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.
What has that got to do with 'Noahs flood being allegory or myth'?
I was talking about Georgy McCready Price and Whitcomb & Morris's flood geology,
which isn't mentioned in the bible.
So you claimed, but you weren't able to back it by quoting me. Which make me thing you were confusing McCready Price's flood geology with scripture and thinking anyone who makes a distinction between modern creationism and the text of Genesis must be taking the text allegorically.You bought it up.
Any yet you still read McCready Price's flood geology into the text, as we can see in the next claim.I know.
I know.
The text said every alive was destroyed, it says nothing about geological being destroyed and rearranged and new geological strata laid down. It says the hills were covered with water, not that they were washed away or that the river valleys between the hills were revamped. The only reason it matters when McCready Price developed the theory, is that creationists have so bought into his idea that anyone who suggests it is not what scripture actually says, must be taking the flood as allegory or myth.But somehow you seem to think that a theoretical world wide flood that covered the highest mountain would not have caused total destruction. Such a flood either would or wouldn't, it doesn't matter when someone developed the theory that it would.
I know.
I know.It says the hills were covered with water, not that they were washed away or that the river valleys between the hills were revamped.
The only reason it matters when McCready Price developed the theory,
When the theory was developed has no impact at all on whether it happened that way or not.
You are welcome to explain why you think the scale of destruction referred to would not occur and why you think the Ark must have landed in the same locality it departed from.
It certainly doesn't change whether it happened or not, but that isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about your claim Noah's descendants would have reused place names that there would have been no ambiguity because everybody understood the earth was completely revamped. It is not a question of whether it happened as McCready Price claimed or not, but whether people in the bible, before McCready Price wrote about flood geology, would have assumed it was obvious. They didn't have the benfit of Price's flood geology and the text does not mention rivers being changed, they would have no reason to assume the rivers mentioned in Genesis must be completely different rivers in a completely different landscape.I know.
I know.
When the theory was developed has no impact at all on whether it happened that way or not.
We can change the subject if you like. Does that mean you are dropping your claim my point was irrelevant because it was 'based on Noahs flood being allegory or myth'? You know Mark it is much better to address people's points rather than glibly play the presupposition card.You are welcome to explain why you think the scale of destruction referred to would not occur and why you think the Ark must have landed in the same locality it departed from.
You need to read up on Christian theology for Genesis 1-11. Also, check our the archeological evidence that shows us what the ancient Hebrews had in mind when it came to cosmology.My intent was to show that the artist was not a believer and had even done some fairly offensive work which surely blasphemes the Holy Spirit, and that the art work in question here is also a misrepresentation of both the Genesis account and the early Hebrew beliefs.
I agree, the young earth creationist movement is a stumbling block for believers, and it keeps many non-believers from even considering Christianity.This very topic could, yes could, I'm not making any emphatic argument, but 'could' be the very delusion that many believers stumble over.
It has been used as a great tool to attack God because the fundies say that it can be. For most of the rest of the world, it doesn't matter. Christian theologians recognize the derivation of the creation account from ancient near eastern myths. There is no assault on Christianity with this view, only an assault on the fundamentalist perspective which is very narrow and delusional.this very issue of our beginnings has been used as a great 'tool' to rebuke the word and work of God.
I agree, the young earth creationist movement is a stumbling block for believers, and it keeps many non-believers from even considering Christianity.
The doctrine of sin is the biggest stumbling block of Christianity. Why don't we try to get rid of it? (in fact, some churches are doing exactly that today).
Some would say the doctrine of the resurrection is, or the doctrine of the incarnation. Whatever. What is essential to the faith can't be discarded.
But that doesn't mean setting up unnecessary stumbling blocks like young-earth creationism.
Exactly.
If so, why would people abandon the faith due to a non-essential interpretation of the Scripture?
My opinion is, even without the misunderstanding to creationism, those people abandoned Christianity (temporarily, I wish) will do that anyway. The creationism is only used as a (very) convenient excuse due to the less-than-skin-deep general science courses offered in the mostly atheistic college education.
More to the point, why do people insist on holding to a non-essential interpretation of scripture that is a stumbling block to faith?
Since it is non-essential, then why not? There are good reasons to hold on to them.
Why not? For the same reason one ought not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, lest it cause a brother to stumble.
I don't know of one single good reason to hold onto an interpretation which is non-essential and so totally contradictory to relevant evidence that it acts as stumbling block not only to people currently outside the church, but even to those raised to believe it---once they are exposed to the evidence of its falsity.
I don't know who it helps other than those who fleece the gullible financially. And from an eternal perspective, it doesn't help them either.
Hey guys,
I wonder what you those who take Genesis 1 literally think of this?
These understandings of the universe make much more sense if taking Genesis 1 to be literal history. The problem is that the universe isn't like this.
I used to wonder what day two of Genesis 1 ment and these understandings of the universe seem to do it very well. So before day one there was just water, day one light was made, whatever the light was (the light of heaven?), day 2 waters were parted from waters to us as area to live in. Day 3 the ground to stand on was made and then Day 4 the small sun, moon and stars.
This seems like quite impressive proof to me that Genesis 1 is not history.
Solarwave
Er, help me with this logic. If none of these sketches come from the Bible, how could they possibly give us any interpretive insight?
The idea of a solid dome universe is virtually universal to all ancient cultures. It's a model based on natural inferences, not the Bible. In fact I'm amazed how the bible writers avoided detailed descriptions of the structure of the universe, thus avoided teaching these ancient cosmologies.
So how would the above shake your faith in a straightforward reading of scripture??
Actually, the Bible says in many places that the firmament is solid and has windows in it.The idea of a solid dome universe is virtually universal to all ancient cultures. It's a model based on natural inferences, not the Bible.
Actually, the Bible says in many places that the firmament is solid and has windows in it.
Not sure why you're saying that. Ezekiel 1:22 says the firmament "sparkles like ice." Job 37:18 says it's "hard as a mirror cast of bronze." So clearly, the Hebrews referenced the same cosmology as the other ANE cultures you cited.Total myth.
If anything, I think you're just reaffirmed the accommodationist nature of the Scriptures because we know that the birds don't fly in the same expanse as the sun, moon, and stars (which the Bible describes as pinpricks of light that fall to earth).The firmament is actually defined in Genesis chapter 1.
Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
We have very few examples of the word for firmament in scripture, a few in psalms, ezekiel and daniel. But we don't need many because we have a ton of data on word heaven, which is what God named the firmament of Genesis. It is where the sun, moon and stars are. It is where the clouds are. It is where the birds fly.
Not sure why you're saying that. Ezekiel 1:22 says the firmament "sparkles like ice." Job 37:18 says it's "hard as a mirror cast of bronze." So clearly, the Hebrews referenced the same cosmology as the other ANE cultures you cited.
If anything, I think you're just reaffirmed the accommodationist nature of the Scriptures because we know that the birds don't fly in the same expanse as the sun, moon, and stars (which the Bible describes as pinpricks of light that fall to earth).
It is where the sun, moon and stars are. It is where the clouds are. It is where the birds fly.
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?