Didn't they know?

[AV1611VET]

I am talking about what you believe not what Wesley taught.

You were talking about stuff that, in your opinion, is 'out there'.

I'm simply pointing out that some might want to do a mental inventory on what they believe as well, before they go telling others what they think is 'out there' or not.

I don't recall any teaching about God "cleaning up the mess after the flood".

And that's your problem, not mine.

You would, in my opinion, never survive a Q&A session on the Flood in a Christian venue.

On the other hand, neither would I survive one in a scientific venue.

I also don't recall hearing anything about embedded age or maturity without history or about the ark starting out somewhere far from the Middle East or many other things I have heard from you that I don't have time to dig up right now.

I'd love to have 15 minutes with guys like you on the radio; committed to answering my simple questions truthfully.

Also Wesley died in 1791 well before Christian Geologists had falsified the global flood and young earth.

I don't care if Wesley died in 1091, I asked your opinion about what he believed.

Was it 'out there' or not?

You might also remember that Methodists believe that reason is needed to read and interpret scripture so he might have had a different opinion were he alive today.

Ya -- and so might J. J. Becher or Judith Resnik.

What's your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not at all -- you have no problems whatsoever adding things to the Bible if the Bible doesn't explicitly say they didn't happen, so as long as God is cleaning up the mess and sending the excess flood waters to Neptune as a warning to would-be renegade angels, why not add strawberry custard as well?

You have no clue what a literalist is, do you?

I take umbrage with adding to the Bible.

I might add to the story, but certainly not to the Bible.

And I've made it quite clear (but shouldn't have had to), that Neptune and New Jersey are speculation on my part.

The Bible doesn't contain speculation.

In my opinion, you are out of line telling me I add to the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, no, the Wesleys didn't actually teach those things, but those are embedded beliefs that have since become historically true about the Wesleys' teaching. Or something like that.

Like I said, one doesn't need to be a Rhodes scholar to know Who cleaned up the mess.

 

[AV1611VET]

The great thing about being a creationist is you can just make things up as you go along.

Really?

You guys have no clue what a literalist is, do you?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Really?

You guys have no clue what a literalist is, do you?

I know what it means. It means you take the Bible exactly literally unless it is too inconvient even for you and then you make things up or say it is poetry. In your case it means making things up like God cleaning up after the flood and sending the flood waters to Neptune or some place.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Like I said, one doesn't need to be a Rhodes scholar to know Who cleaned up the mess.

One doesn't need to be a Rhodes scholar to know that the flood of Noah could not have been global so there was no mess to clean up.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, no, the Wesleys didn't actually teach those things, but those are embedded beliefs that have since become historically true about the Wesleys' teaching. Or something like that.

No doubt the flood waters going to Neptune have now been embedded in basic Wesleyan doctrine and posthumously embedded in his sermons. As my Thai friend would say, 555.

 

[AV1611VET]

You guys have no clue what a literalist is, do you?

I know what it means. It means you take the Bible exactly literally unless it is too inconvient even for you and then you make things up or say it is poetry.

QED

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

QED

Actually it is my point that you have proven over and over on this board but this is not the place to discuss that. Everyone here has seen you make up things and for example try to claim that the Bible is not geocentric when a clear literal reading shows it is. You want to tells us again why the sons of God who mated with the daughters of men were not literally the sons of God?

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually it is my point that you have proven over and over on this board but this is not the place to discuss that. Everyone here has seen you make up things and for example try to claim that the Bible is not geocentric when a clear literal reading shows it is. You want to tells us again why the sons of God who mated with the daughters of men were not literally the sons of God?

And I'll say it again: you don't have a clue as to how to take the Bible literally.

Bible maturity consists of knowing how to read a passage; I'm sure you will agree with me on that.

Knowing if a certain passage is literal or metaphorical is critical to understanding what is being said.

And you know as well as I do that even science books, which are meant to be taken literally, mention sunrise and moonshine.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And I'll say it again: you don't have a clue as to how to take the Bible literally.

Bible maturity consists of knowing how to read a passage; I'm sure you will agree with me on that.

Knowing if a certain passage is literal or metaphorical is critical to understanding what is being said.

And you know as well as I do that even science books, which are meant to be taken literally, mention sunrise and moonshine.

So if it is too inconvenient even for you it is metaphorical but if you think rationalize it with some weird idea like embedded age it is literal. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You were talking about stuff that, in your opinion, is 'out there'.

I'm simply pointing out that some might want to do a mental inventory on what they believe as well, before they go telling others what they think is 'out there' or not.

And that's your problem, not mine.

You would, in my opinion, never survive a Q&A session on the Flood in a Christian venue.

You mean that story of about a supposedly omnscient and omnipotent God who created a world he thought was good but then after his sons mated with the daughters of men everything got so evil it repented Him so He decided to drown everything but then he noticed Noah wasn't so bad so He told Noah to build a big boat so his family could escape with a bunch of animals while God murdered everyone and everything else on earth with this flood to destroy evil which also failed since evil was right back pretty quickly. IIRC the last time you "took questions" on the flood you ended up getting beaten up so bad you asked the mods to close the thread.

 

[Naraoia]

If you're gonna' look for an ark, shouldn't you start in the right place? Just making the point that the traditional "Mt. Ararat" was named so after the fact, and local legends told by villagers in Iran, in the Urartu mts. tell of an ark frozen in the glaciers.

I see. Somehow that point was lost on me first time round

The rule change here prohibits me from answering with what I think about that.

Are PMs moderated?

 

[AV1611VET]

IIRC the last time you "took questions" on the flood you ended up getting beaten up so bad you asked the mods to close the thread.

Then your recall needs some work.

I had that thread closed for four obvious reasons (in a row) -- starting here: 326.

Dantose was kind enough to close the thread for me.

Unfortunately today, I've become somewhat tolerant of blasphemy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are PMs moderated?

I'm not sure; I think they come with a report button.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Then your recall needs some work.

I had that thread closed for four obvious reasons (in a row) -- starting here: 326.

Dantose was kind enough to close the thread for me.

Unfortunately today, I've become somewhat tolerant of blasphemy.

And here I thought it was because you couldn't answer the questions in this post
http://www.christianforums.com/t5902087-33/#post39612767

As to blasphemy it is literalitsts like who make God out to be a blunderer who botched his supposedly good creation so bad he needed to destroy it with a global flood to end evil even though that same flood didn't end evil. Your version God wiped out nearly everyone with a flood and then later ordered his chosen peoples to commit various atrocities. You make God out to be an incompetent monster and then complain about blasphemy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The great thing about being a creationist is you can just make things up as you go along.
You need enough water to cover the tops of the mountains in 960 hours. Everest is 29,000 feet high so you need about 30 feet of rain an hour from somewhere for 960 hours. You aren't going to get that from slowly rising water.

And somehow the ark floats around for a year and only experiences the slow ones. Or maybe God just put it in a hyperspace bubble during the flood.
Right, 30 feet per hour. Hardly gentle.

Iran and Iraq but have some significant mountains. Water running from them during several feet of rain an hour would have created massive currents. I guess you disagree with AV and think the Ark did start out in Mesopotamia and just happened to land near there after floating around for a year.
All your assumptions are ad-hoc, based on no understanding of what happens when major flooding occurs and no understanding of the mechanical properties of wood and the tendency of wooden vessels to flex and leak even when braced.

My calculations have the water slowly rising up, not violently washing down, at only 8 feet per hour, very similiar to the speed of some ocean tides. No hydrological study of that flood is possible as no one knows exactly where the waters came from. A 'rain only' model would have much different patterns from a 'tidal' flood (which this flood was). As water came onto the land from many directions much of the violent flows would be mitigated. Thus the water would 'stand' upon the earth, not 'flow' violently around the earth, so the ark needn't have travelled very far. Strong swells and flows that meet and cancel each other out would have lessened the stress on the ark as well.

 

[Son of the King]

The great thing about being a creationist is you can just make things up as you go along and when all else fails rely on Goddidit.

The point is God was involved. Are we suppose to believe God told Noah to build the Ark then He brought such a violent flood that it was torn apart. Are we suppose to believe God overlooked the fact that trees or fish ect. would not survie the flood? Its not a matter of making things up, it is more a matter of not limiting God.

 

[Delphiki]

The point is God was involved. Are we suppose to believe God told Noah to build the Ark then He brought such a violent flood that it was torn apart. Are we suppose to believe God overlooked the fact that trees or fish ect. would not survie the flood? Its not a matter of making things up, it is more a matter of not limiting God.

You mean like his "eternalness" apparently is today, but not back then?

 

[Split Rock]

I'd love to have 15 minutes with guys like you on the radio; committed to answering my simple questions truthfully.

I would welcome that, AVET. However, I am certain you would still find ways to evade answering questions you don't like, while calling them "ad-hoc."

You have no clue what a literalist is, do you?

I take umbrage with adding to the Bible.

I might add to the story, but certainly not to the Bible.

How do you add to the story, but not the Bible, when you cite support for the whole story by citing the Bible as "The Documentation?"

And I've made it quite clear (but shouldn't have had to), that Neptune and New Jersey are speculation on my part.

Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't. Tell us, is Embedded Age speculation?

The Bible doesn't contain speculation.

But you still have to interpret it.

In my opinion, you are out of line telling me I add to the Bible.

Opinion noted, but you and others here add so much to what the Bible says with "basic doctrine," and "dispensations," that I don't see much support for your opinion.

And I'll say it again: you don't have a clue as to how to take the Bible literally.

Bible maturity consists of knowing how to read a passage; I'm sure you will agree with me on that.

Knowing if a certain passage is literal or metaphorical is critical to understanding what is being said.

Strange then that you consistently fail at knowing how to read passages from scripture.