Weather during the Global Flood

[Critias]

If by "educate" you mean "disregard anything that does not fit your particular view of the world" I leave that to you....

It is one thing to call what I said "invalid", it is another thing to prove it so....


The facts are that Luther got it wrong on Copernicus. The Pope got it wrong on Galileo. They both got it wrong.

But my point was not about Luther or about the Pope as such. It was about intrepretation of The Bible in direct contradiction of scientific evidence. So I repeat what I said:

Anyone who interprets The Bible would do well to remember that both Luther and the Pope got it wrong when interpretation of The Bible was in direct contradiction of scientific evidence. Because, even if you are as good as a combination of Luther and the Pope put together, chances are that your interpretation will also be wrong if it is in direct contradiction of scientific evidence.

The proof was already there infront of your eyes. Whether you read it or not, I don't know, but you presented your further comments to look as if you did not.

Again:

"The German Luther (1483-1546) and the Pole Copernicus were contemporaries, but never met or corresponded. On the basis of a seemingly uninformed and off-the-cuff comment Luther made at table in 1539, it is thought that Luther rejected Copernicus's theory. Apart from this comment, it seems that Luther really did not concern himself with Copernican astronomy.

More "scientific" was Luther's coworker, Philip Melanchthon, who was concerned about the new theory. His concern was not theological so much as curricular: he had reconstructed the liberal arts curriculum at Wittenberg University and realized that Copernicus's work could affect the teaching of astronomy at the university. Part of Melanchthon's response was to give a young professor a two years leave of absence to study with Copernicus, so that he could come back to the university and get that part of the curriculum "squared around."

You might want to read about this in some detail in Werner Elert's "The Structure of Lutheranism," Volume One -- Concordia Publishing House, 1964, p. 414-431. In footnote on page 418, Elert speaks of "a number of Catholic scholars who made it their business to blame the Wittenberg reformers and thus to erase the fatal impression created by the official condemnation of the Copernican world picture on the part of their own church.""

Secondly, try reading book talked about in the above quote and you will see you have been misguided.

Maybe it is your disdain for those who fervantly stand up to defend Biblical teaching that keeps you pointing your figure and judging a man used by God to bring the Bible to the people. You too, owe your thanks to God and Martin Luther for allowing God to use him for this task.

All mankind makes mistakes and if you chose to use 1 seemingly mistake to discredit all that Luther did, then the same must hold true against you.

Again, the evidence has been presented. You can just toss it aside and chose to be blind or you can see that it isn't as you have been taught it to be.

 

[ebia]

Actually, written records are used for evidence all the time.

Not if they are presented as stories.

And if God states it, it is good enough evidence for me.

Maybe it would be if he had, but he hasn't. In fact, he has told us exactly the opposite through creation itself.

 

[gluadys]

Actually, written records are used for evidence all the time.

Depends on the nature of the written record. A birth certificate qualifies as evidence in court if it is genuine. Not if it is forged.

And if God states it, it is good enough evidence for me. Who am I to question God.

If God states it as a story, that is not evidence that it occurred in history.

This is what you said, Gluadys:

"But to say there is evidence of a global flood is a lie."

One who lies, is a liar. You indirectly called night2day a liar, thus continuing the onslaught of personal attacks waged on her. Don't act as if you are innocent of this wrong doing.

You are quote mining my post, Critias. Go back and read this sentence in the context of the two sentences immediately preceding it. You will see that I have not called night2day a liar, even indirectly.

 

[KerrMetric]

Shock, horror. Quote mining. Never heard of that occurring in these debates.

 

[Rusticus]

.....All mankind makes mistakes and if you chose to use 1 seemingly mistake to discredit all that Luther did, then the same must hold true against you......

I really don't understand how you get the idea that I am trying to discredit anything that Luther did. I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that even if you are as good as Luther, you are still likely to get it wrong if you interpret The Bible in direct contradiction of scientific evidence.

I do get the feeling from this and from other threads in which you have participated that you very often twist and distort things said by other contributors.


No matter how you might huff and how you might puff, I will state the obvious again:

Anyone who interprets The Bible would do well to remember that both Luther and the Pope got it wrong when interpretation of The Bible was in direct contradiction of scientific evidence. Because, even if you are as good as a combination of Luther and the Pope put together, chances are that your interpretation will also be wrong if it is in direct contradiction of scientific evidence.

 

[Critias]

Depends on the nature of the written record. A birth certificate qualifies as evidence in court if it is genuine. Not if it is forged.

Are you now claiming what the New Testament Authors said was written because the hand of God was upon them to write what He wanted is actually a forgery?

If God states it as a story, that is not evidence that it occurred in history.

Any proof to the claim that it is just a story? Or shall we just keep repeating Gilgamesh?

You are quote mining my post, Critias. Go back and read this sentence in the context of the two sentences immediately preceding it. You will see that I have not called night2day a liar, even indirectly.

You stated:

"So, this is a lie. I am willing to believe you did not know it is a lie, that you yourself are the victim of someone else's deceit. But to say there is evidence of a global flood is a lie."

First, you called what her statement a lie. Then you, what seems to be a demeaning statement, you tell her she could be victim to someone else's deceit thus calling her intelligence into question. And then you indirectly call her a liar for saying there is evidence of a global flood.

It isn't quote mining Gluady's, it is you not wanting to admit that you did in fact call night2day a liar. You would rather sit here and condone it, then to apologize to her.

 

[Critias]

I really don't understand how you get the idea that I am trying to discredit anything that Luther did. I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that even if you are as good as Luther, you are still likely to get it wrong if you interpret The Bible in direct contradiction of scientific evidence.

I do get the feeling from this and from other threads in which you have participated that you very often twist and distort things said by other contributors.


No matter how you might huff and how you might puff, I will state the obvious again:

Anyone who interprets The Bible would do well to remember that both Luther and the Pope got it wrong when interpretation of The Bible was in direct contradiction of scientific evidence. Because, even if you are as good as a combination of Luther and the Pope put together, chances are that your interpretation will also be wrong if it is in direct contradiction of scientific evidence.

The evidence was presented and shows what you are stating is wrong about Luther. If you are going to go and spout off about Martin Luther, learn about him first instead of regurgitating what other people tell you.

You can call my statements all twists and distortions all that you would like. Those who can discern will see the truth, while others will twist Scripture to make it say what they want it say, such as calling Genesis a myth.

 

[night2day]

So? How does that help us decide which of the many canons God appears to have preserved is the best one?

Spiritual dicernment. God is the one who Authored the Scriptures. You do not think He would be able or capable to preserve what He authored for us?

You have not corrected anything I have said, only what you though I said.

Torah/Decalougue & what were the issues raised about them both. Earlier comments denied the Torah was what you were speaking about, then a claim you already knew what it was. With the Apocrypha you claimed they were all in Scripture ay one time and tossed out but Martin Luther...when history shows they were never in Scripture...and only were listed as such dureing the Counter-Reformation. *shrug*

You seem to be mistaking me for someone else - you quoted him, I made a short comment about that. What I've seen of his work has not inspired me to want to know more.

Yet you failed to comment on what he and did within their proper context. Anyone can take anything out of context to try and prove almost anything to push their own ideals while overlooking what was orginally said and done and why.

Scripture is not the only way God speaks to us. You can believe it if you want, but it's not so much that I don't agree with "Scripture interprets scripture" as I think it is a meaningless soundbite. Even amongst those people who purport to hold that view, there is still disagreement...

Disagreement or disbelief? Just because the Bible doesn't always sound as if it makes sense or doesn't contridict, that doesn't mean it does. To do so would be judging it by human standards. Yet, a human was not the Author. Humans, holy men, were merely the writers and they didn't always understand what God inspired them to writer either. This holds specifically true within the Major and Minor prophets for example. Prophecy takes a certain patterm in both Testaments. Both in regards to near and far future. And sometimes it occurs within the same sentance. Such as when Jesus was speaking if the Fall of Jerusalem (near future...which occured 40 some yrs. later) and the End of the World at the same time.

...you placed stress on one word by omitting his appeal to reason in your comment. He said scripture or reason. He did not say scripture only.

He said of plain/clear reason. Remember countless popes' decrees were considered infallible when they sat within the papal chair. All of them, since they were made by "Christ's vicar on earth" were considered binding and for all time, regardless if they contridicted the Scriptures or each other. The same held true for church councils which also contridicted each other.

You leave out the words "scripture and plain" and focus only on the "reason". While at the same time neglect what type of reason Luther was speaking of, or just which of the two he placed first.

Some of his other quotes:

"Let us gladly do the dear fathers the honor of interpreting…their writings…so that they remain in harmony with Holy Scripture. However, where their writings do not agree with God’s word, there it is much better that we say they have erred than that for their sake we should abandon God’s word."

"With such remarks they testify against themselves and show what sort of spirit they have and how preciously they regard the Word of God. These precious words they denounce as five poor, miserable words, that is, they do not believe that they are Gods words. For if they believed that they are Gods words, they would not have called them five poor, miserable words, but they would consider even a tittle, or a letter, to be greater than the whole world, and they would tremble before it as before God Himself. For he who despises a single word of God, will certainly not consider any one to be great...We must abide by them and cling to them as the clearest, surest, most certain words of God, which can not deceive us nor lead us astray."

"[size=-1]Among Christians the rule is not to argue or investigate, not to be a smart aleck or a rationalistic know-it-all; but to hear, believe, and persevere in the Word of God, through which alone we obtain whatever knowledge we have of God and divine things. We are not to determine out of ourselves what we must believe about him, but to hear and learn it from him."

"[/size]A Christian soon smells from afar which is God's and which is human teaching. He sees from afar that the schismatic spirits are speaking their own human mind and opinion. They cannot escape me, Dr. Luther. I can soon judge and say whether their doctrine is of God or of man; for I am doing the will of God, who sent Christ. I have given ear to none but God's Word, and say: 'Dear Lord Christ, I want to be thy pupil, and I believe thy Word. I will close my eyes and surrender to thy Word.' Thus He makes me a free nobleman, yes, a fine doctor and teacher, who is captive to the Word of God, and is able to judge the errors..."

I do. You can prove me wrong by providing the rationale for your assumptions.

Your capable of doing the same for your own views. But since you can't even get past calling people a liar regarding the Genesis global flood, why bother?

Stating God's word can be redefined and read as one likes, however one likes,..

But that is decidedly NOT what was stated. I invite you to re-read what was really said and respond to the real issue.

We are discussing the real issue. How one regards the Scriptures ultimately decides how one regards the Christian teachings and faith. Since it is the Scriptures which define them.

This can go back back and forth, but we already know we each regard the Scriptures far differntly than the other.

It is not a matter of disliking this claim. It is a fact...

Regarding the Genesis flood, or anything else in the Bible for that matter, it is a matter of faith, or lack thereof, that what the Bible states is God working through human history to bring about His purpose.

So, this is a lie. I am willing to believe you did not know it is a lie, that you yourself are the victim of someone else's deceit. But to say there is evidence of a global flood is a lie.

Pardon, but it is not your place to be condesending nor insulting to my intelligence simply because you have a dislike to the fact I simply because I hold to Genesis 1-9 to be as is.

In addition, I highly doubt you know of a tiny fraction of the world's mysteries. Not even I would say such a thing. The world we live in is far too complex and designed for that. All I said all along is to trust in the one who created it in the first place, not in fallible human study which changes day by day by day.

You have to distort what was said in order to believe that.

You again stated in your post: "So, this is a lie. I am willing to believe you did not know it is a lie, that you yourself are the victim of someone else's deceit. But to say there is evidence of a global flood is a lie." Name-calling is name-calling. Childish behavior is childish behavior.

It's very dishearting you feel you need to force your views on someone else...or that person is termed as something other than intellident by your standards if they do not accept certain therories or views.


​

 

[night2day]

Accidental double post. N/M

 

[ebia]

Spiritual dicernment.

It's funny how different people are discerning different answers to this question. Most of the protestant churches have 'discerned' a canon of 66 books. The Roman Catholic Church and quite a few Anglicans (amongst others) have 'discerned' a canon of those 66 plus a few others. The Eastern Orthodox churches have 'discerned' a canon slightly different still. And so, through quite a few other versions.

God is the one who Authored the Scriptures.

You've probably gathered by now, but I don't agree with that statement. God inspired a variety of people to author them.

You do not think He would be able or capable to preserve what He authored for us?

I am sure that God is quite capable of doing anything he chooses. But the fact is that he appears to have preserved quite a few different variations on the canon. So one is left either with the problem of deciding which is the correct one, or of deciding they are all valid and that canonicity (and therefore inspiration) is not as clear cut as many would like to believe.

Torah/Decalougue & what were the issues raised about them both. Earlier comments denied the Torah was what you were speaking about, then a claim you already knew what it was.

I never even mentioned the Torah originally. Somewhere along the lines got crossed.

With the Apocrypha you claimed they were all in Scripture ay one time and tossed out but Martin Luther...when history shows they were never in Scripture...and only were listed as such dureing the Counter-Reformation. *shrug*

This is incorrect. They were as firmly inbedded in scripture as any other OT book. No Ecumenical council had ever defined which books were or were not included - the early church just took the LXX as it stood, including the Deuterocanonicals. Only when people started removing books did the Catholic Church feel the need to define the OT.

Yet you failed to comment on what he and did within their proper context. Anyone can take anything out of context to try and prove almost anything to push their own ideals while overlooking what was orginally said and done and why.

I mearly commented on the irony of your choice of who to quote when. It comes from living in a country with a strong sense of irony.

Disagreement or disbelief? Just because the Bible doesn't always sound as if it makes sense or doesn't contridict, that doesn't mean it does. To do so would be judging it by human standards. Yet, a human was not the Author. Humans, holy men, were merely the writers and they didn't always understand what God inspired them to writer either. This holds specifically true within the Major and Minor prophets for example. Prophecy takes a certain patterm in both Testaments. Both in regards to near and far future. And sometimes it occurs within the same sentance. Such as when Jesus was speaking if the Fall of Jerusalem (near future...which occured 40 some yrs. later) and the End of the World at the same time.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

He said of plain/clear reason. Remember countless popes' decrees were considered infallible when they sat within the papal chair. All of them, since they were made by "Christ's vicar on earth" were considered binding and for all time, regardless if they contridicted the Scriptures or each other. The same held true for church councils which also contridicted each other.

When you start quoting a different person, you need to make it clear.

 

[night2day]

But my point was not about Luther or about the Pope as such. It was about intrepretation of The Bible in direct contradiction of scientific evidence. So I repeat what I said:

Anyone who interprets The Bible would do well to remember that both Luther and the Pope got it wrong when interpretation of The Bible was in direct contradiction of scientific evidence. Because, even if you are as good as a combination of Luther and the Pope put together, chances are that your interpretation will also be wrong if it is in direct contradiction of scientific evidence...

And where in the Bible was anything the two scientists found in dispute with the Scriptures?

Even when people argued that the Bible spoke of a "flat earth" because it refered to it's "four corners" failed to realize the passages of the given context were speaking of: East, West, North, and South. When it spoke of the rising and setting of the sun, this too is not ample evidence the Bible taught a flat earth...for we use the same termnology today to define the differnce between day and night.

Bible passages speaking of what people saw from space was written within the perspective of what they saw. We know the moon doesn't give it's own light, it's reflected from the sun. Yet, just as the Bible illustrates, we also state sometimes "how bright the moon is shining".

Just a few notes.

 

[Rusticus]

The evidence was presented and shows what you are stating is wrong about Luther. If you are going to go and spout off about Martin Luther, learn about him first instead of regurgitating what other people tell you.

THIS is what Luther said in 1539 about Copernicus:
Dieser Dummkopf will die gesamte Weisheit der Astronomie umstürzen! Wie jedoch die Heilige Schrift zeigt - "Befahl Josua der Sonne still zu stehen, der Erde jedoch nicht!"
(Seeing you seem to have studied Luther so much, surely you have learned German to be able to do so in Luther's own language.)

Surely you are not seriously suggesting that Luther did not say this?


Back to the orginal topic. This is neither about Luther, nor about the Pope, but about the flood.

You can call my statements all twists and distortions all that you would like. Those who can discern will see the truth, while others will twist Scripture to make it say what they want it say, such as calling Genesis a myth.

Or such as saying that Genesis states that there was a GLOBAL flood.

 

[night2day]

It's funny how different people are discerning different answers to this question. Most of the protestant churches have 'discerned' a canon of 66 books..."

Technically, Lutheran's are considered "Lutheran"...not protestant.

I am sure that God is quite capable of doing anything he chooses. But the fact is that he appears to have preserved quite a few different variations on the canon.

And you get this impression how? Opinion poll? Ballot?If by variations of the cannon you are referring to "translations", you're in error. The original writtings were inspired. Not the translations. God is quite capable of keeping everything in tact.

I never even mentioned the Torah originally. Somewhere along the lines got crossed.

The Decalougue. First Five books of the Old Testament. Same thing. You can simply look back back to your own posts.

This is incorrect. They were as firmly inbedded in scripture as any other OT book. No Ecumenical council had ever defined which books were or were not included...

Do reseach at your lesuire

 

[Critias]

THIS is what Luther said in 1539 about Copernicus:
Dieser Dummkopf will die gesamte Weisheit der Astronomie umstürzen! Wie jedoch die Heilige Schrift zeigt - "Befahl Josua der Sonne still zu stehen, der Erde jedoch nicht!"
(Seeing you seem to have studied Luther so much, surely you have learned German to be able to do so in Luther's own language.)

Sure, here is a word for word translation:

"This idiot wants to overthrow the total wisdom of the astronomy! How however the holy writing shows - "commanded Josua of the sun quiet to stand, the earth however not!""

Surely you are not seriously suggesting that Luther did not say this?

I wasn't deny that Martin Luther stated this. Why don't you research the context in which he said this and present it.

Back to the orginal topic. This is neither about Luther, nor about the Pope, but about the flood.



Or such as saying that Genesis states that there was a GLOBAL flood.

By who's authority? Let's start with the simple and we will move on through.
Since TEs don't seem to agree on many thing within Genesis, I need to ask you some questions in order to know your position on this.

1. Did any flood happen? Does Genesis even talk of a flood at all?
2. Did all flesh die(but 8) because of the flood?
3. What of the Ark, did Noah actually make one by the specifications given in Genesis?
4. Did God actually make a covenant with Noah after the flood?
5. Did it actually rain for 40 days and nights?
6. Did the waters actually flood the earth or land for 150 days?
7. Did the Ark really rest on the Mount of Ararat?


I think that should do it for now so that I know where you stand.

 

[ebia]

Technically, Lutheran's are considered "Lutheran"...not protestant.

Rather like classifying Anglicans, it depends who you ask. But it's not relevent to the point anyway.

And you get this impression how? Opinion poll? Ballot?If by variations of the cannon you are referring to "translations", you're in error. The original writtings were inspired. Not the translations. God is quite capable of keeping everything in tact.

No, I am not refering to translations. You do know what the word canon means in this context (only one 'n', BTW)? Ie the list of which books make up the bible.

The Decalougue. First Five books of the Old Testament. Same thing. You can simply look back back to your own posts.

As far as I can recall, I've never actually used the word "Decalouge" in my life before writing this sentence. Neither did I talk about "First Five books of the OT" or "Torah" until you started some kind of argument about whether or not I know what those words mean. You have taken some comment that wasn't about the Torah at all, thought it was, and got yourself very confused. The only explanation I can think of is that when I wrote Deutorocanonical, you read it as Decalouge.

Do reseach at your lesuire

Already have done, thanks.

 

[Rusticus]

By who's authority?

How many times does the word "GLOBAL" appear in The Bible? Exactly zero times.

Anyone who says that The Bible states that there was a global flood is therefore not being honest.

People may well say that they interpret The Bible to be talking about a global flood. That would be the honest thing to say.

But to say that The Bible talks about a global flood is simply dishonest.

 

[ebia]

And you get this impression how? Opinion poll?

Forgot to answer the point. I can easily find out that there are different canons by simply picking up some of the bibles on my shelf.

The "protestant" ones (for lack of a better term) have 66 books.
The Catholic ones have seventy odd books.
I don't have an Eastern Orthodox bible, but they have a couple more.
Some other Eastern Churches have other differences, such as missing out Revelations and, IIRC, an epistle or two.

 

[ebia]

My answers, FWIW:

1. Did any flood happen?

Clearly, quite a few local floods have happened, and still do happen.

Does Genesis even talk of a flood at all?

Yes.

2. Did all flesh die(but 8) because of the flood?

In the story, yes. In reality, no.

3. What of the Ark, did Noah actually make one by the specifications given in Genesis?

In the story, yes. In reality, no.

4. Did God actually make a covenant with Noah after the flood?

In the story, yes. In reality, no, but through the story God makes it with all mankind.

5. Did it actually rain for 40 days and nights?

In the story, yes. In reality, I dare say it has rained for 40 days and 40 nights at some time and somewhere. If you'd ever lived in Devon it would seem extremely plausable.

6. Did the waters actually flood the earth or land for 150 days?

The question is ambiguous.

7. Did the Ark really rest on the Mount of Ararat?

In the story, yes. In reality, no.

 

[Alchemist]

Critias,

First, you called what her statement a lie.

Wrong. Gluadys did not say night2day was a liar, she said what night2day said was untrue.

Then you, what seems to be a demeaning statement, you tell her she could be victim to someone else's deceit..

Well, if night2day believes a global flood occured, and it didn't, then she has fallen victim to someone else's deceit. Considering what the Bible say about false teaching, for Gluadys to feel bad about the teaching of a global flood and not to warn night2day would be against the Bible, and indeed, the very will of God himself...

...thus calling her intelligence into question.

It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. There was a time where some very intelligent men believed the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that didn't change the fact they were wrong. All Gluadys is saying is that she believes that a global flood is false teaching, and is warning night2day (as the Bible commands) that she has been deceived.

And then you indirectly call her a liar for saying there is evidence of a global flood.

Wrong, Critias. night2day has been given evidence for a global flood which she honestly believes to be accurate. From this data, she says there is evidence for a global flood. Certainly, from Gluadys' point (and indeed mine) this is untrue, but night2day did not lie, and Gluadys did not at any point suggest she did. Now if night2day knew there was no evidence for a global flood, yet told others there was, that would be a lie. But Gluadys never said this, she simply said night2day's statement was in her opinion untrue.

In any case, if night2day was indeed lying, would it not be justified to say so?

It isn't quote mining Gluady's, it is you not wanting to admit that you did in fact call night2day a liar. You would rather sit here and condone it, then to apologize to her.

I'm sorry Critias, but your statement seems a bit hypocritical, especially when you are so willing to misrepresent Gluadys for no apparent reason...

Peace,
Nick

 

[gluadys]

Are you now claiming what the New Testament Authors said was written because the hand of God was upon them to write what He wanted is actually a forgery?

I think you had better re-take some reading for comprehension classes. I gave an example of a written document that would not be evidence. I did not say the bible was the same kind of written document. Just that some kinds of written documents are not evidence, such as a forgery.

Any proof to the claim that it is just a story? Or shall we just keep repeating Gilgamesh?

The kind of proof you are looking for (e.g. a personal note from Moses that he used Gilgamesh as a source) does not exist. Nor is it needed for anyone who can make a literary comparison. It is obvious that Gilgamesh is a source to anyone who is not closing his eyes and his mind.

You stated:

"So, this is a lie. I am willing to believe you did not know it is a lie, that you yourself are the victim of someone else's deceit. But to say there is evidence of a global flood is a lie."

First, you called what her statement a lie. Then you, what seems to be a demeaning statement, you tell her she could be victim to someone else's deceit thus calling her intelligence into question. And then you indirectly call her a liar for saying there is evidence of a global flood.

It isn't quote mining Gluady's, it is you not wanting to admit that you did in fact call night2day a liar. You would rather sit here and condone it, then to apologize to her.

Give it up, Critias. If you have to so completely distort what I say to make a point, you don’t have a point worth making.

What you are suggesting is analogous to saying that a shopkeeper who takes his day’s cash receipts to the bank for deposit, should be charged with counterfeiting because one of the bills he is depositing turns out to be counterfeit. Is the shopkeeper to blame because he accepted the bill in good faith? For that matter, even the person who gave it to him may not be the counterfeiter either, but someone who unwittingly acquired the counterfeit bill and passed it on in good faith.

The only person who is committing fraud (aka lying) is the original counterfeitor, not those who innocently and in good faith pass on the counterfeit bill.

This is the position of the majority of YECists. They are personally honest and stating what they believe to be the truth. They do not know (or believe) that their statements are false. The blame rests with those who deceived them, not with the person who repeats the false statement in the sincere belief that it is true.