Genesis Is the understanding the of Ancient Hebrews.It doesn't have to be scientific.

[-57]

Doesn't matter since man's hermeneutics FAIL to tell us that Today remains the 6th Day. IOW, these "supposed" scholars don't know what Day it is. Amen?

...and you're the only one who does? All the scholars are wrong...and you're right? Despite being shown the flaws in your false theology?

 

[Aman777]

...and you're the only one who does? All the scholars are wrong...and you're right? Despite being shown the flaws in your false theology?

No, since most scholars study the theology of ancient men who could NOT understand until the last days.

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

God hid His Truth from ancient men AND the scholars who study their Theology. It's NOT your fault, since you believe what they mistakenly believed. My view is simple and shows the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History, instead of what some 3k year old man THOUGHT it said.

What is shows is that God insured that ONLY by Faith can one come to know God. You have that Faith. Amen?

 

[-57]

Sorry, but that is what's called "adding to" what is actually written. The text says "mountains" which you changed to "high hills". IF what you say was true, then WHY did God made THREE Heavens? One on Day 2. Gen 1:8 and other HeavenS on Day 3. Gen 2:4

Also, some creatures would have climbed to safety if the mountains were NOT covered.

Also, this verse from the N.T. would make NO sense.

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world (Greek-Kosmos) that THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek-destroyed totally) Amen?

Perished...622. apollumi

Perhaps you can demonstrate why destroyed totally is the best translation of this word.

 

[-57]

No, since most scholars study the theology of ancient men who could NOT understand until the last days.

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

God hid His Truth from ancient men AND the scholars who study their Theology. It's NOT your fault, since you believe what they mistakenly believed. My view is simple and shows the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History, instead of what some 3k year old man THOUGHT it said.

What is shows is that God insured that ONLY by Faith can one come to know God. You have that Faith. Amen?

What allows you to think the sealed up book in Dan 12:4 refers to "ancient men"?

 

[-57]

My view is simple and shows the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History, instead of what some 3k year old man THOUGHT it said.

Your view has been refuted. Like LDS or JW's...you don't want to hear the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is plenty of evidense that strongly suggest a global flood. This evidense is presented by Christian scientist.
Now, you being an atheist, I understand you are not to believe in the bible. I can accept that...just don't accuse me or God of being dishonest. Got it?

Sorry there really is no such thing as "Christian scientist" there are scientist that are Christians, but most of those disagree with you about the flood. And I never accused either you or God of being dishonest. I pointed out that you have to say that God is dishonest since the all of the scientific evidence says there was no flood.

And that is a fact that no Christian has been able to refute. Many Christians refuse to even learn what scientific evidence is because it shows there beliefs to be wrong. Again, there are Christian groups that will explain to you why your flood beliefs are wrong. Did I not give you a link to patheos.org?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a 'process' only in that it must follow the laws of physics. Speed it up and it will surely appear as a destructive event on an unimaginable scale.

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Cataclysmic has to be taken in context. You simply can't keep it in context and stretch it out for millions of years.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, but that is what's called "adding to" what is actually written. The text says "mountains" which you changed to "high hills". IF what you say was true, then WHY did God made THREE Heavens? One on Day 2. Gen 1:8 and other HeavenS on Day 3. Gen 2:4

The same Hebrew word is used for hills, high hills, and mountains. So I didn't add anything.

Also, some creatures would have climbed to safety if the mountains were NOT covered.

They would have died soon anyway; of exposure, starvation, lack of oxygen above a certain altitude.

Also, this verse from the N.T. would make NO sense.

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world (Greek-Kosmos) that THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek-destroyed totally) Amen?

The context strongly suggest that it was the society or civilization that perished, not the land itself.
2889 // kosmov // kosmos // kos'-mos //

probably from the base of 2865 ; TDNT - 3:868,459; n m

AV - world 186, adorning 1; 187

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order,
government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,
'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1Pe 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God,
and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages,
pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting,
stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause
of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews ( Ro 11:12 etc)
8b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47
1Co 4:9; 2Co 5:19

 

[AV1611VET]

I pointed out that you have to say that God is dishonest since the all of the scientific evidence says there was no flood.

I thought you couldn't prove a negative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought you couldn't prove a negative.

That is not what is meant by that phrase. You seem to think that a "negative trait" is a "negative", it isn't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Cataclysmic has to be taken in context. You simply can't keep it in context and stretch it out for millions of years.

I'll yield on that point.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I thought you couldn't prove a negative.

SZ didn't say anything about proving anything. Just about what the evidence shows.

 

[AV1611VET]

SZ didn't say anything about proving anything. Just about what the evidence shows.

The evidence, as I understand it, says that all of earth was under water at some time.

Science's PR department answers that by saying, "Yes, but not at the same time."

 

[Aman777]

Perished...622. apollumi

Perhaps you can demonstrate why destroyed totally is the best translation of this word.

From your citation:

Strong's Concordance
apollumi: to destroy, destroy utterly

I said destroyed totally but I like your citation better since it shows a more total destruction of Adam's world.

I posted: 2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world (Greek-Kosmos) that THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek-destroyed totally)

Do you also have a better view of Adam's world that THEN WAS? I will be happy to use it IF you do. From now on, I will try to use the term utterly instead of totally. Thanks again.

 

[Aman777]

What allows you to think the sealed up book in Dan 12:4 refers to "ancient men"?

Do you think that Daniel was a modern man? Since God is the SAME yesterday, today and forever, I accept His method for hiding His Truth from ancient men, in order to insure that they could come to know God ONLY by Faith. It's a brilliant way to hide His Truth from ancient AND some modern men who cling to Ancient man's Theology? Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Your view has been refuted. Like LDS or JW's...you don't want to hear the truth.

Really? Give us an example of where my view has been refuted (proven wrong). I don't think you can, but please try. God Bless you

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence, as I understand it, says that all of earth was under water at some time.

Science's PR department answers that by saying, "Yes, but not at the same time."

No, the evidence say parts of the Earth were underwater at times. It also says that for the last 600 million years at least that there has always been some land.

 

[AV1611VET]

Aman, is that Noah's Ark in your avatar?

And do you believe, as do I, that the Ark used TARDIS technology to hold all those jillions of species of animals that scientists said surely existed back then?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the evidence say parts of the Earth were underwater at times.

So I should blame evidence -- not science?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The evidence, as I understand it, says that all of earth was under water at some time.

Science's PR department answers that by saying, "Yes, but not at the same time."

Massive flooding as described didn't have to leave much evidence, especially if the water came bubbling up from thousands of 'springs'. My apartment building has a very large basement which flooded from time to time, the water coming up from the floor drain. As the kids played down there toys and other objects would be found floating gently in place in six or more inches of water. When the drain was cleared the water gently ran back down and all those objects settled gently back where they were, none moved at all from their place. Conclusion: such a flood would leave little or no evidence; little erosion or deposition as any lateral movement of the water would be very gentle.