The Flood

Ok,

Flat earth: My own look at a flat earth in a literal bible,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/flatearth.html

Flat earth society, documentation of the flat earth society,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html
(Flat earth society is a christian group)

geocentric:
http://www.geocentricbible.com/
This is a Christian group.

Creationism, obviously shouldn't really need anything to show that people believe it

Is this enough evidence that you just put down christians by saying that these beliefs are held by non believers only? Did you mean to insult the majority of past christians?

Of course, for those who are willing to learn, they will find that the Theory of Evolution has shown itself to be very valid.

Wasp said:

Arikay, where are their scriptures to justify those beliefs? If you don't show me Biblical support, than I am going to assume that it was just a human error. You know, kinda like Darwinism has proven itself to be.

Click to expand...

Arikay: Ok,

Flat earth: My own look at a flat earth in a literal bible,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/flatearth.html

Flat earth society, documentation of the flat earth society,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html
(Flat earth society is a christian group)

geocentric:
http://www.geocentricbible.com/
This is a Christian group.

Creationism, obviously shouldn't really need anything to show that people believe it

Is this enough evidence that you just put down christians by saying that these beliefs are held by non believers only? Did you mean to insult the majority of past christians?


I believe I dealt with these earlier arikay.

Arikay:Of course, for those who are willing to learn, they will find that the Theory of Evolution has shown itself to be very valid.

since when? There are many reasons why it could not be. One being the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution has us getting better. Not happening. God Bless.

Josh1:

1) No you didn't deal with it earlier.

2) If you believe the 2LoT gives evolution problems, then you need to stop reading DrDino and go back to school.

Josh1 said:

I am not a scientist

Click to expand...

Josh1 said:

since when? There are many reasons why it could not be. One being the second law of thermodynamics.

Click to expand...

evidently.

Well, with that I'm off. Sorry this deviated so far from the Flood. Thanks for your time and perspectives! I'm sure we will see each other again.

Arikay: 1) No you didn't deal with it earlier.

If you can't remember I will deal with it again in more detail if you would like. It will probally be next week,though. Jet black, Next time you quote me,use my whole thought. I always give you that courtesy,I expect the same. BTW, why didn't anybody reply to my last post,funny how jet black skipped around the whole debate thing. God Bless.

If I remember correctly how you Delt with it, was addressed in what I wrote. So you delt with it, by ignoring part of what I wrote. Not very effective.

Do you still think the 2LoT is a problem for evolution? (I noticed you didnt respond to that part of what I wrote).

Josh1 said:

Arikay: 1) No you didn't deal with it earlier.

If you can't remember I will deal with it again in more detail if you would like. It will probally be next week,though. Jet black, Next time you quote me,use my whole thought. I always give you that courtesy,I expect the same. BTW, why didn't anybody reply to my last post,funny how jet black skipped around the whole debate thing. God Bless.

Click to expand...

Josh1 said:

Arikay:Of course, for those who are willing to learn, they will find that the Theory of Evolution has shown itself to be very valid.

since when? There are many reasons why it could not be. One being the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution has us getting better. Not happening. God Bless.

Click to expand...

Of course that is completely irrelevant to all those falsifications of the worldwide flood that Trodon posted back in post 147. In fact the flood could not have laid down the geologic column and fossil record as creationists claim without major violations of the laws of thermodynamics but that doesn't seem to bother creationists one bit.

Now as to evolution violating the second law please give us a precise statement ot the second law of thermodynamics and then explain precisely which step required for evolution violates the second law. Thermodynamics is a precise science so if evolution violates the second law you should be able to tell us precisely why. Vague generalizations about order and disorder won't get it done. There must be some precise and always required step in evolution that you can show violates the second law each and every time it might occur before anyone should take you claim seriously. Maybe you can be the first creationist to this but it really shouldn't be done on a thread about the flood. We can discuss how the YEC version of the flood violates the laws of thermodynamics if you like.

The frumious Bandersnatch

Arikay:The answer to this is Important to creationists, as you would assume it would need to say the earth is round and not flat for them to be able to say they truly take the bible literally, unless they decide to join the Flat Earth Society.
So does the bible say the earth is round or Flat.

The Bible teaches a flat earth as you will see. We definately don't need to join the flat earth society. The verse that arikay uses is Is. 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”
Some people interpret this verse different than others. I will give you both interpretations and you can decide. Both of them can explain this though.

Arikay:I will get to why this supports a Flat Earth later, however first I want to explain why its my Favorite.
Its my favorite because it hasn’t been brushed off like other verses have.

Arikay has been so bent on trying to prove that the Bible says the earth is flat, that he has not given a thought to anything else.

Arikay:The Strongs Definition of the Hebrew word used for “circle” is,

Notice that he is using a modern dictionary.

Arikay:The definition of a Circle is:
The definition of a Circle is:
“Circle:
1. A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.
2. A planar region bounded by a circle.
3. Something, such as a ring, shaped like such a plane curve.
4. A circular course, circuit, or orbit: a satellite's circle around the earth

So As you can see, a Circle is Not a sphere

While the definition may be that way now, we know that the hebrews back then had no word for sphere, so they wrote it like a circle.The next verse he uses is Prov.8:27

Prov. 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth...

Again,there was no word for this in hebrew so they used the same word that they had used for circle.

The next verse is Matt.4:8 "Again the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world,and the glory of them."

No way, it don't imply a flat earth or a monstrous mountain that could oversee the whole earth.

J.P. Holding explains: I have always thought that the trip to the mountain was a cheap psychological ploy by Satan, and that the showing of the kingdoms was accomplished by means of projecting images of some sort, as on a computer screen! Indeed, this is suggested by the parallel verse in Luke 4:5 -

The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.​

However, as anyone who has climbed mountains knows - and the writer of Matthew surely knew, if he lived in the area around Judea, as Matthew did - the higher up you go, the smaller things down below get, by your perspective. So it seems unlikely that (even if he did believe it a flat earth, personally) Matthew's offering is not compatible with a globe. Note that even on a flat earth, a high mountain would be a very poor place to observe the kingdoms of the world "in their glory." Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world, and Matthew's reader's would roll over laughing and throw his book in the garbage! It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed. (The mountain in question was probably Mt. Quarantania, not far from the site where John probably baptized. It commands an incredible view of the Jordan Valley.)

Again, we find no proof in that verse either.

Arikay:1) There is no Hebrew word for Sphere so circle was used instead.
[size=+1]Response[/size]: this defense still falsifies the claim that Isa 40:22 really means sphere, the interpretation that supposed "literalists" have taken. However I do find it interesting that the Hebrew word used, fits so well with the beliefs at that time. Maybe they did not need a word for sphere, since a flat circle is suggested by other verses such as Mat 4:8.

He tries to fall back on Matt. 4:8,which we have already revealed his faulty logic there.

Arikay:) Duwr does not mean sphere because of its different usage in other verses.
[size=+1]Response:[/size] You can see other words in the bible that seem to have different meanings depending on the context. However, a ball like object is still much more sphere like than a circle. Thus I would assume that they would want to use a word that better described the shape of the earth. Especially since it was then believed the earth was a flat circle, if they truly wanted to say different, then it would have been smart to stay away from words that meant Flat Circle, and go with words that meant a 3d object, like a ball.

1754. duwr, dure; from H1752; a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round about.​

This word no more inidicates sphericity than our other word, for it is used by Isaiah elsewhere thusly:

Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.​

Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city! Based on this and other usages, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a given shape.

Hope this answers your questions good enough. God Bless.

​

frumious Bandersnatch:Maybe you can be the first creationist to this but it really shouldn't be done on a thread about the flood. We can discuss how the YEC version of the flood violates the laws of thermodynamics if you like.

Why not we have discussed everything else on this thread. lol God Bless.

Josh1, Im moving the flat earth conversation to a new thread, the reply will be there.

Same forum, just new thread,

http://www.christianforums.com/t61919

oddchild said:

Has anyone researched the cultural stories of the flood?I have seen several different tales from various cultures with their own versions? Why is it that the stories have changed to such an extent. In China there are stories similar to that of the account in the Torah, however, in Africa and in other parts of the world there are accounts of a hill/mountain that the animals sought shelter in. Why are the stories conflicting?

Click to expand...

The stories are different for a couple of good reasons:

1. The authors of the stories were not inspired by God to write them; therefore they wrote whatever they wanted to.
2. The stories were written after the fact.

[bible]Genesis 10:6-10[/bible]

Notice in the above genealogy that Nimrod is the great-grandson of Noah.

When the Flood was over, and civilization started branching out, Nimrod went prodigal.

That is, he at one time was a "mighty hunter before the Lord," but for some reason he breaks away, goes approximately 500 miles out, and starts his own brand of civilization.

(It could be that he grew tired of hunting, and that he was an architect or mason at heart.)

But for whatever reason, the point is that his prodigal ways manifested themselves throughout history in the form of incorrect accounts of what actually happened, giving credit to false deities, instead of the true God of the universe.

It Liiiivvveeessssss!!!!

The Horror!!!