Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One other thing immediately jumps out at me from Genesis 8:21. A literal interpretation of this passage says every living thing was destroyed. We know this isn't true, because Noah's family and all the animals in the ark were saved. So we must not fully understand how the Israelites of that time expressed themselves. Frequently in Holy Scripture, exaggeration is used to express the magnitude of the event. This does not mean Holy Scripture is in error, but you need to understand how they expressed themselves.
sorry, i don't understand your objection.
And it also MAY mean that all the animals not on the ark died in the entire world.every living thing may just mean every living thing in the area. plus we know that God saved some animals, 4 of each unclean, and 14 of each clean.
Context indicates that it is assumed that anything saved did not die and anything not saved died, therefore "every living thing" is referring to those who where not saved.so not every living thing perished.
That's not what it says, " At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made, 7 and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth" Not to mention that after the raven - " 8 Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground; 9 but the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put forth his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him." So after the raven it wasn't dry.the first bird went out and did not return...that bird found a home elsewhere than the arc. land.
That's not what it says, "10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11 and the dove came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth." It was a leaf not a twig. I'm not familiar with the germination of olive trees but I've seen entire fields turn green from black in less than a week, so it's really only an assumption that it means that everything was not destroyed.the second bird came back with a twig, which is showing that every living thing was NOT destroyed.
It's as near to it as I care to see and I'm sure there are those who escaped such event who return, who would argue that point. Remember too that people now have a lot of infrastructure to help mitigate the effect of the waters, though I freely admit the tsunami wasn't able to be planned for.no...no local flood has come that has wiped out everything in it's area..
not in New Orleans or India, as the most recent floods..
God did not lie.
That's just it, this what I've done, and I find that it is the only logical conclusion that the flood of Noah was global. I would recommend listening to this- http://scitascienda.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/2-20091114-wmbc-silvestru-flood.mp3listen, the longer your a Christian, the more you will respect others "opinions".
you may decide to study them to either disprove or confirm their hypothesis.
it is not all cut and dry. there are MANY translational errors in the english bibles.
Ones "opinion" about scripture may change over the years...
I used to believe the flood was not literal history, but metaphor.
then I believed it was history and literally world wide...
now I believe it to be local.
That's not really what I was saying, I was simply drawing the most logical conclusion from the scriptures. Perhaps if people would spend more time in scripture and less on the opinions of scientists who have assumptions of what happened we would be better off.it is not wise to say things like,
'if you don't agree with my opinion, then God must have lied.'
smite - nakah (naw-kaw')The Authorised Version of the Scriptures translates the Hebrew word in Genesis 8 v. 21 as 'smite' rather than 'destroy'.
This hydroplate theory is non-physical nonsense.
To make Noah's Flood global instead of large local (as I believe), we would have to believe in a magnificent miracle unrecorded and unattributed to God. I don't buy this. God created the universe and set it in motion with the Big Bang. As Thomas Aquinas first stated, there is no uncaused event. God spoke the first cause into existence. The universe has a beginning. From then on, God's incredible framework from the smallest particle known to physics to the largest in the universe, all follow the logic of our creator. H2O is always water, NH3 is always ammonia, etc. God has set up a predictable framework we are still trying to fully understand. But every event has a cause, randomness does not exist. Oh, something may appear random, but it's usually understood after much scientific study. I do not believe God would go against His own laws that hold together the universe. That's not to say I do not believe in miracles. God's will be done.NGC wrote:
Not only is the hydroplate "theory" non-physical nonsense, but the main proponent of it admits this. Baumgartner has publically stated that the hydroplate idea won't work, unless one literally ignores the laws of physics to make it work.
Conveniently, Baumgartner says that the God miraculously changed the laws of physics during the flood to allow his hydroplate story to actually happen. You know your so-called "scientific" idea is incorrect when you have to invoke miracles to get it to work.
Papias
For those who believe in a Global Flood, I ask one more time: where did the water come from and where did it go. The physics of Noah's Flood don't add up.
Where were the laws of physics when Jesus walked on water?
Where were the laws of physics when Jesus immediately turned water into wine?
Where were the laws of physics when God parted the Red Sea so that Israelites could cross on dry land?
Where were the laws of physics when Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave?
Where were the laws of physics when Jesus Himself was raised from the dead?
Where were the laws of physics when God predicted things that would happen thousands of years into the future?
Where were the laws of physics when God made the Earth stand still and the day lasted until Joshua had won the battle?
Where were the laws of physics when Samson's strength was in his hair?
Where were the paws of physics when Jesus shall come again to resurrect all the dead in Christ and take them to heaven along with those of us that remain?
In Christ, GB
As I've said quite often, I am not an evolutionist, neither theistic nor secular. But the physics of what this man is claiming does not make sense. You might as well say it was a miracle that defies explanation. Consider the four rivers mentioned in Genesis in relation to the garden of Eden. Three of those rivers exist now as they did in Adam's time. The fourth has been identified by satellite photos and is now dry. But it did exist. The upheaval here would not have left them untouched, in my opinion.How about looking at Noah's flood from a scientific point of view.
102 - A Universal Flood - Amazing Discoveries TV
As I've said quite often, I am not an evolutionist, neither theistic nor secular. But the physics of what this man is claiming does not make sense. You might as well say it was a miracle that defies explanation. Consider the four rivers mentioned in Genesis in relation to the garden of Eden. Three of those rivers exist now as they did in Adam's time. The fourth has been identified by satellite photos and is now dry. But it did exist. The upheaval here would not have left them untouched, in my opinion.
So if you believe this is scientific, do you also accept the Big Bang and the age of the Earth as scientifically determined at 4.54 billion years old? There is a lot of experimental data to support an old universe. You cannot believe this man and believe in a young Earth. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Here's another opinion on Noah's Flood. This is not something we as Christians should divide over. The Gap Theory and Local Flood take the Bible as literal as the 6000 year old Earth and Global Flood do.
The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
Yes. This is not the first time I've heard this argument, although I'm not familiar with this speaker's work (except from listening to it earlier today). There's some indication he is associated with the SDA, although I do not know this for certain. I am highly skeptical of his work and the organization that supports his seminars.Have you even looked at the video. The video is showing that the evidence of what we see in nature right now shows that a flood must have occured as the bible says it. Not that the flood happened because of some scientific event.
Yes. This is not the first time I've heard this argument, although I'm not familiar with this speaker's work (except from listening to it earlier today). There's some indication he is associated with the SDA, although I do not know this for certain. I am highly skeptical of his work and the organization that supports his seminars.
That's my fault. I did not do due diligence when I provided that link. I usually recommend the book "A Biblical Case for an Old Earth" by David Snoke, which includes a section on Noah's Flood being local. Other parts of the book I do not agree with (his viewpoint is Theistic Evolutionist). What you have to realize is I adhere to the Gap Theory, pretty much in line with Dr. Finis Jennings Dake, "The Bible Knowledge Commentary" and "Unger's Commentary of the Old Testament". Part of the Gap Theory version I ascribe to shows Biblically there were two floods. One was a global flood between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and the other was a large local flood, this being Noah's Flood. There is scientific evidence for a large local flood. One scientific book is:That paper is not as well thought out as it appears in first reading. The author ignores as many passages as he/she quotes in their defense of a local event. In fact, in more than one occasion,the author literally had to leave off some part of a passage to make his/her viewpoint sound even remotely viable. I could literally take any part of that paper and "tear it to shreds" from a biblical perspective.
In Christ, GB
Being an engineer with a scientific background, I am trained to look at data without preconceived opinions, letting the data speak for itself. It does matter where the information comes from, most assuredly. Why believe one man standing against a whole host of scientists who are not trying to fund SDA mission trips to India? Pray for wisdom and discernment, and I will do the same. Hopefully, a respected scientific journal will look into this hypothesis to see if it has any merit.Take an objective approach to listening to the information. Should it really matter if he is SDA or Catholic, if the information is credible? I'm not presented the guy to you, but the information.
I wish I could provide you with a link, but I did see a satellite photo that pretty much showed the 4th river bed, right where the Bible said it would be. The information was within the last year if I remember correctly, but I just don't remember the source. Reading Genesis it always bothered me where that 4th river was. As for evolution, theistic or darwinian, I'll leave that for others to argue. I have my answer. My scientific mind is at peace with what God has shown me in His word.Just tossing my two cents worth in, think nothing of it. Anyway, never really had a problem with a local flood, it sure could make the timeline for evolution a lot easier. Going from thousands of reptiles, birds, and mammals (including 8 humans) presents a radical accelerated evolution that would have scarred Charles Darwin to death.
That was an interesting thing about the four rivers BTW, I'll have to check into that.
Grace and peace,
Mark
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?