Man was in Pangaea

[The Barbarian]

12 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

2 Vayyiccaakhuw ma`ynot t-howm va'arubot hashaamaayim vayyikalee' haggeshem min-hashaamaayim:

This translates word-for-word as ...

2 And-were-stopped-up springs of-deep and-the-sluices of-the-skies and-was-restrained the-rain from-the-skies:

Sluices are flood gates.

sluice  sloo͞s

noun

1. An artificial channel for conducting water, with a valve or gate to regulate the flow.
2. A valve or gate used in such a channel; a floodgate.
3. A body of water impounded behind a floodgate.

Floodgates in a domelike structure.   That's how the Hebrews saw the sky.   Which is why it's in the Bible. 

14 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

These words suggest that first, the many springs of the deep burst forth and then the waters came GUSHING down when it rained for those 40 days and 40 nights.

So, like so many other things, it wasn't literally floodgates.  It was a figurative account.

15 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

This was no small flood in Mesopotamia! This was GLOBAL!

The Bible doesn't say it's global.  If it was, they would have used the word for the whole world (tebel) rather than just "land." ( erets)

 

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

This was no light rain! This was worse than a torrential downpour! Yes, there's a little imagery there, but it's there to DESCRIBE the inundation of water!

So, all of the water - half of the water on the planet, however it was suspended above the skies - was released from the waters above the skies in a mere 40 days and nights! It ALL came crashing down!

Well, that fits the ancient Mesopotamian idea of a domed sky with floodgates in it to let water through.   But there's some practical problems with that addition to scripture.

You see, half the water would mean the layer of water in the skies would be about 1.3 km deep.     But 200 meters of water pretty much screens out all sunlight.   You might be able to look up and detect some light at even 1000 meters, but it would be very dark and no plants could live. 

Then there's the problem with that water out there above the atmosphere.   Even in very low orbit, the pressure is so low, that the water would simply evaporate.   Even if it was ice, it would sublimate rapidly in sunlight.

Then, there's the problem of that mass crashing down onto the Earth.   Objects in low orbit, falling into the atmosphere usually burn up, unless they are quite large.  And then they become exceedingly hot.   The impact would exceed any known object on the Earth in the past, except the object that slammed into the Earth and threw up enough debris into space to form the Moon.   All life on Earth would have been steam-cooked.

So no.   The Assyrians and Sumerians just got it wrong.   The Hebrews shared those assumptions of a domed sky and a water above and floodgates in the dome, but that's not how it works.  Sorry.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

No air-breathing animal or human being survived that, UNLESS they were with Noach and his family within the ark!

That's another problem.   Whales on the Ark would have been something of a problem.   But they don't appear in the "flood deposits" at all.  We only see them, in Cenozoic deposits.    And how did they survive?   Anyway, it's doubtful if the Ark was insulated well enough to resist a planet filled with superheated steam.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

This was no small flood in Mesopotamia! This was GLOBAL!

That's an assumption not found in scripture.   The "erets" (land) was covered, but it does not use the word "tebel" which would indicated a world-wide flood.   It says the land was covered.   Not the world.   Erets can mean "my land", "this nation", "as far as I can see", "hereabouts" and so on.   But not "global."   In fact, the Hebrews at that time didn't even realize the Earth was a globe, nor did they write that the whole world was covered.   Much later Peter used "κόσμος" to describe the flood area,which Luke 2:1 used to indicate the extent of the Roman Empire.   Which seems about right, given the evidence.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Practically every culture on the face of the planet has a flood story in its history! Why would that be?

Since there have been a lot of floods, it would be rather odd if they didn't.   Some of them, like those that happened in Mesopotamia, China, or the Black Sea area, have been huge and catastrophic, and often covered everything as far as the eye could see.

.

 

[Retrobyter]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, that fits the ancient Mesopotamian idea of a domed sky with floodgates in it to let water through.   But there's some practical problems with that addition to scripture.

You see, half the water would mean the layer of water in the skies would be about 1.3 km deep.     But 200 meters of water pretty much screens out all sunlight.   You might be able to look up and detect some light at even 1000 meters, but it would be very dark and no plants could live. 

Shalom, The Barbarian.

Yes, I've wrestled with this in the past. There is also an ice-canopy theory that suggests that a dome of ice surrounded the planet, like a shield. And, there are subzero temperatures in some of the layers of the upper atmosphere. However, the ice couldn't be too thick or you'd have that same problem as you do with water about 200 meters thick. Even crown glass has a slight diffusion of light that causes transparency to go to translucency and then to being opaque.

So, i'd opted for a water vapor canopy theory. Water vapor, being a gas, is transparent to light no matter how thick.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Then there's the problem with that water out there above the atmosphere.   Even in very low orbit, the pressure is so low, that the water would simply evaporate.   Even if it was ice, it would sublimate rapidly in sunlight.

This got me to thinking ... SUBLIMATE! It's possible that it is an ice canopy that has a limited thickness with water vapor above it! When it gets enough energy from outside sources and with the pressure low, it might sublimate into the water vapor, and then freeze again when it fell to the subzero levels.

Anyway, an ice canopy would be your "dome." Not one that sits upon the earth at the edges, as flat-earthers would suggest, but a sphere of ice surrounding the planet and partially supported by the pressure of the atmosphere compressed below it.

Of course, this was ONLY before the Flood! Now, the ice canopy is gone, and the waters that were above the atmosphere are now below the atmosphere and some within the atmosphere as clouds.

All of this conjecture, however, is just that - conjecture. However God did it before the Flood, there WAS enough water above the atmosphere for it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights, for God tells us that this is what happened. Now, some of that rain could have been "recycled" from the hot climates below, allowing the water to evaporate and rain again, but in any case, it lasted for more than a month! Most of the water came from the many springs of the deep! 

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Then, there's the problem of that mass crashing down onto the Earth.   Objects in low orbit, falling into the atmosphere usually burn up, unless they are quite large.  And then they become exceedingly hot.   The impact would exceed any known object on the Earth in the past, except the object that slammed into the Earth and threw up enough debris into space to form the Moon.   All life on Earth would have been steam-cooked.

No, you're forgetting. Along with the higher temperatures that DID in fact occur at the tropical zone, there was a balancing of colder temperatures at the poles. There's enough evidence to suggest that the poles were colder than "normal" and the equator was hotter than "normal!" Furthermore, there's the WIND that God produced to dry up all the waters. We call them a "jet stream" today. These dominated the temporate zones, during the year of the Flood, and preserved aquatic life and the Ark within the core of the northern jet stream. 

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

So no.   The Assyrians and Sumerians just got it wrong.   The Hebrews shared those assumptions of a domed sky and a water above and floodgates in the dome, but that's not how it works.  Sorry.

That's another problem.   Whales on the Ark would have been something of a problem.   But they don't appear in the "flood deposits" at all.  We only see them, in Cenozoic deposits.    And how did they survive?   Anyway, it's doubtful if the Ark was insulated well enough to resist a planet filled with superheated steam.

Whales weren't on the Ark, nor were dolphins, nor any other aquatic life!

Read it again:

Genesis 7:17-24; 8:1-19 (KJV)

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (This was the clearance height of the Ark.) 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 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. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; 2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped (clogged), and the rain from heaven was restrained; 3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. 4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: 7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. 8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the (sur)face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. 10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. 12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. 15 And God spake unto Noah, saying, 

16 "Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee. 17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth."

18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him: 19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

So, none of the species of living things that lived in the water were aboard this Ark. While some of them were probably killed in the turmoil, many survived just fine.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's an assumption not found in scripture.   The "erets" (land) was covered, but it does not use the word "tebel" which would indicated a world-wide flood.   It says the land was covered.   Not the world.   Erets can mean "my land", "this nation", "as far as I can see", "hereabouts" and so on.   But not "global."   In fact, the Hebrews at that time didn't even realize the Earth was a globe, nor did they write that the whole world was covered.  

You don't know any of that! It's said that Iyov ("Job") was a contemporary of Avraham, who came before Mosheh ("Moses"), who wrote down the Torah for us. Iyov said, 

Job 26:7-10 (NIV)

7 "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
8 He wraps up the waters in his clouds,
yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
9 He covers the face of the full moon,
spreading his clouds over it.
10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters
for a boundary between light and darkness."

Job 38:12-14 (KJV)

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment."

Suggesting that the earth is rotating!

Yesha`yahuw ("Isaiah") said that God said,

Isaiah 40:1-23 (KJV)

1 "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people," saith your God.

2 "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins."

3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,

"Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: 5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

6 The voice said,

"Cry!"

And he said,

"What shall I cry?"

"All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

9 O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah,

"Behold your God! 10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. 11 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young."

12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counseller hath taught him?

14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?

15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.

16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering.

17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.

18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.

20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.

21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

22 IT IS HE THAT SITTETH UPON THE CIRCLE OF THE EARTH, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

Look, I'm no expert on the background of the Scriptures; however, I am CONVINCED that we should be considering the normal, grammatical-historical method of interpretation, and that usually involves a literal viewpoint. While it's not always literal and sometimes involves SOME figurative language, that is NOT the principle purpose of the text! The text is usually to TELL HISTORY!

Furthermore, the text didn't have to use the word "teeVeel" ("tebel") as you claim. That is a word that means "to be carried along; to be brought." It is talking about the "inhabited world," much as "kosmos" does in Greek.

To use "'erets" for the whole earth is simple. All the text would have to do is add the word "kol" or "kaal" which means "ALL!" "All the land" is "ALL the land masses!" That's the same that Greek does by adding "pan" or "panta" to "gee! " In fact, that is from where the term "Pangaea" comes!

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Much later Peter used "κόσμος" to describe the flood area,which Luke 2:1 used to indicate the extent of the Roman Empire.   Which seems about right, given the evidence.

Since there have been a lot of floods, it would be rather odd if they didn't.   Some of them, like those that happened in Mesopotamia, China, or the Black Sea area, have been huge and catastrophic, and often covered everything as far as the eye could see.

Y'know, if you'd work as hard FOR a literal translation of the Bible as you do AGAINST it, you'd make some SIGNIFICANT progress in understanding the rest of the Bible!

If you can't trust the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood, how can you trust the Christ who believed it?

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

So, i'd opted for a water vapor canopy theory. Water vapor, being a gas, is transparent to light no matter how thick.

It would not be transparent to infrared light.   It would trap almost all infrared radiation coming from the surface.   So instead of the Earth being like Pluto, it would be like Venus, hot enough to melt lead.

 

 

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

This got me to thinking ... SUBLIMATE! It's possible that it is an ice canopy that has a limited thickness with water vapor above it! When it gets enough energy from outside sources and with the pressure low, it might sublimate into the water vapor, and then freeze again when it fell to the subzero levels.

Anyway, an ice canopy would be your "dome." Not one that sits upon the earth at the edges, as flat-earthers would suggest, but a sphere of ice surrounding the planet and partially supported by the pressure of the atmosphere compressed below it.

That's a problem, too.   Such pressures would be extremely difficult for life.   And there just isn't enough gas to be compressed such that it would hold ice up at any sort of altitude.   It's one of the problems with such ideas.   The planet is very fine-tuned for life; (IDers say "front loaded") changing stuff like this always messes things up.   And consider when the canopy went away during the flood how sudden decompression would affect living things. 

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Whales weren't on the Ark, nor were dolphins, nor any other aquatic life!

So why do we only find whales in "post-flood" Cenozoic deposits?

Then, there's the problem of that mass crashing down onto the Earth.   Objects in low orbit, falling into the atmosphere usually burn up, unless they are quite large.  And then they become exceedingly hot.   The impact would exceed any known object on the Earth in the past, except the object that slammed into the Earth and threw up enough debris into space to form the Moon.   All life on Earth would have been steam-cooked.

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

No, you're forgetting. Along with the higher temperatures that DID in fact occur at the tropical zone, there was a balancing of colder temperatures at the poles.

No.   The laws of themodynamics are what they are.   All that kinetic energy would be converted to heat.    We are talking about the mass of several oceans falling into the atmosphere, converting that kinetic energy to heat.   It would produce oven-like temperatures over the Earth.   The atmosphere does not have enough mass to cool such a huge amount of superheated water.

The "erets" (land) was covered, but it does not use the word "tebel" which would indicated a world-wide flood.   It says the land was covered.   Not the world.   Erets can mean "my land", "this nation", "as far as I can see", "hereabouts" and so on.   But not "global."   In fact, the Hebrews at that time didn't even realize the Earth was a globe, nor did they write that the whole world was covered.  

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

You don't know any of that!

It's in scripture.    If the had meant "whole world" they would have used "tebel."   But they used the world for "land" (erets) instead.

And Peter's use of cosmos for the flood is the same word used for the extent of the Roman Empire in the Bible.   

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Look, I'm no expert on the background of the Scriptures; however, I am CONVINCED that we should be considering the normal, grammatical-historical method of interpretation, and that usually involves a literal viewpoint.

As you see, that's what brings us to the realization that the creation week is a figurative story, not a literal one.   

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Y'know, if you'd work as hard FOR a literal translation of the Bible as you do AGAINST it

Like St. Augustine, I did that.   Only after years of study, did he accept that the creation story had to be figurative.   It just doesn't work as a literal history.   And it doesn't matter a bit to your salvation.   That's not what the story is about.

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

If you can't trust the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood, how can you trust the Christ who believed it?

Even if you reject the creation account as a figurative story, that doesn't mean you can't trust Christ (who never said it was a literal story, after all).

[kwikphilly]

12 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It would not be transparent to infrared light.   It would trap almost all infrared radiation coming from the surface.   So instead of the Earth being like Pluto, it would be like Venus, hot enough to melt lead.

 

 

That's a problem, too.   Such pressures would be extremely difficult for life.   And there just isn't enough gas to be compressed such that it would hold ice up at any sort of altitude.   It's one of the problems with such ideas.   The planet is very fine-tuned for life; (IDers say "front loaded") changing stuff like this always messes things up.   And consider when the canopy went away during the flood how sudden decompression would affect living things. 

So why do we only find whales in "post-flood" Cenozoic deposits?

Then, there's the problem of that mass crashing down onto the Earth.   Objects in low orbit, falling into the atmosphere usually burn up, unless they are quite large.  And then they become exceedingly hot.   The impact would exceed any known object on the Earth in the past, except the object that slammed into the Earth and threw up enough debris into space to form the Moon.   All life on Earth would have been steam-cooked.

No.   The laws of themodynamics are what they are.   All that kinetic energy would be converted to heat.    We are talking about the mass of several oceans falling into the atmosphere, converting that kinetic energy to heat.   It would produce oven-like temperatures over the Earth.   The atmosphere does not have enough mass to cool such a huge amount of superheated water.

The "erets" (land) was covered, but it does not use the word "tebel" which would indicated a world-wide flood.   It says the land was covered.   Not the world.   Erets can mean "my land", "this nation", "as far as I can see", "hereabouts" and so on.   But not "global."   In fact, the Hebrews at that time didn't even realize the Earth was a globe, nor did they write that the whole world was covered.  

It's in scripture.    If the had meant "whole world" they would have used "tebel."   But they used the world for "land" (erets) instead.

And Peter's use of cosmos for the flood is the same word used for the extent of the Roman Empire in the Bible.   

As you see, that's what brings us to the realization that the creation week is a figurative story, not a literal one.   

Like St. Augustine, I did that.   Only after years of study, did he accept that the creation story had to be figurative.   It just doesn't work as a literal history.   And it doesn't matter a bit to your salvation.   That's not what the story is about.

Even if you reject the creation account as a figurative story, that doesn't mean you can't trust Christ (who never said it was a literal story, after all).

Blessings Barbarian. .

So what specifically changed your mind? I'm seeing that you once did believe the 6 Day Creation was a literal 6 days .I also know you mentioned " after years of study,"I get that BUT what was the " icing on the cake" so to speak,for you?

After all,there were things in the Bible that I Believed firmly that " after years of study," I learned and saw another way but usually I can always recall something very specific that put me over the edge,no doubt you can relate to what I'm saying having studied and researched for such a very long time

Can you share with me what was your turning point ?Or maybe it's just too much to say (or count)rather than one particular fact....

In His Love , Kwik

[The Barbarian]

Mostly, reading commentary on Genesis.    St. Augustine made a huge impression on me in his writing.    This was important to my thinking:

"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

...Now, it is adisgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense 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 the 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 theymake assertion.”"

St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

Having considered this, the doubt I had as a HS senior and college freshman fell away.   It was a revelation; scripture wasn't a legal document, it was a guide.    Also, C.S. Lewis, the master of practical Christianity, had a huge impact on me.   Mere Christianity, although I don't agree with absolutely everything therein, seems to me to be pretty close to what Jesus was trying to tell us.   Get this:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

And I realized that while we haven't personally experienced the events of Good Friday and the aftermath, the apostles did.   And they were so convinced that He was God and rose from the dead, came back to speak to them and leave them with His final mission for them, they were willing to die rather than deny it.   That counts for something, I think.

So God is true and consistent with the world we have; His own creastion.  And we must look for the spirit of His word, rather than some parsed legalism like the Pharisees.    

Edited March 7, 2023 by The Barbarian

[teddyv]

6 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings Barbarian. .

So what specifically changed your mind? I'm seeing that you once did believe the 6 Day Creation was a literal 6 days .I also know you mentioned " after years of study,"I get that BUT what was the " icing on the cake" so to speak,for you?

After all,there were things in the Bible that I Believed firmly that " after years of study," I learned and saw another way but usually I can always recall something very specific that put me over the edge,no doubt you can relate to what I'm saying having studied and researched for such a very long time

Can you share with me what was your turning point ?Or maybe it's just too much to say (or count)rather than one particular fact....

In His Love , Kwik

If I may...

I am a bit similar to @The Barbarian in my views, so here's a bit of my story.

For myself, I don't think there was any "turning point". In my formative years, I always had an interest in geology and astronomy, two subjects that are often at odds with the young earth creationism. I read books as a kid that spoke of these things in the conventional scientific ways and did not really think too deeply on the apparent conflict with a literal view of Genesis.

I went to small Christian elementary school and these topics were really not brought up that often. I recall going over very evolution versus the Biblical view once in Grade 6, I think, but it was so simple and basic that it did not really confront me with any quandary. As I got older, into high school and university, it just became more and more clear to me that the interpretation of the Biblical narrative was not meant to be a scientific treatise on the subject. We had been given the authority or dominion over the creation to subdue it, and one can argue that ongoing scientific research and knowledge has allowed us to manipulate the created world to our benefit, subduing it, so to speak. 

In university, studying as a geologist, I was totally OK with an old earth, and the idea of deep time and fossils. There was simply nothing that I found challenging to my faith.

My lack of any crisis, as some kids have had to deal with, is likely because my parents and my church were not dogmatic on this issue at all. My grandfather totally accepted an old earth. My parents weren't vocal about it, but never voiced any real concerns. I don't recall ever hearing a sermon on the literalness of Genesis and that it is a requirement of all believers to accept it. I would guess most of my pastors over the years were old earther's at minimum, but it's not like I asked. There are people in my current church that are YEC, many that certainly accept and old earth, and probably a few that are OK with evolution.

Recently, one of our local churches hosted a speaker from Creation Ministries International, speaking on these issues, and while I was very aware of what was going to be said, I was still rather shocked at the tone and propagandistic nature of the presentation. There was so much misleading information presented to suit their narrative. There was no thoughtful examination of their own YEC viewpoint against the competing dominant scientific theories. It was all "gotcha" type points, argument by headlines and wild extra-Biblical speculation. I would not necessarily say the presenter was actively lying, since he was not qualified in any of the subjects, but was essentially reading a script. However, if you consider a lie of omission still a lie, then this gentleman was in deep.

[kwikphilly]

14 hours ago, teddyv said:

If I may...

I am a bit similar to @The Barbarian in my views, so here's a bit of my story.

For myself, I don't think there was any "turning point". In my formative years, I always had an interest in geology and astronomy, two subjects that are often at odds with the young earth creationism. I read books as a kid that spoke of these things in the conventional scientific ways and did not really think too deeply on the apparent conflict with a literal view of Genesis.

I went to small Christian elementary school and these topics were really not brought up that often. I recall going over very evolution versus the Biblical view once in Grade 6, I think, but it was so simple and basic that it did not really confront me with any quandary. As I got older, into high school and university, it just became more and more clear to me that the interpretation of the Biblical narrative was not meant to be a scientific treatise on the subject. We had been given the authority or dominion over the creation to subdue it, and one can argue that ongoing scientific research and knowledge has allowed us to manipulate the created world to our benefit, subduing it, so to speak. 

In university, studying as a geologist, I was totally OK with an old earth, and the idea of deep time and fossils. There was simply nothing that I found challenging to my faith.

My lack of any crisis, as some kids have had to deal with, is likely because my parents and my church were not dogmatic on this issue at all. My grandfather totally accepted an old earth. My parents weren't vocal about it, but never voiced any real concerns. I don't recall ever hearing a sermon on the literalness of Genesis and that it is a requirement of all believers to accept it. I would guess most of my pastors over the years were old earther's at minimum, but it's not like I asked. There are people in my current church that are YEC, many that certainly accept and old earth, and probably a few that are OK with evolution.

Recently, one of our local churches hosted a speaker from Creation Ministries International, speaking on these issues, and while I was very aware of what was going to be said, I was still rather shocked at the tone and propagandistic nature of the presentation. There was so much misleading information presented to suit their narrative. There was no thoughtful examination of their own YEC viewpoint against the competing dominant scientific theories. It was all "gotcha" type points, argument by headlines and wild extra-Biblical speculation. I would not necessarily say the presenter was actively lying, since he was not qualified in any of the subjects, but was essentially reading a script. However, if you consider a lie of omission still a lie, then this gentleman was in deep.

Hi Teddy

Of course you may!!👍Your input and contributions are always welcome and I really love when my Brothers & Sisters share about their personal journeys. . Teddy,I'm not as interested in a person's views or interpretations but much more so in they themselves and why they believe as they do---- thank you ,from the bottom of my heart!

It's funny,quite profound really- I too studied the " sciences"and much more so post graduate.... Sounds like we had a very similar environment growing up and although I went to a private religious academy in my formative years the propagandistic nature of the YEC presentations were probably the same as what you heard from Creation Ministries when the did touch on the subject which was not often.

So basically I believe it was our own research and studies that lead us to our own conclusions ....What is funny to me is that,here I am a YEC Believer who was absolutely positive that the Genesis account was figurative and not literal because there were just far too many scientific theories that substantiated the opposite ( with,what I believed at the time was concrete evidence)

And then I think it was the unreliability of carbon dating that set me on a new path and at that time I was in rebellion,trying as hard as I possibly could to discredit the very Word of God.    To make a very long story short,it was then I found that science continued to fail but the Word of God Never Did .   People look at me as if I had 2 heads when I say " Science has a long way to go to keep up with God's Word". 

Still,I came to a very good conclusion,the 2 are not in opposition-science actually brought me back on track in finding my Way back to my First Love-Praise Jesus!

It's always delightful to me to read the exchanges between Brothers like Retro & Barbarian,Science is still very interesting to me though no longer a passion and it's quite nice to listen to our Brothers and people such as yourself that do have scientific knowledge---- it's a pet peeves of mind to read what the "googlers" post,having no academic background(it's annoying,lol) Much like the Verse quoters that include their Strongs Dictionary quotes and Gills Exposition etc as you scroll n scroll n scroll!!!!

Btw,I do consider " omission" a lie,it's deception - if it's intentional and usually is when one wants to support their personal agenda.Its hard to understand why anyone would go through so much trouble,time and effort to "prove" their point regarding OEC ,YEC or an evolution theory anyway?Like Barbarian & I were saying earlier,"What difference does it really make"...  For 2 Born Again Believers that is,certainly  none that would separate us.    Right Teddy?

Be Blessed,thanks so much for your reply❤️

In His Love,Kwik

.

[kwikphilly]

21 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Mostly, reading commentary on Genesis.    St. Augustine made a huge impression on me in his writing.    This was important to my thinking:

"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

...Now, it is adisgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense 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 the 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 theymake assertion.”"

St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

Having considered this, the doubt I had as a HS senior and college freshman fell away.   It was a revelation; scripture wasn't a legal document, it was a guide.    Also, C.S. Lewis, the master of practical Christianity, had a huge impact on me.   Mere Christianity, although I don't agree with absolutely everything therein, seems to me to be pretty close to what Jesus was trying to tell us.   Get this:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

And I realized that while we haven't personally experienced the events of Good Friday and the aftermath, the apostles did.   And they were so convinced that He was God and rose from the dead, came back to speak to them and leave them with His final mission for them, they were willing to die rather than deny it.   That counts for something, I think.

So God is true and consistent with the world we have; His own creastion.  And we must look for the spirit of His word, rather than some parsed legalism like the Pharisees.    

Brother- this is one of the best posts I've read lately,now we are talking the Gospel!!

I just lit up when you said " Im trying to prevent anyone from saying that really foolish thing about Jesus ...  "

You nailed it Brother,the Gospel Truth,that Faith that is the WAY to God's Saving Grace.   .Jesus,God the Son!No way was He a great Teacher,a great Martyr ,a great man ,great prophet or any such thing because then He was a lunatic,a liar or the devil himself!!!!! SPOT ON- Praise the Lord

Tell it Brother!Lovin it👍

With love in Christ, Kwik

[The Barbarian]

4 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

Brother- this is one of the best posts I've read lately,now we are talking the Gospel!!

I just lit up when you said " Im trying to prevent anyone from saying that really foolish thing about Jesus ...  "

You nailed it Brother,the Gospel Truth,that Faith that is the WAY to God's Saving Grace.   .Jesus,God the Son!No way was He a great Teacher,a great Martyr ,a great man ,great prophet or any such thing because then He was a lunatic,a liar or the devil himself!!!!! SPOT ON- Praise the Lord

Tell it Brother!Lovin it👍

I was quoting C.S. Lewis, who was as I said, the master of applied Christianity.   I believe he is right, but those were his words, not mine.  I should have made that more clear.