Asteroid Strike

[Ken Rank]

It has been a common interpretation since the beginning of the church.

Yes, but the bible wasn't written by the early church. The creation account was written by a Hebrew in what we call the OT. @Semper-Fi also shows us something evolution doesn't deal with... why would tree seeds evolve into a state where their existence depended on the digestive process of a bird? They wouldn't, that thought is actually against evolutionary thinking and yet here we are. Clearly God made it this way. Call it "Intelligent Design," a nice catch phrase used by many who see the signs but still can't get themselves to admit their is an Almighty Creator.

 

[ewq1938]

The text never says the flood was to remove some race of giants.

It does since it speaks of Noah being perfect in his generations and that's after talking about giants having been born so others generations would not have been perfect because of this. It's not complicated to see why God sends the flood.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Gen 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, but the bible wasn't written by the early church.

So you believe the creation days are 24 hour days and thus the trees didn't need animals to make their seeds able to germinate?

 

[Ken Rank]

So you believe the creation days are 24 hour days and thus the trees didn't need animals to make their seeds able to germinate?

Yes on 24 hour days... He was specific... "evening and morning" not 365,000 evenings and mornings. And we all know a bird can carry a seed as do other forms of life. But for a tree to exist only because a specific bird was able to do what was necessary internally to make that happen is too coincidental for me. And I don't buy coincidence... I buy a God that does what is necessary whether we have an answer for it or not.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes on 24 hour days... He was specific...

Yet a day to him is to us like a thousand years so maybe it's that way.

 

[Ken Rank]

Yet a day to him is to us like a thousand years so maybe it's that way.

The word "as" is a simile, which is a figure of speech, not to be taken literally. God is eternal, 1000 years, million, a billion... all not relevant because He is by definition outside of time, timeless, everlasting, eternal.

The "day is as 1000 years, 1000 years as a day" is more likely a keygen... a tool to unlock prophecy. For example...

Hosea 6:1 Come, and let us return to the Lord; For He has torn, but He will heal us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
Hosea 6:2 After two days He will revive us; On the third day He will raise us up, That we may live in His sight.

There has been 2000 years since messiah.... who when he comes, raises the dead. The 3rd day talking about the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom....

 

[ViaCrucis]

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days;

The words is הַנְּפִלִים, ha-nephilym, "the nephilim". The word nephilim doesn't mean "giants", it comes from the root nphl meaning "fallen" or the verb "to fall". So "fallen ones" would be a more accurate translation here. "Giants" comes from the LXX which chose to translate this word as gigantes. That is almost certainly an influence from the Enochian tradition, as the Hebrew simply doesn't mean that.

So the reading of "giants" simply isn't faithful to the text. So no, there were no giants.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ewq1938]

The words is הַנְּפִלִים, ha-nephilym, "the nephilim". The word nephilim doesn't mean "giants", it comes from the root nphl meaning "fallen" or the verb "to fall".

That's known as a "root fallacy". Nephilim means a bully and/or giant. We are not talking about the root of Nephilim but the word Nephilim.

H5303
נפל נפיל
nephı̂yl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.

H5303
נפל / נפיל
nephı̂yl / nephil
BDB Definition:
1) giants, the Nephilim
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H5307
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1393a

So "fallen ones" would be a more accurate translation here.

Only if one ignores the word used in the manuscripts and substitutes it's root word which isn't in that verse. That's a form of Eisegesis.

So the reading of "giants" simply isn't faithful to the text. So no, there were no giants.

Yes there were giants. Ever heard of Goliath?

 

[-57]

Why is it impossible? The only support I see for that claim is Creationists insisting it is so.

How did it survive?

 

[-57]

Given the measurements for the ark in Scripture, we wouldn't be able to fit two every living animal alive today let alone two of every animal that ever existed.

You do know thats's not what the bible teaches? Take the time to understand what a "kind" is.

 

[Ophiolite]

You do know thats's not what the bible teaches? Take the time to understand what a "kind" is.

I would be delighted to understand what a kind is, but in over half a century of seeking I have yet to get a consistent definition form Creationists. If memory serves, I've sometimes found it difficult to get a consistent definition from a single Creationist. The problem goes away completely if you take the "kind" view that Via Crucis does: to paraphrase Marshal Macluhan, The Myth is the Message.

 

[-57]

I would be delighted to understand what a kind is, but in over half a century of seeking I have yet to get a consistent definition form Creationists. If memory serves, I've sometimes found it difficult to get a consistent definition from a single Creationist. The problem goes away completely if you take the "kind" view that Via Crucis does: to paraphrase Marshal Macluhan, The Myth is the Message.

You do know kind doesn't equal species?

 

[Ophiolite]

You do know kind doesn't equal species?

I know that most, but not all Creationists state that they are different.

You do know that there is no way in which the kinds that might have been fitted in and on the ark could have diversified into the range of species we see today? If you wish to insist on the literal ark, you will also have to insist upon divine intervention in generation of the millions of species in a few millenia and to achieve this without leaving any evidence. Personally, I would view that as an abuse of faith.

 

[Yttrium]

You do know kind doesn't equal species?

We understand that "kind" doesn't match up to anything in biology. It's a vague concept with unknown mechanisms and unknown limits.

 

[-57]

I know that most, but not all Creationists state that they are different.

You do know that there is no way in which the kinds that might have been fitted in and on the ark could have diversified into the range of species we see today? If you wish to insist on the literal ark, you will also have to insist upon divine intervention in generation of the millions of species in a few millenia and to achieve this without leaving any evidence. Personally, I would view that as an abuse of faith.

Of the millions species, how many of them are inserts?

 

[-57]

We understand that "kind" doesn't match up to anything in biology. It's a vague concept with unknown mechanisms and unknown limits.

Kins are different species that can breed with each other.

 

[Ophiolite]

Of the millions species, how many of them are inserts?

Mammals - 5,500 known species
Birds - 10,000 known species
Reptiles - 9,000 known species (A further 1,000 thought to be awaiting discovery)
Amphibians - 6,600 known species (A further 8,0000 +/- thought to be awaiting discovery)
Fish - 35,000 known species (I suppose, apart from goldfish, they wouldn't need to get on the ark)
Inserts (sic) - 900,000 +/- known species (Not sure why you are leaving out all the other arthropods)

 

[-57]

Mammals - 5,500 known species
Birds - 10,000 known species
Reptiles - 9,000 known species (A further 1,000 thought to be awaiting discovery)
Amphibians - 6,600 known species (A further 8,0000 +/- thought to be awaiting discovery)
Fish - 35,000 known species (I suppose, apart from goldfish, they wouldn't need to get on the ark)
Inserts (sic) - 900,000 +/- known species (Not sure why you are leaving out all the other arthropods)

So, you have about 30,000 species.
Fish and insects were not required to be on the ark.

 

[Ophiolite]

So, you have about 30,000 species.
Fish and insects were not required to be on the ark.

How are you able to exclude insects?
Why are you excluding spiders? What about land crabs? A few thousand species of land gastropods? How did the salt water fish survive the inundation with fresh water? (Or the increased pressure from several kilometres of ocean?)

 

[lasthero]

Kins are different species that can breed with each other.

Unless I’m missing something, that’s the typical definition of species - if two animals are capable of interbreeding, they’re the same species.

Fish and insects were not required to be on the ark.

I’ve seen this asserted a few times, and I’ve never quite got the reasoning. Ignoring the salt water problems for fish for a moment, how are insects supposed to survive? They need air, too.

And while we’re on the subject, what about plants and fungi?