The integrity of Moses & Jesus on the flood II

[Mallon]

So Henry Morris is the 'founder of modern creationism'? As if he 'invented' what biblical Christians have always believed...the six days of creation as taught in the Bible.

He certainly is the founder of modern creationism -- that is, the belief not only that the world is 6000 years old, but that this concords with science. Yes, Christians traditionally have believed in young earth creationism (as they once believed in geocentrism) but only because that was the framework handed down to them, and not because there was ever any evidence for such in the rock record. Morris was among the first (alongside Seventh Day Adventists like George McCready Price) to push the idea of scientific concordism as it applies to the Genesis creation stories. Check out Ronald Numbers`The Creationists for more (a history that Morris endorsed, btw).

 

[Assyrian]

To the other readers: It is useless to talk to one who twists the scripture so much as to deny the obvious.

This is probably true but I try anyway.

But I wish to point out to those of you who may be reading without commenting on the debate: Assyrian DID NOT answer my question. He replied with another question...which is evasive of the real issue.

This is so very ironic when you have evaded my points again and again. You have still giving no answer on the meaning of erets. Is answering with a question evading the real issue? Only if Jesus was evasive. I gave my answer, I gave the conditions needed for the Noahic covenant to be broken. Certainly I gave the conditions in the form of a question, but that is still giving my answer. You disagree with the answer, but disagreeing with my answer shows I have given one and not been evasive. Your accusation is empty rhetoric, and frankly quite hypocritical given the way you keep on avoiding answers yourself

He said:

"How is this absolute proof my position is in error when you have yet to try to answer what I have said about erets usually meaning the land instead of the earth?

Has the land where Noah and the animals settled ever been completely destroyed in a flood and all life wiped out?"

Even ONE local flood that destroys human life in the Ararat area of the world destroys his position and it would mean that God didn't keep His promise to not destroy the 'world' (his understanding of 'world' is the given locality). But this is how far he will go to support his belief in a local flood.

Genesis 9:9-11:

9 I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

(Note: that's to Noah and ALL of his families descendants in the world today for they are the ones who repopulated the earth.)

10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. (Strongs exhaustive Concordance: 'earth' the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.

So if erets means the Ararat area where Noah and his descendants and the descendants of the animal settled, is a small flood in one part of this region 'a flood to destroy the land'? Not some land in the Ararat region, not a patch of land by the lake side, but actually destroy the land, the whole Ararat area? Was all flesh cut off in the land if a few square miles of the land were flooded by a swollen river? (For the sake of clarity here I will point out that my questions are rhetorical and suggest the proper answer is 'no'.)

If erets 'the land' refers to the entire region region of the Ararat area, and yet as you claim a flood destroying the land and cutting off all flesh could simply refer to a small area of the Ararat region, then applying that logic to your interpretation that erets means the whole earth, then the description of the flood could also refer to a small area of the earth. Your argument against a local flood destroys your interpretation of a global flood.

Hint: the RAINBOW of God's promise is seen by man...all over the EARTH (erets) and not just in the area around Ararat.

Do you think Assyrian will ever catch on? Not me.

You are making the same old mistake again, you are reading meanings into a passage you think is appropriate because the flood is global, those meanings don’t work if the flood was local, so you think these meanings prove the flood can’t have been local. But these were just meanings you read into the passage, not what scripture says.

The Lord bless you Calypsis.

I don't mean ill will for him, but I cannot in good conscience say that to him until he repents of the unbelief he is promoting on this website.

You know I was a literalist when I was younger, but unlike you I did not assume I understood everything, I wanted to search the scripture and understand God's word, I still do. But even though I was a literalist and in my 20 century modern worldview though the literal meaning the only meaning of any worth and metaphors and allegory simply unreliable, I found my literalism and my worldview challenged by my literal interpretation, because when I read the gospels I discovered my Lord and Saviour Jesus wasn't a literalist, but loved metaphor, parables and allegory. As I soaked myself in his word, and in the great books of prophecy like Daniel and Revelation I realised they were rich in allegory and symbolism too. I simply could not remain a literalist and be a follower of Jesus. I have since found other literalists can, they have rules of interpretation they have been taught that tell them how to read scripture. I didn't, I just had Jesus and the bible. But I found I wasn't alone, his disciples had the same struggle learning to get past their literalism and understand and recognise metaphor in Jesus words. And as I learned to understand and recognise metaphor and allegory in Jesus words and in the prophets, I learned to recognise the rich seams of metaphor throughout scripture, after all if Jesus is the Word of God, we should not expect the word of God throughout the bible to speak to very differently.

So I was a literalist who learned metaphor and allegory through Jesus, you call that unbelief and tell me to repent, but I would rather follow Jesus than you especially when you have shown no care for what Jesus actually said. But I still pray God will bless you and give you peace. You are a brother in the Lord even if your literalism has filled you with bitter condemnation of your fellow believers.

 

[Calypsis4]

He certainly is the founder of modern creationism -- that is, the belief not only that the world is 6000 years old, but that this concords with science. Yes, Christians traditionally have believed in young earth creationism (as they once believed in geocentrism) but only because that was the framework handed down to them, and not because there was ever any evidence for such in the rock record. Morris was among the first (alongside Seventh Day Adventists like George McCready Price) to push the idea of scientific concordism as it applies to the Genesis creation stories. Check out Ronald Numbers`The Creationists for more (a history that Morris endorsed, btw).

Notice how he conveniently ignored all the documentation of those faithful men who believed in the six day creation account before Morris came along. He doesn't believe them either. But since he doesn't even believe what Jesus and his disciples (Peter, Paul, John, & James) said about the creation and flood of Noah why should that be surprising?

 

[Calypsis4]

Quote: "This is probably true but I try anyway.

This is so very ironic when you have evaded my points again and again.

It is so ironic that Assyrain evades the strongest, clearest, most unmistakable points of scripture again and again. But that's what happens to those who don't really care what God actually says.

You have still giving no answer on the meaning of erets.

I gave him an answer. He just arbitrarily dismisses it. He plays with scripture like its a rubber band that he can just stretch any way he wishes.

Is answering with a question evading the real issue? Only if Jesus was evasive. I gave my answer, I gave the conditions needed for the Noahic covenant to be broken. Certainly I gave the conditions in the form of a question, but that is still giving my answer. You disagree with the answer, but disagreeing with my answer shows I have given one and not been evasive. Your accusation is empty rhetoric, and frankly quite hypocritical given the way you keep on avoiding answers yourself.

His 'answer' does NOT satisfy the question. The whole world was flooded and destroyed and the entire population of the world was destroyed WITH IT,...so said Moses. So said Jesus. So said Peter. The truth is that he doesn't care what they said.

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Genesis 6:17.

Both Moses and the authors of the New Testament affirm a world-wide destruction. Nothing could be clearer.

Peter said it all, ..."the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished". II Peter 3:6

There is not even a hint of a 'local' flood anywhere in the Bible.

So if erets means the Ararat area where Noah and his descendants and the descendants of the animal settled, is a small flood in one part of this region 'a flood to destroy the land'?

That is not what it means. It means the WHOLE WORLD:

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. Genesis 7:4.

Notice the phrase, "that I have made". God's intention was to destroy all He had made...that would be every single human being (except Noah & family) and every single animal on the entire earth. Those of you that care what your Bible says and those of you that have honest hearts can see that clearly.

Not some land in the Ararat region, not a patch of land by the lake side, but actually destroy the land, the whole Ararat area? Was all flesh cut off in the land if a few square miles of the land were flooded by a swollen river? (For the sake of clarity here I will point out that my questions are rhetorical and suggest the proper answer is 'no'.)

If erets 'the land' refers to the entire region region of the Ararat area, and yet as you claim a flood destroying the land and cutting off all flesh could simply refer to a small area of the Ararat region, then applying that logic to your interpretation that erets means the whole earth, then the description of the flood could also refer to a small area of the earth. Your argument against a local flood destroys your interpretation of a global flood.

It is not an 'interpretation' it is an acceptance of what is plainly and clearly written by Moses as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

You are making the same old mistake again, you are reading meanings into a passage you think is appropriate because the flood is global, those meanings don’t work if the flood was local, so you think these meanings prove the flood can’t have been local. But these were just meanings you read into the passage, not what scripture says.

He isn't telling the truth. Those of you who love the Lord, do not believe him. Believe what Moses clearly said.

God made His promise of the rainbow to all mankind and not anything less. How do I know?

Genesis 9:9-13

And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

That includes every human being on earth since Noah's family came off the ark including all living human beings on earth today. All seed was and is Noah's seed. There hasn't been any that wasn't.

10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

12 ¶ And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

Do not fail to notice that God said he was making that covenant 'between me and you and every living creature' in vs 12 and then 'between me and the earth' in vs 13. That nails it.

The rainbow is God's token of the covenant He made between Himself and all living creatures on the earth after the flood. It includes the whole world. So when the rainbow appears to man (all over the world!) it is meant as a reminder of what God said.

When I was but a boy my gandma used to tell my sisters and I this story and whenever we saw a rainbow we discussed that eternal promise. We were always delighted when we saw one and I believed the story of Noah's ark and the flood with all my little heart. The TE's 'faith' would destroy that.

You know I was a literalist when I was younger,

I was not a literalist when I was younger. I was a theistic evolutionist. Honesty and simple faith and trust in God's Word compelled me to accept that He means exactly what He says in the Bible and there is NO historical or theological reason to reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11 any more than there is reason to reject the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus, the sun standing still in Joshua, or Jonah being swallowed by a whale. For a professing 'believer' to reject those things is unbelief and wickedness.

but unlike you I did not assume I understood everything, I wanted to search the scripture and understand God's word, I still do. But even though I was a literalist and in my 20 century modern worldview though the literal meaning the only meaning of any worth and metaphors and allegory simply unreliable, I found my literalism and my worldview challenged by my literal interpretation, because when I read the gospels I discovered my Lord and Saviour Jesus wasn't a literalist, but loved metaphor, parables and allegory. As I soaked myself in his word, and in the great books of prophecy like Daniel and Revelation I realised they were rich in allegory and symbolism too. I simply could not remain a literalist and be a follower of Jesus. I have since found other literalists can, they have rules of interpretation they have been taught that tell them how to read scripture. I didn't, I just had Jesus and the bible. But I found I wasn't alone, his disciples had the same struggle learning to get past their literalism and understand and recognise metaphor in Jesus words. And as I learned to understand and recognise metaphor and allegory in Jesus words and in the prophets, I learned to recognise the rich seams of metaphor throughout scripture, after all if Jesus is the Word of God, we should not expect the word of God throughout the bible to speak to very differently.

So I was a literalist who learned metaphor and allegory through Jesus,

Moses account of the creation, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah were not allegorical characters. When one reads Hebrews 11 concerning the faith of those who obeyed God there is NO DIFFERENCE in the treatment of Abel, Enoch, and Noah than for Abraham, Moses, Joshua, or Joseph. It was all actual/literal/historical. To say otherwise is utter dishonesty.

you call that unbelief and tell me to repent, but I would rather follow Jesus than you especially when you have shown no care for what Jesus actually said. But I still pray God will bless you and give you peace. You are a brother in the Lord even if your literalism has filled you with bitter condemnation of your fellow believer.

Your 'peace' is unbelief. There is no rest in such things for faithful believers in Christ.

I call it evil. It is not 'bitter condemnation' to condemn what God says is heresy and unbelief. Acts 13:10 & Ephesians 5:11 & Jude 1:3.

 

[genifer]

Calypsis, If you just didnt engage with them and pointed out what you see as facts, completely ignoring them, that would be a very good thing, imho. I appreciate what you've posted here. I only found the thread today and managed to get thru it this afternoon. I would greatly appreciate it if you did continue posting on this subject and just ignore them. Do not even give them any satisfaction by justifying their remarks with responses. You already know you are wasting your time with that.

That would be helpful to me. Thank you.

again, I appreciate what you've been trying to do. Its as if for no other reason but to argue many have opposed you. Im sure they will do the same to me. Would you be willing to continue to post the things you have so the rest of us can see it for ourselves.

I have often felt that as far as scientific 'evidence' is concerned that we are given the scientific explanation of the 'evidence' as opposed to the actual evidence so that we can make an informed opinion on what the evidence is saying. I truely believe its a matter of interpretting the evidence based on a previously held worldview. I would like the opportunity to explore the evidence without the so called scientific explanations spoonfed to me.

I do believe that there is strong evidence for a young earth

Dont be discouraged and please do ignore them.

 

[Calypsis4]

Calypsis, If you just didnt engage with them and pointed out what you see as facts, completely ignoring them, that would be a very good thing, imho. I appreciate what you've posted here. I only found the thread today and managed to get thru it this afternoon. I would greatly appreciate it if you did continue posting on this subject and just ignore them. Do not even give them any satisfaction by justifying their remarks with responses. You already know you are wasting your time with that.

I think that's an excellent idea, little lady. You're on.

That would be helpful to me. Thank you.

again, I appreciate what you've been trying to do. Its as if for no other reason but to argue many have opposed you. Im sure they will do the same to me. Would you be willing to continue to post the things you have so the rest of us can see it for ourselves.

I've got more and you are going to see it.

I have often felt that as far as scientific 'evidence' is concerned that we are given the scientific explanation of the 'evidence' as opposed to the actual evidence so that we can make an informed opinion on what the evidence is saying. I truely believe its a matter of interpretting the evidence based on a previously held worldview. I would like the opportunity to explore the evidence without the so called scientific explanations spoonfed to me.

I do believe that there is strong evidence for a young earth

Lots.

Dont be discouraged and please do ignore them.

Far from it. I am excited to post both the scripture and the scientific reasons for a young earth.

May the Lord richly bless you.

 

[Mallon]

Notice how he conveniently ignored all the documentation of those faithful men who believed in the six day creation account before Morris came along. He doesn't believe them either. But since he doesn't even believe what Jesus and his disciples (Peter, Paul, John, & James) said about the creation and flood of Noah why should that be surprising?

The only person ignoring anyone here is you. I never denied that people in the past subscribed to young earth creationism, but as I said, they did so without understanding the evidence for God's creation (just as Christian geocentrists did before). The brand of "scientific creationism" you are pushing is new and isn't likely something that the early church fathers like Augustine would have subscribed to given our current knowledge.

genifer, can I ask which one of C4's arguments you've found most convincing so far?

 

[Calypsis4]

Moses tells us that there were giants in the earth in those days. There is plenty of evidence that that is true.

An entire river bed of dinosaur footprints crossing with human footprints (some gigantic) were discovered in Glen Rose, Texas.

And below are a couple of the footprints carved out of the river:

The evidence of man and dinosaur were contemporary is also abundant:

Below is a dinosaur footprint revealing a human footprint stepping into it that I examined myself near the Painted Desert, Arizona.

Back to Texas, here are more human and dino tracks in the uncovered river bed. Such things have been discovered there repeatedly for over 60 yrs:

And speaking of footprints. Below is the photo of a human sandal print found near Delta, Utah. Inside the print is a trilobite...supposed to have been extinct for 180 million yrs.

Some evolutionsists have told me that this print was natural. I laugh every time I hear that. Notice the heel marks. Since when does nature leave heel marks?

Once again, the accuracy of Moses in describing the old world in Genesis.

Sources: 1. The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris. 2. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm 3. Ooparts.com

 

[Mallon]

Even Answers in Genesis denies the existence of human footprints next to those of dinosaurs. Check out their website:
The Paluxy River Mystery
The trackways you've posted have been shown to be either collapsed theropod footprints or frauds:
Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

 

[Calypsis4]

Here is more evidence that man and dinosaur were contemporary:

This track was called 'fraud' by evolutionists but a thorough investigation including a CT scan revealed that it was not a fake.

More can be researched on this find at:
longevity Chart Creation

The Bible reveals the fact that man and dinosaur lived at the same time as found in Job 40 & 41. Both Behemoth and Leviathan are given a description that matches creatures such as the diplodocus and the chronosaurus. But people throughout human history have seen them as is evidenced below:

The Palestrina Mosiac; A.D. 100. Then below more from the same collection:

A triceratops on one of the Ica images.

What appears to be a T-Rex or an allosaurus on another Ica artifact. Evolutionsts (as usual) arbitrarily declared the Ica pottery fake. But I haven't seen a good argument yet that really places doubt in the historical value of that pottery.

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

Dinosaurs/dragons have been pictorally displayed in various ways throughout human history.

Below is one of the most convincing evidences of man being contemporary with dinosaurs. From a carving on a doorway at Angor Wat in Cambodia dated at the 8th century A.D.

How could the jungle people of Cambodia even know what a stegosaurus looked like unless they had actually seen them?

Then there is this gem:

This badly deteriorated creature was pulled out of the Pacific by a Japanese fishing trawler. Evolutionists claim it was merely a badly rotted basking shark. But the marine biologist who personally examined the creature before it was thrown overboard testified that it had no dorsal fin, which basking sharks have. Notice the long neck and small mouth of the creature then compare it to the basking shark below.

Their denial on this matter is one of the most ridiculous I've heard through the years.

A dinosaur depicted on an exquisitely designed doorway in France.

 

[Calypsis4]

Even Answers in Genesis denies the existence of human footprints next to those of dinosaurs. Check out their website:
The Paluxy River Mystery
The trackways you've posted have been shown to be either collapsed theropod footprints or frauds:
Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

For the other posters: I've read that junk. They are lying.

 

[genifer]

genifer, can I ask which one of C4's arguments you've found most convincing so far?

You may ask but with all due respect I decline to engage. And I mean that with the utmost respect and no hostility.

 

[Mallon]

For the other posters: I've read that junk. They are lying.

You seem happy to cite AiG when they agree with you, but suddenly they're liars when they cite data to cast doubt on the human trackways you touted? That doesn't seem honest or consistent.

 

[Mallon]

You may ask but with all due respect I decline to engage. And I mean that with the utmost respect and no hostility.

Sorry to hear that. God bless, genifer.

 

[Calypsis4]

You may ask but with all due respect I decline to engage. And I mean that with the utmost respect and no hostility.

A wise decision.

 

[Mallon]

With regards to the last "evidences" that C4 posted (living plesiosaurs, etc.), again, they have been dismissed by YEC ministries like AiG and CMI:
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
They are also discussed and refuted here:
An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[Calypsis4]

The evidence for man and dinosaur being contemporary is overwhelming:

omniology.com

Check it out for yourselves. That website has a lot of very interesting information.

 

[Assyrian]

It is so ironic that Assyrain evades the strongest, clearest, most unmistakable points of scripture again and again. But that's what happens to those who don't really care what God actually says.

So studying the passages you quote to see if they really say what you claim is evasion and not caring what God actually says? Strange world you live in there Calypsis. If your point was so strong, clear and unmistakable, it would not be so easy to show how you have completely misunderstood it, and you would be able answer my replies instead of trying to claim I was evading.

You have still giving no answer on the meaning of erets.

I gave him an answer. He just arbitrarily dismisses it. He plays with scripture like its a rubber band that he can just stretch any way he wishes.

I mentioned the meaning of Hebrew erets repeatedly and you repeatedly ignored it, eventually you made an effort at replying by claim the meaning would not work in the Noahic Covenant, interesting argument but one that did not work as we have seen. However that is not discussing the meaning of the Hebrew erets as I have said, or if you have discussed the Hebrew and I have missed it, please point out where the post is. You answer so few question of scriptural analysis I would hate to miss a big one like that.

His 'answer' does NOT satisfy the question. The whole world was flooded and destroyed and the entire population of the world was destroyed WITH IT,...so said Moses. So said Jesus. So said Peter. The truth is that he doesn't care what they said.

And so we go round in circles: Do not pass go, do not collect $200. You started looking at what would happen if we gave erets its normal mean of land, you tried to show this would not work for the Noahic Convenant, I showed you that it does work (in the form of a question ) and the reason my answer does not satisfy your question about using erets locally? You simply go back to claiming erets means world.

Tell me, can you not follow an argument, or are you just wriggling?

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Genesis 6:17.

Not much use as an argument if you haven't dealt with the meaning of erets.

Both Moses and the authors of the New Testament affirm a world-wide destruction. Nothing could be clearer.

Peter said it all, ..."the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished". II Peter 3:6

There is not even a hint of a 'local' flood anywhere in the Bible.

You tried to bring this up before, I went into a lot of detail looking at the words Peter used, their meaning, and the way Peter changed from the word earth, to the Greek kosmos for the flood and back to earth again. He was not talking about the whole earth being flooded.

So if erets means the Ararat area where Noah and his descendants and the descendants of the animal settled, is a small flood in one part of this region 'a flood to destroy the land'?

That is not what it means. It means the WHOLE WORLD:

See you are still unable to back up your claim about the Noahic Covenant showing the flood could not have been global. Instead you try another argument. That is fine I will answer your new argument, just know that your Noahic Covenant argument did not hold water.

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. Genesis 7:4.

Notice the phrase, "that I have made". God's intention was to destroy all He had made...that would be every single human being (except Noah & family) and every single animal on the entire earth. Those of you that care what your Bible says and those of you that have honest hearts can see that clearly.

Same old erets problem. God isn't going to destroy everything he has created, just everything he has created from the face of the erets. I also pointed out to you how 'the face of the earth' was used by Moses to describe the plague of locusts in Egypt. You did not reply.

Not some land in the Ararat region, not a patch of land by the lake side, but actually destroy the land, the whole Ararat area? Was all flesh cut off in the land if a few square miles of the land were flooded by a swollen river? (For the sake of clarity here I will point out that my questions are rhetorical and suggest the proper answer is 'no'.)

If erets 'the land' refers to the entire region region of the Ararat area, and yet as you claim a flood destroying the land and cutting off all flesh could simply refer to a small area of the Ararat region, then applying that logic to your interpretation that erets means the whole earth, then the description of the flood could also refer to a small area of the earth. Your argument against a local flood destroys your interpretation of a global flood.

It is not an 'interpretation' it is an acceptance of what is plainly and clearly written by Moses as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So you can't answer that either. You just revert to claiming your understanding of scripture is what it means.

You are making the same old mistake again, you are reading meanings into a passage you think is appropriate because the flood is global, those meanings don’t work if the flood was local, so you think these meanings prove the flood can’t have been local. But these were just meanings you read into the passage, not what scripture says.

He isn't telling the truth. Those of you who love the Lord, do not believe him. Believe what Moses clearly said.

Again you can't answer my point. Where did Moses say a rainbow seen around the world means the flood was global? You claim you don't interpret scripture? You can't even tell you opinions from the word of God.

God made His promise of the rainbow to all mankind and not anything less. How do I know?

Genesis 9:9-13

And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

That includes every human being on earth since Noah's family came off the ark including all living human beings on earth today. All seed was and is Noah's seed. There hasn't been any that wasn't.

And so you read your global flood interpretation back into the passage. The bible nowhere says all the human race is descended from Noah. It does not even describe the descendants of Noah settling any further afield than Libya and the borders of Iran. The covenant was made with Noah and his descendants, that is all. No mention of other nations around the world and it is only your global flood interpretation that make you think Noah had to repopulate the entire planet.

10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

12 ¶ And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

Do not fail to notice that God said he was making that covenant 'between me and you and every living creature' in vs 12 and then 'between me and the earth' in vs 13. That nails it.

It says between me and you and every living creature that is with you. No koalas, kangaroos, armadillos or penguins, just the animal fro the land that Moses rescued and brought on the ark. Between me and the earth is our old friend that you haven't been able to deal with erets, the land.

The rainbow is God's token of the covenant He made between Himself and all living creatures on the earth after the flood. It includes the whole world. So when the rainbow appears to man (all over the world!) it is meant as a reminder of what God said.

The rainbow is still the sign of God's covenant with Noah the animals on the ark and all their descendants. It does not matter if it is seen around the globe when it rains, or if it was there before the flood, God's covenant is still just the descendants of Noah and the animals, and does not imply everything else on the planet died and had no descendants.

When I was but a boy my gandma used to tell my sisters and I this story and whenever we saw a rainbow we discussed that eternal promise. We were always delighted when we saw one and I believed the story of Noah's ark and the flood with all my little heart. The TE's 'faith' would destroy that.

Why? Just because you are mistaken about the flood covering the whole planet, you feel the need to throw out the whole story?

I was not a literalist when I was younger. I was a theistic evolutionist. Honesty and simple faith and trust in God's Word compelled me to accept that He means exactly what He says in the Bible and there is NO historical or theological reason to reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11 any more than there is reason to reject the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus, the sun standing still in Joshua, or Jonah being swallowed by a whale. For a professing 'believer' to reject those things is unbelief and wickedness.

Who told you that simple faith and trust in God''s word meant taking it literally? Was it some preacher you heard, or was it something you thought up yourself? Because it is not in the bible.

Moses account of the creation, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah were not allegorical characters. When one reads Hebrews 11 concerning the faith of those who obeyed God there is NO DIFFERENCE in the treatment of Abel, Enoch, and Noah than for Abraham, Moses, Joshua, or Joseph. It was all actual/literal/historical. To say otherwise is utter dishonesty.

You know I think it is really ugly the way you keep accusing people you disagree with of dishonesty. It really shows the root of bitterness that creationism produces. But you ranswer make no attempt to deal with what I said, that is from Jesus I learned to understand metaphor and allegory. Throwing in another argument why you think the patriarchs were literal does not change the fact that Jesus wasn't a literalist like you and the bible is filled with metaphor, parables and allegory.

Your 'peace' is unbelief. There is no rest in such things for faithful believers in Christ.

Faithful believers being by definition literalists, who haven't learned how Jesus loves metaphor and allegory.

I call it evil. It is not 'bitter condemnation' to condemn what God says is heresy and unbelief. Acts 13:10 & Ephesians 5:11 & Jude 1:3.

The bitter in the church always look to scriptural justification for their bitterness. You think because occultists opposed to the gospel, the sexually immoral. and perverting the gospel into sensuality were opposed, you think it justifies bitter anger towards everyone you disagree with? Can't be or the bible would not condemn bitterness, backbiting, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions. So, where is a love of metaphor and allegory in the bible, or interpreting the OT figuratively like Jesus and Paul did called heresy and unbelief? Where did God say this as you claim? There are worse things than bitterness, like taking God's name in vain to justify that bitterness. Perhaps what you really need is humility before God, to realise that your understanding of scripture is not equivalent to the very word of God itself, to understand as Paul did, that we only just see through a glass darkly, and that everyone who disagree with us is not disagreeing with the word of God and speaking heresy and unbelief, because disagreeing with us is not disagreeing with God. But if we mistake our opinions for God and the arrogance will soon grow bitter when people disagree.

 

[Mallon]

Out of curiosity, Calypsis4, do you believe in aliens and space ships?

 

[Calypsis4]

The description of Leviathan in Job 41 looks very much like a fire breathing dragon. We think that dragons and dinosaurs are identical.

1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook?

7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

18 By his neesings (sneesings) a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

One of the interesting things I have come across lately is a fact about T-Rex's that is puzzling to scientists. They seem to have twin chambers above their brains with sinus tubes that stretch to the nostrils.

Scientists don't know what to make of those twin chambers. But when I read this I instantly thought about Leviathan in the Bible and the twin combustion chambers that are found in the abdomen of the bombardier beetle. That little critter is known for blasting hungry predators that try to eat it by combining chemicals from the twin chambers that are explosive when mixed.

“Extra air space turns out to be a family characteristic,” he said, “but the sinuses may be performing different roles in different species. Scientists have tended to focus on things such as bones and muscle, and ignored these air spaces. If we’re going to decipher the mysteries of these extinct animals, maybe we need to figure out just why it is that these guys were such airheads.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081208114300.htm

We don't have the full answer to this yet, but as the old saying goes: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

Undoubtedly, as always, there will be the deniers who will object to the existence of dragons. But the question is, why would God give Job a lesson on a mythical creature and then tell him,

"None is so fierce that dare stir him up; who then is able to stand before me." vs. 10

God compared His almighty power to a mythical character? How empty. But that is exactly what the TE/long age/Bible denying position does to scripture.

One more thing: the bridge between dinosaur and dragon seems to be erased now as is evidenced by the evolutionists who posted pictures such as this:

You can find more like this at http://chem11.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=UFO&action=print&thread=2222