• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why I don't believe in evolution...

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,793.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes the sun is hot and yes men made an observation about it and yes that appears to be correct. This doesn't mean men are going to be correct about every observation.

The world at creation was different from the world after the fall and different again after the flood. The Bible gives us clues about that but does not tell us everything.

Both creation and the global flood were miraculous events not natural ones.

Anyone who was there to witness any of it is long gone so there are no eye witnesses.

Any evidence left behind is interpreted by men who again weren't there, who don't know everything.

There could be other explanations for things that we as mere humans can't even begin to understand.

Why I don't believe in evolution... - a link leading to my description of fossil forest demonstrating an old earth.

Screenshot_20210614-095732.png


As described in the above linked post, of course there are many things we can easily understand without the need for a time machine:
1. If there are termite burrows in petrified wood, then termites ate away at prehistoric trees.
2. If there are trackways around these trees, then animals lives around these trees and walked, and this was a flat surface, un-submerged and of dry land.
3. If the fossil trees are rooted in paleosols, then they are in-situ or as they were when they first grew (meaning that they've grown in place over a long period of time, long enough for a forest to grow, and also meaning that these trees weren't simply deposited by a global flood).
4. If the petrified forest resides midway (vertically) through the Paleozoic and above (shallower than) Ordovician, Cambrian and precambrian strata, then we know that these trees were not present at the beginning of creation (because similar features, forests and trackways rest below this forest). Simultaneously resting below (deeper than) mesozoic and Cenozoic strata, meaning that much of earth history still had yet to unfold (similar features, forests and trackways rest above the forest as well).

There are things that we observe, much like the sun being hot, that are quite obvious to us. These things include the planet being thousands of millions of years old. And we dont need a time machine to understand the above.

And if you have another explanation for this example, aside from it being a prehistoric fossil forest that is millions of years old, then feel free to share (but of course I won't get my hopes up).

Once we agree that Earth is at least millions of years old, and that this is equally as obvious as it is that the sun is hot, and therefore is not "man's word" but rather is simple acknowledgement of what God has created, then we can do the same for evolution.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210625-082349~2.png
    Screenshot_20210625-082349~2.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 17
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,002
2,819
Australia
✟166,475.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why I don't believe in evolution... - a link leading to my description of fossil forest demonstrating an old earth.

View attachment 304600

As described in the above linked post, of course there are many things we can easily understand without the need for a time machine:
1. If there are termite burrows in petrified wood, then termites ate away at prehistoric trees.
2. If there are trackways around these trees, then animals lives around these trees and walked, and this was a flat surface, un-submerged and of dry land.
3. If the fossil trees are rooted in paleosols, then they are in-situ or as they were when they first grew (meaning that they've grown in place over a long period of time, long enough for a forest to grow, and also meaning that these trees weren't simply deposited by a global flood).
4. If the petrified forest resides midway (vertically) through the Paleozoic and above (shallower than) Ordovician, Cambrian and precambrian strata, then we know that these trees were not present at the beginning of creation (because similar features, forests and trackways rest below this forest). Simultaneously resting below (deeper than) mesozoic and Cenozoic strata, meaning that much of earth history still had yet to unfold (similar features, forests and trackways rest above the forest as well).

There are things that we observe, much like the sun being hot, that are quite obvious to us. These things include the planet being thousands of millions of years old. And we dont need a time machine to understand the above.

And if you have another explanation for this example, aside from it being a prehistoric fossil forest that is millions of years old, then feel free to share (but of course I won't get my hopes up).

Once we agree that Earth is at least millions of years old, and that this is equally as obvious as it is that the sun is hot, and therefore is not "man's word" but rather is simple acknowledgement of what God has created, then we can do the same for evolution.


By the way you are also on ignore, just so you are aware. I can't remember why, but probably because you are yet again another rude man. That is generally why you all end up on my ignore list, as an older lady I will not tolerate it. You either learn some manners 'gentlemen' or talk to the air.

Since I have now 'shown your post' I will say again - I don't care about the evidence.
I don't believe because of evidence. This seems to be hard for you to understand but it is no different to faith in the resurrection of Christ. I believe because scripture says so and I believe scripture to be God's breathed word to us.

The 'evidence' got there somehow and I am sure God will explain it when we see him. That's good enough for me. Since I don't care about it I have no need to explain it. I am sure there are reasons that we as mere humans can't even fathom and for men to say "we know how this happened' is pure arrogance. As God said “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand."
Were you there?
Since I wasn't I will accept God's word on it.


This need of reasons and evidence are all on your end. You are completely convinced in your own mind that men know better than God, that there can be no other explanation then what they decided upon and that they are 100% correct in everything. So be it.

And no we will not agree that the earth is billions of years old. The earth was probably made outside of time, so age is entirely the wrong question to be asking. The creation upon the earth I assume to be 10-15 thousand years old or there abouts. Maybe its younger, maybe its older, doesn't bother me.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,267
13,066
78
✟435,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
By the way you are also on ignore, just so you are aware. I can't remember why, but probably because you are yet again another rude man. That is generally why you all end up on my ignore list, as an older lady I will not tolerate it. You either learn some manners 'gentlemen' or talk to the air.

The best thing do do, if you want to put people on ignore, is to ignore them. Works for me. And never peek; it's a bad habit to get into.

Since I have now 'shown your post' I will say again - I don't care about the evidence.

No problem. But it's been a Christian practice to accept evidence, for a very long time, long before Darwin.

for men to say "we know how this happened' is pure arrogance.

We can test that idea in all sorts of ways. So far, it works. And those predictions are tested by subsequent evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
43
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Abram believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness. Abram didn't say, "Well, since we know from science that an old man and a post-menopausal woman cannot birth an entire nation, surely what God promised is meant to be understood another way."

Joshua and Caleb didn't say, "Well, since we know from science that beings of far greater mass and strength cannot be physically overcome by beings of far less mass and strength, God must be speaking metaphorically when He commands us to take the land."

Christians do not say, "Well, since we know from science that once brain death occurs, it is impossible for a person to be restored to life, we know that Jesus must have been raised from death in a spiritual sense."

Evidence to the contrary is never a reason to doubt God. There will ALWAYS be evidence to the contrary. Christianity will NEVER be a religion for the logical. Christianity will NEVER make sense in that regard. The Bible says that God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise...and the things viewed as nothing to bring to ruin that which is viewed as something. 1 Cor 1:27-28

Actual Christians believe the Word of God. Am I saying that if you believe in evolution, you cannot be saved? No. But I will say that you are in grave danger of becoming apostate, thereby proving that you believed in vain. Jesus says, "My sheep hear My voice.". Those who belong to God can never doubt the Words of God, nor allow external evidence to determine the basis on which they interpret the words of God.

Let God be true and every man a liar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kelly Lucas
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,267
13,066
78
✟435,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Evidence to the contrary is never a reason to doubt God.

But it's a very good reason to doubt some men's interpretation of God's word.

You are completely convinced in your own mind that the men who taught you YE creationism know better than God, that there can be no other explanation then what they decided upon and that they are 100% correct in everything.

There are miracles, and science doesn't deny miracles. It's just that inserting non-scriptural miracles into God's word to support one's personal interpretation isn't a very good practice.

Am I saying that if you won't accept evolution, you cannot be saved? No. God doesn't care if you accept the way He makes new species.

But I will say that you are in grave danger of producing apostates, when people who were raised to believe special creationism is an essential Christian doctrine, learn that it cannot be true and thereby reject Christianity.

This is the real damage that YE creationism does to God's church.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,793.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Like I said before, it's not a case of God vs Christian scientists, rather it's a case of God vs YECs. While Christian Scientists are merely passive observers.

The sun being hot is not "man's knowledge". It's just acknowledgement of what God has created. Same with the termite burrows in petrified wood.

Simply saying that "Christianity will NEVER be a religion for the logical" doesn't just magically create justification for Christians to reject anything logical they hear that doesn't align with their personal interpretation of scripture.

If the termite burrows are observed in the petrified trees, it just is what it is. Termites burrowed in trees of a prehistoric forest.

If such simple and straight forward observations of creation are too much for an individual to bare, then there's probably something fundamentally incorrect about their interpretation of scripture. And it's that simple.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,267
13,066
78
✟435,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
If such simple and straight forward observations of creation are too much for an individual to bare, then there's probably something fundamentally incorrect about their interpretation of scripture. And it's that simple.

Today's winner.
 
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
43
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
If such simple and straight forward observations of creation are too much for an individual to bare, then there's probably something fundamentally incorrect about their interpretation of scripture. And it's that simple.

Here is what I consider "simple and straight forward":

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...Gen 1:1-31

The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” . . . God looked on the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and, behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth” Gen 6:7-13

There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible to indicate that the Genesis accounts are meant to be understood as allegory. They are referenced time and time again throughout the Bible. Even Jesus referenced them.

You clearly believe man over God. If you were forced to either interpret God's Word literally or abandon it altogether, you would abandon it, and you know this is true. And you would do this because you do not live by faith, and neither do you love the Truth. To you, the teachings of wicked men hold more truth than God's Word, and are very much the catalyst for your so-called "interpretation" of God's Word. Ergo, you make the Word of God subordinate to "science", and in doing so, you mark yourself for a future judgment.

I encourage you to abandon that course. Repent, and put all your trust in the Lord. Truly, nothing in this whole world is of any value, except for Jesus Christ. He is everything, and everything else is nothing. He is above all. Only He is true. Only He is worthy. He is Almighty God and He is sovereign over all. One day, this world will pass away. But His Word will abide forever.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: coffee4u
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,267
13,066
78
✟435,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible to indicate that the Genesis accounts are meant to be understood as allegory. They are referenced time and time again throughout the Bible. Even Jesus referenced them.

So your evidence that if Jesus mentions a figurative verse, it is automatically converted to a literal verse,is...? This is another new doctrine by the people you believe over scripture. You clearly believe man over God.

Set your pride aside, and just let it be God's way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
43
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Keep in mind, you are on ignore. I will make an exception this time and respond.

You accuse me of believing man over the Bible, and this is not the first time. I assume it's some weak attempt to try and turn the tables, but it doesn't fly. Not once in this entire discussion have I appealed to one authority source outside of scripture.

I can read the Bible myself. I interpret it myself. I know it's hard for a catholic like yourself to actually believe that people read the Bible and interpret it themselves, what with your rich tradition of discouraging the masses from doing so, and all. But you must understand that not everyone is a part of a theological cult that insists on interpreting the Bible for it's members.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,793.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here is what I consider "simple and straight forward":

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...Gen 1:1-31

The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” . . . God looked on the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and, behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth” Gen 6:7-13

There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible to indicate that the Genesis accounts are meant to be understood as allegory. They are referenced time and time again throughout the Bible. Even Jesus referenced them.

You clearly believe man over God. If you were forced to either interpret God's Word literally or abandon it altogether, you would abandon it, and you know this is true. And you would do this because you do not live by faith, and neither do you love the Truth. To you, the teachings of wicked men hold more truth than God's Word, and are very much the catalyst for your so-called "interpretation" of God's Word. Ergo, you make the Word of God subordinate to "science", and in doing so, you mark yourself for a future judgment.

I encourage you to abandon that course. Repent, and put all your trust in the Lord. Truly, nothing in this whole world is of any value, except for Jesus Christ. He is everything, and everything else is nothing. He is above all. Only He is true. Only He is worthy. He is Almighty God and He is sovereign over all. One day, this world will pass away. But His Word will abide forever.

I'm going to share an idea with you and let's see where it goes.

Now we are talking about the book of Genesis and asking the question of if it is literally true.

According to Claus Westermann, renown old testament scholar, according to creation tradition held by early herbews and authors of Genesis and other early books of the OT, Genesis 1:6-8 actually refers to a literal solid partition or vault which separates earth from waters above the firmament. And that the OT writer of Genesis literally wrote these verses with the understanding that water comes from openings, or vault doors/ windows (see Genesis 7:11), in this solid partition between the heavens and the earth, to release what we know of as rain. This solid partition was created, then subsequently erected to create separation. One has to wonder, if interpreted literally, what did the author or authors of Genesis mean when referring to windows in which water came (if not windows in a solid dome) and pillars of heaven (pillars which uphold them, because they rest stop the solid dome)?

Now, all this aside, I'm going to turn back to my point in this.

This is the understanding of an Old Testament renowned Christian Scholar. And even he very clearly acknowledges that Genesis is not something to be literally perceived.

What is your opinion of this?
Claus Westermann - Wikipedia -wiki page for the protestant scholar.

Regarding Genesis 6:7 as described above, God said "I will destroy man whom I've created" Gen 6:7. This same word "destroy" is also used in Judges 21:17 in reference to the tribe of Benjamin of Israel. But according to Romans, we know that many of Israel were still saved none the less both of the Israelites and of people elsewhere in the world. Romans 7:4 "But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.". Romans 11:1 "ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin."

God's obliteration was limited in scope. God made room for some of those who were righteous.

But even if we still assumed that the authors did mean literally every single life form destroyed, as noted with Genesis 1:6-8, the Hebrew traditions in which Genesis originated, were great epics of their time, and these truths have meaning beyond what is literally stated. Nobody (in today's time) actually believes in a literal solid dome separating the waters from the waters. Though we may understand the text in meaning that there was separation between the waters of chaos of creation that are separated from God, and divine heavens that are within God's presence. Truth, yet it doesn't need to be taken as literal interpretation.

But maybe this isn't enough to convince you.

So I'm going to go a step further. I made this point before as well. If there are competing interpretations amongst readers of scripture, the tie breaker is external corroboration (just like when you and your father can't seem to agree, you turn to your mother to break the tie and to settle the score). What can we use for external corroboration to break the tie of who's interpretation of scripture is more accurate? We can use observations of course. The very same observations made with our own two eyeballs (we don't need the pope to do this) that are being rejected by YECs.

"You accuse me of believing man over the Bible"

While it is true that you and I certainly can read scripture for ourselves, and I think this is a very valuable position to take given that some churches would say otherwise. But with this ability to read for yourself, you also have the ability to read it in non-literal ways.

I gave the cake analogy above. If a sentence reads "there is a cake in the oven", some might believe it means chocolate cake, some might think vanilla, some might even go as far to think that the statement is referring to pregnancy. But at the end of the day, when multiple interpretations of written Word exist, the easiest way to resolve this dilemma is to simply walk over to the oven, to pull the cake out and to use your eyeballs to shed light on the conflict. And if your eyeballs tell you that it's chocolate, then why not go with the party of Christians, including Christian Old Testament scholars and Christian scientists, in siding with the party that thinks it means a chocolate cake?

Sometimes I like to joke around with the phrase "but what do your eyes tell you?" When people ask questions that seem quite obvious. God gave us eyes for a reason, including so we could open up, see*, read, interpret and apply His Word, Amen! Let's not waste them!

For further reading:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...kQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw21a4KgzTxIQhlVuIWIKCtk
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,267
13,066
78
✟435,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You accuse me of believing man over the Bible,

Yes. You've chosen to believe YE creationists,with their new revision of scripture, rather than just accepting it as it is.

Not once in this entire discussion have I appealed to one authority source outside of scripture.

If you were citing scripture, and it was plainly the way you claim it is, you would only need to present the scripture, not appeal to men's revision of it.

I can read the Bible myself. I interpret it myself.

Once you think truth is whatever you believe it is, there is no truth left for you.

I know it's hard for a catholic like yourself to actually believe that people read the Bible and interpret it themselves, what with your rich tradition of discouraging the masses from doing so,

Notice that once each man started interpreting whatever was right in his own eyes, Christianity fragmented into thousands of denominations and cults, with each claiming "mine is right." Your error is to fail to understand that the Bible was formed by tradition, scholarship and prayer, and can be no more reliable than the means by which it was formed.

But you must understand that not everyone is a part of a theological cult

If that's what you want to be part of, go for it. I'll go with God's word.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Semper-Fi

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 26, 2019
2,004
861
Pacific north west
✟568,853.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
coffee4u said:↑
God says a flood covered the world, that all life was extinguished

No, he did not. "Land" (erets) does not mean "the world" (tevel).

The bible talks about 3 worlds.
1-The world that was [before flood] that perished,

6 Whereby the world G2889 that then was,
being overflowed with water, perished:G622

That world was overflowed with water and perished.

2-the world or earth that is now [current],

7 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.

3-and the world soon to come [mill].

5 For He has not put the world to come,
of which we speak, in subjection to angels.

All are the same world, or this planet earth,
where people live on dry land. Acts 17:26

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven
be gathered together unto one place, and let
the dry land appear: and it was so.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb
bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth,
and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree
yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.-
-

Genesis 6:17 (KJV) Genesis 9:11,Genesis 9:15
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon
the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life,
from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

To destroy all flesh, every thing in the earth.
all the high hills under the whole heaven.
all with the breath of life die, from under heaven.

So what is your definition for under heaven?
Do you know of any hills or land on earth not under the heavens?

The bible talks about 3 Heavens, all are
above this planet we call earth.

The first heaven consists of [the Earth’s atmosphere].
The second heaven is the [space] beyond the atmosphere.
There is also a third heaven: [the home of God].

"For he looketh to the ends of the earth, And seeth
under the whole heaven; Job 28:24 (KJV)
-

Genesis 7:23 (KJV)
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face
of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things,
and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth:

and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

I will trust the bible when it says Only Noah,
and those with him remained alive. Everything
else with the breath of life in the air or dry land dies.

Are you saying others survived the flood?
-

Genesis 1:29 Made every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face of all the earth

Genesis 7:3 (KJV)
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female;
to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

If the flood was only local, there would be no point,
in the story of the ark, or the Rainbow Covent .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,267
13,066
78
✟435,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't see how all that dancing converts "erets" into "tevel." It's still true that the Bible says the land was covered with water, but it doesn't say the whole world was covered by water. That is man's revision of God's word. Your first shows from Peter 3:6 about the "world." But he wrote in Koine Greek, κόσμος (cosmos). The same word was used by Luke to describe the Roman empire.

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.

A different word entirely. It meant the Mediterranean world, essentially the Roman Empire.

If the flood was only local, there would be no point, in the story of the ark, or the Rainbow Covent .

I don't see how. Are you saying that if you realized it was only a regional flood or an allegory tomorrow, it would no longer have any point for you? Seriously?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
43
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
coffee4u said:↑
God says a flood covered the world, that all life was extinguished



The bible talks about 3 worlds.
1-The world that was [before flood] that perished,

6 Whereby the world G2889 that then was,
being overflowed with water, perished:G622

That world was overflowed with water and perished.

2-the world or earth that is now [current],

7 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.

3-and the world soon to come [mill].

5 For He has not put the world to come,
of which we speak, in subjection to angels.

All are the same world, or this planet earth,
where people live on dry land. Acts 17:26

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven
be gathered together unto one place, and let
the dry land appear: and it was so.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb
bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth,
and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree
yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.-
-

Genesis 6:17 (KJV) Genesis 9:11,Genesis 9:15
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon
the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life,
from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

To destroy all flesh, every thing in the earth.
all the high hills under the whole heaven.
all with the breath of life die, from under heaven.

So what is your definition for under heaven?
Do you know of any hills or land on earth not under the heavens?

The bible talks about 3 Heavens, all are
above this planet we call earth.

The first heaven consists of [the Earth’s atmosphere].
The second heaven is the [space] beyond the atmosphere.
There is also a third heaven: [the home of God].

"For he looketh to the ends of the earth, And seeth
under the whole heaven; Job 28:24 (KJV)
-

Genesis 7:23 (KJV)
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face
of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things,
and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth:

and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

I will trust the bible when it says Only Noah,
and those with him remained alive. Everything
else with the breath of life in the air or dry land dies.

Are you saying others survived the flood?
-

Genesis 1:29 Made every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face of all the earth

Genesis 7:3 (KJV)
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female;
to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

If the flood was only local, there would be no point,
in the story of the ark, or the Rainbow Covent .
The reason they say that the flood was merely a local deluge, is because they believe in their heart that the word of man is true, being convinced of it in their natural minds. When they read the Word of God, they interpret it with the presupposition that the word of man, science, is infallible. And where God's Word and science cannot be reconciled, they interpret God's Word another way, thereby making it subordinate to the word of man, which they affirm first and foremost.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. 1 Corinthians 1:20-29

The Bible says in the last days, there will be a great falling away - we are witnessing this. The Bible says God will send a "great delusion":

god-delusion.jpg

It is no coincidence that Dawkins' book is so truly named.

The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

I believe with all my heart that naturalism is the great delusion of these last days.

Those who love the truth will hold fast the profession of their faith firm until the end. Those who love not the truth, but instead love the lie, are lost. Those who put any stock at all into the word of man are setting themselves up for devastation. Blessed are those who build their house upon the rock.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,403
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟357,793.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
coffee4u said:↑
God says a flood covered the world, that all life was extinguished



The bible talks about 3 worlds.
1-The world that was [before flood] that perished,

6 Whereby the world G2889 that then was,
being overflowed with water, perished:G622

That world was overflowed with water and perished.

2-the world or earth that is now [current],

7 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.

3-and the world soon to come [mill].

5 For He has not put the world to come,
of which we speak, in subjection to angels.

All are the same world, or this planet earth,
where people live on dry land. Acts 17:26

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven
be gathered together unto one place, and let
the dry land appear: and it was so.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb
bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth,
and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree
yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.-
-

Genesis 6:17 (KJV) Genesis 9:11,Genesis 9:15
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon
the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life,
from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

To destroy all flesh, every thing in the earth.
all the high hills under the whole heaven.
all with the breath of life die, from under heaven.

So what is your definition for under heaven?
Do you know of any hills or land on earth not under the heavens?

The bible talks about 3 Heavens, all are
above this planet we call earth.

The first heaven consists of [the Earth’s atmosphere].
The second heaven is the [space] beyond the atmosphere.
There is also a third heaven: [the home of God].

"For he looketh to the ends of the earth, And seeth
under the whole heaven; Job 28:24 (KJV)
-

Genesis 7:23 (KJV)
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face
of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things,
and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth:

and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

I will trust the bible when it says Only Noah,
and those with him remained alive. Everything
else with the breath of life in the air or dry land dies.

Are you saying others survived the flood?
-

Genesis 1:29 Made every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face of all the earth

Genesis 7:3 (KJV)
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female;
to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

If the flood was only local, there would be no point,
in the story of the ark, or the Rainbow Covent .

Much like Barbarian is describing, I don't think this addresses my response either. The word doesn't mean "earth" because ancient Hebrews never even knew that earth was a sphere but rather that it was a limited expanses that one could walk to the end of.

In which case, the word couldn't possibly mean a global flood that spreads around the earth.

I agree with Old testament scholars and their commentary of Genesis that this idea of a global flood in which water surrounded the planet is a modern revision of scripture. Rather it's more accurate to say that the scripture is describing the flooding of all land that the ancient Hebrews were aware of, which was limited given that they didn't have modern transportation.

How could ancient Hebrews write that God flooded the entire earth, if they never even knew that earth was more than a flat region of limited distance in each direction? They couldn't. And so that's not what is being written here. But rather the translation "land" or "ground" is more appropriate.

And all land under the sky, to them, still, is limited in distance. It's all they knew and thus all they could possibly have meant.

And this is why Genesis describes windows in the firmament or dome, and pillars that hold up the heavens, and water which passes through the windows of the firmament, and birds which fly across the face of the firmament etc. These are all words from Genesis which describe a dome overtop a flat land in which if you walked in a single direction, you would reach the end of that land and would be able to touch the firmament and perhaps even pass through it to enter the heavens, just as all other cultures described and believed, all around the world at that time in history.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,267
13,066
78
✟435,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The reason they say that the flood was merely a local deluge

"Merely" would be a rather odd term for a flood that seems to have buried countless settlements and created the Black Sea. We can't be sure if that deluge was the Biblical one, or even if the account is an allegory. But it was a flood of Biblical proportions.

When they read the Word of God, they interpret it with the presupposition that the word of man, science, is infallible.

Hard to say who "they" are, given that neither scientists nor Christians who reject a global flood, do such a thing. In fact those who accept the Bible's statement that the land (erets) was flooded, not the entire world (tevel), are the ones who are reading it without presuppositions.

To revise it to a worldwide flood requires redefining what those words mean.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Sam Saved by Grace

All of salvation is God's doing
Aug 10, 2021
174
56
43
Fort Worth, Texas
✟7,637.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Much like Barbarian is describing, I don't think this addresses my response either. The word doesn't mean "earth" because ancient Hebrews never even knew that earth was a sphere but rather that it was a limited expanses that one could walk to the end of.

In which case, the word couldn't possibly mean a global flood that spreads around the earth.

I agree with Old testament scholars and their commentary of Genesis that this idea of a global flood in which water surrounded the planet is a modern revision of scripture. Rather it's more accurate to say that the scripture is describing the flooding of all land that the ancient Hebrews were aware of, which was limited given that they didn't have modern transportation.

How could ancient Hebrews write that God flooded the entire earth, if they never even knew that earth was more than a flat region of limited distance in each direction? They couldn't. And so that's not what is being written here. But rather the translation "land" or "ground" is more appropriate.

And all land under the sky, to them, still, is limited in distance. It's all they knew and thus all they could possibly have meant.
You come at the text with the wrong assumptions. You talk about what the ancient Hebrews didn't know. But it was not the ancient Hebrews who wrote the Bible. It was the Holy Spirit, God, who knows everything. Modern scholarship errs in their presuppositions. "Since Jesus perfectly predicted the destruction of the temple, we know the Gospel had to be written after 70AD". "Since the Gospels appear to come from the same inspiration, their must be a Q Gospel." "Isaiah nailed so many prophecies, therefore it must have been written both before and after, by different authors over a period of time." "Daniel's prophecies were too accurate, it must have been written after the fact." "Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies so well that we know that the authors of the Gospel added that in themselves." "Because the disciples were convinced in the resurrections, yet we know that people don't rise from the dead, the earliest Christians clearly taught that the resurrection was spiritual". They do this all throughout the Bible. The assumption is that the authors who wrote the Bible were restricted to the natural. That is a damnable assumption, and it is why virtually all modern scholarship is invalid.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Semper-Fi
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,267
13,066
78
✟435,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You come at the text with the wrong assumptions. You talk about what the ancient Hebrews didn't know. But it was not the ancient Hebrews who wrote the Bible. It was the Holy Spirit, God, who knows everything.

Actually, the Holy Spirit inspired the writing. But He didn't write the text. Hence, the message came through, even if there were errors in things not inspired by God. The sky, for example, is not a solid dome with windows in it to let the rain fall down from the waters above the dome. A mustard seed is not, (as Jesus said) the smallest seed. Pi is not equal to three.

And so on. If you focus on those minutia you lose the message God is giving to you.
 
Upvote 0