If you think that Noah's flood was global and wish to wager on it,

[tonychanyt]

Thanks for the link. Please provide some relevant highlights from the link to support your point.

 

[ozso]

Thanks for the link. Please provide some relevant highlights from the link to support your point.

How many more posts will it take to satisfy you?

 

[WilliamLhk]

So Jesus saying Satan was a murderer and a liar from the beginning doesn't indicate sin? Or Satan only started being evil after God created Adam?

Murder requires beings having mortality. So post-Adamic.

 

[tonychanyt]

How many more posts will it take to satisfy you?

Only one if you follow A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics

 

[ozso]

Only one if you follow A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics

My answers are supposed to follow your posts?

 

[ozso]

Murder requires beings having mortality. So post-Adamic.

What about: "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer" (1 John 3:15)?

 

[WilliamLhk]

What about: "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer" (1 John 3:15)?

Irrelevant to the issue.

 

[tonychanyt]

My answers are supposed to follow your posts?

post, singular, and if and only if you want to convince me. You don't have to convince me.

 

[ozso]

post, singular, and if and only if you want to convince me. You don't have to convince me.

I just shared a common widely held view that's been in Christianity for centuries. It's speculative and I'm not entirely convinced of it myself.

 

[ozso]

Irrelevant to the issue.

How so? The Bible refers to those who hate their brother as murderers, even though actual murder isn't involved. Therefore I think it can be surmised that pre-adamic satan could have been regarded as a murderer in the same type of context.

 

[WilliamLhk]

How so? The Bible refers to those who hate their brother as murderers, even though actual murder isn't involved. Therefore I think it can be surmised that pre-adamic satan could have been regarded as a murderer in the same type of context.

Satan does not have human brothers. Nor is it ever written that he has angelic ones, not that he could kill them anyway. So your argument does not hold water.

 

[ozso]

Satan does not have human brothers. Nor is it ever written that he has angelic ones, not that he could kill them anyway. So your argument does not hold water.

You taking a literal approach to a word that's not being used in its literal sense. For instance where in scripture does it say who Satan literally murdered for Jesus to refer to him as a murderer?

 

[tonychanyt]

I just shared a common widely held view that's been in Christianity for centuries. It's speculative and I'm not entirely convinced of it myself.

This is where probabilities and weights come in.

 

[WilliamLhk]

You taking a literal approach to a word that's not being used in its literal sense. For instance where in scripture does it say who Satan literally murdered for Jesus to refer to him as a murderer?

First, Jesus' knowledge of history is not limited to scripture. Second, Satan, like humans, is guilty of murder when he conspires with and seduces men to commit the actual act. And according to non-biblical lore, such was the case when Satan convinced Cain to kill Abel in "the beginning."

 

[ozso]

First, Jesus' knowledge of history is not limited to scripture. Second, Satan, like humans, is guilty of murder when he conspires with and seduces men to commit the actual act. And according to non-biblical lore, such was the case when Satan convinced Cain to kill Abel in "the beginning."

What about the traditional view that Satan seduced a third of the angels to reject God, resulting in them being separated from God which is considered spiritual death?

 

[The Barbarian]

If you believe the flood was only regional, care to explain the existence of sea shells on mountains?

Uplift. The seashells are in what is ancient coastal continental shelf. The Himalayas, for example, are the result of India moving north into Asia. The continental shelves of the two continents crumpled up and rose to form mountains. It's still happening. We can measure the speed (about 2cm/year)

If you don't believe in the flood story as being global, what other biblical stories are you willing to toss aside, and why?

That's your major problem. Scripture doesn't say it was global. What other biblical stories are you willing to modify to meet your desires, and why?

Science can chisel data to make it dovetail into other scientific disciplines and call it "consensus".

So I'd be stupid to bet against them on their turf.

The difference is, science works. So all those theories actually get verified by evidence. New discoveries and useful inventions are based on science, not anyone's sacred text. And that's why it's stupid to bet against science. It's like betting against a someone after a horse race when he's the only one who actually knows how it turned out.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Himalayas, for example, are the result of India moving north into Asia. The continental shelves of the two continents crumpled up and rose to form mountains. It's still happening. We can measure the speed (about 2cm/year)

I discussed this here some years ago with a poster named Thaumaturgy (and others), and I'll ask you what I asked them:

If India "torpedoed" into the Asian continent at the rate of two centimeters per year, where was India's starting point, and how does science ascertain it?

I suspect science puts India way out into the ocean, then have it move toward Asia, so as to make it fit with their deeptime scenarios.

QV please:

Post 79

 

[The Barbarian]

If India "torpedoed" into the Asian continent at the rate of two centimeters per year, where was India's starting point, and how does science ascertain it?

Plate movement isn't hard to track. We know how fast it goes and the direction. So it's pretty easy to get that. But there is also geologic and fossil evidence for that movement:

We find old mountain ranges that span distantly-moved continents and fossils of land organisms in widely-separated continents. So we know pretty much where they were and where they went.

 

[AV1611VET]

We find old mountain ranges that span distantly-moved continents and fossils of land organisms in widely-separated continents.

Just the Himalayas please.

So we know pretty much where they were and where they went.

Only on paper.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just the Himalayas please.

The Himalayas are younger mountains. They didn't exist until India moved north into Asia. Where the continents met, the continental shelf (with shell fossils) was folded up into the mountains, which are still going higher. India is still moving north about 2.5 cm a year.

So we know pretty much where they were and where they went.

Only on paper.

Nope. Fossils, mountain ranges, observed plate movement, and the composition of the mountains themselves. No point in denying it. Some YE creationists try to salvage the situation by claiming the continents did it all in the "Flood Year." Problem with that is, the kinetic energy required to make the continents gallop across thousands of miles in a year, and then slow to the observed rate, would be released as heat, boiling the oceans. Would you like to see those numbers?