Jump to content

ARGOSY

Diamond Member
  • Content Count

    1,576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ARGOSY last won the day on February 23 2016

ARGOSY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,504 Excellent

1 Follower

About ARGOSY

  • Rank
    Diamond Member
  • Birthday 04/11/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Africa
  • Interests
    Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

Recent Profile Visitors

2,212 profile views
  1. Sure it's 7 days, literally 7 days, occurring about 6000 years ago. What was made in 7 days? The spirit of God was on the surface of the ocean, the land was submerged, and the mists were so thick, there was no sky and no light. This was the state of the planet for times past, in darkness, an empty wasteland. Then the spirit stirred the waters. And the mists thinned just enough for light to filter through. Thus started creation week.
  2. Genesis 1:9-10 actually defines the meaning or erets as dry ground,...... Not me, it's the Bible Thomas. And you are using a dictionary from the 19th century that confirms that erets/earth is the soil or ground. Only in the 20th century was the word earth more commonly used to point to planet earth. Why choose your incorrect interpretation of a 19th century dictionary, over the bible's own definition in Genesis 1:9-10? I believe Genesis 1 occurred literally as described, the Spirit of God was upon the surface of the ocean, that surface was dark, and there was no dry ground. The first few days of creation week are about making this planet hospitable for life to flourish. Light filters through, the mists lift, the sun becomes visible, and land appears from beneath the surface of the ocean.
  3. You may stick with your traditions. I am far too literal for that, when the Bible says erets is dry ground, that is what I believe. There was a dark and watery world, no dry ground, no light, and no sky because the mists were so thick in those ancient conditions. Then there was light, and sky, and the sun shone through. This dark world became habitable just over 6000 years ago. Erets means dry ground: And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “erets” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” NOT THIS: And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.10 God called the dry ground “PLANET EARTH” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” That view just does not work.
  4. The word earth means soil/ground. "Put the earth in the pot." The KJV and the Strong's dictionary were written before the word earth was commonly used to refer to our entire planet. It means dry ground, I prefer the bibles own meaning: God called the dry ground “erets,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” Your view has 2 incorrect meanings to the word erets 1) erets in existence in v2 before the planet was even created 2)planet earth Both usages completely contradict the context of Genesis 1 where the spirit of God is above the oceans, and the land is still under water before the first day. The creation story starts off with a dark, watery environment becoming habitable, and dry ground emerging. Regarding the sun and stars they simply became visible from the perspective of the surface of the water. 1) My usage of the Hebrew word ASAH (make, do, show, perform) is way more accurate than your usage of the Hebrew word ERETS. 2) My view is of visibility increasing as the thick ocean mists thin out, creating light /day/visibility/visible sky/visible stars and sun. This makes a lot more sense than weird views of 24 hour days before the sun is made. Of water canopies in the universe and whatever else YECs believe to try make sense of the text.
  5. I'm not following where in Genesis it talks about the earth and the universe? They didn't even have a word for planet earth then, and heavens meant the sky. Genesis 1 is about the dry ground appearing from under the ocean (land) , and the waters above the ocean lifting to create visibility (sky). Now that the formless watery earth had light, land, and breathing space, God could make life. The Bible does not date the planet earth, they didn't even have a word for that concept.
  6. Aah Kristin, at last someone makes sense. If we take Bible time frames literally, that "kinds" of animals were created less than 6500 years ago, then the fossil record and geology should represent the last 6500 years. Before the big tectonic movements that created the huge mountain ranges of today was an event called the Great Dying, or the End Permian extinction (also abbreviated the P-Tr boundary) At this event it is geologically established by scientists that there were great movements of sediment, increasing sea levels and the world's vegetation turned into a rotting biomass. The ice caps melted then. This was all started when the fountains of the great deep burst forth in the greatest ever volcanic event known as the Siberia Traps. The ice caps melted including massive glaciation unlike the small ice caps of today. Only after that event did the great mountain ranges of today form. At that time it was really only a range of mountains called the Blue Ridge Mountains. No one knows how high those hills were, because those mountaintops were...... Eroded/washed away. So yes, the topography was a lot flatter back then at the P-Tr boundary.
  7. Yes I do agree with you and enjoy what you said. I don't like to water down any words of the Bible, and I tend towards literalism where possible. But when a brother claims faith in Christ, yet disagrees on literal interpretation here and there, who am I to judge the heart? Romans 14: Accept the one whose faith is weak,without quarreling over disputable matters. Sure a bit of online banter is fine, but without the condemnation that often goes with it. Not saying you do that, just conceptually we shouldn't undermine each other's faith.
  8. I believe in compressed timeframes, as per a literal view of the biblical lineages since Adam. Thus all biological life was created about 6500 years ago. (I'm not actually YEC, I'm more literal than that, believing a dark watery world existed before creation week as described in Genesis 1) Under that compressed time frames model, bacteria and eukaryotes would have had multiple generations before the first small Shelley fossilized. Not only that, these primitive bacteria would have been seeded into deeper and more remote locations. The small shellies being in the deeper ocean would have been fossilized before the Cambrian Explosion. There's a small yet hidden location possibly in the Middle East and/or Siberia that I will call the "island of greater Eden" from where radiations of more terrestrial animals would inhabit the growing landmasses as ice caps and glaciation expanded in the far south. In summary I believe in one creation event and compressed timeframes, with radiation events from a terrestrial location as the world became more terrestrial.
  9. You refer to naturalistic explanations, yet there are two waves of appearances of species fully intact, all without fossil precursor. Firstly the Ediacaran small shellies, then the early Cambrian Explosion of new species. On the balance of logic a creation event seems more feasible, especially considering you already acknowledge the first biological species was supernaturally created.
  10. 1) plant life would quickly re-establish, especially via bird droppings of ark birds, and floating seeds. 2) I doubt all life survived, rather there would be many extinctions 3) I doubt there were too many carnivores. Noah could have kept them isolated until herbivores were re established. There were probably just a few thousand herbivores compared to massive landscapes of fresh shoots and plants. 4)they didn't go "back home", but they spread out from Turkey to wherever conditions were suitable. 5) the world has often been through periods of marine transgression (marine flooding continents) and marine regression (dropping sea levels). No geologist would deny regular worldwide flooding, but they would deny the extent of the biblical description. It's impossible to prove the actual height of the flooding in the past, the mountaintops of the bigger mountain ranges have been washed away.
  11. I completely agree with you. Yes Genesis should be taken literally, and does not contradict true science. I agree with "Bible first" if there appears to be some apparent current contradiction. It's just that Paul wanted us to focus on salvation issues, the gospel. If someone's faith isn't perfect in other areas of the Bible, it's not a big issue. Some people tend to see symbols where the Bible contradicts their world view, as long as they don't dilute core issues of faith in Jesus, I will debate my position with these evolutionists but I won't criticise their faith. A believer is a believer regardless of their position on evolution, even though I'm a unswerving believer in creationism. Some creationists get a little too critical sometimes, I think it's unnecessary.
  12. It's just our relationship with Jesus that counts, how we see Genesis is largely irrelevant to our faith. But generally I feel we are on safer ground doctrinally, the more we stay with the literal and the closer we get to the intentions of the original writer. This does take faith in the words as written. From a geological perspective, there was widespread flooding at the end Permian. It appears that all continents were previously marine, looking at the fossil record. Yet during the Carboniferous and Permian much of the world was covered in low lying swampland, probably indicating that the formation of large-scale glaciation and a huge ice cap in the south caused sea levels to drop. When these ice caps melted suddenly at the end-Permian, of course the sea levels rose and destroyed that swampy landscape across all continental interiors. When sea levels dropped again the world was devoid of animals and plants , and more suited to reptiles on the dry sandy landscapes of the early Triassic. This is all recorded in geology during the time the world transformed from wet swampland to dry desert landscapes at the Permian-Triassic boundary. I believe these facts all point to a literal biblical flood.
  13. You make a good point but one has to look at context to see exactly what was meant. What to us seem like living things, to another culture and language may seem like non-thinking biological robots that aren't truly living. Context seems to point to two major identifying factors of the life forms that were all killed off: A) Terrestrial B) Breath of life... An ambiguous term which could refer to lung breathing higher forms, like birds and mammals and reptiles and amphibians. The term "breath of life" could also mean having a soul. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died Do insects with their small brains and trachea count as having the "breath of life"? Do they have souls? I don't think one can confidently include insects, bacteria and plants, in the intended drowning victims. Although seeds of plants are definitely in the list of ark survivors, but not in groups of 2 or 8 like the so-called "living creatures" that came into the ark. The phrase "living creatures" was established in Genesis 1, but even there i'm not quite sure if what we have in mind is exactly what the writer of Genesis 1 had in mind.
  14. The Bible claims it was a global flood in this wording in Genesis chapters 6-9: I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. The waters:" rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. " Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died .And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant It was a universal flood, not a local flood.
  15. I believe there is evidence for a large scale flood. Geologically speaking this can be seen in the PT boundary, late Permian and early Triassic. The accepted timeframes have many flaws, but geologists do see a large scale transgressive event there (oceans flooding into continental interiors), and a large scale regressive event (massive erosion when sea level suddenly drop). This PT boundary is known as the "great death", the largest known extinction event ever recorded. This event was triggered by an event known as the Siberian Traps, the greatest ever volcanic event, when the fountains of the great deep burst forth covering much of Siberia with volcanic rock. This triggered melting of the glaciers and ice caps which re-flooded continents which has earlier arisen when the ice sheets formed.
×
×
  • Create New...