Jerusalem pre flood remains

[Mallon]

This seems to directly contradict Creationism. I mean, if the world is only 6,000 years old, we can hardly have 36,000 year old Homo Sapiens wandering around Africa, right?

You can if you ignore it.

 

[laconicstudent]

You can if you ignore it.

Oh. I see. So that is why whenever I post scientific studies that contradict a literal Creation, they start dancing around it, or invent illogical explanations that would allow for it. Or simply lie about radiometric dating.

 

[dad]

So you claim an infallible reading?

No, I claim an infallible God. What kind is yours? My God doesn't write a book claiming to be true, when it is a pack of baloney. He didn't send sent a messiah that wasn't true, either.

 

[dad]

Fascinating claim. Then how does this fit in?

"Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and Modern Human Origins." F. E. Grine et al. Science 12, January 2007. Volume 315, Number 5809. pp. 226 - 229. DOI: 10.1126/science.1136294

Now, the abstract is the relevant part. So pay close attention


" The lack of Late Pleistocene human fossils from sub-Saharan Africa has limited paleontological testing of competing models of recent human evolution. We have dated a skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, to 36.2 ± 3.3 thousand years ago through a combination of optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-series dating methods.

Now, there is your big claim. It happens to be a same state crock. Totally. Now, if you haven't yet clued in, do try to provide exact details of the basis of these methods.

You will not have a case..I am confident. Nowthen, that leaves a skull. Whoopee do!

The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features. Its strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians rather than recent, geographically proximate people. The Hofmeyr cranium is consistent with the hypothesis that UP Eurasians descended from a population that emigrated from sub-Saharan Africa in the Late Pleistocene."

So? A skull can be consistent with a lot of things! If you wanted to look closely at the data, and the strata it was found in, we may be able to pinpoint post or pree flood on the thing.

If it was pre split, then moving from what is now Africa, would be nothing! You would need a whole heap of evidences in different areas to prop up the migration thing, from an undated old decapitated head of heaven knows what.

This seems to directly contradict Creationism. I mean, if the world is only 6,000 years old, we can hardly have 36,000 year old Homo Sapiens wandering around Africa, right?

That's your attempt at a case after all the big talk? Good heavens. You have a lot of work to do.

 

[pgp_protector]

No, I claim an infallible God. What kind is yours? My God doesn't write a book claiming to be true, any more than He sent a messiah that wasn't true.

Can I get a translation on post #83 please.
Too many double negatives in use.

No,
I claim an infallible God.
What kind is yours?
My God does not write a book claiming to be true,
any more than
He sent a messiah that was not true.

 

[The Lady Kate]

No, I claim an infallible God. What kind is yours? My God doesn't write a book claiming to be true, any more than He sent a messiah that wasn't true.

My God didn't write a book... but the people he dealt with did.

 

[dad]

...continued
Yet where do they teach a global flood or a young earth literal six day creation?

Where do they teach that Jews need to rest a million years each week on Sabbath? The attempt to explain away what a morning and evening was stems from a perceived need to compromise the word of God, with science. Do you think that Jesus and the apostles thought creation week was something other than what it is?

I take it from your switching the subject back to your 'same state science' claim you cannot actually defend your claim Jesus believed your split too.

Matt 24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
If 'swept them all away' in Matthew means a global catastrophe, does 'killed them all' in Luke mean a global catastrophe too?
Luke 17:26 As it was in the time of Noah so shall it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 Everybody kept on eating and drinking, and men and women married, up to the very day Noah went into the boat and the flood came and killed them all.

Not sure of your attempted point. Where the "them" refers to the wicked men that were destroyed, of course they all were killed.
If Jesus spoke of creation, and the flood, and heaven, that means He concurs with what the bible says it was like. And that is very clearly very different!

The problem with that is the same language is used to describe Sodom.
Luke 17:28 It will be as it was in the time of Lot. Everybody kept on eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 On the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulphur rained down from heaven and killed them all.
Yet the destruction of Sodom was hardly global. Either that or 'swept them all away' and 'killed them all' simply refer to all the people caught up in these disasters, not that the disasters were global.

Context. The "all" refers to the cities, minus the spared ones. In no way would anyone ever dream of suggesting it was claimed in the bible that all the earth was killed then. You strain at nats.

Jesus taught about the flood but he never taught a global flood.

Yes, the "all" is clear there, unlike Sodom.
.....

 

[dad]

My God didn't write a book... but the people he dealt with did.

So, then, the people are greater than God, and He couldn't use them? He uses sinners, and weak men. You can't look at men, and use that to assume God is not greater. If He is God, He can get an actual message out.

 

[laconicstudent]

Now, there is your big claim. It happens to be a same state crock. Totally. Now, if you haven't yet clued in, do try to provide exact details of the basis of these methods.

You will not have a case..I am confident. Nowthen, that leaves a skull. Whoopee do!

Christ... Except your alternate universe crap violates parsimony!!! THERE IS NO PROOF OTHER THEN THE FACT THAT YOU REQUIRE IT TO BE TRUE FOR YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

How many times do I have to repeat this? And am not required to educate you on radiometric dating methods. You should have learned the basics in the 8th grade.

[/b]So? A skull can be consistent with a lot of things! If you wanted to look closely at the data, and the strata it was found in, we may be able to pinpoint post or pree flood on the thing.

Heh.

If it was pre split, then moving from what is now Africa, would be nothing! You would need a whole heap of evidences in different areas to prop up the migration thing

If you paid any attention to the news, there are MOUNTAINS of evidence. I just cited one piece of it. I can cite genomic studies, pre-neolithic artifacts, more fossils and so on.

, from an undated old decapitated head of heaven knows what.

Its a hominid, a fact that is obvious to everyone with a functional eye, optic nerve, visual cortex and a pulse.

That's your attempt at a case after all the big talk? Good heavens. You have a lot of work to do.

Actually, considering you have yet to cite a single piece of proof for your alternate universe state BS, your actually the one who has work to do.

 

[Assyrian]

The position you take is that Peleg's day saw no big change. Yet, the life spans can be graphed. You must, then dismiss them all as something other than life spans. The other changes I mentioned also. There is no problem for me here, only you. Many clear changes came down about thaqt time according to the record of the bible. This present world is very different.

I think this is pretty much sums up you attempts at exegesis. When challenged with the problems with the interpretation of one passage, you cannot tackle the problems, but instead of trying to deal with the problems, you try to back your interpretation up with other passages you could not support either. If you have a dodgy interpretation, no amount of other passages with dodgy interpretations will support it.

Dad The lifespans evidence that.
​

Assyrian No they are not. I am not sure they are supposed to be taken literally when Moses who is supposed to have lived to 120, tells us in Psalm 90 that man's lifespan is only 70 or 80. Even if you do take them literally, they are only evidence that God shortened man's lifespan, Gen 6:3 his days shall be 120 years, not that the state of the universe changed.
​

You didn’t answer.

Later you brought up the 120 year warning as if it were evidence for you interpretation rather than yet another problem, and again you could not defend your interpretation.

Dad There was the 120 year warning from God as well.
​

Assyrian Don't know what that has to do with anything other than showing if the longevity of the Patriarchs was literal it was probably ended by a decree of God rather than being the result of your split.
​

Dad The decree was in the form of a 120 year warning, given before the flood.
​

Assyrian Yep that is another interpretation, how I read the text myself, but then again I don't take the the age of the patriarchs literally. Taking 120 years as a warning about lifespan is more common among those who take the ages of the patriarch literally, God is proclaiming that the long life spans will come to an end. You on the other hand have to pick and choose your interpretations, the life spans were literally longer, but God did not decree a 120 year maximum lifespan, but even picking and chosing between creationist interpretations, you still have no evidence that the reduction in life spans was the result your claimed change in the state of universe, rather than any of the other Creationist explanations, God changed our genetic code, it was the result of increased solar radiation when the 'vapour canopy' collapsed, the climate was harsher and there was less food after the flood, it was a delayed effect of the fall.
​

...silence.

Yes, the separation of the spiritual confuses languages among many other things. But cannot be limited to that! When we add the spiritual, we see that all men understood the language, as in Acts!

Another wild claim you made before but couldn't defend.

Dad Where dues it say He only wanted to disperse the builders? Notice that when the spirit is added, men comprehend tonges, as in Acts! At babel, it was separated, and the reverse was true!
​

Assyrian I doubt the men building the tower had the Holy Spirit we see in Acts, nor did everyone with the Holy Spirit have a built in translator. Paul and Barnabas certainly didn't understand the Lycaonians in Acts 14. The Holy Spirit is not a babel fish.
​

I accept all the divisions of commentators!

When it suits you. At other times you pick and choose which interpretation to accept and which to reject. How do you know when to accept every reading of the text no matter how wild or unsupported by text, and when to pick and choose? Or are you simply picking and choosing whatever interpretations suit you? Doesn't the bible warn against that? 2Tim 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings.

I also accept the truth of the different state that was spoken of six ways from Sunday.

That made no sense, however it is probably worth repeating, the bible never mentions this different state you talk about.

To those that dismiss all the truths of the bible, like a worldwide flood, tree of life, Adam and Eve as real people, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...I say, 'hypocrite'! For them to disbelieve God's account, and try to wave it all away, and yet, somehow, insinuate some belief in the scriptures as an excuse.

That is pretty ironic.

The differences in the bible past I outlined are clear and you have not dealt with them, nor can you. They also have a clear time when they are no longer seen as in effect, and new realities are spoken of.

Wow, I point out loads of times you where you completely fail to defend you claims and you claim I am the one who can't deal with them.

That is special pleading! Needlessly invoking miracles.

Hey I am the one who thinks God used natural processes over billions of years. But if you want to argue for your ginormous miracle where God completely changed the state of the universe and separated spiritual from material world without ever mentioning it in scripture, than you have to show that the supposed changes in processes could not have been the result of miracles, not that you prefer your big unattested miracle to loads of small ones.

It also ignores a lot of other things, that also changed. It also ignores science! Do you not think science could detect if present light changed speeds drastically???? You are busted.

You are the one who thinks light speed changed.

Not at all. Never read that, so where did you get it??

Assyrian And it is seen in passage after passage throughout the bible, unlike your claims of a pre spit state. Odd that. It will be sweet though. You know the bible say there will be no more death mourning crying or pain, because the first things have passed away. Rev 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There won't be death anymore. There won't be any grief, crying, or pain, because the first things have disappeared." This is the same word that is used in verse 1 to describe the first heaven and the first earth that passes away when the new heaven and new earth come.
​

The former things simply refer to things that were before. In the one verse I see that mentions first..here is what it means in the Greek

"Definition

1. first in time or place
   1. in any succession of things or persons
2. first in rank
   1. influence, honour
   2. chief
   3. principal
3. first, at the first

"
New Testament Greek - StudyLight.org

Rev 21:1 -And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. So, what is being said, is that the earth that was before this new state heaven and earth, was replaced.

So this heaven and earth, this state is the first one. Unless of course you want to argue our present world is first in rank and honour above the ogiginal creation and the new heven and earth…

NO! It contrasts the replaced state. The replaced heaven and earth. No one said it was the original. Of course it resembles the original paradise of God! The tree of life, friendly animals, man living forever, peace and plenty, no curse, no disease, no death, no sickness, God right here with man, etc.

‘First things’ sound pretty like ‘the original’ to me.

The bible never says Satan possessed the serpent, or that he 'was a serpent for a bit', it says the ancient serpent is called the devil and Satan, and that he is the devil and Satan. Not 'was for a bit', 'is'.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

Yet, there was a curse for the devil, and one for the serpent! If they were the same, we would see ONE curse. Gotcha.

Interesting version of a ‘Gotcha’ don’t bother trying to deal with what the verses I showed you, just snip them out of the quote in your reply, then simply make up the unsupported claim there were two curses and say ‘Gotcha’. We only read of one curse in Genesis 3, not a separate curse for Satan and the snake. But since the book of Revelation tells, us the serpent is Satan, the curse on on the serpent is actually describing God’s curse on Satan. And as the curse on the snake was never literally fulfilled by Messiah stepping on the snake's head, at least not in any Gospel I have read, it means the curse is no more literal than the snake. The snake was really Satan and it was SAtan Jesus defeated on Calvary, not a snake. You curse Gotcha simply shows even more of Genesis is metaphor.

If Genesis is really describing a separate curse on the snake, why do we read its fulfilment in the Gospels with the redeemer stepping on the snakes head?

 

[The Lady Kate]

So, then, the people are greater than God, and He couldn't use them?

Not couldn't... didn't.

otherwise, every wackjob with an idiotic notion would just claim that they were inspired by God to puff up their own egos.

He uses sinners, and weak men.

Yes, but not every weak man gets used.

You can't look at men, and use that to assume God is not greater. If He is God, He can get an actual message out.

But he certainly doesn't have to do it by putting pen to paper... or are you greater than God to tell Him He must?

 

[dad]

Not couldn't... didn't.

otherwise, every wackjob with an idiotic notion would just claim that they were inspired by God to puff up their own egos.

Not at all, you see, to keep people from having to listen to things like Oprah for advice from God, He provided a word to man. He used wackjobs to get it in a way you would be able to understand.

Yes, but not every weak man gets used.

When God foretold the fate of kings and nations, and the messiah by weak men, it showed He was strong. He uses the weak things to confound the mighty. The things that are not, as though they were. That no hot shotesses should glory in His presence. Their own goodness is a filthy rags of the worst kind.

But he certainly doesn't have to do it by putting pen to paper... or are you greater than God to tell Him He must?

No, I didn't tell Him to write the bible, He beat me to the punch. He must be a lot more clever than anyone here..

 

[dad]

Christ... Except your alternate universe crap violates parsimony!!! THERE IS NO PROOF OTHER THEN THE FACT THAT YOU REQUIRE IT TO BE TRUE FOR YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Then heaven also violates the silly thing. So? You think the monk would care, or be silly enough to try to misapply his notions that way? Of course not. God does not have to act in a way that is simplest to man, by the way. FYI, His ways are Higher than our ways, His thoughts higher than man's.

How many times do I have to repeat this? And am not required to educate you on radiometric dating methods. You should have learned the basics in the 8th grade.

I know the basics, that is your problem. Not mine. The basics of it are that it assumes a present state! really. Nothing can educate that away. Or wave it away.

If you paid any attention to the news, there are MOUNTAINS of evidence. I just cited one piece of it. I can cite genomic studies, pre-neolithic artifacts, more fossils and so on.

The piece you cited rested on same state dating. So does genomic studies rest on present life processes and etc. The artifacts say squat against anything I have deduced. They also are dated by you know what!

Its a hominid, a fact that is obvious to everyone with a functional eye, optic nerve, visual cortex and a pulse.

Well, apparently you are familiar with the thing. Where was it found, in what strata, and surroundings? I mean, maybe you have a bonifide pre flood or pre split head of a man there. If you want to flesh out your claim, feel free. Ho hum.

Actually, considering you have yet to cite a single piece of proof for your alternate universe state BS, your actually the one who has work to do.

The spiritual also records of Egypt and Sumer, and the long lifespans, as well as the plethora of distinct differences in the bible are evidence. A lot more than your zero, nada, zilch, nothing, zip, that you have for a same state in the future or far past.

 

[dad]

I think this is pretty much sums up you attempts at exegesis. When challenged with the problems with the interpretation of one passage, you cannot tackle the problems, but instead of trying to deal with the problems, you try to back your interpretation up with other passages you could not support either. If you have a dodgy interpretation, no amount of other passages with dodgy interpretations will support it.

The bible needs to be taken as a whole. And it is clear that as a whole, the creation, and garden, and flood are supported. I have no problems. That would be you.

Dad

The lifespans evidence that.

Assyrian No they are not. I am not sure they are supposed to be taken literally when Moses who is supposed to have lived to 120, tells us in Psalm 90 that man's lifespan is only 70 or 80.​

Slow down here. Moses wrote Psalms now!!? Wow. No. The lifespans shrank as we get away from the split. David was after Moses. Try to focus.

Even if you do take them literally, they are only evidence that God shortened man's lifespan, Gen 6:3 his days shall be 120 years, not that the state of the universe changed.

Ah, no! His days UNTIL THE BIG CHANGE shall be...! In other words, man had 120 years and then something real real real big was coming down. I think it was the split. I used to think (like many others) that it meant until the flood. That is why people claim the ark took 120 years to build, by the way. I think it took more like 19 years to build.
​

Dad

There was the 120 year warning from God as well.

Assyrian Don't know what that has to do with anything other than showing if the longevity of the Patriarchs was literal it was probably ended by a decree of God rather than being the result of your split.​

Just answered in last post.


​

Dad

The decree was in the form of a 120 year warning, given before the flood.

Assyrian Yep that is another interpretation, how I read the text myself, but then again I don't take the the age of the patriarchs literally. Taking 120 years as a warning about lifespan is more common among those who take the ages of the patriarch literally, God is proclaiming that the long life spans will come to an end. You on the other hand have to pick and choose your interpretations, the life spans were literally longer, but God did not decree a 120 year maximum lifespan, but even picking and chosing between creationist interpretations, you still have no evidence that the reduction in life spans was the result your claimed change in the state of universe, rather than any of the other Creationist explanations, God changed our genetic code, it was the result of increased solar radiation when the 'vapour canopy' collapsed, the climate was harsher and there was less food after the flood, it was a delayed effect of the fall.
​

...silence.

I looked at the major interpretations, of course. To see what fit best with the whole picture. That is a good thing. As for sunlight causing the age change, that is silly, and weak. Live in a cave all your life, and see if you live a thousand years!

Another wild claim you made before but couldn't defend.

Dad Where dues it say He only wanted to disperse the builders? Notice that when the spirit is added, men comprehend tonges, as in Acts! At babel, it was separated, and the reverse was true!
​

Assyrian I doubt the men building the tower had the Holy Spirit we see in Acts, nor did everyone with the Holy Spirit have a built in translator. Paul and Barnabas certainly didn't understand the Lycaonians in Acts 14. The Holy Spirit is not a babel fish.​

No, they did not have God's spirit, they were rebelling against God. But they were building up to someplace. A place where spirits lived, that we called 'heaven' That place is not here now. Take a look. The point is, that when the spiritual (not Holy Spirit) was separated from physical universally, it meant that the 'heaven' was no longer there. Not right up where man could see it. Not where spirits could mingle directly, openly, and even marry. The physical effects on man's body, I posit, affected the brain first. We now use a certain part off the brain, and think and process thoughts a certain way. That is the present state way. I deduce that it was likely a different way in the created nature. A way that saw all men have the same tongue.
​

 

[Assyrian]

Yet where do they teach a global flood or a young earth literal six day creation?

Where do they teach that Jews need to rest a million years each week on Sabbath? The attempt to explain away what a morning and evening was stems from a perceived need to compromise the word of God, with science. Do you think that Jesus and the apostles thought creation week was something other than what it is?

A very revealing reply this. Of course you don't show where Jesus or the apostles taught a six day creation or a global flood, you can't it is simply not there. Instead you give your reasoning and your interpretation and assume Jesus must have thought the same. This is how you ended up making the strange claim if we disagree with you we are disbelieving Jesus. But we are supposed to learn from Jesus, be his disciples, not simply project our own opinions on Jesus and claim they are his.

Anyway lets have a look at these arguments of yours:

Where do they teach that Jews need to rest a million years each week on Sabbath?

You mean that coming up with a silly interpretation means the passage can't have a genuine metaphorical meaning? Should we say the beast in Revelation couldn't have been metaphorical because we don't read of John buying metaphorical cat food?

Fact is, your argument didn't stop NT writers coming up with metaphorical interpretations of both the seventh day of creation and the Sabbath command that commemorates it.

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. We are not called to rest a million years every Sabbath, the metaphor goes way beyond that, the Sabbath command itself was an enactment of the metaphor and its real meaning is a shadow of the Gospel and its future fullness in Christ.

Instead of resting for millions of years each Sabbath to commemorate God's seventh day rest, we are told in Hebrews 3&4 that God's rest on the seventh day of creation is still there for us to enter into 'Today'. Pretty difficult if Gen 2:2&3 finished after just 24 hours.

Heb 4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works."
5 And again in this passage he said, "They shall not enter my rest."
6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience,
7 again he appoints a certain day, "Today," saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts."
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.
9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,
10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.

'That rest'? What rest? And God rested on the seventh day from all his works, that one. The seventh day must have been going on for some time if we can enter it Today. 'Today' must have been going on for a few thousand years if the writer of Hebrew can quote Psalm 95:5 and claim it is still 'Today'.

The symbolism of the Sabbath in scripture goes way beyond any silly literalist caricature.

The attempt to explain away what a morning and evening was stems from a perceived need to compromise the word of God, with science.

Oddly enough back in the 5th century Cosmas Indicopleustes though the church was compromising the word of God with science by accepting the world was spherical. It is an old argument and just as bad back then as it is today.

Do you think that Jesus and the apostles thought creation week was something other than what it is?

Are you still reading your literal interpretation and your view of the creation week into the beliefs of Jesus and the apostles? Are you assuming 'what it is' is your interpretation of the creation week and that Jesus must have believed the same as you do? The only reference to a day of the creation week in the NT is in Hebrews and the writer interpreted it figuratively. I don't think Jesus took God's seventh day rest literally because when he was questioned about breaking the Sabbath, his reply was that God never stopped working. John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

Not sure of your attempted point. Where the "them" refers to the wicked men that were destroyed, of course they all were killed.

Jesus used the same language to describe all the people killed in the flood as he did to describe all the people killed in Sodom. You are reading a global flood into the language he used for the flood, but the same language was used to describe a local catastrophe in Sodom. His language simply does not imply the flood was global, only that all of the people caught up in it were killed.

If Jesus spoke of creation, and the flood, and heaven, that means He concurs with what the bible says it was like. And that is very clearly very different!

What is clearly very different? You're not making much sense. Anyway Jesus certainly did believe in creation the flood and heaven, doesn't mean he interpreted them the way you do. You need to show not just that he believed in creation the flood and heaven, but that he believed in a literal six day creation, a global flood, and a split between the physical world and heaven in the days of Peleg.

Context. The "all" refers to the cities, minus the spared ones. In no way would anyone ever dream of suggesting it was claimed in the bible that all the earth was killed then. You strain at nats.

Same language is used for the flood, why does it mean the flood was global but not the destruction of Sodom? That is the great thing about the example, we can see from the context that it is referring to a local event. Now you have to show why the same language used for the flood must mean it is global. You are swallowing camels.

Jesus taught about the flood but he never taught a global flood.

Yes, the "all" is clear there, unlike Sodom.
.....

The "all" is clearly global to you because you read a global flood into Jesus statement. But Jesus never said anything to suggest the flood actually was global.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Not at all, you see, to keep people from having to listen to things like Oprah for advice from God, He provided a word to man.

Are you saying that God wrote the Bible so that people wouldn't listen to women?

He used wackjobs to get it in a way you would be able to understand.

I still can't accept that He's using you... sorry.

When God foretold the fate of kings and nations, and the messiah by weak men, it showed He was strong. He uses the weak things to confound the mighty.

And sometimes the weak simply are the weak... sorry, dad.

 

[Assyrian]

The bible needs to be taken as a whole. And it is clear that as a whole, the creation, and garden, and flood are supported. I have no problems. That would be you.

Pretty hard to support your interpretations by referring to the bible taken as a whole when you can't support it from any individual scriptures. The bible certainly speaks of the creation the garden and the flood, Jesus spoke about them all. What you need to show is that your interpretation is supported by 'the bible taken as a whole', or by Jesus and the apostles.

Slow down here. Moses wrote Psalms now!!? Wow. No. The lifespans shrank as we get away from the split. David was after Moses. Try to focus.

Psalm 90:1 A Prayer of Moses, the man of God. Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations... 10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. Moses is supposed to have lived to 120 his dad Amram lived to 137 and his grandfather Kohath 133. Yet Moses seemed to think we really only live to 70 or 80. Doesn't sound like he took those long lifespans literally, but then the bible is full of figurative numbers.

Ah, no! His days UNTIL THE BIG CHANGE shall be...! In other words, man had 120 years and then something real real real big was coming down. I think it was the split. I used to think (like many others) that it meant until the flood. That is why people claim the ark took 120 years to build, by the way. I think it took more like 19 years to build.

Gen 6:3 doesn't actually say 'THE BIG CHANGE' in my bible. But what we have a different interpretation by different commentators, and your interpretation of the passage too. Now with the Peleg quote you think all the commentators were right. Why not all the commentators here too God is decreeing a shorter life span and the length of time to the flood. The problem with that is if you follow the same hermeneutic here, you get the shorter life span as the result of God''s decree, not as you want to read it, the side effect of the Peleg split. You have to show that the shortened life span has to be the result of your split, which is pretty difficult when the split isn't even mentioned in scripture, you have to show that it cannot be the result of any of the other creationist explanations instead: God's decree in Gen 6:3, whether Gen 6:3 refer to life span or not, God directly changing the human race so we don't live as long, God changing humans on a genetic level giving us shorter telomeres, that it is not simply a delayed result of the fall, or the result of removing the vapour canopy. And of course you have to show that the ages of the patriarch were meant to be taken literally when Moses didn't.

Just answered in last post.

Where?

I looked at the major interpretations, of course. To see what fit best with the whole picture. That is a good thing. As for sunlight causing the age change, that is silly, and weak. Live in a cave all your life, and see if you live a thousand years!

You mean caves filled with radon gas because the rate of decay changed? How would living in a cave help if the genetic damage has been passed down the generations giving the gradual change in lifespans we see since the flood? I agree there are a lot of silly creationist explanations, yours is one of them, wilder and even less based on scripture or science than most. Which leaves the question why we should be accept analysis of what verses mean and you explanation for the problems rather than any other Creationist explanation? How can you tell the change in life span, if there even was a change in lifespan is a result of your split rather than any of the other explanations?

Picking and choosing explanations to see what fits best is only a good thing if you are looking for the best exegesis, not if you are simply picking ideas here and there to back up a wild idea there is no mention of in scripture.

No, they did not have God's spirit, they were rebelling against God. But they were building up to someplace. A place where spirits lived, that we called 'heaven' That place is not here now. Take a look. The point is, that when the spiritual (not Holy Spirit) was separated from physical universally, it meant that the 'heaven' was no longer there. Not right up where man could see it. Not where spirits could mingle directly, openly, and even marry. The physical effects on man's body, I posit, affected the brain first. We now use a certain part off the brain, and think and process thoughts a certain way. That is the present state way. I deduce that it was likely a different way in the created nature. A way that saw all men have the same tongue.

Again the switch. You cannot back up your claim about the confusion of language begin the result of the split, so you switch to another claim that I have debunked, that the tower of Babel was built to a visible spiritual realm.

 

[dad]

A very revealing reply this. Of course you don't show where Jesus or the apostles taught a six day creation or a global flood, you can't it is simply not there. Instead you give your reasoning and your interpretation and assume Jesus must have thought the same. This is how you ended up making the strange claim if we disagree with you we are disbelieving Jesus. But we are supposed to learn from Jesus, be his disciples, not simply project our own opinions on Jesus and claim they are his.

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fact two: What does God's word say about Noah and the world-wide flood? Jesus mentioned it as a fact (Matt. 24:37-39). Both the ark and Noah are mentioned as true historical facts by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews 11:7. Paul was a learned man - a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee. Notice, there are other Scriptures mentioning the flood (2 Peter 2:5; Luke 6:48). The Apostle Peter said that only Noah and seven others were spared when God brought a flood upon the world. King David also talked about the flood (Psalm 29:10). Either Genesis 7:20-24 is correct, or the whole world is in trouble. God spoke to Isaiah the prophet about the flood of Noah that covered the earth (Is. 54:9). Noah is mentioned in Ezekiel as a historical person. Noah existed after the flood that destroyed the entire world and all life that was on the face of the earth. Why would God have Noah collect certain animals and birds if it was only going to be a local flood? [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fact three: Adam is referred to as a historical person by Jesus' brother Jude, the Apostle Paul, and by Job (Jude 14; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; Rom. 5:14; Job 31:33; Hosea 6:7). Melchizedek was mentioned as a true historical character in Genesis 14:18 and again by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews 7:1. Abel and Enoch were mentioned in the book of Hebrews as real people (Heb. 11:4-5). Are these great men of the Bible wrong?"[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]http://www.biblestudysite.org/proof.htm


Anyway lets have a look at these arguments of yours:

You mean that coming up with a silly interpretation means the passage can't have a genuine metaphorical meaning? Should we say the beast in Revelation couldn't have been metaphorical because we don't read of John buying metaphorical cat food?

Fact is, your argument didn't stop NT writers coming up with metaphorical interpretations of both the seventh day of creation and the Sabbath command that commemorates it.

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. We are not called to rest a million years every Sabbath, the metaphor goes way beyond that, the Sabbath command itself was an enactment of the metaphor and its real meaning is a shadow of the Gospel and its future fullness in Christ.

The deeper meanings of what the sabbath were are not in question. Straw man. Yet, I think any school kid would know that the Jews did have a day they rested.

No excuse to wave away deeper meanings. When we look also at science, and history, and the other changes of the creation era bible, we see that my interpretation fits oh so well.

Instead of resting for millions of years each Sabbath to commemorate God's seventh day rest, we are told in Hebrews 3&4 that God's rest on the seventh day of creation is still there for us to enter into 'Today'. Pretty difficult if Gen 2:2&3 finished after just 24 hours.

Nonsense. The rest that He gave man, and allowed us to partake in can still be had. In no way does it mean God is snoozing in a post creation rest still. That is ridiculous. I wonder if you actually want to understand. You seem to be doing all you can to keep from any possible arriving at a knowledge.

'That rest'? What rest? And God rested on the seventh day from all his works, that one. The seventh day must have been going on for some time if we can enter it Today. 'Today' must have been going on for a few thousand years if the writer of Hebrew can quote Psalm 95:5 and claim it is still 'Today'.

That rest that He made available to us. In fact He commanded the Jews to rest. These things are shadows of the true, like the sacrificing of lambs. Yet they were real as real can be also.

Oddly enough back in the 5th century Cosmas Indicopleustes though the church was compromising the word of God with science by accepting the world was spherical. It is an old argument and just as bad back then as it is today.

Did you know that the Jews never really understood most of the bible till Jesus came? He fulfilled so many scriptures, and explained how they actually spoke of Him all the while! We can't go by what hot shot religionists of the day think. Obviously, they were unaware of the split at the time when the church tried to supress knowledge of this present state. ..As if that opposed the bible. No. Even Jesus said He had many things to teach us, but that they were not ready, then, to learn all of them. That means new stuff was in the pipes. Treasures new and old in the bible.

 

[laconicstudent]

Is there any particular reason this is continuing? The fact is that Dad is reduced to using purely Biblical arguments and logical fallacy to refute science that is backed with empirical data.

I think we should just assume that his refusal to adhere to the basic conventions of formal logic and inability to use science in a scientific discussion constitutes his concession, quite frankly.


The mistake I think you are all making is allowing him to trick you into arguing the Scriptural merits of his argument... which is completely irrelevant to the scientific basis of Evolutionary Theory.

 

[dad]

Is there any particular reason this is continuing? The fact is that Dad is reduced to using purely Biblical arguments and logical fallacy to refute science that is backed with empirical data.

There is NO empirical data for a same state universe in the future. None. Same with the far past. If you can't provide some here and now, there is no need for you to continue.

The mistake I think you are all making is allowing him to trick you into arguing the Scriptural merits of his argument... which is completely irrelevant to the scientific basis of Evolutionary Theory.

Evolution was a created trait, plenty went on. The so called evolutionary theory of pagans, trying to make sense of it, is a godless belief system, with no merit, or proof whatsoever.