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.
You may be dealing with a Poe, if not the standard reply is "My hovercraft if full of eels."What?
Again, demonstrate this.
Hahahaha. NO. The Moon is dry. People have been there. No water on the surface.
Which means exactly nothing.
The bible tells us that what it calls the fountains of the deep were broken, and the windows of heaven were opened. The Creationist viewpoint I have seen is that when God first created the earth, it was surrounded with an invisible water vapour canopy, which would have kept out harmful rays from the sun, and ensured an even temperature around the earth. With the Flood, God caused that canopy to fall as rain. I have never heard anyone suggest that it was an inter-stellar flood.Sounds like you never calculated where water actually came from.
I don't think the other sheep which Jesus said He has which are not of this fold says anything about "this planet having been destroyed and restored perhaps countless times." All the commentaries I have referred to (including Calvin, Clarke, Gill, Jamison Fausset & Brown, Poole, and Trapp) say that He was referring to Gentiles.I don't rule out, nor do I believe Scripture rules out the possibility that this planet has been destroyed and restored perhaps countless times.
One portion of Scripture is part of the reason I think this is true.
John 10:16:
'And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."
That's just one small piece of why I suspect this has been done perhaps and infinite number of times.
Therefore, we find burried evidence of the existence of life on earth long before the number of years Scripture tells gives us from Adam to Christ.
After all, He is God and can do as he pleases.
His plan for mankind has always included salvation of the gentiles.I don't think the other sheep which Jesus said He has which are not of this fold says anything about "this planet having been destroyed and restored perhaps countless times." All the commentaries I have referred to (including Calvin, Clarke, Gill, Jamison Fausset & Brown, Poole, and Trapp) say that He was referring to Gentiles.
Also, a multitude which no man could count:His plan for mankind has always included salvation of the gentiles.
He chose the Hebrew people to reveal Himself to all the world.
But I understand your strong skepticism.
Did He not tell Adam and his wife to replenish the earth?
I don't see anything yet in scripture that rules out my observation.
Where did God tell Adam and Eve to replenish the earth? He told them to be fruitful, to fill the earth, but not replenish it. It wasn't that the earth had once been filled with people before Adam, and was now empty, and God was telling him and Eve to refill it.His plan for mankind has always included salvation of the gentiles.
He chose the Hebrew people to reveal Himself to all the world.
But I understand your strong skepticism.
Did He not tell Adam and his wife to replenish the earth?
I don't see anything yet in scripture that rules out my observation.
Genesis 1:28 kjvWhere did God tell Adam and Eve to replenish the earth? He told them to be fruitful, to fill the earth, but not replenish it. It wasn't that the earth had once been filled with people before Adam, and was now empty, and God was telling him and Eve to refill it.
Granted, only a handful of translations use the term "replenish". But there are some.Genesis 1:28 kjv
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
I hope my post does not come between us. I am just trying to "consider" God's creation and with eternity in mind. That's a long time.Granted, only a handful of translations use the term "replenish". But there are some.
I have always read KJV only...easier to remember.
Thank you. I was using the NKJV, which has "fill". In fact the bible dictionary I use gives these definitions for the word:Genesis 1:28 kjv
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
It's not possible for the Biblical account of the flood of Noah's day to be geographically local. These scriptures cannot be changed to support "the possibility that the flood was not global".That still leaves the possibility that the flood was not global.
The Bible does not say how old the earth is.Let me ask you something, how old is the earth?
If oceans of water were to enter the system from one side of the earth, all the water will push up from the other side.The bible tells us that what it calls the fountains of the deep were broken, and the windows of heaven were opened. The Creationist viewpoint I have seen is that when God first created the earth, it was surrounded with an invisible water vapour canopy, which would have kept out harmful rays from the sun, and ensured an even temperature around the earth. With the Flood, God caused that canopy to fall as rain. I have never heard anyone suggest that it was an inter-stellar flood.
The 6 days of creation were not all 24 hour days, as the Sun was not created till day 4.It's not possible for the Biblical account of the flood of Noah's day to be geographically local. These scriptures cannot be changed to support "the possibility that the flood was not global".
It is possible for persons to discard what the Bible says, and claim that the flood of Noah's day was not global... which is what many are doing, in order to avoid ridicule, and try to fit in with philosophical claims.
The Bible does not say how old the earth is.
Scientists believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old - give or take a few hundred million years.
However, this idea is based on using radiometric dating on an old zircon rock from Australia.
The method [of radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating] compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay.
Of course, while it is believed that the measurement is accurate, it is not necessarily the case. See here.
I do not know how old the earth is, but if your reason for asking, is with respects to the Genesis account, the earth is thousands of years older than Adam was.
I think more along the lines of geological showings than philosophical.and try to fit in with philosophical claims.
To you, and other opposes, yes.To me, this is the core of your response.
Science doesn't know everything, therefore I can dismiss everything known to science. Scientific evidence is not factual, because scientists are viewpoint biased.
Note. This is not me saying this:I think this renders and hope of an honest discussion with you null and void. You're taking a position where any evidence that is contrary to your position (or you can't misconstrue/distort to support it) is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because it doesn't support your position.
You're pre-supposing the answer (the Bible is accurate and a global flood happened) and ignoring any countervailing data that refutes these points.
Okay. So it is not proven wrong, so it is right, until it is wrong?Reliability is the wrong metric here. That's a bit like asking what flavour an inch is. Evidentiary support is the metric here, along with usefulness and verifiability/falsifiability.
So no, I don't think they'll ever "find an accurate answer that is 99.9% reliable", because time is linear in one direction and all we have to go on are the fragmentary remains left to us.
But, we can look at the evidence and build useful, testable answers and then accept those provisionally as the best supported theories until something better comes along.
Science works by assuming the answer arrived at is WRONG, and then trying to prove that so. Only when you've failed to prove a hypothesis wrong do you then go publish it. And, the reason you publish it is so that other people can work out if you're wrong.
I asked because I wanted to know. Thank you.You've got that question backwards. What possible reason should I have to believe the Bible is reliable at all?
On an evidentiary basis, I find it no more credible than any other Near Eastern creation myth of the same time frame.
So, there is no good evidence that mammoth went extinct around 4,000 years ago, as stated by www.nationalgeographic.com - Around 4,000 years ago, the very last woolly mammoths perished and forever relegated the species to extinction., and there is no good evidence of a global flood, but there is good evidence mammoth "may have died out about ~3700 years ago".But, we have good evidence they didn't all go extinct 4000 years ago. And we have good evidence that mammoths didn't die out as the result of a sudden catastrophe.
The best evidence available to us shows the the inhabited range and population suze of mammoths declined over a period of at least 20,000 years. A combination of climactic change and predation are though to be responsible.
We also know that mammoths died out in different regions at different times. Evidence from preserved remains shows that mammoths disappeared from Northern Europe somewhere around 3000 to 5000 thousand years before those in North American. And Siberian populations didn't did out until about 1000-2000 years later still.
The final known population - an isolated reproductive group in Wangel Island - may have died out suddenly about ~3700 years ago. But, even then there's no good evidence to support the proposition that a global flood was responsible for their extinction.
There is a long series of bottlenecks recognized by scientists.But, we have no evidence of a global flood.
Such an event would have produced distinct global population and genetic bottlenecks. There is no evidence of such.
Such an event would have produced a distinct interruptions in human cultures. There's no evidence of that within the last 25,000 years, all the way up to the epipaleolithic-paleolithic boundary. Any older than that and it's not really worth talking about 'cultures' in the same sense.
As I said, I am no geologist.There's so much wrong here, I'm going to touch only an a few points.
I'm very much a Lover of God. And the Earth from my experience can not lie being made by the hand of God. So when stories from an ancient middle-eastern desert tribe are brought forward into today's world, I have to look at what the Earth itSelf, as created by God, is actually showing us. That doesn't take God out of the picture, but it sure questions those ancient stories in a major way.
Your quite wrong there. Geology of floods are well understood. If there is no evidence of a global flood, especially one that was suppose to happen only 4000 years ago, there was no global flood.
As I mentioned above, the geology of floods are well understood. There's not really much difference in interpretation these days. When it comes to floods geology, interpretation isn't a problem. The only difference geologist might have would be water rate and flow or how many times not unlike the Ice Age Floods in the Pacific Northwest. The depth is easy to interpret. The physical geology left behind tells the story. When it comes to the physical story of a global Noah flood...there simply is no physical evidence of said flood.
When going through the paper and as I read this part I was pretty blown away at his ignorance of glaciers and moraine rocks that the author exhibited. He clearly had not visited nor studied glaciers. His focus is archaeology which is the focus of most of the paper, but clearly not geology. Moraine's are only found at the edge of ice flows. Google "Foothills Erratic Train" for a 580 mile long example.
I'm also wondering how the author would approach the more than 350 lava flows of Columbia River Basalt groups, also here in the Pacific North West, with the same ignorance of geology as he's shown in the paper.
That is a good question, which you will have to take up with those who believe that God "knows everything that has or will happen".This may be off topic, but the biblical account of Noah's flood is illogical. Here's Genesis 6:
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (RSV)
If God is omniscient--and knows everything that has or will happen--why would God be grieved by the wickedness of mankind? It makes no sense that--except for one man and his family-- an all-knowing, supreme God would be shocked by the bad behavior of his own creation. The only logical explanation as I see it, is that this is an origin myth like many others, in may other religious faiths.
Do you believe some of those six days were twenty-four (24) hours, while some were not?The 6 days of creation were not all 24 hour days, as the Sun was not created till day 4.
The sun as we all know, is responsible for 24 hour timing.
hence the first 3 - 3.5 days were not timeable, or at least were not 24 hours
In fact these 3 -3.5 days are near eternal and are experienced again by the Lord in his descension, and the 2 witnesses.
I just used a basic reference.I think more along the lines of geological showings than philosophical.
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?