If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[shernren]

So whatever disagrees with you is wrong and whatever agrees with you is right? How convenient. A perfect symptom of the consumeristic nature of YEC theology.

That would be incoorect!!

So where is "futility" and "decay" used of nature? Other than "in Romans 8", which being the passage in contention cannot be quoted to support itself.

As much as I like this for it would prove my point 100% absolute (before man fell creation was not subjected to decay, destruction and persihing) it doesn't say that.
That is you reading betweenthe lines and inserting personal opinion.

But if phthora is never used elsewhere to refer to creation, isn't it more logical to refer to man - which the past 6 chapters of Romans up to then have been talking about?

This alone shows you this cannot be the flood for the flood was designed to:

And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

Now God either destroyed ALL flesh as He said or you are indicting God as a liar. For in a local flood some animals and people will escapre by fleeing to a different "erets" (region) so sorry it is all or you call God a liar-- see that is true science-- a local flood has NEVER been known to destroy ALL life in a region, BUT God said he was going to destroy ALL life for it is wicked. You will also have to show that only that region had become evil and somehow all the other regions wee not corrupt. No a global flood is the only thing the bible can refere to!!

But not all flesh was destroyed in the flood, you know. I don't need to quote Scripture to remind you that two of every kind were brought into the ark, and of course Noah survived the flood with his family. So the "all flesh" is really:

all flesh minus Noah, his family, and the animals on Noah's ark

So since there are already implicit limitations on the "all"-ness of the flesh there, would it be too far to say that "all flesh" is also limited to the geographical area of Noah?

Yes, a local flood has never been known to destroy all life in a regioin. This is the fulfillment of God's promise to Noah: that never again would He utterly and completely obliterate life in a region with a flood. Noah's flood, of course, was the exception before God promised it.

The flood account!! Why? The littel word rebuke-- which is a disciplinary correction! Or a negative command! In Genesis 1 It simply says that God says. Two differing words with 2 differetn meanings for two different events!

You still have not addressed the glaring inconsistencies between Psalm 104's account and Genesis 6-8's account, if both are really talking about the same thing. And in Genesis 1 the deep represents the waters of chaos which God had to limit to impose order on earth in the form of creating land. Therefore God rebuked chaos to institute order. In any case "God said" is far closer to rebuking than "God sent a wind".

You want to interpret Scripture by Scripture? If the passage in contention is:

Psalm 104:

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains. 7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.

which resembles it more: the Flood account?

Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth.
13 By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.

or the Creation account?
Genesis 1:
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

and which has more continuity with:

10 He makes springs pour water into the ravines;
it flows between the mountains.
11 They give water to all the beasts of the field;
the wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 The birds of the air nest by the waters;
they sing among the branches.
13 He waters the mountains from his upper chambers;
the earth is satisfied by the fruit of his work.
a description of the horrible aftermath of the Flood ... or a description of the beauty of God's created hydrosphere?

You should know one cannot prove a negative!

Are you admitting that you can't prove that animals didn't eat meat before the Fall?

But ther mist that come up from the earth was sufficeint to water the ground . Had not does speak of limited duration-- it eneded at teh flood when God broke open the deeps that had been misting the gorunds and opened the windows of heaven for forty days and nights. It is hydrologically impossible with current meteorlogical conditions to have a forty day rain deluge. The computer modleeling showing the antedeluvian world supports all the facts the bible says:

1. Long life
2. Lush tropic gorwth throughout the planet
3. No meterology (winds rain snow hail tornadoes etc)
4. Dense growth to produce the coal, oil and gas beds we have today!

You have got to be kidding. Lush tropical growth is only your idea of perfection, not the Bible's (and not for many people who swelter in the tropics personally). Cyclones exist not because the earth has rain but because the earth is round, due to the hairy ball theorem. (To say there were no cyclones before the fall you'll have to say the earth was flat before the fall. ) And the "windows of the heavens" refer to the waters above the firmament which were created in Genesis 1, which would have to be at the edge of the observable universe, and so you'll have to suggest how they travelled a few billion light-years to flood the earth for 40 days and nights.

Well you can take that up with God when you see Him. JUst like why a menstrating woman was unclean in the OT but OK in the NT and why pigs were unclean inthe OT but OK in the NT and why eye for eye was ok in th eOT but turn the other cheek was OK in the NT. I wopnt apologize for why God did what He did and revealed things in the way He did.

So you have absolutely no idea why Scripture doesn't seem to give your interpretation support in the one place which would be unambiguous and certain? Blame it on God, huh. Have you ever even remotely considered the possibility that you just might actually be ... wrong?

irrelavent--God gave man permission to eat animals after the global flood! You need to prove that man was an omnivore prior to genesis 9 Also from genesis 6:

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

What corruption befell the animal kingdomfrom the fall of man to the flood? For the corrupt here is inthe hiphil which means to corrupt or pervert? What got perverted in the animals. Do not say this refers to man because of the his asa the pronooun-- Hebrew had no personal pronouns.

verse7:

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

If the animals were still just doing as you said-- why would God repent for having made animals??? No all the language says that both man and animals degenerated "morally" after the fall.

But we have cited many verses saying that God is proud of sustaining carnivorous creatures. You are trying to say that carnivorism is a result of corruption. If God glorifies carnivorism, then, He must necessarily be glorifying corruption, according to you at least.

So when He asks who provides the lions their meat, He is really saying,

"Look at the corruption of the lions! Look at how evil they are to tear prey apart! And I provide them prey upon which they can practice their corruption! Oh look at My greatness!"

Are you really willing to believe that?

 

[nolidad]

mallon writes:

Hope is a wonderful thing. Though I am sure of Christ's resurrection on this very day. Now I sincerely hope you will stop questioning the strength of my faith, as I assure you, it is strong and growing stronger.

Well I hope so for though we strongly disagree on this issue we debate seeing someone deceived in faith is something I do not wish on anyone.

shernren complains:

So whatever disagrees with you is wrong and whatever agrees with you is right? How convenient. A perfect symptom of the consumeristic nature of YEC theology.

Well that is true of everyone- If someone thinks something is right then by default what disagrees with what they beleive is correct they would disagree with! A perfect symptom of beleiving what you bewleive in. I am always willing to be proven wrong- but in Scriptures- I have had over 30 years of study and have seenmy beleifs change and grow numerous times-- but the changes occurred because someone showed a better argument from Scripture and not philosophy.

So where is "futility" and "decay" used of nature? Other than "in Romans 8", which being the passage in contention cannot be quoted to support itself.

Col 2:22 Which 3739 all 3956 are 2076 to 1519 perish 5356 with the using 671 after 2596 the commandments 1778 and 2532 doctrines 1319 of men 444?

and its context is material things like food and stuff-they are to perish with their using (be all used up)

But if phthora is never used elsewhere to refer to creation, isn't it more logical to refer to man - which the past 6 chapters of Romans up to then have been talking about?

Well the immediate context is creation and the word is inreference to a decay that had been subjected to creation so even though for the most part phthora is uded of mans corruption inthe moral and ethical sense-- it is not exclusively so as I showed and the context here is not mans morality but that nature was enslaved into decay, destrucrtion and perishing.

 

[nolidad]

shernren writes:

Are you admitting that you can't prove that animals didn't eat meat before the Fall?

No I just cannot prove God said something not written down-- I just proved that He trold all animals the vegetation would be theri food.

But not all flesh was destroyed in the flood, you know. I don't need to quote Scripture to remind you that two of every kind were brought into the ark, and of course Noah survived the flood with his family. So the "all flesh" is really:

do we really need to go into the exceptions to the destruction God ordained?? I though ty9ou had more biblical knowledge than that!!

So since there are already implicit limitations on the "all"-ness of the flesh there, would it be too far to say that "all flesh" is also limited to the geographical area of Noah?

Not according to the bible and its authority and language.


[QUOTEYes, a local flood has never been known to destroy all life in a regioin. This is the fulfillment of God's promise to Noah: that never again would He utterly and completely obliterate life in a region with a flood. Noah's flood, of course, was the exception before God promised it.][/QUOTE]

So the all flesh with the exceptions GOD (and not some philosophy) ordained was just a region. Now show where the rest of the regions were holy and pleasing in Gods sight! Show where all under the whole heavens means just a small region. Prove that God forced animals against their instincts to stay in that region. Show God supernaturally had the water wall up in space for 22.5 feet so when they went past the mountains of the region they just kept going up and not out and down. But I want eviodence that all other humanity was doing okay--they weren't murderers and evil in light oif the statement God said He repented he made mankind. Boy you do strain at gnats to swallow the camel of evolution!

You still have not addressed the glaring inconsistencies between Psalm 104's account and Genesis 6-8's account, if both are really talking about the same thing. And in Genesis 1 the deep represents the waters of chaos which God had to limit to impose order on earth in the form of creating land. Therefore God rebuked chaos to institute order. In any case "God said" is far closer to rebuking than "God sent a wind".

They do not represent chaos--they represent themselvesd which simply was a globe covered in water--show the bible calls the watrer chaos!

God di dnot rebuke chaos (that implies not good) He just simply spoke. The two words have far differing meanings. But I t hink you already know that.

What glaring inconsistencies? That a flood would be a catastrophic event and unless God intervened there would have been little to no dry land (even a strong wind will not evaporate water in a few months.) Also the waters were the waters seperated in Genesis 1 that surrounded the earth. Now not only do you have to have an unwritten and implied miracle keeping the water standing above mountains 22.5 feet in a local area, but now you have to have the waters surroundsing the globe all fall in just one region!

 

[nolidad]

shernren writes:

You have got to be kidding. Lush tropical growth is only your idea of perfection, not the Bible's (and not for many people who swelter in the tropics personally). Cyclones exist not because the earth has rain but because the earth is round, due to the hairy ball theorem. (To say there were no cyclones before the fall you'll have to say the earth was flat before the fall. ) And the "windows of the heavens" refer to the waters above the firmament which were created in Genesis 1, which would have to be at the edge of the observable universe, and so you'll have to suggest how they travelled a few billion light-years to flood the earth for 40 days and nights.

Well tropical is my bad- I always picture a paradise like island teeming with life and trees. I need a better word than tropoical--so it shall be a lush paradise planet.

Well thats right-- cyclones, hurricanes, earthquakes, murder, chaos, volcanoes, extinction etc. these are things you think are "verygood" in the mind of God.

So you have absolutely no idea why Scripture doesn't seem to give your interpretation support in the one place which would be unambiguous and certain? Blame it on God, huh. Have you ever even remotely considered the possibility that you just might actually be ... wrong?

I use to reject what I currently know tro be true!! And it is not Scripture that doesn't give me support--it is your opinion that doesn't support it, cause iof it did you would have to rennounce your agenda to support evolution. I realize that some of the verses if left to stand by themselves are very ambigous, but when taken with the whole counsel of Gods Word are very conclusive!!

1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth.
13 By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.

so are you implying that there were no rivers or ponds or lakes after God sent the wind???
also don't you recognize the peotic form of the psalm there??

As to the edge of the universe, well I have debated that theory before and brought out many references to the Jewish and Christian belief of the three heavens or shamayim in the OT Godsa abode- space- and the atmosphere. When God seperated the waters and created the shamayim-that was teh atmosphere- he already created the space shamayim in 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

heaven-- shamayim:
heaven, heavens, sky

a) visible heavens, sky
1) as abode of the stars
2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc b) Heaven (as the abode of God)


So in genesis 1:1 God created an area called heaven. He being eternal we know it would not be HIs home as that already existed.

Now verses 6-8:

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

So a raqia (firmament or stretched out thiness) God also called heaven--this is a second heaven called in to existence by God!!

Now verse 9:

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

According ot your hypothesis-God gathered all water from 14 billion light years of space and placed it in o ne place on planet earth!! Sensible???

OR

The second shamayim or heaven God created was the atmosphere and he left a water canopy surrounding the earth and the waters under this heaven called firmamnet were gathered to gether into one sea! Combioned with the other pre flood writing this is the only conclusion one can draw!!

But we have cited many verses saying that God is proud of sustaining carnivorous creatures. You are trying to say that carnivorism is a result of corruption. If God glorifies carnivorism, then, He must necessarily be glorifying corruption, according to you at least.

And I will gladly agree with you that He is proud--after the fall! He doesn't even allow a sparrow to drop without His permission. Just because God allowed carnivorism does not mean that is the norm He created as is clearly stated in Scripture. It seems you have totally bought in to the uniformitarian philosophy af atheiostic evolution. Because it is seen happening to day iot must have been that way all the time. Well the bible says the prefall earth was vastly different than the post fall. And that the post flood earth was vasdtly different than the pre flood earth. Gods loving care did not end! And if He chose to wipe out the earth He has the right! Once again the language of Scripture is unambigous-- it is a global flood! It is no flesh for all creatures. After the fall of man--things drastically changeds and then again after the flood things dreaSTICALLY CHANGED AGAIN!!

I can give a working model based on known scientific prionciples that explains why aftrer the flood life spans dropped drastically. If it was just a regional event then the long life spans before the flood should still be the norm for most of the world--but why aren't they?? Are you going to say that God said that they lived to over 900 years but they really didn't?? Or that man had a much shorter year before the Jews got their 360 day year?? No- for Moses edited the book of Genesis and He would not leave such a glaring lie in the word! No Methuselah lived 960 (360 day) years!!! I look at the bible and accept its simplisitc explanations as the truth and the evidence supports that. You say hogwash and accept the word of Lamarck, and Darwin , and HAwkins et all as the truth and Gods Word byu Gods people as myth and mere allegory and use incoorect exegesis and improper hermeneutic to defend the word ofthe secularists.

The words of the bible say a global flood!! The words say no rain until the flood! The woird says no carnicvorism or extinction or predation or volcanism or tornadoes or hurricanes untril after the fall and after the flood.

Your exegesis is based on philosophy and not the use oft he grammar of the text invovled!
This qoute of yours is proof:

But if phthora is never used elsewhere to refer to creation, isn't it more logical to refer to man - which the past 6 chapters of Romans up to then have been talking about?

yes of the 9 times phthora is used 7 are unequivocal in referring to mans fall, one is definitley the destruction of things and Romans 8. Because man is used in contrast and in union with creature and creation we know that phthora is referring to creation and not man!! Paul would not say man or anthropos and then in the same phrase use ktisis or creatrion to refer to man aswell.

So when He asks who provides the lions their meat, He is really saying,

"Look at the corruption of the lions! Look at how evil they are to tear prey apart! And I provide them prey upon which they can practice their corruption! Oh look at My greatness!"

Are you really willing to believe that?

Post flood??? O fcourse not! Pre flood God said let them eat greens and He said it was so!!! You have yet to explain in terms what teh phthtora of nature was after mans fall if carnivorism and predation and extinction and mutation werer all the norm befrore the fall. How about enlightening us who beleive the bible as written??

 

[chaoschristian]

Well tropical is my bad- I always picture a paradise like island teeming with life and trees. I need a better word than tropoical--so it shall be a lush paradise planet.

Try 'verdant' on for size.

 

[nolidad]

Try 'verdant' on for size.

Thanks that is a great word!!!

 

[chaoschristian]

Latin is your friend.

 

[shernren]

So the all flesh with the exceptions GOD (and not some philosophy) ordained was just a region. Now show where the rest of the regions were holy and pleasing in Gods sight! Show where all under the whole heavens means just a small region. Prove that God forced animals against their instincts to stay in that region. Show God supernaturally had the water wall up in space for 22.5 feet so when they went past the mountains of the region they just kept going up and not out and down. But I want eviodence that all other humanity was doing okay--they weren't murderers and evil in light oif the statement God said He repented he made mankind. Boy you do strain at gnats to swallow the camel of evolution!

I never said there was any other humanity besides Noah and the humans of the Mesopotamian valley when the Great Flood happened. My belief is that this flood was universal in terms of humanity, though local in terms of geography. Every single human on the planet was wiped out besides Noah and his family, it just happened that there were no other humans on the planet outside of the Mesopotamian valley.

Remember, what was God punishing? Sin. Humans sin. Nature can't sin, it hasn't been given a choice to act against God's clearly ordained will. So the flood did not need to destroy all of nature. It only needed to destroy all of man. And I believe that is exactly what happened.

How funny that you think science is awesome when it supports your position and that it's rotten when it doesn't. You'll gladly ask me to prove that God could have held up a supernatural wall of water and yet if I ask you to show me how God can squeeze millions of years' worth of radioactive decay into 6,000 years without blowing the earth to bits you'll call me a science-worshipping compromiser. What's the difference? Pot, meet kettle.

An instructive example in how schism in science works in the creationist position.

They do not represent chaos--they represent themselvesd which simply was a globe covered in water--show the bible calls the watrer chaos!

Water is used as a symbol of chaos and destruction elsewhere in the Bible (Psalms 69 and 124) as well as in practically every riverine valley prescientific culture. Besides, it doesn't take away from the fact that Psalm 104 much more closely parallels Genesis 1 than Genesis 6-9.

God did not rebuke chaos (that implies not good) He just simply spoke. The two words have far differing meanings. But I t hink you already know that.

How do you rebuke something without speaking?

Well tropical is my bad- I always picture a paradise like island teeming with life and trees. I need a better word than tropoical--so it shall be a lush paradise planet.

Well thats right-- cyclones, hurricanes, earthquakes, murder, chaos, volcanoes, extinction etc. these are things you think are "verygood" in the mind of God.

30 years of Bible study entitles you to put words in people's mouths? Show me where I have said murder is "very good". And show me where the Bible says that cyclones, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes and extinction are bad.

I use to reject what I currently know tro be true!! And it is not Scripture that doesn't give me support--it is your opinion that doesn't support it, cause iof it did you would have to rennounce your agenda to support evolution. I realize that some of the verses if left to stand by themselves are very ambigous, but when taken with the whole counsel of Gods Word are very conclusive!!

What "whole of God's word"? You haven't quoted a single unambiguous statement by which God pronounces carnivorism evil, sinful, or not "very good". I'm glad that you're starting to notice ambiguity within the Bible's verses - what's conclusive isn't the Bible, not in this area at least, but your stubborn imaginations about it. The Bible wasn't meant to tell us A-Z about creation.

I don't have any agenda to support evolution. Evolution is proven. The evidence would speak for itself no matter how hard I could try to shut my eyes to deny it. I've been a YEC for 5 years or more before I came onto this forum and I learned that there is zilch scientific support for YECism and saw how theologically shaky it is (as can be witnessed in my "The Scientific Myth Of Creationism" series). Don't patronize me by assuming I have an agenda I can't let go of. I know what I'm choosing and it's far better than having to shut my eyes to the half of God's beauty that is displayed in creation.

As to the edge of the universe, well I have debated that theory before and brought out many references to the Jewish and Christian belief of the three heavens or shamayim in the OT Godsa abode- space- and the atmosphere. When God seperated the waters and created the shamayim-that was teh atmosphere- he already created the space shamayim in 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

heaven-- shamayim:
heaven, heavens, sky

a) visible heavens, sky
1) as abode of the stars
2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc b) Heaven (as the abode of God)


So in genesis 1:1 God created an area called heaven. He being eternal we know it would not be HIs home as that already existed.

Now verses 6-8:

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

So a raqia (firmament or stretched out thiness) God also called heaven--this is a second heaven called in to existence by God!!

Now verse 9:

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

According ot your hypothesis-God gathered all water from 14 billion light years of space and placed it in o ne place on planet earth!! Sensible???

OR

The second shamayim or heaven God created was the atmosphere and he left a water canopy surrounding the earth and the waters under this heaven called firmamnet were gathered to gether into one sea! Combioned with the other pre flood writing this is the only conclusion one can draw!!

And yet the Bible says:

Genesis 1
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.

Are the sun, the moon, and the stars all "in" the atmosphre? Or is the expanse of the sky really outer space? Either way YECism has to perform incredible gymnastics to deny that this was written under a prescientific cosmological paradigm where the sky was a solid dome above our heads coloured by water showing through it.

And I will gladly agree with you that He is proud--after the fall!

Listen to yourself. Are you saying God is proud of the results of the Fall??

I can give a working model based on known scientific prionciples that explains why aftrer the flood life spans dropped drastically.

And I have no problem with that, except that even most YECist responsible Bible scholars have dropped the canopy theory.

The words of the bible say a global flood!! The words say no rain until the flood! The woird says no carnicvorism or extinction or predation or volcanism or tornadoes or hurricanes untril after the fall and after the flood.

Your exegesis is based on philosophy and not the use oft he grammar of the text invovled!

And your saying so doesn't prove it.

yes of the 9 times phthora is used 7 are unequivocal in referring to mans fall, one is definitley the destruction of things and Romans 8. Because man is used in contrast and in union with creature and creation we know that phthora is referring to creation and not man!! Paul would not say man or anthropos and then in the same phrase use ktisis or creatrion to refer to man aswell.

You're right, I missed the Colossians 2 reference. I'll go look back at it and see.

Post flood??? O fcourse not! Pre flood God said let them eat greens and He said it was so!!! You have yet to explain in terms what teh phthtora of nature was after mans fall if carnivorism and predation and extinction and mutation werer all the norm befrore the fall. How about enlightening us who beleive the bible as written??

The phthora is man messing up. Before the Fall I believe the ecosystems would all have been in equilibrium, with just the right amount of predation and death and birth happening to sustain global biodiversity. Man's greed tears it to shreds.

 

[gluadys]

They do not represent chaos--they represent themselvesd which simply was a globe covered in water--show the bible calls the watrer chaos!


Also the waters were the waters seperated in Genesis 1 that surrounded the earth. Now not only do you have to have an unwritten and implied miracle keeping the water standing above mountains 22.5 feet in a local area, but now you have to have the waters surroundsing the globe all fall in just one region!

I am puzzled.

Where does the bible refer to the earth as a globe? How would you know from the bible that the earth is a globe? Isn't that importing science into your interpretation of the bible?

How could it be a globe surrounded by primeval waters and still be described in v.2 as "without form"?

If the waters which were divided originally surrounded the globe of the earth, why are they described as being above and below the firmament after they are divided?

If the waters above the firmament completely surround the globe of the earth, where are the waters below the firmament?

 

[nolidad]

shernren writes:

I never said there was any other humanity besides Noah and the humans of the Mesopotamian valley when the Great Flood happened. My belief is that this flood was universal in terms of humanity, though local in terms of geography. Every single human on the planet was wiped out besides Noah and his family, it just happened that there were no other humans on the planet outside of the Mesopotamian valley.

Well you are in a class by yourself!! . So God supernaturally kept humans from escaping the Mesopotamian valley and the flood that supernaturally stood 22.5 higher than the tallest mountains in the mesopotamian valley area?? As well as keeping all the animals from following their God ordained instincts to flee disaster from escaping the mesopotamian valley as well??? He kept the birds from flying out of the valley area as well??

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Well you have your own unique interpretation!! I have never heard such stretching and I have been a student of the word for over 31 years now!!

Thank God the language of Genesis 6-9 lets us know it was the whole world that was engulfed in a deluge and we have the geologic evidence to substantiate it! Whereas I know of no major fault lines nor huge underground caverns under the Fertile Crescent to match the description of the flood like we find in numerous other places on the "face of the earth".

Remember, what was God punishing? Sin. Humans sin. Nature can't sin, it hasn't been given a choice to act against God's clearly ordained will. So the flood did not need to destroy all of nature. It only needed to destroy all of man. And I believe that is exactly what happened.

Well as long as you accept your belief as being unbiblical for this is what God said He did in the flood:

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

God opted to destroy-1) man) 2) beasts, 3) creeping things, 4) and all birds-- so you are at odds with Gods INspired Word!!!

How funny that you think science is awesome when it supports your position and that it's rotten when it doesn't. You'll gladly ask me to prove that God could have held up a supernatural wall of water and yet if I ask you to show me how God can squeeze millions of years' worth of radioactive decay into 6,000 years without blowing the earth to bits you'll call me a science-worshipping compromiser. What's the difference? Pot, meet kettle.

I do think true science is awesome!! I also think science "falsely so called" discredits the beleivers who hold onto it and that means billions of years and evolution in the Darwinian sense of single cell to all biodiversity.

True science is able to test, observe, repeat, retest reobserve repeatt and then they declare something factual. Radiodating has not been tested out billions of years-- nort have samples been rechecked even after tewn of years-- they conclude decay constants true by mathematics only!! That is supposition and not fact for they have not been able to verify the equations to be accurate over billions of years!! Same with evolution!! They observe mutation, natural selection, and variation and then extropolate back to say a microbe developed in to all we see today and yet they cannot prove even with the thousands of genewrations of fruit flies that tens of millions of mutations made the fruit any thing other than anbother type of fruit fly!!! Once again that is bad science!!!

Water is used as a symbol of chaos and destruction elsewhere in the Bible (Psalms 69 and 124) as well as in practically every riverine valley prescientific culture. Besides, it doesn't take away from the fact that Psalm 104 much more closely parallels Genesis 1 than Genesis 6-9.

Oh I fully agree that they bear alot of similarities!! Bu *** is the difference that lets us know that it cannot be the Genesis 1 waters and that is that they went to their places and a bound was set so they would know more cover the earth, Cause they did with Noah!!

Water is used as a symbol of chaos and destruction elsewhere in the Bible (Psalms 69 and 124) as well as in practically every riverine valley prescientific culture. Besides, it doesn't take away from the fact that Psalm 104 much more closely parallels Genesis 1 than Genesis 6-9.

It is also used symbolically of military battles and also for the word of God!! But in Genesis 1 it is not used symbolically. The passage is simply as statemetn of fact!!

How do you rebuke something without speaking?

How do you know Jesus got dresses every day?? It doesn't say that in the bible! C'mon are you so into proving the Word of God wrong that you have to resort to that kinid of nitpicking????

30 years of Bible study entitles you to put words in people's mouths? Show me where I have said murder is "very good". And show me where the Bible says that cyclones, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes and extinction are bad.

Well you have to beleive that murder is "very good if you are a TE!! Why?? Adam is chronicled out to about 4,000 B.C. and you say Neanderthal man walked around 50K years ago. He was a hunter and a warrior for in Germany they discoverd a neanderthal with armor! Thus he fought and killed his fellow humans! Also you think that weather catastrophes that kill and destroy are things God originally designed for the planet?? Do you think He would say that a hurricane that destroyed thousands of lives befrore the fall would be called part of the very good of Genesis 1??

What "whole of God's word"? You haven't quoted a single unambiguous statement by which God pronounces carnivorism evil, sinful, or not "very good". I'm glad that you're starting to notice ambiguity within the Bible's verses - what's conclusive isn't the Bible, not in this area at least, but your stubborn imaginations about it. The Bible wasn't meant to tell us A-Z about creation.

they are only ambigous because you have a preconceived bias against the normal customary context the passages mean!!!

Oh I fully agree God di dnot reveal all the minutae of creation and how He did it. So you use that truth to intentionally try to make ambigous the things God did declare as true. You only equivocate because you beleive the word of men who were not there at creation over the Word of the God who was there at the creation.

I don't have any agenda to support evolution. Evolution is proven. The evidence would speak for itself no matter how hard I could try to shut my eyes to deny it. I've been a YEC for 5 years or more before I came onto this forum and I learned that there is zilch scientific support for YECism and saw how theologically shaky it is (as can be witnessed in my "The Scientific Myth Of Creationism" series). Don't patronize me by assuming I have an agenda I can't let go of. I know what I'm choosing and it's far better than having to shut my eyes to the half of God's beauty that is displayed in creation.

The very fact that you are on this thread and engaged in debate shows you have an agenda!! I also have an agenda-- I am honest enough to proudly admit it!!! I was an ardent evolutionist in my teens! I was an apologist for evolution! Then I got saved and a few years later became a TE, then a few years afterwards I became a PC(progressive creationist--same as a TE almost-beleive in evolution but God was far more involved than in TE). Then about 17 years ago after doing more and more study I finally became a YEC!! Because it is what the bible teaches and the explanations fo rwhat we see as proposed and theorized by YEC scientists for more match the truth and what can realloy be tested and observed and proven!!

Are the sun, the moon, and the stars all "in" the atmosphre? Or is the expanse of the sky really outer space? Either way YECism has to perform incredible gymnastics to deny that this was written under a prescientific cosmological paradigm where the sky was a solid dome above our heads coloured by water showing through it.

Not in the least! We don't need gymnastics to understand just simple going to Hebrew scholars and find out what has been the historic and continued use of idioms. Since the creation of the shamayim that God also called raqia (the atmosphere) When the writers wanted to show the difference between the air and outer space-- they used a dual description, thus passages that say the expanse of the heavens, or the heaven of heavens always refer to what we call outer space while when just shamayim alone is used--context will show its clear meaning just like erets in Genesis 6 context is clearly designated the whole earth and not just the Mesop[otamian Valley!

Listen to yourself. Are you saying God is proud of the results of the Fall??

Shernren you do have great difficulty reading things in their context to understand meaning!! God is proud ot care fo r His creatures since the fall and that included carnivorism-- it wasn't the original design, but HIs loving care gave the use of eating flesh. Why?? Bible doesn't say so I wont either!!

And I have no problem with that, except that even most YECist responsible Bible scholars have dropped the canopy theory.

Really!! And how is responsible determined by you ?? For I know that many many "responsible" YEC scholars and scientists still hold to a water canopy or vapor canopy or some other type of matrix that held the flood waters as a dome like structure surrounding the globe and providing for a lush VERDANT(thanks again chaos!) planet as is evidenced by fossil finds!

And your saying so doesn't prove it.

Oh I agree-- But it is Gods Word that says it and I am just qouting it in proper context and correct hermeneutic!

The phthora is man messing up. Before the Fall I believe the ecosystems would all have been in equilibrium, with just the right amount of predation and death and birth happening to sustain global biodiversity. Man's greed tears it to shreds.

Well you have 649,999,994 years of predation, mutation ,extinction etc. Now what you need to show is what differed in the ecosystem after th efall thatevidences God placing the creation enslaved to phthora! Show what was introduced to the ecosystem called eareth that was differetn from the other 699,999,994 years life existed on the planet according to your beleif system.

 

[2NCBrother]

Why are you arguing such things. Understanding the bible requires that you empty yourself of old womanish tales and begin with a pure heart. Only then will you see God.

 

[gluadys]

Why are you arguing such things. Understanding the bible requires that you empty yourself of old womanish tales and begin with a pure heart. Only then will you see God.

Old womanish tales?

Watch your mouth, brother. What do you have against us grandmas?

 

[Dannager]

Why are you arguing such things. Understanding the bible requires that you empty yourself of old womanish tales and begin with a pure heart. Only then will you see God.

Congratulations on failing to see the point of a debate which has implications far outside the realm of an individual church or spiritual relationship and could end up endangering the educational integrity of the entire country if left unchecked.

 

[shernren]

The whole problem is that you are speaking from very deeply ingrained scientism biases. I should know so myself - when I was a YEC I hardly batted an eyelid to supporting certain interpretations of Scripture by science and then turning around and saying that interpretations of Scripture shouldn't be chosen by science.

So God supernaturally kept humans from escaping the Mesopotamian valley and the flood that supernaturally stood 22.5 higher than the tallest mountains in the mesopotamian valley area?? As well as keeping all the animals from following their God ordained instincts to flee disaster from escaping the mesopotamian valley as well??? He kept the birds from flying out of the valley area as well??

Well, given that the Bible itself says that not many generations had passed between Adam and Noah, I wouldn't be surprised if humanity still hadn't spread from the Meso valley. Riverside civilization, not nomadic tribes.

But do you hear what you yourself are saying? On the one hand, you are choosing the global flood interpretation because science tells you that waters can't be kept 22.5 feet atop the mountains, that birds and animals can evacuate from a region, etc. and you see nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, I choose a local flood interpretation because science tells me that you can't keep a canopy with that much water above the earth's atmosphere without pressure-cooking Noah and his friends, that the probability of Noah having floated for a few months and then landing smack back onto where he started (since Mt. Ararat is in the Middle East as I recall) is rather small, that the animal populations of the earth do not demonstrate a genetic bottleneck which would have been expected had they been decimated to a pair per genus 4,000 years ago (and genetic bottlenecking has been observed conclusively), and you lambast me for letting science dictate my interpretation of Scripture.

So what makes your "scientifically-informed" interpretation of Scripture legit and mine not? Why is it ok for you to use science but not for me to use science? If you can look at the natural world and declare your interpretation right based on it, why is it wrong for me to do exactly the same?

Glaring inconsistencies in the YEC position. The more I look at how YECs post and think the more I am convinced (and in this I indict the way I behaved in my YEC days, too) that to YECs "common sense" is simply science they understand and "science" (which shouldn't be used in interpreting Scripture) is simply science they don't understand. I really hope I do not have to stoop to such an undignified view of YECism but the evidence here and elsewhere leaves me with precious few alternative explanations. Sigh.

Well as long as you accept your belief as being unbiblical for this is what God said He did in the flood:

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

God opted to destroy-1) man) 2) beasts, 3) creeping things, 4) and all birds-- so you are at odds with Gods INspired Word!!!

The Fall in Genesis 3 affected the ground. Had the ground sinned? No. Only Adam had sinned. But any ground that was to be associated with Adam (as he farmed) would suffer the consequences of his sin.
The Flood in Genesis 6-9 affected the animals, creeping things, and birds. Had they sinned? No. Only humanity had sinned. But anything associated with the extreme wickedness of humanity at that point, right down to the ground itself, had to suffer the consequences of his sin.

You will have to show me where God ever gave nature any choice to sin. If nature has sinned what command of God did it break?

Radiodating has not been tested out billions of years-- nort have samples been rechecked even after tewn of years-- they conclude decay constants true by mathematics only!! That is supposition and not fact for they have not been able to verify the equations to be accurate over billions of years!!

Yes they have - SNR1987A demonstrates the reliability of the decay energies, probabilities, and rates of radionuclides back at least a few hundred thousand years. Certainly longer than it's even supposed to have existed in YECist cosmology.

Same with evolution!! They observe mutation, natural selection, and variation and then extropolate back to say a microbe developed in to all we see today and yet they cannot prove even with the thousands of genewrations of fruit flies that tens of millions of mutations made the fruit any thing other than anbother type of fruit fly!!! Once again that is bad science!!!

See what I mean? You're calling evolution "bad science" because you have absolutely no idea what evolution is and how it works. Evolution never expected fruit flies to become anything other than fruit flies.

Imagine someone arguing that the Chinese must have been separately created. He says, "If the Chinese descended from Adam, then at some point a non-Chinese must have given birth to a Chinese! However, today, Chinese only give birth to Chinese!!! No matter how many mutations or adaptations it is still a Chinese!!! Since a Chinese cannot give birth to a non-Chinese therefore a non-Chinese cannot give birth to a Chinese either and thus the Chinese were separately created!!!!!!!!!"
You're a YECist. You know the answer. Go think about what that means for your fallacious argument against evolution.

How do you know Jesus got dresses every day?? It doesn't say that in the bible! C'mon are you so into proving the Word of God wrong that you have to resort to that kinid of nitpicking????

Come to think of it, Jesus knew no sin, and since only sin brings shame of nakedness, would Jesus really need to dress? (Oh dear. See what overliteralism has wrought.)

Jokes aside, show me where I have proven Scripture wrong or mistaken. I have defended interpretations of Scripture that are compatible with modern science. If that is proving Scripture wrong I don't have the slightest clue how anyone can expect to prove Scripture right.

Which just goes to show the remarkable similarity between YECism and atheistic evolutionism. They both say that for Scripture to be right modern science must be wrong. Aren't you sickened at having to borrow your weapons from Bogarth and Dawkins?

Not in the least! We don't need gymnastics to understand just simple going to Hebrew scholars and find out what has been the historic and continued use of idioms. Since the creation of the shamayim that God also called raqia (the atmosphere) When the writers wanted to show the difference between the air and outer space-- they used a dual description, thus passages that say the expanse of the heavens, or the heaven of heavens always refer to what we call outer space while when just shamayim alone is used--context will show its clear meaning just like erets in Genesis 6 context is clearly designated the whole earth and not just the Mesop[otamian Valley!

So you finally admit that Genesis 1 is full of idioms. Doesn't that give you a bit of pause when you try to interpret it literally? How do you know six days is not an "idiom"?

 

[shernren]

I have 10 minutes to dash this off so it might sound rushed and contain errors. But at least I will not stoop to using multiple exclamation marks (except, of course, in parody!!!!! ).

Not in the least! We don't need gymnastics to understand just simple going to Hebrew scholars and find out what has been the historic and continued use of idioms. Since the creation of the shamayim that God also called raqia (the atmosphere) When the writers wanted to show the difference between the air and outer space-- they used a dual description, thus passages that say the expanse of the heavens, or the heaven of heavens always refer to what we call outer space while when just shamayim alone is used--context will show its clear meaning just like erets in Genesis 6 context is clearly designated the whole earth and not just the Mesopotamian Valley!

Really?

Let's start with the first time where "firmament" is used in isolation:

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament [raqiya'] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Nolidad's contention is that this raqiya refers strictly to the atmosphere where raqiya shamayim refers strictly to outer space. However, this is nothing more than reading science into Scripture - precisely the same "error" YECists accuse TEs of. Why?

Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament [raqiya'] Heaven [shamayim]. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

So is the "raqiya' " of Genesis 1:6 different from "raqiya' shamayim"? No! It is raqiya' shamayim - just that it hasn't been explicitly named shamayim yet. Note that God creates and then names all the way - creates day and night and then "names" them, creates land and sea and then "names" them. The raqiya' of Genesis 1:6 is only called raqiya' not because it is fundamentally not raqiya' shamayim, but because it only acquires the identity of raqiya' shamayim in Genesis 1:8.

Which means, of course, that it is the same raqiya' shamayim in:

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament [raqiya'] of the heaven [shamayim] to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament [raqiya'] of heaven [shamayim].

And since the stars are in the raqiya' shamayim, that immediately makes utter nonsense of any claim that the raqiya' shamayim is actually the atmosphere, unless one commits to convoluted gymnastics about appearance of being in the atmosphere (which concedes that Genesis 1 isn't intended to be scientifically accurate).

On a side note, what is "raqiya' " when used alone?

Ezekiel 1:26 - And above the firmament that [was] over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne [was] the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

The raqiya' here apparently can support the weight of God's throne! Nothing like the substantial emptiness of either outer space or the atmosphere.

 

[gluadys]

The raqiya' here apparently can support the weight of God's throne! Nothing like the substantial emptiness of either outer space or the atmosphere.

Yes, the raqiya' is always pictured as a solid structure which encloses the atmosphere. In the ANE cosmology it is surrounded by the primeval waters. In the Ptolomaic cosmology it metamorphoses into the seven heavens which enclose the earth and its atmosphere.

Not until Copernicus proposes the helio-centric solar system do you get a concept of outer space--conceived to be infinite in extent.

The newness of this notion is expressed by Blaise Pascal: "The infinity of these great spaces terrifies me!"

Now we take outer space so for granted that a "common sense" reading inserts it into scripture. But the writers of scripture would not have thought such a thing as outer space existed at all.

In fact, the medieval dictum was "Nature abhors a vacuum." So by their reasoning, outer space was an impossibility.

 

[nolidad]

shernren writes:

The whole problem is that you are speaking from very deeply ingrained scientism biases. I should know so myself - when I was a YEC I hardly batted an eyelid to supporting certain interpretations of Scripture by science and then turning around and saying that interpretations of Scripture shouldn't be chosen by science.

Well I hate to break this news to you-- but unbeleivers are not blessed by God with the ability to understand the Scriptures--It is a supernatural book which requires a person to be filled with the Spirit in order to beleive and fully understand it! So sorry Darwin et al. really cannot help us in understanding Scripture-- and that includes those areas of ther bible that deal with Scientific things.

So is the "raqiya' " of Genesis 1:6 different from "raqiya' shamayim"? No! It is raqiya' shamayim - just that it hasn't been explicitly named shamayim yet. Note that God creates and then names all the way - creates day and night and then "names" them, creates land and sea and then "names" them. The raqiya' of Genesis 1:6 is only called raqiya' not because it is fundamentally not raqiya' shamayim, but because it only acquires the identity of raqiya' shamayim in Genesis 1:8.

And also to differentiate it from the shamayim He created in 1:1--this is a new act of callign forth and this one is what we call the atmosphere surrounding this planet.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament [raqiya'] of the heaven [shamayim] to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years

Nope that would be the shamayim he created in 1:1 not 1:6-8!

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament [raqiya'] of heaven [shamayim].

You need to do a Hebrew word study-- you will find out that the more literal translation is that the birds are to fly to the face of the shamayim. The raqia was used to seperate the waters and also appeared to be some tyope of matrix that could be seen though transluscent !!

The raqiya' here apparently can support the weight of God's throne! Nothing like the substantial emptiness of either outer space or the atmosphere.

Raqia is a vaulted dome!! It is a strretched outthiness:

But once again every time raqia is used in teh bible it is not speaking of the same thing. There are differing raqias as a concordance shows.

Well, given that the Bible itself says that not many generations had passed between Adam and Noah, I wouldn't be surprised if humanity still hadn't spread from the Meso valley. Riverside civilization, not nomadic tribes.

Well that is interposing your own beliefs in t9o teh Scripture. What we do know is that the clear language of Genesis 6-9 speaks of a global flood and so doesn't the geologic evidence.

But do you hear what you yourself are saying? On the one hand, you are choosing the global flood interpretation because science tells you that waters can't be kept 22.5 feet atop the mountains, that birds and animals can evacuate from a region, etc. and you see nothing wrong with that.

Simply because you are asking us to beleive in miracles that have not even an implication is Scripture- and the science I use is science that can be tested repeated and observed over and over and over again tha tis science NOT falsely so called!

On the other hand, I choose a local flood interpretation because science tells me that you can't keep a canopy with that much water above the earth's atmosphere without pressure-cooking Noah and his friends, that the probability of Noah having floated for a few months and then landing smack back onto where he started (since Mt. Ararat is in the Middle East as I recall) is rather small, that the animal populations of the earth do not demonstrate a genetic bottleneck which would have been expected had they been decimated to a pair per genus 4,000 years ago (and genetic bottlenecking has been observed conclusively), and you lambast me for letting science dictate my interpretation of Scripture.

Well you should invest about $15 bucks and buy the book that shows computer modeling of whqat the pre flood earth could have been like given the information in the bible-- ity would not have pressure cooked - but caused to thrive all living organisms!

But genetic bottlenecking is only as good as the info given it! Have an evolutionist reconfigure His software for a global flood and see what happens!!!

So what makes your "scientifically-informed" interpretation of Scripture legit and mine not? Why is it ok for you to use science but not for me to use science? If you can look at the natural world and declare your interpretation right based on it, why is it wrong for me to do exactly the same?

Because God created not evolved-- I do not rely on unbeleivers to tell me what Genesis means, and though YEC scientists cannot give all the answers as to why evolution is wrong (they are outnumbered about 999 to 1) we just know that it is-- and true science will never contradict or cause us to have to come up with "alternative" interpretations of passages to support what supposed science found.

You will have to show me where God ever gave nature any choice to sin. If nature has sinned what command of God did it break?

I newver said nature sinned- I just said it was cursed because of man. Where do you get this idea that I said nature sinned?

Yes they have - SNR1987A demonstrates the reliability of the decay energies, probabilities, and rates of radionuclides back at least a few hundred thousand years. Certainly longer than it's even supposed to have existed in YECist cosmology.

Okay then direct me to a website that charts the measurements of radioemissions from this SNR1987A over the (I'll be nice) past 100,000 years!!! It will nedd to show how often they measured the rate and verified it by counting the emissions over the past 100,000 years to show that the decay rate for SNR has remained constantr over the past 100,000 years--do that and you win!!!

See what I mean? You're calling evolution "bad science" because you have absolutely no idea what evolution is and how it works. Evolution never expected fruit flies to become anything other than fruit flies.

C'mon !! Evolution does expect everything to keep mitasting and form new species which eventually form new genera and phyla etc. Evolution has declared that single cell life evolved into the biodiversity we have today! Evolution says fish became reptiles which became birds and reptiles became mammals and thecodonts eventually became ausdtrolopithecines which eventually split into pongids and homo lines-- so please stop with the smokescreens. If they weren't trying to evolve the fruitfly--why did they keep force mutating the poor creatures over thousands of generations??? C'mon I may be dumb--but I ain't stupid!!

Imagine someone arguing that the Chinese must have been separately created. He says, "If the Chinese descended from Adam, then at some point a non-Chinese must have given birth to a Chinese! However, today, Chinese only give birth to Chinese!!! No matter how many mutations or adaptations it is still a Chinese!!! Since a Chinese cannot give birth to a non-Chinese therefore a non-Chinese cannot give birth to a Chinese either and thus the Chinese were separately created!!!!!!!!!"

Wellthey did through Noah and then His son Ham!! And we know throufgh testing and observing that when you isolate a gene pool- you keep getting the same thingover and over again! Except when you talk about evolution cause though we observe very little interbreeding between species in the wild- evolution predicts that would have to happen to expand biodiversity. What we can see and observe that as a general rule-- species within a genus only breed with the same species!!

Jokes aside, show me where I have proven Scripture wrong or mistaken. I have defended interpretations of Scripture that are compatible with modern science. If that is proving Scripture wrong I don't have the slightest clue how anyone can expect to prove Scripture right.

Simple answer?? You and I both know that if we go to the sacriptures without any bias and just seek to learn what it says we come up with the following conclusions

1. Six 24 hour days for all of creation
2. Earth first then the stars
3. An atmosphere to seperate earth bound from airbound water
4. Things were specifically created and ordered to reproduce after their own kind
6. Material universe is 6-10 K years
7. All animal life restricted to fruits and veggies at first.
8. Man fell god cursed creation as a result
9. God destroyed the world with a flood and only spared 8 adults and 2 of each kind of animal and 7 pairs of the clean animals.

These ideas of a local flood and long ages were unheard of amongst beleivers until Darwin and Wallace and Lyell et al. came on the scene!! These were unbeleivers- The same Biblew you say you respect also says they are in darkness- why should we trust them with what God meant when He inspired the writers to write??

On the other hand, I choose a local flood interpretation because science tells me that

So you choose to beleive that God is only going to destroy the mesopotamian valley are at teh end of time??

2 Peter says:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So I can go around saying shernren beleives this to mean thatr only the Meso valley is reserved unto fire as He beleives only the Meso valley was overflowed with water and perished!!

So you finally admit that Genesis 1 is full of idioms. Doesn't that give you a bit of pause when you try to interpret it literally? How do you know six days is not an "idiom"?

I do not use idiom as we think of it colloquially but in the more technical sense of uniqueness of a particular language. Like "cool" in our language has more than one meaning and context determines which definition is to be used!!! But I thought you knew that!! It doesn't mean the passage becomes an allegory for something else, it just means that it is a unique use of language for that culture and I lewt that culture (in this case- Jews) tell me how those idioms are defined!!

Which just goes to show the remarkable similarity between YECism and atheistic evolutionism. They both say that for Scripture to be right modern science must be wrong. Aren't you sickened at having to borrow your weapons from Bogarth and Dawkins?

You misunderstand-- they are just likethe high priest ananias was--He was an unbeleiver and yet he p[rophesied that it was necessary for Jesus to die for trhe nation- and He didn't know what He really was saying! They are qouting the truth though they don't beleive it!! And for the record-- I don't borrow my weapons from unbeleivers but I have been issued mighty weapons by God--His Word as it says in 1 Cor., Ephesians 6 and Hebrews 4.

More later!!!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

but unbeleivers are not blessed by God with the ability to understand the Scriptures-

i'll bet you've never taken an hebrew Bible class with a Jewish professor. after that experience you would not say such nonsense.
one several levels, unbelivers have a better understanding of Scripture than i have seen expressed here by YECists, who tend to have very little knowledge of the cultural and linguistic background to the text, and who rush through exegesis to application so fast that they really miss the big points.

i agree that you can not apply Scripture to your life as authoritative without the work of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't mean you don't understand the text, it only means you don't think it applies to you. big difference.

we just know that it is-- and true science will never contradict or cause us to have to come up with "alternative" interpretations of passages to support what supposed science found.

of course not, since anything that contradicts your interpretation of Scripture is supposed or false science.

i amazes me how parallel the YECist thought is to materialistic thought. both are radically scientism laced. the only valid way to see things is via science, facts, history, logos. Scripture is a set of propositions, all true, all scientific assured, all historically accurate.
curious proof that it is a modern movement, not a restoration of NT thinking, which was ver y mythos and story based, appealing to the imagination, not to the visualness of eye perception, but rather to the ear.

 

[nolidad]

shernren writes:

Which just goes to show the remarkable similarity between YECism and atheistic evolutionism. They both say that for Scripture to be right modern science must be wrong. Aren't you sickened at having to borrow your weapons from Bogarth and Dawkins?

Think about this for a minute shernren-- both beleiver and unbeleiver alike are saying if, IF, the bible --Gods Word that He says is for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness to equip the man of God for all good works, is RIGHT--then modern science is wrong!!! Even these unbbeleivers can read the Bible and see that it says young eareth, special creation, global flood etc.-- they just do not beleive it! But TE's have put themselves in a no man land-- The E side of their beleif scorns their T side and the T side of their beleif scorns their E side T and E are like gas and matches-- they cannot combine!!


mrwilliams11 writes:

i'll bet you've never taken an hebrew Bible class with a Jewish professor. after that experience you would not say such nonsense.

I 'll take that bet-- say $500,000?? I have studied under the son of a chief Rebbe!

one several levels, unbelivers have a better understanding of Scripture than i have seen expressed here by YECists, who tend to have very little knowledge of the cultural and linguistic background to the text, and who rush through exegesis to application so fast that they really miss the big points.

Well my library would say you do not have any idea of what you are talking about!! This cultural and linguistic background has some bearing but not the weight it seems you wish to give it! The word of God transcends cultural boundaries!! And I will take my bible college degree and multi volumer linguistic and cultural and scinetific tomes on the scriptures and compare them to yours any day!!

of course not, since anything that contradicts your interpretation of Scripture is supposed or false science.

It also seems to be the same "interpretation" that Hawkins and Bofarth and a bunch of guys who contribute to talkorigins see it also!! That is why they fight against accepting the bible. TE's on the other hand have to "interpret" the bible to fit what they think is true science. See in reality you and I both knoe that I do not "interpret" Genesis at all but simply accept what is written as true-- you and shernren and gluadys and Katre and Kerr have to "interpret" so you can hold to evcolution and God at teh same time in your thinking.

curious proof that it is a modern movement, not a restoration of NT thinking, which was ver y mythos and story based, appealing to the imagination, not to the visualness of eye perception, but rather to the ear.

Well the early gentile wing of the church accepted a young earth, special creation, global flood. And of course they had to have ear appeal-- Christianbook.com hadn't made its way to europe/Asia yet!!!
Can't be to eye oriented when there were no printing presses. Paul wasn't a big story teller--He laid down the foundatiuon for which the church was to live and grow by! I just stand amazed at why you would accept teh word of Darwin over the Apostle Peter or King David or Even Jesus!!

curious proof that it is a modern movement, not a restoration of NT thinking, which was ver y mythos and story based, appealing to the imagination, not to the visualness of eye perception, but rather to the ear.

Well the bible is not story based and the writing sof the antenicene fathers are not wythos and stories- but serious writings over doctrine and beleif!! So maybe nonchristian culture-- but Christina culture will use story to help teach a doctrine- but not intentionally telling untruths to try to prove a point as omse TE folk on this thread said Adam did when He said six 24 days for creation.

gluadys writes:

Where does the bible refer to the earth as a globe? How would you know from the bible that the earth is a globe? Isn't that importing science into your interpretation of the bible?

nope! Isaiah 40:22, Job 22:14 tell us that the earth is a sphere!! But even so that is not importing Science into the bible that is the Bible telling science what is true!!

How could it be a globe surrounded by primeval waters and still be described in v.2 as "without form"?

tohuw wavh bohuw

wit tohuw being:


1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness
a) formlessness (of primeval earth)
1) nothingness, empty space
b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)
c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)
d) place of chaos e) vanity
For a discussion of the Gap Theory, "see topic 8756".

And Keil and Delitsczh as well as Eddersheim and Fruchtenbaum all agree that tohuw here is empty and unfilled-- meaning that the earth had not been given all its content yet- not that it was some amorphous blob.

If the waters which were divided originally surrounded the globe of the earth, why are they described as being above and below the firmament after they are divided?

The earth was completely covered in water when God first created it (the opposite of evolutionary cosmology which holds watrer came long after BTW). Then in verse 6 God parted the waters and seperated them by the atmosphere with some sort of tranparent matrix holding the waters above.

So let us see creations order here in summation:

Day one-- God creates space and planet earth! Th eearth is an empty globe covered with water!

Day 2-- God creates an atmosphere and divides the waters covering the planet by the atmosphere.

Day 3-- God gathers the waters to seas and causes the land to appear and brings forth vegetation.

Day 4-- God creates the satars in space to shine on the planet (again at odds with EVo which says stars came first long before earth)

With all these preparations done-- on days 5 and 6 God creates all life and them forms man by hand and breathes in to man divine life!!

If the waters above the firmament completely surround the globe of the earth, where are the waters below the firmament?

And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Even these unbbeleivers can read the Bible and see that it says young eareth, special creation, global flood etc.-- they just do not beleive it! But TE's have put themselves in a no man land-- The E side of their beleif scorns their T side and the T side of their beleif scorns their E side T and E are like gas and matches-- they cannot combine!!


and hence the common observation here that YECists and materialist are actually treating the Scriptures and creation is parallel ways.
they are both scientism bound, seeing only propositional truth in Scripture, YECist saying it is true and materialists saying it is not.

but unbeleivers are not blessed by God with the ability to understand the Scriptures-

i'll bet you've never taken an hebrew Bible class with a Jewish professor. after that experience you would not say such nonsense.

I 'll take that bet-- say $500,000?? I have studied under the son of a chief Rebbe!

and if you believe as the person i quoted did, that unbelievers can not teach us anything about the Scriptures-why did you attend the 2nd class, to waste your time?

The word of God transcends cultural boundaries!!

how can words transcend cultural boundaries? don't you mean the ideas those words "sponsor" or "stimulate" in your brain?

the Bible in chinese is basically a closed book to me, how does that transcend cultural boundaries? The word unread or ununderstood doesn't do anything, let alone transcend anything. it just sits on the shelf, gathering dust.

Well the early gentile wing of the church accepted a young earth, special creation,

what was their battle with? instantaneous creation OTOH, and an eternal universe OTOH.