Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
nolidad said:its well known Darwin was oppossed to supernatural intervention.
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!!!
Lets look at what they said.nolidad said: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.
K&D 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...
K&D said:
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 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.Ararat was probably added in by Moses (the editor of most of genesis) though that is not absdolute -but probable.
Technically, creation science is still not valid science, but never mind.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).
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 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!!
I thought you considered Delitzsch one of the most skilled hebrew linguists of the modern era?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.
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 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.
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???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.
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.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.
How about Calvin, the Geneva bible, Wesley, Gill, Henry, Barnes, PNT and Clark?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!!
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?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!
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.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.
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.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!!
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.The kosmos that existed perished!! And the only recorded persihing we have is the global flood of Noah!!!
Exactly, it means a cataclysmic flood. What is it about the word mabbul that make you think it means global?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.
If that is what believers thought for 4000 years why is there no evidence for this interpretation throughout the rest of the bible?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 !!!)
Technically, creation science is still not valid science, but never mind.
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.
The physics was sound, the premise was not. The bible does not say the ark came to rest on the top of mount 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.
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.
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.
I thought you considered Delitzsch one of the most skilled hebrew linguists of the modern era?
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.
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???
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.
How about Calvin, the Geneva bible, Wesley, Gill, Henry, Barnes, PNT and Clark?
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.
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.
If that is what believers thought for 4000 years why is there no evidence for this interpretation throughout the rest of the bible?
I must assume that you believe that the Sun orbits around the Earth.
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.
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
As is just about any reputable scientist. But your claim that the ToE was intended to remove God from nature is still hogwash.
Sorry, nolidad...you don't get to be a martyr today.
nolidad said:Says the evolutionist--but it is valod science--just with a different worldview
.nolidad said: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
The Bereans show us we should check out bible teachers against the word of God.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.
There certainly is a conflict between science and YEC interpretations of the bible, but not with 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.
You really should try.I could spend pages on why there are so many faulty understandings of scripture and all of themn are very valid and real arguments.
Been through all that. Their stuff doesn't add up, neither the 'science' nor the biblical arguments.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.
Which verse?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!!
Probably a novice who doesn't know erets usually means land.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.
Local floods and day/ager theories are not based on exegesis and translation--but eisgesis and interpretation.
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.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.
nolidad said: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!!
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 said: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!
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.
Please learn the uses of hyperbole in the Bible -- and its importance in the ANE.nolidad said: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!
nolidad said: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.
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.nolidad said:Says the evolutionist--but it is valod science--just with a different worldview!
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?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.
And what did that mean when Moses wrote it down? The hill country of kingdom of Urartu, not Mount Ararat.That is correct it came to rest on the mountains of ararat.
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.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
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.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?????
I did. You did some hand waving about context and you favourite linguists, but you didn't come up with any real answers.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.
Let me guess, exegesis is anything that backs up you interpretation and eisegesis is anything that disagrees with it?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.
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 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!
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.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.
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.No and I am still amazed how you tutn my words 180 degrees from the way they were written!!
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.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.
names are nice but now post the qoutes that go with the names that show they beleived in a local flood.
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.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.
That would be the use of erets to refer to a local region?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!
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?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Let me guess, exegesis is anything that backs up you interpretation and eisegesis is anything that disagrees with it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I did. You did some hand waving about context and you favourite linguists, but you didn't come up with any real answers.
gluadys said: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.
So, do you want to start with the problems with the "vapor canopy"?nolidad said: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"
why do you make this claim? Why do you think it true?nolidad said: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.
nolidad said: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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?