the Progressive Creationism Attack Pack (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/4055ad1a004ace412719ccfd844c067e/Product/View/40&2D1&2D035). Note, attack on the false teaching, not people!


The following snip was from an article from the PCA's website. The article is called "One Explanation of the Creation Dilema" by Ray Williams

"Although this overwhelming and irrefutable evidence should be good news to Christians, since it proves that there must be a Creator, the reality is that young-earth advocates have resorted to vicious attacks on people like astronomer/theologian Hugh Ross and his Reasons-to-Believe ministry. At his presentations, people confrontationally try to disrupt his message, to seeking unbelievers, by distributing their “Attack Pack” material that disparages his character. In a fund raising letter for the organization Answers-in-Genesis, Ross is referred to as “the enemy from within,” an enemy “more dangerous and destructive” than any from without. Because of his so-called “deadly compromise teachings” he is compared to the deceivers mentioned in Acts 20. "

I am not the only one who sees AiG's vicious attacks against their brothers. Hugh Ross is mentioned in a good way on PCA's website, you might want to check it out.

You are wrong about AiG not mentioning Ross by name, perhaps you just did not know? or forgot?

[kofh2u]

Jesus and the Apostles taught a young earth. Jesus says in Mark 10:6,

‘But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.’
In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.
Romans 1:20 makes it plain that people can clearly see God’s power by looking at the ‘things that are made’, and that people have been able to see this ‘from the creation of the world’.

All these examples say that Adam and Eve, the prophets, and man's observation of God's power were around at the beginning, not billions of years after creation. For example, Adam and Eve were created on Day 6, which is about 0.0004% away from the beginning on a 4 ka time line. But if Homo sapiens date from 160 ka in a 15 Ga old universe, that's almost at the end of the number line, as the graphic below shows.


So why not demonstrate long-age belief in the church before the rise of uniformitarian-deistic thinking and I don't just mean Hutton. Note that I don't mean anti-Christians like Buffon. Also, prove that Ussher was in the minority. People like Kepler and Newton likewise were YECs. Fact is, Ussher's date was in a long line of Church Fathers and Reformers. I'm heartily sick of Ross and his followers who claim lots of long-day belief in the Church, thoroughly refuted at What did the early writers say about Genesis? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2747).


Rev. 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am a large denominational church, and increased with tithes, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art without secularly acceptable scripture confirmations, and defensive of erroneous doctrine, and in decline of church membership, and trapped in Dogma, and unprotected from an ever growing Age of Enlightment:

[kofh2u]

There is no reply to Socrates who misreads scripture and gets his facts wrong


Well, not misreads... its the eord "yowm." It means a long duration of time, but it can mean day. A yom can be a 1000 years tonThe Word. Or, as on the 4th yowm of creation... a regular 24 hpur day.

So... reading Genesis in this age, the Age of Scientific Enlightenment, we get Genesis more clearly as follows:

Gen. 1:5 And The Universal Force called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the Azoic Era. (1)


Gen. 1:8 And The Universal Force called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the Archeozoic Era. (2)

Gen. 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the Proterozoic Era. (3)


Gen. 1:14 And The Universal Force said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for symbolic references, and for the four seasons, and for (24 hour) days, and (365 day) years:
Gen. 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the Paleozoic Era. (4)


Gen. 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the Mesozoic Era. (5)


Gen. 1:31 And The Universal Force saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the Cenozoic Era. (6)

Gen. 2:2 And upon the short few, four thousand millennia of years, a Seventh Era of Geological Time begins, the Universe ended its work of which it had made all living creatures; and it rested, seemimgly, on this seventh Era from all its work which it had made.

[seer]

Jesus and the Apostles taught a young earth. Jesus says in Mark 10:6,

‘But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.’
In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.
Romans 1:20 makes it plain that people can clearly see God’s power by looking at the ‘things that are made’, and that people have been able to see this ‘from the creation of the world’.

All these examples say that Adam and Eve, the prophets, and man's observation of God's power were around at the beginning, not billions of years after creation. For example, Adam and Eve were created on Day 6, which is about 0.0004% away from the beginning on a 4 ka time line. But if Homo sapiens date from 160 ka in a 15 Ga old universe, that's almost at the end of the number line, as the graphic below shows.


So why not demonstrate long-age belief in the church before the rise of uniformitarian-deistic thinking and I don't just mean Hutton. Note that I don't mean anti-Christians like Buffon. Also, prove that Ussher was in the minority. People like Kepler and Newton likewise were YECs. Fact is, Ussher's date was in a long line of Church Fathers and Reformers. I'm heartily sick of Ross and his followers who claim lots of long-day belief in the Church, thoroughly refuted at What did the early writers say about Genesis? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2747).

Hey Socrates, I hear you are a YEC. I started a thread on the subject here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22389

Of course I am getting beat up by christians and non-christians alike. Would it be possible for you to e-mail me? I have a couple of quick questions.

[Socrates]

Do you believe He was wrong? Adam and Eve were not created at the beginning, but five days later.
5 days on the scale of 4,000 years, is almost indistinguishable from the beginning -- 0.0004% away, which is insignificant when the Bible typically uses whole number accuracy.


No, use the context--He is speaking of the institution of marriage.
What crap -- this phrase always refers to the beginning of the creation itself. Just compare other passages where this phrase is clearly used of the whole creation.
Mark 13:19 ‘For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.’
2 Peter 3:4 ‘[Scoffers say] “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.”’
:doh: What are you trying to say -- they were not male and female before they married? What were they, hermaphrodites? :huh:


Was Jesus mistaken again?
No, I leave it to old-earth compromisers to imply that. Especially when Charleen's idol Ross goes to books by Christ-haters like Ian Plimer to try to get dirt on YECs. Not that Charleen would mind, because Ross can do no wrong in her eyes.


Abel was not slain at the foundation of the world. He was probably at the very least a young man by the time he died.
Since Seth was a replacement for Abel and was born when Adam was 130 (Genesis 4:25, 5:3), then Abel’s death would have occurred only 3% of the way into that timeline

[Socrates]

From St John Chrysostom (347–407), Bishop of Constantinople, regarded as a Doctor of the Church because of his doctrinal insights, while his name means "Golden-mouthed" because of his eloquence in preaching. In his Homilies on Genesis, he said:

24:3 [God tells Noah that] Men have performed so much evil that their impiety has poured out and covered the whole earth. Therefore I will destroy both them and the earth. Since they themselves have already destroyed themselves beforehand by their iniquities, I will bring complete perdiction and exterminate them and the earth, so that the earth might be cleansed and delivered from the defilement of so many sins.

....

25:6 Fifteen cubits upwards was the water raised above the mountains. Not without reason does the Scripture reveal this to us, but so that we might know that those who drowned were not only men and cattle and four-footed beasts and reptiles, but also the birds of the heavens and all the beasts and other irrational creatures which dwelt in the mountains.

....

Behold how the Scripture once and twice and many times informs us that there occurred a universal destruction, that not a single creature was saved, but all drowned in water—both men and animals.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Alright, Socrates, we will see how long it goes before you are back on my ignore list.


5 days on the scale of 4,000 years, is almost indistinguishable from the beginning -- 0.0004% away, which is insignificant when the Bible typically uses whole number accuracy.

You do not understand that "beginning" is not referring to these numbers. "Beginning" is all that time up and including when God created Adam and Eve. By demanding these numbers you miss the concept. It does not really matter how long it took--once man was created the creation week ended. That whole week is included in the beginning--it does not matter how long it took. BTW--the "beginning" lasted longer than the "last days" will, IMO.




What crap

Watch your language. Where are your manners? Does debate give you some licence that you would not otherwise possess? Would you address me this way in person at your church?


No, I leave it to old-earth compromisers to imply that. Especially when Charleen's idol Ross goes to books by Christ-haters like Ian Plimer to try to get dirt on YECs. Not that Charleen would mind, because Ross can do no wrong in her eyes.

Socrates, please address me and my views and let me debate on what I have said, and not another. I think you must do this always mentioning of Dr. Ross to get more public attacks on him because you despise him so. And please stop accusing me of idol worship, I have no "idol"--the Lord is my God. If you keep it up I will consider it slander.

[Socrates]

Socrates, please address me and my views and let me debate on what I have said, and not another. I think you must do this always mentioning of Dr. Ross to get more public attacks on him because you despise him so. Nope, you condone everything he does while he plays the martyr. Yoking with a proven God-hater and liar like Ian Plimer is wallowing in the dregs of the cesspool.

[A Beautiful Truth]

edited by a moderator
Has he yoked with Ian Plimer? What does that mean? Should I know who Ian Plimer is? Have we discussed him before?

[Socrates]

Has he yoked with Ian Plimer?
I would say so:

‘Here is yet another manifestation of what geologist Ian Plimer said of young-earth creationists in his book, Telling Lies for God. Plimer observes that these folks make every effort “to silence, discredit or belittle” those who dare to challenge their views’. (letter to Charisma, Sept. 2003, p. 10).


What does that mean? Should I know who Ian Plimer is? Have we discussed him before?
He was Australian Humanist of the Year (1995), and his book mocks the Bible and tells a number of lies himself. An independent inquiry by Christian leaders not associated with AiG concluded:

The grave allegations and/or innuendo against the ethics of CSF [the old name for AiG -- :soc:] and its Directors are not supported by the evidence. What the evidence does establish is that CSF and its Directors have been often, and seriously, misrepresented.

CSF conducts its affairs in an appropriately open and thoroughly principled and ethical manner as befits a Christian ministry seeking to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Even some of Plimer's fellow atheists have rejected Plimer's book. Jeffrey Shallit described this as 'a shoddily-written polemic that, in places, verges on the hysterical' and documents examples of poor grammar, straw-man arguments, and the worst academic sin, plagiarism [ http://math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/plimer.html ]. Another sceptic, Jim Lippard, has described some passages in the book as being 'nothing less than a dishonest hatchet job', and uses Plimer as an example of 'How not to argue with creationists' [ http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/plimer-book.html ].

Plimer on a University of Newcastle letterhead, he said of an American creationist scientist who was vising Australia: ‘ … you would surely have noticed an entourage of young people (principally boys) accompanying [him] and who continually touched him.’ (the creationist always travelled with his wife or the couple he was billeted with).

Plimer was the darling of the Australian Skeptics and the liberal media. But he has gone to ground after failing in court cases (against an organisation not connected to AiG). Another reason is, like all bullies he's a coward, and now AiG can hit back hard on a website that gets over a million visitors (not hits) a month -- see More nonsense from Professor Plimer (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0406news.asp)

[Dee Dee Warren]

The constant mentioning and belittling of Ross is old. Guess what? He could be Adolf Hitler and still be right on some things. This gunning ceaselessly for another Christian is senseless. He is a Christian. And RTB is a Christian ministry, despite the words of one AiG publication in which RTB was called an "ostensibly Christian ministry."

We don't need to be so viscious towards each other.

They will know we are Christians by our age of the earth doctrine, by our age of the earht doctine.....


Oh that isn't how it goes is it?

[Socratism]

Dee Dee,
I do not completely agree with you over the Ross issue.

I believe that people like him are more dangerous to the Christian cause than any atheist could be, for he plays fast and loose with scripture and in so doing encourages his readers to do likewise.

Thus, it is extremely important that his views be thoroughly discussed and exposed as unscriptural. It is also important to demonstrate the weaknesses in the scientific theories regarding the creation of the universe and heavenly bodies as well as the creation of life and the original kinds of lifeforms.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Greeting Socratism


Dee Dee,
I do not completely agree with you over the Ross issue.

but you do not completely disagree which is good



I believe that people like him are more dangerous to the Christian cause than any atheist could be, for he plays fast and loose with scripture and in so doing encourages his readers to do likewise.

Then we engage the arguments and do not engage in a mean spirited campaign of inflammtory rhetoric. I think futurists such as Van Impe, Lindsay, etc can be more damaging then atheists. We engage the arguments.



Thus, it is extremely important that his views be thoroughly discussed and exposed as unscriptural. It is also important to demonstrate the weaknesses in the scientific theories regarding the creation of the universe and heavenly bodies as well as the creation of life and the original kinds of lifeforms.

Yes and we can do that with a different tone then has been done towards both AiG and RTB by both sides.

[Socrates]

The constant mentioning and belittling of Ross is old. Guess what? He could be Adolf Hitler and still be right on some things.
Tell me something I don't know. I was responding to his continual martyr complex, and his cheerleaders like Jason and Charleen who play the "poor persecuted Ross" line. I'm sick of their hypocrisy. And I note not the slightest question for Ross citing a rabid God-hater's book with approval, without any indication that his book has been shown to be highly misleading.


This gunning ceaselessly for another Christian is senseless. He is a Christian. And RTB is a Christian ministry, despite the words of one AiG publication in which RTB was called an "ostensibly Christian ministry."
I couldn't find any. I did find one where the "ostensibly" modified "apologetics", and that's more understandable because his ministry doesn't really defend the Bible but uniformitarian "science".


We don't need to be so viscious towards each other.
Exactly, so why is Ross so vicious towards YECs? :huh:

[Sheepdog]

Actually, i'm sure many of you are aware of my doubts of the YEC timeline for creation...

but, even i have to admit this is ridiculous. i honestly cannot see anyway of interpreting the Bible account in a way other than for it to mean that all the world was covered in water. i've tried. the only way i can see a "local" flood here is if one take this be some isolated event that was mythologically snowballed into a global disaster. at least those who consider much of the OT as fiction or legend are more consistent than those who try to strain a local flood out of the given language.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I couldn't find any. I did find one where the "ostensibly" modified "apologetics", and that's more understandable because his ministry doesn't really defend the Bible but uniformitarian "science".

I threw out the publication in disgust. All I remember is that it was on shiny paper, the words appeared as a caption underneath a color inset photo of the night sky, in an article authored by Dr. Sarfati. Are you saying it said "ostensibly Christian apologetics ministry"? That is still claiming it is not a Christian ministry and my objection stands. If that has AiG's approval, I will seriously have to further resonsider my support of AiG.


EDITED TO ADD: I found the article I saw in a print form online here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/comets.asp


The Canadian-born astronomer Hugh Ross is the leading proponent of the view that the days of Genesis 1 were billions of years long. He has influenced many leading evangelicals, and is president of the ostensibly Christian apologetics ministry, Reasons to Believe, in California. As his testimony makes clear, his compromise in Genesis is due to his faith in the ‘big bang’. This leads him into all sorts of unorthodox views, such as millions of years of death and suffering before Adam; plants feeling pain; a local flood; manlike creatures that created art, superglue, and made ocean voyages but didn’t have souls, etc.

So you are correct in the wording. But my objection remains. If RTB had called AiG that, you would be up in arms. The funny thing is here that I don't personally care for or buy into RTB's claims. In the noninflammatory sense of the word, I do think they "compromise" - however, the extreme bile that is flung against them is unnecessary IMHO and that is reciprocal. We can show they are wrong, and even compromising perhaps in different ways.

I also take issue above with "unorthoox" - which may be true in a very broad sense of the word, but that carries the connotation of being something that puts one outside the faith. I know it does not necessarily mean that, but in this volatile area we need to be cautious and very precise.



Exactly, so why is Ross so vicious towards YECs? :huh:

Why are you so obsessed with Ross? Furthermore, "he started it" didn't fly in kindergarten and it doesn't fly now. If you wish to take this up in the Locker Room, be my guest. It is perturbing that each cosmogony thread you participate in (almost without exception) turns into this.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I would say so:

‘Here is yet another manifestation of what geologist Ian Plimer said of young-earth creationists in his book, Telling Lies for God. Plimer observes that these folks make every effort “to silence, discredit or belittle” those who dare to challenge their views’. (letter to Charisma, Sept. 2003, p. 10).


He was Australian Humanist of the Year (1995), and his book mocks the Bible and tells a number of lies himself. An independent inquiry by Christian leaders not associated with AiG concluded:

The grave allegations and/or innuendo against the ethics of CSF [the old name for AiG -- :soc:] and its Directors are not supported by the evidence. What the evidence does establish is that CSF and its Directors have been often, and seriously, misrepresented.

CSF conducts its affairs in an appropriately open and thoroughly principled and ethical manner as befits a Christian ministry seeking to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Even some of Plimer's fellow atheists have rejected Plimer's book. Jeffrey Shallit described this as 'a shoddily-written polemic that, in places, verges on the hysterical' and documents examples of poor grammar, straw-man arguments, and the worst academic sin, plagiarism [ http://math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/plimer.html ]. Another sceptic, Jim Lippard, has described some passages in the book as being 'nothing less than a dishonest hatchet job', and uses Plimer as an example of 'How not to argue with creationists' [ http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/plimer-book.html ].

Plimer on a University of Newcastle letterhead, he said of an American creationist scientist who was vising Australia: ‘ … you would surely have noticed an entourage of young people (principally boys) accompanying [him] and who continually touched him.’ (the creationist always travelled with his wife or the couple he was billeted with).

Plimer was the darling of the Australian Skeptics and the liberal media. But he has gone to ground after failing in court cases (against an organisation not connected to AiG). Another reason is, like all bullies he's a coward, and now AiG can hit back hard on a website that gets over a million visitors (not hits) a month -- see More nonsense from Professor Plimer (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0406news.asp)

So if you also quote an atheist in any context, are you, by definition, "yoking" with him??

[A Beautiful Truth]

Dee Dee,
I do not completely agree with you over the Ross issue.

I believe that people like him are more dangerous to the Christian cause than any atheist could be, for he plays fast and loose with scripture and in so doing encourages his readers to do likewise.

Could I abandon the day age view that Ross holds yet still believe in an old earth and Framework and not be considered playing "fast and loose" with scripture? IOW is it any other view than the 24 hour view that doesn't "play fast and loose with scripture?"

I think if you said yes, you are really isolating yourself from your Christian brethern and may be falling into an unreasonable mindset. There are *plenty* of Bible scholars who accept other views than 24 hour view--are you saying that they are *all* playing "fast and loose with scripture" because they do not accept the 24 hour day view?

I am sincerely asking. Perhaps is it just the day age view in your estimation that "plays fast and loose". I want to know what you think about others who hold other view beside the 24 hour view, like: Francis Shaffer, C.S. Lewis, Greg Koukl, Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, J.P. Moreland, John Ankerburg--do you say *all* these men "play fast and loose" with scripture?

[Socratism]

[Socratism]

AiG offers a non-Christian book on their website (gasp!) that debunks the 24 hour view of Genesis in its first chapter. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.

For anyone who does not own a copy of Denton's book let me say that he does not mention the 24 hour view in his first chapter.

What Denton does in that chapter is to trace the history of the evolutionary movement and the resistence to it by Christians who believed in the fixity of species. It was the idea that species (whatever that is) were fixed and the equating of the term species with the biblical kind that eventually caused many who had accepted the fixity of species to doubt the biblical account, although the trend toward assigning vast ages to geological structures undoubtedly was equally important.

Denton simply gave a history lesson that nobody doubts is true history, and was not engaged in any overt attempt to discredit Christians and their beliefs.

Shame on you Charleen for posting such a distorted version of Denton's book.

[Socrates]

AiG offers a non-Christian book on their website (gasp!) that debunks the 24 hour view of Genesis in its first chapter. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. Now, does that mean you *yoke* with him on *all* issues because you agree with him on his anti-Darwin science and reference his work?? It is a fault to think that because you agree with some aspects that you agree with all aspects, and this is the faulty logic you have used to slander Ross.
That is so crass even for Charleen. The point of stocking this book is presumably to show evolutionists that some scientists reject evolution on purely scientific grounds not because of a religious bias. I've found it useful for that very reason, although it's getting a bit old now.

Ross's citation of Plimer was completely different. Ross used Plimer as an "authority" of how nasty YECs were, and doesn't even mention the fact that Plimer is a rabid God-hater and that his charges against a leading YEC organisation were completely discredited.

[Socrates]

Could I abandon the day age view that Ross holds yet still believe in an old earth and Framework and not be considered playing "fast and loose" with scripture? IOW is it any other view than the 24 hour view that doesn't "play fast and loose with scripture?"
Yep. Because only the ~24-hr view is a deduction from the text of Scripture alone, as opposed to trying to fit uniformitarian "science" into Scripture.


I think if you said yes, you are really isolating yourself from Christianity and may be falling into an unreasonable mindset. There are *plenty* of Bible scholars who accept other views than 24 hour view--are you saying that they are *all* playing "fast and loose with scripture" because they do not accept the 24 hour day view?
Yep. The framework nonsense was unknown till last century, which indicates that it's not in the text but is instead a dodge to fit millions of years into the Bible. Leading frameworker Meredith Kline is explicit that his aim is to rebut YEC and make the Bible fit evolutionary "science".

All the compromise views such as day-age, gap theory and framework hypothesis violate the maxim that anything in theology that's good is not new, and that anything new is not good.


I am sincerely asking. Perhaps is it just the day age view in your estimation that "plays fast and loose". I want to know what you think about others who hold other view beside the 24 hour view, like: Francis Shaffer, C.S. Lewis, Greg Koukl, Gleason Archer, Walter Kaiser, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, J.P. Moreland, John Ankerburg--do you say *all* these men "play fast and loose" with scripture?
Of course -- I have documented that they believe in an old earth because of "science" not Scripture. Many admit that Scripture at face value teaches just what YECs say. Many of them are inconsistent as well and don't see the consequences of their ideas. Archer believed in a global flood, and Geisler believes that God originally created all animals to be vegetarian.

[Socrates]

So if you also quote an atheist in any context, are you, by definition, "yoking" with him??
Don't be silly. But I would be if I took an atheist's character assassination of believers at face value from a book where the charges had been shown to be completely false, and not tell my Christian readers of the man's anti-Christian bigotry and dishonesty.

Why doesn't Charleen concede for a change that Ross is out of line on something, e.g. citing a proven liar like Plimer and mocking cartoons of Ussher.

[Socrates]

I threw out the publication in disgust. All I remember is that it was on shiny paper, the words appeared as a caption underneath a color inset photo of the night sky, in an article authored by Dr. Sarfati. Are you saying it said "ostensibly Christian apologetics ministry"? That is still claiming it is not a Christian ministry and my objection stands. If that has AiG's approval, I will seriously have to further resonsider my support of AiG.
You're right -- it is poorly worded, even though it seemed to be in the context of the principal article citation "The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross", showing that it was the apologetics that was ostensible. I'm used to reading YEC works in the broader context, e.g. AiG's very clear statements that they consider Ross and OECs in general to be genuinely saved.


So you are correct in the wording. But my objection remains. If RTB had called AiG that, you would be up in arms. The funny thing is here that I don't personally care for or buy into RTB's claims. In the noninflammatory sense of the word, I do think they "compromise" - however, the extreme bile that is flung against them is unnecessary IMHO and that is reciprocal. We can show they are wrong, and even compromising perhaps in different ways.
What would you suggest?


I also take issue above with "unorthoox" - which may be true in a very broad sense of the word, but that carries the connotation of being something that puts one outside the faith. I know it does not necessarily mean that, but in this volatile area we need to be cautious and very precise.
What word could be substituted? Heterodox seems worse because that seems more "official". In any case, "heretical" is the usual term for people outside the faith, and I doubt that AiG calls Ross that. They seem to reserve it for people like Spong.


Why are you so obsessed with Ross?
Why do you ask leading questions?


Furthermore, "he started it" didn't fly in kindergarten and it doesn't fly now. If you wish to take this up in the Locker Room, be my guest. It is perturbing that each cosmogony thread you participate in (almost without exception) turns into this.
Takes two to tango.

[A Beautiful Truth]

For anyone who does not own a copy of Denton's book let me say that he does not mention the 24 hour view in his first chapter.

What Denton does in that chapter is to trace the history of the evolutionary movement and the resistence to it by Christians who believed in the fixity of species. It was the idea that species (whatever that is) were fixed and the equating of the term species with the biblical kind that eventually caused many who had accepted the fixity of species to doubt the biblical account, although the trend toward assigning vast ages to geological structures undoubtedly was equally important.

Denton simply gave a history lesson that nobody doubts is true history, and was not engaged in any overt attempt to discredit Christians and their beliefs.

Shame on you Charleen for posting such a distorted version of Denton's book.

I should have double checked that before I posted but I have been unable to locate my copy. It's been years since I read it. I remembered the first chapter was titled something like, "Genesis defeated" or something like that. Rebuke taken, I should have double checked, I deleted that post.

[reyvin]

Yep. Because only the ~24-hr view is a deduction from the text of Scripture alone, as opposed to trying to fit uniformitarian "science" into Scripture.

1 -The Bible itself tells us to look at nature for evidence of God and His power.
2 - It's a deduction made by YEC, sure. The history of Genesis interpretation is not unanimously 24 hour believers as you'd have us believe.
3 - Sticking scare quotes around the word science doesn't mean you've debunked modern geology and cosmology. I've asked you before and I'll ask again: Why don't you defend your interpretation of such finds in the natural science section since you profess to be a scientist yourself?

Not meaning any of that rude, just a question.


Yep. The framework nonsense was unknown till last century, which indicates that it's not in the text but is instead a dodge to fit millions of years into the Bible. Leading frameworker Meredith Kline is explicit that his aim is to rebut YEC and make the Bible fit evolutionary "science".

1 - Calling it 'nonsense' from the outset is just plain ridiculous because you don't agree with it.
2 - This same attack is thrown toward preterists yet the view fits evidence much better than the black helicopter crowd wants to admit.


All the compromise views such as day-age, gap theory and framework hypothesis violate the maxim that anything in theology that's good is not new, and that anything new is not good.

1 - It's no longer held as a hypothesis.
2 - Interpretation of Genesis is as difficult as interpreting Revelations. You've come to Genesis with a preconceived idea and are wearing blinders to everything else it seems.
3 - I've never seen your above quote anywhere in the Bible or in any doctrinal statements.


Of course -- I have documented that they believe in an old earth because of "science" not Scripture. Many admit that Scripture at face value teaches just what YECs say. Many of them are inconsistent as well and don't see the consequences of their ideas. Archer believed in a global flood, and Geisler believes that God originally created all animals to be vegetarian.

1 - Archer indeed did believe in a global flood although he believed in an ancient cosmos and that there was no problem whatsoever with the OEC stance. Since you like his flood standing, I don't happen to notice you rushing to his side to defend this extremely well respected hebrew scholar when he makes statements about creation. Hm...not picking and choosing now are we?
2 - Geislers comment (which AiG threw out of whack) was directed toward the Garden. Here it is: "God did not appoint animals to be eaten in paradise, and animals weren't eating each other". Hmmmm. Interesting.....it says in paradise. Meaning, the GoE. Context, context.

[wienerdog]

The constant mentioning and belittling of Ross is old. Guess what? He could be Adolf Hitler and still be right on some things. This gunning ceaselessly for another Christian is senseless. He is a Christian. And RTB is a Christian ministry, despite the words of one AiG publication in which RTB was called an "ostensibly Christian ministry."

We don't need to be so viscious towards each other.

They will know we are Christians by our age of the earth doctrine, by our age of the earht doctine.....


Oh that isn't how it goes is it?

Yeah, and doesn't 1 Peter 3:15 tell us to "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with obnoxiousness and a mean spirit."

And wasn't this thread supposed to be about Noah's flood or something?

[BurningBush--U]

You force scripture to make the flood global
agreed

[serapha]

agreed


Well... If we are going to resurrect this posting after two years ... then ... sobeit.


The biblical flood was world-wide... the evidence is: Water naturally flows to the lowest point on earth...

While we don't know the elevations of the mountain ridges before the flood, we can be certain that Mesopotamia wasn't an area isolated on all sides by mountains. It was the center for trade.... being isolated by mountains would have been a deterent to being a great trading center.


~serapha~

[BurningBush--U]

Well... If we are going to resurrect this posting after two years ... then ... sobeit.


The biblical flood was world-wide... the evidence is: Water naturally flows to the lowest point on earth...

While we don't know the elevations of the mountain ridges before the flood, we can be certain that Mesopotamia wasn't an area isolated on all sides by mountains. It was the center for trade.... being isolated by mountains would have been a deterent to being a great trading center.


~serapha~

ok

and the world was once covered with water before the noahs flood

[serapha]

ok

and the world was once covered with water before the noahs flood

Hi there!


:smile:

No argument here...

~serapha~

[xtreem5150ahm]

Happy Easter all!!

I didnt read the whole thread so incase this was already pointed out, then sorry...

It seems to me that if God's Word says that He made a rainbow as a sign that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood, it would be a strong indicator of one of two possibilities:

either:
1. the Bible is false

or

2. it was a global flood

because the earth does see local floods on occasion ;)

[BurningBush--U]

Happy Easter all!!

I didnt read the whole thread so incase this was already pointed out, then sorry...

It seems to me that if God's Word says that He made a rainbow as a sign that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood, it would be a strong indicator of one of two possibilities:

either:
1. the Bible is false

or

2. it was a global flood

because the earth does see local floods on occasion ;)

It is wise if you'd read also the words not just from your translation...

The Earth was at least once and I believe more than once, covered like a blanket, in all areas, with water... that creation scene in Genesis.

Noah's situation did not have to cover the whole Globe as the earth was covered in the creation.

Besides, if the whole Globe in Noa's example was covered with water, are you prepared to explain all the details? That is besides God sayz !

[xtreem5150ahm]

It is wise if you'd read also the words not just from your translation...

The Earth was at least once and I believe more than once, covered like a blanket, in all areas, with water... that creation scene in Genesis.

Noah's situation did not have to cover the whole Globe as the earth was covered in the creation.

Besides, if the whole Globe in Noa's example was covered with water, are you prepared to explain all the details? That is besides God sayz !


Just to get this straight, your main contention with my post is with:


either:
1. the Bible is false

or

2. it was a global flood

right?

I'm thinking that the reason for your contention is that you (and others) think there might be atleast a third option.. am i following you so far?

And you feel this way based on a combination of 'other translations' and 'science sayz' ?

If i understand you correctly so far, would you please point out which translation you prefer? I'll list a few and i'll start with Gen 7:23.. make particular notice of who/what was destroyed and who/what was spared during the Flood (just so you know, i'm using the 'compare' function from the e-sword):


Gen 7:23

(ALT)

(ASV) And every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

(BBE) Every living thing on the face of all the earth, man and cattle and things moving on the face of the earth, and birds of the air, came to destruction: only Noah and those who were with him in the ark, were kept from death.

(Darby) And every living being was destroyed that was on the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and fowl of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth. And Noah alone remained, and what was with him in the ark.

(DRB) And he destroyed all the substance that was upon the earth, from man even to beast, and the creeping things and fowls of the air: and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noe only remained, and they that were with him in the ark.

(EMTV)

(ESV) He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

(GNT)

(HOT) וימח את־כל־היקום אשׁר על־פני האדמה מאדם עד־בהמה עד־רמשׂ ועד־עוף השׁמים וימחו מן־הארץ וישׁאר אך־נח ואשׁר אתו בתבה׃

(ISV)

(JPS) And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

(KJV) And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

(KJV+) And (853) every3605 living substance3351 was destroyed4229 which834 was upon5921 the face6440 of the ground,127 both man,4480, 120 and5704 cattle,929 and5704 the creeping things,7431 and5704 the fowl5775 of the heaven;8064 and they were destroyed4229 from4480 the earth:776 and Noah5146 only389 remained7604 alive, and they that834 were with854 him in the ark.8392

(KJVA) And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

(LITV) And every living thing which was on the face of the earth was wiped away, from man to cattle, and to the creeping things, and the fowl of the heavens. And they were wiped off from the earth, and only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

(LXX) καὶ ἐξήλειψεν πᾶν τὸ ἀνάστημα, ὃ ἦν ἐπὶ προσώπου πάσης τῆς γῆς, ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους καὶ ἑρπετῶν καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἐξηλείφθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς· καὶ κατελείφθη μόνος Νωε καὶ οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ κιβωτῷ.

(MKJV) And every living thing which was on the face of the earth was destroyed, from man to cattle, and to the creeping things, and the fowls of the heavens. And they were destroyed from the earth, and only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.

(Murdock)

(Vulgate) et delevit omnem substantiam quae erat super terram ab homine usque ad pecus tam reptile quam volucres caeli et deleta sunt de terra remansit autem solus Noe et qui cum eo erant in arca

(Webster) And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping animals, and the fowl of heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

(YLT) And wiped away is all the substance that is on the face of the ground, from man unto beast, unto creeping thing, and unto fowl of the heavens; yea, they are wiped away from the earth, and only Noah is left, and those who are with him in the ark;

Now i admit that i can not read the 70, Vulgate, or the Hebrew. Seems to me that every other one translates it as every living thing was destroyed except those that were aboard the Ark.

So, sofar, it seems to me, that there isnt a third option... either the Bible says the truth or it doesnt.... either the whole earth was wiped out (save the ones on the Ark) or it wasnt. And sofar, if the whole world was not wiped out, then the Bible is not God's Word and we should (I Corinthians 15:32).

Now, let's move on to the oath that God made. And just so you know, i have not looked ahead and viewed all the translations (but i have looked at a few in the past.. nothing jumped out at me then)... so i might be putting my foot in my mouth here.. we'll both see.


Gen 9:11

(ALT)

(ASV) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

(BBE) And I will make my agreement with you; never again will all flesh be cut off by the waters; never again will the waters come over all the earth for its destruction.

(Darby) And I establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood, and henceforth there shall be no flood to destroy the earth.


(DRB) I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.

(EMTV)

(ESV) I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."

(GNT)

(HOT) והקמתי את־בריתי אתכם ולא־יכרת כל־בשׂר עוד ממי המבול ולא־יהיה עוד מבול לשׁחת הארץ׃

(ISV)

(JPS) And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.'

(KJV) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

(KJV+) And I will establish6965 (853) my covenant1285 with854 you; neither3808 shall all3605 flesh1320 be cut off3772 any more5750 by the waters4480, 4325 of a flood;3999 neither3808 shall there any more5750 be1961 a flood3999 to destroy7843 the earth.776

(KJVA) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

(LITV) And I have established My covenant with you, and all flesh shall not be cut off again by the waters of a flood; nor shall there ever again be a flood to destroy the earth.

(LXX) καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐκ ἀποθανεῖται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι κατακλυσμὸς ὕδατος τοῦ καταφθεῖραι πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. --

(MKJV) And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

(Murdock)

(Vulgate) statuam pactum meum vobiscum et nequaquam ultra interficietur omnis caro aquis diluvii neque erit deinceps diluvium dissipans terram

(Webster) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

(YLT) And I have established My covenant with you, and all flesh is not any more cut off by waters of a deluge, and there is not any more a deluge to destroy the earth.'

In everyone of the translations that i'm able to read, i still see ALL flesh and waters destroying the earth.

In the next 2 verses, God tells them (and us) what He will use for a sign of this oath... we can look at that if you want, but i think the point still stands... either it was a global flood or it wasnt... if it was not, that means the Bible is not God's Word.


NOW before we go on, i just want to point out that i am making an assumption... I assume that you are Christian.. the reason for my understanding is that, if memory serves, tweb-protology is for Christians (i might be wrong)... no big deal, doesnt really matter to me..well, i mean i hope you are Christian but i dont care if protology is exclusive or not.


Which brings us to, "Besides, if the whole Globe in Noa's example was covered with water, are you prepared to explain all the details? That is besides God sayz!"

My answer to this is, no I am not prepared to explain all the details. In fact, that is not what i am supposed to do. No Christian is required to defend God or His Word.. God is quite able to do that, and to the degree that He desires. However, i think my reponsibility lies in my being prepared to give an answer for my faith... (1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: KJV).... I'll do my best with God's help...

So how would you like to continue?


On an aside.. since i dont memorize verses,
while i was looking up 1 Peter 3:15, i ran across 2Peter 2... in particular, verse 4 and 5... please take the time to read the whole chapter, it is very interesting. But for now, i just want to point out:


2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
2Pe 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

Seems even Peter took these accounts to mean what they say. As to the wording "Noah the eighth person", check out the commentary by Gill... sorry, just trying to prevent a forestfire...

God Bless,
johnny

[serapha]

NOW before we go on, i just want to point out that i am making an assumption... I assume that you are Christian.. the reason for my understanding is that, if memory serves, tweb-protology is for Christians (i might be wrong)...


God Bless,
johnny

Hi there!

:smile:


Just for the record... I'm posting on the right forum... I am a Christian. :teeth:



BurningBush--U:

The Earth was at least once and I believe more than once, covered like a blanket, in all areas, with water... that creation scene in Genesis.


Most biblical scholars believe that there was a canopy of water that covered the earth, not phyically touching the land, but a canopy in the atmostphere OVER the earth. The only flooding described in the Bible is the Great Flood in which the Word of God does say... "every" aka ALL




Besides, if the whole Globe in Noa's example was covered with water, are you prepared to explain all the details? That is besides God sayz !


"God sayz" is good enough for a fundamentalist. I believe that it was a global flood, and the question that I put forth which has never been answered.... if water naturally flows to the lowest point, how was the biblical flood held in a local area?


~serapha~

[xtreem5150ahm]

Hi there!

:smile:


Just for the record... I'm posting on the right forum... I am a Christian. :teeth:


~serapha~


I hope this:


NOW before we go on, i just want to point out that i am making an assumption... I assume that you are Christian.. the reason for my understanding is that, if memory serves, tweb-protology is for Christians (i might be wrong)... no big deal, doesnt really matter to me..well, i mean i hope you are Christian but i dont care if protology is exclusive or not.


did not cause BurningBush--U to avoid responding...

The reason i mentioned it, was because, my Christian-to-Christian post is different than my Christian-to-unbeliever post.... just a different tack (or jibe ??)

[BurningBush--U]

I hope this:




did not cause BurningBush--U to avoid responding...

The reason i mentioned it, was because, my Christian-to-Christian post is different than my Christian-to-unbeliever post.... just a different tack (or jibe ??)
No, I don't get on the net very much any more.

I believe you already made your mind up.

No point in going on...

Translatiions are that

look and investigate
and if not

no problem,

and there are many types of christians

I doubt many are indeed What they claim

Most are Judeo-Christians and if this is you then I hold that you are NOT a Christian. End of story.

[xtreem5150ahm]

I believe you already made your mind up.

And you also.

However, have you presented anything that show me how and where i'm wrong??

On the other hand, should a Christian be wishey-washey??

I am a lowly serf.... not a Christian surfing the tides of popular opinion.




No point in going on...

Suit yourself. I'm not here for the sake of arguement. I'm here to work soil and sow and learn.



Translatiions are that

look and investigate

Of the translations that i provided, did any support your point?

If you think i ommitted a translation (or any part of one) that supports your point, please share (which i've already asked you to do).



and there are many types of christians

I doubt many are indeed What they claim

Most are Judeo-Christians and if this is you then I hold that you are NOT a Christian. End of story.

Would you explain to me, what is a Christian in you understanding.



Thanks,
johnny

[BurningBush--U]

And you also.

However, have you presented anything that show me how and where i'm wrong??

On the other hand, should a Christian be wishey-washey??

I am a lowly serf.... not a Christian surfing the tides of popular opinion.





Suit yourself. I'm not here for the sake of arguement. I'm here to work soil and sow and learn.




Of the translations that i provided, did any support your point?

If you think i ommitted a translation (or any part of one) that supports your point, please share (which i've already asked you to do).




Would you explain to me, what is a Christian in you understanding.



Thanks,
johnny
Johnny, if you are a real Christian, you will investigate and think and reflect upon what I stated and search for yourself....

You will find a Nugget of Gold or precious Gemstone if you but do a little work.

I'll get more into detail, later.

You already have a clue as I stated Judeo-Christians (or Judaeo-Christians), are following a different JESUZ than the BIBLICAL Christ.

Take that what you will.

I'm not laying out mountains of information for naught.

If your real, you will find meat and drink.

Let me ask you this.

List the top 1-2-3 reasons why you "know" your position is right.

Know this, the problem with Christians today is they do not know the bible.
Atheists know the bible better than the average so called Christian... they may know more but they are blinded too for they do not UNDERSTAND much at all either.

Christians do not know who the people are, they do not know about redemption, nor blood covenants nor much of anything other than the lie GRACE only doctrine. So if that and that alone is your mantra, you are NOT a Christian, that's for starters and it's also for FREE.

[serapha]

Johnny, if you are a real Christian, you will investigate and think and reflect upon what I stated and search for yourself....

You will find a Nugget of Gold or precious Gemstone if you but do a little work.

I'll get more into detail, later.

You already have a clue as I stated Judeo-Christians (or Judaeo-Christians), are following a different JESUZ than the BIBLICAL Christ.

Take that what you will.

I'm not laying out mountains of information for naught.

If your real, you will find meat and drink.

Let me ask you this.

List the top 1-2-3 reasons why you "know" your position is right.

Know this, the problem with Christians today is they do not know the bible.
Atheists know the bible better than the average so called Christian... they may know more but they are blinded too for they do not UNDERSTAND much at all either.

Christians do not know who the people are, they do not know about redemption, nor blood covenants nor much of anything other than the lie GRACE only doctrine. So if that and that alone is your mantra, you are NOT a Christian, that's for starters and it's also for FREE.



Hi there!

I hope you don't mind that I jump in on this conversation....



Johnny, if you are a real Christian, you will investigate and think and reflect upon what I stated and search for yourself....


John writes that we are to receive the light as we are given the light... from God... not from others pointing the finger in the direction that they feel one should be headed.


You will find a Nugget of Gold or precious Gemstone if you but do a little work.

Hmmmm... I did my homework. You are a troll and a non-trinitarian. I stopped reading your postings when I realized that word games are your religion. You're a troll. You are posting just for the fun .... I suspect there isn't a profession of Christian faith anywhere in your life.



I'll get more into detail, later.


I doubt it... finalizing words never seem to materialize when you post in a thread. As a troll, your purpose is to be disruptive... not even to be participative... but just lead into chaos.


You already have a clue as I stated Judeo-Christians (or Judaeo-Christians), are following a different JESUZ than the BIBLICAL Christ.


The biblical Christ is trinitarian... I repeat from my previous statement. You do not believe in the trinitarian nature of God.... therefore, perhaps your judgements on those who are trinitarian Christians is unwarranted?


Take that what you will.

I'm not laying out mountains of information for naught.


I suspect that the entirity of your argument has already been posted.


Let me ask you this.

List the top 1-2-3 reasons why you "know" your position is right.


1) God the Father
2) God the Son
3) God the Holy Spirit




Know this, the problem with Christians today is they do not know the bible.
Atheists know the bible better than the average so called Christian... they may know more but they are blinded too for they do not UNDERSTAND much at all either.

And the source of this valuable jewel is what exactly? Your opinion? I actually would like to have a source for that statement.



Christians do not know who the people are, they do not know about redemption, nor blood covenants nor much of anything other than the lie GRACE only doctrine. So if that and that alone is your mantra, you are NOT a Christian, that's for starters and it's also for FREE.

Well, here's some free information for starters (beginners) in Christianity.


There are many people who have been deceived into thinking that they are true believers, Christians by faith, who in fact, have misplaced their faith in some other form of being... say... in works or in the words of a prayer.

So the question is...

Unless you know of a time in your life when you became aware of sin and that every person has sin in their life...

Unless you know of a time in your life when you acknowledged that sin had separated you from the love of God and that, in fact, you were in need of reconciliation back to God...

Unless you know of a time in your life when you acknowledged by faith who Jesus Christ was/is and what Jesus Christ did/will do for you...

Unless you know of a time in your life when you acknowledged your sins, professed them and asked for forgiveness of those sins....

Unless you know of a time in your life when you asked God to live in your heart and life...

If you can't tell me of that time... no necessarily in days and years, but if you can't point to the moment in time when you know that you were saved by faith, and by faith alone in who Jesus Christ was/is and what Jesus Christ did/will do for you.


Then... I think I could go out on a limb and say that I could question your profession of faith in being a Christian.

So... Burningbush--U... is there a moment in your life when you know without a doubt that you placed your faith in who Jesus Christ was/is and what Jesus Christ did/will do for you?

:pray:

[xtreem5150ahm]

Johnny, if you are a real Christian, you will investigate and think and reflect upon what I stated and search for yourself....

And you stated what, exactly? Besides, as a real Christian, should i be following the (supposed) statements of BurningBush--U, or should i be following the teachings of the Christ, who is Jesus the Son of God?




You will find a Nugget of Gold or precious Gemstone if you but do a little work.


hmmm... you might want to point to to the "Nugget of Gold or precious Gemstone store" ... it seems it isnt on any of my UPS maps. Yust Vondering, are U a UPS supervisor sending me out on a route, blind. LOL... oh vait, dat doesnt happen :wink:



You already have a clue as I stated Judeo-Christians (or Judaeo-Christians), are following a different JESUZ than the BIBLICAL Christ.

Are you so certain? And the OT prophecy, that the Christ would be rejected by His People, is an indication that Christians are following the wrong Messiah?


I'm not laying out mountains of information for naught.

No, you are laying out naught, and claiming that it is mountains of information.


If your real, you will find meat and drink.

My cup runneth over. Taste and see that the Lord is good.



Let me ask you this.

List the top 1-2-3 reasons why you "know" your position is right.

I'm still waiting for my question to be answered.



Christians do not know who the people are, they do not know about redemption, nor blood covenants nor much of anything other than the lie GRACE only doctrine. So if that and that alone is your mantra, you are NOT a Christian, that's for starters and it's also for FREE.


Well, your partly right... Grace is free. :wink:



Gotta run, wife is in car waiting for me.

God Bless,
johnny

[BurningBush--U]

of that time... no necessarily in days and years, but if you can't point to the moment in time when you know that you were saved by faith, and by faith alone in who Jesus Christ was/is and what Jesus Christ did/will do for you.


Then... I think I could go out on a limb and say that I could question your profession of faith in being a Christian.

So... Burningbush--U... is there a moment in your life when you know without a doubt that you placed your faith in who Jesus Christ was/is and what Jesus Christ did/will do for you?

:pray:
you can question anything you like, it's not you I have to answer to
and just because I dont believe in your 3-figured God does not mean
I am not a follower of Christ of Scripture... you discredit me all you like
hold to any tenant you like
stay in your little world and deny the truth

as far as knowing the time
that is not for one how it works nor is necessary

but FYI

I know the day of the week, the month and day of the year, the hour and the minute, I even know what clothes I was wearing, except underwear That I do not recall, but my shoes and socks and pants and shirt I even remember that, not that THAT matters

because THAT doesnt COUNT

it counts what you do after

[BurningBush--U]

jonny

your a fraud

and yes there is mountains of evidence
in the bible

and in science that proves

the noahs ark could not have been global


I cant help it your doctrine is otherwise

and in fact by having a global flood you are teaching a false doctrine that leads many people away from christ
and yes there are many many smart people that are agnostic and or athiest today because of the lies the fundis teach about noah and other lies like and ever living torment hell burning torture squirm in pain doctrins

The noah's flood global teaching is a HUMANISTIC teaching and not a biblical, not scientific.

If your logic and homework were indeed in line, you could not draw any conclusion toward that of a GLOBAL noahs flood

heres a clue and I'm sure yoru not smart enough to figure it out but I'll plant one or two on you

I Peter
1 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Genesis
1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Ex. 10
13 And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the LORD brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all that night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts. 14 And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt: very grievous were they ; before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such. 15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.


Anyone can take things out of context, so don't do what most do, and reflect, study, think, use your research ability that God gave you... look at the actual word, not just the translated or the transliterated word... do not let errors creep in for being too lazy to investigate the whole matters out.

How does one do this? By looking at the whole, and work to not jumping to false and early conclusions for starters....

[xtreem5150ahm]

and yes there is mountains of evidence
in the bible

and in science that proves

the noahs ark could not have been global

You and I are discussing God's Word... for right now, leave science out of it...
Let me restate what i said at Easter.. but this time, i am going to point out that I do believe in God, the Creator. And that the Bible is God's Word.

Now, like i said:

If God's Word says that God promised not to destroy the world with water again, and He said that the bow that He put in the sky would be a sign of this promise, then we have two things to consider about God's Word concerning this:

1.Are there rainbows?

2.Are there still floods?

If there are both, rainbows and floods, then we have two things to consider:


a. Either the Flood was different than the floods since.

Or

b. The Bible is not God's Word.


We can rule out the third possibility (which would be, that God is a liar) since God's Word says that He is Faithful and True... because this possibility is already accounted for in options a. or b.




and in fact by having a global flood you are teaching a false doctrine that leads many people away from christ

So... are we supposed to tell them what they want to hear? Instead of what the Word of God says?


and yes there are many many smart people that are agnostic and or athiest today because of the lies the fundis teach about noah and other lies like and ever living torment hell burning torture squirm in pain doctrins

No, the reason most people that are agnostic and atheist, is because they choose not to believe..or atleast, they have not yet chose to believe yet.


The noah's flood global teaching is a HUMANISTIC teaching

I think you might have used the wrong word here... it doesnt seem to fit, compared to what i've already stated... mybe i'm misunderstanding what you meant by it.....whatever, doesnt matter.


and not a biblical, not scientific.

It is absolutely Biblical... and from an objective standpoint, if God exists, then God's Word over-rules science. If God exists, then science (concerning Origin, Noah, etc.) is mistaken from the foundation.


If your logic and homework were indeed in line, you could not draw any conclusion toward that of a GLOBAL noahs flood

And what makes you so sure that your logic and homework are in line?
You, yourself, already said that the Bible is translation.... although, i really think that you meant to say, "interpretation".


heres a clue and I'm sure yoru not smart enough to figure it out
There you go, with the clues again... you must think i'm Scooby Doo.... just state your case, so we can discuss it... especially if you think im not smart enough to figure it out, then spell it out for me... draw pictures... something...



but I'll plant one or two on you
No kissing... not even if you are female... I'm married.


I Peter
1 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Genesis
1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Ex. 10
13 And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the LORD brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all that night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts. 14 And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt: very grievous were they ; before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such. 15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.


AHAH.... FINALLY. So, atleast here, you seem to be using the King James Version.

Ok... I Peter... refers to the Christ; mentions that God already knew the need for the Christ before the foundation of the world...

Seems to me, that you think that the word "world" is a clue.

I'm thinking that you feel the clue(s) in Gen 1 are: earth, earth, deep, face, and waters

Now, Ex 10 seems to be actually close to pertinent... In verse 15 it says, "15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, ".....

The problem for using this as an arguement against a Global Flood, is that in verses before and after, it defines what land is being referred to.... (here's a clue for you... Egypt)



Anyone can take things out of context, so don't do what most do, and reflect, study, think, use your research ability that God gave you... look at the actual word, not just the translated or the transliterated word... do not let errors creep in for being too lazy to investigate the whole matters out.

I somewhat agree with you here... problem is, if a person cannot get the basic idea from a basic reading, then we are back to trusting what other people tell us that the Word is saying... just like the early (and, to an extent, modern) Catholic Church.


How does one do this? By looking at the whole, and work to not jumping to false and early conclusions for starters

We could all use this advise.

God Bless,
johnny

[BurningBush--U]

Johnny, the first three fourths of your post is crap.

You need to think for yourself instead of being guided by your pet doctrines.

Everything I said is true.

And it does teach Humanistic thought, exactly as I stated.



try this on
maybe you will see some light



Ge 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

ALL FLESH

EXCEPT

Noah, and the rest of the residents of his ARK. Animals too....

OH yeah, also think on this : The earth also was corrupt...



This IS related....

Genesis

1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

BTW, can anyone tell me why the biblical truth of necessity must absolutely show that the Noah's flood was LOCAL and not a complete Global Flood?

Hint: there are several correct answers.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Johnny, the first three fourths of your post is crap.

You need to think for yourself instead of being guided by your pet doctrines.

Everything I said is true.


BurningBush,

Thank you for your critique of my post. And for declaring that what you said is true. But instead of hints and clues, could you please try to be alittle more exact as to why my understanding of Scripture is crap, while your is true?... not just in the above post, but all through our discussion. If mine is crap, i'd truely like to know where i fail... and likewise, for this to be a fruitful discussion, i would hope that you would feel the same... if your understanding is flawed, wouldn't you want to be corrected aswell?



And it does teach Humanistic thought, exactly as I stated.

Could you please show me how belief in a Global Flood is humanistic?

humanist-- n. 1. a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity 2. a person devoted to or versed in the humanities 3. a student of human nature or affairs 4. a classical scholar 5. any one of the scholars of the Renaissance who pursued and dissemminated the study and understanding of ancient Rome and Greece, and emphasized secular, individualistic, and critical thought 6. a person who follows a form of scientific or philosophical humanism --adj. 7. of or pertaining to human affairs, nature, welfare, or values. 8. if or pertaining to the humanities or classical scholarship, esp. that of the Renaissance humanism [1580-90] humanistic, adj., --humanistically, adv.

humanism, n. 1. any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate. 2. devotion to or study of the humanities 3. the studies, principles, or culture of the humanists. 4.Philos a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillments in the natural world and often rejects the importance of the belief in God.

BurningBush, the best i can understand your use of the word 'humanistic' as a description of (my) understanding that the Flood of Noah's time covered the whole globe, is that you think that i am rejecting the importance of the belief in God. Quite the opposite! In fact, i believe that the Word of God is above all things, including science (humanism, definition #4).


Ge 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

ALL FLESH

EXCEPT

Noah, and the rest of the residents of his ARK. Animals too....

OH yeah, also think on this : The earth also was corrupt...


First, let me point out that i already posted that God's Word said "ALL FLESH EXCEPT Noah, and the rest of the residents of his ARK. Animals too..."
It was posted in our conversation in this thread, on post #103... it happens to be in Genesis 7:23.

Now, let's look at the verses you cite, and try to see if they help your case of
the Flood being local, rather than a world-wide, global flood....

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

i'm going to use Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, just so you know. If you think we should use something else to figure this out, let me know, and i'll see if i have a copy of it.

The earth
H776
ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

also was corrupt
H7843
שׁחת
shâchath
shaw-khath'
A primitive root; to decay, that is, (causatively) ruin (literally or figuratively): - batter, cast off, corrupt (-er, thing), destroy (-er, -uction), lose, mar, perish, spill, spoiler, X utterly, waste (-r).

before
H6440
פּנים
pânîym
paw-neem'
Plural (but always used as a singular) of an unused noun (פּנה pâneh, paw-neh'; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.): - + accept, a (be-) fore (-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront (-part), form (-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him (-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look [-eth] (-s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason, of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them (-selves), through (+ -out), till, time (-s) past, (un-) to (-ward), + upon, upside (+ down), with (-in, + stand), X ye, X you.

God
H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhîym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

and the earth
H776
ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

was filled
H4390
מלא מלא
mâlê' mâlâ'
maw-lay', maw-law'
A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.

with violence.
H2555
חמס
châmâs
khaw-mawce'
From H2554; violence; by implication wrong; by metonymy unjust gain: - cruel (-ty), damage, false, injustice, X oppressor, unrighteous, violence (against, done), violent (dealing), wrong.


OK, this is gonna take awhile (that was only Gen 6:11) and we have thunderstorms and hail coming, so i'm going to post this incase we lose power from the storm... then atleast i dont have to repost.

Modorators, please allow this into account before i get scolded for posting repeatedly over the same post.

johnny

[xtreem5150ahm]

ALL FLESH

EXCEPT

Noah, and the rest of the residents of his ARK. Animals too....

OH yeah, also think on this : The earth also was corrupt...

Also, since you were pointing out "ALL FLESH EXCEPT..."

I am just wondering, at what point do you think this means, "all flesh in a local area" as opposed to, "all flesh worldwide"?

And again, let me stress, you and i are discussing what God's Word says... not how we view God's Word compared to what science says... we can do that too, if you want, but after we figure out what the Word says.. okay?

OK, back at looking at the words of the Word...

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

And God
H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhîym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

looked upon
H7200
ראה
râ'âh
raw-aw'
A primitive root; to see, literally or figuratively (in numerous applications, direct and implied, transitively, intransitively and causatively): - advise self, appear, approve, behold, X certainly, consider, discern, (make to) enjoy, have experience, gaze, take heed, X indeed, X joyfully, lo, look (on, one another, one on another, one upon another, out, up, upon), mark, meet, X be near, perceive, present, provide, regard, (have) respect, (fore-, cause to, let) see (-r, -m, one another), shew (self), X sight of others, (e-) spy, stare, X surely, X think, view, visions.

H853
את
'êth
ayth
Apparently contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): - (As such unrepresented in English.)

the earth,
H776
ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

and, behold
H2009
הנּה
hinnêh
hin-nay'
Prolonged for H2005; lo!: - behold, lo, see.

it was corrupt;
H7843
שׁחת
shâchath
shaw-khath'
A primitive root; to decay, that is, (causatively) ruin (literally or figuratively): - batter, cast off, corrupt (-er, thing), destroy (-er, -uction), lose, mar, perish, spill, spoiler, X utterly, waste (-r).

for
H3588
כּי
kîy
kee
A primitive particle (the full form of the prepositional prefix) indicating causal relations of all kinds, antecedent or consequent; (by implication) very widely used as a relative conjugation or adverb; often largely modified by other particles annexed: - and, + (forasmuch, inasmuch, where-) as, assured [-ly], + but, certainly, doubtless, + else, even, + except, for, how, (because, in, so, than) that, + nevertheless, now, rightly, seeing, since, surely, then, therefore, + (al-) though, + till, truly, + until, when, whether, while, who, yea, yet,

all
H3605
כּול כּלo
kôl kôl
kole, kole
From H3634; properly the whole; hence all, any or every (in the singular only, but often in a plural sense): - (in) all (manner, [ye]), altogether, any (manner), enough, every (one, place, thing), howsoever, as many as, [no-] thing, ought, whatsoever, (the) whole, whoso (-ever).

flesh
H1320
בּשׂר
bâśâr
baw-sawr'
From H1319; flesh (from its freshness); by extension body, person; also (by euphemism) the pudenda of a man: - body, [fat, lean] flesh [-ed], kin, [man-] kind, + nakedness, self, skin.

had corrupted
H7843
שׁחת
shâchath
shaw-khath'
A primitive root; to decay, that is, (causatively) ruin (literally or figuratively): - batter, cast off, corrupt (-er, thing), destroy (-er, -uction), lose, mar, perish, spill, spoiler, X utterly, waste (-r).

H853
את
'êth
ayth
Apparently contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): - (As such unrepresented in English.)

his way
H1870
דּרך
derek
deh'-rek
From H1869; a road (as trodden); figuratively a course of life or mode of action, often adverbially: - along, away, because of, + by, conversation, custom, [east-] ward, journey, manner, passenger, through, toward, [high-] [path-] way [-side], whither [-soever].

upon
H5921
על
‛al
al
Properly the same as H5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications: - above, according to (-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-) on, over, than, through (-out), to, touching, X with.

the earth
H776
ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

Verse 13

And God
H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhîym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

said
H559
אמר
'âmar
aw-mar'
A primitive root; to say (used with great latitude): - answer, appoint, avouch, bid, boast self, call, certify, challenge, charge, + (at the, give) command (ment), commune, consider, declare, demand, X desire, determine, X expressly, X indeed, X intend, name, X plainly, promise, publish, report, require, say, speak (against, of), X still, X suppose, talk, tell, term, X that is, X think, use [speech], utter, X verily, X yet.

unto Noah
H5146
נח
nôach
no'-akh
The same as H5118; rest; Noach, the patriarch of the flood: - Noah.

The end
H7093
קץ
qêts
kates
Contracted from H7112; an extremity; adverbially (with prepositional prefix) after: - + after, (utmost) border, end, [in-] finite, X process.

of all
H3605
כּול כּלo
kôl kôl
kole, kole
From H3634; properly the whole; hence all, any or every (in the singular only, but often in a plural sense): - (in) all (manner, [ye]), altogether, any (manner), enough, every (one, place, thing), howsoever, as many as, [no-] thing, ought, whatsoever, (the) whole, whoso (-ever).

flesh
H1320
בּשׂר
bâśâr
baw-sawr'
From H1319; flesh (from its freshness); by extension body, person; also (by euphemism) the pudenda of a man: - body, [fat, lean] flesh [-ed], kin, [man-] kind, + nakedness, self, skin.

is come
H935
בּוא
bô'
bo
A primitive root; to go or come (in a wide variety of applications): - abide, apply, attain, X be, befall, + besiege, bring (forth, in, into, to pass), call, carry, X certainly, (cause, let, thing for) to come (against, in, out, upon, to pass), depart, X doubtless again, + eat, + employ, (cause to) enter (in, into, -tering, -trance, -try), be fallen, fetch, + follow, get, give, go (down, in, to war), grant, + have, X indeed, [in-]vade, lead, lift [up], mention, pull in, put, resort, run (down), send, set, X (well) stricken [in age], X surely, take (in), way.

before
H6440
פּנים
pânîym
paw-neem'
Plural (but always used as a singular) of an unused noun (פּנה pâneh, paw-neh'; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.): - + accept, a (be-) fore (-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront (-part), form (-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him (-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look [-eth] (-s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason, of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them (-selves), through (+ -out), till, time (-s) past, (un-) to (-ward), + upon, upside (+ down), with (-in, + stand), X ye, X you.

me; for
H3588
כּי
kîy
kee
A primitive particle (the full form of the prepositional prefix) indicating causal relations of all kinds, antecedent or consequent; (by implication) very widely used as a relative conjugation or adverb; often largely modified by other particles annexed: - and, + (forasmuch, inasmuch, where-) as, assured [-ly], + but, certainly, doubtless, + else, even, + except, for, how, (because, in, so, than) that, + nevertheless, now, rightly, seeing, since, surely, then, therefore, + (al-) though, + till, truly, + until, when, whether, while, who, yea, yet,

the earth
H776
ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

is filled
H4390
מלא מלא
mâlê' mâlâ'
maw-lay', maw-law'
A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.

with violence
H2555
חמס
châmâs
khaw-mawce'
From H2554; violence; by implication wrong; by metonymy unjust gain: - cruel (-ty), damage, false, injustice, X oppressor, unrighteous, violence (against, done), violent (dealing), wrong.

through them;
H4480
מנּי מנּי מן
min minnîy minnêy
min, min-nee', min-nay'
For H4482; properly a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses: - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in, X neither, X nor, (out) of, over, since, X then, through, X whether, with.

H6440
פּנים
pânîym
paw-neem'
Plural (but always used as a singular) of an unused noun (פּנה pâneh, paw-neh'; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.): - + accept, a (be-) fore (-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront (-part), form (-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him (-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look [-eth] (-s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason, of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them (-selves), through (+ -out), till, time (-s) past, (un-) to (-ward), + upon, upside (+ down), with (-in, + stand), X ye, X you.

and, behold,
H2009
הנּה
hinnêh
hin-nay'
Prolonged for H2005; lo!: - behold, lo, see.

I will destroy
H7843
שׁחת
shâchath
shaw-khath'
A primitive root; to decay, that is, (causatively) ruin (literally or figuratively): - batter, cast off, corrupt (-er, thing), destroy (-er, -uction), lose, mar, perish, spill, spoiler, X utterly, waste (-r).

them with
H854
את
'êth
ayth
Probably from H579; properly nearness (used only as a preposition or adverb), near; hence generally with, by, at, among, etc.: - against, among, before, by, for, from, in (-to), (out) of, with. Often with another preposition prefixed.

the earth
H776
ארץ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.


Ok, now i'm going to include the Hebrew text (which i have already stated that i can not read) so that we can compare what Strong's says are the words that are translated and defined.... and also i will include a literal translation, just so we can look at the word order, and maybe draw some conclusions of the intent of the Word...
Hey, it was you that accused me of not thinking for myself... all i'm asking you to do, is actually participate in this discussion with (helpful) comments and points, instead of just claimming "hint".."clue". I cant read your mind. I do not know the extent of your knowledge or where you've gotten your ability for discernning the text...
I dont think i am asking too much from you..

OK, this is what i have for the Hebrew (Hebrew Old Testament-- Tanach):

Gen 6:11 ותשׁחת הארץ לפני האלהים ותמלא הארץ חמס׃
Gen 6:12 וירא אלהים את־הארץ והנה נשׁחתה כי־השׁחית כל־בשׂר את־דרכו על־הארץ׃
Gen 6:13 ויאמר אלהים לנח קץ כל־בשׂר בא לפני כי־מלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם והנני משׁחיתם את־הארץ׃

And here is the literal (LITV):

Gen 6:11 And the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupted. For all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. And behold, I will destroy them along with the earth.



This IS related....

Genesis

1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

I agree that it is related.
Allow me to paraphrase how i am reading/understanding these verses:

1a) what was done?... creation b) what was created?..everything c)by Who?...God d)when?...the begining, of time.. which would imply that time was also created e)how long ago was this 'begining'?.... From this text, it is left unanswered... however, with the geneologies we can make a ballpark guess at about when it happened....

2) this appears to be a discription of that newly created earth, that was just mentioned... and also, "the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters" implies an active creation.

3)Remember in vs 2., where darkness was on the face of the deep?.. at that point God made light.


Now, as far as i can tell, my paraphrase does not contradict a literal understanding of either the Creation account, nor of a Global Flood.

Unless you have something more than just a clue or hint of what you are referring to, let us stick to the thread topic.. i.e. The Flood.


Oh, and BTW, you mentioned, "You need to think for yourself instead of being guided by your pet doctrines".... In point of fact, it was my own thinking (earthly speaking, of course), that lead to the conclusion of a literal understanding of God's Word. I did not get my understanding from Answers in Genesis, or any like organization.... but from reading the Bible (and thinking on it). In fact, i didnt even know that the church (denomination) i belonged to my whole life (I'm 40) took a literal approach.... i found that out about 2 years ago...
So, it is not "my pet doctrine". And i am finding more and more, that my own reading and thinking on the Bible, runs almost in total agreement with the teachings of the church i'm a member of... I say "almost" because i disagree with parts of my church's teaching, reguarding the Book of Revelation, but since it is dealing with Prophecy, i'm not sure anyone will really know forsure, until it is completely fulfilled.




BTW, can anyone tell me why the biblical truth of necessity must absolutely show that the Noah's flood was LOCAL and not a complete Global Flood?

Hint: there are several correct answers.

I'm all ears, here... please .... this is basically what i've been asking from you... explain your position.

May God Bless us all with His Truth,
johnny

[BurningBush--U]

""
Could you please show me how belief in a Global Flood is humanistic?""

I have less than a minute so maybe ;ater

Because it makes the word of God a lie and teaches that we all came from one man, all one people, so why not break Gods laws on race mixing, and why not be and except all people, to have one religion, et al.

Not Biblical

hope that helps

I;m late

bye bye

[xtreem5150ahm]

""
Could you please show me how belief in a Global Flood is humanistic?""

I have less than a minute so maybe ;ater

Because it makes the word of God a lie and teaches that we all came from one man, all one people, so why not break Gods laws on race mixing, and why not be and except all people, to have one religion, et al.

Not Biblical

hope that helps
I;m late
bye bye

BurningBush,
Look at what you wrote, and tell me... what in the world are you talking about??

Yes, a literal understanding DOES point to one man (and one woman... Adam and Eve).

And yes, a literal understanding DOES point to one race of people.

But do you know what both of those understandings point to??


They point to a literal Fall

AND

a literal need for a SAVIOR... for ALL humankind.



Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


You mention "so why not break Gods laws on race mixing,"....

YOU mention GOD's LAWS..... So that must mean that you believe the LITERALNESS of the LAW.... How do you come by this knowledge? .... The Biblical Account of God, revealing the Law to Mose? .... So that must mean that you... by what you have said, must believe in a LITERAL MOSES, right?

So, at what point do you move from a literal understanding... i.e. Law (and by Law, you imply Moses), God... to one where you must do some major hoop-jumping, to explain your belief?


My intention is not to be mean, but it seems as though you might have a few of the wires crossed on your understanding of God's Word.
In fact, a non-literal Adam, Fall, Flood, etc... is what really makes the claim of God's Word being a lie.... which is why i started out with the claim that God's Word is claiming a Global Flood or God does not exist.. not just lying, since His Word says that He is True and Faithful.

May God bless us all, that all are understanding continues to grow;
johnny

[BurningBush--U]

BurningBush,
Look at what you wrote, and tell me... what in the world are you talking about??

Yes, a literal understanding DOES point to one man (and one woman... Adam and Eve).

And yes, a literal understanding DOES point to one race of people.

But do you know what both of those understandings point to??


They point to a literal Fall

AND

a literal need for a SAVIOR... for ALL humankind.



Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


You mention "so why not break Gods laws on race mixing,"....

YOU mention GOD's LAWS..... So that must mean that you believe the LITERALNESS of the LAW.... How do you come by this knowledge? .... The Biblical Account of God, revealing the Law to Mose? .... So that must mean that you... by what you have said, must believe in a LITERAL MOSES, right?

So, at what point do you move from a literal understanding... i.e. Law (and by Law, you imply Moses), God... to one where you must do some major hoop-jumping, to explain your belief?


My intention is not to be mean, but it seems as though you might have a few of the wires crossed on your understanding of God's Word.
In fact, a non-literal Adam, Fall, Flood, etc... is what really makes the claim of God's Word being a lie.... which is why i started out with the claim that God's Word is claiming a Global Flood or God does not exist.. not just lying, since His Word says that He is True and Faithful.

May God bless us all, that all are understanding continues to grow;
johnny
no hoop jumping here, better take a look into the looking-glass

A one RACE adam or Noah story from the bible
MAKES God the Liar.

All the races of the earth did not come from one man and woman.

You just need to reflect and go back and study the storys without your dogmas.

One world Government and religion will only work under God.

We are not suppose to love and welcome everyone into the fold.

Jesus did not come primarily for every single race in the world. Never.

Go Back to the drawing Board.

The other races are included by default.

But they are not what the bible is speaking of and about.

[xtreem5150ahm]

no hoop jumping here,


True... the only way you could, would be if you actually made an attempt to support your position.

Why dont you atleast explain your reasoning? My assumption is that you are trying to believe millions and billions of years (science) as authority over God's Word.



A one RACE adam or Noah story from the bible
MAKES God the Liar.

All the races of the earth did not come from one man and woman.


Explain why you think that way, please.


You just need to reflect and go back and study the storys without your dogmas.

Basically, i got my "dogmas" from studying the Word. Where did you get yours?



One world Government and religion will only work under God.

We are not suppose to love and welcome everyone into the fold.

What, exactly, does that have to do with a local or global Flood?



Jesus did not come primarily for every single race in the world. Never.

Actually, yes he did.... read Romans and Galatians.. Hebrews, perhaps.... not to mention Genesis chapter 3.... take special note of why Adam named his wife Eve. Also, pay particular attention to v.14-15... now, consider both of those 'special notes' while reading Romans 5:12... this is the reason why all of humanity has fallen short of the Glory of God (because one race/one blood... literal Adam & Eve passed on Original Sin)


Go Back to the drawing Board.

The other races are included by default.

Only one race... human.



Now, back to the topic...

I wonder if you understood what serapha said:


The biblical flood was world-wide... the evidence is: Water naturally flows to the lowest point on earth...

While we don't know the elevations of the mountain ridges before the flood, we can be certain that Mesopotamia wasn't an area isolated on all sides by mountains. It was the center for trade.... being isolated by mountains would have been a deterent to being a great trading center.


~serapha~


Do you realize the implication here?

Let us pretend for a moment that the whole Mesopotamia area was totally surrounded by mountains.... picture it... it's like a bowl.... got that picture?

While you have that picture in your mind, consider the Word of the Lord:

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Still got that "bowl" picture? If the Flood was a local flood, does that mean that there was a column of water 15 cubits high, above to tips of the mountains?

Like serapha said, "Water naturally flows to the lowest point on earth... ".

The water would have spilled over the edge of the "bowl of mountains".

I'm not saying that God could not have made a column of water, but i am saying that God's Word does not even imply it.


nuther point...

If the Flood was local, what would be the purpose of having birds on board?
Couldn't they just fly away from the effected area?

Or for that matter, why would God tell Noah to build an Ark? Why not just tell him to relocate? (welcome to Mesopotamia Walmart, get your stuff and get out).



You imply that you are a Christian. I truely hope that you are. And, that you are Saved.

God Bless,
johnny

[Arlan]

"As I have read over these threads on the Genesis deluge I don't see anywhere where a date has been established for the Genesis deluge to have happened on earth. It seem to me that If we had a date then we could look at world history and find out where and when it might have happened. This information then might lead us to a answer to the question. Also I think we are using the wrong terminology ~ the story in the Genesis is not a flood ~ flood have to do with rivers over flowing there banks or ocean water washing into the land. The water story in Genesis is much more than that ~ a "Deluge" that filled up the whole earth covering all the land and the mountains according to the bible. Who is going to give us a exact time frame for the Genesis deluge???"

[n0rstar]

"As I have read over these threads on the Genesis deluge I don't see anywhere where a date has been established for the Genesis deluge to have happened on earth. It seem to me that If we had a date then we could look at world history and find out where and when it might have happened. This information then might lead us to a answer to the question. Also I think we are using the wrong terminology ~ the story in the Genesis is not a flood ~ flood have to do with rivers over flowing there banks or ocean water washing into the land. The water story in Genesis is much more than that ~ a "Deluge" that filled up the whole earth covering all the land and the mountains according to the bible. Who is going to give us a exact time frame for the Genesis deluge???"

I brought light to this question in another thread.

If you calculate the years people lived according to lineage in the Bible, the flood of Noah is somewhere during the twenty-fourth century B.C.E. 2348 B.C.E. (http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm) 2327 B.C.E. (http://texdawg.com/table2a.html) Even with the most exagerated of calculations, you wouldn't land earlier then the twenty-fith century B.C.E.

p.s. Just cause I'm agnostic doesn't mean I'm Atheist.

I think the most plausible creation theories in biology are "independent creation of the first life, then old-earth creation by genetic modification," because the most credible scientific theories include some design-directed action.

[xtreem5150ahm]

this is a link to a July 7, 2006 IRC article... it seems reasonably fair, and concise. Not really anything new, just Morris' take on the claim.

http://www.icr.org/news/70/

johnny

[Arlan]

Thank you nOrstar for the positive date for the Genesis flood of 2348 BC A year or so ago I picked up a very nice book called "Past Worlds, Atlas of Archaeology". It is an amazing book. On page 12 it starts a chronology of the whole earth. After reading over parts of the book I think we have a problem with the flood happening at 2348 BC. According to the Bible people that lived befor the flood were killed by the flood and didn't survive and live after the flood as I understand it. But the Egyptain, Indus, Sumer and Sodom/Gomorrah cultures were in full swing at 2348 BC and continued for 500 to 1500 years after the Genesis flood. Also the Ur civilization was in full swing from about 4000 BC down to 300 BC without any interuptions. The Egyption pyramids were built about 300 years before the 2348 BC flood and there has never been any date of a Genesis flood cover them.

2348 BC does not jive with a Genesis flood in the chronology time frame of the earth. Do we have another date that works better?
Arlan

[n0rstar]

Well that is the conundrum which leads people to beleave in a local flood theory. However there are far too many passages that speak of the whole earth, as opposed to a very small portion.

According to Babylonian tradition, Noahs home was in Fara, which is about 500 miles from where the Ark came to rest. Only a small amount of evidence is found that there was a flood, which wouldn't be hard in any case, since flooding is bound to happen sooner or later. There has been flood deposits found at Fara, Kish & Ur. Archeologists are still working on a fourth site which would be Nineveh, some 300 miles up the Euphrates. Now although this would be local on a Global scale, it's still not local. It would be like the state of Georgia being completely submerged in water while Florida, S.C. TN and Alabama stay dry.

And as far as another date, sure, you can make one up that will work for the sake of belief, but it won't be the truth. The reason everyone falls within the twenty-fourth century B.C.E. range is because they mathmaticly count down the lineage from Jesus back to Noah, which isn't hard since the bible gives such a great lineage and reports the age of their death.

Logicly stacking the evidences of When this occurred, the scale in which the bible tells it had occurred, and the lack of evidence that it did occur, with the evidence of similar Flood myths in Egypt, Babylonia, & Greece. I conclude that this is just another myth in the Bible.

This area is for Creationists only

[rogue06]

I believe that the Flood was local because of what Psalm 104 states. Known as the "Creation Psalm," it describes the creation of the Earth in the same sequence as does Genesis 1, but also includes some extra information. While speaking of forming boundaries for the waters during Creation we are told: "Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth." (emphasis mine) To me this eliminates the possibility that Noah's Flood was global in nature since we are told explicityly that the waters would "not again cover the earth." Unless you wish to claim that Noah's Flood was some sort of exception and that the psalm is incorrect...

[The Curtmudgeon]

I believe that the Flood was local because of what Psalm 104 states. Known as the "Creation Psalm," it describes the creation of the Earth in the same sequence as does Genesis 1, but also includes some extra information. While speaking of forming boundaries for the waters during Creation we are told: "Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth." (emphasis mine) To me this eliminates the possibility that Noah's Flood was global in nature since we are told explicityly that the waters would "not again cover the earth." Unless you wish to claim that Noah's Flood was some sort of exception and that the psalm is incorrect...

But, Rogue, just calling it "the Creation Psalm" doesn't automagically make every reference in it refer to only the act of Creation. Read the context for the verse you quoted:

6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

Note especially verse 6: "Thou coveredst it with the deep". In Genesis 1, God is nowhere described as having covered the earth with the deep; rather, the deep is already upon the earth from the beginning, and He then removes it to a single location so that the dry land appeared. The only time when God is described as covering the earth with the deep is...wait for it...during the Flood. Verse 6 also speaks about the waters covering the mountains, exactly the description of the Flood in Genesis 7:19-20. Verses 7-8 then describe the action of the receding flood waters: At His rebuke the waters "fled". So verse 9, which you quote, doesn't refer to the Creation, but rather to the end of the Flood, when God really did set a bound on the waters so that they would never again cover the earth.

The (the Bible consistently treats the Flood as global) Curtmudgeon

[rogue06]

But, Rogue, just calling it "the Creation Psalm" doesn't automagically make every reference in it refer to only the act of Creation. Read the context for the verse you quoted:

Psalm 104:6-9
6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

I probably should mention that the designation "Creation Psalm" precedes me.
Since the Creation is the context of this psalm (see below) it is probably safe to assume that most, if not all, references in it are to the Creation. For example, I may be describing South Carolina to you, and you think that part of what I said sounds a lot like Oregon, but that doesn't mean I started describing Oregon instead of South Carolina.
I like the "automagically." :smile:


Note especially verse 6: "Thou coveredst it with the deep". In Genesis 1, God is nowhere described as having covered the earth with the deep; rather, the deep is already upon the earth from the beginning, and He then removes it to a single location so that the dry land appeared. The only time when God is described as covering the earth with the deep is...wait for it...during the Flood. Verse 6 also speaks about the waters covering the mountains, exactly the description of the Flood in Genesis 7:19-20. Verses 7-8 then describe the action of the receding flood waters: At His rebuke the waters "fled". So verse 9, which you quote, doesn't refer to the Creation, but rather to the end of the Flood, when God really did set a bound on the waters so that they would never again cover the earth.


Perhaps the answer lies in the part of verse 6 you skipped over: "as [with] a garment." The figure of speech of the Earth being covered in a garment is a concept associated with Creation passages (Proverbs 30:4; Job 38:9) and not in ones associated with the Flood.
Of course God covered the Earth with the deep in that He created both. They didn't pre-date Creation. If God uncovered the land at Creation, then by definition it was covered before that. The Flood was God's re-covering the land with water. Whether God created the land already covered in the first place (which seems to be what is described), IMHO doesn't really make any difference, and hence, isn't evidence in support of these passages being about the Flood. Instead as I stated in my previous post, it describes the creation of the Earth in the same order as Genesis 1, but includes a few extra details. Verse 6 describes the Earth covered in water (parallel to Genesis 1:9). Verses 7 and 8 has God causing the dry land to appear (parallel Gen. 1:9-10). This then leads to verse 9: "Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth." Since the psalmist has been referring to the Creation this entire time, why now the sudden change in context and subject? It makes no sense, but it makes perfect sense if it is still referring to the Creation. And the Creation is what this psalm is celebrating. Did God stretch out the heavens (v.2) in Genesis 6-9 (Noah's Flood)? Did God set the world on its foundations (v. 5) during the Flood? Is there any reference to Judgment in Psalm 1 as might be expected if it were a reference to Noah's Flood. No. Nor is there any mention of anything being destroyed – another detail of the Flood one would expect to be mentioned if that was the subject. Also, there is no mention of the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (v. 8) after the Flood, but these events could be linked to setting the boundaries of the oceans and seas as described in both Genesis 1 and Job 38. Finally, the reference to the boundaries of the deep is another clear reference to the Creation (Proverbs 8:29; Psalm 33:6-7; Jeremiah 5:22; Job 38: 8-11) and not the Flood to which there are no boundary references.
Sorry if I rambled.


The (the Bible consistently treats the Flood as global)


You might be surprised that I agree that the most simple and direct reading of the Bible supports a the Flood being global in scope... but I also feel that the most simple and direct reading of the Bible supports a geocentric viewpoint – and we can probably both agree that this isn't correct.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Psalm 104:6-9
6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

I probably should mention that the designation "Creation Psalm" precedes me.

I assumed that, and tried to word my statement so that it wasn't important whether the phrase was original with you or not. I meant to comment on the use of the phrase in general, not to imply that you personally had mislabeled the Psalm.


Since the Creation is the context of this psalm (see below) it is probably safe to assume that most, if not all, references in it are to the Creation. For example, I may be describing South Carolina to you, and you think that part of what I said sounds a lot like Oregon, but that doesn't mean I started describing Oregon instead of South Carolina.

Fair enough. But when the description mentions "South Carolina"'s seashore with terms that imply or indicate that it lies to the west then I have the right to assert that Oregon is a better fit.

Just keep in mind that no matter how well-established the label "Creation Psalm" may be, it isn't in the Biblical text itself. Some later commentator, for reasons that appealed to him, first put that label there, and perhaps many good and reasonable people have since then agreed that it seemed like a fitting label, and it might even be a majority opinion now. None of that guarantees that it is correct.


I like the "automagically." :smile:

Thanx! I won't claim originality, but I've been using it for such a long time that I forget where or from whom I first got it. It's public domain by now, I'm sure.



Perhaps the answer lies in the part of verse 6 you skipped over: "as [with] a garment." The figure of speech of the Earth being covered in a garment is a concept associated with Creation passages (Proverbs 30:4; Job 38:9) and not in ones associated with the Flood.

Hmm, I fail to see that Proverbs 30:4 is specifically a Creation passage:
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Besides the phrase in question, only the following "hath established all the ends of the earth" can be said to be Creation-related. God's ascending and descending from Heaven is not specifically limited to Creation (e.g., God comes down to Babel to see what mankind is doing, which is post-Flood, of course). Gathering the winds finds no counterpart in Genesis 1. And of course, the question of the name of God and God's Son is eternal.

Mentioning Job 38:9 is a telling point for my side of the argument, because when you step back and look at the immediately surrounding verses, it appears exactly as does Psalm 104:6-9 as more a Flood-related passage than Creation-related:
8 Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, 10 And brake up for it my decreed [place], and set bars and doors, 11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
While the description in 10-11 can be applied to the Day 3 creation of dry land, much like South Carolina, the description in verse 8 is definitely an "Oregon" moment of Flood description.

The identification with Genesis 1 can only be applied to a very small portion of the verses, and not the entirety of the surrounding context. Job 38 talks about the foundations of the earth in verses 4-7, and verse 6 is very definitely a Creation moment, but then after the passage discussed, the chapter goes on to discuss a variety of facets of "Creation" as a noun (i.e., "Creation" as the thing that was created), not as a verb (i.e., the actual act of creating Creation does not appear). For example, the gates of Death in verse 17 have no part in Genesis 1; the breadth of the earth in 18 is a characteristic that remains true today and is not spoken of as "setting the breadth" or any other Creation-action; verse 26 is definitely a post-Creation reference as Genesis 2 specifically states that no rain had fallen on the earth during the Edenic period. Like verse 18, most of the questions God asks in Job 38 have nothing to do with the act of Creation itself, but only ask about things that were created but remain true to this day -- and were equally true in Noah's day.


Of course God covered the Earth with the deep in that He created [i]both. They didn't pre-date Creation. If God uncovered the land at Creation, then by definition it was covered before that.

Um, no. My point is that "Thou coveredst" is active voice, not passive. In Creation, Genesis 1:2 implies, if not actually states, that the world was created with a water covering from the beginning, not created as dry land and then God covered it with water in a subsequent action. It would seem extremely strange for God to have created dry land, covered it with water, and then removed the water covering two days later when it had served no purpose during the intervening time. But Psalm 104 is talking about a specific action that God took to put a covering of water over the earth.


The Flood was God's re-covering the land with water. Whether God created the land already covered in the first place (which seems to be what is described), IMHO doesn't really make any difference, and hence, isn't evidence in support of these passages being about the Flood. Instead as I stated in my previous post, it describes the creation of the Earth in the same order as Genesis 1, but includes a few extra details. Verse 6 describes the Earth covered in water (parallel to Genesis 1:9). Verses 7 and 8 has God causing the dry land to appear (parallel Gen. 1:9-10). This then leads to verse 9: "Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth." Since the psalmist has been referring to the Creation this entire time, why now the sudden change in context and subject? It makes no sense, but it makes perfect sense if it is still referring to the Creation. And the Creation is what this psalm is celebrating. Did God stretch out the heavens (v.2) in Genesis 6-9 (Noah's Flood)? Did God set the world on its foundations (v. 5) during the Flood? Is there any reference to Judgment in Psalm 1 as might be expected if it were a reference to Noah's Flood. No. Nor is there any mention of anything being destroyed – another detail of the Flood one would expect to be mentioned if that was the subject. Also, there is no mention of the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (v. 8) after the Flood, but these events could be linked to setting the boundaries of the oceans and seas as described in both Genesis 1 and Job 38.

Let's look a bit closer at that claim that Psalm 104 "describes the creation of the Earth in the same order as Genesis 1":
1 ¶ Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. 2 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: [Light = Day 1; good start!] who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: 3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: [Firmament = Day 2] 4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: [Genesis 1 doesn't mention the angels, so this could have been at any time] 5 [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever. [Foundations of the earth would put us back at Day 1 again] 6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. [Your point is that this is Day 1 also] 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. [If this is Creation, it can only be Day 3] 10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, [which] run among the hills. 11 They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst. [Beasts of the field = Day 6] 12 By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, [which] sing among the branches. [Fowls = Day 5] 13 He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. [No rain until after Eden] 14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; 15 And wine [that] maketh glad the heart of man, [and] oil to make [his] face to shine, and bread [which] strengtheneth man's heart. 16 The trees of the LORD are full [of sap]; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted; 17 Where the birds make their nests: [as for] the stork, the fir trees [are] her house. [Grass, herb, vines, olives, wheat, trees = Day 3] 18 The high hills [are] a refuge for the wild goats; [and] the rocks for the conies. [Back to Day 6 again] 19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down. [Moon & Sun = Day 4] 20 Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep [forth]. 21 The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God. 22 The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens. 23 Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening. [If this is darkness/night/day, it's Day 1; if it's beasts/lions/man, it's Day 6] 24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. 25 [So is] this great and wide sea, wherein [are] things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. 26 There go the ships: [there is] that leviathan, [whom] thou hast made to play therein. [Beasts of the sea/Leviathan = Day 5] 27 These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give [them] their meat in due season. 28 [That] thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. 29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. 30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. 31 The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works. 32 He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke. 33 I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. 34 My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD. 35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.
What do we see here: Days 1, 2, ?, 1, 3, 6, 5, post-Creation, 3, 6, 4, 1 or 6, 5. Sorry, I think you cannot show that Psalm 104 follows a Genesis 1 order in anything other than the vaguest form.

Your comment that other details of the Flood "one would expect to be mentioned if that was the subject" is a non-starter. The Psalmist mentioned those details which were pertinent to his purpose. Only if you can prove that his purpose was to describe the Flood in detail can you argue that other details can be expected, and I make no claim that this is the case.

As for "no mention of the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (v. 8)", that's a red herring (although I'll allow that it may be unintentional on your part). The verse actually states "They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them"; the mountains and valleys are not going up and down, but rather something (plural) is going up and down by the mountains and valleys. The clear referant is "the waters" in verse 6.


Finally, the reference to the boundaries of the deep is another clear reference to the Creation (Proverbs 8:29; Psalm 33:6-7; Jeremiah 5:22; Job 38: 8-11) and not the Flood to which there are no boundary references.
Sorry if I rambled.

Not so fast, friend.
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
While verse 6 is past tense, and certainly refers to Genesis 1, verse 7 is present tense and refers to actions that God takes continuously. And I've already shown that Job 38:8-11 cannot be confined to a Genesis 1 reference.


You might be surprised that I agree that the most simple and direct reading of the Bible supports a the Flood being global in scope...

Yes, I deliberately worded that statement as to pertain to the Biblical language as it stands, and not any specific interpretation (in other words, I deliberately refrained from saying "The Bible requires a global Flood", although I also think that a true statement, but not immediately helpful to the discussion at hand).


but I also feel that the most simple and direct reading of the Bible supports a geocentric viewpoint – and we can probably both agree that this isn't correct.

No, actually we cannot agree on that -- that is, I agree that geocentrism is not correct, but not that the Bible supports it. My belief is that the Bible nowhere presents a geocentric [as a view of the mechanics of the solar system!] viewpoint per se, and its "supportive" language means nothing more than the fact that you and I, and even professional astronomers, talk about "sunrise" and "sunset" even today without meaning geocentrism. Note that I specifically limit my comment to discussion of solar system mechanics. I do believe that the Bible is "geocentric" in the sense that Earth, as the home of Mankind, very much is the center of the universe as God's intentions go, and everything else -- the sun, moon and stars, galaxies, black holes and quasars -- was created in service to man (the primary service being to display the glory and handiwork of God, and therefore His power and the fact that He is the Creator-God). But that does not require that the sun orbit the earth, and the Bible makes no such stipulation, as pagan creation myths inevitably do. If you want to read Biblical "sunrise"/"sunset" language as supporting geocentrism, then you need to go read some works by my old pal Bert Einstein about relative frames of reference; he's quite keen on the theory, actually.

The (but I know that a lot of people hold the same opinion as you express) Curtmudgeon

[rogue06]

I assumed that, and tried to word my statement so that it wasn't important whether the phrase was original with you or not. I meant to comment on the use of the phrase in general, not to imply that you personally had mislabeled the Psalm.

I sort of figured that which is why I tried to phrase it neutrally.




Fair enough. But when the description mentions "South Carolina"'s seashore with terms that imply or indicate that it lies to the west then I have the right to assert that Oregon is a better fit.


Depends on the context. If I had said that South Carolina's seashore lies to the west of Maine's seashore, I would be A) Correct B) Still describing South Carolina C) Not describing Oregon. But enough picking at nits, I do agree with you that the designation "Creation Psalm" isn't scriptural, but it does serve to accurately describe it.


Thanx! I won't claim originality, but I've been using it for such a long time that I forget where or from whom I first got it. It's public domain by now, I'm sure.

Good. I won't feel so guilty for steali... er, borrowing it.



Hmm, I fail to see that Proverbs 30:4 is specifically a Creation passage:
Proverbs 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Besides the phrase in question, only the following "hath established all the ends of the earth" can be said to be Creation-related. God's ascending and descending from Heaven is not specifically limited to Creation (e.g., God comes down to Babel to see what mankind is doing, which is post-Flood, of course). Gathering the winds finds no counterpart in Genesis 1. And of course, the question of the name of God and God's Son is eternal.


I didn't mean to imply that it is exclusively about Creation, just, as you pointed out, there are elements which deal with the Creation. The only relative part which isn't something that explicitly did occur during the Creation is the part about the gathering the winds, yet it probably would be something that would have occurred during Creation. My point is that there are several elements of this verse which can be linked to the Creation and none that must be excluded from it.


Mentioning Job 38:9 is a telling point for my side of the argument, because when you step back and look at the immediately surrounding verses, it appears exactly as does Psalm 104:6-9 as more a Flood-related passage than Creation-related:

Job 38:8-11
8 Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, 10 And brake up for it my decreed [place], and set bars and doors, 11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
While the description in 10-11 can be applied to the Day 3 creation of dry land, much like South Carolina, the description in verse 8 is definitely an "Oregon" moment of Flood description


I never said that verse 8 couldn't have referred to the Flood, just that verse 9 (and as you correctly point out, 10 and 11 as well) was in reference to Creation. Chapter 38 seems to be more a list that isn't necessarily in any chronological order so it isn't surprising that several different things are brought up in it.
I must be missing your point since this does not falsify my contention that Psalm 104 limits the Flood to being local. In fact, verse 8 could be read to mean regular, natural storms and floods and how God keeps them in check so they don't repeat the deluge (not that I necessarily agree with such an interpretation).


The identification with Genesis 1 can only be applied to a very small portion of the verses, and not the entirety of the surrounding context. Job 38 talks about the foundations of the earth in verses 4-7, and verse 6 is very definitely a Creation moment, but then after the passage discussed, the chapter goes on to discuss a variety of facets of "Creation" as a noun (i.e., "Creation" as the thing that was created), not as a verb (i.e., the actual act of creating Creation does not appear). For example, the gates of Death in verse 17 have no part in Genesis 1; the breadth of the earth in 18 is a characteristic that remains true today and is not spoken of as "setting the breadth" or any other Creation-action; verse 26 is definitely a post-Creation reference as Genesis 2 specifically states that no rain had fallen on the earth during the Edenic period. Like verse 18, most of the questions God asks in Job 38 have nothing to do with the act of Creation itself, but only ask about things that were created but remain true to this day -- and were equally true in Noah's day.


Job 38 speaks of the Creation in the past tense, as a past event (as it was) and has a few anarchronistic references, which don't detract from it being basically about the Creation.
So far you've attacked the premise that the verses I cited in Proverbs and Job support the interpretation that Psalms 104 is about the Creation by pointing out that the some of their surrounding passages aren't necessarily Creation-related (which isn't surprising since the entire Bible isn't about the Creation). I thought you pretty much agreed with the notion that it was the Creation Psalm.


Um, no. My point is that "Thou coveredst" is active voice, not passive. In Creation, Genesis 1:2 implies, if not actually states, that the world was created with a water covering from the beginning, not created as dry land and then God covered it with water in a subsequent action. It would seem extremely strange for God to have created dry land, covered it with water, and then removed the water covering two days later when it had served no purpose during the intervening time. But Psalm 104 is talking about a specific action that God took to put a covering of water over the earth.


It probably been clearer if you had waited to respond until after this bit rather than before. "The Flood was God's re-covering the land with water. Whether God created the land already covered in the first place (which seems to be what is described), IMHO doesn't really make any difference, and hence, isn't evidence in support of these passages being about the Flood." This and the part above was what I meant when I apologized for rambling. I knew I wasn't really being that clear here except for the end.


Let's look a bit closer at that claim that Psalm 104 "describes the creation of the Earth in the same order as Genesis 1":
[snip]
What do we see here: Days 1, 2, ?, 1, 3, 6, 5, post-Creation, 3, 6, 4, 1 or 6, 5. Sorry, I think you cannot show that Psalm 104 follows a Genesis 1 order in anything other than the vaguest form.

I concede that you've demonstrated that my assertion was not completely correct and would have been far more accurate if I had said "in roughly the same order." Perhaps, very roughly. :lol: Still, it does share the same details, if not necessarily the same chronology.


Your comment that other details of the Flood "one would expect to be mentioned if that was the subject" is a non-starter. The Psalmist mentioned those details which were pertinent to his purpose. Only if you can prove that his purpose was to describe the Flood in detail can you argue that other details can be expected, and I make no claim that this is the case.


I guess you're right. I shouldn't be surprised that references to Noah's Flood would be completely devoid of such inconsequential details as destruction or judgment. Sort of like mentioning Original Sin without ever bringing up Adam and Eve.


As for "no mention of the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (v. 8)", that's a red herring (although I'll allow that it may be unintentional on your part). The verse actually states "They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them"; the mountains and valleys are not going up and down, but rather something (plural) is going up and down by the mountains and valleys. The clear referant is "the waters" in verse 6.

That was actually preemptive on my part. Several translations read: "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which thou didst appoint for them." I agree with the interpretation you gave.


Not so fast, friend.

Psalm 33:6-7
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

While verse 6 is past tense, and certainly refers to Genesis 1, verse 7 is present tense and refers to actions that God takes continuously. And I've already shown that Job 38:8-11 cannot be confined to a Genesis 1 reference.

Interesting. I've got a copy of the RSV in front of me and for verse 7 it states: "He gathered the waters of the sea." Past tense. Hmmm.



No, actually we cannot agree on that -- that is, I agree that geocentrism is not correct, but not that the Bible supports it. My belief is that the Bible nowhere presents a geocentric [as a view of the mechanics of the solar system!] viewpoint per se, and its "supportive" language means nothing more than the fact that you and I, and even professional astronomers, talk about "sunrise" and "sunset" even today without meaning geocentrism. Note that I specifically limit my comment to discussion of solar system mechanics. I do believe that the Bible is "geocentric" in the sense that Earth, as the home of Mankind, very much is the center of the universe as God's intentions go, and everything else -- the sun, moon and stars, galaxies, black holes and quasars -- was created in service to man (the primary service being to display the glory and handiwork of God, and therefore His power and the fact that He is the Creator-God). But that does not require that the sun orbit the earth, and the Bible makes no such stipulation, as pagan creation myths inevitably do. If you want to read Biblical "sunrise"/"sunset" language as supporting geocentrism, then you need to go read some works by my old pal Bert Einstein about relative frames of reference; he's quite keen on the theory, actually.

The language of appearance verses that you mention aren't the only geocentric passages in the Bible. There's Joshua 10:12-13, which describes how the Sun's movement was halted (see also Habakkuk 3:11). Martin Luther, for one took this very literally. I Chronicles 16:30 makes it clear that Earth does not move (see also Psalm 93:1; 96:10). Even the sunrise/sunset passages you dismiss are interesting, for example "The sun rises and the sun goes down; and hastens to the place where it rises." The last part seems a bit unnecessary unless that was exactly the concept which they wanted to express. I want to emphasize that I'm not a believer in geocentricism (astronomically speaking), I just wanted to illustrate that there was more to it than a few sunrise/sunset references.


The (but I know that a lot of people hold the same opinion as you express) Curtmudgeon


Huh? I kind of thought I was taking a different approach here (utilizing Psalm 104), but then again, I'm sure someone else has probably thought of it (I'm just not that original a thinker!). Still, I greatly appreciate you helping me hash it out a bit here.

[rogue06]

"The sun rises and the sun goes down; and hastens to the place where it rises."


Oops. It would probably help if I provided the citation :shrug: Ecclesiastes 1:5 (see also Psalm 19:4-6).

[Weboh2]

No force really. Everything was eventually submerged for 40 days and nights, which happens to be how long someone could live without food. I am working out how they might have fed themselves most of the time. Bobbing for apples or fishing in a large reed boat seems to be a good explaination.