Weather during the Global Flood

gluadys · Oct 15, 2005

justified said:
Actually, you are mistaken on several points:

I would be interested in knowing what mistakes you found since you chose not to mention them in your post.

1. The reason I mentioned pliny was that you were saying our sources were dependent upon Christian sources, but in fact Pliny is well-aquainted with the Christians. You also see that he is despelling the rumour that Christians were cannibalistic.

So you are confirming that Pliny was dependant for his information on the Christians with whom he was well-acquainted. IOW on Christian sources. Nice of him to dispel the rumour, but irrelevant to the point. Neither Pliny nor his Christian sources were primary witnesses of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

2. Pliny wrote the letter c. 100, after Domitian's persecution, after Nero's persecution. Nero's was going on when Pliny was born. I mention these points for historical context, not a proof.

I don't think there is any issue relating to the historical context. If anything it confirms Pliny was not a primary witness and had no information from primary witnesses.

3. Josephus mentions Jesus. He mentions him in places where the Christians later edited, so that it read "he was the Christ", but also in other passages where is called a prophet. Josephus' history is from around 80, I believe. He was quite possibly in Palestine during the crucifixion.

Possibilities are not evidence. One needs to take things from the realm of possibility into the realm of reality before it can be evidence. From what I recall on Josephus' writing, he seems even more removed from primary witnesses than Pliny. I can't recall him saying he knew Christians, but rather knew of them and had heard something of their doctrine.

4. Every one of the gospels falls to a good extent within the genre of Graeco-Roman biography. See both commentaries by Craig Keener on Matthew and John.

Yes, but of course they are Christian sources, and we were speaking of pagan sources. Note, too, that Graeco-Roman biography is also prone to include matter we would more likely characterize as myth or mysticism as well as biography.

5. I find this statement funny, since you in the same post adopted a post-structuralist viewpoint towards literature:

Sorry, I am too tired to revisit the post and see what you are talking about, so cannot make any intelligent comment now.

6. Although I agree with you that we have the word of the apostles, I do not see what you think is to be done with the rest of the historical testimony in the New Testament. What do you consider to be a critical reading of the gospels?

To begin with, one that recognizes that these documents are post-Easter documents written by believers who are transferring their post-Easter concept of Christ back onto the Jesus of history. Biographies of Jesus written without benefit of the experience of the resurrection might recount the same events, but would do so in a very different way.

Critias · Oct 16, 2005

gluadys said:
In the post you are responding to I said nothing about the people here. I was speaking of Pliny and the 1st-century Christians from whom he was taking testimony. And I said nothing negative about their character.

Actually, you made a statement about me being hyper-sensitive, a character trait.

gluadys said:
No, hearsay does not mean there is no tangible proof. It means the witness cannot offer tangible proof, because s/he is relying on what another person said. If that person is brought forward, s/he may be able to offer tangible proof. Same goes for verified. It may be that the fact is verified or could be verified----but not by the witness in question, who is only relaying what s/he heard, not what s/he has personal knowledge of.

Hearsay simply means that the witness has no personal knowledge of what they are speaking of. It doesn't mean that what they are saying is untrue or that there is no corroborating evidence or that it cannot be verified by someone else. Only that the corroboration or verification must come from a different source.

I would certainly grant that my personal testimony about scientific matters is (except for some long-forgotten lab experiments in high school) is hearsay. But that of the scientists is not. They provide the necessary corroboration and verification through their research.

Actually, I do deny my grandfather's historical account of his life. Not because I was not there. Not because I need to personally witness everything. But because my cousin found, and showed to me, documentation that completely contradicts what my grandfather told his children and grandchildren about his history.

I believe the documentation rather than my grandfather, because his own children affirm that he was an inveterate teller of tall tales who liked to misrepresent himself as having connections with aristocracy. By contrast the registrar of births, deaths and marriages has no motivation to create a false record.

I could interpret the situation differently, but do you think another interpretation would be justifiable?

My apologies about bringing up your grandfather, I didn't know.

Actually, even scientists testimony is heresay. They weren't at creation either to have an eye-witness account. Nor were they at the flood.

Their research is built on interpretations of many different types of evidences found. And these interpertations are built on guess work to present what they call the best theory. It is nothing more then their best guess and guess it is.

You demand eye-witness accounts in order to believe and there are none for creation and the flood. Yet, you believe scientists interpretations of them and they never witnessed these events. So, how can you justify this double standard?

gluadys said:
Whose accounts? And where did I say I was dismissing them?

We are talking about two different kinds of accounts: the written accounts of pagan Romans (for the most part) and the verbal accounts of the Christians on which the written accounts are based. I am not dismissing either of them. I am just showing that neither the verbal testimony of Christian converts, nor the written accounts provide any evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. What they provide is evidence of a Christian community that believed he existed and was the foretold messiah of Israel and the saviour of the world.

The pagans only wrote of what the Christians told them. They did not write of any attempt to verify the truth of what the Christians said.

The Christians testified as to what they believed, but they themselves could not verifiy that what they believed was true, because they 'knew' it by faith, not through objectively demonstrable evidence.

And scientists testify to what they believe. There has never been any eye witness accounts to creation or the flood. They make guesses off of what they see and these guesses will be based off their biases which are built on their world views. Those who already accept evolution and are strong supporters of it, will never see any evidence that goes against their view point of evolution being true.

gluadys said:
And where did I suggest that anyone ought to deny the existence of Jesus? Just because we have no evidence of his existence doesn't mean he did not exist. It is true of the vast majority of deceased humans that we have no evidence of their existence. So lack of evidence that someone lived is a ridiculous reason to doubt their existence.

I am simply saying that we do not have verified evidence that Jesus existed. I have never suggested that he did not actually exist or that we should doubt his existence.

As to the evidence from pagan sources, it does verify the existence of Christian communities, very shortly after the death of Jesus. And the various pagan sources show that Christians in different communities gave much the same testimony as to their beliefs. I agree with those scholars who say the existence of Christian communities and the consistency of their teaching and practice is a powerful, though not conclusive, argument in favour of the historical existence of Jesus.

What is interesting to me in this exchange and the other one we are having is that you are taking the side of 1)Present evidence of Jesus' existence and 2)Present evidence that Jesus had all of the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

For me, it feels odd that a Christian would take the side of defending a secular view point against Christianity. Maybe you just like being the devils advocate.

gluadys said:
I have read some of his works. I would have strong doubts about his being at the crucifixion. I expect that is one of numerous later Christian emendations of his work. The question is how familiar was he with the Christian community in Jerusalem and how?

There is no real solid evidence that Josephus was there, but speculation. Being a Jew in the region, he was quite aware of what was going on with the uprising of Christianity. He wouldn't mention it if he wasn't.

gluadys said:
Yes, but from witnesses who are followers and trying to persuade others to be followers. How much is reportage and how much is apologetics? And which is which? The gospels need to be taken seriously as primary witnesses. I do not question that. But their limitations as hard evidence has to be taken seriously too.

And that shouldn't be view as bad, people who preach the Gospel so others can be saved by Jesus Christ. I would argue that much of the NT is apologetics as well as reporting of Jesus Christ. I don't see how you can separate them as one being less.

The Gospels limitation rests with the one who either accepts their testimony or not; whether they give into the wooing of the Holy Spirit or not. For no man can make his own choice to follow, he must submit to allow God to make that change within him.

gluadys said:
And where did I say that?

Please keep in mind I said if.

gluadys said:
As a matter of fact, I do believe the testimony of the apostles.

But I know the difference between believing their testimony and having that testimony corroborated by evidence or by a disinterested (or even hostile) source. I know that the only reason I believe their testimony is by the grace of God through faith which is open to the witness of the Holy Spirit.

My if was more of a general statement that an accusatory one of you. That is why I used if.

Being you are Christian, you would have to accept the testimony of the Gospels to some degree.

I actually like what Shernren said in another thread and I happen to agree to an extent with him. Fighting knowledge with knowledge will not win anyone over to anything. Rather it creates a hostile environment if it is not present already. If it is present it fuels the fire. Presentation through love, and the showing of where our faith lies and why is one of the best ways to present His Message. Through this, we can reason using the Scriptures of why we believe as we do.

The only reason why any of us believes is because God allowed it to be so and worked in us to believe. But we have to be willing to submit to Him, if not we harden our hearts.

gluadys said:
That is not true, and it shows how far you are from understanding TE. We do not require evidence of a young earth or a global flood. Nor more than we require physical evidence of the virgin birth or Christ's resurrection and ascension, or of the very existence of God himself. We believe all these things, though there is not an iota of evidence in their favour.

I can't remember which TEs told me word for word that they need evidence in order to believe, but they did. But, you don't need to believe me and probably wouldn't because you need eye witness testimony in order to believe.

gluadys said:
What makes a young earth and a global flood problematical is not lack of evidence, but the presence of evidence. Evidence which overwhelmingly contradicts these possibilities.

There you go again. You subsitute evidence in for interpretation of evidence. I am starting to think you don't really know the difference or you want to make a very biased presentation of something that it is not.

gluadys said:
Excuse me? Where did I say I was against these testimonies? I am just pointing out what they are testimonies of and what they are not testimonies of.

Your presentation of what you said gives the impression your were against them for what they are. So, I asked.

gluadys said:
But the different interpretation depends on ignoring the evidence. Where have you seen creationists even acknowledge the existence of the evidence which glen morton has posted on the quiet thread in the C&E forum's quiet thread, much less intepret it, differently or not? There are reams of geological evidence which creationists consistently ignore in order to get to an alternate interpretation.

No, wrong again. The different interpretation depends on ignoring the majority of scientists interpretations of the evidence.

Well, I don't suspect that AiG or ICR scientists, or whoever other YEC scienstist spend a lot of time on this forum or any at all. But the fact that no YEC scientists has visited or responded to this forum is not proof of a correct claim.

gluadys said:
What it is not consistent with is other evidence which contradicts the creationist interpretation.

Maybe this is a mantra for you in order to brain wash people into believing that scientists interpretations of the evidence is actually the evidence speaking without any human involvement whatsoever.

Again, scientists interpretation of the evidence contradicts the creationists interpretations.

gluadys said:
The reference was to the inspiration and truth of the bible, not to whether or not the content is mythical. One can believe the content is mythical and still believe it is also true and inspired. One can also accept geological fact and believe scripture is true and inspired.

True and inspired myths. So, who decides what is a true account and what is a mythical account?

What literary analysis do you do to distinguish one from the other?

Which people in the geneologies are mythical one and which ones are historical?

What accounts in the Old Testament actually happened in history and which ones did not?

What method do you use to separate these two types of literature styles?

Did Elijah really out run a chariot?

Did he cast down fire from heaven by calling on God?

Was Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego really in a fiery furnace?

Did Philip really transport to another location, disappearing infront of the Eunuch?

gluadys said:
Some do? And therefore some don't? And you know which is which?

I hope this is not what you intend to imply. It does remind me of a Disraeli quip I heard yesterday.

He stands up in the House of Commons and addresses the Speaker thus:

"Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw my statement of yesterday wherein I said that half of the members of the Opposition are horse's asses. I deeply apologize for this error and now wish to affirm that half the members of the Opposition are not horses' asses."

Those who argue against Scripture obviously don't believe it was inspired by God. If they did they wouldn't argue against it. Either that or they think they are more knowledgable than God, thus greater than He.

Critias · Oct 16, 2005

gluadys said:
But I have, many times, and others have done so as well. The fact that you do not agree with the analysis does not mean it was not provided for you.

No, you haven't. You presented your analysis of the English version and never presented proof of your claims that the Ancient Hebrews believed it was a myth. Instead you assert that because there are myths that date back near that time, that the Ancient Hebrew wrote myths instead of historical accounts. Yet, when I presented evidence contrary, such as tangible evidence of a economic transaction being recorded, you said sure there are some historical accounts, but Genesis isn't one of them.

That is nothing but an assertion. You didn't present proof and when I did you dismissed it without any proof to prove contrary. Instead, you rely on myths that Kings had written to show their deity and use it as proof that Genesis is a myth.

gluadys said:
I hope to. I love learning languages and have studied French, Latin, German and Spanish. I am currently working on Arabic, Japanese and Chinese. I also want to get around to the biblical languages. And Mohawk or another of the First Nation languages.

I too have a love affair with languages.

gluadys said:
Interesting. I was an OEC until I decided to take Genesis seriously and study it.

I don't think you have. You have yet to study Hebrew to look into how it was written in Hebrew and then try and make a linguistical presentation to show why Genesis is as you say it is.

Study Hebrew poetry and you will see it isn't poetry. Study Hebrew myths and you will see it is not a myth. Study proverbs and parables and you will see it is neither. Study Genesis 11 on, or Duet, and see that it does follow the same linguistical style.

gluadys said:
There you go again, assuming that an OT myth is going against the teachings of the NT writers and Jesus.

It does. Peter taught a global flood. You don't believe a global flood. So, you called Peter ignorant. Paul taught that all mankind came from one man. You don't believe that, so you called Paul ignorant.

Besides Jesus, our two greatest theologians, you called ignorant.

gluadys said:
Not without evidence, no. For I am not persuaded that God intends for us to deny evidence. Scientific information is presented so that people can see that the evidence exists, for many have been told repeatedly that it does not.

I am starting to question your intentions when you keep subsituting in evidence for interpreations of the evidence. People know the evidence exists, they don't know what it means to our history until someone makes an interpretation which is really a guess. These guesses is where you have put your trust in and thus called Genesis a myth.

ebia · Oct 16, 2005

[deleted]

[Changed my mind - 3 days and still no progress, just more volume]

night2day · Oct 16, 2005

gluadys said:
...I don't see myths and stories as problems. I don't see them as offering nothing...

Going back to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, if that is seen as a myth and story, then there indeed is a problem as was written in 1 Corinthians 15. Yet, for some strange reason that and other miracles aren't seen as problematic while others are.

Shortly after Jesus rose from the grave other people who had died believing in God's promise of the coming Savior were raised back to life, entered the cities, and testified of Hid resurrection. (Matthew 27:50-53)

As shown above the Bible indicates rather strongly it does matter. People will respond differntly.

There is nothing particularly different about the biblical story of the flood and the stories told in other mythological traditions.

Other than the son of one of the chief characters is listed in Jesus Christ's geneology in Luke, and the very first man who ever lived is listed as the first man who ever lived in within the geneology found in Luke. Both who are referred to as people whp lived and did as it was written they did.

Not to mention the Genesis global flood is...of course...found within Genesis which is a part of the Scriptures. All other glood accounts of the occurance are elsewhere.

The bible makes no comment on these records. But they still exist. How could they have been written? How could those who wrote them not have noticed or mentioned the flood?

Simple. No human being survived save for Noah and his family. The civilizations before the flood were quite literally washed away by the flood.

Just to give a reminder, the Bible gives a sequence of events. It doesn't always give the exact time or length of time. Noah was 600 yrs. old. when there was a flood. By the time he died he was 900. That much as well of which later nations arose from which son was given. What was not stated was how much time had passed After Noah died and the following chapter which talks of Babel, just before it speaks of Abram geneology. It only states: "And it came to pass..."

So, how can you claim not much time went by for the nations to arise from Noah's family when it doesn't even say?

To me it seems that the only rational explanation is that they did not experience this flood, so it could not have been global. Can you suggest any other reason the Egyptians had no flood tradition (in the sense of a global flood---their tradition was of the annual flooding of the Nile.) and why their records go from before the flood to after it with no interruption? Where did the Egyptians who lived just 1-3 years after the flood come from if only Noah and his family survived the global flood?

Why are you so certian the Egyptions even existed before the flood occured? Can you point out from the Scriptures they were even mentioned until after Abram is called by God to leave his homeland with his wife? You're basing asumptions on nothing more than second guessing.

What changed environment? The bible mentions no changed environment.

If one has to ask "what change" when we're speaking of the long-term effects of one of the greatest catastrophes within earth's history a, catostropy involving, massive flooding, earthquakes, and upheavels--.

And this unfounded opinion of yours is the reason for insisting that what cannot be history must be history.

Strange, I'm only pointing to God's word and to what it's stating. Supernatural universal flood brought about by God due to Mankind's unfaithfullness.

You're the one stating this group, that group, and that civilization existed before the flood. The Bible doesn't speak of any in this way. For that matter, it doesn't state the areas where the civilizations we know of today existed before then. We're not speaking of the effects and devestation the Tsunumi in Asia, caused by an underground earthquake in the ocean, or Hurricane Katrina. A globel flood would have had much, much more impact than your giving it.

It is because you devalue myth, and consider it unworthy to be scripture that you discount it.

If the literary context doesn't indicate by the passage, why should I? Picking and choosing what one reads in Scripture simply because they think it's unfounded is dangerous.

Again, you project your own opinions onto those who do not share them. You would discount Genesis 1 if the days are not literally 6 24-hr days, so you assume that those who do not agree with you have as motivation a need to discount Genesis.

For what other reason is there to state they are nothing but 6/24 hr. days? And why is it only in Genesis 1 "day" is often questioned when the word often is not within the rest of the Scriptures?

Physically we die because we live. Material life is always ephemeral. Spirtually we die because we are separated from God who is life and the source of life, and apart from whom we cannot live...Sin comes from acting on our own egotistic desires rather than trusting in God.
...The human race became responsible for its actions when it became capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

So...you're saying God made a world where death would eventually occur anyway, even though it's written throughout the Scriptures sin ultimately leads to death. God, as you said, is life and the the source of life. Why then, would He call all He created "good". Did God then create sin?

Death is not what what God intended. It is rather unnatural and a result of the curse of sin over all creation.

We need a Saviour because we are in bondage to sin and need liberation, healing and forgiveness.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you here, recalling what you mentioned above, I have to ask, how did the human race first grow into bondage to sin if the ultimate effects of sin are death were already present?

I don't understand what you are getting at. What would Moses have to gain by writing any part of Genesis, historical or not? (And, btw, he didn't write it anyway.)

And your certain he didn't write it...how?

What does the fate of the older generation have to do with anything?

In Jesus' geneology? Read one of the latter posts regarding Jesus' geneology within the gospel of Matthew' and Luke's covenant promise God had made Abraham. The

Matthew's shows how Jesus fulfills the one stating it would be his seed in which all the nations would be blessed. He's the "Second Adam".

Romans 5:12-15
"Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

Since you honestly believe it is possible to have two different and equally valid interpretations of the evidence, you are speaking what you believe to be the truth. But that doesn't make it true.

1.) If we're to stay on topic, we stay on topic. Otherwise, while I am flexible in dicussions, I don't do unannounced topic changes.

2.) See previous posts

3.) Traces of evidence being left behind and studied is one thing. Stating the Bible, has many valid interpretations instead of just God's own is quite another. God is not the author of confusion.

gluadys · Oct 16, 2005

night2day said:
Going back to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, if that is seen as a myth and story, then there indeed is a problem as was written in 1 Corinthians 15. Yet, for some strange reason that and other miracles aren't seen as problematic while others are.

As has been explained before, miracles per se are not a problem. When a miracle leaves no evidence and is not expected to leave evidence, there is no reason to challenge it. But when it is claimed that a miracle does leave evidence and the evidence is all contradictory to it, then there is a problem. That is why there is no problem affirming the resurrection, but there is a huge problem with the concept that the flood was global.

Either one has to conclude that God deliberately removed the evidence or that the flood was not global in extent.

Other than the son of one of the chief characters is listed in Jesus Christ's geneology in Luke, and the very first man who ever lived is listed as the first man who ever lived in within the geneology found in Luke. Both who are referred to as people whp lived and did as it was written they did.

Since ancient genealogies often list mythical persons, this is not a problem.

Not to mention the Genesis global flood is...of course...found within Genesis which is a part of the Scriptures. All other glood accounts of the occurance are elsewhere.

Who is saying the contrary? We are seeking to understand how it relates to the world of our experience.

Simple. No human being survived save for Noah and his family. The civilizations before the flood were quite literally washed away by the flood.

So who wrote the records? Who built the pyramids?

Just to give a reminder, the Bible gives a sequence of events. It doesn't always give the exact time or length of time.

In the flood story, the bible is very precise about the length of time, though it does not give the exact date. However, most young-earth interpreters set creation at about 6,000 years ago and, using the scriptural genealogies, set the flood in latter centuries of the 2nd millennium after creation. Those are the parameters I am using.

So, how can you claim not much time went by for the nations to arise from Noah's family when it doesn't even say?

Because, Chinese, Egyptian and other civilizations have unbroken written records that go right through this period of time.

Why are you so certian the Egyptions even existed before the flood occured?

From the archeological records of Egyptian civilization which pre-date the global flood.

Can you point out from the Scriptures they were even mentioned until after Abram is called by God to leave his homeland with his wife? You're basing asumptions on nothing more than second guessing.

Genesis 10:6

If one has to ask "what change" when we're speaking of the long-term effects of one of the greatest catastrophes within earth's history a, catostropy involving, massive flooding, earthquakes, and upheavels--.
Strange, I'm only pointing to God's word and to what it's stating. Supernatural universal flood brought about by God due to Mankind's unfaithfullness.

You are trying to play both sides of the street here. On the one hand you claim long-term effects; on the other hand a supernatural flood.

Let me re-iterate: there is no evidence, none at all, of long-term effects of a global flood. Nor does scripture itself mention any. You cannot show, from scripture or from science that the alleged catastrophe produced earthquakes or upheavals or other lasting changes --even changes one would expect from a flood.

I have no problem with asserting that the flood was indeed supernatural. But if you play the supernatural card, you have to play it all the way. You have to affirm that not only was the flood caused supernaturally, but also that every iota of evidence was erased supernaturally so that life went on post-flood as if the flood never happened.

A whole new Egyptian civilization sprang to birth within days of the flood water receding, to find all its buildings intact, all members of their families present and accounted for, all the past year's records of plantings and harvests and taxes collected present and up-to-date as if there had been no interruption in life as usual. Their minds had to be filled with false memories that recollected the non-existant events of the past year, but did not recollect the flood. And their genetic makeup had to be doctored to prevent future scientist from determining the date of the flood through following up on a genetic bottleneck.

When you claim a supernatural flood you have to claim much more than that God produced water and God removed water; you have to claim all the miracles listed in the paragraph above. That is the only way to assert a global flood occurred that is consistent with geological, archeological and biological facts.

A globel flood would have had much, much more impact than your giving it.

And yet left absolutely no evidence of that impact.
And much evidence that no global flood occurred.

So, do you agree that all of the evidence--all of it, not just water--was supernaturally erased?

Picking and choosing what one reads in Scripture simply because they think it's unfounded is dangerous.

You are projecting your own biases again.
I have never stated that it is ok to pick and choose what one reads in scripture. Please stop confusing a different way of reading scripture with a rejection of scripture.

For what other reason is there to state they are nothing but 6/24 hr. days? And why is it only in Genesis 1 "day" is often questioned when the word often is not within the rest of the Scriptures?

This is why you do not understand where TEs (or OECs) are coming from. You are persuaded that the only reason to question that the days of creation week were normal solar days is to reject the Genesis account of creation.

That is not the only reason by far. Both TEs and OECs accept the Genesis account as we believe it was intended to be understood. We don't believe it was intended to teach a recent creation which occurred in 6 solar days. And we believe we do have scriptural reason for an alternate exegesis of Genesis 1.

Because of your bias, which connects rejection of a literal creation week with rejection of the scripture itself, you end up implying that those who do not agree with you are rejecting scripture, when they are simply suggesting an alternate interpretation of scripture.

So...you're saying God made a world where death would eventually occur anyway, even though it's written throughout the Scriptures sin ultimately leads to death. God, as you said, is life and the the source of life. Why then, would He call all He created "good". Did God then create sin?

Sin leads to spiritual death. And to die spiritually is a much greater tragedy than to die physically. There is no suggestion in scripture of death due to sin before the fall.

Natural death apart from sin is simply part of the creation God called good. But when sin enters the picture, all death occurs in consequence of sin, since human sin not only alienated humanity from God, but all of the creation which had been put in subjection to humanity.

Death is not what what God intended. It is rather unnatural and a result of the curse of sin over all creation.

Death as we know it is not, because all death in a fallen world takes place in a creation now alienated from God, the source and sustainer of life.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you here, recalling what you mentioned above, I have to ask, how did the human race first grow into bondage to sin if the ultimate effects of sin are death were already present?

Why, by committing sin, of course. The effects of sin: alienation from God, spiritual death, the subjection of humanity to Satan, and of all creation to futility did not occur before the fall, and so were not already present.

And your certain he didn't write it...how?

Long story. If you want to learn more read Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman. It is a good introduction to the issue.

In Jesus' geneology? ....snip

You are confusing me even more. I don't understand how your comments in this post relate to your questions in your previous post,and I still don't understand the relevance of those questions.

3.) Traces of evidence being left behind and studied is one thing.

But there are no traces of evidence left of the global flood. So they can't be studied.

Stating the Bible, has many valid interpretations instead of just God's own is quite another. God is not the author of confusion.

Again, you are assuming that you know which of various human interpretations of scripture is consistent with God's interpretation. Most likely none of them are exactly equivalent to God's interpretation. And there is certainly no reason to assume that a young-earth interpretation is a valid exegesis of God's interpretation.

Not one of us has direct access to God's own view of scripture. Not one of us. The only interpretations we have are our own. All non-YECs ask of you is to have the humility to admit you are human and do not have special access to the mind of God over and above that of your fellow Christians.

Along this line, have you ever come across "presuppositionalism"? I have just been introduced to it. It is a style of Christian apologetics which is winning support in evangelical circles. I find it fascinating and exciting. One of its basic principles is that no interpretation of scripture (or of anything for that matter) is neutral or autonomous. All knowledge is interpretation--including every variety of scriptural interpretation.

Here is the introduction which I am finding very helpful.

justified · Oct 16, 2005

To begin with, one that recognizes that these documents are post-Easter documents written by believers who are transferring their post-Easter concept of Christ back onto the Jesus of history. Biographies of Jesus written without benefit of the experience of the resurrection might recount the same events, but would do so in a very different way.

Granted, and those of us who spend our days studying these documents do take this into account. However, nothing you said here involves evidence. It's just supposition: they probably do it. But you have no way to tell.

shernren · Oct 17, 2005

Critias said:
I actually like what Shernren said in another thread and I happen to agree to an extent with him. Fighting knowledge with knowledge will not win anyone over to anything. Rather it creates a hostile environment if it is not present already. If it is present it fuels the fire. Presentation through love, and the showing of where our faith lies and why is one of the best ways to present His Message. Through this, we can reason using the Scriptures of why we believe as we do.

*gasp* The man actually likes something I said! Let's break out the champagne!

This completely irreverent and irrelevant bout of wannabe sarcastic humor was brought to you by shernren. You may now return to your regularly scheduled intellectual brawl.

night2day · Oct 17, 2005

For you and anyone else, I'm trying to keep up as health allows. Thus, please be patient with in awaiting responses as I wade through the posts.

gluadys said:
By "true" I mean what conforms to reality (as distinct from my wishes or desires). What do you mean by "true"?

You commented earlier on in the thread, stating true does not mean the events needed to actually occur, that they did not have to be historical events. Then reafirmed this throughout.

I define true as an absolute, apart from what one wishes or believes. It stands of it's own accord regardless what one thinks of it. Up to a certain point the definition given within your quote to which I'm responding could have been fine if it stood as is. However, in the discussion we are not merely speaking of truth, but the origins of it and what foundation it rests.

There's also the matter that two truths on a given topic will always cancel the other out. A 6 day, 24 hr. Genesis creation cancels out evolution by default...just as Evolution would cancel out the Genesis 6 day, 24 hr. creation out.

The Creationists and Evolutions can explain away the scientific evindence left behind on their own terms. And each uses what's found to support their side. Ultimately though, evidence means little when one must consider either way faith in the evidence, it's interpretation, and what it's defending are indeed true.

Those who accept in the historical event of the 6 day, 24 hr. creation do so by faith and are readily able to state that. Ultimately, Evolutionists accept evolution also by faith...but seek more and more evidence and proof to back up what they believe and teach. And from my own experiances, a majority of evolutionists I've encountered won't admit they base faith in the theory...but but only seek "proof" for that thoery. Even though both have faith in their seperate doctrines, those who take Genesis as written are the only ones who seem to admit they do so on faith.

Whether you think differntly I'll leave that up to you.

night2day · Oct 17, 2005

Critias said:
There is no real solid evidence that Josephus was there, but speculation. Being a Jew in the region, he was quite aware of what was going on with the uprising of Christianity. He wouldn't mention it if he wasn't.

A side-note, there were some Jewish Rabbis who spoke out against the fury all their collegues were making a fuss over with Mel Gibson's movie The Passion came out...especially when there was a fuss when the crowd stated they would bare responsibility for Jesus' death by stating "Let His blood be on us and our children". One of which wrote an entire article stating it was freely admitted a false messiah (their words) named Jesus bar Joseph from Nazereth was executed for blasphemy. But the writings were removed due to the predjudice some Jews faced in Europe.

Some of the lesser details may be inaccurate. But, the point was it was admitted, and they gave a nod to, the crucifixtion. I have a cope of the article somewhere. Either that or I'll try to link up to it provided it's still online.

I don't suspect that AiG or ICR scientists, or whoever other YEC scienstist spend a lot of time on this forum or any at all. But the fact that no YEC scientists has visited or responded to this forum is not proof of a correct claim.

I held views of the historical events in Genesis for as long as I can remember. Only recently did I start peeking through Answers in Genesis due to a perk in my curiosity. While some may not agree or accept the credentials of these scientists simply because they do not accept evolution (some of which were former evolutionists themselves, btw) in their mission statement it says proving Genesis 6 day/24 hr. creation via is not their chief goal:

* * *
Answers in Genesis

Mission Statement

Goal

To support the Church in fulfilling its commission.

Vision

Answers in Genesis is a catalyst to bring reformation by reclaiming the foundations of our faith which are found in the Bible, from the very first verse.

Mission

We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
We obey Gods call to deliver the message of the Gospel, individually and collectively.

* * *

Basically going back to seeing the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments as a whole with Jesus Christ at the very center. And where does it begin but "in the beginning"?

night2day · Oct 17, 2005

gluadys said:
As has been explained before, miracles per se are not a problem. When a miracle leaves no evidence and is not expected to leave evidence, there is no reason to challenge it. But when it is claimed that a miracle does leave evidence and the evidence is all contradictory to it, then there is a problem.

So, you know what the world would have been like before it was struck by a catastrophic flood struck to know and be able to compare the actual changes which had taken place all over the globe...then claim no evidence? Where's your basis for stating such when there's no before and after pictures of the earth? Yet what one does have is deposits of fossils in various layers of rocks whih would discount the evolution by stages theory; the fact many fossils have been found of animals who were in the midst of relatively normal routines and suddenly killed and fossilied, including some animals which weren't even thought to be able to be fossilized such as packs of jellyfish; or many fossilized animals found, studied, and found to have died from suffocation that happened in an instant; or the positioning of the tatonic plates which formed during the flood as the massive earthquakes ensued during a flood of that magnatude.

Granted, circumtancial evidence and the Bible doesn't state the exact details. No one's disputing that. What is being disputed is, again, evolutionists come up with their own theories. Yet for some reason their theories are often treated as facts until they're proven wrong later and embarress themselves.

We're left with bits and peices. Scientific minds work within their limits as they can. However, you fail to understand just as you blame creationists of accepting the Genesis creation as it says and allowing that to get in the way of their work, evolutionists do the same. Some, have been more flexible and left evolution when they became opened to the possibility evolution wasn't fact.

Come to think of it, I read recently of evolutionist Dr. Richard Sternburg, editor of the Smithonian Institution Journal, who is not a Christian found what he thought to be a fair article to print on Intelligent Design (the secular theory that there's one Designer), if only to offer a fair and balanced look at the matter to readers. Even though he wasn't questioning evolution, he was called a "closet Bible-thumper" and his credentials were then put in doubt. He didn't even write the aricle. He merely allowed it to be printed for a another viewpoint to be offered. Later, an investigation found out the National Center for Science and Education forced him out of the Smithosian for allowing the article to be printed. One has to wonder why if the evolutionary worldview is so strong then why it must attack it's own followers and adherants?

Since ancient genealogies often list mythical persons, this is not a problem.

It is when speaking of Jesus and here's why. The prophecies within the Old Testament were fulfilled within Jesus. He was shown to be Abraham's seed through which the world would be blessed. And that was through Jesus' Person and work. Make any of that a myth and it's being strongly implied what God promised Abraham was actually null and void. Within the other geneology there's Jesus as the Second Adam. I believe I already referenced the verse through Roman regarding sin being abounding to all through Adam. Yet, by grace, through faith we are justified in Christ alone.

There's also the issue both Mary and Joseph were of the line of King David. Which fulfilled another prophecy God had made.

There are over 500 prophecies regarding Jesus within the Old Testament God has made. Regardong the first: saying Genesis 1-10 didn't occur then your cancelling out the first Gospel promise of the Savior in Genesis 3:15. And saying "true doesn't mean it actually had to happen" doesn't cut it. God either made the prophecy or He didn't. Should one question he did, then by what right are all the other prophecies valid? Or that Jesus was shown to be Savior for that matter?

In the flood story, the bible is very precise about the length of time, though it does not give the exact date. However, most young-earth interpreters set creation at about 6,000 years ago and, using the scriptural genealogies, set the flood in latter centuries of the 2nd millennium after creation. Those are the parameters I am using...Chinese, Egyptian and other civilizations have unbroken written records that go right through this period of time.

Actually, some creationists also state the earth could be 6,000 to 8,000 years old. Using the number within the geneologies in Genesis is fine. But they don't exactly say when the people were born...simply how long they lived. And, being in some societies were a family has one or two children at the most with over than 5 being extreme, one has to wonder about mothers who tended to children who gave birth to many more than. My grandfather was one of 15 children for example. What was it like back then when families tended to be much, much larger for reasons of at least survival?

From the archeological records of Egyptian civilization which pre-date the global flood.

And what are the sources which confrm the timing of those records?

You are trying to play both sides of the street here. On the one hand you claim long-term effects; on the other hand a supernatural flood.

It's not playing both sides of the street. There are numerous events in the Scriptures where God either directly acted or indirectly allowed certain events to occur. And in each one there were the short-term and long-term effects that had to be dealt with. The global flood would have been no differnt, but on a much grander scale since it affected the entire planet worldwide.

The Bible doesn't indicate if there was one landmass, of if the continants were as they are today. It doesn't say just how broken up the earth's surface, ocean floors, and the plates would have been effected

Logically, what it seems you're asking for is a "before and after" picture of what occured to the earth regarding the flood. Well, the Bible doesn't go into detailes. Nature offers indications of it however. But again, that's where we look at nature differntly.

Let me re-iterate: there is no evidence, none at all

Let me re-iterate. One either accepts Genesis, indeed the whole of the Scriptures, and reads them as they are...or they don't.

I have no problem with asserting that the flood was indeed supernatural. But if you play the supernatural card, you have to play it all the way. You have to affirm that not only was the flood caused supernaturally, but also that every iota of evidence was erased supernaturally so that life went on post-flood as if the flood never happened...

For some reason you keep stressing I need to do this by your rules and tell you God earased all the evidence. Maybe the need for erasure is what you require. But it's not mine. Maybe it's just to frightening to accept.

A whole new Egyptian civilization sprang to birth within days of the flood water receding, to find all its buildings intact, all members of their families present and accounted for, all the past year's records of plantings and harvests and taxes collected present and up-to-date as if there had been no interruption in life as usual.

Again, you know they existed and how? From what source? Furthermore, were they speaking of the same flood? The Scriptures state all human beings but Noah and his family were dead.

When you claim a supernatural flood you have to claim much more than that God produced water and God removed water; you have to claim all the miracles listed in the paragraph above. That is the only way to assert a global flood occurred that is consistent with geological, archeological and biological facts.

You're not only using your own reasoning, your cutting yourself off to the quick by demanding I go by something else other than what the Bible is relaying. When not even citing sources which would put this "Egyption Flood" at the same time of the universal flood in Genesis. Especially when there is no time frame available that states exactly when the flood took place. On top of that you're only assuming the Egyptions existed at that time.

I have never stated that it is ok to pick and choose what one reads in scripture. Please stop confusing a different way of reading scripture with a rejection of scripture.

When deciding on your own terms what is being said apart from the literary context, it can't be called anything else.

This is why you do not understand where TEs (or OECs) are coming from. You are persuaded that the only reason to question that the days of creation week were normal solar days is to reject the Genesis account of creation.

And where else in the Bible is the word "day" quibbled over so-much and taken out of it's orginal context? Not to mention on the 7 day of the creation God rested...and later designated that the Sabboth to the Hebrews in the Old Testament. Going by the context and the literary passage of Genesis 1 & 2 as well as other portions of the Bible when this is referred back to...there's nothing left to indicate it wasn't anything but a simple 24 hr. day.

That is not the only reason by far. Both TEs and OECs accept the Genesis account as we believe it was intended to be understood. We don't believe it was intended to teach a recent creation which occurred in 6 solar days. And we believe we do have scriptural reason for an alternate exegesis of Genesis 1.

Which also Goes back to our earlier discussion which was over death being the ultimate penalty for sin. And yet somehow death was something natural. And Jesus' ressurrection from the dead and all the passges reffering to His triumph over the grave meant---? Theologicallythis places you at a very week stance. it's foundation seems to stand that God created a world that already had sin and death within it. Are you then saying He's the cause of sin and death?

Because of your bias, which connects rejection of a literal creation week with rejection of the scripture itself, you end up implying that those who do not agree with you are rejecting scripture, when they are simply suggesting an alternate interpretation of scripture.

And there's the implication rejecting the literary context of the Scriptures in somehow good and it doesn't matter how many "interpretations" of the scriptures there are or not, regardless of their conflicts, is well and good. That God delights in confusuion. He certainly doesn't.

Sin leads to spiritual death. And to die spiritually is a much greater tragedy than to die physically. There is no suggestion in scripture of death due to sin before the fall.

Look throughout the Bible. Spiritual death is a tragedy. A greater one is eternal death because once one is physically and spiritually dead there is no more oppuetunity.

If physical death was not due to the fall then why is it Jesus had to rise from the dead? Why had it been it stated: "Death has los it's sting, and death has been swallowed up in victory?" Why did Jesus Himself rise from the dead?

Have you ever contemplated the sin's curse over creation? Or why there is disease and suffering? When Eve rebelled against God He told her she would have alot of pain on child-bearing. And what mother hasn't since? Those things did not exist before the fall took place. There wasn't a place for them. Sin changed all that.

Natural death apart from sin is simply part of the creation God called good. But when sin enters the picture, all death occurs in consequence of sin, since human sin not only alienated humanity from God, but all of the creation which had been put in subjection to humanity.

And how do you know death is natural when God spiffically warned that if Adam and Eve ate of a certain tree in the garden they would die? And in Romans 5 it already indicated the wages of sin is death.

Had death been not a conseqence of sin, Jesus wouldn't have risen from the dead either...to declare his victory over it. As Job testified: "I know my Redeemer liveth."

The effects of sin: alienation from God, spiritual death, the subjection of humanity to Satan, and of all creation to futility did not occur before the fall, and so were not already present...

Yet, but declaring Theistic Evolution which by itself promotes death before the Fall, denies the "wages of sin is death" by default by stating sin occured before the Fall took place.

Again, you are assuming that you know which of various human interpretations of scripture is consistent with God's interpretation. Most likely none of them are exactly equivalent to God's interpretation. And there is certainly no reason to assume that a young-earth interpretation is a valid exegesis of God's interpretation.

Who said I claimed human interpretation was God's interpretation? I merely stated God has His own interpretation which can be gleened from reading the Bible as it is presented.

Along this line, have you ever come across "presuppositionalism"? I have just been introduced to it. It is a style of Christian apologetics which is winning support in evangelical circles. I find it fascinating and exciting. One of its basic principles is that no interpretation of scripture (or of anything for that matter) is neutral or autonomous. All knowledge is interpretation--including every variety of scriptural interpretation.

Never heard of it I'm afreaid. I'm confessional Lutheran...so I'm not counted as evangelical, at least by how some of today's definitions go. I go by Scripture interprets Scripture. Thanks for the link however.

gluadys · Oct 17, 2005

night2day said:
So, you know what the world would have been like before it was struck by a catastrophic flood struck to know and be able to compare the actual changes which had taken place all over the globe...then claim no evidence?

Catastrophes of much smaller magnitude have left a geological trace. The Chixulub meteorite which may have played a role in the demise of the dinosaurs left not only the crater, but also a trace of iridium found all over the globe. Some years ago, scientists identified some volcanic ash found in an ice core removed from Greenland as coming from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius which destroyed the city of Pompei.

If such catastrophes leave their mark, then yes, indeed, we would expect a much more significant catastrophe like a global flood to leave its mark. We would expect to be able to delineate in the rocks, (and in archeological records) what the world was like before the flood, identify what changes were caused by the flood, and what changes have occurred since the flood.

Yet, no such evidence exists.

Where's your basis for stating such when there's no before and after pictures of the earth?

There is no evidence there was even a before and after. That's the problem. There ought to be, but there isn't. No one has suggested the flood occurred way before human history, but rather well into human history. By bishop Ussher's chronology the pre-flood period was 1657 years. And during that time, humans developed technology and civlization. We have plenty of archeological evidence of civilizations up to 10,000 years old. So we have a good idea of what life was like "before" the flood. And "after" the flood. What we do not have is evidence of a global flood.

Yet what one does have is deposits of fossils in various layers of rocks whih would discount the evolution by stages theory;

Oh? The fossil record is an excellent support of the theory of evolution. It contradicts the theory of a global flood though, in many, many ways.

the fact many fossils have been found of animals who were in the midst of relatively normal routines and suddenly killed and fossilied, including some animals which weren't even thought to be able to be fossilized such as packs of jellyfish; or many fossilized animals found, studied, and found to have died from suffocation that happened in an instant;

Even if one believes in a global flood, it is evident that it is not the only ctastrophe that has occurred in the history of the earth. All of these are explainable through various local catastrophes and do not require the occurrence of a global flood. Many of them could not have occurred in the same time frame and therefore could not be the consequence of the same event.

or the positioning of the tatonic plates which formed during the flood as the massive earthquakes ensued during a flood of that magnatude.

And where in scripture does it say that techtonic plates were formed during the flood? Or that massive earthquakes accompanied the flood?

Granted, circumtancial evidence and the Bible doesn't state the exact details.

So you feel free to invent them? Doesn't sound like proper exegesis to me.

We're left with bits and peices. Scientific minds work within their limits as they can.

So do the minds of those who study scripture. And let us note that in many cases these are the same minds since many scientists are also Christians and students of scripture.

However, you fail to understand just as you blame creationists

Where have I blamed anyone? I am just pointing out some necessary logical consequences of a global flood. I don't consider it blameworthy to read the flood story literally.

Come to think of it, I read recently of evolutionist Dr. Richard Sternburg, editor of the Smithonian Institution Journal, who is not a Christian

Incorrect on all counts. He is not an evolutionist. He has ties to the Intelligent Design movement and the Baraminology Study Group, a creationist organization. The journal of which he was editor is The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, not the Smithsonian Institution Journal. And he published Meyer's article in that journal under questionable circumstances. And he actually moved to the Smithsonian after the article was published. That move had nothing to do with publishing the article, as it had been planned earlier.

It is when speaking of Jesus and here's why.

Only to moderns like us. When people use genealogies which go into mythology as a matter of course, it wouldn't bother them to include such names in the genealogy of Jesus.

Actually, some creationists also state the earth could be 6,000 to 8,000 years old. Using the number within the geneologies in Genesis is fine. But they don't exactly say when the people were born...simply how long they lived. And, being in some societies were a family has one or two children at the most with over than 5 being extreme, one has to wonder about mothers who tended to children who gave birth to many more than. My grandfather was one of 15 children for example. What was it like back then when families tended to be much, much larger for reasons of at least survival?

Go into the math a little deeper. Remember that we have no record of Noah and his wife having further children after the flood. All the various peoples are traced by to Shem, Ham and Japeth and their wives. So we have three couples.

Let's grant them an average of 15 children each for a total of 45. (The genealogies in Genesis list 7 sons for Japheth, 4 for Ham and 5 for Shem. It doesn't list daughters, so, without designating how many daughters each had we can postulate 29 daughters altogether (45-[7+4+5])=45-16=29.

Now, can we assume that the women who left the ark had, like modern women, gestation periods of 9 months? And given that all the 45 children would have to be breast-fed, there would also be the usual post-partum period of no menstruation --- hence no immediate conception after the earlier birth? [In breast-feeding cultures it is not uncommon for women to experience no menstruation for 8-15 months after delivery; this is an effect of frequent breast-feeding. As a result, it is normal for there to be a 2-year break between the birth of one child and the next.] So even allowing for some sets of twins, it will take close to 30 years for these children to be born.

Now, according to Genesis 10:6 the ancestor of the Egyptians was the second son of Ham. (The name in the KJV is 'Mizraim' which is the Hebrew for 'Egypt'.) So we need to allow 3 or more years after the flood before he is even born. If 2-3 daughters preceeded him, Mizraim may not have been born for up to 10 years after the flood. But lets go with the earlier date. We now need time for him to grow up enough to travel to Egypt--shall we say 15-18 years? He will need to take a wife or wives with him to start an Egyptian population. So they will also have to be born and grow to maturity. Add in some travel time to get from Mesopotamia, and you can easily see that from the end of the flood to the arrival of Mizraim and his wife/wives on the bank of the Nile around 20 years must have passed.

And in those 20 years there was no human presence at all in Egypt. If there was a global flood.

But,given the usual estimated date of the flood (2357 BCE) those 20 years fall into the middle of Egypt's 5th dynasty

How could a thriving Egyptian civilization exist at this time if their first ancestor could not even have arrived until 20 years later?

And what are the sources which confrm the timing of those records?

This was a literate civilization. They wrote on papyrus scrolls, carved inscriptions and so forth. Many are dated by the name of the current monarch and the year of his reign. Archeologists have worked out the correlation of those dates with our modern calendar.

It's not playing both sides of the street. There are numerous events in the Scriptures where God either directly acted or indirectly allowed certain events to occur. And in each one there were the short-term and long-term effects that had to be dealt with. The global flood would have been no differnt, but on a much grander scale since it affected the entire planet worldwide.

Remember, the problem is not one of God's action. It is one of evidence for that action. If a global flood occurred it was an event on a grand-scale and should leave evidence on a grand scale. But none has ever been found. Why is the flood invisible in both geological and archeological records? Why did it have none of the effects on biological organisms one would expect it to have?

The Bible doesn't indicate if there was one landmass, of if the continants were as they are today. It doesn't say just how broken up the earth's surface, ocean floors, and the plates would have been effected

It doesn't even say if they would be affected. One can have a flood, even a global flood, without these kinds of catastrophic events. What one cannot have is a hugely catastrophic flood that divides continents while not destroying pyramids, temples and even easily destroyed scrolls in Egypt.

Imagination is a poor substitute for evidence.

Nature offers indications of it however.

And what indications would those be?

Let me re-iterate. One either accepts Genesis, indeed the whole of the Scriptures, and reads them as they are...or they don't.

Now, precisely what do you mean by this? Do you mean that if I do not read Genesis as you read it, I am not accepting Genesis? Do you mean that if I do not read the scriptures as you read them I am not reading them as they are? Are you basically saying that you know the only correct way to read the bible, and anyone who differs with you is ipso facto wrong?

For some reason you keep stressing I need to do this by your rules and tell you God earased all the evidence.

Not my rules. It is called logic.

You claim a flood occurred within the last 5,000 years or so which wiped out every human on earth except 8 people in an ark. Not to mention all the animals except those in the ark as well.

You claim there exist in nature indications of this event.

Well, no geologist has found any such indication---and that includes Christian geologists of the 18th and 19th century who were specifically looking for such indications.

Furthermore, there does exist evidence which ought not to exist if you were right about a global flood--such as the archeological finds relating to the 5th dynasty of Egypt.

The indications of both nature and history contradict the possibility of a global flood. Why?

I suggest two possibilities:

1. The flood was not global.
2. The flood was global, but God chose to leave behind no evidence of it.

Now if you can think of any other reasonable alternatives, fine. Show me how the evidence can be what it is, if a global flood occurred.

Maybe the need for erasure is what you require. But it's not mine. Maybe it's just to frightening to accept.

Yes, I consider irrationality frightening. Especially when irrational people who would rather believe in imaginings rather than reality get their hands on the levers of power.

Again, you know they existed and how? From what source? Furthermore, were they speaking of the same flood? The Scriptures state all human beings but Noah and his family were dead.

See link above, or do a search on Ancient Egypt, Old Kingdom, 5th dynasty. And I didn't say they were speaking of the same flood. The fact is that other than the annual and expected flooding of the Nile, they were not speaking of a flood at all. That's the problem. Don't you think someone would have noticed a Noachian flood and considered it worth mentioning? But no one does. No one in Ancient Egypt writes about any Noachian type flood at all. And there is no 20+year gap in the records either as there would need to be if Egyptian civilization had been distroyed and needed to be rebuilt after the flood.

Some early Egyptian step-pyramids are dated to this time. Who built them, if all the pre-flood Egyptians were dead and a new generation had not been born yet?

You're not only using your own reasoning,

Sometimes I am wrong in my reasoning; if you can show me where, I will retract.

On top of that you're only assuming the Egyptions existed at that time.

Are you claiming that I invented the data of Egyptology? That the archeological artifacts in the museums in Cairo, London and elsewhere don't exist? That every Egyptologist in the last two centuries has been mistaken or duped?

That's the kind of conclusions you have to come to if you do not accept reason.

Do you think God values irrationality over reason? If so, why did he give us the capacity to reason?

Who said I claimed human interpretation was God's interpretation? I merely stated God has His own interpretation which can be gleened from reading the Bible as it is presented.

I repeat my questions from earlier. Are you stating that you know how it is presented and have personal knowledge of God's own interpretation? Are you stating that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of "how it is presented" is therefore disagreeing with God's interpretation of scripture?

Saucy · Oct 18, 2005

Think about it though...if we had PROOF for everything, then where would faith come into play? I believe there is evidence all over the earth of the flood, but like I said, credit for what the flood created has been given to other events. For example, I learned in science class or something that "millions" of years ago, there was a sea that covered most of the western part of the US. Now, they came across that conclusion because of sea fossils all over the area and water erosion in desert places. Why couldn't this be more evidence of the flood?

gluadys · Oct 18, 2005

Saucy said:
Think about it though...if we had PROOF for everything, then where would faith come into play? I believe there is evidence all over the earth of the flood, but like I said, credit for what the flood created has been given to other events. For example, I learned in science class or something that "millions" of years ago, there was a sea that covered most of the western part of the US. Now, they came across that conclusion because of sea fossils all over the area and water erosion in desert places. Why couldn't this be more evidence of the flood?

If this area was flooded, you should not find marine fossils in it. You should find the remains of land plants and animals that were drowned as the dry land flooded. So even if you hypothesize a flood, the fact that marine, and only marine, fossils are found in these sediments shows that this was a shallow sea for many millennia, not the remnant of a flood which lasted for only one year.

The type of rock formed is also an indication. Much of this rock is shale. Shale is formed from very fine particulates that take a long, long, long time to settle out of water and then more time to harden into stone. One year is not enough, and if the flood was as turbulent as most supporters claim (with earthquakes and rapid techtonic movement) shale could not form at all.

I am sure a geologist could give you many more reasons why this is evidence of a shallow sea, not a flood.

Critias · Oct 18, 2005

Actually, if it was a global flood you should see marine animals as well. Especially when God receeded the waters. We would expect to find marine animals that didn't receed with the flood.

As Saucy has said, it has already been explained away by someone's or many peoples interpretations. To say evidence explains away this, is to either intentionally or unintentionally lead people away from the fact that evidence must be interpreted.

Rusticus · Oct 18, 2005

Saucy said:
.....For example, I learned in science class or something that "millions" of years ago, there was a sea that covered most of the western part of the US. Now, they came across that conclusion because of sea fossils all over the area and water erosion in desert places. Why couldn't this be more evidence of the flood?

If most of the western part of the US were under water, then how is this a global flood? Is the eastern part of the US not part of the globe? And the the small part of the western USA that was not covered by a sea, is that not part of the globe, either?

night2day · Oct 19, 2005

gluadys said:
Catastrophes of much smaller magnitude have left a geological trace. The Chixulub meteorite which may have played a role in the demise of the dinosaurs left not only the crater, but also a trace of iridium found all over the globe...

"May have played a role in the demise of the dinosaurs". "Traces of iridium all over the globe". While you somewhat conceed the concequences of the meteorit's impact is unknown in regards to the dinosasuars, you fail to do the same for the iridium. Meaning, since there's no "before" trace or something tangable which can put to rest once and for all any questions, there's no way possible to compare it what is concluded to be "after". Thus, it's only by faith in unsolvable theories you state the iriduim wasn't on earth before an impact.

Just as you assume there's no evidence of a global flood by faith in theories because you don't see any, even though you don't know what a pre-global flood looked like in order to compare and contrast.

If such catastrophes leave their mark, then yes, indeed, we would expect a much more significant catastrophe like a global flood to leave its mark.

In many catrastrophies in human history there is also a knowledge of what the area(s) were like before and after. An ability to compare and contrast as I stated in the above paragraph. You nor any other type of evolutionist has that. Neither do Creationists who take Genesis 1-10 as is. However, Creationists, apart from secular Intelligent Desiners, never claimed they did. For some strange reason, Evolutioniss have and do.

When I first came on this thread there were some pre-assumptions about what I believe. And there still is. Such as I believe science or scientific evidence can prove the global flood, something I haven't said nore indicated. I fully believe there is evidence to support it occured. But to convince anyone by that evidence -- you would be basically saying I must convince someone to believe something other than what they wish to believe. I cannot do so, and neither can you. No one cannot change another person's beliefs and heart.

We would expect to be able to delineate in the rocks, (and in archeological records) what the world was like before the flood, identify what changes were caused by the flood, and what changes have occurred since the flood...Yet, no such evidence exists...There is no evidence there was even a before and after.

In accordance to your own theories or theories which you'll accept. But, you already decided there was no global flood.

No one has suggested the flood occurred way before human history, but rather well into human history. By bishop Ussher's chronology the pre-flood period was 1657 years.

1657 B.C. I gather? Because 1657 A.D. is a much differnt number.

Ussher would also teach the world is 4,000 years old if he were alive today. Many Biblical Creationists fall around anywhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years. When was Ussher's Chronology written per chance? Which century? Or do you know? Was a few thousand years left off by accident as if

The Scriptures don't say the flood occured "well into human history". So, why are you implying it? And why imply there were civilizations we know of today that would have been in place before the flood -- when a universal flood would have washed them all away. The Scriptures state all flesh died. Every single human being who was not within the Ark was dead. What is it about the word dead is misunderstood?

And during that time, humans developed technology and civlization. We have plenty of archeological evidence of civilizations up to 10,000 years old. So we have a good idea of what life was like "before" the flood. And "after" the flood. What we do not have is evidence of a global flood.

You're making an aweful lot of assumptions based in a few theories and calling them facts.

The fossil record is an excellent support of the theory of evolution.

Save for the fact it fails to actually show show any "evolving" which is the main componant of evolution. Or take into account by scientific observation themselves have revealed that mutations tend to be much more harmful, certainly not the oppisite which one of the tenants of the evolutionary theory os based on.

It contradicts the theory of a global flood though, in many, many ways.

So you're theories claim.

Even if one believes in a global flood, it is evident that it is not the only ctastrophe that has occurred in the history of the earth. All of these are explainable through various local catastrophes and do not require the occurrence of a global flood. Many of them could not have occurred in the same time frame and therefore could not be the consequence of the same event.

Assumption with a mixture of hypothisis and theory. But nothing conclusive. And still discounting that God is certainly more than capable of working within His own ways -- regardless if one picks up on the evidence that's been left behind or not.

And where in scripture does it say that techtonic plates were formed during the flood? Or that massive earthquakes accompanied the flood?

Since it seems you jumped over or accidently forgot what I commented earlier, maybe look back to what my posts have stated. Also recall Genesis 7:11: "...all the fountains of the great deep broken up..." As with all flesh died again I ask, what part of the word all goes misunderstood? Did I say the Bible refers to earthquakes, yes. What does all the fountains of the great deep broken up mean? Do the Scriptures refer to the tetonic plates moving and shifting? They may indeed given possible breaking of the land mass(es) due to all fountains breaking up and coming forth to the surface. But does the Scriptures have a map showing what the world's geography was like before the flooding and then show what it appeared like after in order to show all the dramatic changes? No, it doesn't. Why should it need to?

He is not an evolutionist. He has ties to the Intelligent Design movement and the Baraminology Study Group, a creationist organization. The journal of which he was editor is The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, not the Smithsonian Institution Journal. And he published Meyer's article in that journal under questionable circumstances. And he actually moved to the Smithsonian after the article was published. That move had nothing to do with publishing the article, as it had been planned earlier.

Ok..."to the Smithsonian Institution Journal" should have been "a Smithsonian Institution Journal". You certain you really want to quible over a typo? Even some other newspaper articles I did not list had the magazine as the Smithsonian Journal...or variations therof.

MSN:
Editor attacked over intelligent design article

Ezilon:
US editor ignites evolution row at Smithsonian

Yahoo:
Office of Special Counsel Concludes Smithsonian Created a 'Hostile Work Environment' in Effort to Oust Biologist Skeptical of Darwinism

U.S. Office Of Special Council
Findings of Discrimination Discovered

It Stands: The OSC letter, made public by Dr. Sternberg, states that "retaliation came in many forms," and says that the OSC was able to find support for many of Dr. Sternberg's allegations, including:

-- A hostile work environment was created with the
ultimate goal of forcing him out of the Smithsonian.
-- Sternberg's religious and political affiliations
were investigated.
-- Sternberg's scientific education, background and
writings were investigated.
-- Attempts were made to deny Sternberg workspace
within the Smithsonian.
-- Misinformation was disseminated through the
Smithsonian and to outside sources.

Also, it was noted Sternburg was an outside and skeptical member of the
Baraminology Study Group. Yet, you automatically placed him as having
outright ties to the movement you mentioned. So? In some of the links
I offered it states he was a skeptic as well as a "lurker". What crime does
that constitute when trying to be objective?

Maybe look back to your own sources in regards to the story.

The question still needs to be answered, if the evolutionary theory was so
solid...then why must its adherants attack anyone, even their own? If it's
solid it should stand on it's own grounds. As well as feel secure enough so as not to immediately close thought to all else. So much for free thought and free speech I suppose.

When people use genealogies which go into mythology as a matter of course, it wouldn't bother them to include such names in the genealogy of Jesus.

Well, when there's no consideration of Messianic prophecy within the Old Testament to testify of the coming Savior...no point to continuing along this route.

However, make it known it would also nix what Jesus constantly said and referred to regarding all what was written of Him by Moses and the prophets about being Who He claimed to be and What He had come to do.

In essence, attempting to remove the Gospel out of the the Old Testament.

Go into the math a little deeper. Remember that we have no record of Noah and his wife having further children after the flood. All the various peoples are traced by to Shem, Ham and Japeth and their wives. So we have three couples...

There you go again. You either take the Bible for what it says how it says or you don't. I can't state it any other way.

...BCE...

I much rather the BC (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini -- The Year of our Lord). No point of secularizing it. Jesus is the center of history after all.

...the problem is not one of God's action. It is one of evidence for that action. If a global flood occurred it was an event on a grand-scale and should leave evidence on a grand scale. But none has ever been found.

Which you have not accepted.. But I've already spoken on this matter as well. The study of science if not the end-all, be-all there is. It constantly needs correction as older theories are shown as false and new ones spring up.

Imagination is a poor substitute for evidence.

I could say the same regarding you own method of logic. However, it's not kind to belittle someone else's beliefs on that way.

Do you mean that if I do not read Genesis as you read it, I am not accepting Genesis?

You mean...reading Genesis as it is, the way it is written? Did you gleen that from the literary context?

Are you basically saying that you know the only correct way to read the bible, and anyone who differs with you is ipso facto wrong?

When they choose to go by anything else by the literary context of the given passsage as well as the Scriptures as a whole to decipher what is being said---.

I'm not the one who came up with the idea there are numerous interpretations of the Bible and "whatever works for your personal lifestyle" is to be promoted and encouraged. As it's Author, God has His own interpretation. Scriptures, as His inerrent and infallible word, stand on their own. Barging in and telling God what His word should say and should be open for debate is nothing less than arrogant.

It is called logic.

Like with all us human beings, it's a logic corrupted by the curse of sin.

You claim a flood occurred within the last 5,000 years or so which wiped out every human on earth except 8 people in an ark. Not to mention all the animals except those in the ark as well...You claim there exist in nature indications of this event. Well, no geologist has found any such indication---and that includes Christian geologists of the 18th and 19th century who were specifically looking for such indications.

Sorry to burst your bubble...but just because there are those out there you do not wish to acknowledge or accept as valid because it goes counter to everything you believe in does not mean they do not exist or should go away.

The indications of both nature and history contradict the possibility of a global flood...

Only by your estimates and unfounded calculations.

Yes, I consider irrationality frightening. Especially when irrational people who would rather believe in imaginings rather than reality get their hands on the levers of power.

I asked of the reality of a universal flood that wiped all life from the planet. God punishing sin for those outside the ark, yet showing mercy to those within. Not of a what could be seen as a personal attack simply because tou do not seem to know a better way to answer.

It is terrifying to believe God would destroy this earth in judgment: first in water, the next time will be in fire. But that still does not make it any less Biblical. Not does it make the warnings all the less real and pleadings that they be taken seriously. "For no man knows the day or the hour".

Do you think God values irrationality over reason? If so, why did he give us the capacity to reason?

Do you think God values unbelief over belief? If so, where did the parable of the Mustered Seed come from?

Reason is fine, as long as it doesn't set itself being above God. Yet, that's what you claimed time and time again. You even have done so in replies regarding how Scripture should be taken and read.

Strange how Biblical Creationists will gladly claim they hold to faith but Evolutionists will seem to rather choke before admitting they admit they are also holding on to faith within ever-shifting theories.

I repeat my questions from earlier. Are you stating that you know how it is presented and have personal knowledge of God's own interpretation?

And I answer the same as earlier. I take God at His word. You wish to question and hold yourself above the Scriptures somehow as you stated you did via logic...that's you're own answer.

Are you stating that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of "how it is presented" is therefore disagreeing with God's interpretation of scripture?

I'm not sure why you keep calling it "my interpretation" when I have repeatedly stated one must go by the literary context and take the Scriptures as they are for what they say. If you have quibbles over how He Authored His own book...take it up with Him.

But, you want me to say there are various conflicting ways of looking at the Scriptures and they're all correct...that's one of the biggest problems. You just happened to shoot down the workability of your own logic.

night2day · Oct 19, 2005

As stated, here's a couple links regarding Jesus' crucifixion in resources outside the Bible. Here are a couple of links regarding the Talmud (books of Jewish Law and Tradition). Prominant during the contraversy surranding Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Due to the issues touched.

Jesus and the Talmud

If Mel Gibson's movie is anti-Judaic, so is the Talmud

"The Talmud was compiled in about the year 500, drawing on rabbinic material that had been transmitted orally for centuries. From the 16th century on, the text was censored and passages about Jesus and his execution were erased to evade Christian wrath. But the full text was preserved in older manuscripts, and today the censored parts may be found in minuscule type, as an appendix at the back of some Talmud editions."

gluadys · Oct 19, 2005

Critias said:
Actually, if it was a global flood you should see marine animals as well. Especially when God receeded the waters. We would expect to find marine animals that didn't receed with the flood.

But we don't find marine animals as well. We find only marine animals. If Nebraska (for example) was dry land before the flood, why do we not find any fossils of terrestrial animals?

gluadys · Oct 20, 2005

night2day said:
While you somewhat conceed the concequences of the meteorit's impact is unknown in regards to the dinosasuars, you fail to do the same for the iridium.

That is because other factors may also have contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs, but other factors did not contribute to the addition of iridium.

Thus, it's only by faith in unsolvable theories you state the iriduim wasn't on earth before an impact.

Not by faith. It was measured. Before and after a certain point, only the normal rare incidence of iridium. At a certain point, coinciding with the meter impact, an unusually high incidence of iridium ranging from 30 to 200 times the normal amount.

Just as you assume there's no evidence of a global flood

I don't assume. People of faith looked assiduously for the evidence and concluded it was not to be found.

In many catrastrophies in human history there is also a knowledge of what the area(s) were like before and after.

And in many catastrophes prior to human history, scientists have also discovered a before and after. There is no reason why it should not be possible to determine a before and after for a global deluge too.

I fully believe there is evidence to support it occured.

And you are right to say "believe", for you believe this on faith. You cannot produce any such evidence because it does not exist.

In accordance to your own theories or theories which you'll accept. But, you already decided there was no global flood.

In accord with factual observations that permit no other explanation.

1657 B.C. I gather? Because 1657 A.D. is a much differnt number.

Neither. The figure is not a date, but a length of time: the time from creation to the flood by Ussher's calculations.

Ussher would also teach the world is 4,000 years old if he were alive today.

No, having calculated that creation took place in 4004 BCE, he would teach that the world today is 6008 years old. And that the flood occurred in 2347 BCE.

Ussher did his calculations in the 17th century. They were considered so accurate that for more than a century bibles were printed with his dates in them. Do you know of any reason to add another 4000 years to his dates?

The Scriptures don't say the flood occured "well into human history". [snip] Every single human being was not within the Ark was dead. What is it about the word dead is misunderstood?

Ussher's calculations were based on the Genesis genealogies, and, as noted, work out to 1657 years. Note too that in Genesis 4 there is reference to the building of a city, and in Genesis 6 to the development of the domestication of animals, the invention of musical instruments and work in both bronze and iron. Those are earmarks of civilization. And all this occurs pre-flood.

What is it about dead that is misunderstood? I thought I had made that clear. How did these dead people in Egypt, China, India, Peru, and other places manage to go on as usual producing food, babies, buildings, inscriptions, writings, roads, ships and all the other paraphernalia of civilization if they were all dead?

You're making an aweful lot of assumptions based in a few theories and calling them facts.

"Assumptions" that you can see for yourself in many museums around the world. Pretty tangible "assumptions" if you ask me.

Save for the fact it fails to actually show show any "evolving" which is the main componant of evolution.

There are many examples of evolution in the fossil record. This is one of my favorites.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

Take time to read it carefully--especially this description of Thrinaxodon.

NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.

Read the description of the jaw joint in earlier and later fossils and see the smooth transition from a totally reptilian jaw joint, through the double jaw joint, to the totally mammalian jaw joint with the bones that were formerly part of the jaw joint now part of the mammalian inner ear.

(Stephen J. Gould also describes this transition in one of his essays, "An Earful of Jaw".)

Or take into account by scientific observation themselves have revealed that mutations tend to be much more harmful, certainly not the oppisite which one of the tenants of the evolutionary theory os based on.

Actually, very few mutations are harmful. By far the most, (over 95%) are neither harmful nor beneficial---just different.

So you're theories claim.

There is no evidence left behind. That is not theory or assumption. That is fact. You want to contest it: go ahead. Produce the evidence.

What does all the fountains of the great deep broken up mean?

It means that bounds which restrained the waters of the abyss (aka deep) were broken and the waters overflowed the earth as in the days before God gathered them into seas. Now where does it say anything about earthquakes?

Do the Scriptures refer to the tetonic plates moving and shifting? They may indeed given possible breaking of the land mass(es) due to all fountains breaking up and coming forth to the surface.

What possible breaking of the land masses? Where does the story of the flood make reference to any of this? This is not the study of scripture. This is trying to force recent scientific discoveries into a pre-set young-earth theology. It won't work, any more than trying to stuff a step-sister's foot into Cinderella's slipper.

But does the Scriptures have a map showing what the world's geography was like before the flooding and then show what it appeared like after in order to show all the dramatic changes? No, it doesn't. Why should it need to?

Scripture does not even indicate that there were dramatic changes to the earth. Only to people and animals.

But then history doesn't agree with that either. Neither does biology. Where are all those missing bottlenecks?

The question still needs to be answered, if the evolutionary theory was so solid...then why must its adherants attack anyone, even their own? If it's solid it should stand on it's own grounds. As well as feel secure enough so as not to immediately close thought to all else. So much for free thought and free speech I suppose.

This case is so confused I am not going to attempt to justify anyone's actions. Suffice it to say the article was published under questionable circumstances that, if let pass, could undermine the basis of credibility of all scientific journals.

The theory is solid and does take criticism. On another thread a different article, questioning the bird-dinosaur link, is being discussed. The author, Alan Feduccia, is a known maverick in the scientific community, bucking the general trend of opinon on bird evolution. But he gets published honestly.

You either take the Bible for what it says how it says or you don't.

Does that mean take it the same way you do?

I notice you completely side-stepped the question of how long it would take one of Noah's descendants to get to Egypt and begin repopulating the Nile Valley.

How do you explain the lack of a 20 year gap in Egyptian historical records after the flood? How do you explain the existence of a large enough population to build the pyramids?

You mean...reading Genesis as it is, the way it is written? Did you gleen that from the literary context?

I mean, when you speak of reading Genesis "as it is, the way it is written" do you mean reading it as you do? Do you mean that anyone who does not agree with your reading of Genesis is not accepting Genesis?

As it's Author, God has His own interpretation.

And to whom has he given that interpretation? To you?

Scriptures, as His inerrent and infallible word, stand on their own.

Why? Who decreed that the scriptures are God's only communication to us? Who declared that information from outside scripture cannot shed light on scripture and aid in a correct understanding of scripture?

Barging in and telling God what His word should say and should be open for debate is nothing less than arrogant.

And if it is not open for debate, how do we decide which of many human interpretations is God's interpretation? Are we to take your word for it that your interpretation has God's seal of approval?

Like with all us human beings, it's a logic corrupted by the curse of sin.

And that is why philosophers have made a study of logical fallacies--in order to reduce levels of bad reasoning to a minimum. Feel free to provide examples of logical fallacies which lead to false conclusions as you come to them.

Sorry to burst your bubble...but just because there are those out there you do not wish to acknowledge or accept as valid because it goes counter to everything you believe in does not mean they do not exist or should go away.

That's right. Valid facts and observations do not go away just because you want them to. If you have any to share, that you feel support your case, feel free to present them. I have already presented many which you have ignored.

I asked of the reality of a universal flood that wiped all life from the planet.

The evidence indicates that this is not a geological, historical or biological reality. Hence, I have to assume you are speaking of a theological reality.

Do you think God values unbelief over belief? If so, where did the parable of the Mustered Seed come from?

Reason is fine, as long as it doesn't set itself being above God. Yet, that's what you claimed time and time again. You even have done so in replies regarding how Scripture should be taken and read.

I think God values faith and reason above unbelief and irrationality. I do not believe God means for faith and reason to be opposed to each other, but to work together.

There is an old story about a Sunday school student who, when asked to define faith, said "Faith means believing what you know ain't so."

That is supposed to be a joke.

But all too often here, I see creationists demanding exactly this kind of "faith".

I don't agree with that definition of faith. If I know something ain't so, then God also knows it ain't do, and God does not expect me, or even desire me, to believe it, because to believe what ain't so would be to believe a lie.

Faith is more essential than reason. Reason alone will never lead one to God. Reason alone will never bring one to salvation. So between them faith takes pre-eminence. But faith has no need to deny reason.

Strange how Biblical Creationists will gladly claim they hold to faith

Well, if you call living in denial of reality, faith....

As one who believes God created reality, I am inclined to consider what it reveals as coming from God.

I'm not sure why you keep calling it "my interpretation" when I have repeatedly stated one must go by the literary context and take the Scriptures as they are for what they say. If you have quibbles over how He Authored His own book...take it up with Him.

But there are disagreements about what the literary context is. You say the literary context is historical. I say it is mythical. How do you decide who is right and who is wrong?

But, you want me to say there are various conflicting ways of looking at the Scriptures and they're all correct...that's one of the biggest problems. You just happened to shoot down the workability of your own logic.

No, I don't think they are all correct. I just want to know why you think you have a privileged handle on how to read it correctly.

Weather during the Global Flood

Legend

Critias

Guest

Critias

Guest

Senior Contributor

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide

Legend

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Critias

Guest

Senior Member

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency