Noahs Ark

[Jac3510]

Why are you guys trying to get Daniel all riled up?

Daniel,

Just ignore them. They're big bullies!

Bob: I believe the flood was global because that is what the Bible actually says
Frank: SHUTUPYOUBIGBULLY

[Danieltwotwenty]

If you actually have anything intelligent to say, I'm all ears.

Wow! You're getting tough! Congratulations, I'm sometimes under the impression that Christians are wimps. We should stand up for sound doctrine and call a lie, a lie.

Actually, I don't care if the flood was worldwide or just local because it is in no way important. Ditto as to whether the word yom can mean ''era'' as well as its more common meaning of ''day''. Such subjects are best left for small talk while sipping drinks because we are probably all wrong. We'll find out the truth about such things when we get to heaven and by then it won't matter one bit. So why should it matter now?!

FL

Finally something intelligent that I agree with.

[Danieltwotwenty]

We only know about the revelation given in Christ through Scripture, so (1) and (2) boil down to the same thing (except for your phrasing of (1) suggests that you don't really even believe in the full revelation of that one in the first place--sounds like you are setting it up for dismissal on the basis that people make mistakes, and if so, it's pretty clear where your error is).

There are many places in the Bible where is speaks of the natural world revealing the nature of God. Science is the study of that natural world which is understanding the mind of God.
I am not setting anything up other than humans are fallible and make mistakes. I do believe in what the Bible has revealed, but at the same time I understand that there can be translation issues, interpolations and copying errors that are products of our human fallibility. Not all doctrine, theology or interpretation is going to be correct otherwise we have some major issues on our hands.

And if you are going to suggest that silliness about nature being the 67th book of the Bible, then I guess there's absolutely no point in having a conversation on these matters because, frankly, we have different authorities. Mine is Scripture, and yours is something else which you claim to be on par with Scripture.

Yes we do have different authorities, yours is scripture which you have elevated to the level of God and mine is God himself who has been revealed through scripture, nature and best of all Jesus Christ.

You feel free to accuse those of us who believe what the text actually says of foolishness. You wouldn't be the first . . . not the first in about six thousand years of recorded history.

The text simply says nothing, your interpretation says something.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Why are you guys trying to get Daniel all riled up?

Daniel,

Just ignore them. They're big bullies!

And Jac,

Don't be silly! We all know the 67th book of the bible is Sirach.

It's ok their Y.E.C dogma has no effect on me.

They (not talking about FL as he admits that scripture does not say and that it's not really important) have elevated their interpretation of scripture too the same level of scripture itself. That is fine but I won't be so full of pride that I can't admit that my interpretation could be wrong.

[Jac3510]

There are many places in the Bible where is speaks of the natural world revealing the nature of God. Science is the study of that natural world which is understanding the mind of God.
I am not setting anything up other than humans are fallible and make mistakes. I do believe in what the Bible has revealed, but at the same time I understand that there can be translation issues, interpolations and copying errors that are products of our human fallibility. Not all doctrine, theology or interpretation is going to be correct otherwise we have some major issues on our hands.

Of course there are problems in translation. There are copiest errors and other such things. But those are all red herrings. There's nothing in Gen. 6 that suggests that a copiest made a mistake. The only thing that matters is how we understand what the text actually says. Appealing to science to disqualify what the text actually says just shows that you don't believe Scripture as it is written.

But that's okay. You are in good company. The vast majority of the human race has told God they know better than Him.

Yes we do have different authorities, yours is scripture which you have elevated to the level of God and mine is God himself who has been revealed through scripture, nature and best of all Jesus Christ.

And how do you know anything about God or Jesus other than or more fully than what has been said in Scripture? You believe Jesus died for your sins. Why? Because Scripture says so. You believe He said, "Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life." Why? Because He said so. You believe that He is coming back someday. Why? Because Scripture says so. There is nothing of substance you know about Jesus other than what Scripture says.

You can, of course, approach Jesus from a merely historical perspective. Secular scholars have told us that a man named Jesus existed, was crucified under Pilate, and that His followers became convinced that He was risen from the dead. You can even treat the Scriptures not as the Word of God but rather as fallible human documents. But at the end of the day, when you say, "I believe they are true," you are placing your faith in what they say. Your faith is anything but blind faith, but it is still faith. Just because Jesus' resurrection (to take but one example) is the best historical explanation for the facts as we have them, it does not follow that His death and resurrection atoned for your sins. You know that is true because the Scriptures declare it. At some point, you stop looking at them as historical documents and start looking at them as what they are: the revelation of God. And then you believe them.

So, once again, I contend that you know nothing that pertains to faith apart from the authority of Scripture, and that includes this Jesus Christ you put so much faith in. That includes this God of yours you put so much faith in. So downplay the absolute authority of Scripture all you want. You are simply cutting off the tree limb you are sitting on.

The text simply says nothing, your interpretation says something.

Ah, "YOUR INTERPRETATION!!1!11!" The last bastion of the typical postmodern drivel I've come to expect and love from people who don't like what the Bible actually says!

Look, you can't eat your cake and have it to. Either you can deny the centrality of Scripture, in which case it doesn't matter WHAT Scripture says, or you can insist on the centrality of Scripture and get past this silliness about the 67th book called nature. If the former, then just quit talking about Genesis and go ask your favorite geologist to read from the Book of Creation that you may know and believe the truth. And if silly old men like Moses got something right, then good for them! Or, if you want to affirm with Jesus that the Scriptures cannot be broken, then ignore the geologists and ask the Scriptures what to believe and what the truth is. And if those silly old geologists get something right, good for them! But don't come at me with this patronizing nonsense about my interpretation.

If you think I've misunderstood what the text says, then man up and show it in the text. Anything less is just dishonest, and frankly, it makes a mockery of the claim of any degree of authority of Scripture. I mean, heck, by your standard I can say that the New York Times is the inspired Word of God. Because if there is a mistake in its plain reading, I can just find out what really is true by some other unrelated source and allegorize, spiritualize, and mythologize the text until it fits. Then, PRESTO, I have an inspired book!

Puh-leez

Sorry, I'm not impressed with such post-modern mushyheadedness.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I see there is no point in discussing this with you, your arguments are riddled with strawmen, positions that I do not hold too or have ever held too.

You are really good at telling other people what they think and believe Jack instead of actually coming to an understanding, but I really shouldn't expect any better from the dogmatic position of Y.E.C.

[Jac3510]

Ah, so you're telling me what I think and believe when what you say there is not what I said at all? What is really the case is that I'm really good at point out the logical and necessary implications of what you've said. If you want to scamper off and not play ball, you''re perfectly free to do so. Just like when atheists insist that objective morality can exist without God and we show them how it's not possible. Sure, they can (and usually do) say, "STRAWMANYOUDONTUNDERSTNADYOUSHOULDGETEDUMACATED!!11!1" And they leave.

As a point of fact about what I ACTUALLY said and what I ACTUALLY believe, I never said what you believe, other than to say that you believe in Jesus. I don't think you'll accuse that of being a straw man. What I've said is the "your interpretation" line is post modern drivel, because that is what it is. I've said that your elevating creation to the level of Scripture is logically absurd and necessitates a denial of the authority of Scripture. I've said that you don't believe what the Bible actually says, and I've called you out on your red herrings regarding translation and transmission issues as it relates to Gen 6.

Like I said, you can either do the hard work of showing what the text actually says or you can find reasons to ignore what it actually says. That's up to you.

You know, you are really good at telling other people what they think and believe Daniel instead of actually coming to an understanding but I really shouldn't expect any better?

By the way, nice genetic fallacy tagged on to the end with your little edit! The lazy postmodernism continues.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Like I said there is no point in taking this further.

Not running away, I just know when someone is so stubborn they are unable to see outside their box.

[Jac3510]

Well when you're committed to misrepresentations (saying I am telling you what you believe when I said no such thing), irrational logical fallcies with underlying personal attacks (the genetic fallacy, to take but one example), and completely ignoring the actual content of counter-arguments under the broad dismissal of "YEC dogma," then you are right, there certainly is no reason to take this further. After all, "further" would imply moving beyond your petty attacks and actually engaging with what someone of a different view is saying. But you are "unaffected" by different views, so why change your stance on that now?!?

Sorry, FL. I know you were hoping to see Christians toughen up a bit. But you can only get some people to be willing to go so far.

But it's all good, Daniel. Getting Genesis 6 right or the authority of Scripture or even not misrepresenting your Christian brother's arguments and attacking him with veiled personal attacks . . . none of that has anything to do with our common salvation. So in the end, it's not worth getting too terribly fussy about.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

It's ok their Y.E.C dogma has no effect on me.

YEC dogma?

When I'm discussing with a seeker and he brings up the six-day creation account as a stumbling block, I tell him that the Hebrew word for day, yom, can mean era. So, the ''days'' of Creation can be considered eras of time. And sometimes I'll even suggest Schroeder's creation perspective if the person seems to have an interest in science. Israeli scientist Schroeder has done an admirable job in reconciling the 6 day creation account with the Big Bang theory...idea.* Do I believe these ideas have any validity? No. I see them as sweeteners, or ''honey-in-your-burbon'', something meant to take the edge off a stark truth.

Anyway, you've got to meet people where they are. When I first came to the faith from atheism, YEC would have been a major stumbling block. I understand that and I don't push YEC on anyone even it is the only ''Creation model'' that doesn't require me to own an erasable Bible.

Again: You've got to meet people where they are.

FL

*read Genesis and the Big Bang, Gerald L. Schroeder. By the same author: The Science of God and The Hidden Face of God

[Danieltwotwenty]

I wasn't referring to you FL or your beliefs about creation, I was referring to anyone who holds dogmatically to any position that the Bible does not say, whether it be Y.E.C, O.E.C or T.E.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I wasn't referring to you FL.

So? Do you think Sarah Palin is pretty?

FL

[Danieltwotwenty]

I wasn't referring to you FL.

So? Do you think Sarah Palin is pretty?

FL

I suppose so in a general sense, but me personally I prefer the quirky looking girls, I like a bit of character rather than the typical.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I suppose so in a general sense, but me personally I prefer the quirky looking girls, I like a bit of character rather than the typical.

Oh...OK. Are you some sort of marginal...you know, with piercings and tattoos all over?

FL

[Danieltwotwenty]

I suppose so in a general sense, but me personally I prefer the quirky looking girls, I like a bit of character rather than the typical.

Oh...OK. Are you some sort of marginal...you know, with piercings and tattoos all over?

FL

haha no, I prefer no makeup, piercings, tattoos etc... I like a more simple look, but I am not against such things, I just prefer not. I like women who have features that make them standout, like natural features that give them character instead of looking like every other person.