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.
No, I don't need to. I will just believe what the Bible says happened at the flood. You can believe whatever weird thing that pops into your head if you want. But, I am a critical thinker and there is nothing in your "special water" argument that needs to be taken seriously.You may look into this topic, with more serious intent.
No, I don't need to. I will just believe what the Bible says happened at the flood. You can believe whatever weird thing that pops into your head if you want. But, I am a critical thinker and there is nothing in your "special water" argument that needs to be taken seriously.
The problem is, that what you think "Earth" is, is something totally different from how they used the word.It says that the flood was global and that it covered the entire earth.
No, the Bible makes it clear in the NT that only 8 people were saved out of the flood. That means that all of the dry land was covered up to the very mountains. Every human being except for those on the ark were killed in the flood. The Bible is totally unambiguous about that. They were not using figures of speech, nor did they mean something different than what we mean when they picture the flood as a global catastrophe. Remember that this is God's book, inspired by Him and He is not deficient in communicating to us exactly what He means for us to understand.The problem is, that what you think "Earth" is, is something totally different from how they used the word.
YEC proponents try to put todays vocabulary into 4000 years old text and thats where all the contradictions with science come from.
Their "earth" is, in today's vocabulary, "inhabited, known dry land of the middle east".
Similarly, "under all heaven" is not the 21st century view from ISS or from Mars, but from the viewpoint of those people. And because of the curvature of the planet, they certainly could not see Europe, America, India, Australia or Antarctica.
No, the Bible makes it clear in the NT that only 8 people were saved out of the flood.
I am certain that the topography of the planet was far different than it is today. We don't really know what it looked like. The current continental layout is likely not all what it was like at that time. And I would also argue that you really don't know what the population centers looked like at that time.Because there were no people on other continents.
The beginnings of humanity are in northern Africa/middle east. So you would not need to flood South America.
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed"
Lk 2:1
Do you believe also native indians from Canada came? Do you really belive thats what the author (Luke) wanted to communicate? Or, did they use the term "world" differently than we today? ;-)
Science and the Bible do not contradict at all.
Evolution and the Bible contradict.
Science, done properly, is a marvelous means of observing and learning about the glory of God.
Luke was using hyperbole. The Bible's description of the flood as global does not include any figures of speech.
I am certain that the topography of the planet was far different than it is today. We don't really know what it looked like.
The current continental layout is likely not all what it was like at that time.
And I would also argue that you really don't know what the population centers looked like at that time.
But what we DO know is that Noah and his family were the only human survivors.
The Bible teaches a global flood.
A local flood makes no sense.
Luke was using hyperbole.
Yes, the Bible does say that it was global. God said he was going to destroy all flesh. He did not say he was going to destroy a local group of people.Of the flood. But of course, God doesn't say it was global.
A global flood makes no sense. And seeing as God doesn't say it's global, there's really no reason to believe it, other than to make scripture fit into your modern conceptions.
No, I just exegete Scripture better than you do.But you believe that Peter, writing in the same time, was not? You're just playing as a cafeteria Christian, believing the parts you like and writing off the parts you don't like as "hyperbole."
What I said was that the Bible doesn't use hyperbole with regard to the flood. You can't use figures of speech to discount a literal global flood and do so with any intellectual credibility.And yes, the flood story includes all sorts of figures of speech:
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:
Unless you think the sky is a roof, with gates in it to let rain fall down, there are figures of speech in the flood story.
Evolution is inconsistent the Bible. Evolution is impersonal, wholly naturalistic and lacks real purpose. The Bible tells that creation was personal, wholly supernatural and that everything was made for man.In this case, you've misunderstood both of them. Evolution is perfectly consistent with God's word. It does conflict with some modern revisions men have made to God's word, but that's another issue, entirely.
No. Science is too weak a method to do it. Science is, by it's very methodology, unable to address the supernatual. And it's so unnecessary. You don't need a degree in science to see His hand in creation:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Old earth creationism is a compromise with evolution and theistic evolution is as oxymoronic as "atheistic Christianity. Theistic Evolution has to deny the historicity and inerrancy of the Bible to make their warped ideas work.What we have to guard against is letting the YE creationist movement, which is mostly unscriptural in its worldview, promote their man-made revision of Scripture.
Evolution is inconsistent the Bible.
Evolution is impersonal, wholly naturalistic and lacks real purpose.
The Bible tells that creation was personal, wholly supernatural and that everything was made for man.
The creation of Adam is inconsistent with Evolution as well.
I didn't say you needed a degree in science, but science opens us up to the immense complexity of every aspect of the universe that teaches us about the power, and immeasurable wisdom of the Creator.
No you don't. Evolution has never been either proven, nor intuitively observed.No, that's wrong. Nothing in the Bible is contrary to evolution. How could it be? We observe it happening all around us.
Adam was created from the dust the earth, as a special creation apart from the rest of the animal world, which means Adam didn't evolve from some other creature. He was created directly from the dirt.Nope. You're wrong there, too. As God says, Adam's body was formed naturally, as were the other animals. It's his soul that is given to him directly by God.
No, Paul said that creation is a revelation of Creator. But what I am talking about the details, the complexity of the created order in both the biosphere and the biological life that exists on the planet. On a more complex level the construction of things like the human eye, or DNA demonstrate the immense wisdom of Creator. And in doing so, it brings glory to the Creator.No, it's not science. As St. Paul told you, it's easy for anyone to see; no scientific procedures necessary.
Nope. YEC takes God at His word and interprets Genesis 1-11 literally the way God wants. Others have to re-interpret the Bible. Simply repeating my words back to me is an immature, childish, mocking approach. Try a more intelligent approach.Young earth creationism is a compromise of scripture and man's own wishes . YE creationism has to deny the historicity and inspiration of the Bible to make their warped ideas work.
Yes, the Bible does say that it was global. God said he was going to destroy all flesh.
If the flood was local, there was no reason to preserve the animals. They would have simply migrated to the unflooded areas of the earth.
God promised no more floods of the kind that Noah experienced.
If the flood were local, then God's promise was broken millions of times since that day.
I just exegete Scripture better than you do.
What I said was that the Bible doesn't use hyperbole with regard to the flood.
No you don't. Evolution has never been either proven, nor intuitively observed.
Adam was created from the dust the earth,
Nope.
Simply repeating my words back to me...
No, because God said, "And yet whales and sharks all sorts flesh were not destroyed. So again your interpretation requires that God be wrong.
No, I am not. If the flood were global, there would be nowhere to which you could save them, no place for them to go. My point is thatI note that in the Midwest right now, people are saving animals from floods. So you're wrong there.
Not really. Again, no reason to make an ark to save animals if entire species of animals are not going to be destroyed. The only animals that would be destroyed would be those unable to escape. You might lose some horses or whatever, but not all of them, so no reason to make an ark to preserve them.The great flood in the Middle East that covered a huge area and created the Black Sea was unlike anything seen since. So that would make sense.
Because flood account doesn't use hyperbole, particularly when it says that only 8 people were left alive after the flood. No one else on earth survived. The Bible is pretty clear. Plus it says that the waters covered the mountains which would, if it were local, give us an egg-shaped flood.Barbarian observes:
But you believe that Peter, writing in the same time, was not? You're just playing as a cafeteria Christian, believing the parts you like and writing off the parts you don't like as "hyperbole."
Nope, I take the whole Bible literally. That's why I can tell the difference when hyperbole is being used and when it isn't. I am simply better at exegeting the BibleYes, that's what you've done here. One of them, you want to take literally, so you do, and the other one you don't want to take literally, so you don't. You're just reading it to suit your own wishes.
That's right. That's why I don't accept evolution. It would require me to re-interpret the Bible to suit Evolution. The one thing I have noticed is that Christians who believe in evolution are far more dishonest about the Bible than Atheists. Even Atheists acknowledge that the Bible is wholly incompatible with Evolution. They are at least honest about the fact that the Bible, as written doesn't support Evolution. It is pretty bad when an Atheist has more integrity, honesty and credibility than so called "Christians.""Exegete" doesn't mean "pick what I like, and reject what I don't like."
What I mean is that the Bible doesn't use figures of speech in a manner that denies the historicity or the global effects of the flood.I just showed you that it does.
Figures of speech point us to a literal truth. And the Bible uses no figures of speech with regard to the flood.You can't use figures of speech to argue a literal global flood and do so with any intellectual credibility.
No, you don't.Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. Nothing in the Bible is contrary to evolution. How could it be? We observe it happening all around us.
That's not what we are talking about. No one, not even creationists deny mutations within a species. But molecules to man evolution has never been observed.You're just wrong here. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. We see that constantly. Even speciation has been directly observed.
No, it was not a parable. God made man from the dirt. It was a supernatural act.As were the other animals. God makes your body just as he made Adam's body, by natural processes. As even the early Christians knew, this is a parable for man's creation.
The point is that Adam did not evolve, from something else, into a human being. He was made a human, just like us, but without sin.It's not the creation of Adam's body that made him different. As God says, it's the direct gift of a soul that makes him so.
Denies a creator and thus cannot give glory to the CreatorIt is true that things like the evolution of the vertebrate or cephalopod eye, or DNA demonstrate the immense wisdom of a Creator wise and powerful enough to make a world in which such things come about in fulfillment of His will. And in doing so, it brings glory to the Creator.
Yeah, that's a lie.Yep. YE creationism is no older than the last century, having been invented by a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess."
No, it is just you being immature and refusing to be an adult....is showing you how pointless mere generic objections are. Try a more intelligent approach.
No, because God said, "
No, I am not. If the flood were global,
Not really. Again, no reason to make an ark to save animals if entire species of animals are not going to be destroyed.
Because flood account doesn't use hyperbole,
Plus it says that the waters covered the mountains which would, if it were local, give us an egg-shaped flood.
Nope, I take the whole Bible literally.
That's why I can tell the difference when hyperbole is being used and when it isn't. I am simply better at exegeting the Bible
That's right. That's why I don't accept evolution. It would require me to re-interpret the Bible to suit Evolution.
What I mean is that the Bible doesn't use figures of speech in a manner that denies the historicity or the global effects of the flood.
No, you don't.
That's not what we are talking about.
No, it was not a parable.
God made man from the dirt.
The point is that Adam did not evolve, from something else, into a human being.
Denies a creator
Yeah, that's a lie.
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?