Before the Flood

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

cleminson, I'd probably go along with your argument, at the moment.

Jude 1 says, And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Everlasting bonds, not temporary bonds or until they see pretty women. No! Everlasting bonds.

how do you account for demonic spirits?

The loyal Angels can take on human form and walk amongst mankind without being recognized by most, however, there is no sexual intercourse in Heaven, therefore any need for genitalia. It stretches the human mind to extremes to decide that the fallen angels could get out of their prison at will, acquire genitalia and breed or commit lascivious acts, just because they chose to, especially as it is God that locked them up in hell, in chains of darkness, to await judgment. Would He have allowed them out to consort with women and then punish mankind for their wrongdoing? No!

I've always thought this, angels are sexless. Where is Tartarus? is it another dimension or is it in the earth?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

On a volume basis, this is incorrect.

Nitrogen makes up 78.8% by volume
Oxygen 20.95% by volume
Water vapor 0 to 4% by volume
(SOURCE)

It is indeed very important, though, as you point out in relation to regulating temperatures and various aspects of climate.

I stand corrected (I did know better). I guess what I really meant was that water and water vapor were the most visibly and sensibly influencial constituent.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I still don't think you're dealing with what the Bible actually says about the firmament. The Bible says that the sun and the stars are located within the firmament -- a description that does not line up with your concordist interpretation. Have another look at that article I linked to earlier. The firmament is clearly an outdated, ancient understanding about the make-up of the earth.

I don't believe in the so-called 'vapor canopy' aspect of the firmament. I believe the forty days of rain were just that, a hard rain.

Many believe that the firmament of Gen 1 is all of space including stars, sun, moon, etc. I believe it is the renewed atmosphere just above the earth (as it is today). It is a certainly a separate entity from the universe of space. This is just what the bible says it is.

To understand what the bible really means concerning the lights in the firmament you must examine how the sun and moon give their light to it. The reality of it reveals what the account means. The light from the sun and moon are 'in the firmament' in that they light it up, although from quite a distance away; and they are distinctly visible and appear as if they are just overhead.

Obviously the source of light cannot be in the firmament (atmosphere) else the earth would vaporize, but the light from the source can be, thus the light is 'in' the firmament.

It is true that they are placed within the greater firmament of outer space, if you deem outer space a 'firmament'.

owg

 

[cleminson]

cleminson, I'd probably go along with your argument, at the moment.

Jude 1 says, And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Everlasting bonds, not temporary bonds or until they see pretty women. No! Everlasting bonds.

how do you account for demonic spirits?

The loyal Angels can take on human form and walk amongst mankind without being recognized by most, however, there is no sexual intercourse in Heaven, therefore any need for genitalia. It stretches the human mind to extremes to decide that the fallen angels could get out of their prison at will, acquire genitalia and breed or commit lascivious acts, just because they chose to, especially as it is God that locked them up in hell, in chains of darkness, to await judgment. Would He have allowed them out to consort with women and then punish mankind for their wrongdoing? No!

I've always thought this, angels are sexless. Where is Tartarus? is it another dimension or is it in the earth?

I think that demonic spirit can take hold of non-Christian minds if they listen to them long enough. The stronghold of Satan is in minds, for in 2Corinthians 10:3-5 we read “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;”. As Christians we should give no thought to demons, they have no power towards us and if we come across a demon posessed person, we have God's authority to cast them out. Though in all my time as a Christian, I have seen many people who thought they had demons, but only a very few who were genuinly posessed. It took seconds for a true son of God to cast them out in Jesus name.

I believe that Tartarus is in the spirit realm.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

The Sumerian King list has records of pre-flood kings.

does anyone know if this is online or published?

 

[gluadys]

cleminson, I'd probably go along with your argument, at the moment.

Jude 1 says, And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Everlasting bonds, not temporary bonds or until they see pretty women. No! Everlasting bonds.

how do you account for demonic spirits?

The loyal Angels can take on human form and walk amongst mankind without being recognized by most, however, there is no sexual intercourse in Heaven, therefore any need for genitalia. It stretches the human mind to extremes to decide that the fallen angels could get out of their prison at will, acquire genitalia and breed or commit lascivious acts, just because they chose to, especially as it is God that locked them up in hell, in chains of darkness, to await judgment. Would He have allowed them out to consort with women and then punish mankind for their wrongdoing? No!

I've always thought this, angels are sexless. Where is Tartarus? is it another dimension or is it in the earth?

In the Greek cosmology, Tartarus was the region of Hades (the underworld, world of the dead) where those who had offended the gods were tortured. This was where Sisyphus pushed his rock up the hill only to see it roll down again, and where the giant Tantalus was bound with tempting food and drink just out of reach. Many other such tortures are described for the giants and others who rebelled against the gods in Greek mythology.

Peter borrows this term to describe the prison of the spirits. So he distinguishes it from Hades generally (abode of the dead=Hebrew 'Sheol") and from the Gehenna to which Jesus often refers.

This is the only use of 'Tartarus' in the NT.

 

[Mikeb85]

The Sumerian King list has records of pre-flood kings.

does anyone know if this is online or published?

Most historic documents are available to the public, whether online or in libraries.

Here's a link to a translation of the king list:
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.1.1

And here's a link to a page which contains a pretty good amount of Sumerian literature:
http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/

 

[cleminson]

In the Greek cosmology, Tartarus was the region of Hades (the underworld, world of the dead) where those who had offended the gods were tortured. This was where Sisyphus pushed his rock up the hill only to see it roll down again, and where the giant Tantalus was bound with tempting food and drink just out of reach. Many other such tortures are described for the giants and others who rebelled against the gods in Greek mythology.

Peter borrows this term to describe the prison of the spirits. So he distinguishes it from Hades generally (abode of the dead=Hebrew 'Sheol") and from the Gehenna to which Jesus often refers.

This is the only use of 'Tartarus' in the NT.

Thanks Gluadys. That puts a name to that prison that God put his fallen angels into. It is interesting because
I can see now that it was Tartarus that was originally created by God to be Satan’s prison. The word translated “deep” in Hebrew is “teh-home”, which has a literal meaning of a surging mass of troubled water or a subterranean water supply. Initially there was no light of any sort on this place but there was something called in Hebrew “choshek”, which means “darkness or dark hiding place” and this “choshek” was over the face of the deep.
The first type of water translated as “the deep”, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2 and is translated from the old Hebrew word “teh home’” meaning troubled water. Once God moved over this water the water changed and became “mayim”. These two types of water mentioned in these opening verses from scripture “teh home” and “mayim” are both different from drinking waters. The first word for water “teh home” is translated as “the deep” and was disturbed water. The second word is translated as water from the Hebrew word “mayim” and is different because this water has a figurative meaning of “juice” or a created product i.e. a substance that is a by-product of life. The third type of water that is mentioned in the Bible is drinking water, as was mentioned in the scripture when Jesus asked the woman to draw water for him from the well. This is drinking water or “hudor,” which was different from both “teh-home” and “mayim”. To give the reader a better understanding of “mayim”, there was a place in old Palestine called Abel-Majim meaning, “meadow of water”. Meadow water is full of nutrients and certainly not suitable for drinking. This second water, “mayim” was not what we would call drinking water; it was a type of “soup” with the by-products of life in it or primordial soup and could well have been made up of amino acids containing the very first primitive enzymes that God might have used to create all life.
The transformation of the deep “teh-home,” to waters “mayim,” is interesting, as the water seems to have gone through a fundamental change after the Spirit of God moved over it but also after Satan and his demons were imprisoned there. The water changed from a surging mass, to become water with the elements of life in it. I believe that this “mayim” was the start of God’s building block for His evolutionary creation process but still in its spiritual form. Maybe this mayim, this spiritual waste product that I believe was the building block of life in our Universe was the reason that our world is not perfect and that death is a part of creation?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Peter borrows this term to describe the prison of the spirits. So he distinguishes it from Hades generally (abode of the dead=Hebrew 'Sheol") and from the Gehenna to which Jesus often refers.

This is the only use of 'Tartarus' in the NT.

I think Hades would correspond to the old English word hell, which means the grave, and Gehenna I think was a representation of the final 2nd death lake of fire mentioned in Rev. What I was getting at, is if Tartarus is a prison of the spirits, and the spirits are locked-up there, what's going on with all the evil spirits running around the earth? How can they be restrained, being in Tartarus, if they are also on the earth, or of the sky?
Is there anything in scripture which suggests that at any time the evil spirits were released from Tartarus? This might depend on your interpretation of Rev. and others, as I personally have a historicist/futurist non-literalist view of Rev. I am thinking that humans might have a 'spirit body' prior to the resurrection, as Jesus meets with Moses and Elijah on the hill, but Moses was recorded as being dead, so unless he was somehow resurrected (and Jesus is the first of the resurrection, not the second) he must have appeared in a spirit body, which implies that other people have spirit bodies also when they die, so do these human spirit bodies also go to Tartarus? or Heaven?

 

[cleminson]

Peter borrows this term to describe the prison of the spirits. So he distinguishes it from Hades generally (abode of the dead=Hebrew 'Sheol") and from the Gehenna to which Jesus often refers.

This is the only use of 'Tartarus' in the NT.

I think Hades would correspond to the old English word hell, which means the grave, and Gehenna I think was a representation of the final 2nd death lake of fire mentioned in Rev. What I was getting at, is if Tartarus is a prison of the spirits, and the spirits are locked-up there, what's going on with all the evil spirits running around the earth? How can they be restrained, being in Tartarus, if they are also on the earth, or of the sky?
Is there anything in scripture which suggests that at any time the evil spirits were released from Tartarus? This might depend on your interpretation of Rev. and others, as I personally have a historicist/futurist non-literalist view of Rev. I am thinking that humans might have a 'spirit body' prior to the resurrection, as Jesus meets with Moses and Elijah on the hill, but Moses was recorded as being dead, so unless he was somehow resurrected (and Jesus is the first of the resurrection, not the second) he must have appeared in a spirit body, which implies that other people have spirit bodies also when they die, so do these human spirit bodies also go to Tartarus? or Heaven?

As I have said before, I believe that Tartarus is that place that was created in the beginning of Genesis1 as the prison for Satan and his angels. This place was part spiritual and part physical and I am coming more and more to the conclusion that the “chains” that they were bound in were the limiting physicality of their fallen existence. That is they could never enter Gods “spirit” Heaven again because they were part physical now. Eden was created on this place and protected by God’s light and Adam was created in the same part spirit (God’s breath) and the physical “dust” or matter. Then Adam fell to an already created (by a God driven type of evolution) Earth. I suppose it must be possible that the demons must be able to whisper across from their existence and have an affect on mans minds, NOT Christians minds unless we let them.

I am studying this “body” thing at the moment. One of the intriguing observations that I think may help us understand your question, and the mix of spirit and the physical, is the change in “form” that Jesus went through after He rose again

Mark 16:12-14, “After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.”

John 20:11-19, “But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"and that he had said these things to her. On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

John 20:26-29 “Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I am sure in my own mind about the differing types of Heaven, spirit/earth (matter) and our Earth (pure matter) but how demons manage to put thoughts into our minds and possess some, I am not sure yet. However, I am absolutely certain that the sons of God were NOT fallen angels.

 

[Mallon]

Many believe that the firmament of Gen 1 is all of space including stars, sun, moon, etc. I believe it is the renewed atmosphere just above the earth (as it is today). It is a certainly a separate entity from the universe of space. This is just what the bible says it is.

Just as the Bible says the earth was created in six days, it also refers to the firmament as "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" (Job 37:18) or crystaline (Ezekiel 1:22). It says that the firmament is spread above the earth like a tent (Isaiah 40:22) or a scroll (Revelation 6:14) to separate the waters above from the waters below (Genesis 1:6–8). This is in accordance with traditional Jewish interpretation (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=807&letter=C#2736).
The Bible definitely doesn't describe the firmament as some penetrable mass of air, and it never once uses words like "mist", "vapour", or "clouds" to describe it. I think you're cherry-picking which parts of the Bible to read literally and which to read figuratively.

To understand what the bible really means concerning the lights in the firmament you must examine how the sun and moon give their light to it. The reality of it reveals what the account means. The light from the sun and moon are 'in the firmament' in that they light it up, although from quite a distance away; and they are distinctly visible and appear as if they are just overhead.

Let's go read what the Bible "really" says about the lights in the firmament (from Genesis 1):

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

What the Bible "really" says is that God set the sun and the moon (the "two great lights") in the firmament. He doesn't doesn't distinguish between the light and its source (the sun and the moon are the lights), and He doesn't set them above the firmament. Or, as Luther said in his Lectures on Genesis (1536):

[The Bible] simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven (below and above which are the waters)… The bodies of the stars, like that of the sun, are round, and they are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire.​

Obviously the source of light cannot be in the firmament (atmosphere) else the earth would vaporize, but the light from the source can be, thus the light is 'in' the firmament.

When you say "obviously", I hope you realize the 21st century bias with which you say it. Because the sheer size of the sun was by no means apparent to the nomadic Hebrew sheep-herders of the Bronze age.

Scientific concordism is a sham!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Mallon,

We know what the firmament and the lights are. We don't know why they were described as they were in Gen 1. It may be that the original language was not adequate to present it scientifically, so we try to translate/interpret the event to agree with what we know.

I accept on faith that God knew what he was doing when he inspired the writers to describe the event as they did in Genesis. Perhaps it is one of those mysteries yet to be solved.

It is interesting that the only discussion of this subject is the 'scientific inconsistancies' and never the spiritual meaning of it.

owg

 

[Mallon]

We know what the firmament and the lights are. We don't know why they were described as they were in Gen 1.

Sure we do. We know they were described that way because that's how the ancient Hebrews understood them to be! All kinds of extra-biblical sources (Jewish and otherwise) attest to this fact. It strikes me that you (and YECism as a whole) are simply trying to avoid the obvious.

It is interesting that the only discussion of this subject is the 'scientific inconsistancies' and never the spiritual meaning of it.

Please don't pass the buck on this one. We both know that special creationists (i.e., scientific concordists) are the ones trying to align the Bible with science. I'm suggesting that if we could all just get over it and see the Scriptures as having been accomodated by God to the minds of men (as He did in the form of Christ), then maybe we could look past the ancient science presented in the Bible and glean some spiritual significance from the text. That is, after all, why it was written.

 

[cleminson]

Sure we do. We know they were described that way because that's how the ancient Hebrews understood them to be! All kinds of extra-biblical sources (Jewish and otherwise) attest to this fact. It strikes me that you (and YECism as a whole) are simply trying to avoid the obvious.


Please don't pass the buck on this one. We both know that special creationists (i.e., scientific concordists) are the ones trying to align the Bible with science. I'm suggesting that if we could all just get over it and see the Scriptures as having been accomodated by God to the minds of men (as He did in the form of Christ), then maybe we could look past the ancient science presented in the Bible and glean some spiritual significance from the text. That is, after all, why it was written.

Mallon and Oldwiseguy, this topic is one of the main topics in my paper My Genesis Enigma on the Creationist Thread.

In the first account of Day and Night God only calls Day "good". The only thing about Night is that Light takes an area away from it. This all happened on the first period of time. I believe that the Light was Gods presence and in fact Jesus. Night was Satans abode which was made smaller when God caused dry land to appear to build Eden. I believe that the first three days involved a creation of a heavenly realm.

On the forth day God created our Universe and with it the Sun etc. The day and night mentioned in this creative period, were the days that we recognise and time as we know it started then.

The difference between the day and night in the first and forth creative periods is that Day is called good by God in both but Night is only called good in the forth period of creation.

So I believe that they are two totally different creative occurences one spiritual and one purely physical.

In reference to your last paragraph, I believe that the Bible is far greater than science. It does not matter what theories are FACTUAL in the end, the Bible allowes for all. Gallileo, Copernicus and Darwin believed that their theories were diffinitive, we know today that they were not completely accurate. However they were still great works of science and largly correct. The Bible however allows for what ever we have found and what ever we will discover in the future.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Don't think I can help you, given that there is no good evidence for a global flood. And if there's no evidence for a global flood, then there's no way we can make educated statements about events relative to it.

Actually, it depends on the way the evidence is interpreted as to whether or not you can say there is good evidence on a global flood or not. I've spent a lot of time researching this in the field and in the texts and there is IMHO very good evidence to support a global flood. For those interested you can go to this site:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
and see what a Ph.D mechanical engineer from MIT thinks about the evidence of a global flood.

BTW, I own his book and it's a good source of study for the unanswered questions in the evidence that mainstream science likes to sweep under the rug.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Sure we do. We know they were described that way because that's how the ancient Hebrews understood them to be! All kinds of extra-biblical sources (Jewish and otherwise) attest to this fact. It strikes me that you (and YECism as a whole) are simply trying to avoid the obvious.


Please don't pass the buck on this one. We both know that special creationists (i.e., scientific concordists) are the ones trying to align the Bible with science. I'm suggesting that if we could all just get over it and see the Scriptures as having been accomodated by God to the minds of men (as He did in the form of Christ), then maybe we could look past the ancient science presented in the Bible and glean some spiritual significance from the text. That is, after all, why it was written.

Accomodating the scriptures to align with ancient man's minds is ok. I can't refute or disagree with that premise but if you take that far enough to make the creation story a myth or something other than what the Bible says then I have a problem with it. In the text the original language for day is "Yom" which is interpreted as a 24 hour day or one cycle of day and night. That is pretty straight foward and clear as to what it means.

The problem lies in the attempt to merge the Bible with science. To me it's a doable thing as long as you consider real science and not the limited form most of the mainstream paradigm has taken on. Real science allows for God and accept's His existence. Man's version of it doesn't allow for the need of a creator or "Alpha" observer if you are a "copenhagen interpretationalist" of the quantum mechanical theory of physics. It sees the universe as a clearly materialistic and natural thing with no supernatural beginning or input at all. Then you go from there to a number of variations of agnosticism to theistic evolutionist.

Anyway, to justify your philosophies you have to hold to one and compromise the other. To buy into anything but a creationists view you have to compromise what the Bible clearly says happens.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

For those interested you can go to this site:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
and see what a Ph.D mechanical engineer from MIT thinks about the evidence of a global flood.

Out of curiosity, why would you take the word of a mechanical engineer over the word of hundreds of thousands trained geologist when it comes to interpreting the data for a global flood?

 

[Mallon]

Accomodating the scriptures to align with ancient man's minds is ok. I can't refute or disagree with that premise but if you take that far enough to make the creation story a myth or something other than what the Bible says then I have a problem with it.

But the Bible doesn't actually say just what the Genesis creation story "is". Given the setting, the characters (i.e., talking snakes), and context in which it was delivered, it makes an awful lot of sense to read Genesis as something other than precise history.

In the text the original language for day is "Yom" which is interpreted as a 24 hour day or one cycle of day and night. That is pretty straight foward and clear as to what it means.

I'm not arguing with you on that. The question is whether God expects us to read the Genesis creation story concordantly. I would argue, citing the work of Evangelicals like Peter Enns, that He doesn't.

The problem lies in the attempt to merge the Bible with science.

I agree. The position I hold is that we should not attempt it at all, given that the Bible was not written to address issues of science but matters of faith.

Real science allows for God and accept's His existence.

I beg to differ. Opening up science to miracles of God gets us nowhere. How does saying "the process of gastrulation is a miracle of God" in any way further our knowledge of the process of gastrulation?

 

[Jimlarmore]

Out of curiosity, why would you take the word of a mechanical engineer over the word of hundreds of thousands trained geologist when it comes to interpreting the data for a global flood?

Primarily, because I have studied the works of both. Mainstream geology extensively ( at least 5 books on college level ) . I have several friends who are geologist or geophyscists some of which don't buy into the mainstream paradigm at all either.

I began to question the mainstream philosophy when I started to really study fossilized evidence in the stratified crust of the earth, but what really made up my mind up for the flood was when I spent ( I'm still there ) the last 12 years in coal beds/quarries and coalified wood. Talk about evidence of wash in from massive hydrodynamic forces?

Other things like the stratfication of the entire surface of the earth shows strong evidence of hydrological forces. Polystrate fossils, the list goes on. The flood does not answer some questions but most of them.

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

Other things like the stratfication of the entire surface of the earth shows strong evidence of hydrological forces. Polystrate fossils, the list goes on. The flood does not answer some questions but most of them.

Which questions do you think the Flood hypothesis answers that traditional hypotheses do not? And which barriers do you think the Flood hypothesis still faces?