More evidence of Noah's Flood?

[jerryR34]

As someone pointed out, the ancients drew pictures of many fanciful things just like we still do.  Don't you think we should have some corroborating physical evidence, or do you put primitive art above modern science?

 

 

 

Oh, did you know that they still teach science to kids in school that has been disproven a long time ago?

 

your point?

[Sheniy]

 

Today a similar situation is advised by many within the Church:

 

What Church?

 

I am guessing he is referring to a part of the body of Christ. What church would he be referring to? Your question seems to indicate that you believe that those who disagree with YEC aren't truly Christian. I hope I'm wrong.

 

 

(Once more, I labor to say, your contention is that if we read the texts carefully we will see that it teaches heliocentricism.

 

My contention is ....it doesn't teach either way.  It's not a Science Book.

 

You like quotes, right? From important people? Here's a couple.

 

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [1 Tim 1:7]."

I'm guessing you don't agree.

Okay. Here's one that you might agree with more.

"we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. . . ."

Sound about right? This quote here in orange was from Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century regarding the new heliocentric model.  Yep.  Part of that RCC you love so much.  I'm pretty sure you've said something like this before.

 

That first quote was from 415 AD by St Augustine of Hippo (for those who don't know, he's kind of a big deal in Christian history and influenced much of the theology we believe today, including original sin and the Trinity). That's a long time before the theory of evolution.  That's a long time before the heliocentric model, as well.  The science Augustine is referring to is the controversial (at the time) geocentric model. 

  So questioning the word for word literal interpretation of Genesis is not even kind of a new thing.  Augustine didn't believe in an old universe.  They didn't know enough about the universe to consider it (stars were still just sparkles attached to the back of the sky or something).  Augustine believed that God created the universe in an instant, and that the seven day creation was to be interpreted as a literary structure instead of literal word for word 7 days.  If he had lived today, he likely would have had no problem with an old cosmos.

 

Food for thought.

 

 

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

==============================================================

 

 

I am guessing he is referring to a part of the body of Christ. What church would he be referring to? Your question seems to indicate that you believe that those who disagree with YEC aren't truly Christian. I hope I'm wrong.

 

I would suggest not to guess or assume...it doesn't turn out well IMHO.  (from personal experience)

 

 

That first quote was from 415 AD by St Augustine of Hippo

 

He also Propagated the "Sethite" View of Genesis 6.  Red Flags abound 

 

 

(for those who don't know, he's kind of a big deal

 

He''s just a Man

 

 

This quote here in orange was from Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century

 

Tell you what.  Start a research project....Track where all the "False" gods originated from.....Babylon/Nimrod (I gave you the starting point).  Then track the western leg of them that Propagated said "gods" throughout history.

 

Please tell me where they ended up.  It will be an Illuminating Journey

 

Thanks

[a-seeker]

 

He also Propagated the "Sethite" View of Genesis 6.  Red Flags abound 

 

 

Didn't you say above that just because a person is wrong on one thing doesn't mean that he is wrong on everything else?  Once more Enoch, consistency.

[a-seeker]

Enoch, once more, let’s return to the point.  You said that the Church held to geocentricism for so long because they weren’t reading the text closely.  My point is that, no matter how close you read the texts, you will never see heliocentricism.  That is all.  The Bible does not clearly teach heliocentricism.  At the time, the Church was well-advised to believe in geocentricism and nothing in the Bible contradicted that view.  And they were wrong.  Heliocentricism is right, and therefore passages that once supported geocentricism now had to be taken metaphorically.  Thus Biblical interpretation yielded to the sciences.  Your issue is (and always will be) that there can be no human component in the making of Scripture.  There is only ONE AUTHOR: the humans were just pens.  This is not only wrong historically and exegetically but also theologically.  When God redeemed Man he came as a Man.  When God wrote Scripture, He writes through men.

[JohnD]

How does Science deal with the problem of loads of water over our heads (not clouds)?

 

clb

 

Several theories attempt to explain this.

 

The upper vapor canopy (which granted longer life on earth) collapsed and is locked away in polar ice caps, soaked back into the ground (as some have mentioned here already) or are in the weather cycle. The vaults that were under the oceans collapsed and the deeper ocean floor drew down much of the water, and the mountains might not have been as high as they are today (meaning a global sea level high enough to cover the mountain peaks then would not have to be as high as it would be today. Some theories include the ice age itself drew up a lot of the water and yet another theory was that the moon may have been in a less stable orbit and drew the tide to super height on one side of the globe at a time.

 

Don't let atheistic superficial science give you any reason to worry.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

He also Propagated the "Sethite" View of Genesis 6.  Red Flags abound 

 

 

Didn't you say above that just because a person is wrong on one thing doesn't mean that he is wrong on everything else?  Once more Enoch, consistency.

 

 

 

==================================================================

 

Yes I surely did, and we all make mistakes..........HOWEVER, This is a BIGGIE!!!!!!!!!   And not his only one.

[OldSchool2]

How does Science deal with the problem of loads of water over our heads (not clouds)?

 

clb

 

Several theories attempt to explain this.

 

The upper vapor canopy (which granted longer life on earth) collapsed and is locked away in polar ice caps, soaked back into the ground (as some have mentioned here already) or are in the weather cycle. The vaults that were under the oceans collapsed and the deeper ocean floor drew down much of the water, and the mountains might not have been as high as they are today (meaning a global sea level high enough to cover the mountain peaks then would not have to be as high as it would be today. Some theories include the ice age itself drew up a lot of the water and yet another theory was that the moon may have been in a less stable orbit and drew the tide to super height on one side of the globe at a time.

 

Don't let atheistic superficial science give you any reason to worry.

Why worry at all when the flood was probably local to only Mesopotamia?

"The language used in Genesis 6-9 does not insist that the flood was global.

"First of all, the Hebrew kol erets, meaning whole Earth, can also be translated whole land in reference to local, not global, geography. The Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer explains that the Hebrew word erets is often translated as Earth in English translations of the Bible, when in reality it is also the word for land, as in the land of Israel.6 Archer explains that erets is used many times throughout the Old Testament to mean land and country. Furthermore, the term tebel, which translates to the whole expanse of the Earth, or the Earth as a whole, is not used in Genesis 6:17, nor in subsequent verses in Genesis 7 (7:4, 7:10, 7:17, 7:18, 7:19).7 If the intent of this passage was to indicate the entire expanse of the Earth, tebel would have been the more appropriate word choice. Consequently, the Hebrew text is more consistent with a local geography for the flood ..."

http://biologos.org/...s/genesis-flood

[Enoch2021]

Enoch, once more, let’s return to the point.  You said that the Church held to geocentricism for so long because they weren’t reading the text closely.  My point is that, no matter how close you read the texts, you will never see heliocentricism.  That is all.  The Bible does not clearly teach heliocentricism.  At the time, the Church was well-advised to believe in geocentricism and nothing in the Bible contradicted that view.  And they were wrong.  Heliocentricism is right, and therefore passages that once supported geocentricism now had to be taken metaphorically.  Thus Biblical interpretation yielded to the sciences.  Your issue is (and always will be) that there can be no human component in the making of Scripture.  There is only ONE AUTHOR: the humans were just pens.  This is not only wrong historically and exegetically but also theologically.  When God redeemed Man he came as a Man.  When God wrote Scripture, He writes through men.

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

You said that the Church held to geocentricism for so long because they weren’t reading the text closely.

 

 

Well sorta.  I'm saying the "church" (RCC), in your Genre, is actually not The Body of Christ.

You're Equivocating (Rather Fallaciously):  RCC = Christianity. ^{100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000----------------------------------->} 

 

 

I already thoroughly Refuted your "authors" in the Topic "The Author is GOD", here:

 

I really didn't even have to post the Topic, your position was refuted before you even said it, HERE:

 

(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God...."

 

GOD-BREATHED!!

[Sheniy]

 

 

 

He also Propagated the "Sethite" View of Genesis 6.  Red Flags abound 

 

 

Didn't you say above that just because a person is wrong on one thing doesn't mean that he is wrong on everything else?  Once more Enoch, consistency.

 

 

 

==================================================================

 

Yes I surely did, and we all make mistakes..........HOWEVER, This is a BIGGIE!!!!!!!!!   And not his only one.

 

How is that a biggie?  It's just a different perspective of Genesis 6.  I was raised to believe that perspective, and dismissed it easily when I heard the angel version.  It wasn't a big deal.  He's not, like, starting a new religion or something.  It really doesn't impact any salvation issues.

 

If he was saying Jesus isn't God or something, yeah I'd agree with you.  But this guy contributed to the theology of the Trinity and original sin, among other things.  Those ARE big theological doctrines.  You gonna throw them out, as well?

 

Besides, you missed the point of the quote entirely.  Or maybe you're dodging on purpose?

 

If you wish to be consistent, you must also throw out all teachings of Chuck Missler, since he doesn't interpret the serpent in Genesis as literal. (gasp!)