Weather during the Global Flood

Rusticus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Critias said:

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

Click to expand...

Not if they are presented as stories.

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

Click to expand...

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

Critias said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Critias said:

.....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......

Click to expand...

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.

gluadys said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

gluadys said:

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

Click to expand...

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

gluadys said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Rusticus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ebia said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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:

Accidental double post. N/M

night2day said:

Spiritual dicernment.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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*

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Rusticus said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Critias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Critias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

ebia said:

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..."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

Do reseach at your lesuire

Rusticus said:

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.)

Click to expand...

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!""

Rusticus said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Rusticus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

night2day said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Already have done, thanks.

Critias said:

By who's authority?

Click to expand...

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.

night2day said:

And you get this impression how? Opinion poll?

Click to expand...

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.

My answers, FWIW:

Critias said:

1. Did any flood happen?

Click to expand...

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

Does Genesis even talk of a flood at all?

Click to expand...

Yes.

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

Click to expand...

In the story, yes. In reality, no.

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

Click to expand...

In the story, yes. In reality, no.

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

The question is ambiguous.

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

Click to expand...

In the story, yes. In reality, no.

Critias,

Critias said:

First, you called what her statement a lie.

Click to expand...

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

Critias said:

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

Click to expand...

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...

Critias said:

...thus calling her intelligence into question.

Click to expand...

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.

Critias said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Critias said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Critias said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.