Pangea in the Old Testament?

[BroRoyVa79]

The problem for YE creationists, is that the energy required to move continents thousands of miles in a few thousand years would boil the seas. So that's not a realistic possibility, unless one calls in another non-scriptural miracle to cover it up. But once one does that, all stories are equally likely.

Okay, let's ignore who caused the Flood. This is the problem for many OE creationists, everything starts with natural processes first until they remember, "Oh yeah, there's a God that could've did all of this in the blink of an eye."

But of course, if you assume everything happened as it happens today, slow, gradual processes until you need a fast event, then sure...sure...

That fails for many reasons. Would you like to see some examples?

Okay, if you say so and No, I said clearly, "Without getting into the weeds of arguing with those who try to read evolution into the Bible...." Didn't I?

 

[The Barbarian]

The problem for YE creationists, is that the energy required to move continents thousands of miles in a few thousand years would boil the seas. So that's not a realistic possibility, unless one calls in another non-scriptural miracle to cover it up. But once one does that, all stories are equally likely.

Okay, let's ignore who caused the Flood. This is the problem for many OE creationists, everything starts with natural processes first until they remember, "Oh yeah, there's a God that could've did all of this in the blink of an eye."

As I said, if you call in non-scriptural miracles to cover the flaws in your thinking, then all tales are equally plausible.

But of course, if you assume everything happened as it happens today, slow, gradual processes until you need a fast event, then sure...sure...

If you think that's the alternative to inventing new miracles to fix your errors, then you've completely misunderstood how the world works. The record of the Earth shows long periods of gradual change (such as plate movement) periodically interrupted by sudden events (such as the Chixulub event, Scablands flooding, and the Deccan Traps)

There are other theories about why certain similar plant and animal life is found on different continents as well such as early post-flood migration through various means such as land bridges, etc.

That fails for many reasons. Would you like to see some examples?

Okay, if you say so and No, I said clearly, "Without getting into the weeds of arguing with those who try to read evolution into the Bible...." Didn't I?

None of this has anything to do with evolution. And if you shy away from evidence, that's a pretty good indication that your stories can't handle inspection.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

The problem for YE creationists, is that the energy required to move continents thousands of miles in a few thousand years would boil the seas. So that's not a realistic possibility, unless one calls in another non-scriptural miracle to cover it up. But once one does that, all stories are equally likely.



As I said, if you call in non-scriptural miracles to cover the flaws in your thinking, then all tales are equally plausible.

You don't make sense. We've had this conversation before. Miracles are in the Bible. Move along now.

If you think that's the alternative to inventing new miracles to fix your errors, then you've completely misunderstood how the world works. The record of the Earth shows long periods of gradual change (such as plate movement) periodically interrupted by sudden events (such as the Chixulub event, Scablands flooding, and the Deccan Traps)



That fails for many reasons. Would you like to see some examples?



None of this has anything to do with evolution. And if you shy away from evidence, that's a pretty good indication that your stories can't handle inspection.

Again, miracles are in the Bible. To try to look at them negatively in regard to Bible stories that claim actual miracles for whatever reasoning you think is better is absurd. Move along now.

 

[Job 33:6]

You don't make sense. We've had this conversation before. Miracles are in the Bible. Move along now.




Again, miracles are in the Bible. To try to look at them negatively in regard to Bible stories that claim actual miracles for whatever reasoning you think is better is absurd. Move along now.

Not all proposed miracles are equally likely. One miracle, such as Jesus walking on water, hasn't left behind a trail of evidence to the contrary, as the history of the earth has.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Not all proposed miracles are equally likely. One miracle, such as Jesus walking on water, hasn't left behind a trail of evidence to the contrary, as the history of the earth has.

That's fine. I never said all miracles would provide evidence to the contrary. The history of the Earth includes a miracle. People who embrace OE tend to rule that obvious point out in favor of fallible man's musings of how the world came to be about without a miracle as if man's musings about the mechanisms of the universe have never been wrong and will never be wrong. Makes no sense to me.

Edited to add: If the Bible testifies of a miracle and then gives you the breakdown of how God worked that miracle and you go on to say "that's not how it was done because current year science theory says this..." I'm going to look at you funny. Makes no sense. Move along now.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's fine. I never said all miracles would provide evidence to the contrary. The history of the Earth includes a miracle. People who embrace OE tend to rule that obvious point out in favor of fallible man's musings of how the world came to be about without a miracle as if man's musings about the mechanisms of the universe have never been wrong and will never be wrong. Makes no sense to me.

Edited to add: If the Bible testifies of a miracle and then gives you the breakdown of how God worked that miracle and you go on to say "that's not how it was done because current year science theory says this..." I'm going to look at you funny. Makes no sense. Move along now.

Old earthers tend not to believe that scripture is incorrect, just that interpretations of it, made by people, are incorrect.

Aside from creation itself, what miracle are you referring to in the history of earth that old earthers rule out?

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Old earthers tend not to believe that scripture is incorrect, just that interpretations of it, made by people, are incorrect.

That's a veiled way of saying "Scripture is incorrect" especially when historically scripture has been seen as saying a particular thing about origins by and large by people closest to...I dunno, Jesus like the Apostles, etc.

Aside from creation itself, what miracle are you referring to in the history of earth that old earthers rule out?

Why are you asking me to change the subject away from the primary topic of discussion here, which is Genesis. That's foolish. We're talking about OE vs YE creation since Barbarian decided to challenge my post. It's moot to move outside of that topic. (Edited to add: I never brought up YE or OE creation, I simply answered OP's question)

I'll say this, an OE view of Genesis raises issues with other theological issues in the Bible. I'm sure you've heard all of them by now. No need to bring them all up again.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's a veiled way of saying "Scripture is incorrect"

That's a veiled way of saying that your (subjective) interpretation of scripture is more correct than everyone else's. A common issue even described by Jesus, that many Christians possess.

But onto your other response. You said :
"The history of the Earth includes a miracle. People who embrace OE tend to rule that obvious point out"

So I said:
"what miracle are you referring to?"

And now you're saying:
"Why are you asking me to change the subject away from the primary topic of discussion"

You introduced the idea of the history of earth including a miracle. I simply asked what you were referring to.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As I said, if you call in non-scriptural miracles to cover the flaws in your thinking, then all tales are equally plausible.

You don't make sense. We've had this conversation before.

I know. You don't seem to realize that if you can invent a new miracle every time your ideas run into trouble, any story would be equally true.

Miracles are in the Bible.

But the ones you need to make your new ideas plausible, are not. Move along now.

If the Bible testifies of a miracle and then gives you the breakdown of how God worked that miracle and you go on to say "that's not how it was done because current year science theory says this..."

If you invent a position for me, and insist that I believe it, you're going to look pretty silly. Move along now.

Again, miracles are in the Bible.

But yours aren't. And that's your problem. Move along now.

 

[Job 33:6]

"especially when historically scripture has been seen as saying a particular thing about origins "

And regarding this statement, Christians have never had a consensus on this topic. There have always been old earthers and young earthers.

Historically speaking, Christians have seen scripture as supporting old earth views and young earth views.

 

[Zachm531]

The problem for YE creationists, is that the energy required to move continents thousands of miles in a few thousand years would boil the seas. So that's not a realistic possibility, unless one calls in another non-scriptural miracle to cover it up. But once one does that, all stories are equally likely.



That fails for many reasons. Would you like to see some examples?

Regardless of young or old earth it doesnt really matter. You can interpret a day to be when the sun is out, 24 hours, 1 year , 1000 years or a time period(ie. back in my day) BUT Genesis leaves NO room for evolution of humans

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Barbarian observes:
As I said, if you call in non-scriptural miracles to cover the flaws in your thinking, then all tales are equally plausible.

Still not making sense.

I know. You don't seem to realize that if you can invent a new miracle every time your ideas run into trouble, any story would be equally true.

But the ones you need to make your new ideas plausible, are not. Move along now.

No one is making a new miracle. Not making sense, what are you talking about?
As always, I find your claim ironic, maybe hypocritical after the leaps and bounds you take to include "current year science theory" into scripture. Move along now.

If you invent a position for me, and insist that I believe it, you're going to look pretty silly. Move along now.

But yours aren't. And that's your problem. Move along now.

Mankind likes to act like he can discover everything about the universe through observing nature then makes up new ideas about his musings. OE creationists embrace those new ideas and come up with new ways of including them into the Biblical narrative. Again, your biased way of dealing with this is evident. We've had this conversation before about how you pick and choose things, yet you claim the same for others. Move along now.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

"especially when historically scripture has been seen as saying a particular thing about origins "

And regarding this statement, Christians have never had a consensus on this topic. There have always been old earthers and young earthers.

Historically speaking, Christians have seen scripture as supporting old earth views and young earth views.

If you've done any studying into historical views in Christianity then you know this statement you're making is demonstrably false. Aside from a few outliers and exceptions to the rule, most of Jewish traditional views and Christian traditional views saw a six-day creation in Genesis and believed it was done how God said he did it.

Edited to add: Even the ones who didn't see it that way by and large do not support an OE perspective. That's taking their words, their theological musings and twisting them to support "current year science theory."

Edited to add: And then there's the text and what it clearly says in both languages.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

But onto your other response. You said :
"The history of the Earth includes a miracle. People who embrace OE tend to rule that obvious point out"

So I said:
"what miracle are you referring to?"

And now you're saying:
"Why are you asking me to change the subject away from the primary topic of discussion"

You introduced the idea of the history of earth including a miracle. I simply asked what you were referring to.

Let's try this again, you posted it yourself. The subject of the conversation, I'll highlight it for you:

I said:
The history of the Earth includes a miracle. People who embrace OE tend to rule that obvious point out"

So you said:
"what miracle are you referring to?"

What do you think the answer to your question is?

That's a veiled way of saying that your (subjective) interpretation of scripture is more correct than everyone else's. A common issue even described by Jesus, that many Christians possess.

No. It's appreciating what the text says and not adding anything additional (current year science theory, that might change I'll add) to the text. It's not adding current year cultural ideas about origins and interpretations to the text. It's embracing the original meaning of the text. Just like plenty of believers before us did. Again, outliers and exceptions to the rule are not the rule so don't go quoting anyone who broke from tradition, from orthodox with their theological musings to try to say there was no rule.

Sure, false interpretations were and are prevalent which is why I advocate correct ways to interpret called hermeneutics which include taking history, culture, literary meaning, etc. into account. NOT current year trends that change. Not current year anti-supernaturalist beliefs that I borrow and try to read in between the lines of the Biblical text with. You do that, I look at you funny cause you're not making sense. You're taking anti-supernaturalist views and applying them to something that advocates supernatural.

Edited to add: Interesting you bring up Jesus, He cited Genesis as if it were history.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you've done any studying into historical views in Christianity then you know this statement you're making is demonstrably false. Aside from a few outliers and exceptions to the rule, most of Jewish traditional views and Christian traditional views saw a six-day creation in Genesis and believed it was done how God said he did it.

Edited to add: Even the ones who didn't see it that way by and large do not support an OE perspective. That's taking their words, their theological musings and twisting them to support "current year science theory."

Edited to add: And then there's the text and what it clearly says in both languages.

Plenty of early figures reject the day age view.

A kind of figurative view can be traced back at least to Saint Augustine in the 5th Century who pointed out, in De Genesi ad Litteram (On the Literal [Interpretation of] Genesis) that the "days" in Genesis could not be literal days, if only because Genesis itself tells us that the sun was not made until the fourth "day".[1]

Scottish lawyer and geologist Charles Lyell published his famous and influential work Principles of Geology in 1830–1833 which interpreted geologic change as the steady accumulation of minute changes over enormously long spans of time and that natural processes, uniformly applied over the length of that existence (uniformitarianism), could account for what men saw and studied in creation.

Along the same lines, but with deeper metaphysical considerations, St. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both recall Genesis 2:4: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,” as evidence that the “six days” are to be taken figuratively.9 In his Miscellanies, St. Clement notes that the creation could not have taken place in time because time itself was created.10 So, new things could be “generated” over a span of days, but creation itself did not transpire over a period of time but is rather the source of time.

Origen argues similarly that “there was not yet time before the world existed,”11 and that the first days cannot be taken literally because you cannot have a day without a sun,

https://blog.drwile.com/clement-of-alexandria-on-the-days-of-genesis/

Interpreting Genesis 1 with the Fathers of the Church | Thomistic Evolution


Since the 1700s, and the founding of modern geology, the church has continually transitioned away from yecism. And has been spoken of by many.

I'm sorry your view is limited to Jews that lived 2000 years ago who had little understanding of space, time or the earth.

 

[Job 33:6]

"What do you think the answer to your question is?"

I don't know. That's why I am asking.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Edited to add: Even the ones who didn't by and large do not support an OE perspective. "

I would agree that ancient Jews were not familiar with the earth.

But here we have an admission that there were figures who did not believe in a literalistic day age view.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Plenty of early figures reject the day age view.

A kind of figurative view can be traced back at least to Saint Augustine in the 5th Century who pointed out, in De Genesi ad Litteram (On the Literal [Interpretation of] Genesis) that the "days" in Genesis could not be literal days, if only because Genesis itself tells us that the sun was not made until the fourth "day".[1]

Scottish lawyer and geologist Charles Lyell published his famous and influential work Principles of Geology in 1830–1833 which interpreted geologic change as the steady accumulation of minute changes over enormously long spans of time and that natural processes, uniformly applied over the length of that existence (uniformitarianism), could account for what men saw and studied in creation.

Along the same lines, but with deeper metaphysical considerations, St. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both recall Genesis 2:4: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,” as evidence that the “six days” are to be taken figuratively.9 In his Miscellanies, St. Clement notes that the creation could not have taken place in time because time itself was created.10 So, new things could be “generated” over a span of days, but creation itself did not transpire over a period of time but is rather the source of time.

Origen argues similarly that “there was not yet time before the world existed,”11 and that the first days cannot be taken literally because you cannot have a day without a sun,

https://blog.drwile.com/clement-of-alexandria-on-the-days-of-genesis/

Interpreting Genesis 1 with the Fathers of the Church | Thomistic Evolution


Since the 1700s, and the founding of modern geology, the church has continually transitioned away from yecism. And has been spoken of by many.

I'm sorry your view is limited to Jews that lived 2000 years ago who had little understanding of space, time or the earth.

What did I say about outliers and exceptions to the rule. Also, make sure you are quoting them in context. Also Lyell and people in the 1800's aren't exactly early Church or Christian tradition.

I also find it interesting how you throw an underhanded insult at Ancient Jews who brought us the Bible because they didn't have current year science theories that aren't always definitive, I might add, about space, time, and the Earth. Oh, but I'm supposed to bow down to these ever changing science theories because scientists say so and they're oh so influential with their musings. Not that they haven't, don't ever change mind you. Oh, but let's go ahead and change the meaning of the Bible based on an anti-supernaturalist viewpoint.

Sure...sure...you do that.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

"What do you think the answer to your question is?"

I don't know. That's why I am asking.

Stop playing games. You know what the subject of the conversation was when Barbarian brought up his challenge.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

"Edited to add: Even the ones who didn't by and large do not support an OE perspective. "

I would agree that ancient Jews were not familiar with the earth.

But here we have an admission that there were figures who did not believe in a literalistic day age view.

Are you happy fighting that strawman you built. Tell me when I said there weren't people who didn't believe in the day age view. Please, go back and show me that.

Stop playing this game your on. Otherwise, move along now.

Edited to add: I wonder when your favorite current science theory will change on you since current year views about earth, the universe, etc. are so definitive, right?