Weather during the Global Flood

Critias · Oct 13, 2005

ebia said:
Are you suggesting that the 'bible God has preserved' is the minimial set of books that every Christian church agrees on? On what basis would you think that?

Is it possible that you could actually answer my question? It would be nice instead of working your own strawman.

ebia · Oct 13, 2005

Critias said:
Is it possible that you could actually answer my question? It would be nice instead of working your own strawman.

I presumed that you knew, and that the question was rhetorical.

The 66 books of the "Protestant" bible are in all three, although a few books are not identical (Daniel, for instance, is substantially longer in the Catholic and E. Orthodox bibles, the Orthodox bible has an extra psalm, etc).

If you start looking at some of the minor eastern churches, however, things get even more complicated:

Catholic Encyclopedia said:
The Orthodox Russian and other branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church have a New Testament identical with the Catholic. In Syria the Nestorians possess a Canon almost identical with the final one of the ancient East Syrians; they exclude the four smaller Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse (Revelations). The Monophysites receive all the book. The Armenians have one apocryphal letter to the Corinthians and two from the same. The Coptic-Arabic Church include with the canonical Scriptures the Apostolic Constitutions and the Clementine Epistles. The Ethiopic New Testament also contains the so-called "Apostolic Constitutions".

(This will probably be my last post on the subject, as I will be off-line for a few days.)

Critias · Oct 13, 2005

ebia said:
I presumed that you knew, and that the question was rhetorical.

The 66 books of the "Protestant" bible are in all three, although a few books are not identical (Daniel, for instance, is substantially longer in the Catholic and E. Orthodox bibles, the Orthodox bible has an extra psalm, etc).

I would assume that you believe God is capable and has preserved His written word, correct? This being true, we have then a starting position to work with, the 66 books of the "Protest-ant" Bible. This is something to start with, without excluding the others.

I believe Enoch is also a valuable book, which is not included within the Bible. Jude quotes it in his Epistle.

ebia said:
If you start looking at some of the minor eastern churches, however, things get even more complicated:

(This will probably be my last post on the subject, as I will be off-line for a few days.)

If we cannot discern if the other books are inspired or not, then we ought to stick with those that we are able to discern to be inspired. Surely, you believe the 4 Gospel books are inspired, right?

Take care for those few days and may God be with you.

gluadys · Oct 13, 2005

Critias said:
This you say is proof that Moses recopied the Gilgamesh in the Bible.

I have never stated that Moses recopied the flood story from Gilgamesh.

Here is a better analogy.

In European literary history several stories have been written about Faustus, a man who sold his soul to the devil (called Mephistopheles in this story tradition). Some were written anonymously for medieval morality plays.

Two of the best known versions are plays whose authors we do know: Dr. Faustus by Christopher Marlowe, an English playwright and contemporary of Shakespeare, and Faust by the great 18th century German playwright, Goethe.

Goethe no doubt knew Marlowe's earlier work, and possibly several other versions of the Faust story. And he wrote his own version. They are all essentially the same story.

But neither Goethe or Marlowe re-copied an earlier work. It would be an insult of the highest order to refer to their compositions as mere copies of someone else's work.

When we speak of the author of Genesis borrowing from Gilgamesh, it is in the same nature that Goethe and Marlow borrowed from earlier versions of Faust. That is decidedly not re-copying.

Do you honestly want to hold to your claim that everything is nearly the same except for the names?

Sure. You can find many details that are different, just as you can enumerate many differences in detail between Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story. It is the structure and theme that make them the same story, not the details of the telling.

a. Your theory of a local flood, Gilgamesh being Genesis' precursor is dependent on the Documentary Hypothesis.

No, that is a separate matter.

b. Julius Wellhausen assumes that the people of Moses' time did not invent writing. Archaeological discoveries prove this to be wrong.

That's correct. Archeology was just getting started, with Schliemann's work on Troy in the 1870's, when Wellhausen was in the prime of his career, so he did not have the benefit of its discoveries to enlighten him.

I have encountered it as well. It is very much just like your thesis on the Flood and Creation. I have also seen it asserted that there never was a man name Jesus Christ who was crucified.

I see you did not attempt to rise to the challenge.

Maybe it is time for you to repent and apologize to night2day instead of justifying yourself. The fact is you called her a liar, you insulted her intelligence and you are too prideful to apologize.

I don't think any apology is due because of your hyper imagination. In any case, I'll let night2day decide if she is insulted. You might read my last response to her.

Critias · Oct 13, 2005

gluadys said:
I have never stated that Moses recopied the flood story from Gilgamesh.

I suppose "borrowed" is much more politically correct term then copied.

gluadys said:
Here is a better analogy.

In European literary history several stories have been written about Faustus, a man who sold his soul to the devil (called Mephistopheles in this story tradition). Some were written anonymously for medieval morality plays.

Two of the best known versions are plays whose authors we do know: Dr. Faustus by Christopher Marlowe, an English playwright and contemporary of Shakespeare, and Faust by the great 18th century German playwright, Goethe.

Goethe no doubt knew Marlowe's earlier work, and possibly several other versions of the Faust story. And he wrote his own version. They are all essentially the same story.

But neither Goethe or Marlowe re-copied an earlier work. It would be an insult of the highest order to refer to their compositions as mere copies of someone else's work.

When we speak of the author of Genesis borrowing from Gilgamesh, it is in the same nature that Goethe and Marlow borrowed from earlier versions of Faust. That is decidedly not re-copying.

And I suppose it is completely out of the realm of possibilities that they both recording the same event and the Bible is not "borrowing" (PC talk)?

Again, there are other possibilities then "borrowing", yet you seem completely closed minded to any of them.

gluadys said:
Sure. You can find many details that are different, just as you can enumerate many differences in detail between Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story. It is the structure and theme that make them the same story, not the details of the telling.

Now that is just rich! Even if they are completely different stories of details but have similar structure, then surely the Bible is "borrowed".

gluadys said:
No, that is a separate matter.

That's correct. Archeology was just getting started, with Schliemann's work on Troy in the 1870's, when Wellhausen was in the prime of his career, so he did not have the benefit of its discoveries to enlighten him.

I see you did not attempt to rise to the challenge.

Hm. Are you now challenging who Jesus is? If not, why do you want me to defend who He is to you? I thought we agreed that Jesus is the Son of God, God Himself...

gluadys said:
I don't think any apology is due because of your hyper imagination. In any case, I'll let night2day decide if she is insulted. You might read my last response to her.

Yes, you called her either a liar or a victim that cannot discern truth. Not what I call an apology...

gluadys · Oct 13, 2005

Critias said:
Now that is just rich! Even if they are completely different stories of details but have similar structure, then surely they are "borrowed".

And theme. I wonder how much literature you have studied. This re-working of old tales into new stories happens all the time. I once read a paper that claimed there are only 36 stories. All the thousands of stories in libraries and bookstores are all re-worked versions of 36 stories. I won't vouch for the number, but I can vouch for all Harlequin romances being variations of the same story. The names, the dates, the places, the details vary, but its the same plot line every time.

Hm. Are you now challenging who Jesus is? If not, why do you want me to defend who He is to you? I thought we agreed that Jesus is the Son of God, God Himself...

As I recall, the challenge was to prove he existed. Yes, I agree that Jesus did and does exist, and that he is the Son of God. But I would not attempt to prove that he existed, because I don't know of any confirmatory evidence that he did.

Yes, you called her either a liar or a victim that cannot discern truth. Not what I call an apology...

Well, there is not much choice when something you say is patently false. I have certainly had to admit to being wrong more than once. Sometimes because my source was wrong. Sometimes because of my own error. I have always considered the person who pointed out my error to be doing me a favour, not insulting me. And I have thanked them, not asked for an apology.

Rusticus · Oct 14, 2005

night2day said:
And where in the Bible was anything the two scientists found in dispute with the Scriptures?......

Exactly the point I was making: What they found was not in dispute with the Scriptures. But it was in dispute with the way Scriptures were INTERPRETED.

Same with the "Global Flood". When science says there was no global flood (or that there is no evidence of one) that is not in dispute with the Scriptures. But it is in dispute with the way Scriptures are interpreted by some people.

It just seems soooo difficult to get some people to see that the "Global Flood" is not actually what The Bible says, but that it their interpretation of what The Bible says.

Alchemist · Oct 14, 2005

Critias said:
There must be a serious case of the English impaired going on here.

Critias, thanks. It is these kind of ad hominem attacks that make me remember why I stopped visiting Origins Theology. Yes, 90% of the visitors to the open C&E forum are atheists or agnostics, but at least they respect you.

Critias said:
Gluadys exact words were "lie".

Yes, her word was "lie". And yes, that creation science is valid is a lie.

Critias said:
What do you call someone who lies? A liar.

But this is not true. A liar is one who deliberately spreads untruths. Not once did Gluadys say that night2day was deliberately spreading untruths. She said very specifically that she believed night2day to be speaking untruths only in ignorance, which does not make her a liar.

Critias said:
Then you are now calling night2day gullible and lacking intelligence by saying she is a "victim" of someone else's deceit.

No I am not. If you read my post you would have seen my comment that deceit has nothing to do with intelligence, only with the amount and quality of information that one receives.

Critias said:
If you would like to keep with that sarcastic phrase then what lead her to her belief in a global flood is the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Care to start demeaning God now?

Well, for a start, the Bible doesn't say there was a global flood, as has been repeatedly pointed out. As for the "Holy Spirit", who are you to say that theistic evolutionists aren't led by the Holy Spirit? The simple fact is, every Christian denomination from Roman Catholicism to the Jehovah's Witnesses believes that they are "led" by the Holy Spirit... how do you know you aren't just another one of the deceived, like I'm sure you'd accuse both of the aforementioned groups of being?

Critias said:
Now, you are calling night2day a false teacher.

Well, you are calling me a false teacher as well, so that is blatant hypocrisy. But yes, I do believe night2day has been deceived, as I believe all young-earth creationists have been. And so yes, I am challenging her teachings, as the Bible specifically instructs me to do, because I know for a fact that false teaching lead us away from God. And whether you like it or not, Critias, your "Bible-based" doctrines are doing precisely that.

Critias said:
Lest it be known that those who speak out against the Bible are false teachers. You seem to be support the various false teachers here.

Of course. I'm a theistic evolutionist, and you aren't, so I must be a liar. Thanks.

Critias said:
And you think the will of God is to speak against Himself?

No. Which is precisely why I am not a young-earth creationist.

Critias said:
Now this is rich! You are supporting the speaking out against the Bible. Who is the false the teacher, the one who defends the Bible or the one who argues against the Bible?

Neither. A false teacher is anyone who does not tell the truth.

Critias said:
Evidence is from God's word, the Bible that teaches a global flood.

No it doesn't, the Bible teaches a local flood. It's just that you require a global flood to explain why the remains of billions of dead creatures are buried in stratified rock, because if you can't, your presumptuous interpretation of Genesis as a factual, historical account would fall over. And you know this.

Critias said:
Nick, your lack of belief in what God has said in His Holy Bible is sad, as it is sad that so many her desire to argue against what the Bible teaches.

I believe the Holy Bible in its entirety. You just believe I do not because I don't agree with your interpretation of it.

Critias said:
The arrogance displayed here as if you know what happened in a time you were never born is amazing.

Yes, I do assume I know something about a time when I am not born. But I do so taking account all of the evidence available. You just dogmatically state young-earth creationism is the truth, simply rejecting any evidence that contradicts you on the selfish assumption that the Holy Spirit "inspired" you. Sorry, but I am arrogant?

Critias said:
Instead of rely on the Creator, the One who was there, you rely on man, who wasn't there, to tell you how it all happened.

You aren't relying on the Creator. You are relying your own interpretation of the Bible.

Critias said:
I have spent a long time on this board and have watched how many of the TEs including Gluadys speak out so harshly against the Bible.

There is more than one interpretation of the Bible, Critias. You are the one speaking out against the Bible, by associating it with blatant untruth such as creation science.

Critias said:
Now, many of you gather together to call night2day a liar.

I have answered this.

Critias said:
This is much like a witch trial here, where you all are in a frenzy to get a good punch in on night2day. I will not stand by and watch what you all are doing. I am in disgust with many of the actions portrayed here where people are so willing to personally attack 1 person because they don't like her words.

This is blatant hypocrisy.

Critias said:
Do you want to get to the heart of this matter? Let's go to Scripture and see what it teaches or are you afraid that you might be wrong?

Critias, I would have to ask you the same question. And I'm sorry, but I choose God over Scripture...

Peace,
Nick

Critias · Oct 14, 2005

gluadys said:
And theme. I wonder how much literature you have studied. This re-working of old tales into new stories happens all the time. I once read a paper that claimed there are only 36 stories. All the thousands of stories in libraries and bookstores are all re-worked versions of 36 stories. I won't vouch for the number, but I can vouch for all Harlequin romances being variations of the same story. The names, the dates, the places, the details vary, but its the same plot line every time.

As I recall, the challenge was to prove he existed. Yes, I agree that Jesus did and does exist, and that he is the Son of God. But I would not attempt to prove that he existed, because I don't know of any confirmatory evidence that he did.

There are 12 pagan sources that record a man named Jesus. They refer to Him as Christos, which is a transliteration of Christ in Greek. They state how He was crucified and how the followers of Christos are preaching and dying for Him.

There is no reason for these pagan historians to lie about Jesus being crucified. They don't mention much about Him, just that He lived and was killed by the Romans.

There are always those who will deny such historical records.

gluadys said:
Well, there is not much choice when something you say is patently false. I have certainly had to admit to being wrong more than once. Sometimes because my source was wrong. Sometimes because of my own error. I have always considered the person who pointed out my error to be doing me a favour, not insulting me. And I have thanked them, not asked for an apology.

I am not asking for you to apologize to me. I am asking that you apologize to her; all those who personally attacked her ought to, because it is the right thing to do. There is no reason to start calling people liars here. When one does this, it shows their lack of maturity to handle their end of the debate thus making it look like they cannot support their own assertions.

You cannot even confirm that the global flood is false. God brought the flood waters in, and He took them out, according to Genesis. If it was God's will to remove this evidence of this supernatural event, who are you or anyone to judge Him for it?

All you can do say you don't believe or trust the Biblical account to be how it is written, historical. This account is presented in much of the same way as other parts of Genesis that people are not fighting against to say they are myths. It's because of science that there is so much animosity against the Bible's account.

We have stories before Christ of men being killed and coming back to life claiming god status. Yet, we don't call the Gospel accounts mythical. The Gospels speak of the One True God and He is the focus of the Gospels and we don't call them mythical. The Gospels interweave historical places and seemingly mythical raisings of the dead, walking on water, a Man calming the storm, but we don't call this a myth. We have Jesus dying so we can live and His resurrection and triumph over death and Satan, but we don't call this a myth.

I don't care if you want to believe the flood is a myth or creation is a myth. I won't be quiet though when so many Christians jump at the chance to personally attack another Christian because they do believe the flood and creation are not myths. Insulting her intelligence or calling her a liar are personal attacks on ones character.

Is night2days character the subject of this debate or is it the Global Flood? If it is the later, why has there been so much time spent by TEs here attacking her character, you included?

I didn't chime in because of the lack of belief in the Global Flood or Creation but rather because so many TEs here think this is about personally attacking ones character shown by calling night2day a liar.

Critias · Oct 14, 2005

Alchemist said:
Critias, thanks. It is these kind of ad hominem attacks that make me remember why I stopped visiting Origins Theology. Yes, 90% of the visitors to the open C&E forum are atheists or agnostics, but at least they respect you.

I said what I said to make a point.

Alchemist said:
Yes, her word was "lie". And yes, that creation science is valid is a lie.

But this is not true. A liar is one who deliberately spreads untruths. Not once did Gluadys say that night2day was deliberately spreading untruths. She said very specifically that she believed night2day to be speaking untruths only in ignorance, which does not make her a liar.

Liar simply means, one who lies. It does not define it as intentional or not. If you say someone is lying, then you are saying they are a liar.

Gluadys said either she is a victim of deceit or she is a liar. One attacks night2day's intelligence the other being an attack by name calling.

Alchemist said:
No I am not. If you read my post you would have seen my comment that deceit has nothing to do with intelligence, only with the amount and quality of information that one receives.

Well, then you are just stating night2day cannot discern truth for herself, which is an attack on her intelligence.

Alchemist said:
Well, for a start, the Bible doesn't say there was a global flood, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

lol. So, you are chiming in with the refrain that because Ancient Hebrew doesn't have a word for 'global' you will not believe it is global? That is like saying since an African Tribe doesn't have a word for tan, then the tan carpet is not tan and I will not believe it is tan because there in the African language the word tan is not used.

Highly illogical.

Alchemist said:
As for the "Holy Spirit", who are you to say that theistic evolutionists aren't led by the Holy Spirit? The simple fact is, every Christian denomination from Roman Catholicism to the Jehovah's Witnesses believes that they are "led" by the Holy Spirit... how do you know you aren't just another one of the deceived, like I'm sure you'd accuse both of the aforementioned groups of being?

Who am I? No one. Who is God to say that He created in six days? Who is God to say He brought on a flood that covered all the earth under the entire heavens? It's all there in the Bible, but you don't have to believe it.

Alchemist said:
Well, you are calling me a false teacher as well, so that is blatant hypocrisy. But yes, I do believe night2day has been deceived, as I believe all young-earth creationists have been. And so yes, I am challenging her teachings, as the Bible specifically instructs me to do, because I know for a fact that false teaching lead us away from God. And whether you like it or not, Critias, your "Bible-based" doctrines are doing precisely that.

If you are going to teach against the Bible, then you are false teacher. And you want to call this hypocrisy? You join up with your TE buddy's to personally attack night2day's character and compare this to my stance that if you teach against the Bible you are a false teacher??

Her teachings of a Global Flood are straight out of the Bible. Tell me how believing the Bible leads us away from God...

I see, so my belief in God's Authority that He has personally moved men to write is leading people astray? That is like saying because I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior people are being led astray.

You are exactly right, it is a stumbling block for all those who don't want to submit to the will of God. But blaming it on the others, the Bible or God is not the true source of the stumbling block. It is their rebellion against God.

TEs here seem to not be able to see this. Instead they blame YECs for those who choose to be rebellious against God and use creation or anything else in the Bible as their excuse.

I am subject to God's will and by this I cannot nor I will not accept your's or anyone's attempt to try and persuade me that I must not believe what He says.

Alchemist said:
Of course. I'm a theistic evolutionist, and you aren't, so I must be a liar. Thanks.

This is what I meant about understanding English. Nowhere did I call you a liar. I said those who speak out against the Bible are false teachers. If you feel guilty and thus why you decided to create a strawman, then maybe you ought to think about that.

Alchemist said:
No. Which is precisely why I am not a young-earth creationist.

When the Bible says in six days God created everything and you say no He didn't it was in billions of years, then you are putting God against what He said.

Alchemist said:
Neither. A false teacher is anyone who does not tell the truth.

Incorrect. A liar is one who doesn't tell the truth, either intentionally or unintentionally. A false teacher teaches teachings that are against Biblical teachings.

False teacher doesn't fit under the umbrella of all people who don't tell the truth.

Alchemist said:
No it doesn't, the Bible teaches a local flood. It's just that you require a global flood to explain why the remains of billions of dead creatures are buried in stratified rock, because if you can't, your presumptuous interpretation of Genesis as a factual, historical account would fall over. And you know this.

It is you who requires an a relatively modern word to be in the Ancient Hebrew when it is not in order to believe. I could careless about the scientific ramifications of a Global Flood. We are talking about what the Holy Scriptures say and teach.

I need not tangible proof inorder to believe what God has said. He has strengthen my faith so that if the Holy Scriptures says He created in six days, I believe. If the Holy Scriptures say Jesus Christ came and died and recurrected to redeem mankind, I believe.

As you can see, you have already assumed wrongly about me. It is about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures that testify of Him and what He has done.

Alchemist said:
I believe the Holy Bible in its entirety. You just believe I do not because I don't agree with your interpretation of it.

Calling it my interpretation is just a copout to not do your homework. But when you already have a bias that you must uphold, evolution, you will never see it any other way.

Alchemist said:
Yes, I do assume I know something about a time when I am not born. But I do so taking account all of the evidence available. You just dogmatically state young-earth creationism is the truth, simply rejecting any evidence that contradicts you on the selfish assumption that the Holy Spirit "inspired" you. Sorry, but I am arrogant?

Call me whatever you wish. If I was being dogmatic, I would care if you accepted evolution and a local flood. I don't. You have the right to accept whatever you wish. I chimed in this thread because the consistent attacks on night2day's character.

But, if you want to engage me and call my beliefs arrogant and call me a liar then I will engage you back. And let me make this clear, scientific evidence means relatively little to me. It doesn't provide me salvation, it doesn't teach me in the way of righteousness, it doesn't rebuke me and correct me and tell me what sin is. The Bible does, so the Bible is my concern.

Alchemist said:
You aren't relying on the Creator. You are relying your own interpretation of the Bible.

I am relying on the Holy Spirit. TEs seem to rely on scientists. Our presuppostions are completely different when approaching Genesis.

Alchemist said:
There is more than one interpretation of the Bible, Critias. You are the one speaking out against the Bible, by associating it with blatant untruth such as creation science.

I could careless about creation science. The Bible teaches a six day creation and because I know it is God who move people to write it, I believe it.

Alchemist said:
I have answered this.

This is blatant hypocrisy.

Attack my character as you will, it doesn't change the truth of what is going on here.

Alchemist said:
Critias, I would have to ask you the same question. And I'm sorry, but I choose God over Scripture...

Peace,
Nick

So, creation is God then? Or are scientists God? Or did God tell you personally that what He had the authors write was just to confuse man?

night2day · Oct 14, 2005

Rusticus said:
What I said was this:"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..."

A phrase comes to mind from the literary context: "...all the earth..."

night2day · Oct 14, 2005

ebia said:
But this is drifting off the point - you claim that God has preserved the bible, when he actually seems to have preserved at least 3 slighly different bibles - the "Catholic" bible, the "Protestant" bible and the "Eastern Orthodox" bible, and that's without delving into some of the "not quite orthodox" eastern churches...

Who says all three Bibles are accuaret if there is only one that can be? The 66 books are already known to be, the OT Apocryoha is known not to be divenly inspired, but still prophetable reading nonrtheless, and the NT extra gospels were proven to be false.

Certainly God is more than capable of preserving His word. He's the Author. But not the authot of confusion.

Rusticus · Oct 14, 2005

night2day said:
A phrase comes to mind from the literary context: "...all the earth..."

If you wish to interpret "all the earth" as "global" that's fine. But an interpretation it is.

KerrMetric · Oct 14, 2005

night2day said:
the OT Apocryoha is known not to be divenly inspired...

According to Lutheran sources maybe...not all sources.

Alchemist · Oct 14, 2005

Critias said:
I said what I said to make a point.

That doesn't change the fact it was an insult.

Critias said:
Liar simply means, one who lies. It does not define it as intentional or not. If you say someone is lying, then you are saying they are a liar.

li·ar (l

r)
n.

One that tells lies.

lie[size=-1]2[/size] (l

)
n.

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

According to your definition, night2day is a liar. But by mine, Gluadys', and the dictionary's definition, she is not. And that is the point - you claim she is.

Critias said:
Gluadys said either she is a victim of deceit or she is a liar.

Well, Gluadys is right. Assuming night2day is not correct, either she is a victim of deceit (she unknowingly spoke falsehoods) or a liar (she knowingly spoke falsehoods). Do you propose another option?

Critias said:
One attacks night2day's intelligence...

False. If one does not know the full information about something, one cannot be held accountable for not knowing it. And the Bible says that.

Critias said:
... the other being an attack by name calling.

If night2day did lie, then calling her a liar would be completely justified!

Critias said:
Well, then you are just stating night2day cannot discern truth for herself, which is an attack on her intelligence.

No we're not. We suggested that night2day did not accept evolution because she had not been presented the arguments for evolution, or had had them presented in an untruthful way. Both of these mean that she never was told the truth in the first place, not that she foolishly ignored it. If you are not told the truth, how are you supposed to "discern" it?

Critias said:
lol. So, you are chiming in with the refrain that because Ancient Hebrew doesn't have a word for 'global' you will not believe it is global?

Actually, no. I'm saying that your claim the Bible states it is a global flood is untrue because the Bible does not say it is global. It says the flood covered kol erets, which in Ancient Hebrew referred almost exclusively to the local geographical area, or the people living in it.

Critias said:
That is like saying since an African Tribe doesn't have a word for tan, then the tan carpet is not tan and I will not believe it is tan because there in the African language the word tan is not used.

No, it is nothing like that, because Ancient Hebrew does have a word for "global", which was not used to talk about the Flood. So what you are really saying is, God wrote in the Bible that the flood was "local", even though it was global and the Hebrews had a word for it. What does "lie" mean again?

Critias said:
Who is God to say that He created in six days? Who is God to say He brought on a flood that covered all the earth under the entire heavens? It's all there in the Bible, but you don't have to believe it.

Yes, God created the universe in six days. No, God did not cover the entire planet with a global flood. And thats not in the Bible either.

Critias said:
If you are going to teach against the Bible, then you are false teacher.

What I teach does not go against the Bible. It goes against your interpretation of the Bible. Just because you believe these two things are the same does not make it true.

Critias said:
And you want to call this hypocrisy?

No, I call hypocrisy your attack me for calling someone a false teacher, when you find it perfectly acceptable to do the same to me.

Critias said:
You join up with your TE buddy's to personally attack night2day's character and compare this to my stance that if you teach against the Bible you are a false teacher??

For the last 3 pages of posts, Gluadys and I have been defending night2day's character, and specifically stating that we do not think it is her fault if she is misinformed about the theology of creation. It is only you, through your non-standard (and obviously uncommon) definition of "lie" that you ever perceived us to be attacking her in the first place. I do not think night2day is a liar. Neither does Gluadys. You are the only person saying that we do.

Critias said:
Her teachings of a Global Flood are straight out of the Bible.

No, they are not.

Critias said:
Tell me how believing the Bible leads us away from God...

It doesn't, provided you interpret the Bible correctly. If you do not, then it does lead you away from God; how can believing a whole bunch of lies about God lead you to Him? It is the sole reason I do look to history, science, and trust my common sense when it comes to theological issues, because anything other than the Truth is not from God. That is why I find it unbelievable that you, as one of over 2 billion people worldwide that call themselves "Christian", seem to think you are the final authority on what the Bible says. How do you know it is not you who is interpreting the Bible incorrectly?

Critias said:
I see, so my belief in God's Authority that He has personally moved men to write is leading people astray?

I'm not sure I understand, but if you mean that I do not believe God inspired the Bible then you are wrong. I do believe God inspired the Bible. I believed that whatever is in the Bible is there for the sole reason that God wanted it to be there. The only difference between me and you is what we believe He was trying to say...

Critias said:
You are exactly right, it is a stumbling block for all those who don't want to submit to the will of God. But blaming it on the others, the Bible or God is not the true source of the stumbling block.

I'm not blaming it on the Bible, God, or anyone else. I'm blaming it on your young-earth interpretation of the Bible, and the faricated pseudoscience you use to back it up; the only reasons any Christian would deny evolution happened.

Critias said:
It is their rebellion against God.

Only if God's word is what you believe it is. And I see no theological, historical, cultural, or rational reason why I should believe your word is indeed God's anyway.

Critias said:
TEs here seem to not be able to see this. Instead they blame YECs for those who choose to be rebellious against God and use creation or anything else in the Bible as their excuse.

Well considering that theistic evolutionists are the only Christians who do not accept the atheist lie that modern science contradicts Christianity, hence making them the only Christians who do not provide excuses for people to reject Christ, yes I would blame YECs. How is anyone supposed to witness to a non-believer when the person has been told for so long (by both atheists and Christians) that modern science contradicts the Bible?

Of course, if anyone suggested this, you'll revert to your AiG, ICR, and whatever other creationist source you can find to disprove this claim, but the simple fact is, you are telling other people that modern science disproves Christianity. And considering the concrete evidence that backs up modern science, and the complete lack of evidence which does not, it is hardly suprising so many do reject Christ. After-all, if young-earth creationism is blatantly and obviously false, why should you believe anything else a Christian says?

Critias said:
I am subject to God's will and by this I cannot nor I will not accept your's or anyone's attempt to try and persuade me that I must not believe what He says.

I am not trying to do this. I'm trying to persuade you to stop believing you know exactly what God says, because (like all of us) you obviously don't.

Critias said:
This is what I meant about understanding English. Nowhere did I call you a liar. I said those who speak out against the Bible are false teachers.

And you said I support false teaching, which would make me a liar also, because I would not support it if I did not myself believe it.

Critias said:
If you feel guilty and thus why you decided to create a strawman, then maybe you ought to think about that.

Actually, a strawman is refuting a weaker, or inaccurate, form of someone's argument. Nowhere in my post did I do this to my knowledge, especially in this statement. If you want strawmen, check out Answers in Genesis.

Critias said:
When the Bible says in six days God created everything and you say no He didn't it was in billions of years, then you are putting God against what He said.

But if when God said He created in "six days" he was not expressing a historical timeframe, but using it as a poetic device to sanctify the Sabbath, then there is no contradiction whatsoever. It is simply your blind allegiance to Western rationalistic philosophy that would make you treat Genesis as literal history; the Jews didn't and still don't do it.

Alchemist · Oct 14, 2005

Critias said:
Incorrect. A liar is one who doesn't tell the truth, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I addressed this earlier.

Critias said:
False teacher doesn't fit under the umbrella of all people who don't tell the truth.

No; anyone who doesn't tell the truth is a false teacher. Which means that a great deal of Christians are false teachers. Perhaps I am a false teacher. But what makes you so sure you are not one of them? The Holy Spirit guided you? If only it was that simple...

Critias said:
It is you who requires an a relatively modern word to be in the Ancient Hebrew when it is not in order to believe.

Well, as I said, there is an Ancient Hebrew word for "global". And it is nowhere to be seen when mentioning the flood. But despite this, and the fact that a phrase with the meaning of "local" is used instead, you continue to insist the Flood was global. Why?

Critias said:
I could careless about the scientific ramifications of a Global Flood. We are talking about what the Holy Scriptures say and teach.

Love the Lord God with all your strength, soul, heart, and mind. It's what Jesus did.

Critias said:
I need not tangible proof inorder to believe what God has said. He has strengthen my faith so that if the Holy Scriptures says He created in six days, I believe. If the Holy Scriptures say Jesus Christ came and died and recurrected to redeem mankind, I believe.

Well, neither do I. But considering the fact that AiG, ICR, and other such research institutes have been founded to prove creationism; considering the way Christians like yourself push for creation science to be taught in schools; considering the way that creationists cling to Intelligent Design theory to give support to their beliefs (despite most ID's vehement denial of young-earth creationism) - I think you'd have to say you're alone in that boat.

And even if you do not need tangible proof, how can you believe something even though it has been shown to be false? I bet you criticise Muslims for believing Muhammed was a true prophet, despite the (imo) overwhelming historical and scientific evidence against Islam. How can you criticise them, when you do the same by accepting YEC?

Critias said:
As you can see, you have already assumed wrongly about me. It is about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures that testify of Him and what He has done.

Well, God created the universe. You may you have no interest in science, but the simple fact is over 99% of scientists believe that universe appears to have been created 13.7 billion years ago. Even if it wasn't, the fact is there are fossils of thousands of dead animals buried under the Earth, with no two similar fossils giving different ages when subjected to radio-isotope dating, or being found in different levels of strata. And considering the Bible specifically states a global flood never happened, this creates a bit of a problem, because God would not create the Earth to look older than it actually is (this would be a lie). So, as far as God goes (the Bible aside), the Earth is undeniably old.

As for Jesus, well He did talk about Adam and Eve. But no Jew living in 1st century Palestine who would have had an opportunity to hear Him speak would have seen Adam and Eve as more than legendary figures, and all evidence would suggest that they would have treated the Adam and Eve story as a parable - hardly suprising considering a) its literary style, and b) the fact that Jesus Himself rarely did not talk in parables. Indeed, it seems ludicrous that the same Jesus who commanded us to love God with all our mind (i.e. don't turn our mind off, but be rational human beings) would create the world that we must contradict His own teaching to know the truth about it. So YECism 0, OEC/TE 2.

The Holy Spirit? Well, as I said, there is not one Christian I know that does not claim the Holy Spirit's guidance when making dogmatic statements of faith. And considering the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself (as you yourself stated), it means that either YECs are guided by the Holy Spirit, or they are not. So with this in mind, there is only one way we can believe that the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding us, and that is faith. But if our faith is based on lies, then how can we judge? We simply can't. So that the Holy Spirit told you really can't be tested, so no points here.

And lastly, the Scriptures. Well, considering that the Scriptures are nothing without God, and cannot be interpreted correctly unless one is guided by the Holy Spirit, there is no reason to believe that your interpretation of the Scripture is correct. How come a Jehovah's Witness is not correct? How come an Anglican is not correct? How come a Baptist is not correct? The fact is, your interpretation of Scripture is based on little more than what someone else has told you it means. And we all have different interpretations of Scripture. That you say the Bible backs you up really means nothing, because you mightn't be reading the Bible correctly.

It is why the traditional Church never solely on Scripture to formulate doctrine. In the wrong hands, Scripture can be made to say anything, and as a Lutheran I think you probably know this more than many Christians do. After-all, Scripture has been used to support both YEC and TE, covenentalism and dispensationalism, pre-millenialism and post-millenialism, infant baptism and believer's baptism, both the Real Presence and a strictly symbolic Eucharist, young-earth creation and evolution, slavery and abolishment of same, war and peace, liberalism and conservatism, racism and pluralism... the list goes on.

So with that in mind, really only God and Jesus matter. And considering neither of them give us any evidence that young-earth creationism is the correct interpretation of the Bible, I'd have to say there is no reason why anyone would believe it.

Critias said:
Calling it my interpretation is just a copout to not do your homework. But when you already have a bias that you must uphold, evolution, you will never see it any other way.

If evolution was disproved tomorrow, I would stop being an evolutionist in an instant. Young-earth creationism was disproven over 150 years ago, and you are still a young-earth creationist. And I'm biased?

Critias said:
Call me whatever you wish. If I was being dogmatic, I would care if you accepted evolution and a local flood. I don't. You have the right to accept whatever you wish. I chimed in this thread because the consistent attacks on night2day's character.

I think your repeated attacks on my doctrine, my character, and the same of my fellow Christian brethren on this forum shown the truth value of that statement. And both Gluadys and I have repeatedly stated why I was not attacking night2day. I hope in reading this thread she can see this too.

Critias said:
But, if you want to engage me and call my beliefs arrogant and call me a liar then I will engage you back.

Well, I do believe your beliefs are false. And I can understand that you would be concerned with this.

Critias said:
And let me make this clear, scientific evidence means relatively little to me. It doesn't provide me salvation, it doesn't teach me in the way of righteousness, it doesn't rebuke me and correct me and tell me what sin is. The Bible does, so the Bible is my concern.

I understand this. But when you are trying to claim that the Bible is a scientific account of creation, then the scientific evidence at hand is very important!

Critias said:
I am relying on the Holy Spirit. TEs seem to rely on scientists. Our presuppostions are completely different when approaching Genesis.

No, you are relying on your own faith that the Holy Spirit is guiding you to truth. You have no proof at all that you are actually guided by the Holy Spirit, you just believe you are. The problem is, every other Christian would say exactly the same. And yes, I do look to science in my walk with God. But I only do because He told me to think.

Critias said:
I could careless about creation science. The Bible teaches a six day creation and because I know it is God who move people to write it, I believe it.

Again, you just believe the Bible teaches a six day creation. The Bible may actually teach an old earth, you are just deceived. But in any case, the Bible does not teach a global flood. And if you cared nothing for science, I see no reason why you wouldn't accept that.

Critias said:
Attack my character as you will, it doesn't change the truth of what is going on here.

Perhaps not. But I do not like being accused of something I didn't do by someone who does exactly the same thing.

Critias said:
So, creation is God then?

God is in creation. But no, creation is not God.

Critias said:
Or are scientists God?

Of course not!

Critias said:
Or did God tell you personally that what He had the authors write was just to confuse man?

No, but in suggesting that God would create the world so that anyone who studied it would contradict His own teaching on creation, that is precisely what you are doing. Evolutionists don't say the Bible contradicts science. Only YECs and atheists do that...

Peace,
Nick

Critias · Oct 14, 2005

Alchemist said:
That doesn't change the fact it was an insult.

li·ar (l

r)
n.

One that tells lies.

lie[size=-1]2[/size] (l

)
n.

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

According to your definition, night2day is a liar. But by mine, Gluadys', and the dictionary's definition, she is not. And that is the point - you claim she is.

Then you are insulting her intelligence. Still a personal attack.

Alchemist said:
Well, Gluadys is right. Assuming night2day is not correct, either she is a victim of deceit (she unknowingly spoke falsehoods) or a liar (she knowingly spoke falsehoods). Do you propose another option?

Yes, the Bible is true and correct and she believes its teachings.

Alchemist said:
False. If one does not know the full information about something, one cannot be held accountable for not knowing it. And the Bible says that.

I would say the Bible has enough information to conclude it was global.

Alchemist said:
If night2day did lie, then calling her a liar would be completely justified!

It would be a personal attack. I am coming to the understanding that this is the way of debating for many TEs here.

Alchemist said:
No we're not. We suggested that night2day did not accept evolution because she had not been presented the arguments for evolution, or had had them presented in an untruthful way. Both of these mean that she never was told the truth in the first place, not that she foolishly ignored it. If you are not told the truth, how are you supposed to "discern" it?

You just won't accept that the Bible speaks otherwise and so people put their faith in what God moved authors to write, will you... Instead, those who do put their faith in God, you call liars or attack their intelligence.

Alchemist said:
Actually, no. I'm saying that your claim the Bible states it is a global flood is untrue because the Bible does not say it is global. It says the flood covered kol erets, which in Ancient Hebrew referred almost exclusively to the local geographical area, or the people living in it.

Exclusively?? You, Alchemist are uninformed on this phrase. And this phrase isn't even the only support either. Context, Alchemist, context. You cannot just pull a phrase out and say it means this without context. This shows a lack of understanding of Ancient Hebrew Language.

If you want to make this claim, show why all translators who are scholars in Ancient Hebrew are wrong to translate it as whole earth.

Try something, tell me what Hebrew word is used in Genesis 6:1 for land. Then explain why the author makes this differentiation between land and earth later on.

Then explain Genesis 7:19 and why it supports your assertion.

Alchemist said:
No, it is nothing like that, because Ancient Hebrew does have a word for "global", which was not used to talk about the Flood. So what you are really saying is, God wrote in the Bible that the flood was "local", even though it was global and the Hebrews had a word for it. What does "lie" mean again?

And the Ancient Hebrew word for global is...

Alchemist said:
Yes, God created the universe in six days. No, God did not cover the entire planet with a global flood. And thats not in the Bible either.

So, a flood that covered all the earth under the entire heavens isn't in the Bible?

Genesis 7:17-24
"Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days."

Did all flesh die or is the Bible wrong to say this?

Alchemist said:
What I teach does not go against the Bible. It goes against your interpretation of the Bible. Just because you believe these two things are the same does not make it true.

What you teach is going against the Bible.

Alchemist said:
No, I call hypocrisy your attack me for calling someone a false teacher, when you find it perfectly acceptable to do the same to me.

I stated those who speak against the Bible are false teachers. You jumped in with your TE buddys to call night2day a liar. What I said is a fact, what you did is a personal attack.

Alchemist said:
For the last 3 pages of posts, Gluadys and I have been defending night2day's character, and specifically stating that we do not think it is her fault if she is misinformed about the theology of creation. It is only you, through your non-standard (and obviously uncommon) definition of "lie" that you ever perceived us to be attacking her in the first place. I do not think night2day is a liar. Neither does Gluadys. You are the only person saying that we do.

Calling her a liar or insulting her intelligence is defending her? Sigh...

Yes, Cambridge and the American dictionaries are all wrong with their definition of lie.

You must not have read night2day's post where she said many of you are calling her a liar. So, obviously she feels this for saying it, yet you still justify yourself for doing so.

Wouldn't an apology or a cease in personal attacks be much better then this? That is all I am asking that you and your TE buddys do, stop attacking night2day's character. When you, I will stop posting. Until then, get used to me being here and defending the Bible and her character.

Alchemist said:
No, they are not.

If this is an honest opinion, then you ought to reread Genesis. Even Gluadys agrees that it is teaching a global flood. Her claim is that it is not historical.

Alchemist said:
It doesn't, provided you interpret the Bible correctly. If you do not, then it does lead you away from God; how can believing a whole bunch of lies about God lead you to Him? It is the sole reason I do look to history, science, and trust my common sense when it comes to theological issues, because anything other than the Truth is not from God. That is why I find it unbelievable that you, as one of over 2 billion people worldwide that call themselves "Christian", seem to think you are the final authority on what the Bible says. How do you know it is not you who is interpreting the Bible incorrectly?

I don't trust my common sense, it wars against God. So does everyone elses common sense, it is in our nature to do so. And it saddens me that you look to yourself for truth and assume that anything else that is not from your view point of science and common sense is not truth from God.

If you want to state I am not Christian, go ahead. Simply putting "" around it to bring into question is cowardly way to state what is in your heart.

I know because God has given me the Spirit of Truth and it is not to my self I turn to, but to the instruction of the Holy Spirit concerning these matters. Even in Church, when my Pastor preaches, I test everything he says, against the Scriptures and so do I do with all mankind. For I am instructed to do so. It is those who do not understand this who say things like where is computers in the Bible, etc.

Alchemist said:
I'm not sure I understand, but if you mean that I do not believe God inspired the Bible then you are wrong. I do believe God inspired the Bible. I believed that whatever is in the Bible is there for the sole reason that God wanted it to be there. The only difference between me and you is what we believe He was trying to say...

I said nothing about you in that sentence. You seem to think that a belief in what God has said in the BIble leads people astray. This isn't so and is just an excuse.

I am sure you do believe God did inspired the Bible, but I don't know if you completely understand what that means.

Alchemist said:
I'm not blaming it on the Bible, God, or anyone else. I'm blaming it on your young-earth interpretation of the Bible, and the faricated pseudoscience you use to back it up; the only reasons any Christian would deny evolution happened.

I know you are blaming peoples rebellion on YECs. That is what I said. When have I used science to back up my belief? I use the Holy Scriptures. I need nothing else, but God's True Message.

What you are doing is blaming other people, YECs, for those who choose to rebel against God and make excuses by blaming something other than themselves for their lack of faith.

Alchemist said:
Only if God's word is what you believe it is. And I see no theological, historical, cultural, or rational reason why I should believe your word is indeed God's anyway.

People who walk away from the faith do so because of rebellion. Not because of someone else. We are never forced to do anything, we can make our descisions. Although, it is a popular atheist belief that we cannot decide anything for ourselves so therefore we are never at fault for our sins.

You don't have to believe my word, go to the Holy Scriptures. All of earth under the entire heavens were covered. All flesh died.

Alchemist said:
Well considering that theistic evolutionists are the only Christians who do not accept the atheist lie that modern science contradicts Christianity, hence making them the only Christians who do not provide excuses for people to reject Christ, yes I would blame YECs. How is anyone supposed to witness to a non-believer when the person has been told for so long (by both atheists and Christians) that modern science contradicts the Bible?

Of course, if anyone suggested this, you'll revert to your AiG, ICR, and whatever other creationist source you can find to disprove this claim, but the simple fact is, you are telling other people that modern science disproves Christianity. And considering the concrete evidence that backs up modern science, and the complete lack of evidence which does not, it is hardly suprising so many do reject Christ. After-all, if young-earth creationism is blatantly and obviously false, why should you believe anything else a Christian says?

You see, you don't even know me and are not able to make correct assertions about me. I don't go to ICR or AiG, I go to the Bible. I have never stated to anyone that modern science disproves Christianity. Where are you getting these lies about me?

This is a saddening discourse.

Alchemist said:
I am not trying to do this. I'm trying to persuade you to stop believing you know exactly what God says, because (like all of us) you obviously don't.

And maybe that is the problem. Are you assuming that you cannot know what God says? If so, you are wrong, just listen to the Spirit of Truth, He will lead you.

Alchemist said:
And you said I support false teaching, which would make me a liar also, because I would not support it if I did not myself believe it.

If you are going to speak against the Bible, then you are a false teacher. I wouldn't call you a liar for doing so. I think, you have been indocrinated and haven't spent enough time studying the Bible and being open to the Spirit of Truth. There are many deceiving spirits out there that would just love to get you to speak against the Bible.

I don't call you a false teacher with a smile. It is sad and I do pray for those who speak against the Bible because they have been deceived by the god of this world.

Alchemist said:
Actually, a strawman is refuting a weaker, or inaccurate, form of someone's argument. Nowhere in my post did I do this to my knowledge, especially in this statement. If you want strawmen, check out Answers in Genesis.

You created a false argument out of something I did not say.

Alchemist said:
But if when God said He created in "six days" he was not expressing a historical timeframe, but using it as a poetic device to sanctify the Sabbath, then there is no contradiction whatsoever. It is simply your blind allegiance to Western rationalistic philosophy that would make you treat Genesis as literal history; the Jews didn't and still don't do it.

You already have your conditions, as seen in your first sentence above. If it is six says then it is not historical. You don't have the literary support of Ancient Hebrew for this assertion.

Really? Jews don't consider Genesis 1-11 to be history? Granted there are some Jews who don't, but if you do some research you will find that most do, especially in the times after Exile.

Critias · Oct 14, 2005

Alchemist said:
I addressed this earlier.

No; anyone who doesn't tell the truth is a false teacher. Which means that a great deal of Christians are false teachers. Perhaps I am a false teacher. But what makes you so sure you are not one of them? The Holy Spirit guided you? If only it was that simple...

So, false teachers are kids who are 2 years old who tell a lie? What did they teach falsely? What was their lesson that was false? I don't think you quite understand the Biblical teaching on false teachers when you are making this argument above.

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides me. Am I too be ashamed of this so that I respond with a 'no' or 'I don't know'? Ashamed, I am not.

Alchemist said:
Well, as I said, there is an Ancient Hebrew word for "global". And it is nowhere to be seen when mentioning the flood. But despite this, and the fact that a phrase with the meaning of "local" is used instead, you continue to insist the Flood was global. Why?

And the Ancient Hebrew word for global(be specific since that is what you require) is....

Read Genesis 6-8 and you will see why.

Tell me, did all flesh die?

Alchemist said:
Love the Lord God with all your strength, soul, heart, and mind. It's what Jesus did.

And this has to do with modern science how?

Do you think that because in Jesus' day there wasn't modern science like we have, nor did Jesus appeal to science that He didn't carry out this command? If not, then why hold me to a different standard?

Alchemist said:
Well, neither do I. But considering the fact that AiG, ICR, and other such research institutes have been founded to prove creationism; considering the way Christians like yourself push for creation science to be taught in schools; considering the way that creationists cling to Intelligent Design theory to give support to their beliefs (despite most ID's vehement denial of young-earth creationism) - I think you'd have to say you're alone in that boat.

And even if you do not need tangible proof, how can you believe something even though it has been shown to be false? I bet you criticise Muslims for believing Muhammed was a true prophet, despite the (imo) overwhelming historical and scientific evidence against Islam. How can you criticise them, when you do the same by accepting YEC?

And if your problem is with AiG and ICR, then go and speak with them about it. Don't sit here complaining about them if you are not willing to go and speak to them.

Actually, I believe both sides should be taught. I believe in educating our children to the various types of sciences out there.

Have you shown the Biblical Flood to be false? I have yet to see any TE deal with it properly. Gluadys is probably the only one that has done the best job out of the TEs, her position I can respect. She doesn't make it something it is not, she accepts it for what it is, even though she thinks it isn't historical.

You need not science to prove Muhammed to be a false prophet. Just look at his teachings and you can see.

Alchemist said:
Well, God created the universe. You may you have no interest in science, but the simple fact is over 99% of scientists believe that universe appears to have been created 13.7 billion years ago. Even if it wasn't, the fact is there are fossils of thousands of dead animals buried under the Earth, with no two similar fossils giving different ages when subjected to radio-isotope dating, or being found in different levels of strata. And considering the Bible specifically states a global flood never happened, this creates a bit of a problem, because God would not create the Earth to look older than it actually is (this would be a lie). So, as far as God goes (the Bible aside), the Earth is undeniably old.

As for Jesus, well He did talk about Adam and Eve. But no Jew living in 1st century Palestine who would have had an opportunity to hear Him speak would have seen Adam and Eve as more than legendary figures, and all evidence would suggest that they would have treated the Adam and Eve story as a parable - hardly suprising considering a) its literary style, and b) the fact that Jesus Himself rarely did not talk in parables. Indeed, it seems ludicrous that the same Jesus who commanded us to love God with all our mind (i.e. don't turn our mind off, but be rational human beings) would create the world that we must contradict His own teaching to know the truth about it. So YECism 0, OEC/TE 2.

And you are wrong about Adam and Eve. Do some research. Learn Jewish history.

So, we have little bits of what Jesus said and did and you are making the claim that he rarely did not talk in parables? Interesting claim. Especially when the Gospels testify against this.

Finally, one who is willing to present an Ancient Hebrew liguistical analysis of Genesis and show why the literary style is a myth. Go ahead, I'm all ears!

The earth doesn't contradict Jesus' teachings, scientists contradict His teachings. And if you think Jesus' teachings are only found in the 4 Gospels, then you are incorrect.

Remember we don't understand the language of the earth, so scientists make interpretations of what they find. The earth never communicates history in a language for us to understand. Scientists do this with their guess, assertions and interpretations.

Alchemist said:
The Holy Spirit? Well, as I said, there is not one Christian I know that does not claim the Holy Spirit's guidance when making dogmatic statements of faith. And considering the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself (as you yourself stated), it means that either YECs are guided by the Holy Spirit, or they are not. So with this in mind, there is only one way we can believe that the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding us, and that is faith. But if our faith is based on lies, then how can we judge? We simply can't. So that the Holy Spirit told you really can't be tested, so no points here.

Yeah, it seems it is all the rage to say every teaching that goes against the Bible is brought by the Holy Spirit.

There is more then one way to know the Holy Spirit is leading us, faith (as you say) and the fact that what He leads us to believe will not contradict the Holy Scriptures.

I don't need to do a scientific testing of the Holy Spirit to believe.

Alchemist said:
And lastly, the Scriptures. Well, considering that the Scriptures are nothing without God, and cannot be interpreted correctly unless one is guided by the Holy Spirit, there is no reason to believe that your interpretation of the Scripture is correct. How come a Jehovah's Witness is not correct? How come an Anglican is not correct? How come a Baptist is not correct? The fact is, your interpretation of Scripture is based on little more than what someone else has told you it means. And we all have different interpretations of Scripture. That you say the Bible backs you up really means nothing, because you mightn't be reading the Bible correctly.

Well, essentially you are saying I am not guided by the Holy Spirit, which is fine. I don't concern myself with how you view me. Like your last post of 'calling yourself "Christian"' which seems to be saying I am not. I don't mind, you are free to state as you wish, even liar as it seems you have. I won't hold them against you. But I will speak up for my sister in Christ, the Holy SCriptures and Jesus Christ.

Call it what you will, I know the truth and it is quite peaceful.

Alchemist said:
It is why the traditional Church never solely on Scripture to formulate doctrine. In the wrong hands, Scripture can be made to say anything, and as a Lutheran I think you probably know this more than many Christians do. After-all, Scripture has been used to support both YEC and TE, covenentalism and dispensationalism, pre-millenialism and post-millenialism, infant baptism and believer's baptism, both the Real Presence and a strictly symbolic Eucharist, young-earth creation and evolution, slavery and abolishment of same, war and peace, liberalism and conservatism, racism and pluralism... the list goes on.

So with that in mind, really only God and Jesus matter. And considering neither of them give us any evidence that young-earth creationism is the correct interpretation of the Bible, I'd have to say there is no reason why anyone would believe it.

And there is no evidence of a resurrection, at least scientific evidence. But regardless we believe because of faith. So, I have faith that when the Scriptures say in six days, it was six days. When it says all the earth under the entire heavens were covered, it was so; when it says all flesh died, it was so.

It seems you want me to have less faith.

Alchemist said:
If evolution was disproved tomorrow, I would stop being an evolutionist in an instant. Young-earth creationism was disproven over 150 years ago, and you are still a young-earth creationist. And I'm biased?

Yes, you are biased. No one is not biased.

You need science to prove it wrong instead of what God says.

Alchemist said:
I think your repeated attacks on my doctrine, my character, and the same of my fellow Christian brethren on this forum shown the truth value of that statement. And both Gluadys and I have repeatedly stated why I was not attacking night2day. I hope in reading this thread she can see this too.

I haven't attacked your character. I called your teaching false when it goes against the Bible. Are you now saying that if one teaches against the BIble it isn't false?

You, her and others were attacking her. You just want to justify it and sweep it under the rug. Fine, justify your sins and try and hide them.

Alchemist said:
Well, I do believe your beliefs are false. And I can understand that you would be concerned with this.

Actually, as I have said you can call me whatever you want. I know the truth.

I only engaged Gluadys here. It was you and others who decided to jump in and engage me. So, when I defend the Bible, do be upset because you asked for it when you decided to engage me.

Alchemist said:
I understand this. But when you are trying to claim that the Bible is a scientific account of creation, then the scientific evidence at hand is very important!

I said nothing of science. This is an often confused area that if I believe the Bible account of creation then I am talking about science. I am not. I didn't say anything about DNA, amino acids, or any other scientific terminology.

When scientific evidence is given more authority than what God has moved authors to write, it becomes idolatry. One is putting science before God when they do this.

Alchemist said:
No, you are relying on your own faith that the Holy Spirit is guiding you to truth. You have no proof at all that you are actually guided by the Holy Spirit, you just believe you are. The problem is, every other Christian would say exactly the same. And yes, I do look to science in my walk with God. But I only do because He told me to think.

I need not show you proof of anything. The Holy Spirit is not under my command to do my bidding to show you proof. He will do as He wishes, not as I say. To think this is beyond all arrogance.

Telling you to think doesn't mean believe what science tells you even when it contradicts the Bible.

Alchemist said:
Again, you just believe the Bible teaches a six day creation. The Bible may actually teach an old earth, you are just deceived. But in any case, the Bible does not teach a global flood. And if you cared nothing for science, I see no reason why you wouldn't accept that.

I said nothing of the age of the earth. I said the Bible says in six days all things were created.

If you want to keep chanting that the Bible doesn't say all the earth was covered under the entire heavens, go ahead. Doesn't make it true.

I accept the global flood for it is written.

Alchemist said:
Perhaps not. But I do not like being accused of something I didn't do by someone who does exactly the same thing.

You did attack night2day. Do you want me to lie and say you didn't?

Granted I have been harsh with all those who attacked night2day. But, I didn't personally attack either of you by calling you a liar or any other name. I did, however, say if you teach against the Bible you are a false teacher. Do you disagree with this statement?

Alchemist said:
God is in creation. But no, creation is not God.

Of course not!

So, why take their word over what God has moved the authors to write?

Alchemist said:
No, but in suggesting that God would create the world so that anyone who studied it would contradict His own teaching on creation, that is precisely what you are doing. Evolutionists don't say the Bible contradicts science. Only YECs and atheists do that...

Peace,
Nick

Anyone? You are aware that there are people who do come to a different conclusion than you or other scientist who are qualified to make such a decision.

Atheists are quite intelligent and perceptive, unfortunetly they lack faith to believe. Atheists are perceptive enough to know what the Bible does say, they just don't believe. TEs on the other hand distort the issues of creation and the flood, creating a compromise between Christianity and pagan beliefs.

I wouldn't take the road of calling Atheists unable to know what the Bible says.

night2day · Oct 14, 2005

ebia said:
Are you suggesting that the 'bible God has preserved' is the minimial set of books that every Christian church agrees on? On what basis would you think that?

Why bypass answering a question by asking with a question?

Rhetorical or not as posted to Cirtias in #282. your questioning openly whether or not God can even sheild and preserve the Scriptures as He authored them.

Such a statement shouldn't be one to be made lightly.

...The RCC and the Eastern Orthodox churches have always treated them as inspired, although (in the case of the RCC) of lesser inspiration. Pick up a decent Catholic bible and you'd be hard pressed to pick them out...

Always? Perhaps go back to church history particularly the Counter-Reformation. And compare this to what was occuring before the Reformation even started. Then look a little into something known as the "Council of Trent" which offically made them as part of the Old Testament in order to spite the Reformers.

night2day · Oct 14, 2005

gluadys said:
I have never stated that Moses recopied the flood story from Gilgamesh.

Just that except for the name of the characters and other details, they were the same. Does this mean your saying if "Gilgamesh" did copyright his story of the flood he could outright sue Moses for plagerism?

The fact there are various accounts of a catastrophic flood could very well stand as evidence future civilizations acknowledged God's handiwork ... even though through time they tweaked and reworked the account as they saw fit.

Seven people survived the universal flood. Only seven. And it was then the human race once more populated the earth. If you wish to discount this or the original 6 day creation has any relevance for the rest of the Scriptures, why did both Testaments refer to the world wide flood? Why does it count Sem as the son of Noah within the geneology...that goes all the way back to Adam within Luke 3?

Geneologies do not have fictional characters which are placed within myths. They are actual lists of ancestories. Or...are you willing to not only push aside Jesus' geneology on Mary's side from Luke, but Joeseph's side in Matthew, would automatically place Him as the foretold " (King) David's son, yet David's Lord" as well as David's heir, and all the other geneologies within the Scriptures?

...I agree that Jesus did and does exist, and that he is the Son of God. But I would not attempt to prove that he existed, because I don't know of any confirmatory evidence that he did...

One either accepts the wittnesses and accounts or they don't. It's done all the time.

Someone may very well say they won't believe there was a U.S. President by the name of Abraham Lincoln who was assasinated because they declare they were not at the scene, nor will they accept any eyewittness accounts of what occured. Their disbelief doesn't make the assasination of Lincoln any less than an actual historical event in U.S. history.

I don't think any apology is due because of your hyper imagination. In any case, I'll let night2day decide if she is insulted. You might read my last response to her.

Critias does not need to if he does not want to. And if you do not wish to provoke a flame-fest it would be best to avoid stating he has a "hyper imagination" simply because he acknowledged calling anyone a flat-out liar within a discussion is uncalled for. It does nothing but to weaken your position by feeling you have to resort to calling people names to get across your stance by belittling another.

Any apology forthcoming from yourself or others would, by now, be rather unexpected. Insulted I am. However, ultimately what's been said is not against me. It's about having faith regarding what God has said within His word regardless if one fully understands what is written. Or what others state about it.

Weather during the Global Flood

Critias

Guest

Senior Contributor

Critias

Guest

Legend

Critias

Guest

Legend

Senior Member

Seeking in Orthodoxy

Critias

Guest

Critias

Guest

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Seeking in Orthodoxy

Seeking in Orthodoxy

Critias

Guest

Critias

Guest

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency