Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Early on, "currency" was just small lumps of metal, usually stamped with a seal attesting to purity and weight. Copper, silver, and god had utility in different ways but were useful metals. Only later did they come to represent specific currency.I think we're in agreement here, although the time period was a few hundred years earlier. And therefore gold was of value to the people mentioned in early Genesis, as a form of currency, at least.
Then, since smelting of metals was at least known, you agree with me that there were multiple "lands" that were affected by the flood, because there were people in those lands, right?Early on, "currency" was just small lumps of metal, usually stamped with a seal attesting to purity and weight. Copper, silver, and god had utility in different ways but were useful metals. Only later did they come to represent specific currency.
Don’t most Christians believe those things?A lot of people will go right over the second verse in Gen,
Where the earth [became] waste and empty.
Mankind would not have had "dominion" over the dinos.
The dinos easily would have had mankind for lunch.
The dinos where destroyed long before mankind was made.
I had to look that up.
A: A ‘fundie” is short for fundamentalist. A Christian
fundamentalist basically believes in these five things:
1. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God.
2. Jesus is God.
3. The substitutionary atonement.
4. The virgin birth of Jesus.
5. The resurrection of Jesus
and His second coming at some future time.
Jesus said " I will come again", Do you not believe Him?
More bible verses still about His second visit then His first.
I don’t think it was globally certainly marine life survived. I can't see a pair of humpbackwhales and a pair of bluewhales on the ark.But for some, the literary evidence is not compelling. So, allow me present some scientific evidence: there could not have been a worldwide flood as described in the Bible because there is simply not enough water in the earth's atmospheric system to produce such a flood.
According to data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the amount of water in the earth's atmosphere could not possibly cover the earth.[11] In fact:
One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth's water volume of about 332,500,000 mi3 (1,385,000,000 km3)
If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the ground to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch.
Additionally, because only 1.7% of the earth's water is stored underground,[12] there is not nearly enough water in groundwater storage beneath the earth's surface to account for the amount of water necessary to flood the entire earth to the extent described in the Bible.
Simply put: there is not enough water in Earth's atmosphere to raise the ocean's levels over an inch, much less to cover Mt. Ararat with water from 40 days of rain. There is simply not that much water in the system.
Thus, in order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many biblical literalists are willing to do. It is hypothetically possible that, say, the polar ice caps melted. This could raise the ocean levels beyond the 2.5 centimeters that all the earth's atmospheric water could were it to all rain down, but even then the thaw would only slightly affect the world's coastlines. Additionally, all scientific evidence points to larger polar ice caps in recent history, not smaller.[13]
Other fantastic scenarios could be offered to explain the flood. For instance, some might suggest that a colossal ice-asteroid could have burst into our orbit and melted, bringing with it an unconscionable amount of water into our atmosphere. But, even this desperate scenario poses a major problem for many biblical literalists who attempt to explain or prove the flood scientifically. The Bible says it "rained" and the "springs of the deep" opened, but mentions nothing about an asteroid. Likewise, were water to enter Earth's system, where did it all go? To where did the water recede? Earth's water cycle results in all water residing somewhere on Earth's surface in the form of oceans, ice, and freshwater lakes, beneath Earth's surface in subterranean reservoirs that produce springs and geysers, or in Earth's atmosphere as moisture. So even if water could enter Earth's closed system, where did it go?
Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it's impossible. There is not enough water in the earth's atmospheric system to even come close to covering all of the earth's landmasses.
Some I would agree but there's always room for rationalization of super natural powers. Leprosy was only healed by the supernatural powers of God, today its not the only sufficient treatment. I don't believe that every account in the bible of the powers of God can't be rationalize or explained, or pondered upon using the natural processes.God don't always give us all the details we would like to know ... however ... from the details given (specific dimensions of the ark) we accept it was sufficient to accommodate the animals the Lord sent and the ability to take care of them.
God is super natural and you are looking at the natural things (material) we are aware of and from that deducing to your "conclusion".
You can't dismiss the super natural power of God. There are many accounts in the bible that "seem" unbelievable (ie parting of the sea by Moses; Mary conceiving Jesus without being impregnated by a man) but that does not mean that these things didn't happen by God's super natural powers. So, do you discount these as well? Many many super natural occurrences in the Word of God.
Believe God .... or ... believe man (science and/or the things seen.
Science (or what is seen) can not explain the super natural ... so science and others create theories according to material things (of how it could have happened ... or could have not happened) .... such as you just did. We can not and should not try to rationalize or explain the super natural powers of God.
I'm sticking with God. Have no reason not to.
Assuming the Flood was an actual event and not allegory. Since there was a region-wide flood in the Middle East about the right time, it's likely to be based in an actual event, and not the mere catastrophic floods that commonly happened in Mesopotamia from time to time.Then, since smelting of metals was at least known, you agree with me that there were multiple "lands" that were affected by the flood, because there were people in those lands, right?
Since Jesus is a male human, and therefore has a Y chromosome, we couldn't properly classify his conception as parthenogenesis. It's a mystery we can't really understand.parthenogenesis has only been recorded once in humans but is something that happens in animals. Virgin birth isn't impossible in physical life.
There's a bigger problem for YE regarding whales:I don’t think it was globally certainly marine life survived. I can't see a pair of humpbackwhales and a pair of bluewhales on the ark.
We can make some inferences about the prehistory of money, by terms used. The shekel (a coin) could buy a shekel (specific weight) of wheat.I think we're in agreement here, although the time period was a few hundred years earlier. And therefore gold was of value to the people mentioned in early Genesis, as a form of currency, at least.
I would agree with the classification. It wasnt like the natural process of parthenogenesis in the animal kingdom.Since Jesus is a male human, and therefore has a Y chromosome, we couldn't properly classify his conception as parthenogenesis. It's a mystery we can't really understand.
As you write, parthenogenesis is not entirely impossible for humans, but it may never have actually happened.
Why would an egg not be needed for Christ's conception?I would agree with the classification. It wasnt like the natural process of parthenogenesis in the animal kingdom.
Imo the vessel started with the discarded dirt the uterus lining. Women are given every egg she will ever need from birth though none of them was needed.
None of which makes or prevents the flood from being tenable, right?We can make some inferences about the prehistory of money, by terms used. The shekel (a coin) could buy a shekel (specific weight) of wheat.
Wise's paper is a good read. But in it he suggests that YE creationists 1. would need to spend some more time on the subject to come up with reasonable explanations, which he thinks are possible, and 2. shouldn't spend that time right now, as there are more urgent things to be considering.There's a bigger problem for YE regarding whales:
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon
[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by thefamily Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale
fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Dr. Wise goes on to suggest some possible explanations. Worth reading.
"At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and ProzeuglodonSo from that you take a sentence that says creationists currently don't have as good an explanation as evolutionists?
Right. If it was, Jesus would have been female. Miracles don't conform to natural laws.I would agree with the classification. It wasnt like the natural process of parthenogenesis in the animal kingdom.
Money really has little or nothing to do with the flood story. Whether it's a historical event or an allegory, really doesn't matter. That's not what God is telling us, here.None of which makes or prevents the flood from being tenable, right?
So, why are we discussing money?Money really has little or nothing to do with the flood story. Whether it's a historical event or an allegory, really doesn't matter. That's not what God is telling us, here.
Right. "At present". And he suggests we don't go looking for one right now. So it doesn't appear to be a big concern of his."At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon
[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by thefamily Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale
fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales."
Because God already gave women all the eggs she will need her whole life from birth. God wouldn't take something from her He had already given. Would you gift someone only to just take back the gift years later?Why would an egg not be needed for Christ's conception?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?