Dinosaurs on the Ark?

[Speedwell]

Genesis 3:1 "Did God really say?"

According to the serpent, but that's not what God actually commanded Adam.

 

[Job 33:6]

I would just like to share this...

A geologic cross section of new York. Each group consisting of black shales that are low in organics and low in oxygen based minerals, overlain by greenish gray shales with more organic and oxygen based minerals, topped with turbidites of fine silts and sands. For uniformitarianism, there is a clear explanation of fluctuating sea level tied into a mountain building event (Acadian orogeny).

To clarify, water level rises, sediment is deposited in an oxygen poor carbonaceous environment forming black shales (like the marcellus where we get our natural gas) with oxygen depleted sulfides like pyrite (FeS). Water level drops, oxygen circulates, deposits are now forming shales with less organics, theyre lighter in hue, have oxidized minerals such as magnetite and hematite (FeO3 and FeO2). This is then topped with fining upward turbidites (sediment that has tumbled over a delta shelf). This process repeats 4 times, then is topped with oxygen rich terrestrial siltstones and sandstones forming the strong red color of the catskill mountains.

How could a global flood ever form such a sequence of rocks? Beyond that, these layers actually are twice as old as the dinosaurs, so perhaps they are pre flood?

Just thoughts, figured id share

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...Oatka-Creek-Formation-OCF-and-the-Geneseo.png

 

[Papias]

Link to "Why are Jesus' genealogies in Mt and Lk so different?"

Unscriptural. Both of the "explanations" given at the link contradict scripture. Both Mt and Lk explicitly says that they give Joseph's lineage - if one is going to stick to only literal interpretations, then you can't cherry pick to do so in Genesis but then suddenly have no problem with ignoring the literal text in Luke. Here's Luke.

Luke 3:23:
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki, ..................

In addition to that, Mt's list doesn't match the same list in Chronicles.

Specifically, the writers of Mt and Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, show us that the genealogies are allegories, and not literal. The Holy Spirit, author of both of them, shows this by the fact that they disagree with each other, and that Mt's list is altered so as to make his "14 generation" thing work.

Compare Mt with the same genealogy given in Chronicles:

Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:

1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was

2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,

3 .............................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,

4..............................Asa ..................................................Asa his son,

5 .............................Jehoshaphat .....................................Jehoshaphat his son,

6............................. Jehoram ...........................................Jehoram his son

................................Skipped.......................................... Ahaziah his son,


................................Skipped .........................................Joash his son,

................................Skipped .........................................Amaziah his son,

7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .................Azariah his son,

8............................ Jotham ............................................Jotham his son,

9 ............................Ahaz ...............................................Ahaz his son,

10...........................Hezekiah ........................................Hezekiah his son,

11.......................... Manasseh .......................................Manasseh his son,

12 ..........................Amon .............................................Amon his son,

13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.


Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Holy Spirit is telling us not to interpret genealogies literally nor historically.

In Christ-

Papias

@EpiscipalMe

 

[Lily of Valleys]

I like this response. I wonder though, how we might distinguish between deceptive works of Satan and works of God, and who is to say that a faulty interpretation of scripture is not the true work of Satan, while observation of Gods creation is not actually Gods creation? Why is it assumed that science is what is susceptible to Satans deception, and that it is not mans inability to interpret language that deceptive?

There is a game I like playing with family and friends. You sit in a circle and each person gets a sence or word. Maybe that sentence or word is a cat in a hat. So that person draws a cat in the hat. Then they pass their picture to the next person, and the next person is supposed to guess what the image is and write down what they think it is, and draw their version of what they think the image is.

And you pass the image around in a circle. And each time you play, your image is never the same whit makes its way around the circle and gets back to you. When it comes to language and interpretation, people are notoriously bad at getting things right.

With science on the other hand, a rock is a rock. And when in doubt about the rock being described, any human being can go look at and touch and taste and smell that same rock. It doesn't go anywhere.

So while stories of the OT are thousands of years old, transferred by word of mouth and language, human language and interpretation and translation...

The earth today is just as it was since...well, for the past hundreds of millions of years. Here to be looked at, any time. It doesn't change, it just sits there in the dirt through time.

So back to the original point, would not scripture be more likely to be misinterpreted than the earth? Would it not be easier for Satan to manipulate mans faulty mind and interpretations (which we do already without his influence anyway), than for Satan to manipulate the appearance of the earth/Gods creation?

Keep in mind that the world as is now is already deviated from the original creation of God. Pollution, chemicals, greenhouse effect, genetic engineering, etc., all have changed the nature and how life develops in nature.

I am not saying science is more susceptible to Satan's deception than anything else. It is just that Satan will try different ways to lead people away from God (e.g. Did God really say?) As for how to distinguish which is Satan's deception, the questions to ask are:

• What could Satan achieve by making you believe that the flood in Genesis actually happened?
  
• Does believing in the flood in Genesis cast doubt in your faith in God...or not believing?
  
• Does believing in the flood in Genesis lead you away from God...or not believing?

If we have to reject anything that defies science, the miracles of Jesus such as His resurrection, raising people from the dead, walking on the water, calming storm on the sea, feeding more than 5,000 people, turning water into wine, etc. are all impossible in science, are we going to reject those as well and treat them as allegorical? That would mean you would have to deny the resurrection of Christ and all the miracles Jesus ever performed as recorded in the four gospels.

What else would be left with the Christian faith if Jesus were simply a normal person who acted in accordance with what is only possible within science?

Humans are not omniscient, and science is not 100% accurate with 0% error.

For we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7)

 

[Job 33:6]

Keep in mind that the world as is now is already deviated from the original creation of God. Pollution, chemicals, greenhouse effect, genetic engineering, etc., all have changed the nature and how life develops in nature.

I am not saying science is more susceptible to Satan's deception than anything else. It is just that Satan will try different ways to lead people away from God (e.g. Did God really say?) As for how to distinguish which is Satan's deception, the questions to ask are:

• What could Satan achieve by making you believe that the flood in Genesis actually happened?
  
• Does believing in the flood in Genesis cast doubt in your faith in God...or not believing?
  
• Does believing in the flood in Genesis lead you away from God...or not believing?

If we have to reject anything that defies science, the miracles of Jesus such as His resurrection, raising people from the dead, walking on the water, calming storm on the sea, feeding more than 5,000 people, turning water into wine, etc. are all impossible in science, are we going to reject those as well and treat them as allegorical? That would mean you would have to deny the resurrection of Christ and all the miracles Jesus ever performed as recorded in the four gospels.

What else would be left with the Christian faith if Jesus were simply a normal person who acted in accordance with what is only possible within science?

Humans are not omniscient, and science is not 100% accurate with 0% error.

For we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7)

Nice post. I had a previous post relating to the geology of NY, which isn't something that pollution would affect, but your point is good none the less.

You asked 3 questions

• What could Satan achieve by making you believe that the flood in Genesis actually happened?
• Does believing in the flood in Genesis cast doubt in your faith in God...or not believing?
• Does believing in the flood in Genesis lead you away from God...or not believing?

These are good questions. I would say...
1.In believing in a literal Global flood (as opposed to an alternative explanation for exodus), we lose our ability to understand geology and Gods creation. We truly do. For example, take my post about NY geology. In accepting uniformitarianism, we have a clear explanation, sensible, testable, and objective understanding of creation. But if we try to explain such a feature as a product of a Global Flood, we find ourselves scratching our heads in confusion and become lost in our understanding of what I view as Gods creation, and ultimately we lose our understanding in things like physics, chemistry and science as a whole (try it and see). While understanding Gods creation has many spiritual and practical benefits.

2.For me, believing in a literal global flood does cast doubt, only because I believe it does not match up with what I view as Gods creation. However, ultimately understanding creation is not mandatory for my belief, it just is a piece of faith. And I think this answer someone relates to question 3 as well. Once we defeat our ability to understand creation, we in suit lose our ability to understand science, and in suit lose our ability to use science to further Gods message of salvation. We defeat our ability to understand works of God.

I could rephrase the questions...

1.What would satan achieve by misleading someone about Gods creation?
2. And would believing in an old earth cast doubt or lead people to disbelieve, or bring them to God? For me, I believe it has led me to God. But that's just me I suppose.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How could a global flood ever form such a sequence of rocks?

Easy. (if you can find a scientist to whom it has been revealed).
But first, why would the flood have to be what caused such a sequence ?
i.e. not all the sequences were caused by the flood.
All of them present were obviously covered by the flood,
but no requirement there for them to be caused by the flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

Easy. (if you can find a scientist to whom it has been revealed).
But first, why would the flood have to be what caused such a sequence ?
i.e. not all the sequences were caused by the flood.
All of them present were obviously covered by the flood,
but no requirement there for them to be caused by the flood.

If not caused by the flood, which I am not opposed to, we would remain with layers in the earth that appear to be ancient in age none the less.

 

[Job 33:6]

I would like to say though, lily of the Valleys post.

I think a question of if an idea leads someone to or away from God, ought to take priority over what that view might be. And while in my personal opinion, I might now think a particular view brings myself toward God, if it did bring someone else toward God, then that's more Glory for Him, and I wouldn't oppose that scenario, regardless of how it occurred.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't T-Rex eat everything?

No.

There's a Creation Museum in the Midwest where they show Dinosaurs walking up into the Ark, along with other animals.

Yes. They were being obedient.

Your thoughts?

I believe all aboard the Ark ate a never-ending supply of manna (angel food) until after the Flood.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If not caused by the flood, which I am not opposed to, we would remain with layers in the earth that appear to be ancient in age none the less.

Yes, there is no problem with all the layers everywhere, seen and unseen.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am a geologist by research, career and hobby if anyone is interested in discussing or rebounding ideas or thoughts related to Earth/Creation.

What does the Flood have to do with Creation?

The Creation occurred in 4004 BC ... the Flood in 2348 BC.

 

[Eryk]

In believing in a literal Global flood (as opposed to an alternative explanation for exodus)

This is the second time.. I think you've got Noah confused with Moses.

Anyway, the meaning of the Genesis text was plain in millennia of Jewish and Christian exegesis: a global flood. If it was a local flood, God would have known this and he would have made this clear in the text. It's not like God is using the suggestive and figurative language of poetry. It's technical language (the dimensions of the ark), and it's measurement: the water was fifteen cubits above the mountaintops. We cannot miss the meaning here without denying what is being plainly said. How does this comport with geology? That's a secondary issue. First we take God at his word.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, there is no problem with all the layers everywhere, seen and unseen.

This is the second time.. I think you've got Noah confused with Moses.

Anyway, the meaning of the Genesis text was plain in millennia of Jewish and Christian exegesis: a global flood. If it was a local flood, God would have known this and he would have made this clear in the text. It's not like God is using the suggestive and figurative language of poetry. It's technical language (the dimensions of the ark), and it's measurement: the water was fifteen cubits above the mountaintops. We cannot miss the meaning here without denying what is being plainly said. How does this comport with geology? That's a secondary issue. First we take God at his word.

How it comports with geology, in my opinion is primary, as our eyes and what we see with them are fundamental to understanding God. We would not even be able to read scripture without them. And here they are, witnessing a creation that lacks a global flood, despite our interpretations of scripture.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How it comports with geology, in my opinion is primary, as our eyes and what we see with them are fundamental to understanding God. We would not even be able to read scripture without them. And here they are, witnessing a creation that lacks a global flood, despite our interpretations of scripture.

Who are "they" ?

 

[Job 33:6]

Who are "they" ?

our eyes

Take again my NY example. We observe it now, in absence of global flood deposits.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

our eyes

Take again my NY example. We observe it now, in absence of global flood deposits.

That's funny for you to say, but even more sad.

If you don't believe God's Word, you won't believe the flood.

If you do believe God's Word, you already believe the flood.

hint: God is not a man, that He could lie.....

 

[Job 33:6]

That's funny for you to say, but even more sad.

If you don't believe God's Word, you won't believe the flood.

If you do believe God's Word, you already believe the flood.

hint: God is not a man, that He could lie.....

This isn't really a response to the dilemma. God gave us eyes to see. Not only to see and to understand scripture, but also to understand creation and earth. I presented an example of creation and earth that lacks global flood deposits, I believe God wants us to see this. And I also believe in the flood, just not as you do, because my eyes (which God gave me) lead me to view it in an alternative way.

If not viewed in an alternative way, we are left in confusion without answers, proposing satanic deception. I don't think it is satanic deception, I believe it is God showing us His power and glory in ways that people 2000 years ago could never have understood.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The deceptioin is vividly obvious , everywhere, worldwide.
Likewise,
when YHWH fulfills His Word:
" Then opened HE their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,"
then
it is perfectly understood - no shadow, no crime, no deviation, no error.

The flood was exactly as YHWH said it was. He is Faithful and True.

Mankind is corrupt.

 

[Job 33:6]

I would quote that very same scripture. "Then opened HE their understanding, that they might understand scriptures".

Amen.

 

[Papias]

yeshuaslavejeff seems to think that any interpretation that isn't his own is corrupt.