A global flood is simply untenable

[The Barbarian]

Neither is assuming that "land" only ever means a particular region, when you've shown that it means all the land of the world in this instance.

In fact, it can mean "dirt", "hereabouts", "my land", "far as the eye can see", "a particular nation", or even "all the land." But "tebel" means the entire world. People who assume that "land" means "all the land" are merely adding their wishes to scripture.

 

[FaithT]

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
From Communion and Stewardship; the Report of the International Theological Commission
Chaired by Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI

I would think so.

See, that’s one reason why I’m seiously considering leaving the LCMS and returning to Catholicism. They don’t just disregard all the overwhelming science.

 

[FaithT]

We aren't even sure what species they were. But IMO, scripture makes it clear that they were real people. There's nothing in biology to rule that out; God created them as unique beings by give them immortal souls.

Apparently, the first two humans to be so created. Humans evolved from other hominids, but we don't know for sure which two humans were first created as Adam and Eve.

That makes much more sense to me than the literal there were no humans until God made Adam from the dust on the ground and Eve from Adam’s rib.

 

[The Barbarian]

That makes much more sense to me than the literal there were no humans until God made Adam from the dust on the ground and Eve from Adam’s rib.

Anyone who supposes that scripture and science contradict each other, misunderstands one or both of them.

 

[FaithT]

Anyone who supposes that scripture and science contradict each other, misunderstands one or both of them.

Explain please. Do you mean that Gid did make Adam from the dust on the ground, and Eve, from Adam’s rib or something else?

 

[The Barbarian]

Explain please. Do you mean that Gid did make Adam from the dust on the ground, and Eve, from Adam’s rib or something else?

For most Christians, it's figurative. We are animals, brought forth by the earth like the others. The point is, God directly gives us a living soul. The comparison is what He's making clear here.

 

[FaithT]

For most Christians, it's figurative. We are animals, brought forth by the earth like the others. The point is, God directly gives us a living soul. The comparison is what He's making clear here.

Ok.

 

[FaithT]

For most Christians, it's figurative. We are animals, brought forth by the earth like the others. The point is, God directly gives us a living soul. The comparison is what He's making clear here.

So you believe we evolved, correct? And what exactly do you mean by “brought forth by the earth”?

 

[The Barbarian]

So you believe we evolved, correct? And what exactly do you mean by “brought forth by the earth”?

No question that anatomically modern humans evolved from earlier hominids. God is not clear as to how the Earth brought forth life, but research has so far indicated that God was telling us about abiogenesis, the appearance of life from non-living matter.

 

[FaithT]

No question that anatomically modern humans evolved from earlier hominids. God is not clear as to how the Earth brought forth life, but research has so far indicated that God was telling us about abiogenesis, the appearance of life from non-living matter.

Ok good. I think that’s what I believe too.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Too many species, too many mouths to feed. And if you're YEC you have over 1,000 species of dinosaurs and therapod dinosaurs to contend with. And frankly we are definitely on their menu. The Ark would need warehouse sized food and water storages. And what about waste disposal? The stinkiest ark to have ever sailed the global sea. Have you ever driven past a cattle farm but imagine that on a larger scale in an enclosed space? I think Christianity especially the Fundies, may need to accept that the flood was a massive regional one and likely a passed down oral tradition that may grew alittle larger each time it was taught and that was eventually became canonized by Moses and the ancient scribes. But furthermore, it fits the pattern of Yahweh's judgment of the nations throughout the Old Testament. In fact, both Jesus and Peter drew comparisons between the Flood and the destruction of Jerusalem A.D. 70 itself a regional, national judgment.

View attachment 339512
View attachment 339513

God was in charge...the entire account is a miracle...do you deny the miraculous in general? Just wondering where you stand? (serious question)
If not denying the miraculous consider how God provided for Elijah and the widow as just one example. Cannot this same God be keeper and provider of the animals in the ark?

 

[The Barbarian]

God was in charge...the entire account is a miracle...do you deny the miraculous in general? Just wondering where you stand? (serious question)
If not denying the miraculous consider how God provided for Elijah and the widow as just one example. Cannot this same God be keeper and provider of the animals in the ark?

If you get to call in a non-scriptural miracle every time your argument hits a logical impossibility, then any story is equally beleiveable.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

If you get to call in a non-scriptural miracle every time your argument hits a logical impossibility, then any story is equally beleiveable.

Reading the Scripture literally in areas of the Bible is not akin to "calling in a miracle" and you know it. Your words prove to be a denigration to miracles in general. Are you one who does not believe in miracles?
There are facts given us in Genesis which build or stem from the flood and days of the flood. NT also mentions the flood and I see no evidence of the account being an allegory.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you get to call in a non-scriptural miracle every time your argument hits a logical impossibility, then any story is equally believeable.

Reading the Scripture literally in areas of the Bible is not akin to "calling in a miracle"

But adding "global" to the flood story is calling in a miracle and you know it. Your words prove to be a denigration to miracles in general.

You're letting man decide miracles. Only God can do that. Do you not know that miracles are acts of God? Accept only the facts given us in Genesis which build or stem from the flood and days of the flood. Forget your modern additions to His word.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

If you get to call in a non-scriptural miracle every time your argument hits a logical impossibility, then any story is equally believeable.


But adding "global" to the flood story is calling in a miracle and you know it. Your words prove to be a denigration to miracles in general.

You're letting man decide miracles. Only God can do that. Do you not know that miracles are acts of God? Accept only the facts given us in Genesis which build or stem from the flood and days of the flood. Forget your modern additions to His word.

"The world" means just that...global. This fact is not a modern addition. What does the rainbow mean to you? God said never again would He send a flood to destroy the *earth*.
Jesus does not announce a miracle to be a miracle...these accounts are spelled out on the pages of Scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

"The world" means just that...global.

But God used "land." He didn't use "world." "World" is a modern addition as you now see. Thank you.

What does the rainbow mean to you?

In the Bible, a symbol of God's forgiveness and mercy.

God said never again would He send a flood to destroy the *earth*.

The "land." That's what "eretz" means. Did He destroy that area again? Don't think so.

Jesus does not announce a miracle to be a miracle...

God's word makes miracles clear. It remains true that if you can invent a non-scriptural miracle to make your new interpretation work, whenever it runs into problems, then any interpretation is equally plausible.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

But God used "land." He didn't use "world." "World" is a modern addition as you now see. Thank you.

In the Bible, a symbol of God's forgiveness and mercy.

The "land." That's what "eretz" means. Did He destroy that area again? Don't think so.

God's word makes miracles clear. It remains true that if you can invent a non-scriptural miracle to make your new interpretation work, whenever it runs into problems, then any interpretation is equally plausible.

I do not have my Greek/ Hebrews interlinear Bible with me to check on the word meaning. I do have with me my 1560 Geneva Bible and it states:
Genesis 6:17:
And I, behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life under the heavens; all that is in the earth shall perish.
So the words used, context, makes it more clear. "Under the heavens" and "the earth" are global would seem to me.
As for your criticisms that I am "inventing" miracles, the very same argument can be used by me against you in the reverse terms.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

But God used "land." He didn't use "world." "World" is a modern addition as you now see. Thank you.

In the Bible, a symbol of God's forgiveness and mercy.

The "land." That's what "eretz" means. Did He destroy that area again? Don't think so.

God's word makes miracles clear. It remains true that if you can invent a non-scriptural miracle to make your new interpretation work, whenever it runs into problems, then any interpretation is equally plausible.

Translation of the Bible or any archaic words always involves the "art" of bringing out the usage of the day. This is not always clearly understood with Hebrew writings because of the antiquity of the language with changes of usage of words over time.
Also along these lines is Proverbs 1...gaining understanding...of among all else...sayings of the wise...meaning, usage of the language.
Over time we grow less trustful of Scripture due to the advancement of the sciences which many times describe away the miraculous. I prefer to guard against this.

 

[The Barbarian]

I do not have my Greek/ Hebrews interlinear Bible with me to check on the word meaning. I do have with me my 1560 Geneva Bible and it states:

The 1560 Geneva Bible does not overrule Herbew usage. Sorry.

So the words used, context, makes it more clear. "Under the heavens" and "the earth" are global would seem to me.

Neither do you. Sorry again. If God meant "world", He would have used "world" (tebel)

Instead He said "land" (eretz). "Under Heaven" was an old figure of speech first used when the Hebrews assumed a flat earth with a solid domed sky over it, with windows through which rain could fall. Above that, they assumed water and then Heaven. So it came to mean "as far as the eye could see" or "everywhere." But once the Hebrews realized the world wasn't flat, it no longer had a literal meaning.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

The 1560 Geneva Bible does not overrule Herbew usage. Sorry.


Neither do you. Sorry again. If God meant "world", He would have used "world" (tebel)

Instead He said "land" (eretz). "Under Heaven" was an old figure of speech first used when the Hebrews assumed a flat earth with a solid domed sky over it, with windows through which rain could fall. Above that, they assumed water and then Heaven. So it came to mean "as far as the eye could see" or "everywhere." But once the Hebrews realized the world wasn't flat, it no longer had a literal meaning.

The progression of the Hebrew language which you describe is not to my knowledge evident in the writings of Scripture. Again, you are relying on modern progressions and explanations.
Changes or so called modern discoveries often are used against the Bible with an intended net effect of loosening the reign or governance of God and His word over our lives.
I am cautiously guarding against this.
Jesus said...heaven and earth may pass away, but my words shall never pass away.