The Flood: Varves

[Vance]

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

This article has already been critiqued and shown to be both a non-issue (TE's are NOT day-agers) and and sorely lacking in literary anaylsis.

 

[Biliskner]

This article has already been critiqued and shown to be both a non-issue (TE's are NOT day-agers) and and sorely lacking in literary anaylsis.

te's vs dayagers?
what the heck are you on about?

the article is about:

THE "DAYS" OF CREATION IN GENESIS 1:
LITERAL "DAYS" OR FIGURATIVE "PERIODS/EPOCHS" OF TIME?


oh, that copied and pasted text was the title - did you even load the webpage?

whatever Vance, like I said about 10 days ago, you can read Genesis however you like. it is clear that even in the face of Hebrew you will say the text is both true and false at the same time. and non-literal because it fits into your worldview.
if it works in your brain fine.

stop being a stirrer. and stop being an argumentative Christian and go read James, 1Timothy, 2Timothy and Titus, just to give the Holy Spirit some time and space in your life.

 

[SBG]

This article has already been critiqued and shown to be both a non-issue (TE's are NOT day-agers) and and sorely lacking in literary anaylsis.

I believe anything you don't agree with is lacking.

Biliskner, Vance most likely only looked at the few sections that talked about the word 'yom' and dismissed the parts that talk about the whole chapter(s) being figurative.

Vance also likes the argument that because 'erets is used for land, it must not have been meant for the usage of earth, when the flood is involved. He forgets that context with hebrew means everything, not just the word.

What he doesn't know is that 'erets also means sheol and has been used in that meaning. Context, context, context.

 

[Vance]

First of all, I did a full critique of that article for another YEC a number of months back, and it covered the entire article. It took me a long time to go through, and I don't think I should have to do that every time a new YEC comes along and brings it up again like some new discovery.

Second, you did not respond at all to the long list of Scripture I gave before regarding the use of the term "kol erets". For those who insist upon a literal reading (which I do not), the idea that it could be referring to a local flood has to be considered and not dismissed out of hand. Hugh Ross' article on the theology of such a local flood is also important. The point being that if there are two viable alternative readings, and one completely agrees with what the natural world is telling us and one completely contradicts that evidence (as this and many other threads makes painfully obvious), why would you NOT choose the one that fits, even if you are a literalist, like Ross?

But, personally, I actually think that the author is telling the story from the perspective of the whole world, as the author knows it. God inspired the use of the story (probably a variation from an earlier Sumerian story), but let the author tell the story in the way that such stories about the past were told at that time and place. I believe this story is based on actual events in which God DID save a small group from a devastating flood, but God let the story be told in the way that would most effectively present the truth, which is the message of God's relationship with Mankind, the idea of judgment and mercy, etc. The original story tellers, the original hearers, the original person to write it down and all those reading it for many hundreds of years would never have expected it to have been a literal narrative, and I just don't see why we should.

 

[Biliskner]

thanks for the clarification SBG; i'm taking a break from answering all these rants on this forum for a while. it is clear that even though this is a Christian forum, it is no different to a secular forum when it comes to Creation vs. Evolution. it is sad, but i guess we just have to remember that this is a spiritual battle as well,... so that said, i take a break