Metaphor for what?

[MKJ]

Er, it doesn't? Hmmm. I thought medical science was pretty conclusive that men don't rise from the dead after 3 days.

Seems to me you just pick and choose which sciences to believe and which not to, based on which part of the Bible you want to believe.

Remember that science works inductivly and not deductivly.

We have evidence that men in general normally do not become alive again after death, yes. But remember, that is not some necessary deduction in a logical sense.

In the case of Christ, we are not saying that is a normal biological process. We are saying it is unique, a miracle. So inductive evidence is not in itself that helpful.

We don't have any evidence that Christ, specifically, did not retturn to life. No proof that this miracle did not take place. An example of evidence or proof might be, for example, some record of somone saying that they saw something different, that they knew that Jesus was really hiding out in his aunts place the whole time.

If we had some sort of evidence like that, it would be reason to consider the Ressurection was false.

You are misunderstanding the nature of scientific evidence on a basic level.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry, but there is extensive clinical evidence that men cannot be resuscitated after being dead 3 days. Lazarus was dead 4 days. Yet the testimony of scripture says they rose from the dead. Why do you choose the testimony of scripture over science in the case of the gospels, yet choose naturalistic scientific theories over the testimony of scripture in the case of the Genesis?

As MKJ says, you are overlooking the inductive nature of most scientific logic. Any conclusion based on inductive research is always open to the exceptional case. No matter how many white swans you count, you can never rule out the possibility of a non-white swan. No matter how often you observe that dead men do not come back to life, you can never rule out the possibility that one did--especially when it is acknowledged that this was a miracle.

As for Genesis, the question is "where does the miracle end?" And "what does the miracle consist of?" If the miracle ends with the dawn of the first Sabbath, then everything after that has to be history and can be interpreted as natural history rather than miracles. But what are we to do with natural history that indicates a much longer period of history? Did the miracle of creation include the fabrication of history that never happened?

As you should know by now, we are not just talking about an appearance of maturity, but evidence of events, historical events--which in a YEC framework would have to have taken place prior to the beginning of creation. Further, unlike miracles recorded in scripture or others of which we have testimony, there is no testimony about such events being miracles or what the purpose of such miracles would be other than to confuse researchers.

I think sometimes that YECs do not appreciate just how many miracles would be needed to produce the world we see today in a YEC timeframe, especially when you throw in a global flood and even, as some do, an ice age.
I don't doubt at all what God is capable of, but it just seems to me that adding miracle to miracle to miracle (none attested to) is ad hoc reasoning, solely to defend the so-called "literal" interpretation of YECism.

I would not go that route until I was first convinced of the merits of this interpretation.

No, I don't pick and choose. I read the Bible exegetically, in that I allow scripture to indicate whether it's speaking literally or figuratively. The bible often uses metaphors, and other non-literal expressions. It also often speaks literally. Context is key, and context alone will indicate how to interpret something.

What you're doing is the opposite of exegesis. Instead of allowing the author to indicate the literary devises he's using, you go outside of the Bible, and look to the opinions of fallible men to determine how you interpret scripture. My question is, why? Do you see how problematic that can be?

What you are doing is putting a bound on context which no previous generation has done. You are overlooking the fact that all of scripture itself is written in a social, cultural and historical context that is necessary to the understanding of the scriptural text. So one must go outside the pages of the Bible to understand the Bible. That is not problematic. That is part of exegetical study.

Archie, earth is defined in Genesis as "dry land." That's what the ancients were talking about when they used the term erets. And they were right in claiming the dry land did not move on its foundation, unlike a boat would on the sea.

Second, why would the ancients have thought God was insane for telling them a land/sea unit known as a planet was orbiting the sun? I understood this concept at age 5.

They would have thought that insane because as they understood the cosmos a land/sea unit could not be a planet. A planet in their vocabulary was a STAR! It was not until Galileo began looking at the planets through a telescope that it was known that Venus, Mars, etc. were not actually light-giving stars just like Sirius and Aldebaran. The only distinction the ancients made between planets and other stars is that most stars remained in a fixed relationship to other stars (i.e. they formed part of a constellation) whereas the planets roamed from one constellation to another. But the planets were still considered to be stars. So calling a land/sea unit a planet would be, in their mode of thinking, arrant nonsense. You never had to make that transition in thinking because by age 5 you knew that the other planets are not stars and never were. In fact, it never occurred to you that planets are stars--an idea taken for granted by those who wrote the bible.

Yes, it's not required but what a blessing it is to proclaim, and what a stumbling block it is to the unbelieving world, when you affirm their doubts about the Word of God.

Actually, a great many people will never discover the Word of God as long as they have the impression that 1) they must interpret it literally and 2) therefore they must renounce all scientific discoveries of the last 300 years. That stance is a major stumbling block to many people and removing it allows them to begin listening to the gospel. Some people in this very forum can testify to how liberating it was to be able to read scripture without using a YEC lens and how it kept them in the faith and drew them closer to Christ.

 

[Calminian]

Remember that science works inductivly and not deductivly.

Bingo. You finally got it. All science is inductive, not deductive. That includes astronomy/cosmology as well as medical science.

We have evidence that men in general normally do not become alive again after death, yes. But remember, that is not some necessary deduction in a logical sense.

In the case of Christ, we are not saying that is a normal biological process. We are saying it is unique, a miracle. So inductive evidence is not in itself that helpful.

Precisely. Creation was also a miracle, in fact it was a series of miracles over 6 days.

We don't have any evidence that Christ, specifically, did not retturn to life. No proof that this miracle did not take place. An example of evidence or proof might be, for example, some record of somone saying that they saw something different, that they knew that Jesus was really hiding out in his aunts place the whole time.

Nor do we have any proof a series of created miracles didn't happen 6000 years ago. Science, in fact, in the pure methodological sense, must assume a creative miracle did not happen. These theories of men that you're trusting over the Bible are all based on naturalism.

Not only this, we don't have any other universes we can study where we can observe how they come into existence in the present. We do have other men we can study, and Christ was 100% human. So we actually have more inductive evidence against the Resurrection than we do against the Creation. Yet you still deny Creation.

Make sense? You see, you're simply preferring one method of inductive reasoning over another. You choose to believe the inductive reasoning that lead to BB cosmology, but deny the inductive reasonings of medical science in regard to the resurrection.

As always, my question is, why?

 

[MKJ]

Bingo. You finally got it. All science is inductive, not deductive. That includes astronomy/cosmology as well as medical science.



Precisely. Creation was also a miracle, in fact it was a series of miracles over 6 days.



Nor do we have any proof a series of created miracles didn't happen 6000 years ago. Science, in fact, in the pure methodological sense, must assume a creative miracle did not happen. These theories of men that you're trusting over the Bible are all based on naturalism.

Not only this, we don't have any other universes we can study where we can observe how they come into existence in the present. We do have other men we can study, and Christ was 100% human. So we actually have more inductive evidence against the Resurrection than we do against the Creation. Yet you still deny Creation.

Make sense? You see, you're simply preferring one method of inductive reasoning over another. You choose to believe the inductive reasoning that lead to BB cosmology, but deny the inductive reasonings of medical science in regard to the resurrection.

As always, my question is, why?

If creation were posited as a miracle of the sort you are suggesting, you might have an argument, but that is not so clear. The creation account has always been read as at least partly allegorical, and is clearly a poetic rather than historical form.

The other difficulty is that we do actually have specific physical evidence that the creation account as interpreted by literalists is not true. Not just a little, but quite a lot.

This is quite different from the ressurection account which has always been presented as history, is written as a historical account, and which has no specific physical evidence to deny it. In fact it is clear that possible attempts to deny its historicity were a significant worry of the early Christians.

Furthermore, in the case of the Resurrection, the metaphysical significance demands that it be true in some sort of historical sense, while that is only so in a limited way with the creation account.

 

[MKJ]

Nor do we have any proof a series of created miracles didn't happen 6000 years ago. Science, in fact, in the pure methodological sense, must assume a creative miracle did not happen.

This isn't actually true, by the way. Science could never prove a miracle as such, but it could easily show that a literal interpretation of Genesis was in line with the physical evidence. For example, that there was a global flood, or that we see largely the same animal species all along, or that the universe is only 6000 (or whatever) years old.

 

[Calminian]

If creation were posited as a miracle of the sort you are suggesting, you might have an argument, but that is not so clear. The creation account has always been read as at least partly allegorical, and is clearly a poetic rather than historical form.

The other difficulty is that we do actually have specific physical evidence that the creation account as interpreted by literalists is not true. Not just a little, but quite a lot.

The early fathers actually believed in typology, not allegory as we understand it today. This means that they interpreted the days of Genesis literally, but then also gave them a typological meaning. In the case of creation days, they thought they also were prophecies of future 1000 year periods. As a result, most early fathers believed the world was going to end in 6000 years after creation. Thus they were YEC's who believed in literal days.

Now there were a handful of early fathers that didn't believe in literal days, but even these were YEC's who believed in a young earth, and even fought the deep time ideas of their day. They believed creation was miraculous and instantaneous.

But virtually all of the early fathers believed Genesis to be historical narrative, and all believed the flood was literal and global. And all considered creation a miracle.

It appears your best witnesses just flipped over to my side. TE's are quite alone in their claim that Genesis is not historical, not miraculous. Even Augustine is on my side on this one.

Now if you want to keep rejecting the book of Genesis, that's your right, just don't blame the early fathers.

 

[Calminian]

This isn't actually true, by the way. Science could never prove a miracle as such, but it could easily show that a literal interpretation of Genesis was in line with the physical evidence. For example, that there was a global flood, or that we see largely the same animal species all along, or that the universe is only 6000 (or whatever) years old.

Yes, just as they could prove that the wine Jesus said he created was really just naturally made and aged. They would show how the fermentation levels showed a long period of time elapsed, etc. And it would all be scientific, based on scientific naturalistic presuppositions. And of course they would be wrong.

The flood itself, according to Genesis (which I know you've rejected) was actually not natural as far as its cause. It came not because some dominos fell in normal mechanistic fashion, but because God chose to bring it about. We don't know what God did to cause it, but we know he caused it, sustained it, and ended it. It's not surprising to me that scientists don't understand the evidences before them—the normal markers of a natural flood—but we know from the Bible and hundreds of flood legends around the world, it happened.

Again, you can trust men, or God's word.

 

[gluadys]

The flood itself, according to Genesis (which I know you've rejected) was actually not natural as far as its cause. It came not because some dominos fell in normal mechanistic fashion, but because God chose to bring it about. We don't know what God did to cause it, but we know he caused it, sustained it, and ended it.

And just at what point did the miracle end and normal processes of nature take over? Did God end the miracle of the global flood by erasing all trace that it happened? Because that is what we have now: not just complete lack of evidence that a flood of that extent occurred within human history, but also evidence which contradicts the very possibility of a global flood. So just what did God do? Take away not only the water, but also the sediment? Adjust millions of genomes in thousands of species to eliminate evidence of a genetic bottleneck? Destroy all written documents referring to the great catastrophe of the flood and restore bills of lading, inventories, decrees, etc. to fill the gap of a generation or more that would not exist in civilized areas had they been flooded? And destroy all records related to rebuilding a civilization that had been wiped out?

For, unless God included miracles like these in the overall miracle of the flood, then natural process should have left evidence which it does not and failed to leave evidence which it does.

It's not surprising to me that scientists don't understand the evidences before them—the normal markers of a natural flood—but we know from the Bible and hundreds of flood legends around the world, it happened.

Scientists understand the normal markers of a natural flood, but all such markers found show the floods to be limited in extent. And there is no reason hundreds of flood legends could not refer to many different floods. So we have no extra-biblical evidence of a world-wide flood.

Again, you can trust men, or God's word.

And again, trusting in God's word does not require trusting that the account is literally history. Further, you forget: creation is also God's word. That is how he made it: by his word and by his Word.

 

[Calminian]

And just at what point did the miracle end and normal processes of nature take over? Did God end the miracle of the global flood by erasing all trace that it happened?

It's very possible. If I'm not mistaken we recognize historical floods by evidences of runoff, and other marks they leave, but this assumes the resided normally. But if God used an unknown mechanism to drop down the water levels, it may not have left the same marks, and therefore, scientists didn't recognize it, thinking with anti-God blinders on.

It really comes down to a matter of trust, and in your case stubborn unbelief.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

...For instance, if told the Earth rotated around the Sun, they would have smiled, nodded and decided the source was insane. After all, the people on Earth knew the Earth was standing still. One could not detect movement - like on a horse, donkey or floating in the water.

Archie, earth is defined in Genesis as "dry land." That's what the ancients were talking about when they used the term erets. And they were right in claiming the dry land did not move on its foundation, unlike a boat would on the sea.

Please note the following selection from Strong’s Lexicon. Please note subsections A and C.

From Strong’s Lexicon:

אֹרֶצ H776 Erets (Noun)

1. land, earth

A. earth
i. whole earth (as opposed to a part)
ii. earth (as opposed to heaven)
iii. earth (inhabitants)

B. land
i. country, territory
ii. district, region
iii. tribal territory
iv. piece of ground
v. land of Canaan, Israel
vi. inhabitants of land
vii. Sheol, land without return, (under) world
viii. city (-state)

C. ground, surface of the earth
i. ground
ii. Soil

Entry truncated, sections D. and E. not pertinent to the conversation.

Note that subsection A refers to the entire Earth, while subsection C refers to ground or dirt. Please demonstrate that ‘the Earth’ in verse One of Genesis One refers to the ‘dry land’ upon which humans walked (section C) rather than the entirety of the Earth (section A). Incidentally, the ground does move. Unless you wish to deny the existence and activity of the tectonic plates as well. At any rate, you claimed it, I find it rather tenuous; please explain.

Please also note Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for suggesting the Earth had movement. This was ‘heresy’ as it violated the ‘accepted teachings’ of the Bible. Make no mistake, Calminian, these who burned Bruno were your spiritual ancestors. They believed in the absolute, literal word of the Bible. These were also the faction who imprisoned Galileo Galilei for his work. Your people, Calminian.

And they have now retracted their accusation and their argument in support.

But you claim they were correct. Be my guest.

Second, why would the ancients have thought God was insane for telling them a land/sea unit known as a planet was orbiting the sun? I understood this concept at age 5.

Of course you would know better. You can’t differentiate ‘the Earth’ from ‘dirt’, but you would have immediately grasped a heliocentric solar system. No doubt you would have intuitively grasped Quantum Mechanics as well?

Aside from that, the information is not required to have relationship with God. There are many, many things the Bible does not include.

Yes, it's not required but what a blessing it is to proclaim, and what a stumbling block it is to the unbelieving world, when you affirm their doubts about the Word of God.

This makes me a little bilious. Someone getting rapturous about spreading ignorance and absence of thought.

“… a stumbling block it is to the unbelieving world…” So you subscribe to the heresy which claims God lies to people at large?

Do you see the reason to keep things as simple as possible?

You think asking people to believe the middle and end of the story, while doubting and reinterpreting the first is simple?

Ah! Obviously you do not comprehend. I was referring to the Lord’s act of keeping Genesis and the explanation simple.

Here's simple: you can believe he Bible from cover to cover.

Someday, you may discover the distinction between ‘simple’ and ‘simple-minded’. Or not.

There are a goodly number of things in the Bible that are simple: God is the Creator and is still in charge. Man is by choice and practice sinful. God offers sinful man forgiveness and acceptance by God’s grace.

There are many things that are not so simple: How exactly does the Trinity work? What is the mechanics of how a believer goes from ‘sinful’ to ‘sinless’ in the eyes of God? Is a saved person eternally saved? What shade of blue goes best with marigolds? Did ignorance come with the Fall, or would people just as stupid if they were not sin prone?

Oh. The ‘genealogies’ you so heavily lean upon are not complete. They never have been; they weren’t meant to be; and you clearly do not understand the Hebrew thinking for including them.

To recap: Just tell me how you justify using the word ‘erets’ to mean dirt, instead of planet.

 

[gluadys]

It's very possible. If I'm not mistaken we recognize historical floods by evidences of runoff, and other marks they leave, but this assumes the resided normally. But if God used an unknown mechanism to drop down the water levels, it may not have left the same marks, and therefore, scientists didn't recognize it, thinking with anti-God blinders on.

It really comes down to a matter of trust, and in your case stubborn unbelief.

I see you have addressed only one item: the removal of water. What about the other sedimentological, genetic and archeological consequences of a world-wide flood which only 8 people survived and only 2 of most terrestrial species?

Do you attribute the lack of these evidences to God clearing away all evidence of a such a flood as well?

Yes, it does come down to a matter of trust & I prefer to trust in a God who doesn't act so whimsically.

 

[Calminian]

Please note the following selection from Strong’s Lexicon. Please note subsections A and C. ....

I've got an even better source of truth. Please note the following verse:

Gen. 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.​

Lexicons are great and serve a purpose, be we need to look to the Word of God, when it provides definitions for words. Nowhere is there a verse in scripture that defines earth in any other way, so that's how I define, until someone can show be differently.

Thus, your attacks on the Bible fail. They always do.

 

[Calminian]

I see you have addressed only one item: the removal of water. What about the other sedimentological, genetic and archeological consequences of a world-wide flood which only 8 people survived and only 2 of most terrestrial species?

Do you attribute the lack of these evidences to God clearing away all evidence of a such a flood as well?

Yes, it does come down to a matter of trust & I prefer to trust in a God who doesn't act so whimsically.

So now a global flood is a whimsical act? Wow. Interesting comeback. I'm amazed at the lengths you'll go to avoid the plain meaning of scripture.

but this is between you are your God. All I can do is point out the obvious.

 

[gluadys]

So now a global flood is a whimsical act?

Well, you tell me. I was asking where the miracle of the flood ends and normal nature takes over again. A world-wide flood should leave a layer of sediment world-wide. (We have a similar case with the iridium-rich layer of sediment that marks the end of the Cretaceous Period). But we have no layer of sediment which we can attribute to a world-wide flood. So did God miraculously remove it and restore the original geologic column just to confuse geologists? If so, would that not be a whimsical action?

A world-wide flood leaving, at most, 14 specimens of terrestrial mammals, would leave a significant genetic bottleneck in the genomes of these species (as exists in cheetahs today). And in all affected species the genetic bottleneck would point to the same time period. Instead where we have genetic bottlenecks, they are at different time periods in different species, some--like the cheetah--quite recent, others millions of years old. So did God miraculously remove this evidence of a world-wide flood from every species genome just to confuse geneticists? If so, would that not be a whimsical action?

While estimates of the date of the flood differ somewhat, pretty much all of them agree that it occurred after the invention of writing. But in the most ancient civilizations we know of there is no indication that people stopped producing written materials for any length of time. Writing pertaining to business records indicate business proceeded as usual from the time the first inventories and bills of sale and contracts were written through to well after the last possible date of the flood. So did God miraculously create all this material to fill the gap between the last pre-flood generation and the re-establishment of civilization in these areas by descendants of Noah just to confuse archeologists? And if so, would that not be a whimsical action?

Now if you want to say that God did not do these things, tell me where the miracle of the flood ended and explain the existence or non-existence of the evidence we would expect from a world-wide flood.

Or, if you want to affirm that God did do these things, that the miracle of the flood included all the miracles above, give me one reason not to think they are irrational.

All I can do is point out the obvious.

Same here. What sort of God do you believe in Calminian?

Just tell me every miracle included in the overall miracle of the flood and how many of them were for the purpose of covering up the evidence of the flood and for what non-whimsical reason God would want to make it look as if everything had carried on through and after the flood as if it had never happened.

 

[Calminian]

Well, you tell me. I was asking where the miracle of the flood ends and normal nature takes over again. A world-wide flood should leave a layer of sediment world-wide.

Or at least some clue that that even high mountains have been underwater, like fossilized sea creatures on them. Also, if the world flooded we should see things like flood legends in every ancient culture. Or billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. But those run contrary to what you desire to believe, and that's really the problem. You don't have any faith in the Bible—specifically Genesis.

The Bible says there was a global flood, and Christ (whom you claim to believe in) has endorsed the O.T. So why not just believe him? It would appear then you don't trust Him at least in this regard.

Just tell me every miracle included in the overall miracle of the flood and how many of them were for the purpose of covering up the evidence of the flood and for what non-whimsical reason God would want to make it look as if everything had carried on through and after the flood as if it had never happened.

We're not told the details of the mechanisms God used for the Flood or the creation. in fact, we're not told how Christ changed the water to wine. We're just told it happened.

Again, it seems you pick and choose which sciences you believe and which you do not. Medical science says Resurrections don't happen, yet you have no problem choosing the Bible over medical science. Yet a simple flood God can't do. The disbelief is amazing.

 

[mark kennedy]

So, my question, what do you think it's a metaphor of?

There is no comparison that I'm aware of in Genesis 1, virtually no figurative language. Any figure of speech is by definition a comparison, usually indicated in Scripture with a 'like' or 'as'. The reason it's called figurative is because they don't believe it so they pass it off for a myth, not because it's figurative since it's obviously not, but because you either believe it or you don't.

 

[gluadys]

Or at least some clue that that even high mountains have been underwater, like fossilized sea creatures on them.

Have you not heard of plate tectonics? Of course the high mountains were under water, when they were sea bottoms and before they had been driven up and folded by tectonic pressures. Note that the fossils of sea creatures are not on the mountains. They are in them, sometimes deeply in them. In fact, some formations, especially limestone, consist of nothing but fossil shells. And when you follow the formations in the mountains they are consistent, though in a folded condition, with the horizontal bedding of a sea bottom or prairie land, with the same differences in fossil population chronologically. IOW, they are not in the jumble one would expect from being all drowned at the same time in a flood.

Also, if the world flooded we should see things like flood legends in every ancient culture.

And we don't. Only about half of the world's cultures have a flood legend and some are very different from the biblical story.

Or billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.

We certainly have billions of fossils, most, but not all laid down by water. However most are marine creatures buried by normal sedimentation, not by flood waters. They are stratified like the sediments themselves and much more consistent with a slow accumulation of sediments than a short-lived flood. In fact, many fossils that appear to have been buried by floods, are riverine, not marine. And some fossils have been formed by burial in desert sand.

But those run contrary to what you desire to believe, and that's really the problem.

No, the problem is that the details of burial run counter to burial in flood sediments or in a short period of time.

And let us explain here: I am not disputing the possibility the flood was a miracle. Indeed, the only way to account for a world-wide flood within human history is by a miracle. The question rather is this:

Granting a miraculous flood, why did God arrange the bodies to look as if there had not been a flood? Would it not make more sense to leave the bodies where the flood left them so that curious geologists and archeologists would find clear evidence of the flood? What was God's reason for deleting the evidence of the flood and making the fossil record appear contradictory to a world-wide flood? Ditto with archeological evidence and genetic evidence.

You don't have any faith in the Bible—specifically Genesis.

I have faith in God. I am not a bible-worshipper. I worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I do not have faith in fallible human interpretations of scripture--especially when grounded in a hermeneutical principle (so-called literalism) that makes no sense to me when those interpretations are at odds with God's own handiwork in creation.

The Bible says there was a global flood,

The bible doesn't even speak of a globe. It never says the flood was global.

and Christ (whom you claim to believe in) has endorsed the O.T. So why not just believe him?

Actually, Jesus did not endorse the O.T. Some parts he did and some he disputed. He disagreed with Moses on divorce, for example. He said nothing about the flood being global one way or the other. He did say that when judgment came, it would be suddenly and without warning as in the days of Noah. That doesn't tell us how he interpreted the scope of the flood. That was not a point he thought relevant to his teaching.

We're not told the details of the mechanisms God used for the Flood or the creation. in fact, we're not told how Christ changed the water to wine. We're just told it happened.

Precisely. So you cannot identify the boundary lines of the miracle. You cannot say at what point God permitted the normal course of nature to resume. But this we can tell:

1. Unless there was a miracle, there was no world-wide flood within recorded human history. Without a miracle, there is no way to account for much of the evidence that contradicts the flood scenario.

2. If there was a miracle, it extended not only to causing the flood, but also to causing the evidence of a flood to disappear.

I have no problem with part one. Miracles override normal processes. Without a miracle an axe head does not float in water. Without a miracle, fire does not come from heaven and consume a sacrifice soaked in water. Without a miracle, a few loaves of bread and a handful of fish do not feed a crown of more than 5,000 people. Without a miracle, a dead man does not return to life.

It is part 2 that gives me pause. In the miracle of the loaves and fishes, there was evidence (short-lived and not accessible to us today) that a miracle had taken place. More leftovers were picked up after all had eaten than had been shared out in the first place. In the raising of Lazarus, there was evidence, for all knew he had been buried four days earlier, yet they came and saw him alive.

So God could have simply caused the flood without causing the consequences to disappear. Yet, if there was a miracle flood, he had to make the consequences disappear to give us the world we now have.

What sort of rational God does that?

Again, it seems you pick and choose which sciences you believe and which you do not. Medical science says Resurrections don't happen, yet you have no problem choosing the Bible over medical science. Yet a simple flood God can't do. The disbelief is amazing.

You persist in misrepresenting the point. Reread the section above.

 

[Calminian]

Have you not heard of plate tectonics? Of course the high mountains were under water, when they were sea bottoms and before they had been driven up and folded by tectonic pressures. Note that the fossils of sea creatures are not on the mountains. They are in them, sometimes deeply in them. In fact, some formations, especially limestone, consist of nothing but fossil shells. And when you follow the formations in the mountains they are consistent, though in a folded condition, with the horizontal bedding of a sea bottom or prairie land, with the same differences in fossil population chronologically. IOW, they are not in the jumble one would expect from being all drowned at the same time in a flood.

Don't you get what you're doing though? Instead of allowing scripture to make you wiser, and starting your thinking with God's revelation, you're clinging to explanations that contradict his Word. While sea fossils in mountains makes sense with a global flood, you're still diligently looking for natural explanations to dismiss that evidence. That's a heart issue, not an evidence issue.

And we don't. Only about half of the world's cultures have a flood legend and some are very different from the biblical story.

Glu, listen to yourself. So lets say your correct and half the worlds ancient cultures have flood legends. Is that not enough to make you think a little? What if it was 3 quarters? Would you then believe the Bible? What if it was 100%?

The truth is, even it was 100%, you still wouldn't believe, as the evidence is not the issue for. It's the heart. The heart is deceitful above all else.

We certainly have billions of fossils, most, but not all laid down by water. However most are marine creatures buried by normal sedimentation, not by flood waters. They are stratified like the sediments themselves and much more consistent with a slow accumulation of sediments than a short-lived flood. In fact, many fossils that appear to have been buried by floods, are riverine, not marine. And some fossils have been formed by burial in desert sand.

Again, the same issue as above. You're not denying the evidence fits with the Bible, you're simply finding other ways to explain it away. "But but, this could explain it also!!!!!"

Granting a miraculous flood, why did God arrange the bodies to look as if there had not been a flood?...

You're confusing inference with appearance. The reason things look the way the do is not necessarily the arrangement of the causing agent, but inferences that you make based on your presuppositions. You can put on biblical glasses and look at things, or put on naturalistic atheistic glasses and look at things. It's not God's fault if you do that latter.

Scientists are not looking at evidence with supernatural causation in mind, they are looking at it naturalistically, based on observations which they assume are always consistent and are never interrupted. This doesn't make science bad, but it does make it vulnerable to being wrong when starting presuppositions are wrong.

I have faith in God. I am not a bible-worshipper. I worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I do not have faith in fallible human interpretations of scripture--especially when grounded in a hermeneutical principle (so-called literalism) that makes no sense to me when those interpretations are at odds with God's own handiwork in creation.

That's fine, I don't either. That's why I don't allow scientists to come in and tell me the framework into which I must fit the Bible. Interpretation is usually quite a simple. It gets complicated when we insert man's wisdom.

"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."​

The bible doesn't even speak of a globe. It never says the flood was global.

Yes, but it does say that the entire land was covered everywhere under the heavens by a minimum of 15 cubits. You don't have to worship the Bible to believe this, you just have to trust the Author who wrote it.

Gen. 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.​

Actually, Jesus did not endorse the O.T. Some parts he did and some he disputed. He disagreed with Moses on divorce, for example.

Oh, Glu you are so wrong about this. Jesus didn't disagree with Moses about divorce, he was simply clarifying that legal divorce was not always morally justifiable.

The church is not designed to be a government, as Israel was. The church, rather, functions within governments. For instance, in this church age the sword of justice belongs to the government and not to the church. That was not the case in Israel, as they controlled the sword of justice within their own national borders. But the church is different and does not handle legal matters like that.

Divorce has both a moral aspect and legal aspect. It's in the old testament we are told God hates divorce, but there were legal ways to get out of it and God allowed it, legally. But Christ was reminding the Pharisees that you could divorce perfectly legally, and yet still commit the sin of adultery. There's no contradiction. Jesus was addressing the Pharisees who equated legality with morality. He was telling them, no, you are still guilty, even if your paperwork is in order, and you don't suffer any legal penalties. There is still moral guilt and there are still ramifications of sinning in this way.

2. If there was a miracle, it extended not only to causing the flood, but also to causing the evidence of a flood to disappear.

Same mistake as above. You are confusing appearance with inference. You can't blame your false inferences on God. You just have the wrong glasses on, since you're stating your thinking with man's wisdom.

It is part 2 that gives me pause. In the miracle of the loaves and fishes, there was evidence (short-lived and not accessible to us today) that a miracle had taken place. More leftovers were picked up after all had eaten than had been shared out in the first place. In the raising of Lazarus, there was evidence, for all knew he had been buried four days earlier, yet they came and saw him alive.

Yes, but the evidences you cite here are not scientific evidences, but rather testimonial evidences. And the Bible in essence, is a collection of testimony about God and His creation. You just don't want to believe those testimonies. I'm glad though you've accepted the testimonies about Christ.

Again, the issue for you is not evidence. It's almost always a heart issue. You choose not to believe.

 

[gluadys]

Don't you get what you're doing though? Instead of allowing scripture to make you wiser, and starting your thinking with God's revelation, you're clinging to explanations that contradict his Word.

The Word created. Creation is God's revelation. You try to pit one form of revelation against another. You divide God against himself.

While sea fossils in mountains makes sense with a global flood,

No, it doesn't. Not according to your literal interpretation of the flood story. Did Noah take sea creatures onto the ark? Did he have sea-water swimming pools for whales and sharks and squid like Marineland?

Most creationists tell me that the ark was intended for terrestrial animals only. Why would you need to protect sea creatures from a flood? So why would there be sea fossils on mountains because of a flood?

Glu, listen to yourself. So lets say your correct and half the worlds ancient cultures have flood legends. Is that not enough to make you think a little? What if it was 3 quarters? Would you then believe the Bible? What if it was 100%?

You are right. Flood legends in themselves are not enough. To be evidence, each would have to be tied to the same flood. That is not the case. We have many independent stories, but nothing to show they are not referencing independent flood events. And we have stories about the same event, but nothing to show they are independent of each other.

Again, the same issue as above. You're not denying the evidence fits with the Bible, you're simply finding other ways to explain it away. "But but, this could explain it also!!!!!"

But the evidence does not fit with a literal interpretation of the biblical account. 1. There is no reason a flood should even leave an especially notable layer of marine fossils.

2. When fossils are laid down by floods they are not neatly stratified as we normally find them in chronological order. If all creatures, extinct as well as extant, were all living together and drowned together in a flood, we should find them bundled together in fossil caches as well. We don't.


Conclusion: The only condition under which the fossil record we actually have could be attributed to a world-wide flood is 1: the flood itself was miraculous and 2. part of the miracle was to sort the fossils in a way that a flood never could by nature, thus erasing evidence of the true cause of the fossil record.

Like I said earlier, I don't have problems with 1. but i have a lot of problems with 2. Why would God erase evidence of how the fossil record came to be by making sure geologists and palaeontologists would have no choice but to say it was not by a world-wide flood?

You're confusing inference with appearance.

Are you aware that inference is a form of logic, of reasoning? Are you suggesting that God is not a rational being? Are you suggesting that God did not make humans with a capacity to use reason? Are you suggesting that God wanted us to be stymied in every attempt to understand his creation? Do you know that 'Logos' is the origin of the word "logic"?


Now, assuming what i think is orthodox Christian doctrine on these matters, I begin with the supposition that the Logos is a rational being who acts in rational ways. I continue with the supposition that the Logos, the Creator, created a world of ordered harmony; it has structure and form and function which can be understood by a rational entity. I also assume that God made our species to be rational entities; we have the capacity to understand God's will and God's work. We can figure out how nature operates. Indeed, being able to figure out how nature operates gives us wide scope for appreciating the wisdom of God as manifested in creation and giving him due thanks and praise.

I believe, God actually wants us to understand the world he has put under our dominion. How can we exercise our mandate with regard to creation if we cannot understand it? So we must use our reasoning faculties to the best of our ability.

The reason things look the way the do is not necessarily the arrangement of the causing agent, but inferences that you make based on your presuppositions. You can put on biblical glasses and look at things, or put on naturalistic atheistic glasses and look at things. It's not God's fault if you do that latter.

See above. I think my presuppositions as outlined there are biblical.
But do keep in mind that rational inferences cannot deal with miracles which are not known of. When you introduce a transcendent cause, you are not saying the inference was wrong. Any rational person analyzing this evidence, without knowledge of a transcendent cause at play, will come to the conclusions geologists and palaeontologists have come to. And I mean any rational person, regardless of their position on matters of faith.

Scientists are not looking at evidence with supernatural causation in mind,

Nor should they. Supernatural causation is capable of producing anything at all without giving us any understanding of it. It gives us no insight at all into the rational order of the created world, precisely because it is an exception to that order.

Magic was once believed to be a way of controlling supernatural causation. Unscrupulous people still take advantage of the gullible by convincing them that a potion, and amulet, or taking instructions from tarot or horoscope readings will allow them to control occult forces.

It is easy to see why God forbade such practices. Not only do they not work, but as we believe in one God who is the Almighty Creator of all things, we also believe this God is not and cannot ever be under anyone's control, least of all that of scientists.

Do you realize that when you ask scientists to deal with supernatural causes you are basically asking them to put a leash on God and bring him under their control?

Furthermore, when you appeal to supernatural causation, you are admitting that the evidence as we have it does not support your literal understanding of the flood account. Without the presupposition of a miracle, the evidence clearly falsifies the notion of a world-wide flood, not only in human history but also through all of pre-history.

And, let me remind you again, this means that if God did cause a recent world-wide flood, he must also have caused the appearance of the evidence which falsifies the occurrence of the flood. The latter is the conclusion that bothers me. If the point of the flood was to send a powerful message of judgment and salvation, would it not be much more rational to preserve evidence that it happened? Instead, it is all gone.

That's fine, I don't either. That's why I don't allow scientists to come in and tell me the framework into which I must fit the Bible. Interpretation is usually quite a simple. It gets complicated when we insert man's wisdom.

No, whether we are interpreting text or fossils, it is not simple at all. God's wisdom, after all, is greater than ours and we struggle to comprehend it. Yet the truth is simple once seen.

Yes, but it does say that the entire land was covered everywhere under the heavens by a minimum of 15 cubits. You don't have to worship the Bible to believe this, you just have to trust the Author who wrote it.

I'll agree it says that the land was covered, but we can differ on what "land" means. You assume all the land world-wide. I don't think the text requires this. Substitute "land" for "earth" in the verses below and think of "land" as being a particular region, perhaps Mesopotamia, and it still makes sense. btw, I just noticed it does not say the waters prevailed 15 cubits above the tops of the mountains; just that they prevailed 15 cubits and, apparently, this was sufficient to cover the mountains.

Gen. 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.​

Oh, Glu you are so wrong about this. Jesus didn't disagree with Moses about divorce, he was simply clarifying that legal divorce was not always morally justifiable.

According to Jesus legal divorce is never morally justifiable.

The church is not designed to be a government, as Israel was.

On the contrary, the church is intended to restore the sort of governance
God had given Israel and set up that of the Kingdom of Heaven. It cannot do so world-wide until Christ returns, but the intention is that it is to govern itself as if the Kingdom already existed. The understanding of the medieval church was that Christian nations were to be governed along the lines of the Kingdom of God. Christendom was, in effect, to be the interim government of the Kingdom of God and the extension of Christian rule was the extension of that government.

A lot changed with the Reformation of course and especially with the triumph of the radical (Anabaptist) principle that national governments were not to dictate to individuals how they worshipped. It became necessary for churches to become private rather than public institutions and to work as you say within governments.

Indeed, even in our Presbyterian Church, we have had to modify the acceptance of the Westminster Confession as a subordinate standard of faith in regard to the role of the magistrate, for the Confession clearly gives the magistrate a role in enforcing the religious principles of Calvinism on the secular community. So Calvin and the early Calvinists certainly understood the church as having a governmental function and the government as having a religious role.

The church, rather, functions within governments. For instance, in this church age the sword of justice belongs to the government and not to the church. That was not the case in Israel, as they controlled the sword of justice within their own national borders. But the church is different and does not handle legal matters like that.

Yes, I agree that as a matter of principle church and state need to be separate entities, but the vision of the church as a governing power is the original vision and it is we moderns who have changed it. I agree that in our times, what we need to do as Christians is influence government rather than dominate it. The role of the church is to be the conscience of the government in regard to justice and mercy; to condemn oppressive legislation and to advocate justice for the poor and vulnerable.

Jesus was addressing the Pharisees who equated legality with morality. He was telling them, no, you are still guilty, even if your paperwork is in order, and you don't suffer any legal penalties. There is still moral guilt and there are still ramifications of sinning in this way.

Yes, we see a lot of that today too, and not just in regard to divorce. All sorts of institutions, both public and private, seem to think it is ok simply to stay within the letter of the law even when the most basic moral principles are violated.

Same mistake as above. You are confusing appearance with inference.

What else could you possibly base inference on? You look, you observe, you infer a causal process, you deduce what other observable consequences such a process would produce and you observe again.

What you are suggesting is that reality and appearance have no connection. That what appears to be is an illusion like the holographic world of the Matrix. I think that such a view of appearance conflicts with belief in God as Creator. I don't think the created world is only an appearance, but something that really exists. I think God wants us to know the reality of creation, so God has laid it bare for us to learn from it. Sometimes appearances are deceiving, but I wouldn't take that to be the default case.

You can't blame your false inferences on God.

First you have to show me that the inferences are false. I expect what you really mean is that the inferences are correct in themselves, but the conclusion is incorrect because a miracle has intervened as an alternative causal explanation.

As I said, I don't have a problem with miracle as a cause. I do have a problem with God wiping out evidence of this cause and replacing it with evidence that inevitably leads to a difference conclusion. That, I think, is a slur against God's name. But I don't see any other possibility given your basic presuppositions about the historical actuality of a recent world-wide flood. If it happened, what happened to the evidence of its reality?

Yes, but the evidences you cite here are not scientific evidences, but rather testimonial evidences. And the Bible in essence, is a collection of testimony about God and His creation. You just don't want to believe those testimonies. I'm glad though you've accepted the testimonies about Christ.

The thing is that the bible presents several testimonies, one of which is that God created this world. Another is that the creation per se is a mode of revelation. One thing the bible does not testify to is that students of scripture must use a hermeneutical principle that elevates literal meaning above other possibilities.

Your interpretation of the flood account depends on a dubious hermeneutical principle: literalism. And the consequence of that hermeneutical principle is that this is a post global flood world. The problem is that the world as it actually is (or seems to be) is not a post global flood world.

Hence, based on your hermeneutical principle, I have to conclude the world I live in is not the one the bible tells us God created. Maybe God made that world too, and it exists somewhere in some galaxy, but it is not this world.

I also feel I have to reject that conclusion. My faith and my scripture tell me that God did create this world and that this is the world the bible is speaking of.

Since the conflict only occurs when applying a hermeneutical principle of dubious worth in the first place, I conclude that this is the presupposition that is incorrect.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Genesis 1 is an extended metaphor for God's ordered and purposeful creation of the universe.

Genesis 2 and 3 aren't necessarily metaphors as a whole, but creation from the dust of the earth could easily be a metaphor for evolution itself, even without the author knowing anything about the evolutionary process.

Genesis 4 seems to be a metaphor for the breakdown of human society that is the result of sin.

Genesis 6-9 is a metaphor for God's universal and cosmic judgment in the face of human rebellion and, tangentially, for his future redemptive purposes.

And Genesis 11 pretty much the same as Genesis 4.