Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[BCP1928]

Well, I have heard and read a number of American YECs, and those I have heard do talk/write about God's holiness, judgment, etc. and the need for a Saviour.

Do you see much of it in this forum? They talk about Salvation only to deny it to those who reject the YEC timeline.

 

[David Lamb]

But, see, the flood story is obviously untrue,
obvious to all but ( sorry) the uneducated.

I am from SE Asia.

I've been in a rural community where there was
a great commotion of people banging cook pots etc
to scare the lizard.

What is obvious to who?
Do you suppose education makes a difference?

No, I don't think it's a matter of education. The scientists in such organisations as the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis are highly educated, and they believe the Genesis account of the flood.

 

[David Lamb]

Do you see much of it in this forum? They talk about Salvation only to deny it to those who reject the YEC timeline.

I would not do that, and I hope you haven't taken anything I have written as suggesting that you must be a YEC in order to be saved.

 

[BCP1928]

I would not do that, and I hope you haven't taken anything I have written as suggesting that you must be a YEC in order to be saved.

You wouldn't be allowed to say so in this forum anyway. But if that's the case, why be a YEC at all?

 

[Astrid]

Yes, of course I have other reasons for not believing that lunar eclipses are caused by a lizard eating the moon, including the fact that the moon is still there, and re-appears as it comes out of the earth's shadow, and that the moon is in a vacuum, so the supposed lizard would be unable to breath.

Yes, there are plenty of things that are not in the bible that I believe. I believe there's a person with the user name Astrid on these forums, I believe that Pythagoras' Theorem is true. I don't believe things that go against what is in the bible.

Good, so you disbelieve the lizard thing for
reasons that are observation, fact, science based.

Like the vacuum of space.

Are you aware of there being comparably numerous
and as solid, clear facts disproving “ flood” as “ lizard”?

Keep in mind that what “ goes against the bible” is in
what you choose to think the Bible is all about.

Other Christians, who ( again, sorry but…)
are better educated know the flood never happened and, ftm,
see no problem with evolution either.

A test for you is if you can make the breakthrough
to a far better understanding than your christian
equivalent of “lizard”.

Both of which are, frankly, an insult to intelligence and, to any god there may be.

 

[Piers Plowman]

All YECs do, but they don't say why, only offer lame excuses which don't justify the energy they put into defending their timeline. Just the other day in this forum I was admonished that if I didn't accept the literal inerrancy of Genesis I must of necessity reject the Gospel of John! To be offered such puerile nonsense is an insult. I want an honest answer.

How would you decide as to which part of the Bible is literal, and as to which part of the Bible is non-literal?
I have yet to see a non-YEC answer that in an 'honest' fashion.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Good, so you disbelieve the lizard thing for
reasons that are observation, fact, science based.

Like the vacuum of space.

Are you aware of there being comparably numerous
and as solid, clear facts disproving “ flood” as “ lizard”?

Keep in mind that what “ goes against the bible” is in
what you choose to think the Bible is all about.

Other Christians, who ( again, sorry but…)
are better educated know the flood never happened and, ftm,
see no problem with evolution either.

A test for you is if you can make the breakthrough
to a far better understanding than your christian
equivalent of “lizard”.

Both of which are, frankly, an insult to intelligence and, to any god there may be.

I have a good feeling you never saw a lizard in real life.

 

[David Lamb]

You wouldn't be allowed to say so in this forum anyway. But if that's the case, why be a YEC at all?

There are plenty of things that are spoken of in the bible which are not essential in order to be saved, things like baptism, for instance. I believe that the bible teaches that baptism is for believers, but that doesn't mean that I think that paedobaptists cannot be Christians. Similarly with the age of the earth. I am a YEC because that is what I believe the bible teaches.

 

[Astrid]

No, I don't think it's a matter of education. The scientists in such organisations as the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis are highly educated, and they believe the Genesis account of the flood.

So for lizzy it’s education, but flood it isn’t?

We’ve noticed btw that scientists who professionally deny
evolution and promote flood are always rated as “ brilliant”, “ leaders”, etc.

You do know that ( highly educated)
scientists worked as shills for tobacco
companies, highly educated attorneys
got your ok Simpson acquitted, highly educated
doctors who took the Hippocratic oath involved themselves
in opistevtrafficking.

Its also about integrity, too. Not just education.

Your choice of AiG is like checking Pravda for the
fscts on Ukraine.

The scientists at AiG literally sign a pledge to
renounce scientific integrity.

And you choose them over the world scientific community,
you and they know better.

Theres much more to say on thst but really,
one thing is enough to disprove lizard, namely,
vacuum of space.

For flood, we have a half million years of snowfall/ ice
on Antarctica.

ice floats.

You do know those things?

 

[BCP1928]

How would you decide as to which part of the Bible is literal, and as to which part of the Bible is non-literal?
I have yet to see a non-YEC answer that in an 'honest' fashion.

I wouldn't decide. Not all by myself. I am not capable of it. I don't know anything about Biblical Greek or Hebrew or about extra-biblical literary practices at the times the texts were written or about genre determination or any of that stuff. In short, I am not a Bible scholar. But I guess the best answer is that I think none of it is literal and inerrant in the way YECs seem to mean it, even those narratives which are known to be historically reliable.

For example, if I believed that the "Garden" story in Genesis is an etiological folk myth, why should I on that account be required to reject the reasonable assumption that the Gospel of John is an accurate reflection of his theological ideas? That seemed to be the thrust of the admonition I received.

So maybe I can't answer your question because I don't understand it.

 

[BCP1928]

So for lizzy it’s education, but flood it isn’t?

We’ve noticed btw that scientists who professionally deny
evolution and promote flood are always rated as “ brilliant”, “ leaders”, etc.

You do know that ( highly educated)
scientists worked as shills for tobacco
companies, highly educated attorneys
got your ok Simpson acquitted, highly educated
doctors who took the Hippocratic oath involved themselves
in opistevtrafficking.

Its also about integrity, too. Not just education.

Your choice of AiG is like checking Pravda for the
fscts on Ukraine.

The scientists at AiG literally sign a pledge to
renounce scientific integrity.

And you choose them over the world scientific community,
you and they know better.

Theres much more to say on thst but really,
one thing is enough to disprove lizard, namely,
vacuum of space.

For flood, we have a half million years of snowfall/ ice
on Antarctica.

ice floats.

You do know those things?

I rather like the lizard story, it sounds more fun to believe than something cold and rational about rocky lumps in outer space. You don;t get to have a party and bang on pots for orbital mechanics.

 

[Astrid]

I rather like the lizard story, it sounds more fun to believe than something cold and rational about rocky lumps in outer space. You don;t get to have a party and bang on pots for orbital mechanics.

I sure was out there having a good time doing my part!


AND, the moon did not get eaten. Proof enough.

 

[Piers Plowman]

I wouldn't decide. Not all by myself. I am not capable of it. I don't know anything about Biblical Greek or Hebrew or about extra-biblical literary practices at the times the texts were written or about genre determination or any of that stuff. In short, I am not a Bible scholar. But I guess the best answer is that I think none of it is literal and inerrant in the way YECs seem to mean it, even those narratives which are known to be historically reliable.

For example, if I believed that the "Garden" story in Genesis is an etiological folk myth, why should I on that account be required to reject the reasonable assumption that the Gospel of John is an accurate reflection of his theological ideas? That seemed to be the thrust of the admonition I received.

So maybe I can't answer your question because I don't understand it.

IMHO, Biblical literallism allows one to avoid all such abovementioned quandaries. I'm not sure why empirical, phenomological 'science' has to be the hill for folks to die on.

 

[BCP1928]

IMHO, Biblical literallism allows one to avoid all such abovementioned quandaries. I'm not sure why empirical, phenomological 'science' has to be the hill for folks to die on.

A man came to see his friend one evening and as he was walking up to the house he saw is friend in front of it under a street light looking up and down the sidewalk, in the gutter and all around. "What are you looking for?" he said. "My car keys," said the friend. He helped his friend look for a while, then asked, "Where did you last have them?" The friend said, "In the house." Somewhat exasperated, the man said, "Then why are we looking for them out here?" "Because the light is better out here," his friend replied.

 

[Piers Plowman]

A man came to see his friend one evening and as he was walking up to the house he saw is friend in front of it under a street light looking up and down the sidewalk, in the gutter and all around. "What are you looking for?" he said. "My car keys," said the friend. He helped his friend look for a while, then asked, "Where did you last have them?" The friend said, "In the house." Somewhat exasperated, the man said, "Then why are we looking for them out here?" "Because the light is better out here," his friend replied.

Plot twist: it's not his car...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

IMHO, Biblical literallism allows one to avoid all such abovementioned quandaries. I'm not sure why empirical, phenomological 'science' has to be the hill for folks to die on.

And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

 

[Piers Plowman]

And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

What 'ignore'?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@Piers Plowman You need to stop using two quotes in the same post because it makes it impossible to reply properly.

The 'ignore' I mentioned is the process I described in post 586 which is this website's version of blocking a user. It really should not be hard for you figure it out from what I told you.

Now, will you please answer my questions:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

 

[Astrid]

And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

Maybe…they see the spreading of falsehoods as being unethical?

 

[Piers Plowman]

@Piers Plowman You need to stop using two quotes in the same post because it makes it impossible to reply properly.

The 'ignore' I mentioned is the process I described in post 586 which is this website's version of blocking a user. It really should not be hard for you figure it out from what I told you.

Now, will you please answer my questions:
And is the faith of not believing in a literal Genesis greater, lesser or equal to believing in a literal Genesis?

And even with addressing your claim, why is then that all the major Christian denominations do not adhere to a literal reading of the Bible, especially Catholicism?

Y'know, there is an old acquaintance whom I remember, who was really into the whole feminist movement.
And this one reply she had for thirsty males who pestered her online really struck with me:
"Do you think you can tell me what to do?
If you do,
don't."
Ain't it something?

And I'm not sure why you're explaining a function of this website... that's not my question.
Again I ask,
"What 'ignore'?"