My roommate thinks that Genesis 8:21 contradicts Revelation because it says the earth will never again be destroyed, whereas it clearly will in Revalation. What are your thoughts? I'd like to use something besides the fact that it says "...in this way."
Thanks
A Genesis contradiction my roommate found
The earth was never destroyed.
Gen 8:21-22 And Jehovah smelled a sweet odor. And Jehovah said in His heart, I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. And I will not again smite every living thing as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Gen 8:21-22 And Jehovah smelled a sweet odor. And Jehovah said in His heart, I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. And I will not again smite every living thing as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
-
RGeeB
- Established Member
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:31 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Surrey, England
Genesis 8:21 does not say that! Genesis 9:15 says that God will never destroy the earth again with water (no need to fear global warming!).
When the time does come for God to destroy the earth, He will do it with fire. By then there won't be any living creature left on earth. (They would have been judged).
When the time does come for God to destroy the earth, He will do it with fire. By then there won't be any living creature left on earth. (They would have been judged).
Maranatha!
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
Good point, thanks!Deborah wrote:The earth was never destroyed.
Gen 8:21-22 And Jehovah smelled a sweet odor. And Jehovah said in His heart, I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. And I will not again smite every living thing as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
-
Mastermind
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm
Who's "we"? I am more than capable of surviving in an oppresive environment with very few materials. Short of the Earth turning into the sun, I doubt global warming can take me out, especially if society turns to anarchy and looting becomes a way of life.vajaradakini wrote: Global warming will not just raise the oceans, it will also kill the rainforests and crops. So yes, we do have much to fear from global warming.
-
Dale Tooley
- Familiar Member
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:57 am
- Christian: No
- Location: New Zealand
Global Warming
Far too many believe that global warming is an established fact and there has been a lie perpetuated that there is consensus on the subject among scientists. The big push on this consistantly comes from those who want world control from a one world government which is strongly (though not exclusively) motivated to both humanism and socialism. Here are two letters that appeared in New Zealand's largest circulation newspaper, the NZ Herald in the last week:
Lead letter NZ Herald 17 Feb. 2005
Kyoto's just nonsense
Environment Minister "Pisto'" Pete Hodgson is firing blanks again, as he always does when he tries to justify the Kyoto Protocol.
He lists the same old, tired litany of weather catastrophes - you know, the higher temperatures, more floods, more droughts, more storm surges, more hurricanes, rising sea levels. Did he forget more snowstorms, more hail, more fog, more wind, less wind?
Is the minister aware of what the so called global warming is predicated upon - the atmospheric greenhouse effect? Is he aware that this process actually keeps this planet at a comfortable average temperature of 15C instead of the 18C that would prevail without it?
Does he ever tell us that water vapour the fabulous gas that keeps this planet green and liveable - is the most copious of all greenhouse gases?
And is he aware that Niwa temperature statistics for the past 12 months show that New Zealand was on average 0.5C cooler in eight of the 12 months, bucking the trend of global warming?
The minister reminds us that "Almost all the record years for high temperatures have been in the past decade or so". Not surprising, since it's at the end of a 50-year phase dating back to the 1950s corresponding to the hottest and most active period of sunspot activity on the solar surface since 1650.
A cooler, quieter phase of sunspot activity began in 2001 and is continuing to arrest the trend of warming temperatures worldwide.
The next five to 10 years will show the Kyoto Protocol to be a classic example of rash political decision being made on popular but unfortunately weak and incomplete science. It will costs us heaps, and the global warming zealots will be running for cover.
Augie Auer, meteorological consultant, Birkenhead.
Global warming
NZ Herald 23 Feb 2005
Augie Auer's letter ruffled the feathers of global warming alarmists, in particular some in the Crown climate research establishment. This is because Dr Auer is no climate science lightweight.
He was chief meteorologist for the New Zealand Meteorological Service from 1990 to 1998. Before that he worked for 22 years as a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.
Dr Auer is not alone among scientists here and overseas opposing the extravagant claims, such as, "human-caused global warming is here and now", "human caused global warming is a fact", "the science is settled", 'There is a consensus among climate scientists" etc.
Perhaps this could be used as a platform to arrange a proper review of New Zealand's climate (and Kyoto) policy. I know from response to the public lectures I give that there is a great deal of suppressed public anger about the issue.
Dr Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland.
Lead letter NZ Herald 17 Feb. 2005
Kyoto's just nonsense
Environment Minister "Pisto'" Pete Hodgson is firing blanks again, as he always does when he tries to justify the Kyoto Protocol.
He lists the same old, tired litany of weather catastrophes - you know, the higher temperatures, more floods, more droughts, more storm surges, more hurricanes, rising sea levels. Did he forget more snowstorms, more hail, more fog, more wind, less wind?
Is the minister aware of what the so called global warming is predicated upon - the atmospheric greenhouse effect? Is he aware that this process actually keeps this planet at a comfortable average temperature of 15C instead of the 18C that would prevail without it?
Does he ever tell us that water vapour the fabulous gas that keeps this planet green and liveable - is the most copious of all greenhouse gases?
And is he aware that Niwa temperature statistics for the past 12 months show that New Zealand was on average 0.5C cooler in eight of the 12 months, bucking the trend of global warming?
The minister reminds us that "Almost all the record years for high temperatures have been in the past decade or so". Not surprising, since it's at the end of a 50-year phase dating back to the 1950s corresponding to the hottest and most active period of sunspot activity on the solar surface since 1650.
A cooler, quieter phase of sunspot activity began in 2001 and is continuing to arrest the trend of warming temperatures worldwide.
The next five to 10 years will show the Kyoto Protocol to be a classic example of rash political decision being made on popular but unfortunately weak and incomplete science. It will costs us heaps, and the global warming zealots will be running for cover.
Augie Auer, meteorological consultant, Birkenhead.
Global warming
NZ Herald 23 Feb 2005
Augie Auer's letter ruffled the feathers of global warming alarmists, in particular some in the Crown climate research establishment. This is because Dr Auer is no climate science lightweight.
He was chief meteorologist for the New Zealand Meteorological Service from 1990 to 1998. Before that he worked for 22 years as a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.
Dr Auer is not alone among scientists here and overseas opposing the extravagant claims, such as, "human-caused global warming is here and now", "human caused global warming is a fact", "the science is settled", 'There is a consensus among climate scientists" etc.
Perhaps this could be used as a platform to arrange a proper review of New Zealand's climate (and Kyoto) policy. I know from response to the public lectures I give that there is a great deal of suppressed public anger about the issue.
Dr Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland.