No global flood.

[Mallon]

Your question illustrated how a simple model could easily be used to dismiss a reality, which is never simple.

The fining upward graded bedding unit is made under an assumption that the dumped sediments are totally loose, deposited by free falling in water which has enough sorting depth and is given enough time to complete the process. I don't think these conditions could be met in most cases during a global flood. If laptoppop's sediments is abundant and the depositional environment (the tank) is shallow (it is actually a more realistic scenario during the global flood), then graded bedding is most likely not going to be made.

My kingdom for a neocreationist who can actually predict what a global flood would deposit rather than what it wouldn't!
(I can't believe you're actually arguing that a global flood that supposedly covered the highest mountaintops somehow couldn't provide enough sorting depth to produce fining-upwards sequences.)

 

[juvenissun]

My kingdom for a neocreationist who can actually predict what a global flood would deposit rather than what it wouldn't!
(I can't believe you're actually arguing that a global flood that supposedly covered the highest mountaintops somehow couldn't provide enough sorting depth to produce fining-upwards sequences.)

It is a scale problem.

There is not enough water to cover the high mountains on land today.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My point is that you can read too much into a biblical allegory, especially when trying to read back from the allegorical interpretation to build up details about the OT passage it is drawn from. You can't claim that Hagar and Sarah were particularly tall because Paul said they were allegorically mountains, or that the passover lamb must have been particularly skilled at carpentry, for a sheep anyway. You simply can't say "This adds to the allegorical picture therefore it must have been so."

Now the water in the Red Sea must have been pretty deep normally, the Egyptians drowned in it, but you can't say it must have been deep to symbolize immersion, you can't even say it was that deep from the passages quoted. It says in Heb 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea. The same word translated passed through is used in Paul's vision of the man from Macedonia telling him Act 16:9 "Come over to Macedonia and help us." In 1Cor 10:1 'through the sea' uses the same preposition 'dia' as Matt 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath.

Even if they were below the normal sea level crossing the Red Sea, it does not mean the waves must have been higher than the ark because it makes such a nice symbolism. It simply does not follow.

You are using absurd examples to make your point. No one would think that because Sarah and Hagar were compared to mountains that they must have been tall. Same with the passover lamb/carpenter thing. This is borderline strawman.

But the bible does liken the other events to baptism (I presented the supporting scriptures). My idea of the ark being submerged at some point is based on my belief that the ark was very heavy and barely floated. This would enable it to handle any large swells without damaging the craft or seriously upsetting the critters on board, and by the way also fulfill the baptism type.

The Red Sea crossing is just too perfect a type of immersion baptism.

Truth is there are lots of blanks to fill in, lot's of space between the lines. As long as we don't change anything we can enrich the stories with assumptions and conclusions that clearly make sense while retaining the integrity of the stories.

For example, the bible doesn't give much detail about the construction of the ark save the materials, size, and a few other details. But if we construct a picture of what probably happened a whole city of workers appears, complete with dwellings, markets, roads, etc. Supply lines both by land and water, a bustling landscape of activity surrounding the project. At the center is Noah and his sons as general contractor and foremen directing the great work. But the bible is silent concerning this saying only that God instructed Noah alone to build the ark; a task impossible for lone person.

It was only recently discovered that a whole city like I have just described was uncovered surrounding the great pyramid at Giza. Prior to it's discovery no one imagined what the site must have looked like during it's construction; a workers village that permanently housed at least 5000 workers believed to be just the artisans and stonecutters. Many more thousands of laborers would have lived in tents in the nearby desert.

You can enrich the stories, give them deeper meaning, without mistranslating or misinterpreting them.

owg

 

[Assyrian]

You are using absurd examples to make your point. No one would think that because Sarah and Hagar were compared to mountains that they must have been tall. Same with the passover lamb/carpenter thing. This is borderline strawman.

Nothing strawman about it. I am not suggesting anybody believes Sarah and Hagar must have been tall. On the other hand you do seem to be saying because a detail works typologically it must have been true in the original story. It is as you say absurd, that is the point of my argument, which is a reductio ad absurdum.

But the bible does liken the other events to baptism (I presented the supporting scriptures).

No problem with that.

My idea of the ark being submerged at some point is based on my belief that the ark was very heavy and barely floated. This would enable it to handle any large swells without damaging the craft or seriously upsetting the critters on board, and by the way also fulfill the baptism type.

Now I can accept that argument, the text describes a heavily laden ark and violent seas which would have easily washed over the top of the ark. And that fits beautifully with its allegorical interpretation as a type of baptism. You just can't run the argument backwards, saying because it would fit the allegorical interpretation that is what must have happened.

The Red Sea crossing is just too perfect a type of immersion baptism.

Given that they passed through the sea dry, it is hardly perfect. I am not sure the idea of a perfect type is even possible. The only perfect type would be the thing itself, which defeats the whole purpose of having type and antitype. And by defeating the whole purpose, it is highly imperfect. But more seriously, I think the whole NT emphasis is that the OT images are very imperfect pictures, perfection was found in what was to come. That is why the NT calls them shadows. Even what we see now is only 'seen in a glass darkely'.

Truth is there are lots of blanks to fill in, lot's of space between the lines. As long as we don't change anything we can enrich the stories with assumptions and conclusions that clearly make sense while retaining the integrity of the stories.

Speculation is fun, and sometimes we even get it right

For example, the bible doesn't give much detail about the construction of the ark save the materials, size, and a few other details. But if we construct a picture of what probably happened a whole city of workers appears, complete with dwellings, markets, roads, etc. Supply lines both by land and water, a bustling landscape of activity surrounding the project. At the center is Noah and his sons as general contractor and foremen directing the great work. But the bible is silent concerning this saying only that God instructed Noah alone to build the ark; a task impossible for lone person.

It was only recently discovered that a whole city like I have just described was uncovered surrounding the great pyramid at Giza. Prior to it's discovery no one imagined what the site must have looked like during it's construction; a workers village that permanently housed at least 5000 workers believed to be just the artisans and stonecutters. Many more thousands of laborers would have lived in tents in the nearby desert.

You can enrich the stories, give them deeper meaning, without mistranslating or misinterpreting them. owg

Now I would have problems with that, you mean there was a large number of people working away building the ark who were left behind to drown?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Given that they passed through the sea dry, it is hardly perfect. I am not sure the idea of a perfect type is even possible. The only perfect type would be the thing itself, which defeats the whole purpose of having type and antitype. And by defeating the whole purpose, it is highly imperfect. But more seriously, I think the whole NT emphasis is that the OT images are very imperfect pictures, perfection was found in what was to come. That is why the NT calls them shadows. Even what we see now is only 'seen in a glass darkely'.

Now I would have problems with that, you mean there was a large number of people working away building the ark who were left behind to drown?

What I meant by type was that this baptism prefigured the NT baptism of the holy spirit. Note that the Israelite were baptised unto Moses, or, the Law. This is even inferior to the baptism of repentance of John the Baptizer, which also prefigured the baptism of the HS.

1 Corinthians 10:2

And were all baptized unto Moses in (under in another verse) the cloud and in the sea;

Paul likens the crossing of the Red Sea to baptism. How can we argue with that?

God didn't have a problem with drowning those workers (they were probably unionized democrats anyway).

owg

 

[Assyrian]

What I meant by type was that this baptism prefigured the NT baptism of the holy spirit. Note that the Israelite were baptised unto Moses, or, the Law. This is even inferior to the baptism of repentance of John the Baptizer, which also prefigured the baptism of the HS.

Don't think you can rank them as three different baptisms, Christians baptism and the baptism of John were actual baptisms. The Red Sea was a rescue mission freeing the Israelites from Egypt. Paul is using the Red Sea as an allegorical picture of baptism. It does not mean it was in itself a baptism in an religious ceremonial sense, any more than Hagar was really a covenant, or a mountain Incidentally, the AV's 'unto Moses' is a bit of an odd translation, perhaps the translators baulked at its literal meaning. Modern versions say 'into'. But as you say it was not Moses the person they were baptised into but the law.

1 Corinthians 10:2

And were all baptized unto Moses in (under in another verse) the cloud and in the sea;

Paul likens the crossing of the Red Sea to baptism. How can we argue with that?

Not me.

God didn't have a problem with drowning those workers (they were probably unionized democrats anyway).

owg

Ooh harsh.

 

[savedandhappy1]

No that's your perspective AV, apparently God has deliberately made the univere look a different ago to what it actually is (aka. embedded age)

Or man is mistaken and hasn't really fiqured out how to date things as well as he thinks he does. Hummmmmmmmmm.

 

[Assyrian]

That is what Luther said about Copernicus (only you are a bit more polite).

 

[philadiddle]

Or man is mistaken and hasn't really fiqured out how to date things as well as he thinks he does. Hummmmmmmmmm.

This kind of statement baffles me. Multiple lines of independent evidence all show the same results for age. There are also individual features such as coral reef, chalk cliffs, salt deposits, karsts etc that all fit within the model of 4.5 billion years perfectly. Not only do some people ignorantly think we may be wrong about the age of the earth, they think that all of our calculations in all the related fields are out by a factor of 1 to 750,000. (6,000 / 4,500,000,000) It's interesting that such a big mistake is made so consistently.

 

[Siyha]

This kind of statement baffles me. Multiple lines of independent evidence all show the same results for age. There are also individual features such as coral reef, chalk cliffs, salt deposits, kuarsts (spelling?) etc that all fit within the model of 4.5 billion years perfectly. Not only do some people ignorantly think we may be wrong about the age of the earth, they think that all of our calculations in all the related fields are out by a factor of 1 to 750,000. (6,000 / 4,500,000,000) It's interesting that such a big mistake is made so consistently.

Puppy Surprise.

 

[juvenissun]

This kind of statement baffles me. Multiple lines of independent evidence all show the same results for age. There are also individual features such as coral reef, chalk cliffs, salt deposits, karsts etc that all fit within the model of 4.5 billion years perfectly. Not only do some people ignorantly think we may be wrong about the age of the earth, they think that all of our calculations in all the related fields are out by a factor of 1 to 750,000. (6,000 / 4,500,000,000) It's interesting that such a big mistake is made so consistently.

What you said is based on your faith.
In fact, we never produced a single date of 4.5 b.y. on the earth.

 

[philadiddle]

What you said is based on your faith.
In fact, we never produced a single date of 4.5 b.y. on the earth.

Of course we didn't produce a date of 4.5 billion years from one thing. We date things like chalk cliffs to be millions of years old, and what they are sitting on also has an age, and what that is on has an age etc. We can add these up to find a total, and we can do this with many different features in many different parts of the world, and they all support an earth waaaaaaay older than 6,000 years. It's not faith, it's a deduction. When we see coral reef form at a certain rate and in a certain way and we look at the older sections and see that they appear to have formed in the same way and at the same rate, an age of 200,000 years is a deductive conclusion, it has nothing to do with a scientist just deciding to have faith in it's age.

 

[LightHorseman]

Of course we didn't produce a date of 4.5 billion years from one thing. We date things like chalk cliffs to be millions of years old, and what they are sitting on also has an age, and what that is on has an age etc. We can add these up to find a total, and we can do this with many different features in many different parts of the world, and they all support an earth waaaaaaay older than 6,000 years. It's not faith, it's a deduction. When we see coral reef form at a certain rate and in a certain way and we look at the older sections and see that they appear to have formed in the same way and at the same rate, an age of 200,000 years is a deductive conclusion, it has nothing to do with a scientist just deciding to have faith in it's age.

If science can't tell us the date, including the day of the week, on which the Earth was formed, then obviously science isn't as good as creationism.

 

[philadiddle]

If science can't tell us the date, including the day of the week, on which the Earth was formed, then obviously science isn't as good as creationism.

Day of the week the earth was formed? LOL ur funny!

 

[shernren]

Day of the week the earth was formed? LOL ur funny!

Well, of course the Earth was formed on a Sunday, since the seventh day after creation was the first Sabbath, which everybody* knows was a Saturday.

*The Christians all got it wrong, of course.

 

[savedandhappy1]

This kind of statement baffles me. Multiple lines of independent evidence all show the same results for age. There are also individual features such as coral reef, chalk cliffs, salt deposits, karsts etc that all fit within the model of 4.5 billion years perfectly. Not only do some people ignorantly think we may be wrong about the age of the earth, they think that all of our calculations in all the related fields are out by a factor of 1 to 750,000. (6,000 / 4,500,000,000) It's interesting that such a big mistake is made so consistently.

Ignorantly......................always wonder why people think that trying to belittle someone by calling them names and listing a bunch of numbers is supposed to make them smart and everyone who doesn't agree is just .............well............stupid.

I can say that statements like yours does baffle me.

Thanks for your response tho.

 

[philadiddle]

Ignorantly......................always wonder why people think that trying to belittle someone by calling them names and listing a bunch of numbers is supposed to make them smart and everyone who doesn't agree is just .............well............stupid.

I can say that statements like yours does baffle me.

Thanks for your response tho.

"Ignorance" doesn't need to be an insult. If an architect told me about certain features he adds to buildings for support, I may not understand why, because I'm ignorant about his field. It doesn't mean I'm stupid or that I can't learn about it, it just means that I'm not familiar with it. That's how I meant it, sorry if I insulted you.

When I said your statement baffled me I took the time to explain why. Maybe you could respond to that instead of honing in on the inappropriate use of one word.

Thx