Taking the Bible literally is correct, but not the current reading.

John Bannister

Active Member
Apr 11, 2022
83
34
31
Ipswich
✟13,034.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
The falsehood I see over and over is people presenting
their personally chosen opinion of what the bible says
as Gods Word.
At the very best only one of the people with that claim
is right, and that seems like one too many.

A perfectly fair point, though it is the duty of every individual to figure out the truth for themselves, and being able to discuss things deeply gives more opening for different sorts of people to find their personal relationship with God. If whatever you do leads you closer in character to God, then follow it. Jesus said that every tribe and nation would have its saved, and he also said people will be judged justly, and by their deeds.

This stripped down and subjective reading of Scripture I am certain I can demonstrate lines up with the cutting edge of modern science in various fields. It is also the most Empathic reading (which is the most appropriate for reading any document which is not from your culture and/or time period), which is one of the lessons from the Christ.

Imagine you are the author of the book; their culture, their level of understanding, what they can see.
Christians imagine the Bible as written by God from His perspective, but it was written by men from their perspective, describing things which surpassed their understanding. It has their assumptions about the function of the world, their perspectives on describing miracle, their field of view even, and their context in being unaware of the extent of the world outside of the near East.

I spent almost my entire life as a firm Nihilistic Atheist, and was active in the online Atheist debate movement for many years. It was only by a personal revelation of God that I even considered reading the Bible without the unflattering "literal" reading of the mainstream.

Originally I thought I was going crazy so I tried to disprove God and Jesus to myself. It went the other way though, the more I tried, and now I just pray for wisdom because I'm in awe of what I've seen just from looking at the same world I'd always looked at before, and never truly seen. I wish I could open that to everyone, and I feel like I'm in a position to try.

Please, feel free to ask questions and to drill me. I know I showed up out of the blue with very new information which is a bit 'out there' on the face of it, but I'm here to learn and to teach, not to drive-by a copypasta
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,748
3,244
39
Hong Kong
✟151,324.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
A perfectly fair point, though it is the duty of every individual to figure out the truth for themselves, and being able to discuss things deeply gives more opening for different sorts of people to find their personal relationship with God. If whatever you do leads you closer in character to God, then follow it. Jesus said that every tribe and nation would have its saved, and he also said people will be judged justly, and by their deeds.

This stripped down and subjective reading of Scripture I am certain I can demonstrate lines up with the cutting edge of modern science in various fields. It is also the most Empathic reading (which is the most appropriate for reading any document which is not from your culture and/or time period), which is one of the lessons from the Christ.

Imagine you are the author of the book; their culture, their level of understanding, what they can see.
Christians imagine the Bible as written by God from His perspective, but it was written by men from their perspective, describing things which surpassed their understanding. It has their assumptions about the function of the world, their perspectives on describing miracle, their field of view even, and their context in being unaware of the extent of the world outside of the near East.

I spent almost my entire life as a firm Nihilistic Atheist, and was active in the online Atheist debate movement for many years. It was only by a personal revelation of God that I even considered reading the Bible without the unflattering "literal" reading of the mainstream.

Originally I thought I was going crazy so I tried to disprove God and Jesus to myself. It went the other way though, the more I tried, and now I just pray for wisdom because I'm in awe of what I've seen just from looking at the same world I'd always looked at before, and never truly seen. I wish I could open that to everyone, and I feel like I'm in a position to try.

Please, feel free to ask questions and to drill me. I know I showed up out of the blue with very new information which is a bit 'out there' on the face of it, but I'm here to learn and to teach, not to drive-by a copypasta

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Those are rare enough!

Not central here, but id be interested in what in the bible
lines up with science. I dont see anything.

I do agree the bible was written by men, from their perspective-
which to me is saying no god had any part.

Was your family atheist? Thats kind of an important detail.
One seldom finds an " atheist turned to god" who was not a
theist who dabbled with disbelief.
Many of them act like ex smokers, so militant against
the church. And then flip and go all militant
against atheism, with a dollop of " I was there but now...".

Sorry you experienced nihilism. Its an extreme and
unhealthy mental state.
To the extent I experienced it, it was amidst the devastation
from a a sadistic rape.
Im glad you found a way out, whatever it was that precipitated
such alienation in the first place.
Many find a revelation (real or otherwise )
comes after a period of deep stress- a very
understandable device the mind uses!

None of this is to say the Christian way at its best
is anything but noble and prriseworthy.

Its not for me, but then we are all different.

Im glad it works for you.
 
Upvote 0

John Bannister

Active Member
Apr 11, 2022
83
34
31
Ipswich
✟13,034.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Those are rare enough!

Not central here, but id be interested in what in the bible
lines up with science. I dont see anything.

The connection with the Acacia bush and Moses is really compelling, especially when you consider the reading of the Bible done by Professor Jordan Peterson from his perspective as a psychologist and highlighting the parable nature of the story as well as its psychological truth which presents as more advanced than modern psychology until recently. It's worth researching the details and figuring out how they are connected to the Acacia, but I don' think I'm even allowed to hand hold people down that line, just suggest they look into it.

Things I've been looking in to most is how taking into account the perspective of the author you can get a clearer picture of what is being described, and this more closely lines up with evidenced history than with the Christian narative which is placed on top of the Bible.

I'll take the Great Flood as my favourite example currently because it's so dramatic, and well evidenced, to the point that it's only not mainstream because the "Christian Scientists" insist on 4500bc as the flood date, and keep looking on top of mountains instead of on the rocky coast of Armenia which is what the Bible says.

12,600BC at the end of the Ice Age. As evidenced: The north American ice cap was hit by a comet, the ice was converted instantly and a large portion of this flooded out of a crack in the ice wall in Washington State: this water flow left vast geological scars on the landscape which are so huge we didn't fully recognise them until Satellite imagery (Washington to California, stripped to bedrock, with beach runoff scaring spreading out as far as Arkaskas to the east). This also presented with a month of rainfall, and in North America especially unflooded areas show evidence of vast forest fires.
The 100+ metre permanent sea level rise caused by this event is still in place today, and it changed the world from a place where everywhere on earth was reachable by coastal shipping, and the climate was regulated by large icecaps, to a world which seems to be self-regulating to the point it has been unusually stable since the comet hit. This is shown in ice core samples studying the probable climate back 110,000 years or so.
This event in 12,600BC was also the final straw for the 'megafauna' which were humanity's primary source of food before that point.
The culture at Gobeklitepe in Turkey, which presented with a sort of 'godking' culture like the ancient Egyptians, making a lot of statues to tall individuals with big chins and long heads, and had a similar technological decline from a mysterious start, before the site and others like it were deliberately buried.
From there we get to the Bible, where it describes a man getting into a very large boat with all his animals, family and provisions to re-start. The boat only had one window and he kept it firmly shut until he was totally sure things had calmed down, by his own words (or by Moses telling the story from Noah's perspective). He might have spent 150 days out of sight of land in his boat which had no method of propulsion, or he might simply have not even looked. Either way, considering he gives his landing place as Armenia, and the height of the mountains in his area as 15 cubits, then it looks like he's describing being from the area of the Black Sea which was not underwater before the end of the ice age.

I do agree the bible was written by men, from their perspective-
which to me is saying no god had any part.
Personally I see this as a non-sequitur. I used to believe similar things, but it seems to be based on the perception of a Pagan God, who is a person living on a cloud, as far as I can tell.
I used to also believe that understanding any scientific concept gave me power over it, and understanding beyond the creation of the thing.

Was your family atheist? Thats kind of an important detail.
One seldom finds an " atheist turned to god" who was not a
theist who dabbled with disbelief.
Many of them act like ex smokers, so militant against
the church. And then flip and go all militant
against atheism, with a dollop of " I was there but now...".
My family were practicing nihilists who presented as Mormons in order to try look better in public, at least that's a summary I built from growing up with them. Deeply narcissistic people, who were different in public than they were in private. I was the scapegoat, blamed for everything that ever went wrong, and constantly berated and bullied through childhood, and told I was a freak and an evil person. At the same time we had to be a perfect christian family in public.
My introduction to Religion was as a tool of control and to manipulate to perceptions of others, a cynical tool for narcissists to hide their evil deeds behind a façade of allegiance to good. I remember playing along for a while in my young years, but by the time I was 8 years old I had written off the idea of God as a fantasy created by evil people.
I'm not sure how that experience fits in. I know exactly the type you are talking about. I have been loudly prayed over in public by people shouting at me to accept Jesus into my heart, and seen how they scatter when I pull my copy of the King James out of my tracksuit hoody.
There's a lot of shouting about turning away from former sin, insistence on believing in Jesus to make your sins go away. Every preacher of that movement seems to be an ex inappropriate contentographer or an ex burglar or an ex addict. I don't really fit into that crowd.
I have known one man who even tried to use the thumb-to-the-forehead trick on me, which is a known tactic of cult leaders to induce a mystical experience in the person which is then falsely attributed to the leader.
I know the people who spend their mid 20s angry at God and then go back to a life of condemning others for the same. Getting shouted at about sins I'm assumed to have engaged in strikes me as odd.

Maybe it's because I'm British and was relatively calm and boring my whole life, but there's something quite annoying about being accosted in public to asked about my sexual history, and be told things like "Remember all the times you've stolen from people." I won't claim to be perfect, but I'm not as imperfect as the apparent intended audience of such public displays. My biggest problem is swearing like a trooper, and getting through a lot of cigarettes, but God is working on me in those areas already.

I think I'm just sort of rambling here though because I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say, except that I understand the people you're talking about.


Sorry you experienced nihilism. Its an extreme and
unhealthy mental state.
To the extent I experienced it, it was amidst the devastation
from a a sadistic rape.
Im glad you found a way out, whatever it was that precipitated
such alienation in the first place.
Many find a revelation (real or otherwise )
comes after a period of deep stress- a very
understandable device the mind uses!

None of this is to say the Christian way at its best
is anything but noble and prriseworthy.

Its not for me, but then we are all different.

Im glad it works for you.

I can relate to that sort of thing.
I was raised in an abusive home, and by the time I was 5 I was utterly terrified and hated my mother, though I didn't know it wasn't normal at the time. It's only since I found God that I started to really unpack those things. The worst of the abuse happened when I was a very small child, so I have quite a few unusual memories from before you're supposed to remember, when the memory is retained in dreams, and I had to deal with those nightmares for all of my childhood.

I avoid calling myself a Christian generally, because I think it would be just as accurate to call me a Muslim, or a Jew. Or at least what those three things should be.
It is a shame, that few follow the book, and few worship God without shirk. Muslims pray to rocks as Pagans do, and enforce ritual and torture. Jews curse chickens as Pagans do, and enforce ritual and torture. Christians bow to statues as Pagans do, and enforce ritual and torture.
The Muslims have their Hadiths, the Jews have their Talmud, and Christianity has the animated cartoons.

The Truth which is the spirit which Jesus taught of, is rejected in favour of authorities on earth, as Jesus warned.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,748
3,244
39
Hong Kong
✟151,324.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
The connection with the Acacia bush and Moses is really compelling, especially when you consider the reading of the Bible done by Professor Jordan Peterson from his perspective as a psychologist and highlighting the parable nature of the story as well as its psychological truth which presents as more advanced than modern psychology until recently. It's worth researching the details and figuring out how they are connected to the Acacia, but I don' think I'm even allowed to hand hold people down that line, just suggest they look into it.

Things I've been looking in to most is how taking into account the perspective of the author you can get a clearer picture of what is being described, and this more closely lines up with evidenced history than with the Christian narative which is placed on top of the Bible.

I'll take the Great Flood as my favourite example currently because it's so dramatic, and well evidenced, to the point that it's only not mainstream because the "Christian Scientists" insist on 4500bc as the flood date, and keep looking on top of mountains instead of on the rocky coast of Armenia which is what the Bible says.

12,600BC at the end of the Ice Age. As evidenced: The north American ice cap was hit by a comet, the ice was converted instantly and a large portion of this flooded out of a crack in the ice wall in Washington State: this water flow left vast geological scars on the landscape which are so huge we didn't fully recognise them until Satellite imagery (Washington to California, stripped to bedrock, with beach runoff scaring spreading out as far as Arkaskas to the east). This also presented with a month of rainfall, and in North America especially unflooded areas show evidence of vast forest fires.
The 100+ metre permanent sea level rise caused by this event is still in place today, and it changed the world from a place where everywhere on earth was reachable by coastal shipping, and the climate was regulated by large icecaps, to a world which seems to be self-regulating to the point it has been unusually stable since the comet hit. This is shown in ice core samples studying the probable climate back 110,000 years or so.
This event in 12,600BC was also the final straw for the 'megafauna' which were humanity's primary source of food before that point.
The culture at Gobeklitepe in Turkey, which presented with a sort of 'godking' culture like the ancient Egyptians, making a lot of statues to tall individuals with big chins and long heads, and had a similar technological decline from a mysterious start, before the site and others like it were deliberately buried.
From there we get to the Bible, where it describes a man getting into a very large boat with all his animals, family and provisions to re-start. The boat only had one window and he kept it firmly shut until he was totally sure things had calmed down, by his own words (or by Moses telling the story from Noah's perspective). He might have spent 150 days out of sight of land in his boat which had no method of propulsion, or he might simply have not even looked. Either way, considering he gives his landing place as Armenia, and the height of the mountains in his area as 15 cubits, then it looks like he's describing being from the area of the Black Sea which was not underwater before the end of the ice age.


Personally I see this as a non-sequitur. I used to believe similar things, but it seems to be based on the perception of a Pagan God, who is a person living on a cloud, as far as I can tell.
I used to also believe that understanding any scientific concept gave me power over it, and understanding beyond the creation of the thing.


My family were practicing nihilists who presented as Mormons in order to try look better in public, at least that's a summary I built from growing up with them. Deeply narcissistic people, who were different in public than they were in private. I was the scapegoat, blamed for everything that ever went wrong, and constantly berated and bullied through childhood, and told I was a freak and an evil person. At the same time we had to be a perfect christian family in public.
My introduction to Religion was as a tool of control and to manipulate to perceptions of others, a cynical tool for narcissists to hide their evil deeds behind a façade of allegiance to good. I remember playing along for a while in my young years, but by the time I was 8 years old I had written off the idea of God as a fantasy created by evil people.
I'm not sure how that experience fits in. I know exactly the type you are talking about. I have been loudly prayed over in public by people shouting at me to accept Jesus into my heart, and seen how they scatter when I pull my copy of the King James out of my tracksuit hoody.
There's a lot of shouting about turning away from former sin, insistence on believing in Jesus to make your sins go away. Every preacher of that movement seems to be an ex inappropriate contentographer or an ex burglar or an ex addict. I don't really fit into that crowd.
I have known one man who even tried to use the thumb-to-the-forehead trick on me, which is a known tactic of cult leaders to induce a mystical experience in the person which is then falsely attributed to the leader.
I know the people who spend their mid 20s angry at God and then go back to a life of condemning others for the same. Getting shouted at about sins I'm assumed to have engaged in strikes me as odd.

Maybe it's because I'm British and was relatively calm and boring my whole life, but there's something quite annoying about being accosted in public to asked about my sexual history, and be told things like "Remember all the times you've stolen from people." I won't claim to be perfect, but I'm not as imperfect as the apparent intended audience of such public displays. My biggest problem is swearing like a trooper, and getting through a lot of cigarettes, but God is working on me in those areas already.

I think I'm just sort of rambling here though because I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say, except that I understand the people you're talking about.




I can relate to that sort of thing.
I was raised in an abusive home, and by the time I was 5 I was utterly terrified and hated my mother, though I didn't know it wasn't normal at the time. It's only since I found God that I started to really unpack those things. The worst of the abuse happened when I was a very small child, so I have quite a few unusual memories from before you're supposed to remember, when the memory is retained in dreams, and I had to deal with those nightmares for all of my childhood.

I avoid calling myself a Christian generally, because I think it would be just as accurate to call me a Muslim, or a Jew. Or at least what those three things should be.
It is a shame, that few follow the book, and few worship God without shirk. Muslims pray to rocks as Pagans do, and enforce ritual and torture. Jews curse chickens as Pagans do, and enforce ritual and torture. Christians bow to statues as Pagans do, and enforce ritual and torture.
The Muslims have their Hadiths, the Jews have their Talmud, and Christianity has the animated cartoons.

The Truth which is the spirit which Jesus taught of, is rejected in favour of authorities on earth, as Jesus warned.
Too much for me to respond to but-
I did a double major bachelors, geology and biology,
so Ive some idea of earth history.
The impact crater on Greenland for example.

You might want to revisit that, I dont know your source
but its quite garbled, a lot of totally unsubstantiated
overreach. Reads like velikovski.

The existence of "noahs ark" or connection
to said imoact is pure fantasy, so withal
i would have to say that "lining up with science"
is not something found in the bible.
Massive crater under Greenland's ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans

You might also look up nihilism.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,163
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


So starts the King James translation of the Bible. A description of a void, in which nothing exists except God. This description uses 'earth' to mean everything.
Hi, John.

I'm confused by this.

In vs one, you have three things: God, heaven, earth.

In vs two, earth is described as "without form and void."

Yet you call it "a description of a void."

It's not a description of a void, it is the description of the earth.

Then you say, "in which nothing exists except God," when clearly the vs before it says God, heaven, and earth exist.

What am I missing here?
 
Upvote 0

John Bannister

Active Member
Apr 11, 2022
83
34
31
Ipswich
✟13,034.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Too much for me to respond to but-
I did a double major bachelors, geology and biology,
so Ive some idea of earth history.
The impact crater on Greenland for example.

You might want to revisit that, I dont know your source
but its quite garbled, a lot of totally unsubstantiated
overreach. Reads like velikovski.

The existence of "noahs ark" or connection
to said imoact is pure fantasy, so withal
i would have to say that "lining up with science"
is not something found in the bible.
Massive crater under Greenland's ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans

You might also look up nihilism.

This vague overarching dismissal leaves no room for an honest response.

Hi, John.

I'm confused by this.

In vs one, you have three things: God, heaven, earth.

In vs two, earth is described as "without form and void."

Yet you call it "a description of a void."

It's not a description of a void, it is the description of the earth.

Then you say, "in which nothing exists except God," when clearly the vs before it says God, heaven, and earth exist.

What am I missing here?

Earth means land, or known earth, in historical documents from before the modern age. It doesn't mean Earth as in the planet as constructed in later scientific models. In Genesis it isn't even land at first, as it describes space, very clearly, and then describes the land coming together out of it before the oceans are then formed on the land.

Moses had no idea he lived on a planet, or that space exists, but he was shown it anyway, and described it as best he could. God showed him this in vision, via the Acacia bush, I am quite certain from the language in the Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,163
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Earth means land, or known earth, in historical documents from before the modern age.
Historical documents from before the modern age are a dime a dozen with nine cents change.

Modern age documents have tares in them.
John Bannister said:
It doesn't mean Earth as in the planet ...
I respectfully disagree.
John Bannister said:
... as constructed in later scientific models.
Now there I do agree with you.
John Bannister said:
In Genesis it isn't even land at first,
This is correct.
John Bannister said:
... as it describes space, very clearly,
What?

The first object with mass in the universe was Earth.

Earth consisted of a volume of sea water in the hollow of God's hand.

Thus it was "without form and void" -- (unless you want to consider it was plano-convex in shape).
John Bannister said:
... and then describes the land coming together out of it ...
That is correct.

When it was time for land to appear, God spoke, and the elements in the sea water* came together in just the right portion to create land.

* Sea water contains all the elements in the Periodic Table, sans the synthetic ones.

Then God spoke and the sea "gave up the land" and the land arose out of the ocean (called "Panthalassa" in college cliche).
John Bannister said:
... before the oceans are then formed on the land.
Um ... no.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,748
3,244
39
Hong Kong
✟151,324.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
This vague overarching dismissal leaves no room for an honest response.



Earth means land, or known earth, in historical documents from before the modern age. It doesn't mean Earth as in the planet as constructed in later scientific models. In Genesis it isn't even land at first, as it describes space, very clearly, and then describes the land coming together out of it before the oceans are then formed on the land.

Moses had no idea he lived on a planet, or that space exists, but he was shown it anyway, and described it as best he could. God showed him this in vision, via the Acacia bush, I am quite certain from the language in the Scripture.
An honest response is simple.
Start by observing that your ideas about the impact
are seriously confused. Start with that it wasnt a comet.
You got the point of impact wrong.

The Missoula flood had nothing to do with the meteor on
Greenland.
The errors keep coming after that.
But if you want to put it off on me that I am just
being dismissive and you know so much, fine.
Discredit your notions to your hearts content.
I wont offer any more help if you are going to reject
it and imply I am not honest.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

John Bannister

Active Member
Apr 11, 2022
83
34
31
Ipswich
✟13,034.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Historical documents from before the modern age are a dime a dozen with nine cents change.

Modern age documents have tares in them.
I respectfully disagree.
Now there I do agree with you.
This is correct.
What?
The first object with mass in the universe was Earth.
I think the point of that ordering was to emphasise that God knew exactly what he was doing with Earth long before he started, and the design was in place for us before. It may have been rearranged by the deceivers while they had possession of the Book in the centuries before the Christ came.
Consider also little h heaven vs big h Heaven, which can be very relevant with the same author.
Moses wrote: "and the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
He then created light, and then split all of his creation in two. The upper realm is Heaven, and the lower realm is earth, which has the Earth within it.
Only when God has created the planet, and placed the waters on it, does it come with the name Earth, which is to mean Earth the whole, not earth as in the land or the known land.


Earth consisted of a volume of sea water in the hollow of God's hand.

Thus it was "without form and void" -- (unless you want to consider it was plano-convex in shape).That is correct.

When it was time for land to appear, God spoke, and the elements in the sea water* came together in just the right portion to create land.

* Sea water contains all the elements in the Periodic Table, sans the synthetic ones.
That's certainly one way to read it, but I have no idea why you should interpret these assumptions onto single words, when the words speak plainly themselves?

Then God spoke and the sea "gave up the land" and the land arose out of the ocean (called "Panthalassa" in college cliche).
Um ... no.

"...and God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth, and the coming together of the waters he called seas..."
(King James Version)

During the last Ice Age everywhere on Earth was connected, so anywhere could be accessed via coastal shipping. Is this what you mean by Panthalassa?
 
Upvote 0

John Bannister

Active Member
Apr 11, 2022
83
34
31
Ipswich
✟13,034.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
An honest response is simple.
Start by observing that your ideas about the impact
are seriously confused. Start with that it wasnt a comet.
You got the point of impact wrong.

The Missoula flood had nothing to do with the meteor on
Greenland.
The errors keep coming after that.
But if you want to put it off on me that I am just
being dismissive and you know so much, fine.
Discredit your notions to your hearts content.
I wont offer any more help if you are going to reject
it and imply I am not honest.

You're simply telling me that I'm confused, while restating your assertions. Not with refutation, but by quoting what you claim to be your authority to dictate that I should be dismissed out of hand.
If you want to help, engage me in an actual conversation instead of casually dismissing my entire post without making any effort to respond to it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,163
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
During the last Ice Age everywhere on Earth was connected, so anywhere could be accessed via coastal shipping. Is this what you mean by Panthalassa?
Panthalassa, in college circles, is the name ascribed to the single ocean that existed, when the earth's landmass was a single landmass (Pangaea).

God created that single landmass under the ocean, then ordered the waters to "stand aside" and the landmass (called "Eden") appeared.

Here is a creationism test I once made up:

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".
3. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
4. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
13. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?
 
Upvote 0

John Bannister

Active Member
Apr 11, 2022
83
34
31
Ipswich
✟13,034.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Panthalassa, in college circles, is the name ascribed to the single ocean that existed, when the earth's landmass was a single landmass (Pangaea).

God created that single landmass under the ocean, then ordered the waters to "stand aside" and the landmass (called "Eden") appeared.

Here is a creationism test I once made up:

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".
3. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
4. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
13. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?

Pangea is long before the time period of the end of the Ice Age, though I don't suppose it matters much. You have received the Gospel already and can act it out in truth, no matter how you got to it.
Even if I were a full believer in the Creationist establishment idea of the nature of reality, I would advice that if you are to spread the Gospel to those people outside; meet them first on their own ground, and find a way to speak to them in language they will understand.
If they cannot believe you about earthly things, how then will they believe you about spiritual things?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,163
51,516
Guam
✟4,910,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I would advice that if you are to spread the Gospel to those people outside; meet them first on their own ground, and find a way to speak to them in language they will understand.
Thank you for the advice, John, but a lot of these people claim to have been believers at one time.

But something happened that made them trade in all this:

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,


... for a life devoid of God and the supernatural.

That "something," in my opinion, was an embracing of evolution.

And as Paul warned ...

Roman 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
 
Upvote 0

John Bannister

Active Member
Apr 11, 2022
83
34
31
Ipswich
✟13,034.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Thank you for the advice, John, but a lot of these people claim to have been believers at one time.

But something happened that made them trade in all this:

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,


... for a life devoid of God and the supernatural.

That "something," in my opinion, was an embracing of evolution.

And as Paul warned ...

Roman 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I can fully understand that, as it is truth, though it should not have been. The embrace of Evolution itself was not at issue, the issue was the asserted belief that to understand one aspect of Creation should give us sense that it was not Created.
Darwin himself sought the truths of Creation to give glory to God, as it should be for a man, and it bolstered his faith. Those who came after use his discovery to mock God, in arrogant claim that they had no need of Him, because they understand a part of His work.

You are right to attack their arrogance, and their dogmas, and their insistence on the explaining away of God who is greater than them, by stating their own vast knowledge on worldly things.
Forgive those who may have tried in their youth, but fell away, as they had only been hopeful, not in true knowledge of the living God who cannot be abandoned so easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0