How to deal with evolution?

catch21wide · Apr 25, 2006

Amen Sister. You hit the nail right on the head. He doesn't know what all the professors beliefs are so how is he justified by saying what he said. To sum up my belief on the Book of Genesis, I will quote Dr. Jerry Vines in which he said, "I know the Bible was sent from God. The Old as well as the New. Divinely inspired the WHOLE way through."The Book of Genesis wasn't written just because somebody wanted to write it. Genesis was written to provide historical references of where we cam from.

arunma · Apr 25, 2006

Lenora56 said:
I know that the evolutionists are many but I'm not sure where you get those percentages (100% of the men and women employed today as a full professor of biology or geology in a major university? ). I believe in creation as outlined in Genesis,, and no, I don't base my beliefs on something other than reality.

He's probably correct. Awhile ago, a group of creationists compiled a list of a large number of scientists (somewhere in the hundreds) who believed in Biblical creation. The atheists later responded by compiling a list of an equal number of scientists named "Bob" (or perhaps some other common name) who believe in evolution.

For better or worse, almost no scientists believe in creationism, even those who are Christians and who claim to believe in the Bible. Of course, we have to qualify what we mean by "creationism." If we asked all scientists whether they believe that the triune God of Israel created the universe, and left the door open for evolution, I think the numbers would be significantly higher. Furthermore, there's the old earth versus young earth debate (both of these creationist views reject evolution). When most people talk about creationism, they are referring to young earth creationism, and a very small number of scientists believe this. A more decent number of scientists would believe in old earth creationism, though.

Now personally I am an old earth creationist who rejects evolution. I'm not saying the scientists are correct. The majority view is not necessarily the right one. After all, remember that two-thirds of the world reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ; that doesn't make them right. But we have to face the fact that very few scientists believe in Biblical creation, whether old or young earth.

trinityisunity · Apr 26, 2006

I personally believe in the six day creation theory, although I dont reject the old earth creation theory. Either way God made us and all our surroundings that to me is fact;the bible says so. We cannot put God in a box "Nothing is impossible for God"(Luke 1:37).He made the universe, animals, and man. This same God parted the Red Sea, allowed an old couple to bear a child(Abraham and Sarah), and countless other O.T. miracles. He also came upon( by the Holy Spirit) a young virgin and made her conceive a Child, then rose this Child from the grave after He had died a sacrificial death for the world's sins. God has performed all these and more supernatural acts, therefore I have no trouble believing the Genesis account of creation literally. I accepted Jesus by faith so I accept His word by faith also.
Evilution is the way in which athiests can deny God and not be accountable to this holy God. Whether you believe in either view of creation(young or old) it does not matter. It is great to know that God created us in his image, and that He created us because He wanted to have a relationship with us. This is positive and affirming and should give us a humble sense of dignity.

JPPT1974 · Apr 26, 2006

First God created the earth as well
As created the first people of Adam & Eve
He also created the land, sea, and animals

PrincetonGuy · Apr 26, 2006

Lenora56 said:
I know that the evolutionists are many but I'm not sure where you get those percentages (100% of the men and women employed today as a full professor of biology or geology in a major university? ). I believe in creation as outlined in Genesis,, and no, I don't base my beliefs on something other than reality.

From time to time the Institute for Creation Research and other fundamentalist extremist groups publish lists of the scientists who believe in young-earth creationism and the lists are rapidly getting shorter and shorter. This is especially true in the sciences of biology and geology. For the past several years, these organizations have not been able to list the name of even one full professor of biology or geology (out of well over 100,000 professors of biology or geology world-wide) teaching today in a major university anywhere in the entire world! The typical Christian fundamentalist has NO IDEA of the vast quantity of data (literally millions of volumes of it) that supports the theory of evolution and the theory that the earth is billions of years old. No biologist who is familiar with the data, no matter how Christian he may be, can possible deny that it VERY strongly points to both the theory of evolution and the theory that the earth is billions (probably 4.5 billion) years old.

Young earth creationism is NOT a scienceit is a religion that opposes the truth that God has allowed us to learn through science and it makes a deceiver and trickster out of God. But please dont take my word for it! For all you know I am the devil himself! Very carefully and prayerfully read the literature published by the fundamentalist extremist groups and check their claims for yourself! Compare what they say about their scientists with what you can dig up for yourself about their scientists. Check out where they got their education, what classes those schools had to offer, and check out where they are actually employed and the positions that they actually hold. If you will do this, you will learn for yourself that these fundamentalist extremists habitually misrepresent the truth about their own scientists. And then read some of the articles written by these scientists, and you will see for yourself that they base almost everything that they teach about science on miscellaneous tidbits of anomalous data that is difficult to interpret. And then read a few papers written by real scientists about this same data and you will see for yourself, with your very own eyes, that the fundamentalist extremists deliberately and willfully misrepresent the data, the significance of the data, and the correct interpretation of the data.

It has been a VERY long time since even one evolutionary biologist (a biologist who specializes in evolutionary biology) did not believe in the theory of evolution. This is not a debate about scienceit is a debate about an archaic and extremely naïve and HIGHLY DANGEROUS interpretation of Genesis 1-11. As I have posted elsewhere in this thread, young-earth creationism is today the greatest threat against the conservative, evangelical church because it makes Christians appear to be intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia and because it tells our young people today that they must choose between science and the Bible, and every year hundreds of thousands of them are choosing science over the Bible.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, simply present the data from science and their interpretation of it and leave the ethics, morality, and theology up to the individual to learn for himself from another source. The teaching of evolution poses NO THREAT WHATSOEVER to any young person who knows and understands the Bible, but it poses A HUGE THREAT TO EVERY YOUNG PERSON who has been taught an archaic and extremely naïve interpretation of Genesis 1-11. We can not have our cake and eat it too, but we can fully accept and believe in the theory of evolution AND in the truth and the integrity of the Bible. The theory of evolution does NOT oppose any teaching in the Bible, but it does oppose an archaic and extremely naïve interpretation of Genesis 1-11 which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, the fact that Jesus died and shed his blood on the cross for our sins, and the fact that ONLY THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST can we have a new life in Christ Jesus now and spend eternity with Christ in glory.

PLEASE PRAY HONESTLY AND SINCERELY, EVERYDAY, FOR GOD TO TEACH YOU HIS TRUTHS AND TO PROTECT YOU FROM ERROR AND FALSE TEACHINGS OF EVERY KIND.

trinityisunity · Apr 26, 2006

How can I believe the rest of the bible if Gen1-11 is a myth or fancy story? Genesis is one of the most exciting and important books of the O.T. I believe we are to read it literally because the bible was not written so only educated scholars could understand it but so everybody who reads it could.

PrincetonGuy · Apr 26, 2006

trinityisunity said:
How can I believe the rest of the bible if Gen1-11 is a myth or fancy story? Genesis is one of the most exciting and important books of the O.T. I believe we are to read it literally because the bible was not written so only educated scholars could understand it but so everybody who reads it could.

All of the books of the Bible are variously interpreted among different groups of Christians. The book of the Bible that is most variously interpreted is the book of the Bible that is the most fundamental to Christian doctrinethe Epistle to the Romans. Many hundreds of volumes have been written on this epistle (I have about 300 of them in my personal library) and the range of interpretations of it is very much greater than most Christian laymen would ever begin to imagine. And yet, in spite of this, the Epistle to the Romans was written plainly enough that any Christian who is honest with himself and with God and who truly wants to understand it and is willing to make the effort to understand it can understand it.

It is important to remember, however, that the individual books of the Bible were written over a period of many hundreds of years and that they were written by people of different cultures and different languages for different purposes in several different genres of literature. Translating the literature of ancient cultures and languages into the language of a modern culture is extremely difficult and much of the content of the original is inevitably lost in the translation process. That is one of the primary reasons why we find for sale today thousands of books about the Bible. We find many introductions to the Bible, introductions to the Old Testament, introductions to the New Testament, thousands of volumes of commentaries (many of them on the individual books of the Bible in their original language), Bible atlases, very numerous Hebrew and Greek grammars, numerous Greek and Hebrew lexicons, thousands of volumes on a multitude of different subjects of Christian theology, very many books on Biblical archaeology, and very numerous books on the cultures of the various Biblical periods and places.

Genesis 1-11 is a fascinating portion of the Bible that in its own personal and unique way expresses the absolute grandeur and holiness of God and the frailty and sinfulness of man and prefigures the two covenants of Law and Grace and the consequences of living under each of the two covenants. That it is made up of epic tales is made manifest through its description of that which is absolutely impossible taking place through exclusively human means (the Ark that Noah and his family built and the preservation of the animals aboard that Ark). That it is a divinely inspired work is made manifest through its prefiguring of the two covenants in a much more clear manner than we find anywhere else in the Old Testament (the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

trinityisunity · Apr 27, 2006

PrincetonGuy,
As a Christian and an evolutionist do you have scriptures that support your theories on the world's beginnings?Just interested in which ones.

PrincetonGuy · Apr 27, 2006

trinityisunity said:
PrincetonGuy,
As a Christian and an evolutionist do you have scriptures that support your theories on the world's beginnings?Just interested in which ones.

I dont have any theories of my own regarding the worlds beginnings. My education is in evolutionary biology, Biblical exegesis, and translation theorynone of which deal with the worlds beginnings. The Bible is NOT a science book and it does not pretend to be one. It is a well established fact that Genesis 6-8, if interpreted literally, is an historical account of actual events in history in which Noahs family built an ark that was sufficiently large enough for representatives of 1.5 million or more genetically discrete populations of animals to come aboard and be maintained by Noah and his family for 150 or more days exclusively by natural means. Subsequent to those 150 or more days, the ark came to rest on a mountain and these representatives of 1.5 million or more genetically discrete populations of animals disembarked and found their way down the mountain and to the furthest corners of the earth and managed to survive that trip and their arrival even though every single land habitat had been completely destroyed by the flood.

It does not require a Ph.D. in biology from a prestigious university to see immediately that such an historic event never took place. Indeed, the completion of a seventh grade science class is all that is needed.

A few facts regarding Noahs Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Gen. 68:

The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Any man or woman with a 7th grade education can see at once that the story of Noahs Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

trinityisunity · Apr 27, 2006

By faith we accept that Jesus died and rose again-not by science. By faith we believe Jesus' death atones for our sins. Hebrews 11:3 says, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

By faith I and many other Christians believe that Noah's ark was a true account of a world wide flood. It does not matter the hows and whys. This is God in action performing miracles that blow your mind. I do take offense to your remarks about a man or woman with a year 7 education can see that the flood account could not have happened. This whole topic of origins and God is based on faith, try not to lean on man's understandings but on God. God cannot be proved by science yet you still believe in him, and so do I.

PrincetonGuy · Apr 27, 2006

trinityisunity said:
By faith we accept that Jesus died and rose again-not by science. By faith we believe Jesus' death atones for our sins. Hebrews 11:3 says, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

By faith I and many other Christians believe that Noah's ark was a true account of a world wide flood. It does not matter the hows and whys. This is God in action performing miracles that blow your mind. I do take offense to your remarks about a man or woman with a year 7 education can see that the flood account could not have happened. This whole topic of origins and God is based on faith, try not to lean on man's understandings but on God. God cannot be proved by science yet you still believe in him, and so do I.

Genesis 6-8, interpreted literally as an historic narrative, does NOT describe God in action performing miracles. It describes Noah and his family in action building an ark to save the animals that God could have, BUT DID NOT, save by performing miracles. There are no miracles mentioned in Genesis 6-8 and to read them into this narrative is to refute the very point of the narrative!

MatthewDiscipleofGod · Apr 27, 2006

Just so PrincetonGuy and others are aware all the stuff he is listing about Noah's ark have been refuted. A good book on the topic is Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. A good website on the subject is Worldwide Flood.

PrincetonGuy said:
I don’t have any theories of my own regarding the world’s beginnings. My education is in evolutionary biology, Biblical exegesis, and translation theory—none of which deal with the world’s beginnings. The Bible is NOT a science book and it does not pretend to be one. It is a well established fact that Genesis 6-8, if interpreted literally, is an historical account of actual events in history in which Noah’s family built an ark that was sufficiently large enough for representatives of 1.5 million or more genetically discrete populations of animals to come aboard and be maintained by Noah and his family for 150 or more days exclusively by natural means. Subsequent to those 150 or more days, the ark came to rest on a mountain and these representatives of 1.5 million or more genetically discrete populations of animals disembarked and found their way down the mountain and to the furthest corners of the earth and managed to survive that trip and their arrival even though every single land habitat had been completely destroyed by the flood.

It does not require a Ph.D. in biology from a prestigious university to see immediately that such an historic event never took place. Indeed, the completion of a seventh grade science class is all that is needed.

A few facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Gen. 6–8:

The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Any man or woman with a 7th grade education can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

Joykins · Apr 27, 2006

Just a brief note, the flood lasted for 150 days, but Noah, his family, and the animals were on the ark for well over a year.

They went into the ark on the 17th day of the second month (Gen. 7:11)

17th day of 7th month - ark lands. (Gen. 8:4)

After 40 more days, Noah sends out the raven. 7 days later, the dove. 7 days later, the dove again.

On the 27th day of the second month, God tells Noah to go on the dry land and take the animals with him. (Gen 8:14-15).

So they were on the ark for 1 year and 10 days.

PrincetonGuy · Apr 27, 2006

Project 86 said:
Just so PrincetonGuy and others are aware all the stuff he is listing about Noah's ark have been refuted. A good book on the topic is Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. A good website on the subject is Worldwide Flood.

I have read many so-called feasibility studies and they were all written by people who lacked even a 7th grade knowledge of science, people who deliberately and willfully chose to ignore what they learned in the seventh grade, or by people who deliberately and willfully wrote to deceive their readers in order to defend their archaic, naïve, and irresponsible interpretation of Genesis 6-8.

The site for which you provided a link makes a horribly irresponsible mockery of Bible, Biblical hermeneutics, the Christian faith, basic science, and the man that God created in His own imagetherefore making a mockery of God Himself! Filling in the gaps in Genesis 6-8 with thousands upon thousands of totally imaginary miracles that diametrically contradict the laws of nature that God Himself set into place rather than fill in the gaps with millions of pages of irrefutable scientific data and the basic common given to us by God is most certainly the travesty of travesties! Most certainly those persons who use the internet to deliberately and willfully propagate such distortions of the reality Gods creation shall answer to God for their sin!

I can not possibly express in words how very important it is for each and every Christian believer to, everyday, earnestly and honestly beseech God to teach him His truths and to protect him from error of all kinds.

arunma · Apr 27, 2006

PrincetonGuy said:
I have read many so-called feasibility studies and they were all written by people who lacked even a 7th grade knowledge of science, people who deliberately and willfully chose to ignore what they learned in the seventh grade, or by people who deliberately and willfully wrote to deceive their readers in order to defend their archaic, naïve, and irresponsible interpretation of Genesis 6-8.

The site for which you provided a link makes a horribly irresponsible mockery of Bible, Biblical hermeneutics, the Christian faith, basic science, and the man that God created in His own imagetherefore making a mockery of God Himself! Filling in the gaps in Genesis 6-8 with thousands upon thousands of totally imaginary miracles that diametrically contradict the laws of nature that God Himself set into place rather than fill in the gaps with millions of pages of irrefutable scientific data and the basic common given to us by God is most certainly the travesty of travesties! Most certainly those persons who use the internet to deliberately and willfully propagate such distortions of the reality Gods creation shall answer to God for their sin!

I can not possibly express in words how very important it is for each and every Christian believer to, everyday, earnestly and honestly beseech God to teach him His truths and to protect him from error of all kinds.

Sadly I do agree with you. Like Project86, I do believe in Biblical creation (we only differ on young/old earth views). That said, I don't believe in much of creation science. I also have read the works of creation scientists, and unfortunately, they practice very bad science.

I am confident that the Bible teaches accurate history. Therefore I wish that creationists would practice good science, so as to vindicate the written word of God.

PrincetonGuy · Apr 27, 2006

arunma said:
I wish that creationists would practice good science, so as to vindicate the written word of God.

The Bible needs no vindication from science or from any other source. An honest, prayerful reading of the Bible is sufficient to it manifest to the reader that it is a divinely inspired work. However, as I have already stated elsewhere in this thread, the Bible makes no claim that it is the very word of God nor does it claim historical accuracy or any other humanly conceived accuracy.

The writers of Genesis in all likelihood gathered together whatever data they could find and wrote the book of Genesis as accurately as they were able to very much like Luke did in writing his gospel and the book of Acts.

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

The Bible is a much too valuable and important collection of divinely inspired writings to hastily and totally unjustifiably jump to the conclusion that man-made claims regarding the inspiration of the Bible are true, and that what Luke himself wrote about his own writings is untrue.

arunma · Apr 27, 2006

Well brother, I do respectfully disagree with you. But regarding inspiration, what do you think of these verses?

If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Corinthians 14:37-38)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Even if taken purely literally, these would seem to indicate that at least the Old Testament and the Pauline Epistles are inspired by God.

catch21wide · Apr 27, 2006

PrincetonGuy said:
The Bible is a much too valuable and important collection of divinely inspired writings to hastily and totally unjustifiably jump to the conclusion that man-made claims regarding the inspiration of the Bible are true, and that what Luke himself wrote about his own writings is untrue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't evolution a man made claim? If I read the Bible correctly, evolution unjustifies the Bible. I was reading in an earlier post about how Genesis could be a myth or something like that. If a person is a christian and believes that mess, I as a fellow christian would be appalled at something like that. By the way Princetonguy, in a post you submitted earlier, you said that someone could believe in both evolution and the truth in which the Bible holds. My friend, to me that sounds like a two faced believer. What I mean with that is a person believes in point A, but yet they also believe in point B which contradicts the teachings of point A. Also there have been plenty of scientists through the years that have said the whole Earth was flooded at one time in history.

trinityisunity · Apr 27, 2006

There is also an ancient Mesopotamian story about the flood. It is similar to the biblical account. It is called the Gilgamesh Epic. There are also other creation accounts from other ancient civilisations. One of these is the Enuma Elish, which is most complete Mesopotamian account of creation and has many similarities to the Genesis account. Recent scholarship has found more direct parallels in an older Mesopotamian document called the Epic of Atrahasis. This epic is the oldest Near Eastern primeval history in nearly complete form (early second millennium). It presents in historical sequence both the creation of humanity and its near extinction in the flood in a sequence similar to that in the bible. The Atrahasis epic confirms that the basic plot of Genesis 1-11 was well known through the Ancient Near East.

I had to do an essay on Gen 1-11 last year for bible college and found this information. It certainly shows other early civilisations had a creation account similar to the bibles, not an evilution type account.

Joykins · Apr 27, 2006

I don't think you can take the various flood myths to prove that the Noah story is literally historically true. People who live near water will experience life- and even culture-threatening floods from time to time and these could have been magnified into a global flood survival story in their folklores. In other words, many local floods, none truly global.

But I'm less interested in historicity of myth than I am with what it's tryinig to say. What are some things here?

Story arc: people become extremely wicked. God destroys them. God saves a righteous remnant to repopulate the earth, and gives him advance warning and the means to do so.

What does this say about God? What does it say about us?

How to deal with evolution?

Regular Member

Flaming Calvinist

Has lost 14 kilos (31 pounds) in 14 weeks!!!

August Back to School

Veteran

Has lost 14 kilos (31 pounds) in 14 weeks!!!

Veteran

Has lost 14 kilos (31 pounds) in 14 weeks!!!

Veteran

Has lost 14 kilos (31 pounds) in 14 weeks!!!

Veteran

Senior Veteran

free Crazy Liz!

Veteran

Flaming Calvinist

Veteran

Flaming Calvinist

Regular Member

Has lost 14 kilos (31 pounds) in 14 weeks!!!

free Crazy Liz!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency