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

[The Lady Kate]

its well known Darwin was oppossed to supernatural intervention.

As is just about any reputable scientist. But your claim that the ToE was intended to remove God from nature is still hogwash.

There's no anti-God conspiracy, no matter how much you may wish there was.

Well if taking the Word of God at its face value without stretching meanings out of their context is inventing things:

Then condemn me as very guilty!!!

I'm not interested in "condemning" anybody. What do you think I am... a YEC?

Sorry, nolidad...you don't get to be a martyr today.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Remember Darwin and Wallace et al casme up with evolution to remove God from nature!

One of the sad consequences of false claims like this is that it blinds YECists to ideas like proposed in _Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution_ by Randal Keynes.

 

[Assyrian]

And again you are worng--it is not the traditonal beleifs but the text itself(the grammar) that causes them to state unequivocally the flood was global in its extent.

Lets look at what they said.

The statement, indeed, that it rose 15 cubits above the mountains, is probably founded upon the fact, that the ark drew 15 feet of water, and that when the waters subsided, it rested upon the top of Ararat, from which the conclusion would very naturally be drawn as to the greatest height attained...

A flood which rose 15 cubits above the top of Ararat could not remain partial, if it only continued a few days, to say nothing of the fact that the water was rising for 40 days, and remained at the highest elevation for 150 days. To speak of such a flood as partial is absurd, even if it broke out at only one spot, it would spread over the earth from one end to the other, and reach everywhere to the same elevation.

It is not the grammar that caused them to state unequivocally the flood was global, it is the simple physics that a flood 15 cubits over mount Ararat would also have flowed over the rest of the world.

The physics was sound, the premise was not. The bible does not say the ark came to rest on the top of mount Ararat.

Ararat was probably added in by Moses (the editor of most of genesis) though that is not absdolute -but probable.

It doesn't matter if it was added by Moses of not. Our Mount Ararat has only been called that since the Middle Ages. In Moses time the hills of Ararat meant the hill country in the kingdom of Urartu.

Yes K&D has some difficulties with height (and as creation science was not yet a vbalid scientific thought in their days) had to come up with some statement and they qualified it with an even if (and no it does not mean although as you desire- the context absolutely shows it to be a conditonal if).

Technically, creation science is still not valid science, but never mind.

And they di dnot have difficulty with Deut 2:25 being non global cause the context shows it to be area specific!! See it si aqmazing what you can decipher when you keep context and let Hebrew experts help guide you!!

Sure the context shows Deut 2:25 is area specific, that shows us 'under the whole heaven' can mean a local region. It is bad exegesis to say it is only means local if the context says so.

and by the way K&D, Eddersheim, and Fruchtenbaum are not infallible, but the 2 latter are still considered expert and their grammar exegetes trustworthy. Fruchtenbaum is a modern living scholar of well qualified stature! You have yet to even bring forth any linguists experts to butress your opinions as to the meanings of the passages you reject.

I thought you considered Delitzsch one of the most skilled hebrew linguists of the modern era?


But the exegesis is actually quite simple. It does not require a deep understanding of Hebrew or the permission of scholars to see that the simplest and commonest meaning of erets in the context is land, and look up other references 'to under the whole heaven' to see that it does not always imply the globe.

You need to come up with actual linguistic and grammatical arguments rather than just say 'this expert says so'. If I had followed that kind of advice and trusted 'the experts who have studied those ancient languages', I would still be in the Catholic Church. I like to see what the bible says myself.

Well ancient languages do not change (seeing they are ancient) and there have never been any reputable scholarship I have seen invoked on several differing threads o this subject overthrow there simple but accurate exegesis.

Ancient languages don't change, but scholars do learn more about them as we get access to many more ancient manuscripts and texts than Erasmus and Luther ever dreamed of. Modern scholars are in a much better position than K&D were to know what 'ararat' meant in the ancient world.

Also as we have seen from Peter, the meaning of a passage may not become plain until we find out how God actually worked out the fulfilment. Even reading a translation, we have a better understanding of OT Messianic prophecies than the Hebrew speaking prophets who gave the original message. When we find out how God made the world through geology we are in a better position to question some of the traditional assumptions about God's description in Genesis. And as I said, scholars can't be expected to evaluate questions about traditional assumptions that hadn't been brought up yet.

Well the why is a lengthy subject for a more theological thread not here.

As for atheists and bible beleivers coming up with the same reading (not interpretation) of GEnesis is because it is simply what is written!! It takes faith to beleive but the evidence is clear for all to see. It is the TE beleivers that has sought to try to meld atheistic evolutionary theory with the bible.

You quoted: the natural man cannot perceive the things of God. You think this means the natural man cannot understand the natural world, but can understand the Word of God???

Teh secular evo's scorn the intrusion of the divine into pure naturalistic processes and the bible beleivers who scorn the intrusion of untrue thesis into the realm of Gods creative process. You guys created your own littel space by trying to synthesize to diametrically oppossed models of origins.

God created the heavens and the earth. There can be no antithesis between the evidence of creation and God's word. If you find a contradiction between the two you should check your interpretation.

Well send some of those "rich traditons" omto this web site and let us examine them!! I know of only pauper traditions violating rules of exegesis and grammar to come up with that interpretation!!

How about Calvin, the Geneva bible, Wesley, Gill, Henry, Barnes, PNT and Clark?

That is becauser having studied greek formally for a year and informally for seversal years on my own I know that "ge"'s primary meaning is dirt, soil, arable land, and in some cases (the majority of the 188 times it appears in the NT) as the abode of men and animals ( not as planet but as a metaphor when kosmos is used this way) and also as planet once. However when it stands in contrast to kosmos in a sentence it means dry land or ground and kosmos unless context dorectly demands it refers to the planet!

And what does ge mean when it is used ouranos? Do you think heaven and earth is talking about dry land here, or the whole planet?

Verse 5 matches this:
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.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

No because verse 5 starts with the creation of the heavens and continues on to include the separation of the waters in Gen 1:9&10. Peter isn't making a distinction between the earth in Gen 1:1 and the dry land that came out of the waters. It is all part of the creation of the earth. In verse 7 he continues to talk of the heavens and the earth. He means the planet.

kosmos can only be translated as the planet-- only reinterpretation allows for implying i t means men--then you leave translation and enter into opinion. But again it is not what the Word of God says but what someones opinoin wants it to say!!

I can only assume the reason you keep ignoring Peter's use of 'the heavens and the earth' is that you desperately want Peter to support a global flood.

The kosmos that existed perished!! And the only recorded persihing we have is the global flood of Noah!!!

Again that word 'global' it's not in Genesis but I do agree Peter is referring to the deluging of human civilisation in Noah's flood.

Event he Hebrew word for flood is opnly used of the globasl deluge mawbbul.

The rest of the use is either nahar (streams rivers) or zoram (flood to be carried away)

Even the NT uses the word kataklusmos only for the flood for it was a devstating.

Exactly, it means a cataclysmic flood. What is it about the word mabbul that make you think it means global?

You only have circumstantial evidences that dont hold up when used int eh context they are talking about. You have to go against 4,000 years of beleivers history to hold to a local flood (like in that whole time there would be no one risingup in the church or in Israel to say hey wait a minute-- the language of the text clearly shows only a local flood ! Beleive that and we got a bridge to sell you !!! )

If that is what believers thought for 4000 years why is there no evidence for this interpretation throughout the rest of the bible?

Assyrian

 

[nolidad]

assyrian writes:

Technically, creation science is still not valid science, but never mind.

Says the evolutionist--but it is valod science--just with a different worldview!

Sure the context shows Deut 2:25 is area specific, that shows us 'under the whole heaven' can mean a local region. It is bad exegesis to say it is only means local if the context says so.

No that is correct exegesis, but facts like that have escaped your attention for quite a while on this thread--simple truth is --terms like under the whole heavens are to be construed as planet wide unless the immediate context shows a limitation.

The physics was sound, the premise was not. The bible does not say the ark came to rest on the top of mount Ararat.

That is correct it came to rest on the mountains of ararat.

It is not the grammar that caused them to state unequivocally the flood was global, it is the simple physics that a flood 15 cubits over mount Ararat would also have flowed over the rest of the world.

Do not you ever tire of being so very very wrong???


The tautologies depict the fearful monotony of the immeasurable expanse of water: omnia pontus erant et deerant litera ponto." The words of Gen_7:17, "and the flood was (came) upon the earth for forty days," relate to the 40 days' rain combined with the bursting forth of the foundations beneath the earth. By these the water was eventually raised to the height given, at which it remained 150 days (Gen_7:24). But if the water covered "all the high hills under the whole heaven," this clearly indicates the universality of the flood

What I find incredulous is that the Jews and the church with all there Hebrew experts (especially the Jews) all see this passage and without any hesitation say the bible says a global flood--and yet you and your fellow TE folk look at this, break all the rules of grammar and say it means local because in opther places with completely different comntexts- they mean a whole region! Do you understand a newspaper when you read it or is it just Gods Word you play this game with?????

You need to come up with actual linguistic and grammatical arguments rather than just say 'this expert says so'. If I had followed that kind of advice and trusted 'the experts who have studied those ancient languages', I would still be in the Catholic Church. I like to see what the bible says myself.

Sorry but it is you who have to show that Genesis seven means local and not global-- you made the accusation and yet to show any valid grammar to show why Genesis 7 is to be construed other than what the Jews and the church for 4 millenia all knew this was global. Still waiting for some real arguments

But the exegesis is actually quite simple. It does not require a deep understanding of Hebrew or the permission of scholars to see that the simplest and commonest meaning of erets in the context is land, and look up other references 'to under the whole heaven' to see that it does not always imply the globe.

How many times must I agree with you on this point before you will finally lay it to rest??? What you need to showe is that genesis 7 is not global.

I thought you considered Delitzsch one of the most skilled hebrew linguists of the modern era?

He was and still is!! But that doesn't mean He is God--like I said I am willinig ot bet He changed his mind based on eisegesis and not exegesis. But then again you appear to muddy the difference between the 2.

Ancient languages don't change, but scholars do learn more about them as we get access to many more ancient manuscripts and texts than Erasmus and Luther ever dreamed of. Modern scholars are in a much better position than K&D were to know what 'ararat' meant in the ancient world.

Well as the Jews have never given up the "ancient language" go tot hem-- they still hold the passage means a global flood--whether they accept it as fact is another question--but they know there language and know it means a worldwide delugwe as written-- you should just accept that fact and move on!

Also as we have seen from Peter, the meaning of a passage may not become plain until we find out how God actually worked out the fulfilment. Even reading a translation, we have a better understanding of OT Messianic prophecies than the Hebrew speaking prophets who gave the original message. When we find out how God made the world through geology we are in a better position to question some of the traditional assumptions about God's description in Genesis. And as I said, scholars can't be expected to evaluate questions about traditional assumptions that hadn't been brought up yet.

Well when they do not accept a skewed philosophy of geology you still cannot see how the world was made! Mt. St. Helens trashed alot fo "irrefutable facts" of modern evolutionary geology.

You quoted: the natural man cannot perceive the things of God. You think this means the natural man cannot understand the natural world, but can understand the Word of God???

No and I am still amazed how you tutn my words 180 degrees from the way they were written!!

God created the heavens and the earth. There can be no antithesis between the evidence of creation and God's word. If you find a contradiction between the two you should check your interpretation.

If you beleived thsat that would be great. But you beleive God created a infinitely dense singularity and then kind of went on vacation to let matter work itself out.

How about Calvin, the Geneva bible, Wesley, Gill, Henry, Barnes, PNT and Clark?

names are nice but now post the qoutes that go with the names that show they beleived in a local flood.

I can only assume the reason you keep ignoring Peter's use of 'the heavens and the earth' is that you desperately want Peter to support a global flood.

Well b eing a Jew in the time of Jesus I nkow he did for a local flood has no place in history at this time unless you have knowledge of somew unkown documetns you wish to bring to light.

Again that word 'global' it's not in Genesis but I do agree Peter is referring to the deluging of human civilisation in Noah's flood.

I can't even keep up[ with your gobbledy ****--think what you will ! I will take the language and its use for millenia over your eisegetical reinterpretation any day!

If that is what believers thought for 4000 years why is there no evidence for this interpretation throughout the rest of the bible?

It is Assyrian but you have become so used to looking at one thing and reading it differently you cannot seeit anymore--that is the greatest tragedy of all.

Robert the Pilgrim writes:

I must assume that you believe that the Sun orbits around the Earth.

Well you may assume whatever you wish--but it doesn't make it correct.

God said "Let there be light" and the singularity he had created became a universe of light.
God said "Let there be land" and the universe cooled sufficiently to allow particles to form and coalesce.

Well the difference is God said he did it in two 24 hour days-- you say He did it in several billion years!

We clearly don't agree with your interpretation, we may even be missing something obvious about the greater meaning of failing to agree, but at worst that puts us in the position described in 1 Cor 3

In actuality what you disagree with is the translation and have come up with an iunterpretation of the translation to tyr to make it palatable with your beleif in secualr evolutionary philosophy!!

As is just about any reputable scientist. But your claim that the ToE was intended to remove God from nature is still hogwash.

The lady kate you should read some more from your buds at talk origin and other places and see for your self that the direct implicqation (and in the case of men like Sagan he came right out and said it!) Modern evolutionary philosophy is about naturalistic answers to the universe apart from any supernatural. You guys even said it your self-- The bible doesn't belong in a science classroom or lab! God is God but not when it comes to th estudy of the unoiverse!! Then His owrd has to be redefined by the TE folk so they can hold on to their evolutionary philosophy and still keep God as God!

Sorry, nolidad...you don't get to be a martyr today.

Gee does that mean I have to return the suit I bought for the condemning???

Well you may not be interested in coindemning but you do love to jab at YRC folk as benighted scientifically and of smallintellect and that we even cannot possibly know how to parse and exegete verses (because when you come up with a global flood and 6 days as the bible states and has been held by the Hebrew and greek speakers since the words were pennded) then we are uninformed or misinformed!

Well Assyrian hasn't dared bring out any exegesis to show why we should trash 4,000 years of Hebrew. Just bad exegesis, improper rules of grammar and improper use of context! Either he knows he is doing this or he is just one who needs to be avoided cause he is just pulling talking points from somewhere and doesn't ahve a clue as to why and how wrong those points are!!

 

[KerrMetric]

Says the evolutionist--but it is valod science--just with a different worldview

No it isn't, but you really know that anyway. When someone refuses to use scientific technique and understanding then whatever you call the end result it cannot be called science.

 

[nolidad]

Well unless something new is going to be brought ot the thread we are jsut in a vicious loop.

I cannot wate anymore time with assumptions and differing uses in differing contexts that have littel to no bearing on the topics at hand!

Assyrian--check with some koiine greek majors and Hebgrfew majors and learn why you are wrong!

Lady KAte I appreciate your civility but evolution does seek to remove God from the scene (or I should say evolutionists)

As for % oif people remember that over 550,000,000 people onthis planet are not Chrisatian and of the 1,000,000,000 thqat claim to be born again -- many are just christina in name only and do not have a personal and saving relationsahip with Jesus. So it matters not how many evolutionists sayt hey beleive in God-- Passages form MAtthew and James have a lot to say about that as well.

I shall monito this site for new avenues but I feel it is just a waste of valuable time to keep going on this path any longer.

 

[Assyrian]

Well unless there were two Franz Delitcszh who were Hebrew linguists at teh samet ime I would venture to say they are one and the same. I do not know of this work but I am willing to bet his change is on eisegetical and not an exegetical basis. Many during this time were abandoning the normal translation for the "higher critical" interpretations beginning to flourish. This was the time that the "schools of higher criticism" in Christian philosophy were beginning to flourish in light of suppossed scientific evidence and therer was no creation science movement to rebut the onslaught of secular science

.

His change to Day Age and a local flood sounds more like the influence of that other Christian movement of the time, The Fundamentalists, who based their interpretations on the word of God. R A Torrey said anyone who tries to insist that the ‘days’ of Genesis must be literal displays a hopeless ignorance of the Bible. Wouldn't Delitzsch have checked their arguments against the Hebrew text?

It is fascinating the way Delitzsch can go from 'one most skilled hebrew linguists of the modern era' to summary dismissal, when he no longer supports you views. It looks like you aren't actually interested in the what the Hebrew says, but judge linguistic arguments simply of the basis of whether they support your tradition or not.

What a nice reasopnable sounding logical approach that has no bearing on how we should approach the bible!! You even use Pauls commendation of the Bereans out of its context to support accepting secular science over the Word of God.

The Bereans show us we should check out bible teachers against the word of God.

Its too bad you do not expect a conflict between secular science and the bible for the world knows there is!! That is an unequivocal truth--evolution and the bible are oppossed to each other when the bible is taken as written.

There certainly is a conflict between science and YEC interpretations of the bible, but not with the Word of God.

I could spend pages on why there are so many faulty understandings of scripture and all of themn are very valid and real arguments.

You really should try.

Asw fart as not seeing the critical analysis from YECers, then it is because you spend most of yoru time looking at hte final statements and not reviewing and intensley studying the analysis and work and research involved in coming to those scientific conclusions.

Been through all that. Their stuff doesn't add up, neither the 'science' nor the biblical arguments.

Assyrian even a novice bible student armed with just a bible and concordance would know that Genesis psoitvely declares a six 24 houtr day creation!!

Which verse?

Any bible student novice armed with only a concordance would come to the copnclusion that the flood of Gen.6-9 is written as global.

Probably a novice who doesn't know erets usually means land.

Local floods and day/ager theories are not based on exegesis and translation--but eisgesis and interpretation.

pot kettle black
Actually my basic interpretation is intermittent day which is pure exegesis. It is simple face value what the text says.

Teh bible has only interpretation--butr numerous apllications form the one interpretation. It is this amazing arrangement of God thatr has allowed the enemy of our souls to come in with reasonable sounding phrases and get people to come to beleive eisegesis is exegesis!! Sorry I am not in the majority of peoplw who declare themselves as Chrisatians and am roundly scorned for my beleifs but they are Scripture and I will defend them--especially when the secular theories that rebut the word as written are unfounded and unproven and form what can ber observed and tested- not happening.

If you accept only linguistic arguments that appear to support your tradition and ignore or dismiss all the linguistic arguments and contextual details that contradict your view, if you only accept bible scholars that support your tradition, then all you are doing is reading your tradition into the text. That is eisegesis.

Assyrian

 

[gluadys]

Well Assyrian hasn't dared bring out any exegesis to show why we should trash 4,000 years of Hebrew. Just bad exegesis, improper rules of grammar and improper use of context! Either he knows he is doing this or he is just one who needs to be avoided cause he is just pulling talking points from somewhere and doesn't ahve a clue as to why and how wrong those points are!!

While the grammatical argument is interesting (at least to some of us) it is also, I think, irrelevant. For one thing, in other contexts, creationists argue that the biblical writers used phenomenological language e.g. saying "the sun rose" when we know that in fact it is the earth that turns, not the sun that moves around the earth.

Apply this to the flood. If the flood affected all the land under heaven known to Noah and covered all the high hills known to him, he would say it affected the whole world even if it never touched any area outside the Mesopotamian Valley. And phenomenologically, he would be right. So the grammar can be consistent with a "global" flood since to Noah it did affect his whole phenomenological world, yet not be global in our understanding of the term.

For another, whatever conclusions the grammar leads to, we know the geological evidence precludes a global flood.

 

[nolidad]

gluadys writes:

Apply this to the flood. If the flood affected all the land under heaven known to Noah and covered all the high hills known to him, he would say it affected the whole world even if it never touched any area outside the Mesopotamian Valley. And phenomenologically, he would be right. So the grammar can be consistent with a "global" flood since to Noah it did affect his whole phenomenological world, yet not be global in our understanding of the term.

The one problem withyour lineof reasoning is this:

It was God who told Noah what He intended to do and I hope you beleive God knows the difference between an area and the world. It was not Noah reprotng on HIs observations, but Noah writing what God said!

While the Deuteronomy passage has the same phrase it is limited to only those nations on the earth who hear report of Israel:

25This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.

If that limiting clause was not there (who shall hear report of thee) then this verse also would have meant the whole world. See again context determines definition.

And again you have the problem of how did the waters stay in side the mesopotamian valley when they rose to a depth of 22.5 feet above the highest mountains in the region? Assyrians unrecorded miracles?


[

For another, whatever conclusions the grammar leads to, we know the geological evidence precludes a global flood.

And again this is where you wopuld be wrong!! If anything the geological evidence precludes a regional cataclysm and supports a global deluge! What you need to ask geologically is what evidence would you expect to find around the earth if a gl9obal flood of 1 years duration took place and buried the earth under water (the earth that perished in peters epistle). Then if you took that starting hypothesis and investigated it you would find insurmountable evidence for a global catastrophe. That is why several decadres ago the neo catastrophism movement was born -- because so much evidence for natural catastrophes abounded that some evolutionists felt catastrophe played a key role in evolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It was God who told Noah what He intended to do and I hope you beleive God knows the difference between an area and the world. It was not Noah reprotng on HIs observations, but Noah writing what God said!

Look real carefully at this idea. It lies at the root of much of YECism arguments. God knows therefore He would not have communicated anything else but the absolute scientific truth to those who wrote the Scriptures, therefore the Scriptures MUST be scientifically and historically factual.

Rather than looking at the Scriptures and trying to understand what God actually said. Rather than looking at Creation and seeing what God actually did, this is an a priori reasoning based on something about God, or His attributes or His character. But how is it that these ideas about God's character, attributes or being is known? from either creation or the Scriptures.

In particular, YECism is taking this attribute of God's truthfulness and applying it to modern notions of what truth is and how it must be communicated. That is why so much of the discussion here revolves around logos and mythos, historical narrative and historical novel, YECists simply can not fathom that God can communicate truthfulness in ways that today we associate with not-truth: myth, stories, borrowing from the neighbors, quoting not canonical books, geneologies that contain errors, days that are not exactly 24 hours long. etc.

But the problem is that they are amalgamating what common sense tells you is true in the 21st C (actually 19thC but that is another thread) and forcing this viewpoint on the writers of Genesis and tying it to their understanding of the attributes of God with the statement: God must.

The point is that God could have told Noah anything that is consistent with His nature. To know what God told Noah you have to look to the Scriptures not to modern common sense. To understand what God told Noah requires more than is in the SCriptures. Where is Mt Ararat, what is a cubit, is the flood global, universe, local,? These questions require and interaction with general revelation.

 

[The Lady Kate]

gluadys writes:



The one problem withyour lineof reasoning is this:

It was God who told Noah what He intended to do and I hope you beleive God knows the difference between an area and the world. It was not Noah reprotng on HIs observations, but Noah writing what God said!

Similarly, God knows the difference between what Noah knew and what he didn't know. Rather than waste time giving Noah a very unnecessary geography lesson, He could've just said "the world," meaning "your world, Noah."

And again this is where you wopuld be wrong!! If anything the geological evidence precludes a regional cataclysm and supports a global deluge! What you need to ask geologically is what evidence would you expect to find around the earth if a gl9obal flood of 1 years duration took place and buried the earth under water (the earth that perished in peters epistle). Then if you took that starting hypothesis and investigated it you would find insurmountable evidence for a global catastrophe.

Actually, this is exactly what has been done... with opposite results. Scientists worked on that hypothesis, and falsified it.

That is why several decadres ago the neo catastrophism movement was born -- because so much evidence for natural catastrophes abounded that some evolutionists felt catastrophe played a key role in evolution.

Indeed... a little something called "natural selection." The occasional catastrophe does seem to give that a push.

 

[Scholar in training]

It was God who told Noah what He intended to do and I hope you beleive God knows the difference between an area and the world. It was not Noah reprotng on HIs observations, but Noah writing what God said!

Please learn the uses of hyperbole in the Bible -- and its importance in the ANE.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys writes:



The one problem withyour lineof reasoning is this:

It was God who told Noah what He intended to do and I hope you beleive God knows the difference between an area and the world. It was not Noah reprotng on HIs observations, but Noah writing what God said!

While the Deuteronomy passage has the same phrase it is limited to only those nations on the earth who hear report of Israel:

25This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.

If that limiting clause was not there (who shall hear report of thee) then this verse also would have meant the whole world. See again context determines definition.

And again you have the problem of how did the waters stay in side the mesopotamian valley when they rose to a depth of 22.5 feet above the highest mountains in the region? Assyrians unrecorded miracles?


[

And again this is where you wopuld be wrong!! If anything the geological evidence precludes a regional cataclysm and supports a global deluge! What you need to ask geologically is what evidence would you expect to find around the earth if a gl9obal flood of 1 years duration took place and buried the earth under water (the earth that perished in peters epistle). Then if you took that starting hypothesis and investigated it you would find insurmountable evidence for a global catastrophe. That is why several decadres ago the neo catastrophism movement was born -- because so much evidence for natural catastrophes abounded that some evolutionists felt catastrophe played a key role in evolution.

What Lady Kate said. She nailed it.

But I would like to draw attention especially to the fact that the experiment you suggest (What you need to ask geologically.....) was done 200 years ago, by geologists who, for the most part, were believing Christians, looking for exactly that evidence.

Not only was evidence for the flood not found, but reams of evidence which falsify a global flood were found.

If we simply had no evidence for a global flood, we could not say for certain one way or another whether the flood was global. Though the lack of evidence would be puzzling, it would not be conclusive.

But with the abundant evidence that precludes a global flood, we can be certain the Noachian flood was not a global deluge.

And that is true no matter who is parsing the grammar correctly.

 

[Assyrian]

Says the evolutionist--but it is valod science--just with a different worldview!

Like when Behe claimed in Dover that ID was a 'scientific theory' but had to admit that his definition was so broad it could include astrology.

No that is correct exegesis, but facts like that have escaped your attention for quite a while on this thread--simple truth is --terms like under the whole heavens are to be construed as planet wide unless the immediate context shows a limitation.

Why, when we know 'under the whole heaven' was used by Hebrew speaker in a local context? That sounds like eisegesis to me, reading your presuppositions into text where the context doesn't show it. Did the Israelites learn your grammatical rules in school, you many use the phrase 'under the whole heaven' locally but you must specify it in the context?

Your rules ignore the way people use language, they ignore what these phrases meant to the people who spoke them, instead they eisegetically read what the phrases would mean to us now back back into the statements of people who meant something very different. And when the context makes it blatantly clear what the phrase meant, you isolate that as as special case.

That is correct it came to rest on the mountains of ararat.

And what did that mean when Moses wrote it down? The hill country of kingdom of Urartu, not Mount Ararat.

Do not you ever tire of being so very very wrong???

The tautologies depict the fearful monotony of the immeasurable expanse of water: omnia pontus erant et deerant litera ponto." The words of Gen_7:17, "and the flood was (came) upon the earth for forty days," relate to the 40 days' rain combined with the bursting forth of the foundations beneath the earth. By these the water was eventually raised to the height given, at which it remained 150 days (Gen_7:24). But if the water covered "all the high hills under the whole heaven," this clearly indicates the universality of the flood

They then back track by showing the problem with 'under the whole heaven'. When they do state unequivocally the flood was global in its extent, as they put it: to speak of such a flood as partial is absurd, it was on the basis of the ark resting on the top of Ararat, the traditional interpretation, but wrong.

What I find incredulous is that the Jews and the church with all there Hebrew experts (especially the Jews) all see this passage and without any hesitation say the bible says a global flood--and yet you and your fellow TE folk look at this, break all the rules of grammar and say it means local because in opther places with completely different comntexts- they mean a whole region! Do you understand a newspaper when you read it or is it just Gods Word you play this game with?????

Actually you can't really talk of people believing in a global flood if they didn't think in terms of the earth as a globe. But the century after people started circumnavigating the globe you had theologians like Matthew Poole Edward Stillingfleet saying the bible does not necessarily suggest say the flood covered the whole planet. This was well before our modern Geology.

In terms of Jewish writers, Philo thought the flood extended almost beyond Gibraltar and the Midrash Bereshith said it extended as far as Lybia. Other Rabbis though it mightn't have included Israel.

Sorry but it is you who have to show that Genesis seven means local and not global-- you made the accusation and yet to show any valid grammar to show why Genesis 7 is to be construed other than what the Jews and the church for 4 millenia all knew this was global. Still waiting for some real arguments



How many times must I agree with you on this point before you will finally lay it to rest??? What you need to showe is that genesis 7 is not global.

I did. You did some hand waving about context and you favourite linguists, but you didn't come up with any real answers.

He was and still is!! But that doesn't mean He is God--like I said I am willinig ot bet He changed his mind based on eisegesis and not exegesis. But then again you appear to muddy the difference between the 2.

Let me guess, exegesis is anything that backs up you interpretation and eisegesis is anything that disagrees with it?

Well as the Jews have never given up the "ancient language" go tot hem-- they still hold the passage means a global flood--whether they accept it as fact is another question--but they know there language and know it means a worldwide delugwe as written-- you should just accept that fact and move on!

I am sure when Genesis was written people understood that the hills of ararat was not what Europeans came to call Mount Ararat. But if the Hebrews interpreted the Genesis flood as global, you should be able to find a passage in the bible to back this up. After all a global flood is such an important biblical doctrine to YECs, surely someone in the bible would show they read the Genesis account that way?

Well when they do not accept a skewed philosophy of geology you still cannot see how the world was made! Mt. St. Helens trashed alot fo "irrefutable facts" of modern evolutionary geology.

You mean if a volcano can lay explode and the ash form layers of tuff quickly, tiny marine organism should be able to create thick layers of limestone just as fast? I think geologists knew about volcanoes before Mt St Helens.

No and I am still amazed how you tutn my words 180 degrees from the way they were written!!

I was really just pointing out the absurdity of what you had written. You think atheists can understand Genesis because it is simply written, but cannot understand the natural world because it was made by God. In other words the natural man cannot understand the natural world, but can understand the word of God. This is the opposite of Paul's point you quoted in 1Cor 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

If you beleived thsat that would be great. But you beleive God created a infinitely dense singularity and then kind of went on vacation to let matter work itself out.

That would be Deistic Evolution. The bible says God didn't go on holiday until after he had created man, then he went on what you might call an extended Sabbatical. But that's all right. He came back and arranged for us to to join him in his Seventh Day rest.

names are nice but now post the qoutes that go with the names that show they beleived in a local flood.

We were talking about whether Peter meant the planet when he talked about the earth in 2Pet 3:5. You were insisting on interpreting it as land so you could talk about the planet being flooded in the next verse. You said only 'pauper traditions violating the rules of exegesis and grammar' would think 'earth' meant the planet, so I gave you a list of the 'paupers' who believed just that.

Well b eing a Jew in the time of Jesus I nkow he did for a local flood has no place in history at this time unless you have knowledge of somew unkown documetns you wish to bring to light.

Then it is a pity Peter didn't come out and talk about a global flood. He could have so easily, He was talking about God creating the heavens and earth and the heaven and the earth being destroyed by fire. Why didn't he say the earth was flooded, why did he switch to kosmos? Jesus talked about Noah, why didn't he say there was a global flood? I don't need to bring ancient documents to back my claim, it is more than enough to say the bible never teaches a global flood.

I can't even keep up[ with your gobbledy ****--think what you will ! I will take the language and its use for millenia over your eisegetical reinterpretation any day!

That would be the use of erets to refer to a local region?

It is Assyrian but you have become so used to looking at one thing and reading it differently you cannot seeit anymore--that is the greatest tragedy of all.

Pot, kettle, black. Again. For a minister you should at least follow the example of the Bereans and examine the Scriptures to see if these things were so, not just consult commentaries you already know teach your own view. There is nothing in the language of the people of the time to suggest that the Genesis flood was global. For them the erets was the land they lived in. The whole heavens was the firmament over their heads not the global atmosphere surrounding the planet above and below. Even Moses used 'under the whole heavens' to refer to the land of Canaan. The plague of locusts covered 'the face of the whole erets', not the planet, Egypt. Where is a global flood mentioned in the rest of the bible? Peter doesn't mention it. No one else in the NT does. Who in the OT picked up on the idea that the flood in Genesis was global?

Blessings Assyrian

 

[nolidad]

Like when Behe claimed in Dover that ID was a 'scientific theory' but had to admit that his definition was so broad it could include astrology.

Or like Goldscmidts hopeful monster theory when a lizard laid an egg and a bird came out?? If you want ot get into nitpicking I can come up with real ddozies on the evolution side and use that to say evolutionists aren't real scientists as well. Balls in your c ourt

Why, when we know 'under the whole heaven' was used by Hebrew speaker in a local context? That sounds like eisegesis to me, reading your presuppositions into text where the context doesn't show it. Did the Israelites learn your grammatical rules in school, you many use the phrase 'under the whole heaven' locally but you must specify it in the context?

Well here is the verse again:


24Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle. 25This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee

The only reason why this is not considered global is because of the limiting clause-- "who shall hear report of thee", but then why would i expect you to know that silly little piece of grammar?? If that limiting clause were removed then the passage would be global and even still-- the potential of this being global is there for Gods command is that every tribe on the planet who hears a report of Israel will God put fear of Israel in them.

Your rules ignore the way people use language, they ignore what these phrases meant to the people who spoke them, instead they eisegetically read what the phrases would mean to us now back back into the statements of people who meant something very different. And when the context makes it blatantly clear what the phrase meant, you isolate that as as special case.

email Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum at www.ariel.org and ask him ( anative hebrew speaker) what the phrase under the whole heavens means in Hebrew and then get back to me. Or you can conjure up teh ghost of Delitszch and see what he might have to say.

Did the Israelites learn your grammatical rules in school, you many use the phrase 'under the whole heaven' locally but you must specify it in the context?

Why, when we know 'under the whole heaven' was used by Hebrew speaker in a local context? That sounds like eisegesis to me, reading your presuppositions into text where the context doesn't show it.

Well that it sounds like eisegesis to you is no surprise to me!! Once agaqin it is limited by a modifying clause--but that is simple grammar and on this thread that has escaped you time and time again!!

Actually you can't really talk of people believing in a global flood if they didn't think in terms of the earth as a globe. But the century after people started circumnavigating the globe you had theologians like Matthew Poole Edward Stillingfleet saying the bible does not necessarily suggest say the flood covered the whole planet. This was well before our modern Geology.

In terms of Jewish writers, Philo thought the flood extended almost beyond Gibraltar and the Midrash Bereshith said it extended as far as Lybia. Other Rabbis though it mightn't have included Israel.

Well duh- how big did they think the world was? If I get a theistic evolutionist who beleives the flood was global will that win it for me like you thnk this wins it for you????

I am sure when Genesis was written people understood that the hills of ararat was not what Europeans came to call Mount Ararat. But if the Hebrews interpreted the Genesis flood as global, you should be able to find a passage in the bible to back this up. After all a global flood is such an important biblical doctrine to YECs, surely someone in the bible would show they read the Genesis account that way?

Is that your opinion or do you have fact to back it up

Let me guess, exegesis is anything that backs up you interpretation and eisegesis is anything that disagrees with it?

Nope--exegesis is when you look up meaing of words--translate tehm faithfully and then look at context not only in the poaragraph but the whole section that verse is written in. Also exegesis says that teh primary listinigs are the usual normal expected definitions unless the context shows it to be a secondary or teritary definition of the word (all concordances, lexicons and expositories that I know of list definitions in their primary orders) and then basing you rconclusion on those physical methods of translation. Also when idioms are used- it greatly helps to know how the idioms were used in varied contexts.

Eisegesis on the other hand is going into a verse with a pre formed opinion and just loosely following grammar and taking every opportunity to reinterpret words out of their context to fortify ones opinion instead of letting the word form ones opinion.

I was really just pointing out the absurdity of what you had written. You think atheists can understand Genesis because it is simply written, but cannot understand the natural world because it was made by God.

Well that is because you don't understand the word perceive PAul wrote-- it means to know fully . And no the atheist cannot understand nature for when he can look at uit and say this gfot here through millions of years of random chaotic mutations and that the universe is the way it is through billions of years of unordered order-- then yes the evolutionist does not perceive the things of God at all. He can read that God spoke and the animals instantaneously came to be--but if He does not beleive that--He does not fully understand nature! He may delve deep into subatomic particles and molecular biology but it dsoes not bring him closer to God as the scriptures say it should if he was pursuing it with an iopen heart!!

Actually you can't really talk of people believing in a global flood if they didn't think in terms of the earth as a globe. But the century after people started circumnavigating the globe you had theologians like Matthew Poole Edward Stillingfleet saying the bible does not necessarily suggest say the flood covered the whole planet. This was well before our modern Geology.

Yeah we can--it does not matter how far Noah thought the world e3xtended--God told HIm it destroyed everything and it did!!

I am surprised you would even have the audacity toi bring thatup with your defense of not all animals were vegetarian for Genesis 1:29!

That would be Deistic Evolution. The bible says God didn't go on holiday until after he had created man, then he went on what you might call an extended Sabbatical. But that's all right. He came back and arranged for us to to join him in his Seventh Day rest.

And once again -- you cannot even read a simple statement of mine without twisting it!

But why should you care what teh bible says about it?? The bible also says God created everything in six 24 hour days and then rested but you reject that!

Then it is a pity Peter didn't come out and talk about a global flood. He could have so easily, He was talking about God creating the heavens and earth and the heaven and the earth being destroyed by fire.

He did aqnd if you had basic language skills you would see that he did.

I did. You did some hand waving about context and you favourite linguists, but you didn't come up with any real answers.

Well remove the logs and see the splinters then!! Tehy more this thread goes on the more I wonder if you even have a basic greasp of rules of english grammar. If theis were a legal document do you realize I could win a libel case against you for misrepresenting my words as consistently as you do??? But do not worry no matter how silly you devolve the grammar in this thread to - I wouldn't sue a brother for it is prohibibted in the Bible. YO udo beleive that passage true don't you??

 

[nolidad]

What Lady Kate said. She nailed it.

But I would like to draw attention especially to the fact that the experiment you suggest (What you need to ask geologically.....) was done 200 years ago, by geologists who, for the most part, were believing Christians, looking for exactly that evidence.

Not only was evidence for the flood not found, but reams of evidence which falsify a global flood were found.

If we simply had no evidence for a global flood, we could not say for certain one way or another whether the flood was global. Though the lack of evidence would be puzzling, it would not be conclusive.

But with the abundant evidence that precludes a global flood, we can be certain the Noachian flood was not a global deluge.

And that is true no matter who is parsing the grammar correctly.

Wrong again-- maybe you should humble your self and read that arch nemesis of yours and the folks at talkorigns--Henry Morriss book entiteld "The Genesis Flood"

200 years ago geology and hydrology and anthroplogy and archeology were babies and had little to work with.

But ZI doubt you spend the few days it would take to read that work because you just do not want ot accept the bible true as written in these areas. It seems you are like the crowd that Sagan said befoire he die--- (i paraphrase) I don't care oif they find Noahs ark and parade it down main street USA, I will never believe in a global flood!

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Wrong again-- maybe you should humble your self and read that arch nemesis of yours and the folks at talkorigns--Henry Morriss book entiteld "The Genesis Flood"

So, do you want to start with the problems with the "vapor canopy"?
The question of where all the fossilized animals would stand if they all lived preflood?
His deceptive presentation of the evidence concerning the Lewis fault?
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD102_1.html

Or perhaps the fact that the Grand Canyon has 1000ft sheer cliffs?
has spider-like footprints hundreds of feet from its rim?
meanders and has buttes in the middle of it?
has sedimentary layers that show previous erosion?

Or would you prefer to try to pretend a 50 foot deep gorge that has a flat bottom and a discernable angle to even its steepest sides is somehow evidence that the Grand Canyon was created in the global flood?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

But I doubt you spend the few days it would take to read that work because you just do not want ot accept the bible true as written in these areas.

why do you make this claim? Why do you think it true?

 

[gluadys]

But ZI doubt you spend the few days it would take to read that work because you just do not want ot accept the bible true as written in these areas. It seems you are like the crowd that Sagan said befoire he die--- (i paraphrase) I don't care oif they find Noahs ark and parade it down main street USA, I will never believe in a global flood!

I don't have any problems with what the bible says.

And finding Noah's ark wouldn't do a thing to prove the flood was global.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Has anyone else noticed a pattern of nolidad's posts getting more and more abusive?