Earth Tilt Question

[Assyrian]

Ex. 12:2

KJV This month [shall be] unto you the beginning of months: it [shall be] the first month of the year to you.

YNG `This month [is] to you the chief of months -- it [is] the first to you of the months of the year;

NASB "This month shall be the beginning of months for you; it is to be the first month of the year to you.

If that month was already the first month, then God wouldn't have said, this month -shall be- ... IOW, why state the obvious?

At the flood, months, years, days are being counted. The assumption of a calendar is there. Will it end up being the same calander for Moses? Apparently so, it is implied.




I see your point. We know the calendar was in existence--Noah's ark rests on the 17th day of the 7th month. Later the 7th month becomes the 1st month (again the relationship is due to the 17th).

The only other relationship is to the equinoxes that I can see.

You still haven't shown were Exodus 12:2 starts on the 7th month of the old calendar.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't know, I have come across literalist arguments often enough, one thing it convinces me is that TEs care more for what the literal meaning of the text actually says than literalists.

And oddly, you have made no attempt here to look at what the literal text actually says. Yo see some significance in this being the first mention of the text, and I am aware of the literalists reasoning that the first mention is the first time these things exist, but the text does not say that, and there is nothing in scripture to tell us to take the first mention of a subject as the first time it existed.-snip-

Before the rain of Noah's flood:

Gen. 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

So, no rainbow in the sky previous to its mention as a covenant with Noah. Hence, the idea---when you see this rainbow, fear not because, although rain from the sky was just connected with flood/death/drowning, it instead means life-giving water; no flood like Noah's.

Okay?

 

[Assyrian]

Before the rain of Noah's flood:

Gen. 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

So, no rainbow in the sky previous to its mention as a covenant with Noah. Hence, the idea---when you see this rainbow, fear not because, although rain from the sky was just connected with flood/death/drowning, it instead means life-giving water; no flood like Noah's.

Okay?

No, sorry, not really. No rain in Genesis 2:6 doesn't tell us there was never any rain after that until the flood. It tells us there was no rain in the land in Genesis 2:6, and God answered that need with a mist that watered the land. It does not say that there was only ever mist water in the land before the flood. And while while you might think the rainbow would be even more significant if people had never seen rain or rain clouds before the flood, the bible simply does not give this as he reason for the rainbow. In fact it says the purpose is to remind God not to flood the world again.

 

[Jadis40]

It's been a while since I've last posted anything, but the argument based on absence (as in the case Assyrian mentioned) does not mean it didn't rain. Anyone who knows about the hydrologic cycle can tell you that argument is a non-starter. All you need is the sun causing the evaporation of water from the surface of the ocean which will over time form clouds through condensation, from which precipitation may fall.

The Water Cycle, from USGS Water Science for Schools

 

[dad]

Do folks think that the earth may have tilted on its axis as a result of Noah's flood?

Thought?

Comments?

No. My opinion is that is was a bit later, when the universe was changed.

 

[Papias]

Juve wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Juve wrote:

That is why many of the blessed ones study Hebrew.

OK, but what Hebrew do they study? Modern Hebrew? Does anyone know for sure what all the words of ancient hebrew meant? I mean, look at the differences between chaucer's canterbury tales, just 1000 years ago, and modern english - and multiply that by 2.5 (going by modern dating) or by 3.5 (going by fundamentalist dating of the pentateuch). Who teaches them - aren't those all fallible humans? Again I have to ask - do you think the lexicon (or the teachers of Hebrew) to be divinely inspired and divinely protected?


On what basis? To say it is 80% right, you need to be comparing it to a standard you know is right - and if you have that, then why not just enlighten everyone by bringing it forth? If you don't have a known to be correct standard, then what is that 80% based on? Just a warm and fuzzy feeling?


Begging your pardon, but doesn't that sound a little cavalier, if one considers it to be the word of God? I mean, if I thought I could get 0.001% closer to the real word of the master of the universe, wouldn't I happily expend hundreds of hours to do so?




What do you mean by "useful"? Do you mean "correct", as in "divinely inspired"? Or do you mean something else? If it is "useful", but is still the work of fallible humans, then aren't you putting fallible humans above the word of God? Or are you saying that the Bible itself is the word of humans, so using a human work to affect it is OK? Just trying to figure out what you are saying, no offense meant.

Papias
​

So, according to you, is there any good way to read the Scripture?
Or, you read yours and I read mine? I guess this might be what your idea is.

No, I'm pointing out that it sounds like you are using a fallibile, human work (the lexicon) to affect the meaning of a divinely inspired work (the Bible). Or are you saying that the lexicon is divinely inspired? Or are you saying that neither are divinely inspired?

I guess I'm just trying to figure out what basis you have for, on one hand, saying that the Bible is the word of God, and then, on the other hand, turning around and acting as if you don't, deep down, think it is - because you use the lexicon to tell you what it means.

You can not deny everything because of some difficulties. That is what my 80% meant. To you it might only be 50% or less. Is that right? If the assured message is less than 50%, you may as well to choose other religion to believe.

What did the 80% mean? I still don't understand that because a % is what you get when you compare something to a standard - and I still haven't heard from you where you are getting the perfect copy of the Bible to compare your Bible to.

Even if you somehow could know that your Bible is 80% correct, that still throws the whole thing into doubt. I mean, which verses are the 80 and which are the 20? For any given verse - maybe it is one of wrong ones, and you are following it?

Papias

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Do folks think that the earth may have tilted on its axis as a result of Noah's flood?

Thought?

Comments?

In addition to the debate about whether or not the line in Genesis shows that there were seasons before the flood, don't we have abundand fossil trees showing growth rings (which are caused by seasons), from hundreds of millions of years ago?

The petrified forest in Az is from the triassic, I believe, which seems to pre-date Noah.

Papias
​

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

In addition to the debate about whether or not the line in Genesis shows that there were seasons before the flood, don't we have abundand fossil trees showing growth rings (which are caused by seasons), from hundreds of millions of years ago?

The petrified forest in Az is from the triassic, I believe, which seems to pre-date Noah.

Papias
​

We can not be sure on when was the Noah's Flood. For example, it could happen at sometime in the Cambrian Period.

 

[juvenissun]

Juve wrote:


No, I'm pointing out that it sounds like you are using a fallibile, human work (the lexicon) to affect the meaning of a divinely inspired work (the Bible). Or are you saying that the lexicon is divinely inspired? Or are you saying that neither are divinely inspired?

I guess I'm just trying to figure out what basis you have for, on one hand, saying that the Bible is the word of God, and then, on the other hand, turning around and acting as if you don't, deep down, think it is - because you use the lexicon to tell you what it means.



What did the 80% mean? I still don't understand that because a % is what you get when you compare something to a standard - and I still haven't heard from you where you are getting the perfect copy of the Bible to compare your Bible to.

Even if you somehow could know that your Bible is 80% correct, that still throws the whole thing into doubt. I mean, which verses are the 80 and which are the 20? For any given verse - maybe it is one of wrong ones, and you are following it?

Papias

Don't just try to find possible errors on my side. Give me an example of your interpretation on difficult Bible verses, and tell me how confident you are on that. And yes, you may use the % notation. Or you can say: pretty much, very, etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

We can not be sure on when was the Noah's Flood. For example, it could happen at sometime in the Cambrian Period.

Drowned all those evil trilobites, um? But no vertebrates?

 

[Papias]

We can not be sure on when was the Noah's Flood. For example, it could happen at sometime in the Cambrian Period.

Anyone familiar with the Bible knows that this would contradict a literal reading in too many places to count (as Barbarian pointed out). For instance - you can't kill everything "with the breath of life in it's nostrils" millions of years before anything that breathes air through nostrils has evolved - and many more issues (such as, were Noah and his sons Opabinia with vacuum hose mouthes?).

If we see the story as symbolic from the start, then there is no need to posit that the flood actually happened.

Either way (literal or symbolic), I can see no reason why anyone would want to posit that the flood happened in the cambrian. Did I miss something?

Papias

 

[Papias]

Juve wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias http://www.christianforums.com/t7425695-7/#post53796172

No, I'm pointing out that it sounds like you are using a fallibile, human work (the lexicon) to affect the meaning of a divinely inspired work (the Bible). Or are you saying that the lexicon is divinely inspired? Or are you saying that neither are divinely inspired?

I guess I'm just trying to figure out what basis you have for, on one hand, saying that the Bible is the word of God, and then, on the other hand, turning around and acting as if you don't, deep down, think it is - because you use the lexicon to tell you what it means.



What did the 80% mean? I still don't understand that because a % is what you get when you compare something to a standard - and I still haven't heard from you where you are getting the perfect copy of the Bible to compare your Bible to.

Even if you somehow could know that your Bible is 80% correct, that still throws the whole thing into doubt. I mean, which verses are the 80 and which are the 20? For any given verse - maybe it is one of wrong ones, and you are following it?

Papias

Don't just try to find possible errors on my side. Give me an example of your interpretation on difficult Bible verses, and tell me how confident you are on that. And yes, you may use the % notation. Or you can say: pretty much, very, etc.

Why would I want to treat the scriptures as you do? I’m not the one claiming any of the Bibles to be literal and infallible, you are. I rely on church tradition, reason, and experience in addition to the text. I’m not confident that any scripture is 100% infallible, and I’m not the one claiming to be able to put a % on any of it. Since I’m not claiming to be able put a % on it, it would be silly for me to violate my own statements by doing so.

I’d be happy to talk about any specific passage (difficult or not). In fact, I can probably make this more simple – If a passage is particularly difficult (such as the incorrect science statements, like when Paul claims that seeds “die” before sprouting), I’ll simply say that the verse is either metaphor (like the symbolic genesis account), or an error in copying, or a mistranslation. Why make things hard?

I hope that helps clarify things.

 

[juvenissun]

Juve wrote:


Why would I want to treat the scriptures as you do? I’m not the one claiming any of the Bibles to be literal and infallible, you are. I rely on church tradition, reason, and experience in addition to the text. I’m not confident that any scripture is 100% infallible, and I’m not the one claiming to be able to put a % on any of it. Since I’m not claiming to be able put a % on it, it would be silly for me to violate my own statements by doing so.

I’d be happy to talk about any specific passage (difficult or not). In fact, I can probably make this more simple – If a passage is particularly difficult (such as the incorrect science statements, like when Paul claims that seeds “die” before sprouting), I’ll simply say that the verse is either metaphor (like the symbolic genesis account), or an error in copying, or a mistranslation. Why make things hard?

I hope that helps clarify things.

If you are not sure how to interpret any verse in the Bible, why do you question my interpretation? If I am not a particular one, and you questioned everybody's interpretation, then the old question is still there: how do you read yours? How much is your faith in God (by % ?)

 

[juvenissun]

Anyone familiar with the Bible knows that this would contradict a literal reading in too many places to count (as Barbarian pointed out). For instance - you can't kill everything "with the breath of life in it's nostrils" millions of years before anything that breathes air through nostrils has evolved - and many more issues (such as, were Noah and his sons Opabinia with vacuum hose mouthes?).

If we see the story as symbolic from the start, then there is no need to posit that the flood actually happened.

Either way (literal or symbolic), I can see no reason why anyone would want to posit that the flood happened in the cambrian. Did I miss something?

Papias

Yes, you do. You firmly believe that Cambrian time is 550 million years ago. You have a much stronger faith on that, than what's said in the Bible. That is where the problem is.

 

[Papias]

Juve wrote:

If you are not sure how to interpret any verse in the Bible, why do you question my interpretation?

In this case, I questioned the fact that you were claiming the God-breathed Bible to be literally infallible, but then turning around and using a human made lexicon to decide what it meant. The simple contradiction (unless you see the lexicon as divinely inspired and protected - I must have missed you answer to that) is what I was objecting to.

If I am not a particular one, and you questioned everybody's interpretation, then the old question is still there: how do you read yours?

I didn't single you out unfairly (or at least that was not my intent). I'm likely to question anyone who seems to be claiming one thing and then doing another - as we all do from time to time. In fact, I'm indebted to people who have pointed it out when I was doing such, because without them I wouldn't have been aware of issues I needed to examine.

How much is your faith in God (by % ?)

Your earlier question seemed to be "what % of the bible is literally correct" - to which I responded that I couldn't (and had no need to) answer that. If instead, you are now asking what % of my faith is in God, that's easy. It is 100%. That's why I'm sure that the correct interpretation of any passage will not contradict the real world. If I read in scripture that the moon was destroyed and exists no more, and then go out and see the moon in the sky, then my conclusion is that God meant the verse to be symbolic. It would be blasphemous to maintain that God lied, and just as bad, it would be silly to pretend that moon really is gone, when all can see it up there.

 

[Papias]

You firmly believe that Cambrian time is 550 million years ago.

I don't believe that the Cambrian is 550 million years ago - I know it based on evidence. That's a big difference. One can "just believe" anything - a lot of people believe in UFOs, a 2012 end of the world, pyramid power, talking animals, and so on. To know something based on evidence requires convergent lines of evidence, from different tests, and is not just something I choose to "believe". For an honest, inquisitive mind, there is no choice involved.

You have a much stronger faith on that, than what's said in the Bible. That is where the problem is.

First, I have faith that God doesn't lie, and wouldn't tell us something that is obviously in contradiction to reality. I would need to deny many types of evidence from the reality that God gave us to claim that the flood of Noah happened in the cambrian - too many to list here, though we can go into them if you like.

Second - The Bible never says that there were humans in the cambrian. In fact, it never mentions the cambrian, or when the cambrian did or didn't occur. It is true that I have little faith in a made up statement that isn't in the Bible. Why would I, or anyone? Why did you claim there were humans in the cambrian?

Denying reality is a problem. Having faith that God doesn't lie is not a problem.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Thinking about the discussion between Juve and I last night, I thought that I may have only incompletely responded to one of his points. This post will hopefully make my response more complete.

Juve wrote:

You have a much stronger faith on that, than what's said in the Bible. That is where the problem is.

In addition to my post above, Christians throughout history have recognized that God's revelation includes the entire natural world. The heavens, Earth and all of creation sings out with God's glory - as I hope most of us here would agree. Thus, the evidence from nature is also revelation, and the best thing about it is that there is a huge amount of it, testable (readable) by a number of methods. This huge amount means that when we aren't sure what God's revelation is saying, we can always test an idea we have on more samples from God's creation.

As Juve (with his 80%) and I agree on, we can't be absolutely certain of any message from any part of the Bible, because it is just a printed word, subject to misinterpretation, copying error, deliberate changes (which we know happened in the Bible - compare the synoptics), choice of what goes in the Canon (Juve and I probably have different books in our Bibles, because mine is the Catholic Bible), different translations (the KJV has additional phrases and passages compared to the NIV, amounting to about the length of the books of 1st and 2nd peter combined), and so on.

So, when I look at the total revelation from God, I don't think God would want me to limit it just to the Bible. I don't think that is a problem, though Juve may, by his quote above. Juve, do you?

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Thinking about the discussion between Juve and I last night, I thought that I may have only incompletely responded to one of his points. This post will hopefully make my response more complete.

Juve wrote:



In addition to my post above, Christians throughout history have recognized that God's revelation includes the entire natural world. The heavens, Earth and all of creation sings out with God's glory - as I hope most of us here would agree. Thus, the evidence from nature is also revelation, and the best thing about it is that there is a huge amount of it, testable (readable) by a number of methods. This huge amount means that when we aren't sure what God's revelation is saying, we can always test an idea we have on more samples from God's creation.

As Juve (with his 80%) and I agree on, we can't be absolutely certain of any message from any part of the Bible, because it is just a printed word, subject to misinterpretation, copying error, deliberate changes (which we know happened in the Bible - compare the synoptics), choice of what goes in the Canon (Juve and I probably have different books in our Bibles, because mine is the Catholic Bible), different translations (the KJV has additional phrases and passages compared to the NIV, amounting to about the length of the books of 1st and 2nd peter combined), and so on.

So, when I look at the total revelation from God, I don't think God would want me to limit it just to the Bible. I don't think that is a problem, though Juve may, by his quote above. Juve, do you?

Papias

I am not sure what your faith is about. According to what you said, you may not believe in the salvation. Because it is not shown by anything in the nature, and it all comes from human.

And how do you know what your faith is, since you (we) do not understand most part of the nature? Do you check the Bible verses against the part of nature you do understand? or the part you don't understand?

If you do not (completely, 100%) believe the words in the Bible, then you simply can not believe in the Christian God. Or, for the worse, you can not believe in any other god according to any specific scripture, because they are all written by men. You believe in 80%, or 50% of the Scripture? What kind of faith is that? You would be better off if you wrote one for yourself.

 

[Papias]

Those are good and relevant questions. Let me address them in turn.

Juve wrote:

I am not sure what your faith is about. According to what you said, you may not believe in the salvation. Because it is not shown by anything in the nature, and it all comes from human.

Human information is still useful, when not contradicted by information from God's creation. The Bible, Church tradition, and other sources supply information on salvation. My personal salvation views are too complex to fully describe here (and off topic anyway), but I will agree that Jesus is the path to salvation.

And how do you know what your faith is, since you (we) do not understand most part of the nature? Do you check the Bible verses against the part of nature you do understand? or the part you don't understand?

As I said, my faith is that God doesn't lie (or contradict himself). While it is true that there is plenty in the natural world we don't understand, there is also plenty that is well established. I don't try to "check the Bible against nature", as if the two were in conflict - but rather use each to help understand the other, helping to make a coherent whole. Both are God's word, and anyone who sees them in conflict is claiming that God is contradicting himself. That's not what I'd expect from a loving parent.

If you do not (completely, 100%) believe the words in the Bible, then you simply can not believe in the Christian God. Or, for the worse, you can not believe in any other god according to any specific scripture, because they are all written by men.

I don't 100% believe every word of the Bible is to be taken literally. That certainly allows me to believe in the Christian God, along with the majority of Christians. It is only a minority of Christians who think every word of the Bible has to be taken literally, as I think you already know.

You believe in 80%, or 50% of the Scripture? What kind of faith is that? You would be better off if you wrote one for yourself.

I think that a faith that sees God as living, dynamic, and still speaking is much better than a dogmatic faith based on a literal reading of only one of many Bibles. After all, which Bible would such a literalist depend on, and why? The different Bibles contain different books, different verses, and different doctrines. All are well known to contain errors and changes. To cling to one - arbitrarily chosen - as being the perfect word of God is simply delusional.

Worse, it locks one into seeing God a petty, limited, impotent, and mean. What other kind of God would be so impotent as to only reveal though one flawed book, or so mean as to limit the majority of the world from seeing his revelation? To that kind of faith - limited to pretending that his or her chosen book - be it the KJV, the Qu'ran, or the Pearl - is the only source of revelation, I would say what you said, that "You would be better off if you wrote one for yourself."

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Those are good and relevant questions. Let me address them in turn.

Juve wrote:



Human information is still useful, when not contradicted by information from God's creation. The Bible, Church tradition, and other sources supply information on salvation. My personal salvation views are too complex to fully describe here (and off topic anyway), but I will agree that Jesus is the path to salvation.



As I said, my faith is that God doesn't lie (or contradict himself). While it is true that there is plenty in the natural world we don't understand, there is also plenty that is well established. I don't try to "check the Bible against nature", as if the two were in conflict - but rather use each to help understand the other, helping to make a coherent whole. Both are God's word, and anyone who sees them in conflict is claiming that God is contradicting himself. That's not what I'd expect from a loving parent.



I don't 100% believe every word of the Bible is to be taken literally. That certainly allows me to believe in the Christian God, along with the majority of Christians. It is only a minority of Christians who think every word of the Bible has to be taken literally, as I think you already know.



I think that a faith that sees God as living, dynamic, and still speaking is much better than a dogmatic faith based on a literal reading of only one of many Bibles. After all, which Bible would such a literalist depend on, and why? The different Bibles contain different books, different verses, and different doctrines. All are well known to contain errors and changes. To cling to one - arbitrarily chosen - as being the perfect word of God is simply delusional.

Worse, it locks one into seeing God a petty, limited, impotent, and mean. What other kind of God would be so impotent as to only reveal though one flawed book, or so mean as to limit the majority of the world from seeing his revelation? To that kind of faith - limited to pretending that his or her chosen book - be it the KJV, the Qu'ran, or the Pearl - is the only source of revelation, I would say what you said, that "You would be better off if you wrote one for yourself."

Papias

Translation problem should not be a reason which renders the Bible into a "flawed book". That is why Bible scholars need to study Hebrew and Greek. For lay people in language, the lexicon is the next best alternative. If you are not comfortable with translations, you should study language (and culture), instead of doubting the content of the book.

Basically, I see your reason is not that much different from one usually given by atheists: the Bible is written (and collected) by man, and we can, as a consequence, question and argue on every verse of it.

You read the Bible as a source of idea, then mixed it with your own. This is not new. Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, even Islam, are successful few who are doing this. It is called Cults.

Very rarely that two faithful Christians will have a 100% agreement on any issue described in the Bible. This is 100% normal and is a result of the wonderful design of human by God. The fact that we do not agree on the interpretations does not mean one of us must be wrong, or only one among all can be right. We could all be right, because we are different person. The critical thing is do not add any word to the Bible when we interpret it. Stick with what It says.