Weather during the Global Flood

[night2day]

This absolutely fascinates me. Creationist organizations, which profess the Word of God, are called liars, while what is primarily a secular, agnostic and atheistic group of people who challenge God's Word at every opportunity, are held up with high regard. How is it that a fellow Christian could ever say something like that?

Name-calling and making allegations without basis are methods of trying to force a conversation to stear away from the true discussion and cause the other party to go on the defense instead I'm afraid.

 

[FearAndTrembeling]

"Adam When" A scientific analyses of the historical Biblical account of the world.
Chapter 15 http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/frame/

The Flood

So God intervened. The year was 4990 B.C. After preparing for the continuation of man and animals by means of the ark which Noah had obediently built, God destroyed the earth with water. God brought a great deep-space rain cloud into the path of the earth, and the water began to pour upon the earth. Simultaneously, the floor of the ocean erupted in massive volcanoes and water and lava flowed from the bowels of the earth.

The Bible says in Genesis 7:11:

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


​

Here is the first clue that speaks to the question of mid-ocean ridges and paleo-magnetic anomalies. The gigantic proportions of the Noachian deluge would have left tremendous scars on the ocean floor of such openings of the fountains of the deep. As water poured forth, basaltic lava also must have poured forth as happens with volcanoes today.

Thus, the great rifts in the ocean floor originated. For forty days enormous quantities of lava and water flowed from these fissures. Simultaneously, the earth was deluged with new water from deep space. The rate of deposition of the new water approximated that which would cover the entire earth to a depth of 100 feet per 24-hour period. Obviously, this changed the equilibrium of the earth’s internal forces. Variations and reversals of the earth’s magnetic pole were occurring at a time rate of hours or days. As each day’s volume of the deep earth magmas poured from the earth’s deep ocean rifts, the mid-ocean ridge was built up. Thus, the lava poured down the ridge slopes and solidified at increasingly great distances from the rift source. As the lavas cooled, they cooled with the earth’s magnetic vector frozen within them. Additionally, great mountains were built as the earth came back to equilibrium. These processes caused further magnetic anomalies.

When the waters first struck the earth as it began to move through the great deep-space rain cloud, temperatures on the other side of the earth must have plummeted. In some areas animals by the thousands were instantly frozen by the first great temperature oscillation. As the waters rose they were buried in huge cakes of ice that covered hundreds of miles. Animals and insects by the millions were instantly buried, sometimes singly and sometimes in great twisted masses as the flood waters continued. Never before or since did conditions even remotely approach the possibility of fossilization that existed in these destructive days.

And then, as abruptly as it had begun, the deluge ended. The awesome rain of forty days stops. The earth was stressed to its very foundations by the fantastic magnitude of pressures and imbalances placed upon it by the new water. Already changes were taking place. The ocean basins were deepening. The mountains began to thrust higher, and, as the water settled into the ocean basins, the land was torn by the receding torrents. The floor of the ocean at the continental edges became deep with sediment. The ocean water was heavy with sediment so that most of the ocean floor had some sediment build up. Sedimentary rock, pockmarked by fossils, became abundant everywhere. The pressures of the flood waters upon water-deposited sediment produced ideals conditions for such rock development. Huge pockets of plants buried under thousands of feet of water and silt, and further compressed by gigantic mountain-building stresses, became fossilized into oil and other hydrocarbons.

As the water left the continental mass, it became evident that the whole face of the earth had changed. Huge areas were covered with ice because the world-wide temperature had drops 20-30 degrees F. Severe oscillations of temperatures continued for possibly hundreds of years. Therefore, some of the ice fields would recede and grow again repeatedly.

There was still one feat continent, or possibly two, hooked together and separated on one side by the so-called Tethys Sea. Possibly, the continent was smaller after the flood due to the waters rising over the low-lying continental slopes, and the first evidence of what is now the Atlantic Ocean was seen. Great deposits of sediment were placed at the edges of the continents as the water receded from the continents. The oceans themselves contained much sediment in suspension so that for a number of years sediment accumulation occurred at an abnormally high rate all over the ocean floor.

Why should we conclude that there was no continental division as a result of the flood? Several reasons suggest themselves. First secular evidence suggests polar wandering or paleo-magnetic reversals much earlier than that produced by continental drift. The effects of the flood, without continental movement, could account for this. Secondly, the Bible gives no intimation of continental division occurring as a result of the flood. Thirdly, a single continent at the conclusion of the flood provides a very satisfactory solution to the problem of animals and man occupying every continent.

 

[ebia]

I have the assumption you will not be satisfied unless we shared the exact same worlview. Name-calling or making accusations won't change that.

I couldn't care less whether you share my world view, as long as you quit saying things that are demonstrably untrue.

The Old and New Testaments stand as God's authoritive inerrent and infallible word. They're fully capable of standing on their own accord and declaring by their literary context what they mean and say.

Is presumably meant to mean "anyone who disagrees with my interpretation of scripture disagrees with God, because I am infallible."

Why one would take something such as sin and its consequences so lightly, or dismiss the the grace and mercy God showed Noah and his family as He prtoected them throughout the cataclysmic event, one would then need to wonder what other events within the Bible shown to have taken place in human history are taken as mere myth.

I find it ironic that you think you can assess the value of someone's point of view, when you clearly haven't got the faintest inkling of what it is. Myth isn't less powerful than history, it is more powerful. Stories are not less powerful than facts, they are more powerful.

 

[ebia]

This absolutely fascinates me. Creationist organizations, which profess the Word of God, are called liars, while what is primarily a secular, agnostic and atheistic group of people who challenge God's Word at every opportunity, are held up with high regard. How is it that a fellow Christian could ever say something like that?

If an organisation deliberately promotes as fact information which they know to be untrue or misleading, as at least some creationist organisations do, then they are liars. Even if they do it in the name of God.

 

[ebia]

I find your words rather condescending and offensive.

Perhaps display where the evolutionary theory is shown regarding both points of the hypothisis which are thought out as well as the other side which displays the theory's failings to individuals who can learn freely and without harrasment.

What failings exactly did you have in mind. And what exactly do you mean by "both" points of the hypothesis? For that matter, what hypothesis?

 

[night2day]

No one has tried to silence you.

Calling names and making accusations indeed is. Whether or not you agree is of little concern to me.

Pointing out factual inaccuracies is not silencing. Pointing out where your posts are illogical is not silencing.

Pointing out they are factual inaccuracies when you have no way of knowing with 100% certainty...indeed it is.

Drop the persecution complex and listen to what is being said.

All I'm reading is one group trying to force their world-views on another so they don't have to deal with the Biblical accounts as they were written. They'll tolerate a person confessing not only is ithe Bible illogical, but that it's untrue and did not take place---but that the person can stil personally believe it as long as it doesn't offend others. However, they won't tolerate someone who believes the Bible means what it says, that God does indeed work through human history to bring about his purposes, or that His word is all that important. After all, whether one is a thiest evolutionist or any other other type of evolutionist, to allow for a god means that god would have had to have been far removed since in the beginning.

You haven't presented any potholes

And you accuse me of not listening?

I commented no failings of evolution have been allowed to be presented, especially within an atmosphere meant for instruction. I didn't state what the failings were. Why should I when the details of those failings were not the point? Nor would be your opinions regarding those failings be. The fact evolutionists don't allow them to be taught is.

Why press further on if you're not going to bother with what I have said and only jump to what I haven't?

 

[ebia]

Calling names and making accusations indeed is. Whether or not you agree is of little concern to me.

Perhaps you can point out where you have been called a name (that is untrue) or accused of something that is untrue.

Pointing out they are factual inaccuracies when you have no way of knowing with 100% certainty...indeed it is.

Just because you refuse to believe something, does not demonstrate that it is not known with close to 100% certainty. Nothing in life is known with 100% certainty. I don't know with 100% certainty that the sky is blue, but if you claim it's green without proof, I feel entitled to call you on it.

All I'm reading is one group trying to force their world-views on another so they don't have to deal with the Biblical accounts as they were written.

The biblical accounts were not written in the form of modern history.

However, [...], that God does indeed work through human history to bring about his purposes, or that His word is all that important.

This is a lie. You have been told repeatedly in this thread that we do belive God works through human history and that we do believe the bible (and his Word) to be very important. Please stop lying.

After all, whether one is a thiest evolutionist another type of evolutionists, to allow for a god means that god would have had to have been far removed since in the beginning.

No it does not.

And you accuse me of not listening?

You either are not listening, or you are failing to understand what is being said, or you are lying, since the position you claim we take is not the position we actually take.

I commented no failings of evolution have been allowed to be presented, especially within an atmosphere meant for instruction. I didn't state what the failings were. Why should I when the details of those failings were not the point?

In order to demonstrate that those failings exist.

Nor would be your opinions regarding those failings be. The fact evolutionists don't allow them to be taught is.

I can't teach something that doesn't exist.

Why press further on if you're not going to bother with what I have said and only jump to what I haven't?

I'm trying to get you to be specific, so that we can see whether or not your vague generalities hold up. You keep accusing the theory of evolution of having flaws, but if you won't say what those flaws are, I begin to suspect you actually don't know, and from that I begin to suspect that you don't really know if there actually are any flaws at all and that you actually have no idea what you are talking about. You can prove me wrong very easily - by providing and substantiating one genuine substantial flaw.

 

[gluadys]

If you insist on removing God from the equation then there's not much to comment is there?

I don't insist on removing God from the equation. I do not believe that God never uses natural processes, so I see God in all the activity of nature. Only creationists and atheists claim God is present only in miracles.

What I do insist on is the mutual exclusion of miracles and science. I have no objection to someone like yourself relying on miracles as an explanation of the flood. But what you cannot do is then turn around and appeal to scienctific evidence that the flood happened.

If you appeal to science, you must drop the appeal to miracles.

If you appeal to science, you must drop the claim that the flood was global.

The scientific evidence is totally against a global flood.

You appear to be more comfortable appealing to miracles. That is ok by me. Have faith in miracles, and discount the scientific evidence. That is your choice. Just don't try to play both sides of the street and claim scientific evidence as well, because there is no scientific evidence in favour of a global flood.

My position is that I don't believe God would doctor the evidence. I believe that if the flood was global, the evidence would show that.

Have to run, now. Will respond to the rest later.

 

[vossler]

Name-calling and making allegations without basis are methods of trying to force a conversation to stear away from the true discussion and cause the other party to go on the defense instead I'm afraid.

Unfortunately it's quite prevalent here.

 

[gluadys]

Many prominant scientists through the ages were themselves Christians who held the the Genisis 6 day Creation account, the global flood, and the teachings of the Scriptures to be innerant and infallible. Those scientists helped for the many ways scientists today go about their study and research.

Quite right. And it was also those scientists who demonstrated that there is no scientific evidence to support a global flood. That is a historical fact.

There's a constant return to "but what about the evidence?" regarding the issue.

As there ought to be. Science requires evidence. When you want to side-step the evidence you are appealing to faith, not to science. There is nothing wrong with appealing to faith. It is just that you cannot do both at once. Appealing to faith turns the discussion away from observations into a theological discussion of the character and actions of God. Let me ask you this? Do you believe that God created a world that is objectively real, or one that is virtual like the holodeck programs in Star Trek? Or is what we call creation actually something that God is dreaming? Is our existence a part of God’s dream?

What about the proof? However, there seems to be a misunderstanding of just where the place of science really is and what actual importance it holds. Especially when there is evidence used by both parties regarding the global flood, each seeing and extracting from the evidence what they wish to explain regarding their point of view.

Let’s be clear that science can tell us nothing about God or Christ or sin or redemption. If these things are a matter of priority for you, as they are for all Christians, what the church and the bible have to say about these matters is far more important than all of science. You don’t need to know or believe anything that science says to be in a right relationship with God through Christ. On that point, science is definitely a secondary concern. The questions it answers are not even posed by faith, and many people find the questions of science to be trivial and uninteresting. Many people are far more interested in the who and why of creation and have little interest in the how and when.

But for science, the who and why are impossible to determine, and so are not discussed. Science focuses on the how and when. For answers to these questions, it turns to our observations of the created world. Do you have a problem with this?

Sometimes evidence is ambiguous and susceptible of more than one interpretation. This is not true of the extent of the flood. There is no evidence supporting a global flood. In addition there is evidence that contradicts the possibility of a global flood. I don’t doubt that you have been told otherwise by people you trust. But if and when you choose to examine the evidence, you will find this is not the case.

Yet, it appears you do not wish to allow someone with differing views to even have their own view of the evidence than you yourself do without being degraded and discarded.

That is not the case. Those who hold different views have had two centuries to present a different explanation of the evidence. They have failed to provide one that is consistent with the observations of geologists. In science, no one can have a personal view of the evidence. Science is a public and collective endeavour, and the point of science is to find out what exists irrespective of personal opinions and wishes. In short, science is built on the assumption that the world is a truly objectively existing thing that is what it is no matter what we wish it to be. And it is that truly objective world that scientists hope to discover in their research.

Individuals who believe in the historical events of Genesis should not be forced to share your world-view simply because theirs contridicts your own.

Indeed, you can believe whatever you want. But if you want your belief to be consistent with reality, you need to know what that reality is. Knowing what natural reality is, is the purview of science. Science never requires belief. It simply shows what the objective character of creation is. Belief is what you do with that knowledge.

And need I remind you one has yet to state where within the Genesis account of the global flood does it indicate within the literary context it was anything other than?

Anything other than what? For a person who speaks often of literary context, you don’t appear to know how to establish literary context. Students of literature readily identify the biblical flood story as a classic ancient myth. That is the literary context.

It is possible that the mythical story in the bible is based on an actual flood that was local, but wide-spread and devastating. But the story was changed from a factual report to serve the purpose of a myth. In ancient times, myth was a primary way of remembering and teaching.

If you wish to continue overlooking the fact I have commented time and again the global flood was a supernatural event, then by all means do so. You only show yourself as trying to mistate what another person has stated for your own benefit.

I am not overlooking that at all. I have even pointed out that you need to posit not just one miracle, but many, to hold that the flood was actually global. You need a miracle to create the flood in the first place, and many miracles to take away all the evidence that ought to exist if the flood was global. It is your choice to believe in all these supernatural miracles if you wish.

What concerns me about a flood that was from beginning to past its end one miracle after another, is what that says about God. Why create a flood and then uncreate all the evidence that it happened? Why have Jesus and Peter appeal to the flood to make theological points, yet plant all sorts of evidence that contradict its global extent? Would it not make better sense to support what Jesus and Peter said by leaving the evidence of the global flood intact so there is no doubt that it was global? So, why, if the flood was really global in extent, did God miraculously destroy all the evidence? I don’t have a rational answer to that question. Do you? Or is this something else we must take on faith alone?

So do massive earthquakes...as well as those massive earthquakes which happen underground.

Same thing. What do you think earthquakes are? Why do you think earthquake zones are found along techtonic plate boundaries?

The number of years is very highly suspect, even for those who do profess a belief in the millions and billions of years old. I can't recall one science textbook from my school days in public school which ever agreed on the numbers or ages. I sincerely deny they ever will.

Please show me why they would be suspect. Were your science textbooks published in different years? Perhaps that is why you found differences as newer textbooks would be based on updated information.

Yet, you all too casually dismiss someone who doesn't give the answers you wish for while you cannot explain the answers yourself. You rely and trust on others to do so for you.

I don’t think I have been asking many questions. And of the few I have asked, I don’t think you have attempted to answer them yet. So this point is moot. We will see if your answers get dismissed when you provide them. I am just saying we do not all have to be professional scientists to know what scientists say and what evidence they have for saying it. I find the internet a quick way to learn about almost anything. I am even learning to read some scientific reports, though that is very tedious for a person like me who relates better to poetry and drama than to facts and figures.

As stated, there are explainations that have been offered time and again over the years by those in the field of the sciences who do hold to the innernt and infallible Word of God, yet they go discounted by the naysayers who simply do not want to believe them.

Offered, yes. Supported, no. When observations are provided to support alternate theories, they will be given consideration. But as long as what we actually see in the world contradicts the offered theories, they will not be accepted as science.

What it comes down to is belief. One either takes God at His word or they don't.

Do you really mean “take God at his word” or “take my interpretation of scripture as the voice of God”? A lot of creationists do not seem to understand the difference.

I do take God at his word. I take both God’s word in scripture and God’s word in creation with equal seriousness. On the basis of God’s word, I hold that the flood was not a global event.

In other words, faulty human reasoning decides what were actual human events and what weren't despite the literary context of the passages and what they themselves say and reveal. In essance, place oneself over God's word and what He has stated instead of under it.

Faulty human reasoning also decides what the historical, social, cultural and literary context of any passage in the bible is. Faulty human reasoning interprets every jot and tittle of scripture, and there is no reading of scripture which is not based on a faulty human interpretation of it. So don't play high and mighty as if human reasoning were not just as much involved in how scripture is understood as in how anything else is understood by a human mind. All revelations of God are filtered through faulty human reasoning. There is no avoiding that.

The Bible was Authored by God, written by God-fearing, holy men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit over the course of 4,000 years.

I suppose you think this means the bible is inerrant. I disagree. Perhaps you also think this means that the bible was dictated by God to the writers who acted as his stenographers. Most Christian theologians agree that inspiration is not dictation. The bible is not a Christian Qur'an. (Muslims believe the Qur'an was dictated word for word to Muhammad.)

I do believe the bible is authoritative and reliable, but not that it is completely devoid of the human limitations of its writers. This is especially evident when scripture touches on science, since all the writers of the bible wrote within the pre-scientific assumptions of their time. Not one alludes to any new scientific fact discovered after their time.

 

[gluadys]

And the first reaction of Evolutionists as of late is to make unfounded allegations and attempt to silence the Creationist. Not even allowing a simple presentation of the potholes within the evolutionary theory, even if no comment of Creationism is ever made. All one needs to do is look to the instances when even mentioning teaching both sides regarding the Evolutionary theory will have one branded as a Creationist whether they are or not.

At any rate, with the absence of cordial conversation I bid thee farewell.

If you change your mind about continuing the conversation, please point to an unfounded allegation I have made and to one pothole within evolutionary theory.

 

[night2day]

I couldn't care less whether you share my world view, as long as you quit saying things that are demonstrably untrue.

Which is another way of saying "stop declaring the Gesesis world-wide flood which destroyed all life on earth save one family and a repersentation of every species is because it doesn't agree with I interpret of the evidence left behind.

You do not support your position well by bullying others into a force acceptance of the your view of the world or how God works or does not work within it.

Is presumably meant to mean "anyone who disagrees with my interpretation of scripture..."

God is not the Author of confusion. Since He alone is the Author of the Scriptures and gave them their authority it is what He has said and revealed within the Scriptures that counts.

Those who do not wish to believe or accept will never have the evidence to prove it to them. But take them to be something else. Much like the Pharisees and Sadducees who saw all of Jesus' miracles and wonders, including knowing of His resurrection, and discounted them as works of Saten.

 

[night2day]

Myth isn't less powerful than history, it is more powerful. Stories are not less powerful than facts, they are more powerful...

Not according to 1 Cointhians 15:

1* Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2* By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3* For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4* And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5* And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6* After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7* After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8* And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9* For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10* But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
11* Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
12* Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13* But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14* And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15* Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16* For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17* And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18* Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19* If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20*But now is Christ risen from the dead...

Taking the example of Christ's resurrection everything of the Christian faith hinges on whether or not Jesus' ressurection actually occured.

One may attempt to state this is differnt from what the Bible states of the Genesis flood. But how so when the literary context itself provides no indication what happened "in the beginning" was indeed a mere myth? Since both accounts provide no indication they are to be taken in any other way than how they are presented one would have to rely on personal preferance to decide which one should be believable and which one is not. In otherwords, compromise God's word based on fallible human reason.

 

[ebia]

Which is another way of saying "stop declaring the Gesesis world-wide flood which destroyed all life on earth save one family and a repersentation of every species is because it doesn't agree with I interpret of the evidence left behind.

It is another way of saying "stop claiming that there is scientific evidence to support a world wide flood", unless you can provide such evidence and deal with the evidence that against. You are welcome to say "Despite the evidence against, a world wide flood did happen", but then don't be surprised if we raise some of the implications that has. You don't have to answer those questions, you can ignore them and walk away. What you can't do is post whatever you want and then get upset when we question some of it.

You do not support your position well by bullying others into a force acceptance of the your view of the world or how God works or does not work within it.

Stop misstating my position - it amounts to lying.

God is not the Author of confusion. Since He alone is the Author of the Scriptures and gave them their authority it is what He has said and revealed within the Scriptures that counts.

"My interpretation of scripture is infallible" again?

You accused people of name calling and of making false accusations against you a few posts ago, I am still waiting for you to point out where.

 

[ebia]

17* And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18* Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19* If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20*But now is Christ risen from the dead...

Taking the example of Christ's resurrection everything of the Christian faith hinges on whether or not Jesus' ressurection actually occured.

No-one here has suggested otherwise. I did not argue that facts are never important.

One may attempt to state this is differnt from what the Bible states of the Genesis flood. But how so when the literary context itself provides no indication what happened "in the beginning" was indeed a mere myth?

Did you read gluadys' post?

Since both accounts provide no indication they are to be taken in any other way than how they are presented one would have to rely on personal preferance to decide which one should be believable and which one is not.

Incorrect.
1. As gluadys has pointed, there is good reason to take the Genesis stories as myth.
2. There is scientific evidence that the flood did not happen. There neither is nor can be scientific evidence that the resurection did not happen.
3. The theological implications of the flood story are not dependent on it being a factual account. The theological implications of the resurection story are.

If you can't see the difference, that does not mean that there is no difference.

In otherwords, compromise God's word based on fallible human reason.

No, using reason to try and learn from the bible about the Word of God.

 

[night2day]

It is another way of saying "stop claiming that there is scientific evidence to support a world wide flood"...Stop misstating my position - it amounts to lying...

I would stop misstating if that was what your posts were telling me. However, they are not.

"My interpretation of scripture is infallible" again?

I suppose it doesn't cross your mind the very Author of the Bible has only one single interpretation--His own. God's not the One who declares there's 1,000,000,000 and 1 interpretations, conflicting interpretations at that, and also say they're all valid. They're not.

Only human beings make such a declaration in order to feel they have to be more in step with the world and not with God and His word.

No-one here has suggested otherwise. I did not argue that facts are never important.

Even though the very definition of the term "facts" that was has been tossed about as of late is changed and altered beyond recognition.

As gluadys has pointed, there is good reason to take the Genesis stories as myth...The theological implications of the flood story are not dependent on it being a factual account. The theological implications of the resurection story are.

Yet my standing questions have gone unanswered regarding what within the literary context have shown one is myth and one is historical. I can only assume there will be no answer forthcoming because the Bible itself presents none. It's only faulty human reasoning that chooses what to believe and what not based on personal preference.

..using reason to try and learn from the bible about the Word of God.

Human reason was aloways meant to be submissive to God's word and the authority He has given it. Humans have instead placed themselves above it for their own purposes.

One must wonder what those who take the Genesis global flood for a myth reads how the earth will be destroyed a second time when Christ returns:

2 Peter 3:4-9
"Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Thank goodness the passage concludes with this:
​

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

One either takes the unadulterated Scriptures as they are or they don't.

One is forced to wonder why those who don't and/or won't accept the 6-day creation or the world-wide flood as historical accounts are so determined to keep all others silent. Such as immediately after the opening post there were responses not relating to the post, but whether or not the poster ever had a right sound the question.

Rather uncivil as well as hostile to not even allow others with world-views other than your own to even ask open and honest questions to those who are interested. Or abide by a simple request of the opening poster to not dive into an unrelated pro-con argument over the global flood's existance.

I can't help but think while this forum professes to be open for all, it is dangerously ans forciably one-sided.

I've stated all that I wished and allow the posts to stand as is.
​

 

[ebia]

I would stop misstating if that was what your posts were telling me. However, they are not.

Well it's been said clearly enough, several times.

I suppose it doesn't cross your mind the very Author of the Bible has only one single interpretation--His own. God's not the One who declares there's 1,000,000,000 and 1 interpretations, conflicting interpretations at that, and also say they're all valid. They're not.

1. If they are valid ways of interpreting the text, then they are valid ways of interpreting the text. If an author writes something that is ambiguous, either he intends different people to get different meanings from it or he has done a sloppy job. Either way, he can't blame the readers.
2. (Which is my real point) Even if there is only one valid interpretation, that is not evidence that yours is that valid interpretation. I believe mine to be the more correct, otherwise I wouldn't believe it.

Only human beings make such a declaration in order to feel they have to be more in step with the world and not with God and His word.

Only people who think they are infallible can be sure that their interpretation is the correct one.

Even though the very definition of the term "facts" that was has been tossed about as of late is changed and altered beyond recognition.

Where? You keep making these vague statements and accusations, but when asked for specifics you fail to provide them.

Yet my standing questions have gone unanswered regarding what within the literary context have shown one is myth and one is historical. I can only assume there will be no answer forthcoming because the Bible itself presents none. It's only faulty human reasoning that chooses what to believe and what not based on personal preference.

I'll leave gluadys to answer that one - she can do a better job than me (plus I can't quite work out what your question is.

Human reason was aloways meant to be submissive to God's word and the authority He has given it. Humans have instead placed themselves above it for their own purposes.

Just because someone doesn't jump to the same conclusions as you, does not mean that they are not honestly trying to discern the will of God.

Earlier in the thread you accused others of making accusations and name calling, and yet you have done exactly that all through this post.

One either takes the unadulterated Scriptures as they are or they don't.

Attempting to understand is not adulteration.

One is forced to wonder why those who don't and/or won't accept the 6-day creation or the world-wide flood as historical accounts are so determined to keep all others silent.

Please stop lying. Disagreeing with someone is not silencing them. Explaining why they are wrong is not silencing.

Such as immediately after the opening post there were responses not relating to the post, but whether or not the poster ever had a right sound the question.

Rather uncivil as well as hostile to not even allow others with world-views other than your own to even ask open and honest questions to those who are interested. Or abide by a simple request of the opening poster to not dive into an unrelated pro-con argument over the global flood's existance.

And we explained why you can't answer the question without. The OP amounted to "if you suspend the laws of science, what does science predict about x". It's a meaningless question.

I can't help but think while this forum professes to be open for all, it is dangerously ans forciably one-sided.

The is a sub-forum here where only creationists are allowed to post. If someone only wants their views he can post there. If you don't want to hear any other views at all, don't post at all.

If you post on an open forum, then you can expect whoever chooses to post there to post. If there is a predominance of non-creationist christians here, then that is a fair reflection of Christianity.

​

​

​

 

[vossler]

1. If they are valid ways of interpreting the text, then they are valid ways of interpreting the text. If an author writes something that is ambiguous, either he intends different people to get different meanings from it or he has done a sloppy job. Either way, he can't blame the readers.

This comment, for me, summarizes the TE approach to Scripture.

 

[ebia]

This comment, for me, summarizes the TE approach to Scripture.

The alternative is "However I read it is right, and everything else is wrong".

 

[night2day]

...If you post on an open forum, then you can expect whoever chooses to post there to post...

One also expects a civil discussion where one can post freely without their words unfairly being called outright lies.

I was well aware there were anti-Creationist views here. The hostility that comes from some of the evolutionists said who say "if you don't accept our interpretation of what we see as evidence to back our views, you have no right stating the events in Genesis are historic events" speaks volumes. It's a rather arrogent stand to take.

Disscussion is fine. Disagreement is fine. It crosses the line when one group tells another:

"It's fine to believe that if you want to...but just keep it at that...a mere belief. For goodness sakes never claim these events occured in human history. I don't want to hear it. And don't dare tell me I'm only sharing my own beliefs."