We Have The Evidence

[archaeologist55]

As we stated in our first issue of our magazine, we have lots of evidence for Noah's flood. We do not need to waste any more money searching for his ark when there is plenty of evidence all around us. A couple of examples we used in the article in that magazine:

1. The Flood by Dr. Rehwinkel pgs. 178ff:

Human reason was made the measure of all things. Whatever could not be harmonized with reason was rejected. Even the Bible was subjected to this treatment. This meant the removal, as acceptable truth, of everything which partook of the miraculous or of any direct interference with the affairs of men or the universe on the part of a personal, omnipotent God

In biology, Rationalism led to the revival of the ancient Greek theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the life that is found in the universe. The Biblical flood story could, of course, not be made to fit into such a mechanistic scheme any more than the story of Creation as related in Genesis...the modern theory of geology, which is evolutionistic in its basic principle, took their place. And yet even modern geology and other sciences have unwittingly contributed much to confirm the Biblical account of the Flood...

...The evidence of such fissures have been found in so many places of the earth, some of them measuring from 140 to 300 feet in depth. They were filled with debris which drifted into them soon after they opened...Such fissures have been found in England, France, southern Spain, Germany, Russia and elsewhere. The interesting feature of these fissures is the debris found in them, for they are filled with the remains of animals, among them those of the elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, the reindeer, the horse, the hog, and the ox.. The bones found in them cannot be animals which fell in alive or were buried there, for no skeleton is complete. They cannot have been brought there by streams, for those who examined them found no signs on them of having been rolled. Neither could the bones have been exposed to the weather for a long time, for none of them show marks of weathering...

Again, it has been observed by such a competent geologist as Prestwich that these ossiferous fissures are usually found upon isolated hills of considerable height, places on which we might expect animals to gather in seeking safety from an approaching flood...

and

2. Path of the Poles by Dr. Charles Hapgood pages 280ff:

In a limestone cavern on the borders of the Lagoa do Sumidouro, some three leagues from Santa Lucia, Dr. P.W.Lund excavated the bones of more than thirty individuals (human) of both sexes and various ages. The skeletons lay buried in hard clay and were found mixed together in such great confusion- not only with one another but with the remains of the Meatherium and other Pleistocene mammals- as to preclude the idea that they had been entombed by the hand of man. All the bones, whether human or animal, showed evidence of having been contemporary with one another.. In other caves investigated by Lund, bones of ancient man were found alongside those of the formidable Smilodon, a giantfeline which became extinct during the last Pleistocene times. Referring to the evidence from these and other Brazilian fossiliferous caves, the marquis de Nadaillac wrote: "...doubtless these men and animals lived together and perished together, common victims of catastrophes, the time and cause of which are alike unknown."

if you think you have additional, legitimate, verifiable evidence, place it in your response.  please do not bring gibberish

[Bonky]

From the book....

We are not forgetful that physical science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see as through a glass darkly, and we confidently believe that a time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular.

...

We believe that it is the duty of every scientific student to investigate Nature simply for the purpose of elucidating truth, and that if he finds that some of his results appear to be in contradiction to the written Word, or rather to his own interpretation of it, which may be erroneous, he should not presumptiously affirm that his own conclusions must be right, and the statements of Scriptures wrong. 

 

What I would want to ask Rehwinkle is why the "see as through a glass darkly" applies to the natural sciences but not his conclusion that Holy Scripture is divine and infallible.

He essentially spends several paragraphs encouraging people to always choose scripture over science if they ever butt heads.  So we're faulty and imperfect when it comes to drawing conclusions from scientific findings....but just not to the scriptures.  That doesn't hold water if you ask someone like me.  

[Guest shiloh357]

From the book....

We are not forgetful that physical science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see as through a glass darkly, and we confidently believe that a time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular.

...

We believe that it is the duty of every scientific student to investigate Nature simply for the purpose of elucidating truth, and that if he finds that some of his results appear to be in contradiction to the written Word, or rather to his own interpretation of it, which may be erroneous, he should not presumptiously affirm that his own conclusions must be right, and the statements of Scriptures wrong. 

 

What I would want to ask Rehwinkle is why the "see as through a glass darkly" applies to the natural sciences but not his conclusion that Holy Scripture is divine and infallible.

He essentially spends several paragraphs encouraging people to always choose scripture over science if they ever butt heads.  So we're faulty and imperfect when it comes to drawing conclusions from scientific findings....but just not to the scriptures.  That doesn't hold water if you ask someone like me.  

There are explicit claims in the Bible that support our views that the Bible is both of divine origin (and internal evidence to support that claim) and that the Bible is infallible with regard to its teachings.   Even in those more explicit claims we do see through  glass darkly, albeit not as much as in other parts of the Bible, which are still a mystery to us, such as the area of eschatology.   There are things about God revealed in the Bible that we still don't completely  understand.   So it is not the case that don't see through a glass darkly with regard to Scripture.  But there are things about which we are more enlightened about than others.

[Bonky]

From the book....

We are not forgetful that physical science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see as through a glass darkly, and we confidently believe that a time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular.

...

We believe that it is the duty of every scientific student to investigate Nature simply for the purpose of elucidating truth, and that if he finds that some of his results appear to be in contradiction to the written Word, or rather to his own interpretation of it, which may be erroneous, he should not presumptiously affirm that his own conclusions must be right, and the statements of Scriptures wrong. 

 

What I would want to ask Rehwinkle is why the "see as through a glass darkly" applies to the natural sciences but not his conclusion that Holy Scripture is divine and infallible.

He essentially spends several paragraphs encouraging people to always choose scripture over science if they ever butt heads.  So we're faulty and imperfect when it comes to drawing conclusions from scientific findings....but just not to the scriptures.  That doesn't hold water if you ask someone like me.  

There are explicit claims in the Bible that support our views that the Bible is both of divine origin (and internal evidence to support that claim) and that the Bible is infallible with regard to its teachings.   Even in those more explicit claims we do see through  glass darkly, albeit not as much as in other parts of the Bible, which are still a mystery to us, such as the area of eschatology.   There are things about God revealed in the Bible that we still don't completely  understand.   So it is not the case that don't see through a glass darkly with regard to Scripture.  But there are things about which we are more enlightened about than others.

Right, and your ability to process these claims and conclude that the Bible is divine or infallible is what I'm calling into question.   Why is that any different than processing scientific claims in terms of possibly being wrong?  The claim being made by Rehwinkle, the Bible [apparently] and many other Christians is that we're incomplete, fallen, imperfect, prone to err humans....why doesn't this apply to all things that we evaluate then?   That is the crux of my challenge.

He actually states in the book that it's impossible for the scriptures to be wrong.  That's is one heck of a pronouncement from someone that cautions us about how easily we can be wrong about things.

[Guest shiloh357]

From the book....

We are not forgetful that physical science is not complete, but is only in a condition of progress, and that at present our finite reason enables us only to see as through a glass darkly, and we confidently believe that a time will come when the two records will be seen to agree in every particular.

...

We believe that it is the duty of every scientific student to investigate Nature simply for the purpose of elucidating truth, and that if he finds that some of his results appear to be in contradiction to the written Word, or rather to his own interpretation of it, which may be erroneous, he should not presumptiously affirm that his own conclusions must be right, and the statements of Scriptures wrong. 

 

What I would want to ask Rehwinkle is why the "see as through a glass darkly" applies to the natural sciences but not his conclusion that Holy Scripture is divine and infallible.

He essentially spends several paragraphs encouraging people to always choose scripture over science if they ever butt heads.  So we're faulty and imperfect when it comes to drawing conclusions from scientific findings....but just not to the scriptures.  That doesn't hold water if you ask someone like me.  

There are explicit claims in the Bible that support our views that the Bible is both of divine origin (and internal evidence to support that claim) and that the Bible is infallible with regard to its teachings.   Even in those more explicit claims we do see through  glass darkly, albeit not as much as in other parts of the Bible, which are still a mystery to us, such as the area of eschatology.   There are things about God revealed in the Bible that we still don't completely  understand.   So it is not the case that don't see through a glass darkly with regard to Scripture.  But there are things about which we are more enlightened about than others.

 

Right, and your ability to process these claims and conclude that the Bible is divine or infallible is what I'm calling into question.   Why is that any different than processing scientific claims in terms of possibly being wrong?  The claim being made by Rehwinkle, the Bible [apparently] and many other Christians is that we're incomplete, fallen, imperfect, prone to err humans....why doesn't this apply to all things that we evaluate then?   That is the crux of my challenge.

He actually states in the book that it's impossible for the scriptures to be wrong.  That's is one heck of a pronouncement from someone that cautions us about how easily we can be wrong about things.

That's my point...   Even in the things about the Bible that we understand more fully, we are still operating from a deficit of knowledge and understanding.   We can read the Bible and generally make sense of it, but there are parts that we either see and don't understand or perhaps we don't see at all just now.   It is a gradual unfolding process.  I don't think he is saying that we know the Bible perfectly, but can't understand science as perfectly.

But yes, the Bible is never wrong.  We may not understand it, but the Bible is inerrant and infallible meaning it's claims are never wrong.  Our understanding of those claims are imperfect and thus we are imperfect in how we communicate them and understand them, but the Bible is never wrong and will continue to be vindicated. 

[Bonky]

Shiloh you said:

That's my point...   Even in the things about the Bible that we understand more fully, we are still operating from a deficit of knowledge and understanding.   We can read the Bible and generally make sense of it, but there are parts that we either see and don't understand or perhaps we don't see at all just now.   It is a gradual unfolding process.  I don't think he is saying that we know the Bible perfectly, but can't understand science as perfectly.

But yes, the Bible is never wrong.  We may not understand it, but the Bible is inerrant and infallible meaning it's claims are never wrong.  Our understanding of those claims are imperfect and thus we are imperfect in how we communicate them and understand them, but the Bible is never wrong and will continue to be vindicated.

 

I don't know how you can go from admitting that we have a deficit of knowledge and understanding of scriptures but then follow up with "the Bible is never wrong".   The fallacy that Rehwinkle is engaging in is special pleading.  He doesn't provide justification for why he [and others] is exempt from error when it comes to assessing biblical claims.  

I understand we have different assumptions that we work with, different world views.   I just don't agree with proclaiming one world view is fraught with errors meanwhile assuring all that your starting point is error free.  It doesn't work like that.

[missmuffet]

Who needs evidence?Isn't the Holy Bible enough?

[MorningGlory]

As we stated in our first issue of our magazine, we have lots of evidence for Noah's flood. We do not need to waste any more money searching for his ark when there is plenty of evidence all around us. A couple of examples we used in the article in that magazine:

 

I don't know if I'm just missing something or what but......WHAT magazine???

[Bonky]

Who needs evidence?Isn't the Holy Bible enough?

Depending on the claim, I very well may need evidence.  It's what keeps me from buying beachfront property in places like Arizona.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh you said:

That's my point...   Even in the things about the Bible that we understand more fully, we are still operating from a deficit of knowledge and understanding.   We can read the Bible and generally make sense of it, but there are parts that we either see and don't understand or perhaps we don't see at all just now.   It is a gradual unfolding process.  I don't think he is saying that we know the Bible perfectly, but can't understand science as perfectly.

But yes, the Bible is never wrong.  We may not understand it, but the Bible is inerrant and infallible meaning it's claims are never wrong.  Our understanding of those claims are imperfect and thus we are imperfect in how we communicate them and understand them, but the Bible is never wrong and will continue to be vindicated.

 

I don't know how you can go from admitting that we have a deficit of knowledge and understanding of scriptures but then follow up with "the Bible is never wrong".   The fallacy that Rehwinkle is engaging in is special pleading.  He doesn't provide justification for why he [and others] is exempt from error when it comes to assessing biblical claims.  

I understand we have different assumptions that we work with, different world views.   I just don't agree with proclaiming one world view is fraught with errors meanwhile assuring all that your starting point is error free.  It doesn't work like that.

The Bible comes from an all-knowing God who doesn't make errors.  So even if I don't completely understand it, I can completely trust that every word in it is 100% true.  An all-knowing, all-powerful God is always right and he can preserve a book of His that is always true.

There is no special pleading at all.  The biblical worldview is the only correct one, again because it comes from a God who doesn't make errors.  So yeah, it does work like that.