Is evolution a fact or theory?

GenemZ · Jun 8, 2018

sfs said:
No, that's the conclusion of evolutionary biologists who have studied species in various stages of near and recent speciation. That's in contrast to the scenario you simply dreamed up without knowing anything about the subject.

Their parents, of course.

Um, so? Human ancestors were walking upright and able to carry babies long before Homo sapiens appeared.

You totally missed the point.

GenemZ · Jun 8, 2018

The Ark Hive Mind said:
Not according to scripture or the scientific materials I have seen, but I do not intend to demonstrate that at this time.

I have three questions for you concerning your beliefs, since I read you are 'catholic'.

Do you believe that the creation in Genesis 1-2 is given in literal 24 hour days, a 7 day week?

Do you believe in a literal global catastrophic flood in Genesis 6-9 that covered all the world?

Do you accept statements from 'church fathers' and 'doctors' of the 'catholic church' if they have the imprimatur and nihil obstat, and are 'canonized'?

Are those questions to be limited to him? I had a Catholic priest once tell me that Catholics only recently began to study Bible. And, that only applied to some Catholics. He told me that "you protestants" (that was his assumption) must be patient with them.

The Ark Hive Mind · Jun 8, 2018

The Barbarian said:
...Catholic. All Christians are small 'c' catholics, since "catholic" merely means "universal"

I am not 'catholic' in any way. The word is not found in scripture. The word Christian is [Act 11:26].

The Barbarian said:
... it is absurd to imagine literal mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. So most Christians have concluded that the story is figurative with the "days" being categories of creation.

Do you think Thomas Aquinas was 'absurd'?

Here is what Thomas Aquinas wrote about Creation in the days, which btw he believed in ex-nihilo, and also consider the same in the light of the Law of God, dealing with Creation and His authority and the changing of it, in his Summa Theologica:

[He begins by rebutting and refuting Augustine] "...by the "evening" and the "morning" ... But, according to Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem.), the entire period takes its name, as is customary, from its more important part, the day. And instance of this is found in the words of Jacob, "The days of my pilgrimage," where night is not mentioned at all. But the evening and the morning are mentioned as being the ends of the day, since day begins with morning and ends with evening, or because evening denotes the beginning of night, and morning the beginning of day. It seems fitting, also, that where the first distinction of creatures is described, divisions of time should be denoted only by what marks their beginning. And the reason for mentioning the evening first is that as the evening ends the day, which begins with the light, the termination of the light at evening precedes the termination of the darkness, which ends with the morning. But Chrysostom's explanation is that thereby it is intended to show that the natural day does not end with the evening, but with the morning (Hom. v in Gen.). ...

Reply to Objection 7. The words "one day" are used when day is first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-four hours. Hence, by mentioning "one," the measure of a natural day is fixed. Another reason may be to signify that a day is completed by the return of the sun to the point from which it commenced its course. And yet another, because at the completion of a week of seven days, the first day returns..." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 74, Article 3, Reply to Objection 6 and 7 [The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ

MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ] - SUMMA THEOLOGICA: All the seven days in common (Prima Pars, Q. 74)

Let us see what Thomas Aquinas [Summa Theologica] himself says how it came to be that the Roman Catholic church observes the 'first [day] of the week'; aka, Sunday, and He says that it was not God - not Jesus, not even the Apostles that changed the day from the 7th Day to that of the first, but He clearly says it was "...by the institution of the Church and the custom of Christian people..." and he also says that the Sabbath Commandment of the Decalogue is that which "...describes the exterior worship of God as the sign of a universal boon that concerns all." and the "...sign of this we are commanded to keep holy seventh day..." and "the reason for it is given: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested on the seventh day."".

So even Thomas Aquinas understood that the 7th Day sabbath Commandment points out the Creator of All and was given for All [not just Jew; for he says, "a universal boon"], and directly cited Exodus 20:11:

"I answer that, ...Now the precepts of the decalogue are, so to speak, first and common principles of the Law, and consequently the third precept of the decalogue describes the exterior worship of God as the sign of a universal boon that concerns all. This universal boon was the work of the Creation of the world, from which work God is stated to have rested on the seventh day: and sign of this we are commanded to keep holy seventh day--that is, to set it aside as a day to be given to God. Hence after the precept about the hallowing of the Sabbath the reason for it is given: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested on the seventh day." ..."

"...Reply to Objection 4. In the New Law the observance of the Lord's day took the place of the observance of the Sabbath, not by virtue of the precept but by the institution of the Church and the custom of Christian people...." [Roman Catholic Online Summa Theologica; Thomas Aquinas; "Second Part of the Second Part "; "Question 122. The precepts of justice"; "Article 4. Whether the third precept of the decalogue, concerning the hallowing of the Sabbath, is fittingly expressed?"'

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ

MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ] - SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The precepts of justice (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 122)

If I may share an additional thought?

The "light" of Days 1-3, are the glory of God itself, as shining from the face Jesus Christ:

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2Co 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

God is light:

1Jn_1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Rev_21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

&c.

Jesus is even called the "Sun of righteousness", the "Light" of the world:

Mal_4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

God conceals Himself in thick darkness [wraps in waters, like clouds], but can reveal that glory.

Deu_5:22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

Notice, that Genesis is the history of the original of natural days of the 7 day week, for the natural comes first, and later the spiritual:

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Without the natural first, the spiritual or even symbolic cannot be understand without the foundation of the natural. For instance, there was a natural lamb slain in Genesis 3, and later comes the spiritual Lamb, Jesus Christ. Metaphoric days cannot be understood without there first being natural days.

Also, 'light' is more than sunlight, but is what some call the entire 'electro-magnetic' spectrum.

God said in Exodus, that He literally created in 6 days, and rested the 7th, and even ties it to human experience, since as Jesus said, the sabbath of Creation was made for the man:

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

We do not have to guess about Genesis at all, when we prayerfully ask God, and study His word as instructed, Isa. 28:10.

I pray that this sheds some light on Genesis. There is the natural in Genesis, and then there is great material in the spiritual there dealing with salvation [for sinners are in darkness [even as the mind/heart is encased in water in darkness and is made of earth, think about your brain where it is, what it is], without form and void, and the Gospel brings the light, and reformation and life, and each day from the natural, also explains the spiritual events of the Gospel upon the individual, as well as the whole world], but the one does not negate or erase the other.

The Barbarian said:
Since the Bible doesn't say it was worldwide ...

What if I could share with you some information that it does say this?

The Barbarian said:
... a Roman Catholic could be a YE creationist ...

Good to hear that. Would you like to consider the scriptures on that, since your beliefs come from scripture?

The Ark Hive Mind · Jun 8, 2018

genez said:
Are those questions to be limited to him?...

Yes, only limited to the brother 'the barbarian'. It gets too involved with too many responding. Perhaps later for others as time allows.

The Ark Hive Mind · Jun 8, 2018

mathinspiration said:
Is evolution a fact or theory?

'Evolution' [ism~ the ideology in general] is neither a fact, nor a theory. It is in fact, an eternally deadly lie, put forth by the devil in heaven and again on earth.

Isa_14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Gen_3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Do people normally go around calling 'lies' theories, postulates, laws, facts, truths?

For instance, If someone were to say, "The moon is a 'sphere' 'made' of grayish cheese." Is this a theory? Are not certain truths contained within the lie?

Is there not a 'moon'? Is it not 'grayish'? Is it not 'sphere' like?

mathinspiration said:
Is there are proof of either?

There are various truths that are linked with the lie, otherwise it would not be beLIEvable.

The Barbarian · Jun 8, 2018

The Ark Hive Mind said:
I am not 'catholic' in any way.

If you accept Jesus as Lord, you are.

Do you think Thomas Aquinas was 'absurd'?

I think he was amazingly sharp at theology, but of course, he was mistaken about many things as it applied to creation, as other men of his time were.

Here is what Thomas Aquinas wrote about Creation in the days, which btw he believed in ex-nihilo,

The idea that the universe was created ex nihlo (in an instant) is older than Aquinas. But of course, he never wrote that life was created ex nihilo, since God says it wasn't. This is why some things that St. Tom wrote, are not Catholic doctrine.

]If I may share an additional thought
The "light" of Days 1-3, are the glory of God itself, as shining from the face Jesus Christ:

That nonscriptural revison won't work. "Morning" doesn't mean "big light in the sky."

(Barbarian notes that scripture does not say the flood was worldwide)

What if I could share with you some information that it does say this?

You mean like Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

"World" was used differently. It meant "the known area of the Earth, or most of it"

(Barbarian mentions that a Catholic could be a YE creationist)

Good to hear that. Would you like to consider the scriptures on that, since your beliefs come from scripture?

I'd be willing to see your new interpretations. What do you have?

sfs · Jun 8, 2018

genez said:
You totally missed the point.

I can only respond to the points that actually appear in your post. If you had something else in mind, you'll have to spell it out.

The Barbarian · Jun 8, 2018

The Ark Hive Mind said:
Evolution' [ism~ the ideology in general] is neither a fact, nor a theory. It is in fact, an eternally deadly lie, put forth by the devil in heaven and again on earth.

You've been misled. "Evolution"is an obseved phenomenon. "Evolutionary theory" is the scientific explanation for it. "Evolutionism" is most often, a straw man, created to hide the real thing.

Do people normally go around calling 'lies' theories, postulates, laws, facts, truths?

Young Earth creationists, flat earthers, and so on, mostly.

For instance, If someone were to say, "The moon is a 'sphere' 'made' of grayish cheese." Is this a theory?

Nope. I don't think you know what "theory" means in science.

The Barbarian · Jun 8, 2018

genez said:
I had a Catholic priest once tell me that Catholics only recently began to study Bible.

Seems unlikely, since the Church aided the printing of Bibles after Gutenburg rediscovered moveable type.

When I was in high school, we studied scripture in CCD. So that's pretty hard to understand.

The Ark Hive Mind · Jun 10, 2018

The Barbarian said:
If you accept Jesus as Lord, you are.

That is 'good catholicism' for us, wherein they tell us what we are, and what we believe. No brother, as stated, I do not ever accept the claim as 'catholic' in any way. I am no 'catholic' by any defintion of the word. I am not even a 'separated brethren', though I am your brother. Again, that term is not found in scripture [even once]. Allow me to demonstrate this:

The word “catholic” [Greek, “καθολικος”, Greek Tr. “Katholikos”] is not found in scripture [KJB], nor even directly in the koine Greek manuscripts, but is rather a derivation of two koine Greek words:

[1] [G2596] “καθ” [from “κατα”, a 'preposition'], “kath”, meaning “through” and

[2] [G3650] “ολης” [an 'adjective' [in this instance, though can be used as noun or adverb]], “holos”, meaning “whole, all, entire”.

Therefore, both, when combined together, meaning the “throughout all” [Acts 9:31 KJB], the whole, entire, or 'universal'. It is a later adaptation in the writings of Ignatius ca. AD 110, and also by Cyril of Jerusalem, Ireneaus speaking about Polycarp, and used from the 2nd Century onward by a certain class of persons calling themselves by this name, and is ultimately made more and more prominent, especially in the reign of the Emperor Constantine, in the years of the 4 Emperors [and even afterward], and the various political-religious factions all vying for clout for their self-perceived doctrines. I will recommend you read The Two Republics, by A. T. Jones - https://ia902306.us.archive.org/23/items/tworepublics00joneiala/tworepublics00joneiala.pdf

There are attempts [please note this word] by the apologists of “Catholicism” to 'find' this word “καθολικος” in the scripture, and here are those places:

[01]

Acts 9:31 KJB - Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Act 9:31 KJB + - ThenG3767 (G3303) hadG2192 theG3588 churchesG1577 restG1515 throughoutG2596 allG3650 JudaeaG2449 andG2532 GalileeG1056 andG2532 Samaria,G4540 and were edified;G3618 andG2532 walkingG4198 in theG3588 fearG5401 of theG3588 Lord,G2962 andG2532 in theG3588 comfortG3874 of theG3588 HolyG40 Ghost,G4151 were multiplied.G4129

Acts 9:31 GNT TR - αι μεν ουν εκκλησιαι καθ ολης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχον ειρηνην οικοδομουμεναι και πορευομεναι τω φοβω του κυριου και τη παρακλησει του αγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο

Act 9:31 GNT TR + - αιG3588 T-NPF μενG3303 PRT ουνG3767 CONJ εκκλησιαιG1577 N-NPF καθG2596 PREP οληςG3650 A-GSF τηςG3588 T-GSF ιουδαιαςG2449 N-GSF καιG2532 CONJ γαλιλαιαςG1056 N-GSF καιG2532 CONJ σαμαρειαςG4540 N-GSF ειχονG2192 V-IAI-3P ειρηνηνG1515 N-ASF οικοδομουμεναιG3618 V-PPP-NPF καιG2532 CONJ πορευομεναιG4198 V-PNP-NPF τωG3588 T-DSM φοβωG5401 N-DSM τουG3588 T-GSM κυριουG2962 N-GSM καιG2532 CONJ τηG3588 T-DSF παρακλησειG3874 N-DSF τουG3588 T-GSN αγιουG40 A-GSN πνευματοςG4151 N-GSN επληθυνοντοG4129 V-IPI-3P

*This is the only known instance in the Greek TR texts, where these two words are side by side, yet are clearly two distinct words, not directly speaking of the “church” [“εκκλησιαι”, “ekklesiai”] itself as “καθολικος”, but rather references the locality adjectively [“throughout all”] in which the “church” had “rest” [from persecution].

[02]

Romans 16:23 KJB - Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.

Romans 16:23 KJB + - GaiusG1050 mineG3450 host,G3581 andG2532 of theG3588 wholeG3650 church,G1577 salutethG782 you.G5209 ErastusG2037 theG3588 chamberlainG3623 of theG3588 cityG4172 salutethG782 you,G5209 andG2532 QuartusG2890 a brother.G80

Romans 16:23 GNT TR - ασπαζεται υμας γαιος ο ξενος μου και της εκκλησιας ολης ασπαζεται υμας εραστος ο οικονομος της πολεως και κουαρτος ο αδελφος

Romans 16:23 GNT TR + - ασπαζεταιG782 V-PNI-3S υμαςG4771 P-2AP γαιοςG1050 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM ξενοςG3581 A-NSM μουG1473 P-1GS καιG2532 CONJ τηςG3588 T-GSF εκκλησιαςG1577 N-GSF οληςG3650 A-GSF ασπαζεταιG782 V-PNI-3S υμαςG4771 P-2AP εραστοςG2037 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM οικονομοςG3623 N-NSM τηςG3588 T-GSF πολεωςG4172 N-GSF καιG2532 CONJ κουαρτοςG2890 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM αδελφοςG80 N-NSM

*In this instance, the koine Greek word [G2596] “καθ”, is not used at all in combination “ολης”. The word “ολης” is simply being used [as in many other places, 112 KJB [G3650]] as an adjective [“A-GSF”, Adjective – Genative, Singular, Feminine], to describe the amount [of persons thereof, locally] of the church who is [are] doing the greeting [“Tertius”, vs 22], with Paul and Gaius [Paul's “host”]. It is just simply including everyone in the church in the greeting, even after having listed a bunch of names to be greeted [vss. 1-16]. It does not designate the church as “καθολικος”.

[03]

1 Corinthians 14:23 KJB - If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

1 Corinthians 14:23 KJB + - IfG1437 thereforeG3767 theG3588 wholeG3650 churchG1577 be come togetherG4905 intoG1909 one place,G846 andG2532 allG3956 speakG2980 with tongues,G1100 andG1161 there come inG1525 those that are unlearned,G2399 orG2228 unbelievers,G571 will they notG3756 sayG2046 thatG3754 ye are mad?G3105

1 Corinthians 14:23 GNT TR - εαν ουν συνελθη η εκκλησια ολη επι το αυτο και παντες γλωσσαις λαλωσιν εισελθωσιν δε ιδιωται η απιστοι ουκ ερουσιν οτι μαινεσθε

1 Corinthians 14:23 GN TR + - εανG1437 COND ουνG3767 CONJ συνελθηG4905 V-2AAS-3S ηG3588 T-NSF εκκλησιαG1577 N-NSF οληG3650 A-NSF επιG1909 PREP τοG3588 T-ASN αυτοG846 P-ASN καιG2532 CONJ παντεςG3956 A-NPM γλωσσαιςG1100 N-DPF λαλωσινG2980 V-PAS-3P εισελθωσινG1525 V-2AAS-3P δεG1161 CONJ ιδιωταιG2399 N-NPM ηG2228 PRT απιστοιG571 A-NPM ουκG3756 PRT-N ερουσινG2046 V-FAI-3P οτιG3754 CONJ μαινεσθεG3105 V-PNI-2P

*In this instance, the koine Greek word [G2596] “καθ”, is not used at all in combination “ολης”. The word “ολης” is simply being used [as in many other places, 112 KJB [G3650]] as an adjective [“A-GSF”, Adjective – Nominative, Singular, Feminine], to describe the amount [of persons thereof, locally] of the church if [a possibility] they came together as one group. It does not designate the church as “καθολικος”.

Each attempt to 'find' this word, “καθολικος”, in scripture [KJB] yields no [0] results. The words “καθ” [used 378 times in the GNT TR, G2596] and/or “ολης” [used 112 times in the GNT TR, G3650] are used throughout the scripture, in various ways, most of which are never in connection with the word “εκκλησια” whatsoever.

The Barbarian said:
I think he was amazingly sharp at theology, but of course, he was mistaken about many things as it applied to creation, as other men of his time were.

It is simply amazing what material within the 'sainted' church fathers, as the Summa of Aquinas that any 'good catholic' will throw away at their personal whim, even when it has been given the 'imprimatur' [latin for let it be printed] and 'nihil obstat' [latin for nothing obstructs, ie doctrinally sound] and with the seal of mary, the 'seat of wisdom' on it. Tell me then good brother 'the barbarian', what other materials that have such accoutrements of the papacy and councils can you simply just 'vanish' away or 'disregard' when you personally feel like it? Can I cite some material in Ligouri that has the same stamps of approval? Will you throw those statements away also, even when others accept them as valid, just as Aquinas statments on the literal creation? How do you know what to throw away and what to keep and who decides that? Right now, it seems like you do. I can speak with assurance, and knowledge that Muslims do the same thing, in regards their material. Pick and choose among their Hadiths, Tafsirs, and even qur'anic translations. What are you doing that is not different than what they do, even in regards the OT/NT, when it seems to disagree with their own personal and present understanding on anything?

The Barbarian said:
The idea that the universe was created ex nihlo (in an instant) is older than Aquinas. But of course, he never wrote that life was created ex nihilo, since God says it wasn't. This is why some things that St. Tom wrote, are not Catholic doctrine.

What do you make of this verse:

Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

What do you make of these phrases:

"He spake" and "it was so": Gen. 1:7,9,11,15,24,30 in connection with God's [Jesus] other creative/re-creative miracles?, such as:

"And immediately": Matt. 8:3, 20:34; Mar. 1:31,42, 2:12, 10:52; Luk. 1:64. 4:39, 5:13,25, 8:44,47, 13:13, 18:43; Jhn. 5:9; Act. 3:7, 9:18,34, 13:11

The Barbarian said:
That nonscriptural revison won't work.

Non-scriptural? Scripture was directly cited. If the texts do not agree with your position and understanding, it suddenly doesn't become 'non-scriptural' by you saying so.

The Barbarian said:
"Morning" doesn't mean "big light in the sky."

Morning means the coming of the light, as in the "morning light" [and doesn't in Genesis days 1-3 require the sun, except the Sun of Righteouness - Jesus]. For instance:

Act_9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

Act_22:6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

Act_22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Act_22:11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

Act_26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

2Co_4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2Co_4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Rev_2:28 And I will give him the morning star.

Rev_22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Exo_16:7 And in the morning, then ye shall see the glory of the LORD; for that he heareth your murmurings against the LORD: and what are we, that ye murmur against us?

Rev_22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

The Barbarian said:
(Barbarian notes that scripture does not say the flood was worldwide)

Do you normally talk about yourself in the third person perspective? Just curious.

The Barbarian said:
You mean like Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

"World" was used differently. It meant "the known area of the Earth, or most of it"

Luk. 2:1 is not contextually linked naturally to Gen. 6-9, neither to Job 22, nor 1 Pet. 3, nor 2 Pet. 2. To be consistent with what you promoted, you might as well say also that God will judge the "world" and use the same localized logic, since the flood is linked to global judgment and global destruction to come.

The Barbarian said:
(Barbarian mentions that a Catholic could be a YE creationist)

Except when it comes to Aquinas and the Summa, right? He and it would be wrong according to you?

The Ark Hive Mind · Jun 10, 2018

The Barbarian said:
I'd be willing to see your new interpretations. What do you have?

The Global Flood:

As for the size of the Flood it was completely Global, not 'ethnocentric', but rather was covering the whole surface of the entire earth below the heavens even as high as 15 cubits above the "then" highest mountains.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (Genesis 7:20)

[1] First we see that the waters "prevail[ed]". "...the waters prevailed..." [Genesis 7:18,19,20,24] From the Hebrew [Tr.]: "gabar" meaning to "have strength over", "over-powering", etc. The waters "prevail[ed]" so much so, that "fifteen cubits upward" above the very "mountains were covered" and overcame, so that "all the high hills", being "under the whole heaven, were covered".

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. (Genesis 7:19)

[2] Secondly we read that all men ["all flesh" and "every man", vs 21], from "under the whole heaven" and all land animals and birds ["fowls also of the air" vs 3 and "fowl(s)" vs 8,14,21 and "fowl of heaven" vs 23], wherein is the breath of life, outside of the Ark were destroyed:

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. (Genesis 6:13)

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. (Genesis 6:17)

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: (Genesis 7:21)

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. (Genesis 9:11)

And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15)

Consider carefully that the text is from the viewpoint of GOD ["before ME" Genesis 6:13, 7:1], and that which is "under the whole heaven", and not some localized, ethnocentric event. It would be meaningless to have those "fowls" which could fly enter into the Ark, the Clean Pairs [of Sevens] an the Unclean Pairs [by Twos], should the Flood not be indeed entriely global. It is easily demonstrated that Birds can fly away from and can escape a local flood, especially since the Flood did not cover all the mountains in a single day. In fact, animals know of disaster many hours and sometimes even days in advance of men, and would have fled before it even happened, but instead we see them miraculously brought to the Ark by God, in Pairs! Mankind also who were left outside of the Ark, too could just as easily flee to another location through various means should the flood be merely local. The Antediluvians were no fools [though such, not to enter the Ark] to stand around while waters arose, for these men were of giant intellect, knowing city building [Genesis 4:17], metalurgy [Genesis 4:22], fine craft like musical instruments, arts [Genesis 4:21], tent making [Genesis 4:20], etc. [and we can even go to places in the world where such ancient remains are found of said civilization, massive stones, superb craftsmanship, surgery, things of exquisite and even unrepeatable design, more on this later]

[3] Thirdly, the Covenant that GOD makes with Noah and "all flesh" is universal [entirely global] in scope. Look again at the Promise and Covenant made by GOD:

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. (Genesis 9:11)

And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15)

The Promise and Covenant of GOD then made would be meaningless, as would be the sign ["[rain]bow" Genesis 9:13] given to "all flesh". If the Flood only destroyed a local [ethnocentric] locale then the Promise is worthless Biblically, for endless floods and disasters have since come upon the earth and wiped out many peoples, and beasts. Just look at the recent destruction in Japan, and further back, New Orleans, etc.

I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. (Genesis 9:13)

However, GOD's promise stand's firm, in that never again would a Flood of water cover the whole earth, even though in the very end times to come, "islands" will flee away at the coming destruction.

[4] Fourthly, GOD made all men, and not just those in “Noah's valley” [ethnocentric locale]:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26)

And so, GOD was angry with all mortals ["all flesh"] upon the Earth:

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

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:12)

[5] Fifthly, GOD had ALL the fountains of the great abyss break up, not just some localized [ethnocentric] fountains, nor few fountains, but ALL:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (Genesis 7:11)

The Bible declares that the great abyss is below the entire surface of the earth, and not merely localized to “Noah's valley” [ethnocentric locale]:

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. (Genesis 1:2)

[6] Sixthly, the Flood lasted much longer than 40 days and 40 nights [in which it rained], for it lasted roughly a little over a year [370], counting the entirety of time:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (Genesis 7:11)

And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. (Genesis 7:12)

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first [month], the first [day] of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. (Genesis 8:13)

And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. (Genesis 8:14)

The Rain, from the floodgates of the sky, was not the only part of the Deluge, but also the vast amounts and endless volumes of water which burst forth from beneath the earth in the breaking up of the great abyss:

The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; (Genesis 8:2)

The remainder of scripture also gives:

Job says:

Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood: (Job 22:16) [speaking of all of the wicked men and the way in which they had trodden, verse 15]

Isaiah declares a global flood:

For this [is as] the waters of Noah unto me: for [as] I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. (Isaiah 54:9)

Peter makes it quite clear that GOD destroyed them all and took them all away (buried in water, a figure of complete immersion of baptism, then after to be covered in fire), only 8 souls of mankind being saved [Noah "only" and his family and their wives Genesis 7:23]:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:20)

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:21)

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; (2 Peter 2:5)

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (2 Peter 3:3)

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (2 Peter 3:5)

Whereby the world that then was, being, overflowed with water, perished: (2 Peter 3:6)

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:7)

Several words used by Peter in the Greek for this flood are, "Kosmos", universe, totality of something [like of the earth/planet], and "kataklyzō", 1) to overwhelm with water, to submerge, deluge [like Baptism, complete total immersion/submersion] [it is also where we get the word cataclysm] and Peter directly equates that Global judgment by water to the one to come by fire - total global judgment.

[7] A seventh serious matter, would be to localize the Flood to an ethnocentric locale would then cripple the Final Judgment of scripture to an ethnocentric locale, as Peter equates them together, one the forerunner of the other [a world baptised in Water, then also Fire, like as we]. Scripture is more than clear on the global fires to come [can be cited if necessary].

[8] Eighth, in even that JESUS HIMSELF says that they were all destroyed in the flood, and relates the flood to the final judgment by fire [which will cover the whole Earth, Revelation 20, etc]:

But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:37)

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (Matthew 24:38)

And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:39)

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. (Luke 17:26)

They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:27)

All of the wicked humans were destroyed by the Flood and only 8 humans were spared - yet Satan lived through the flood and continued to entice...

Other mentions of the great flood:

Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. (Psalms 104:6)

Others, seeking to make excuses, cite other passages, but do not consider their context, and so dealing with 'roaring lions' and 'here be dragons'...

Psalms 104. Deals with the totality of the waters from their Creation [Psalms 104:5-6a], to their covering the Earth [Psalms 104:6b-8], to no more again covering the whole earth by God's covenant [Psalms 104:9-13, etc].

Job 38. Speaking about the omnipotence of GOD declaring that HE controls and upholds all things and sets their bounds, whether they be held or released for HIS purposes. The time of Job is after the Global Flood and before Abraham. Job fully believed in the Globality of the Flood, see noted passages above or [Job 22:15-16, 26:5,12; etc].

Proverbs 8. Again as Job, signifying God's Omnipotence and His controlling and uphold ing all things by His Power, HE setting their bounds, whether they be held or released for HIS Purposes. They should not "pass HIS commandment", nor can they do otherwise than to respond to HIS will, as was done in the Global Flood.

Compromise is impossible. There are also several really great video materials on this subject.

The Ark Hive Mind · Jun 10, 2018

The Barbarian said:
Nope. I don't think you know what "theory" means in science.

Why is my example of 'theory' not the same as the example offered for 'evolution', when all of the parts are identified in it, as done with my example?

The Barbarian · Jun 10, 2018

The Ark Hive Mind said:
That is 'good catholicism' for us, wherein they tell us what we are, and what we believe.

Nope. It just means "Christian."

No brother, as stated, I do not ever accept the claim as 'catholic' in any way. I am no 'catholic' by any defintion of the word. I am not even a 'separated brethren', though I am your brother. Again, that term is not found in scripture [even once].

"Trinity" is not found in scripture. So you're denying the Trinity? How is that?

The Ark Hive Mind said:
Do you normally talk about yourself in the third person perspective? Just curious.

Habit from Usenet. You wouldn't understand.

(Barbarian mentions that a Catholic could be a YE creationist)

Except when it comes to Aquinas and the Summa, right?

Why do you think he couldn't be a creationist?

He and it would be wrong according to you?

Only the bishops in council and the Pope speaking ex cathedra are infallible.

Barbarian observes:
You mean like Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

"World" was used differently. It meant "the known area of the Earth, or most of it"

The Ark Hive Mind said:
Luk. 2:1 is not contextually linked naturally to Gen. 6-9, neither to Job 22, nor 1 Pet. 3, nor 2 Pet. 2...

Nice try. But if you redefine words to fit whatever you're trying to prove, then any position is equally plausible. That's the best you can do?

The Barbarian · Jun 10, 2018

Barbarian observes:
Nope. I don't think you know what "theory" means in science.

The Ark Hive Mind said:
Why is my example of 'theory' not the same as the example offered for 'evolution',

Because a theory is a well-tested idea or group of ideas that have been supported by evidence. Your "example" is like creationism; a modern idea supported only by imagination.

The Barbarian · Jun 10, 2018

And "Under the whole heaven" meant "from horizon to horizon." And "eretz" (earth) could mean "my land", "hereabouts", "this country, e.g. "eretz Israel", and so on. What it is not ever shown to be is "the entire Earth."

As you learned, "the world" meant "our culture", "the Roman Empire", and so on. The concept of the whole Earth was not part of that word.

2tim_215 · Jun 10, 2018

barbarian, explain to me 1 Pet 3:20 where it says specifically that only 8 souls were saved where all over Genesis and elsewhere (in particular 1 Peter 3) it describes the flood as being Global. The Ark Hive Mind seems to give a pretty good explanation using scripture from what I can see.

The Ark Hive Mind · Jun 10, 2018

2tim_215 said:
barbarian, explain to me 1 Pet 3:20 where it says specifically that only 8 souls were saved where all over Genesis and elsewhere (in particular 1 Peter 3) it describes the flood as being Global. The Ark Hive Mind seems to give a pretty good explanation using scripture from what I can see.

He also neglected to respond to the other points in connection with the point he mentioned, and did not refute. Apparently, "under the whole heaven" is defined by "the barbarian" (whom I do not hate, but love, as I used to think just like him until I actually read the texts prayerfully, and saw the evidences in the world left behind by the flood itself) to mean a portion of sky, rather than what Genesis 1 says, the whole sky.

The Barbarian · Jun 10, 2018

2tim_215 said:
barbarian, explain to me 1 Pet 3:20 where it says specifically that only 8 souls were saved where all over Genesis and elsewhere (in particular 1 Peter 3) it describes the flood as being Global.

1 Peter 3 doesn't describe it as global. Indeed it uses the same word that the Bible uses for "the Roman Empire."

Genesis says that only 8 survived in that land (eretz). If this was a literal event, (and we cannot be sure that it was), it describes a regional flood, not a worldwide flood.

It's not just the text that tells us this. One would have to explain how koalas (but not wolves or tigers) were able to get to Australia after the flood. It would have to explain how the Egyptian civilization continued on, oblivious to a worldwide flood.

It's much more sensible to go with the text as it is, and not insert "global" into the account.

The Barbarian · Jun 10, 2018

The Ark Hive Mind said:
He also neglected to respond to the other points in connection with the point he mentioned, and did not refute. Apparently, "under the whole heaven" is defined by "the barbarian" (whom I do not hate, but love, as I used to think just like him until I actually read the texts prayerfully, and saw the evidences in the world left behind by the flood itself) to mean a portion of sky, rather than what Genesis 1 says, the whole sky.

The use of "under heaven" makes no sense at all, if it's a global flood. The Israelites saw their land as flat, with a domed sky above, through which windows opened to let rain fall. "Under Heaven" (raqia) makes this clear;

noun masculineGenesis 1:6 extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳ר Ezekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְ Genesis 1:14 +; — ᵐ5 στερέωμα, ᵑ9 firmamentum, compare Syriac below √above; —

1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support (WklAltor. Forsch. iv. 347) Ezekiel 1:22,23,25(gloss ? compare Co Toy), Ezekiel 1:26 (supporting ׳י's throne). Hence (CoEzekiel 1:22)
2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 1:8 (called שָׁמַיַם; all P), Psalm 19:2 ("" הַשָּׁמַיַם), ׳זֹהַר הָר Daniel 12:3; also ׳ר הַשָּׁמִיִם Genesis 1:14,15,17, ׳הַשּׁ ׳עַלמְּֿנֵי ר Genesis 1:20 (all P). **רְקִיעַ עֻזּוֺ Psalm 150:1 (suffix reference to ׳י).
Strong's Hebrew: 7549. רָקִ֫יעַ (raqia) -- an extended surface, expanse

Thus, it means the dome of the sky, which the person transcribing the story regarded as a solid dome with opening through which water fell:
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

There is no way to shoehorn a global flood into the story. It just doesn't fit.

The Ark Hive Mind · Jun 10, 2018

The Barbarian said:
The use of "under heaven" makes no sense at all, if it's a global flood. The Israelites saw their land as flat, with a domed sky above, through which windows opened to let rain fall. "Under Heaven" (raqia) makes this clear;

No, the Israelites (which sailed the seas), knew the earth was a globe (consider the days of Solomon) Consider:

Webster's 1828 or FIRMAMENT - Definition from the KJV Dictionary :

FIRMAMENT, n. ferm'ament. [L. firmamentum, from firmus, firmo.]

The region of the air; the sky or heavens. In scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; for such is the signification of the Hebrew word, coinciding with regio, region, and reach. The original therefore does not convey the sense of solidity, but of stretching, extension; the great arch or expanse over our heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Genesis 1:6.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament. Genesis 1:14.

Other:

"From the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation" "of the Hebrew raki'a. This word means simply "expansion."

Scriptures:

Job_41:11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.

Jer_10:11 Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

Dan_7:27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Act_4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Is evolution a fact or theory?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Ark Hive

The Ark Hive

The Ark Hive

Crabby Old White Guy

Senior Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

The Ark Hive

The Ark Hive

The Ark Hive

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

The Ark Hive

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

The Ark Hive

Similar threads