Weather during the Global Flood

[gluadys]

How about God's wittness within the Scriptures?

One thing at a time. Deal with the observations first. Then we can come back to this question.

Jumping to conclusion regarding findings and passing them off as reliable testimoney...only to realize they are in error constitutes as a hoax.

Actually, you will generally find that scientists are pretty cautious about their findings. Most jumping to conclusions is done by news reporters and editors who put catchy headlines on stories. Nebraska man and Archeoraptor were both played up by the press, not by scientists. It was the scientists who exposed the errors.

But even jumping to a premature conclusion is not a hoax as it is not a deliberate attempt to deceive.

If you don't care for the definition...nothing I can do about that.

hoax (hoks)
n.
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
tr.v. hoaxed, hoax·ing, hoax·es
To deceive or cheat by using a hoax.

http://wwf.thefreedictionary.com/hoax

As I said, I teach literature. Careless use of words of words offends me. Especially when that carelessness amounts to breaking the ninth commandment.

Nope.

Yep. Here is what you were commenting on. I bolded a number of references to a double jaw joint, and attendant organization of ear bones.

Citation from
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...art1b.html#mamm

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.

To this you responded:

Microevolution is accepted by quite a few scientists. The change within a given species over time.​

Clearly you identified those highlighted changes as the sort of adaptation creationists call microevolution. And furthermore you would be right. This is what all evolution looks like. But these are the sort of changes which transformed a group of reptiles into a group of mammals.

As a side, same species remains the same species. Such as cats remain cats and dogs remain dogs. Neither emerging or changing into the other.

You are partly right. No existing species becomes another existing species. That does not prevent cats and dogs from having a common ancestor.

Where you took that and gave the definition for Macroevolution, when one species changes to another, I don't want to know.

New species do emerge from established species. Note, this is not one existing species becoming another existing species. This is an existing species developing into a new species which did not exist before. This we have seen happen. It is an observation, not an assumption.

In your own way of reading you mean.

Yes, just as you read according to your own way of reading.

Look up the word "fountain" sometime.

foun·tain (fountn)
n.

1.
a. An artificially created jet or stream of water.
b. A structure, often decorative, from which a jet or stream of water issues.
2. A spring, especially the source of a stream.
3. A reservoir or chamber containing a supply of liquid that can be siphoned off as needed.
4. A soda fountain.
5. A drinking fountain.
6. A point of origin or dissemination; a source: the library, a fountain of information.

I expect you would agree that #2 is the meaning in Genesis 7:11. Are you under the mistaken impression that springs can be found only on land?

The verse specifically refers to "fountains of the great deep". So I looked up "deep". Dictionary first.

deep (dp)
1.
a. A deep place in land or in a body of water: drowned in the deep of the river.
b. A vast, immeasurable extent: the deep of outer space.
2. The extent of encompassing time or space; firmament.
3. The most intense or extreme part: the deep of night.
4. The ocean.
5. Nautical A distance estimated in fathoms between successive marks on a sounding line.

Note meanings 1a and 4.

Then I checked the Hebrew translated here as "deep". It is 'tehom' and here is the definition given in Strong's concordance.

deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea
deep (of subterranean waters)
deep, sea, abysses (of sea)
primeval ocean, deep
deep, depth (of river)
abyss, the grave

The fountains of the great deep are the fountains or springs of water in the ocean. They did not need to burst through dry land via earthquakes. All that was needed was the release from the command of God that had bound them since the third day of creation. This permitted the waters of the deep (and the waters from above the firmament) to rise up and overwhelm the land as they had at the beginning.

Now, I have shown you the literary and scriptural basis of my reading. Can you do the same?

Nope. I've been given someone's beliefs on interpretations regarding whatever evidence was left of those civilizations....

You have been given references to artifacts that exist in real life today. You have seen pictures of some of them. If you go to Egypt, you can see them for yourself. If you learn to read hieroglyphics you can read the inscriptions for yourself and verify what they say.

If you think the Egyptologists are mistaken in their interpretations, please note where the mistakes have occurred and what the corrections are. And how you have established the better interpretation.

Otherwise you have no basis for your assertions. They are nothing but empty wind. The cries of a child who cannot accept the truth.

...a man named Ussher who set his own timing for the flood when the Bible doesn't indicate when it happened, only it was early on in human history. Not well into as you claimed.

Past the development of civilization is well into human history. The bulk of human history is that of small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers, not that of agriculturalists, pastoralists and city-builders.

You're going have to do better if you're going to attempt to mish-mash your own beliefs and attempt to discredit the Scriptural account

There you go again. I have not attempted at any time to discredit the scriptural account. Only to show that it is not a historical account. It is only in your mind-set that this amounts to discrediting scripture.

Please withdraw the false accusation that I am attempting to discredit scripture.

While how many times earlier did I ask the Bible be used by itself?

If you want to claim that the bible recounts actual history, you have to take actual history into account. Some parts of the bible do recount actual history, and creationists don't hesitate to point out such confirmations. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. When history contradicts an event in the bible, the conclusion must be the event is not historical. At least not as written.

The bible can be used by itself only on condition that you do not claim any of it as real history. You can indeed retreat into a hermetic bubble with only your bible and no other objective source of information in order to indulge yourself in a fantasy spun from your imaginative reading of scripture. But don't ask me to accept that as historical truth, much less infallible, God-breathed scripture.

Yet there is nothing within the account itself which states it is a myth. In all places of Scripture it indicates by the literary context how it is to be read.

The flood story seems to be read as a myth only because you chose to believe it is a myth, nothing more.

As you have already noted, there is no clear indication of the time when the flood occurred. Nor is there any evidence that it occurred at any time. This is a classical characteristic of myth.

The biblical story is a clear parallel of the much older Babylonian-Sumerian story which is mythical.

The biblical story is an interweaving of two independent stories by two different authors. When separated out, the stories are parallel versions with many similarities and interesting differences. Each on its own has mythical elements.

The story is principally about God's judgment and mercy, not about history. It is told to reveal God's nature and human nature, not primarily to report an event. This also, characterizes myth.

Asked and answered.

Asked many times and side-stepped many times. Not answered yet.

Please stop treating the Scriptures as relative with countless interpretations being valid when the Author only has only declared one.

I am not treating scripture as relative. But it is a fact that there are countless interpretations of scripture. God may have only one interpretation of scripture. You now claim, as you did not before, that it has been declared.

Where has it been declared?

How do you determine which of the many interpretations humans make of scripture correlate with God's interpretation?

Or do you just assume that yours is it?

You contridict yourself I'm afraid.

No, scripture is contradicting you. Scripture is saying that scripture is not God's only means of communication with humanity. You claimed that it is.

Just that.

In other words, you don't know what you mean yourself.
In practice you assume that how you read scripture is "taking it as written".

That comes across to me as incredibly arrogant and judgmental because the consequence is that you have to assume that anyone disagreeing with you must be distorting scripture as it is written.

Better to consider that your reading of scripture is just as much a human, error-prone reading of scripture as everyone else's and seek together how to find its true meaning.

Your problem if you feel the need to get snide because I don't and won't share your worldview. Doesn't mean I have to offer more to the conversation should there be more rude comments either.

I don't ask you to share my world-view. I do ask you to evaluate the consistency of yours.

 

[night2day]

...the bible itself contradicts the proposition that it is the only means by which God communicates with us.

In what way does it do so? And by what other means do we know how God has acted throughout history to bring about complete forgiveness of sins and eternal life through Jesus Christ alone? What else acts as the determinar of how we as Christians should live?

The Bible doesn't contrict itself and never did.

In the Old Testament God interacted with His chosen people either directly or indirectly as the stage was continually being set for the promised Savior. And such is written testimoney Within the New Testament the Promise is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Gospels and Epistles were also inspired by the Holy Spirit to give lasting testimoney. Instead of God directly interacting with a nation He had set apart to point to the coming Savior, such was no longer needed.

(As a side note, Hebrews also speaks on this within the "faith chapter" I refered to earlier. The Hebrews of the Old Testament were not, nor ever had, salvation because they were Hebrews. Salvation for them came by way of grace, through faith in the Savior to come. Just as it is for us who live in the days where Jesus Christ has already come.)

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow... "
1 Peter 1:18-25; 2: 1-2
​

When Jesus referred to himself as the Truth and to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth. When God, in all persons of the Trinity is referred to as creator, and whenever creation is appealed to as a witness of God's soveriegn power and majesty.

Indeed, God is given glory He is given credit. But what else? And how does creation testify of redemption from sin, death, and Hell? To believe there is a God, as many do, is not enough.

What about Satan and all the fallen angels? They know all about the Triune God. They certainly know He exists. They were in Heaven with the other angels before they rebelled against the Lord? Satan took one-third of all Heaven with he when he and the others were banished.

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
​

James 2:19

I recall your earlier comments on James and Luther. During his day Luther saw the many abuses of the church and the stress that was placed on somehow works and induldgences can save when it is actually through Christ alone. Note that James was within the Bible he translated from the original languages for the German people kept James.

James does not stress grace through faith as an epistle such as Romans. But then, James was writing to those who already professed Christ. James nor Paul are fighting one another. They are actually attacking the same problem from two angles. Paul was addressing those in Rome who felt work had to be relied on for salvation. James addressed those who felt as Christians it did not matter what type of behavior they portrayed. In short, individuals are saved by grace, through faith alone. How we live is to reflect this.

​

From all this it follows that whenever scientists have come to a true interpretation of nature, it is God's truth about nature.

If scientists proclaim their proclamations of nature were the true proclamations, then why are their conclusions regarding studies always changing in various areas?

Science is not God. It is study of the world God has created. That's all it is.

Would you not say the same of any true interpretation of scripture--i.e. that it is God's truth?

No, of course not. God's not the Author of confusion. Stating or strongly implying that there are many interpretations to His word, however, does nothing but bring confusion.

Studies and personal conclusions from observations are not always reliable. Scientists don't always agree. At various times it is all relative and various from person to person based on numerous factors.

The Bible stands in and of itself with the authority God gave it as the sole Author.

 

[night2day]

The matter of the virgin birth is the same as that of the resurrection. Observation tells us that a virgin does not normally give birth. It does not tell us that a virgin cannot give birth when overshadowed by power of the Holy Spirit. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that extraordinary things can happen in extraordinary circumstances.

And yet, the events within Genesis 1-10 would be denied despite their extrodinary circumstances? It would be reasonable to assume either God's very power is questioned or they it simply wish to be refused. Even though among all the Biblical events this is the one area of the Bible which is rejected among Christians as a story while others are taken as is, as the literary context portrays.

The virgin birth was a sign God gave regarding the Messiah since...as we knoww, virgin's don't give birth. When people die they stay dead. Yet there are several accounts of people rising from the dead within the Scriptures in the Old and New Testament. Jesus Himself rose from the dead. Just as the prophets prophecied. Just like He prophecied.

You said yourself: "It is perfectly reasonable to believe that extraordinary things can happen in extraordinary circumstances." Thus, what does make Genesis 1-10 any less than of the examples above. Science does not nor cannot explain the virgin birth or resurrection from the dead. To do so would be attempting to state how the supernatural power of God works. And the supernatural realm is something science can only perhaps see the effects from, not explain them.

And as stated previously, the studies within science and conclusions gleaned from various observations or theories is can always change. Our human understanding of our natural word is rather limited. And often times there is plenty of bias as well. It cannot even begin to try to explain the supernatural realm. What we know of the supernatural iand of God Himself is only what God has told us within His word. One either takes it as written within the literary context, or they take it some other way.

I am sorry you got that impression. It is quite the opposite, not only of my belief, but of my experience. I once did have the idea, nurtured by strong exposure to televangelists and evangelical preaching, that faith was something like a muscle that needed to be exercised to be made strong and that if I tried hard enough I would get enough faith to be saved.

Well, we agree that sort of teaching is dangerous then. That's something.

But finally I grasped what Paul was really saying about faith. He was not pointing to faith as the agent of salvation. The agent of salvation is God's grace: "by grace are you saved...." And God's grace is God's sovereign gift. Faith is the trusting attitude that accepts salvation as a gift of God's grace instead of trying to earn it by obedience to the law or the performance of good works. When I stopped trying to muster up faith, and relied entirely on God's grace, then I knew salvation...and faith. And just as grace provides faith for salvation, grace sustains faith. In short, it is God who saves, and God who keeps those saved from falling again into sin. That is my experience.

Interestingly enough, Martin Luther had his own turn around experiance when reading Romans at some point and came across v. 1:17: "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." (Lutherans celebrate the Reformation on October 31st so...hadda bring him up.) The previous verse places this in perspective: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth..." Four chapters later there is: "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

As a child I was taught a simple way to think of "grace" was

God's
Riches
At
Christ's
Expense

That is, because of who Jesus Christ is and what He has done for us we stand declared "not guilty" or justified before God.

And that faith was and is something the Holy Spirit works inside of us. He's also the one who keeps us in the faith. And yes, it is by God's love and mercy.

I'm joyful to know you turned to the Scriptures rather than remain listening to those televangelists. Many of them preach a "self-help" lingo littered with Christian terminology that stays rather far away from the terms of sin, repentance, and redemption.

One can be easily confused unless, like the Bareans in Acts, they return to what God states within his word. "...and study the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

 

[night2day]

Just as we rely on others (the apostles and evangelists) to tell us the good news of salvation and choose whether or not to believe their accounts. If its good enough for the most important news of all, why is it not good enough for less important information, like the age of the earth or whether there was a global flood?

Even scientists agree they cannot properly depend on information gleaned from areas that have suffered from trauma in quite a few cases. One such an example is erosion which causes the surface to appear older than it appears.

And I would think almost anyone would agree the date and age of something God created would be too hard to dicipher when it's unknown just at what stage it was in within the first place.

Maybe take into consideration scientists may not have the proper tools as of yet to know just what type of evidence needs to be looked for. Scientific fields of all kinds are fields which has new theories replacing old all the time. Observations and conclusions drawn from studies may prove useful...but they may also change as new information is discovered.

It falls down to who or what does one believe.

...the apostles gave us only their testimony. Scientists give us evidence to support their testimony.

All 12 apostles were eyewittnesses. Not only that, but they were disciples of the very One who was there at Creation Himself...as well as One who was there when the global flood occured.

We of today either accept their testimony...or accept the explanation of others.

Just as you are making guesses about the resurrection of Jesus since you were not personally at the empty tomb or in the upper room when he appeared to the disciples. We both depend on those who have seen with their own eyes.

True. Although I said nothing differnt. Yet, I would have probably phrased it: "I believe Biblical events of the upper room, the resurrection, and Jesus as He appeared to His disciples." Guessing gives me the mental picture of "Heads you win, tails I lose" sort of thing.

And yes, geologists can see with their own eyes both the impacted and non-impacted rock and so can tell what the area was like before as well as after the impact of the meteor.

Impacted rock would logically be more prone to wear over the ages I tend to think. The impacted areas of a meteorite still would have suffered from the stress that made them more prone to the natural scars of passage of time, given if nothing else occured.

Think of the human skeleton. When there's a breaking or injuring of a bone, the bone may heal in time. But it will never be the same. And it will still be much, much more at risk to osteoarthritis at a younger age than normal. Tis why many athletes happen to have osteoarthritis.

No remnant of a dinosaur has been found less than 65 million years old. No remnant of a human has been found (including all species of Homo) more than 8 million years old. That is present-day, existing, observable data.

That's only of the recorded data can be relied on.

By that criterion, everything recorded in the bible is immaterial since time has certainly passed between its writing and now. In addition, much of it was written well after the events it speaks of, even when it is speaking at its most historical. So, by your parameters it is a worthless document.

While holy men wrote the Bible, the Holy Spirit inspired them to do so. Meaning God was there at every single event that was recorded. I certainly wouldn't say His wittness is immaterial. And recal John 1. God the Son was certainly present at the Creation of the world and everything else. Meaning that testifies of His own wittness. Not only wittness, but His participation.

Geological events leave geological traces. So even if new events re-shape the original evidence, they leave evidence of the re-shaping, and the geological history can be reconstructed. Much the same way as dectectives can re-construct a crime scene from the evidence left behind.

Detectives are not always correct. Especially if there are even the smallist of details are overlooked, ignored, or the evidence is interpreted wrongly. The same can be said with geologists or practicioners with any other science.

Another example from the medial field:

A patient may die of an infection at a hospital. But unless one of the surgeons or staff or someone confesses hands weren't washed before the surgery took place, which is an all but certain way for infection to be passed on through the incision area, the death could well be written off as a complication of the surgery.

Because you refuse to investigate what tools scientists can use, you are unaware of how much history can be reliably reconstructed.

Nowhere have I denied science has some pretty impressive tools. Or that history can be reconstructed to a point. However the reconstruction still does not have the orginal to compare and contrast with. So, it's still a high-tech guess. One which may not or will not yake other factors into account.

But waving away this evidence is only a psychological defence; it doesn't mean the evidence is not there. It is merely a refusal to accept it for what it is, because you do not want to deal with the implications of the truth.

I do not? Or I simply take into account even with all the technology and human reasoning...there's no replacement for being able to do an actual compare/contrast of the event when it happened. As well as knowing of all the factors which may have affected it afterwards. And nobody is able to do that.

I have not seen any other interpretation of the evidence I have provided in this thread. I have seen side-stepping, denial and hand-waving, but no other interpretation of the evidence.

You had stated earlier you didn't want to hear of some of the evidence since it's been noted before by other creationists. Besides, before we can even cross that threshold it would be nice if there was agreement that the Yays and nays can at least agree both sides can take the same evidence and interpret it in differnt ways. However, everytime that's brought up...well, previous posts on the thread can show what happend. Mostly it was denied creationists would even be able to use the same evidence as the other side does.

I'm not speaking of one side needing to accept the evidence as the other presents it or visa-versa. Or even treating both as being equal and valid. Just a simple acknowledgment the evidence the earth has is seen in seperate ways. Instead of others in the thread immediately stating "that's a lie" and "you're being unknowingly decieved".

If's it's side-stepping, it's doing so in order to avoid what occured here on the thread not long after I entered.

 

[night2day]

If I have missed it, please be considerate enough to give the page and post number in which you presented it.

Given the length of the thread I've participated thus far, it may be time consunsuming to find. And given what I mentioned regarding how even the issue of two sides taking the same piece if possible evidence and offering their own explanations has given rise to flaming I'm relunctanret to do so.

There's also the matter I had requested time and again from anyone Biblical references within their literary context throughout the Old and New Testaments that suggest the global flood was anything other than what the text itself indicates. So far there's been little response on this aspect. No verses. Nothing.

Earlier in this thread there was an ugly discussion about name-calling. It was initiated when you mis-represented the position of theistic evolutionists in regard to scripture. You were informed then that we do NOT discard scripture...Yet here you make the false statement that I discard Genesis 10...Please withdraw this false statement, since I do not discard Genesis 10 or any other part of scripture.

You yourself stated a few times you regard it as a myth. As folklore. That is discarding Scripture from it's original literary context and replacing it with your own.

In essance you wish me to state the events in Genesis can be taken as myth and folklore. That they offer somesort of meaning, but were not historical and did not happen. I cannot and will not do so.

I consider every part of scripture to be given by God, through inspiration, for our benefit.

However, the topic of dispute is mentioned quite a few places in the Bible among other people and events that are accepted. The accepted historical is mixed with the mythical?

The six day creation and the global flood are the two events that are most questioned in the Bible. For some reason, many Christians can accept and believe everything else. But not those two. Even though there's no change in the literary context from other events that are considered historical.

Inspiration is defined as "God-Breathed". Since God does not lie, the Scriptures can only be taken as inerrant and infallible. If you wanted to know what I meant by Inspiration...just mentioned it.

Indeed, the Scriptures are for out benefit. They point us to our Savior. The O.T. points to when the promise of the Savior was first made, why we need a Savior, and all the prophecies following. The N.T. points to the Savior who came and who will come again.

They don't contradict for God is not the Author of confusion.

As to Genesis 10, it is irrelevant to any recording of overlaps in generational dating since it is a list of names only, without numerical references. The genealogies relevant to dating the flood are those in Genesis 5 where the age of the person at the time of the birth of one of their children (presumably, in most cases, the first-born son) and the age at death is given.

Granted.

Whether there is a point in providing the information asked for is irrelevant. If the information exists, you can provide it. If you cannot find the information asked for, you can admit it, rather than hiding behind excuses.

Gluadys: They state the age of the person at the birth of his son and the total length of his life. Can you provide an example of an overlap?

n2d: Since you discard Genesis 10 which does just that, there's not much of a point.

Granted, I should have made my answer more clarified before it was given. I was considering what was written about how Ussher dated in general, not merely pre-flood: Genesis 5 & 10. My confusion in responding regarding v10 instead of v5 is noticable and not explainable.

None-the-less it would be appreciated if when I wrote something that did not make sense you kindly ask me to go back and explain before jumping the gun and tossing accusations I'm hiding or making excuses.

Written earlier by gluadys:
...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?

...Ussher's calculations were based on the Genesis genealogies, and, as noted, work out to 1657 years...

There are many other geneologies in the Old Testament (I & 2 Chronicles for instance)

In the end, it's Ussher's calculation. If he's on target, well and good. If not, I'm noy going to worry about it. There's no need.

Depends on the nature of the buildings and infrastructure. I expect that even in those disappeared towns, investigators can still find the sewer lines for example. A devastating flood in the area of the Black Sea 7500 years ago left some human remains and remnants of housing. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/289/5487/2021a?rbfvrToken=f4d87eb901dbf0e754609eaa960b9c7a62c40bef
So I see no reason why a global flood would not leave remnants of pyramids and ziggurats built before the flood occurred as this type of building would have been fairly resistant to erosion.

Provided there were structures such as the pyramids within their varied forms after the flood. It's not even known the persons living there held the same religious beliefs regarding of the Egyption pantheon....or if it was yet in existatance. Just like many other gods others could have been worshipping. I personally would have to wonder if they came by the same names.

The ones surviving the flood would undoubtedly teach their children to love, honer, and fear the Lord. I would think their children's children also. However, along the way people began turning away from the Lord.

I am not saying the name was used then. It doesn't matter what they called themselves or their country. The point is they were there. And they were there continually, with no gap due to a global flood. As far as I know, the name "Egypt" is derived from the Greek name for the territory.

There's disagreement about t.he earliest ages of mankind by scietists. This is no differnt. Whether you believe there was no flood, and certainly no gap is for you to say. The Bible states differntly

I am not quibbling with what the passage means. I do not agree with those who contend that the author meant anything other than a solar day. The question is whether those solar days are historical or not. The literary context strongly suggests they are not intended to be historical, but a foundation for sabbatical theology.

Would it be helpful if I provided the numerous passage referance numbers to the creation account? Or even just a few that have nothing to do with the Sabbath?

It is a matter of showing how inconsistent Ussher's calculations are with history. And any dating anywhere close to those of Ussher's.

As mentioned, I think it was Ussher who also stated God first began creating sometime in October. While some of his works are useful and facinating, he should know better than to try and second guess what the Bible doesn't state.

I openly admit not knowing when the world was exactly created either, save that it's much younger than ka-zillions of years old.

And since his dating of these events is completely incompatible with confirmed historical events, we can conclude that he was wrong, at the very least about the dating. And, as I have re-iterated again and again, no matter where you look in history, be it human, biological or geological, there is no evidence of a global flood and there is evidence contradictory to a global flood.

Simply because his dating is wrong, doesn't mean the Biblical account automatically would be. From the Scriptures since it states from Noah's three sons and their desendents came various ancient nations and empires we know of today that existed. Those civilizations that were before the flood, we may never know about. Since God destroyed them for specific reasons, would He want us to know? It's possible bits and pieces exist of them of course. But a catastrophic global flood is still a catastrophic global flood. Most everything would be destroyed.

What is the extent of their disagreement? And what criteria are they using? If they are disputing the beginning of Neolithic civilization and differ by 500 years, that is not much over a period of 8,000 years.

If you mean they as in those creationists who dispute Ussher...you would have to ask them for individual opinions. As for myself, I'm taling into account the entire Old Testament. There are some geneologies which don't offer enough details to indicate how much time is passed. And if there isn't...why guess?

Ussher used the biblical text. He thought all known civilizations developed post-flood. This was before archeological studies showed otherwise.

Archeological studies are fine as long as they are conducted with the proper means. Dating methods are still not prefected to where they are reliable. And even with the dating method it does not guarentee the item itself has suffered damage from the elements that would interfer with the process.

All this aside, it's still a matter of faith either way.

 

[night2day]

What relates mutations, especially neutral and beneficial mutations to a curse?

I would think the bulk of this rests on the matter of what the world was like before the Fall into Sin occured and after. However, when such an event is regarded as never actually happening historically...then no real change between the Perfect World God had created and the world under Sin's Curse would be taken into account.

While I was corrected in saying many mutations are harmful, it still is true that there are mutations that are indeed very harmful to the one who bears them. Various examples exist from nature itself...whether it be in the form of immediate death or impairment due to genetics

Do you realize that without mutations, species could not adapt to new environments, and you could not get many different species from the few "kinds" on the ark?

And why would there need to be the Ark if Mankind had not fallen into sin?

In one of your recent posts you made inferance humankind gradually became responsible for their actions. If it was gradual then that would mean it was not something that happened in one stroke, where all of a sudden there was not a rebellion and the relationship Adam and Eve previously had with God was not immediately broken.

Of course it would then be implying God had created this world to fall into sin after it was made. All those who changed over time gradually sucummbing to sin. Essentially saying perhaps God was the one who invited sin into the world.

God being holy and the "Highest Good" could not have done so and remain true to Himself.

 

[night2day]

...But even jumping to a premature conclusion is not a hoax as it is not a deliberate attempt to deceive...

Then perhaps explain the inconsistantcies within the dates of how old the Earth supposedly is according to evolutionists who have had their ideas prominant within both history and science books for so long? Especially since the theory itself, as far as I can recall, was always treated as fact by public school districts all over the nation--including mine?

If scientists are resting on theories...then why teach and present them as facts when they are not?

Newspapers and reporters cannot be the ones to be always the blame for this type of sordid study.

Evolutionists often claim Creationists work with a pre-defined frame which casts their findings with a slant. However, those who believe and accept the Genesis accounts as is often willlingly and openly state they do from the start. Many evolutionists work within their own bias, frame, and mindset...but are loath to admit it, stating instead they are facts which are fully expected to be accepted.

An example: There's the story of a Hobbit-like Human Ancestor race which was invited to join the family tree by scientists late last year. Also found at BBC online.

"H. floresiensis probably evolved from another species called Homo erectus, whose remains have been discovered on the Indonesian island of Java...Professor Stringer said the find 'rewrites our knowledge of human evolution'. He added: 'To have [this species] present 12,000 years ago is frankly astonishing'..."

In short, stating evolution itself as a fact when it has never been proven but remains a theory is basically denying what it is and claiming what it is not. That in itself is a hoax.

If more evolutionists would be truthful regading the faith factor on both sides, then maybe there would be better dialogue. From what I've seen however, hardly any of that is permitted.

hoax (hoks)
n.
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
tr.v. hoaxed, hoax·ing, hoax·es
To deceive or cheat by using a hoax.

http://wwf.thefreedictionary.com/hoax

As I said, I teach literature. Careless use of words of words offends me. Especially when that carelessness amounts to breaking the ninth commandment.

I very well know what it means. And if you believe I used it carelessly, so be it. I find it curious you comment on the breaking of the 9th Commandment when the testimony of Creation and the Global Flood accounts in Genesis are condemed as "lies" should they be refered to as being true historical accounts that took place.

The same One who gave the 9th and the rest of the commandments is the very one who created the world in th beginning in the first place.

Clearly you identified those highlighted changes as the sort of adaptation creationists call microevolution. And furthermore you would be right. This is what all evolution looks like. But these are the sort of changes which transformed a group of reptiles into a group of mammals.

According to the evolutionary theory.

No existing species becomes another existing species. That does not prevent cats and dogs from having a common ancestor. New species do emerge from established species.

Actually, it does. If only due to the fact cats and dogs are two totally differnt types of animals.

Note, this is not one existing species becoming another existing species. This is an existing species developing into a new species which did not exist before. This we have seen happen. It is an observation, not an assumption.

Reptilia is raptilia and Mamila is mamila. And not even the species within the given divided groups within each set of animals is able to develop into from one species into another.

The only way to attempt to make a hybrid between two differnt species is to do so in the labratory. That is toying with nature.

Yes, just as you read according to your own way of reading.

Look up the word "fountain" sometime.

foun·tain (fountn)
n.

1.
a. An artificially created jet or stream of water.
b. A structure, often decorative, from which a jet or stream of water issues.
2. A spring, especially the source of a stream.
3. A reservoir or chamber containing a supply of liquid that can be siphoned off as needed.
4. A soda fountain.
5. A drinking fountain.
6. A point of origin or dissemination; a source: the library, a fountain of information.

I expect you would agree that #2 is the meaning in Genesis 7:11. Are you under the mistaken impression that springs can be found only on land?

From Webster's:

1.) A spring of water issuing from the earth.
2.) An artificially produced jet or stream of water; also, the
structure or works in which such a jet or stream rises or
flows; a basin built and constantly supplied with pure
water for drinking and other useful purposes, or for
ornament.
3.) A reservoir or chamber to contain a liquid which can be
conducted or drawn off as needed for use; as, the ink
fountain in a printing press, etc.
4.) The source from which anything proceeds, or from which
anything is supplied continuously; origin; source.

Bolded the definitions which fix the context.

The verse specifically refers to "fountains of the great deep". So I looked up "deep". Dictionary first.

deep (dp)
1.
a. A deep place in land or in a body of water: drowned in the deep of the river.
b. A vast, immeasurable extent: the deep of outer space.
2. The extent of encompassing time or space; firmament.
3. The most intense or extreme part: the deep of night.
4. The ocean.
5. Nautical A distance estimated in fathoms between successive marks on a sounding line.

Note meanings 1a and 4.

Again from Webster's:

1.) Extending far below the surface; of great perpendicular
dimension (measured from the surface downward, and
distinguished from high, which is measured upward); far to
the bottom; having a certain depth; as, a deep sea.
2.) Extending far back from the front or outer part; of great
horizontal dimension
3.) Low in situation; lying far below the general surface
4.) Hard to penetrate or comprehend; profound; -- opposed to
shallow or superficial

Notice all are bolded. 9 definitions were listed in all. The remaining I did not include spoke of hues, thought, and bog.

Then I checked the Hebrew translated here as "deep". It is 'tehom' and here is the definition given in Strong's concordance...The fountains of the great deep are the fountains or springs of water in the ocean. They did not need to burst through dry land via earthquakes. All that was needed was the release from the command of God that had bound them since the third day of creation. This permitted the waters of the deep (and the waters from above the firmament) to rise up and overwhelm the land as they had at the beginning.

You're making the assumption all of the underground waters were within the oceans. The verse in Genesis states all the fountains of the deep were burst open. Does it mean the ocean? Of course. Does it also mean the waters that lay beneath the earth? Yes. There are places where there is water stored under the planet's surface.

Now, I have shown you the literary and scriptural basis of my reading. Can you do the same?

Just did so.

If you think the Egyptologists are mistaken in their interpretations, please note where the mistakes have occurred and what the corrections are. And how you have established the better interpretation...Otherwise you have no basis for your assertions. They are nothing but empty wind. The cries of a child who cannot accept the truth.

I have the Scriptures. And it is it's testimoney I hold to rather than yours. Science isn't God and shouldn't be placed as a if it were a god.

There you go again. I have not attempted at any time to discredit the scriptural account. Only to show that it is not a historical account.

Same thing.

It is only in your mind-set that this amounts to discrediting scripture...Please withdraw the false accusation that I am attempting to discredit scripture.

Asked and answered.

If you want to claim that the bible recounts actual history, you have to take actual history into account. Some parts of the bible do recount actual history, and creationists don't hesitate to point out such confirmations. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. When history contradicts an event in the bible, the conclusion must be the event is not historical. At least not as written.

Falls to which of the wittnesses you believe and which is false. God was at the Creation. He was at the Global Flood. His wittness outrules anyones.

The bible can be used by itself only on condition that you do not claim any of it as real history.

So you say. Then that makes the very center of the Bible, Jesus Christ, also obsolete. Without Him taking on our sins on the cross and his resurrection to testify His victory over sin, death, and Hell...then your stating our redemption by grace, through faith in Him is obsolete.

If you wish to make such a statement, do so. I won't.

Asked many times and side-stepped many times. Not answered yet.

If you won't accept answers given then expect none at all.

I am not treating scripture as relative. But it is a fact that there are countless interpretations of scripture. God may have only one interpretation of scripture. You now claim, as you did not before, that it has been declared....Where has it been declared?

Untrue. You did ask me before where and/or when they had been declared. I gave an answer. How you take it is your option. How I respond however, is mine.

How do you determine which of the many interpretations humans make of scripture correlate with God's interpretation? ... Or do you just assume that yours is it?

Since you keep forgetting I have always stated to look to the literary context of the given passage in accordance with both the rest of the passage and the rest of the Scriptures as well...no sense of me restating it.

 

[Critias]

The verse specifically refers to "fountains of the great deep". So I looked up "deep". Dictionary first.

deep (dp)
1.
a. A deep place in land or in a body of water: drowned in the deep of the river.
b. A vast, immeasurable extent: the deep of outer space.
2. The extent of encompassing time or space; firmament.
3. The most intense or extreme part: the deep of night.
4. The ocean.
5. Nautical A distance estimated in fathoms between successive marks on a sounding line.

Note meanings 1a and 4.

Then I checked the Hebrew translated here as "deep". It is 'tehom' and here is the definition given in Strong's concordance.

deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea
deep (of subterranean waters)
deep, sea, abysses (of sea)
primeval ocean, deep
deep, depth (of river)
abyss, the grave

The fountains of the great deep are the fountains or springs of water in the ocean. They did not need to burst through dry land via earthquakes. All that was needed was the release from the command of God that had bound them since the third day of creation. This permitted the waters of the deep (and the waters from above the firmament) to rise up and overwhelm the land as they had at the beginning.

1. I am curious as to where you get your definitions because my webster, american and oxnord dictionary give more then what you have given. Look to night2day's definition list to see what has been left out from your dictionary.

2. Don't assume because you have a Strong's concordance that you will get the correct defintion of a Hebrew word within that verse. Doing so, you forget about context in which it is written.

3. Look to what I bolded in your statements above. Does that say it is only in the ocean? If not, and you state it is so, then that is an assumption, made by you. An unnecessary one at that, too.

4. You seem to forget that there is water under the surface of land. Water wells come to mind.

5. It is your interpretation that says the waters from the land don't burst through and it is the Bible that says all the fountains of the deep burst. Notice the difference in statements. The Bible says all, you say not all.

This gives everyone here a clear view on how you interpret when you aren't using science as your guide.

 

[shernren]

[size=-1]Fountain:

[/size][size=-1]a structure from which an artificially produced jet of water arises
spring: a natural flow of ground water
<li>a plumbing fixture that provides a flow of water
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/size][size=-1]<li>A fountain is an arrangement where water is forced into the air under pressure, creating a jet; or is allowed to flow over a surface, possibly stone or metal. The pressure may be gravitational, or may be produced by a motor-driven pump.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain[/size]
Deep:

[size=-1]relatively deep or strong; affecting one deeply; "a deep breath"; "a deep sigh"; "deep concentration"; "deep emotion"; "a deep trance"; "in a deep sleep"
marked by depth of thinking; "deep thoughts"; "a deep allegory"
very distant in time or space; "deep in the past"; "deep in enemy territory"; "deep in the woods"; "a deep space probe"
extreme; "in deep trouble"; "deep happiness"
bass: having or denoting a low vocal or instrumental range; "a deep voice"; "a bass voice is lower than a baritone voice"; "a bass clarinet"
strong; intense; "deep purple"; "a rich red"
relatively thick from top to bottom; "deep carpets"; "deep snow"
extending relatively far inward; "a deep border"
thick: (of darkness) very intense; "thick night"; "thick darkness"; "a face in deep shadow"; "deep night"
large in quantity or size; "deep cuts in the budget"
with head or back bent low; "a deep bow"
the central and most intense or profound part; "in the deep of night"; "in the deep of winter"
cryptic: of an obscure nature; "the new insurance policy is written without cryptic or mysterious terms"; "a deep dark secret"; "the inscrutable workings of Providence"; "in its mysterious past it encompasses all the dim origins of life"- Rachel Carson; "rituals totally mystifying to visitors from other lands"
deeply: to a great depth; "dived deeply"; "dug deep"
trench: a long steep-sided depression in the ocean floor
to an advanced time; "deep into the night"; "talked late into the evening"
abstruse: difficult to penetrate; incomprehensible to one of ordinary understanding or knowledge; "the professor's lectures were so abstruse that students tended to avoid them"; "a deep metaphysical theory"; "some recondite problem in historiography"
exhibiting great cunning usually with secrecy; "deep political machinations"; "a deep plot"
literary term for an ocean; "denizens of the deep"
<li>to far into space; "penetrated deep into enemy territory"; "went deep into the woods";
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/size]
t@howm:
1) deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea

a) deep (of subterranean waters)

b) deep, sea, abysses (of sea)

c) primeval ocean, deep

d) deep, depth (of river)

e) abyss, the grave

In the original there is no "all" (or BLB is mistaken).

 

[night2day]

1) deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea

a) deep (of subterranean waters)

b) deep, sea, abysses (of sea)

c) primeval ocean, deep

d) deep, depth (of river)

e) abyss, the grave

In the original there is no "all" (or BLB is mistaken).

I can't help but think there are some who either misunderstand "all the fountains of the deep burst" or just reject the word "all". Especially given was the context it came from. Used as well as what literary context it was used to insert their own way of reading into Genesis apart from the original context.

Goes back to the garden of Eden: Did God really say...?

 

[Critias]

In the original there is no "all" (or BLB is mistaken).

Go to BLB again and look at the Hebrew in the strongs section under "were all the fountains". First, notice that this says all, but this isn't the point. On the BLB, the Hebrew word ay(m is fountain/spring which you see as ma'yan. Scroll up, and look to where the whole verse is in Hebrew. Look for this Hebrew word add see look to the front of the word, you will see this word lk added to it. It is kol, which means all.


Hopefully you have the SLHebrew font installed your system to read the Hebrew above.

 

[gluadys]

1. I am curious as to where you get your definitions because my webster, american and oxnord dictionary give more then what you have given. Look to night2day's definition list to see what has been left out from your dictionary.

Be sure you are looking at the definition of the noun "deep". night2day's defintions were of the adjective. It is the noun that is pertinent here.

2. Don't assume because you have a Strong's concordance that you will get the correct defintion of a Hebrew word within that verse. Doing so, you forget about context in which it is written.

Yes, that is a serious shortcoming of Strong's. It gives you every English translation of a word used in the KJV, and where it is used, but no analysis of how the context shapes the meaning of the word.

3. Look to what I bolded in your statements above. Does that say it is only in the ocean? If not, and you state it is so, then that is an assumption, made by you. An unnecessary one at that, too.

The best translation that fits the cultural context of the time is "abyss". Remember when God divided the waters by creating the firmament? Some of the waters were pushed up above the firmament. The rest were left below it. These are the waters of the abyss. They both surround the dry land created later and flow around the foundations of the earth beneath the dry land. In ancient cosmology, everything above the firmament and below the earth was water--the primeval water mentioned first in Gen. 1:2

There is no suggestion in scripture of earth surrounding underground water, like a shell enclosing the white of an egg. The visual image is rather of earth spread out on foundations which hold it above the waters of the abyss.

4. You seem to forget that there is water under the surface of land. Water wells come to mind.

I am not sure how the ancients related fresh water to the salt waters of the abyss. Did they see some ground water ascending from the abyss or did they consider all fresh water to have come originally from rain?

5. It is your interpretation that says the waters from the land don't burst through and it is the Bible that says all the fountains of the deep burst. Notice the difference in statements. The Bible says all, you say not all.

Basically my contention is that the bursting of the fountains of the deep does not imply earthquakes. If freshwater springs take their source in the abyss, there is already a way for a surge of water to move to the surface of the earth. And we should also consider that most of the abyss is ocean. So we are not limited to terrestrial springs.

Scripture speaks only of the fountains of the deep. It does not speak of earthquakes.

 

[gluadys]

What I was saying is that Bible tells us how God communicates with us. The Bible never says that it is the only source of communication between Him an us.

Thank you. Night2day has made the claim that God has proclaimed the bible to be the only source of communication between God and humanity. That is the claim I am challenging.

Neither does it say that non-believers will be His spokesmen either.

Not spokesmen, no. But an unbeliever can speak the truth in mundane matters, and in doing do, agrees with God's truth. This was a point made by Augustine in his commentary on Genesis.

And as you can see, it is your assumption that scientists have a true interpretation of nature.

In many matters yes. In many others, their knowledge of nature is too incomplete to come to firm conclusions.

This would conclude that they are not wrong, therefore no further evidence found would ever prove otherwise. Rather closed minded for people who say they are not.

Not really. There are some things so firmly established it would be, as Stephen J. Gould once said, perverse not to take them as fact---at least provisionally. Do you really expect future evidence to show that the sun revolves around the earth rather than vice-versa? Do you really expect future evidence to show that viruses are not a source of disease?

Science is not always right, but the important thing is that it often is right.

True interpretation only comes by faith. Faith that only God gives and is not man attained. It is faith in God that He has lead us, but this can only be attained when we surrender our complete selves to Him. When we choose to hold onto our pride of knowledge instead of lending Him an ear, we are not surrendering to Him. And in doing so, we won't be lead because we are fighting against it.

Agreed, wholeheartedly. We can also add that when we refuse to accept the truth he has shown us in science, we are also not surrendering to Him in faith. We really do have to trust that all truth is God's truth. No matter how impious it seems to be, if it is true, God knows it to be true, and has no problem with it. If you have problems with it, you need to surrender to God's greater knowledge.

I don't think you are even aware of what you have truly stated here - that what scientist say is a true interpretation of nature. They may believe it is true, but it doesn't make it true. Evidence can always turn up that lends a different interpretation that proves past beliefs to be false. If you accept this than you can never make the statement that scientist have a true interpretation of nature.

I don't think you have understood what I am saying. I am not making the claim that scientists are right about everything, such that we can accept science uncritically.

But when science is right, that truth must be accepted, or one is denying what God has revealed in nature. One is denying that creation is what it is.

That comes down to denying that God made a real and knowable world. In short, it is a denial of the doctrine of creation.

 

[gluadys]

In what way does it do so? And by what other means do we know how God has acted throughout history to bring about complete forgiveness of sins and eternal life through Jesus Christ alone? What else acts as the determinar of how we as Christians should live?

The Bible doesn't contrict itself and never did.

Given the way you twist my words, I have serious doubts about your ability to understand scripture as well as you claim.

I did not say the bible was contradicting itself. I said it was contradicting you.

You made the claim that God speaks to us only through scripture. Scripture says otherwise. Scripture claims that God speaks through:

creation
visions and dreams
prophecy
Jesus, God incarnate
the testimony of the Holy Spirit
preaching and teaching

One could also add the sacraments which are the gospel proclaimed in ritual, but while that is theologically correct, I don't know that it is explicitly noted in scripture. All the others are.

In the Old Testament God interacted with His chosen people either directly or indirectly as the stage was continually being set for the promised Savior. And such is written testimoney Within the New Testament the Promise is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Gospels and Epistles were also inspired by the Holy Spirit to give lasting testimoney. Instead of God directly interacting with a nation He had set apart to point to the coming Savior, such was no longer needed.

So what does this have to do with God proclaiming that we can hear his Word only through scripture? Where is such a proclamation made?

And how does creation testify of redemption from sin, death, and Hell?

It doesn't. And no one is making that claim. What it does do is show us that there was never a global flood.

If scientists proclaim their proclamations of nature were the true proclamations, then why are their conclusions regarding studies always changing in various areas?

When scientists are sure enough of their facts to arrive at a consensus, there is seldom much change. About 2500 years ago, natural philosphers came to the conclusion that the earth is a sphere, not a circle. Has science changed its mind about that? About 500 years ago, scientists were convinced, for the first time in history, that the earth moves. Have they changed their mind? Although Newton is best remembered for the law of gravity, he actually spent more time studying optics. He proved that a rainbow is caused by the refraction of light. Ever hear of science changing its mind on that score?

Do you think science is right or wrong about bacteria and viruses, rather than humours, being a significant (though not the only) cause of disease? Or that vitamins are essential to health? Do you expect these theories to be dismantled any time soon?

Do you think science is right or wrong about DNA being the carrier of inherited characteristics?

Face it. The only time you question science is when scientific findings upset your interpretation of scripture. It is not scripture that you are concerned about, but your chosen way of reading it. You have too much pride to suppose that how you read scripture may be the wrong way to read it.

Science is not God. It is study of the world God has created. That's all it is.

Right. And when it has done well in its study, it has told us something true about the world God created---such as how old it really is.

No, of course not.

Maybe you would like to re-read that question. I don't think you understood it. Please note the bolded word.

Would you not say the same of any true interpretation of scripture--i.e. that it is God's truth?​

Stating or strongly implying that there are many interpretations to His word, however, does nothing but bring confusion.

There are many interpretations--at least as many as there are Christian denominations. There are different interpretations of baptism, of the church, of the relations of men and women in marriage and a whole host of other things.

These are, of course, human interpretations, and therefore fallible. But human interpretations of scripture are the only ones we have access to.

Studies and personal conclusions from observations are not always reliable.

Exactly. That is why there are so many different interpretations of scripture.

The Bible stands in and of itself with the authority God gave it as the sole Author.

God inspired the writing of scripture. He did not dictate it, and so is not the author. As we know, God inspired many authors in different times and places. And he didn't even tell us directly which authors were the ones he inspired. That had to be worked out by fallible human minds as the canon of the bible was established.

 

[Critias]

Be sure you are looking at the definition of the noun "deep". night2day's defintions were of the adjective. It is the noun that is pertinent here.

Yes, I am aware what part of speech it is.

If you look up deep and look at the noun part, this is what I find in my dictionary:

1. a. A deep place in land or in a body of water: drowned in the deep of the river.
b. A vast, immeasurable extent: the deep of outer space.

2. The extent of encompassing time or space; firmament.
3. The most intense or extreme part: the deep of night.
4. The ocean.
5. Nautical A distance estimated in fathoms between successive marks on a sounding line.


As you can see, deep doesn't always mean in the ocean, which I believe was your original assertion.

Yes, that is a serious shortcoming of Strong's. It gives you every English translation of a word used in the KJV, and where it is used, but no analysis of how the context shapes the meaning of the word.

Actually, that isn't a shortcoming of Strong's, that is what it is meant for. It is a concordance, not a lexicon. It does happen to have brief definitions, but those definitions are for the root words, not the words used within the specific context of the a specific verse.

The point of Strong's has always been as a exhaustive concordance.

The best translation that fits the cultural context of the time is "abyss". Remember when God divided the waters by creating the firmament? Some of the waters were pushed up above the firmament. The rest were left below it. These are the waters of the abyss. They both surround the dry land created later and flow around the foundations of the earth beneath the dry land. In ancient cosmology, everything above the firmament and below the earth was water--the primeval water mentioned first in Gen. 1:2

If we want to discuss the cultural context instead of the Scriptural context and assert that the best translation of 'Tehowm' is 'abyss' then the cultural context would be speaking about the grave.

The Scriptural Context of the verse is talking about the depths of the earth where water resides. This isn't about the ocean or rivers we see, but about the water underground.

There is no suggestion in scripture of earth surrounding underground water, like a shell enclosing the white of an egg. The visual image is rather of earth spread out on foundations which hold it above the waters of the abyss.

Then do you disagree with actual observation that there are underground water sources?

I am not sure how the ancients related fresh water to the salt waters of the abyss. Did they see some ground water ascending from the abyss or did they consider all fresh water to have come originally from rain?

Do I know what they believed on this? No. But, is it unfathomable to believe that there is fresh water under the earth that didn't get here by rain?

Basically my contention is that the bursting of the fountains of the deep does not imply earthquakes. If freshwater springs take their source in the abyss, there is already a way for a surge of water to move to the surface of the earth. And we should also consider that most of the abyss is ocean. So we are not limited to terrestrial springs.

I don't think night2day was limiting the fountains of the deep to only springs under land and that the only way they could be released was by an earthquake.

I will agree that Scripture doesn't necessarily say how all the fountains of the deep burst, but it does say they did on the 17th day of the second month, Iyar. It could have been an earthquake, it could have been something else.

Scripture speaks only of the fountains of the deep. It does not speak of earthquakes.

Within the Flood context, correct. Within Scripture, incorrect.

 

[night2day]

Be sure you are looking at the definition of the noun "deep". night2day's defintions were of the adjective. It is the noun that is pertinent here.

If you wish to deny the very first definition of the American Heritage Dictionary offers the noun definition of deep as "A deep place in land or in a body of water" and coincides with Websters, whihc coincides with the Genesis text...feel free. You're only doing little else than arguing a point that is already made within the context of the passages it relates too.

​

 

[Critias]

Thank you. Night2day has made the claim that God has proclaimed the bible to be the only source of communication between God and humanity. That is the claim I am challenging.

I didn't get that from her response. Either she wasn't intending that or I missed it.

My contentions are that God also speaks to us in prayer, prophets, and of course the Holy Spirit.

Not spokesmen, no. But an unbeliever can speak the truth in mundane matters, and in doing do, agrees with God's truth. This was a point made by Augustine in his commentary on Genesis.

Of course an ubeliever can speak truth. Augustine was talking about the natural world and not the spiritual world in his commentary on Genesis. He wasn't advocating that we should accept an unbelievers 'truth' when it contradicts the Holy Scriptures. If he was, then he wouldn't have gone against the unbelievers of the day when he stated the earth was less than 6000 years old. Especially when many believed it was older.

The Greek thought on the age of the world was still circulating, as well as spontaneous generation. Both, Augustine disagreed with.

In many matters yes. In many others, their knowledge of nature is too incomplete to come to firm conclusions.

As far as our intellectual capacity is concerned, many will view that scientists are absolutely correct on many matters. But that is within the scope of our intelligence and doesn't concern One who is vastly more intelligent than us.

I am not stating they are wrong, but stating that our knowledge is limited and it doesn't account for One who is vastly more knowledgable then us.

Not really. There are some things so firmly established it would be, as Stephen J. Gould once said, perverse not to take them as fact---at least provisionally. Do you really expect future evidence to show that the sun revolves around the earth rather than vice-versa? Do you really expect future evidence to show that viruses are not a source of disease?

Actually, I don't expect science to find out these things. I suspect when Jesus Christ comes we will know where we were in error and short of knowledge on. Then, future evidence will show that sin is the source of disease.

Science is not always right, but the important thing is that it often is right.

I don't agree here either with your statement that the important thing about science is that it is often right. I believe the important thing of science is that it is always trying to understand our surroundings.

Agreed, wholeheartedly. We can also add that when we refuse to accept the truth he has shown us in science, we are also not surrendering to Him in faith. We really do have to trust that all truth is God's truth. No matter how impious it seems to be, if it is true, God knows it to be true, and has no problem with it. If you have problems with it, you need to surrender to God's greater knowledge.

What you may not see that you have done here is assert that what scientists tell us is truth. Truth that is equal to God's truth.

I think this is where we make a mistake. God's truth is different than man's truth. One is not fallible, the other is. We can know God's truth, but that means it was never our truth, in the sense of us coming up with it.

I personally see something wrong with a statement that says, 'when we refuse to accept what scientists say as truth then we refuse to surrender to God in faith.' I see this as a statement to lead one astray; thus equating man's truth with God's truth; that whatever scientists say and show evidence for, is God's truth. This doesn't account for the fact of fallibility, lack of evidence, wrong interpretation, etc.

I also am repulsed by your statement that I think hints to the fact if I don't accept evolution (common descent) then I am not surrendering to God.

Since the Bible deals with surrendering to God, show me where I must believe in evolution or what scientist tell me even when it contradicts the Bible, in order to surrender to God.

I don't think you have understood what I am saying. I am not making the claim that scientists are right about everything, such that we can accept science uncritically.

But when science is right, that truth must be accepted, or one is denying what God has revealed in nature. One is denying that creation is what it is.

Again, you equate creation with interpretation of evidence. And when science comes into contradiction with the Bible, then I cannot accept what science is saying. Granted, it may be my interpretation, but I am of firm belief that God speaks against millions of years for creation within the Bible when it says, God created everything in six days.

That comes down to denying that God made a real and knowable world. In short, it is a denial of the doctrine of creation.

Just because we don't accept common descent doesn't mean we believe God didn't make a real and knowable world. Neither is it a denial of the doctrine of creation. It is actually a defense for it. Evolution, by common descent is the denial of the doctrine of creation.

I believe:
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day"

 

[night2day]

Thank you. Night2day has made the claim that God has proclaimed the bible to be the only source of communication between God and humanity. That is the claim I am challenging.

Looking over my posts I'll allow them to stand as is. They relay better of how I replied than how you've interpreted them.

If memory serves correctly one such a time you gained I was stating just this was when I commented the Holy Spirit works through the Gospel. And where else is this found but within the Scriptures.

Another time I also stated the Bible was not God, but bears His authority since He's the sole Author. It points us to the Savior. And it's the sole determinar of Christian faith and life.

...an unbeliever can speak the truth in mundane matters, and in doing do, agrees with God's truth. This was a point made by Augustine in his commentary on Genesis...

However, your use of this to back your assertions regarding creation via evolution and the non-existance of the flood does nothing but go against what was being stated. A non-Christian can see God's wonders through His general revelation. But that's where it ends. General revelation cannot and does not offer anything else.

Many of those from other religions believe in a god upon seeing The True God's revelation anyone could see through nature. That does not mean they grasp it or will turn to the One who created it. But instead follow other made up gods and goddesses.

Nor will general revelation ever be able to reveal the Gospel. The Holy Spirit does this while working through the Scriptures.

 

[night2day]

We can also add that when we refuse to accept the truth he has shown us in science, we are also not surrendering to Him in faith. We really do have to trust that all truth is God's truth. No matter how impious it seems to be, if it is true, God knows it to be true, and has no problem with it. If you have problems with it, you need to surrender to God's greater knowledge...

...when science is right, that truth must be accepted, or one is denying what God has revealed in nature. One is denying that creation is what it is.

So, your placing Science on par and above the Scriptures? Since anyone you commented God is not the Author of the Scriptures earlier, then this would only play out in your world view. This wouldn't explain how or why there would or should be any adherance to the Person and Work of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior for, your essentially claiming the Bible merely contains God something about God or what He may have done or said. But is not God's word.

The differance between the two is very real. And so are the conclusions to which each leads.

 

[night2day]

Given the way you twist my words, I have serious doubts about your ability to understand scripture as well as you claim.

If that's how you read the statement "reading Scripture by it's literary context"---.

I did not say the bible was contradicting itself. I said it was contradicting you....You made the claim that God speaks to us only through scripture. Scripture says otherwise...

Maybe look back to the past posts I've written to read what I actually stated and in what context they were stated. Don't expect me to do the work for you. I'm not the one making the accusations.

One could also add the sacraments which are the gospel proclaimed in ritual.

Means of Grace. Not Ritual.

What it does do is show us that there was never a global flood.

The Scriptures states differently throughout.

When scientists are sure enough of their facts to arrive at a consensus, there is seldom much change...

Unless they come across something else which causes them to rethink their previous views. And that has happanened many times, in various fields of the sciences.

...Do you think science is right or wrong about DNA being the carrier of inherited characteristics?

And my opinion on this means what?

You may be an adherant of science, but you're forgetting science, as facinating and as helpful studies are, can always be flawed for the simple reason they rely on the work and study Man does on God's world. While forgetting the very One who created this world in the process and instead glorifying human achievments.

Face it. The only time you question science is when scientific findings upset your interpretation of scripture. It is not scripture that you are concerned about, but your chosen way of reading it. You have too much pride to suppose that how you read scripture may be the wrong way to read it.

Ok, so, you don't like Scripture interprets Scripture. And...?

Maybe you would like to re-read that question. I don't think you understood it. Please note the bolded word.

Would you not say the same of any true interpretation of scripture--i.e. that it is God's truth?

I seem to recall you attempted to use Jesus' own words to back up your assertions. Post #355 that since He claimed to be truth...whatever sceince found to be true to their findings equals God's truth. Or...it's how I read it:

When Jesus referred to himself as the Truth and to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth. When God, in all persons of the Trinity is referred to as creator, and whenever creation is appealed to as a witness of God's soveriegn power and majesty...From all this it follows that whenever scientists have come to a true interpretation of nature, it is God's truth about nature.

Would you not say the same of any true interpretation of scripture--i.e. that it is God's truth?

And again I say no, particularly given the context in which you asked the question. As well as giving the idea that somehow there must be more than one way God's word can be read.

If you disagree that he's not the author and has nothing to do with it, I wonder then how some of the Gospels accounts are held to. And how you can define what is history and what you can define as myth? By what merit?

Creation is appealed to as a wittness to God's soveriegn power and majasty. But not what mere human beings think and have gleened from observing and studying His creation. There's a huge differnace between the Creator and the creation. Mankind nor his achievements have no right to claim they have God's infinate wisdome and knowledge about nature. Such a proclamation only displays an utter arrogence.

Jesus speaking of Himself as Truth, such as it does in John 14:6, and the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth, only a few verses later, shows how His words would need to be taken out of their orginal context to hold what you are saying.

When Jesus speaks of truth in the Gospels, He is speaking His very self. The first Gospel promise of the coming Savior was made in Genesis 3:15. Since then the Old Testament writers recorded the prophecies of the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled all of them. And who did He happen to refer constantly but back to the Old Testement writers and validating every claim they ever made?

Jesus said, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Either the Scriptures are accepted as is for what they say...or they're not.