Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

Himantolophus wrote:Most people don't really care about science so they just accept the Bible's explanation for lack of a better alternative. They say "well God is powerful and I want to go to Heaven so the Bible MUST be literal". The majority of everyday Americans don't neccessarily want to be closely related to apes so Creation is more attractive to them. This explains the polls you see for creation vs. evolution

I couldn't have said it better myself. Like the ship is sinking but I will hang on and go down with the ship because I stand for God and I'm cool, look at me and my faith... It's no wonder why most people believe that the Bible is unbelievable.

Oh yeah, well some people...er Ok...at least one person on this board feels its a futile exercise to reconcile the words of a religous text with science. The Bible was never intended to be a science book. It speaks of the spiritual condition of man and God's redemption. Adjusting ones world-view to a literal interpretation is no more dishonorable than altering the traditionally accepted meanings in order to fit a preconceived world-view. The translations of the progressive creationists and similar believers are just as a faulty as the science of the literalists.

FM

frankbaginski wrote:The flood of Noah was to wipe out the bad seed caused by fallen angels taking on human form and making giants among men. These were terrible beings that were going to overrun the earth. Noah being perfect in his generations (not mixed with the bad seed) was chosen to make the ark. The angels that took on human form are being held in darkness to be judged later.

I would say to this if you study the Nephilim, their areas of habitation in the Bible are only mentioned in and around the Mesopotamian areas. Thus only a local flood is required to wipe them out.

frankbaginski wrote:This is a common interpretation of the verses in Genesis. If however you take everything in the Bible and make the verses an allusion or parable then man becomes the interpretor. This allows for a wide range of meanings some in direct conflict with others.

Who is making the Bible a falsehood? What we are stating is that there was a goof up in the English translation of the Hebrew Bible. Once you expose the goof ups, now the Bible is plausible to our observation science...

frankbaginski wrote:I can't see this being the way God intended His Word to be used. Now one could argue that all men (and women) are to interpret the Bible for themselves. This would be in direct conflict with the teachings of Christ. We are to have teachers and Bishops and we are to spread the Word. If we are free to all interpret the Bible our own way then we should have been told to just spread the written Word.

Many of these early translations of the Bible (like the KJV and others) occurred when most people had literally no concept of the science we know today. It shouldn't be a mystery to figure out that they fused their understandings of their current science into their translations. It is completely right and understandable to accept this. It does NOT impede or negate the validity of the Bible.. And it never will...

frankbaginski wrote:Science and theology are not in conflict with each other. It has never been in conflict.

Well if you want to go with a literal understanding of the English Bible you will have a huge problem with the science we know and understand today. Some of these problems are listed here

So what is the remedy? Instead of bending the science and look foolish to God and those who study science, why can't we look at the way it was translated? Could it perhaps be a flaw in the translation? Is that so hard to ask or do we have to swallow our pride and fight a battle that isn't even real to begin with? When we go to a battle, am I going to arm myself with plastic shields and swords? Sorry.. Not me...

frankbaginski wrote:Even the example of Galileo is twisted into something it is not. He got in trouble when he wrote a book about two people having a discussion and one of them was the Pope named Simpliton (spelling?). Take me for instance, I am a young earth creationist but have no problem with any data coming from science. I love to find out about God's creation. I do have problems with man's interpretation of the data. Now most people in the United States consider themselves Christians, around 80% or so. Now most professors in the universities consider themselves atheist or nonbelivers of some type. So why would I accept a theory from someone who may find it objectionable to even consider that God exist?

If you are talking about Darwinian evolution I strongly oppose that... I will not debate you there. However, when it comes to the age of the earth or floods we are going to have a problem there because so much of what we observe refutes YEC. That is my only concern....

Forum Monk wrote:Oh yeah, well some people...er Ok...at least one person on this board feels its a futile exercise to reconcile the words of a religous text with science. The Bible was never intended to be a science book.

Right... So then why are the YEC'ers claiming that Bible is fitting into their science? Explaining how millions of species can fit into the ark?

Forum Monk wrote:It speaks of the spiritual condition of man and God's redemption.

So then why are you engaging into this discussion? What are you concerned about then?

Forum Monk wrote:Adjusting ones world-view to a literal interpretation is no more dishonorable than altering the traditionally accepted meanings in order to fit a preconceived world-view. The translations of the progressive creationists and similar believers are just as a faulty as the science of the literalists.

Which leaves us with a outdated faulty view of the Bible...

Please forgive me but I think this ship is starting to sink. (Or is this topic drying up?)

Gman,

On the translation of the Bible into english. I have to agree that there are many problems with the KJV and others. I love to read the KJV but double check with the septuagent when I have a doubt or doing study. I also keep e-sword on my desk top so I can reference the original Hebrew or greek.

On the YEC, that one took me some time before I became a believer. I just posted some YEC detail on the DNA - evolution thread. If you are interested you can check it out. I am not atempting to convert everyone to a YEC. I don't see that as posible or necessary. I state my position so people know where I come from. I make some pretty sweeping statements that must be taken in context. If someone wishes to know more I will be happy to supply information why I believe what I do. But I am not out to force my interpretation on anyone. I do find that there are some on this site that don't take scripture seriously. I take it very seriously and after doing some research I may take verses literaly.

frankbaginski wrote:Gman, On the translation of the Bible into english. I have to agree that there are many problems with the KJV and others. I love to read the KJV but double check with the septuagent when I have a doubt or doing study. I also keep e-sword on my desk top so I can reference the original Hebrew or greek.

On the YEC, that one took me some time before I became a believer. I just posted some YEC detail on the DNA - evolution thread. If you are interested you can check it out. I am not atempting to convert everyone to a YEC. I don't see that as posible or necessary. I state my position so people know where I come from. I make some pretty sweeping statements that must be taken in context. If someone wishes to know more I will be happy to supply information why I believe what I do. But I am not out to force my interpretation on anyone. I do find that there are some on this site that don't take scripture seriously. I take it very seriously and after doing some research I may take verses literaly.

Frank,

I have to confess I use to be an advocate for YEC... So I understand where you are coming from. However, when it comes to the formation of DNA or topics on origins, I'm against the Darwinian evolutionist theories, not really evolution itself, not the people that believe in it, just Darwinism...

Gman wrote: So then why are you engaging into this discussion? What are you concerned about then?

I am engaging in this discussion because its an open forum and I have refuted all of your mistranslation arguments before. I am concerned about altering the meaning of the Bible. It is not necessary unless you want to fit it into your local flood; everyone lived in one place, scenario which doesn't work on so many levels when trying to reconcile not only the scriptural account but the science as well. For example, your "all flesh" argument, while technically correct, can be interpreted as "man has corrupted" diminishes the case being made just a few verses before when God said he would destroy men and animals and birds:

7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

In addition, I explained before how the New Testament accounts of the flood use similar language so now you must say the Greek was mistranslated as well in order maintain this argument.

All air breathing creatures is the point that was made and to refute these verses with a faulty english translation argument requires a rewrite of large parts of Genesis. Then the deeper one goes into the line of reasoning that the flood was local the more problems arise. Everyone lived in one geographical area, it didn't mean mountains were covered, they meant hills, He didn't mean all animals just the unlucky ones, and on and on. Pretty soon, Genesis is completely altered and then the spritiual message it was written to convey is probably no longer recognizable which describes the universal and sweeping judgement of God and illustrates the point that all of creation has been corrupted by the fall. Not a few.

I think its a significant issue that allows any emerging point of view to alter the meanings of scripture just enough to support any abberant point of view. It was used with tragic results in by the Nazi's for example. (Of course no one here is to that extreme but it nicely illustrates the principle I am trying to make.)

So now, hopefully, you understand why I interrupted and why I am concerned.


FM

Amen to that, FM! Very well stated!

IRQ Conflict wrote:15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Why do you think this was put here? Notice the "All Flesh" part of it?

Here is an interesting read.

And notice verse 12 which preceeds verse 15 and sets the extent of the "all" to all creatures who were with humanity:

• 12And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you...

Strange God limits the token of the covenant to only every living creature with mankind if it wipes out every living creature globally.

jenwat3 wrote:God also said He would destroy ALL life. Surely there was life in other areas than just that local area.

Here is a question. Why would God need to destroy creatures when it was humanity who were wicked? Does not this seem a bit rash or even unfair to punish innocent animals along with humanity?

Exactly how is that strange? All the animals that survived were coming off the ark, WITH Noah. "All the animals with you", all the animals with Noah, not so strange.

Kurieuo wrote:

jenwat3 wrote:God also said He would destroy ALL life. Surely there was life in other areas than just that local area.

Here is a question. Why would God need to destroy creatures when it was humanity who were wicked? Does not this seem a bit rash or even unfair to punish innocent animals along with humanity?

[/quote] Maybe it does, but that's what the bible says. I'm sure God has His reasons.

jenwat3,

Question did God punish the whales too?

And are deep sea fish considered life?

And finally can you quote Genesis 9:11 for me, I forgot what it said.

Thanks

I don't think sea animals were included. For one they were already in the water, second, they couldn't have survived in the ark, and third, God said "All life on the FACE of the earth, meaning on the top of the earth. I don't think animals in the water apply here. Genesis 9:11. "Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth"

Forum Monk wrote:Just in case, anyone is interested, most of these very same arguments were discussed recently in my thread "The Case for the Global Flood" posted here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=6&t=3105

Either side of the debate may find some interesting ideas or links in that thread.



FM

Especially from page two here which contains many solid arguments for the local flood which I have yet to be seen adequately dealt with. Let the reader judge for themselves, but to summarise some of Gman's and my own:

• The term kol (all/whole) erets (earth/land) is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet.
• Quote from ecclesia.org: "We have been told in the biblical account that the flood would cover the "earth," that everything in the "earth" would die, and other statements about the "earth," all of which would teach the idea of a world-wide flood - EXCEPT for one thing: Hebrew word "erets", especially in the Book of Genesis.
  
  Erets (#776 in Strong's), the Hebrew word that translated "earth" throughout the flood account and it does not require a world-wide meaning. This word translated "country" (140 times) and "land" (1,476 times!) in the Bible. Many of them are often of limited land areas.
  
  We need to keep in mind that the people living at the time of Moses had no concept of a "global" planet ... to them the "earth" would be the extent of the geographical land area known to them. To apply this literal meaning throughout the Bible causes problems. (as does other LITERAL exegesis)
  
  These false interpretations are assumed and encouraged so that we can continue to support "tradition" or orthodoxy - never mind what Scripture is really saying. In so doing, we allow these min-interpretations to contradict other verses where the same word is used! We end up making a mockery of Scripture by trying to get it to fit ill-conceived theology.
  
  If we view the flood as global, then we must (if we are consistent) apply that same usage in other places were the same words and phrases are used.
  
  For example, Cain was cursed by God and driven from the "face of the earth" (Genesis 4:14) We know Cain was not driven off the planet... but out of the land he knew as "home" ...
  
  The word is used concerning Abraham. "Get thee out of thy country [erets]...unto a land [erets] that I will shew thee" (Genesis 12:1). Or another one, "Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country [erets], and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur" (Genesis 20:1).
  
  Other references in Genesis also show that "erets" was used to show specific lands: "The whole land [erets] of Havilah," "the whole land [erets] of Ethiopia," "the land [erets] of Nod, on the east of Eden," Famine at the time of Joseph affected "all lands [erets]",etc.
  
  Also during the plagues upon Egypt, at one point we read that "the rain was not poured upon the earth [erets]" (Ex. 9:33). Do the word study. Try put the word "land" instead of global "earth" and it may make more sense. I believe some Bible translations are misleading.
  
  Here's a good one too: In Exodus 10:5-15 we read about a plague of locusts that "covered the face of the whole earth." It should be pretty evident that this locust plague covered only a limited LAND of Egypt... it is the same wording in both places. Yet we never assume these locusts covered the entire globe...
• 2 Peter 3:5-6 has:
  "5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water."
  
  It seems a little strange why, if a global flood scenario and everything on Earth being destroyed was so obvious from the Jewish Scriptures, the author here says "the world at that time." If "the world" (kosmos) is in reference to the entire Earth, then is this not the same Earth we are on today? So why the need for adding "at that time"? I would have simply expected to author to have written: "through which the world was destroyed, being flooded with water," but world "at that time" instead focuses upon the people of that time. In other words, the term "world" qualified by "at that time" specifies the scope of the flood as being upon the people or nations of that time. It seems the author thought nothing about the whole world (as in "Earth") being inundated with water.
• It is interesting that global flood proponents accept the translation of "erets" as "earth" (in reference to the entire planet earth) for the flood, yet when it comes to the water drying up from "the earth" the scope is then limited to a localised region. Should a person not be consistent with their translations and either accept one or the other?
  
  So if the flood covered all the surface of planet Earth, then we should also believe the whole surface of planet Earth became completely dry (a desert) afterward for Scripture has:

  Genesis 8:
  
  v.6-7 (NASB) - "Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth."
  v.6-7 (NIV) - "After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth."
  
  v.13-14 (NASB) - Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. Then Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the surface of the ground was dried up. In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.
  
  v.13-14 (NIV) -
  By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.

  Unless one is willing to accept the Earth was completely dry after the flood, one ought to be consistent with their translation of the earth being locally dry by also interpreting the flood upon the whole earth as being local. In the verses I presented above I see the dryness of the earth as obviously referring to the local land area and not the entire planet earth. So I should remain consistent and also interpret the flood upon the earth as referring to the local land area and not the entire planet.
• Would people who lived in Europe, North and South America, Australia, etc. have heard Noah's message about God's judgment? Suppose Noah had gone on an evangelistic campaign: by what sign could he have convinced them? Merely to mention that his family at home was constructing an ark would hardly have carried much weight. In other words, the building of the ark was a testimony only to those who could actually see it or have first hand knowledge of it. People can hardly have been scattered to the ends of the earth if this was to be a testimony to them.
• All fish life would suffer in a universal catastrophe since the mingling of the salt and fresh water could be fatal to many of them.
• Genesis 8 where says that the tops of mountains were seen by Noah while "there was water over all the surface of the earth"! Finding such strong terminology which clearly refers to the surrounding area local to Noah (since the tops of mountains were seen), is a clincher for me that a local flood interpretation is easily accommodated and supported in Scripture. To quote the particular passage of which I am speaking:
  
  • Genesis 8:
    5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
    6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark.

Some others not touched upon in that thread which I would also consider important include:

• Psalms 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model (reminiscent of the Big Bang) (verse 2, parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5, parallel to Genesis 1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8, parallel to Genesis 1:9-10). The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: "You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (Psalms 104:9) Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local. (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html)
• The text could have been more clear that it was a global flood if this was the intention of the author:
  "There is a Hebrew word that always refers to the entire earth or the entire inhabited earth. The word is tebel (Strong's H8398), which is found 37 times in the Old Testament. Curiously, this word is never used to describe the flood, although it is used extensively to describe the creation of the earth and the judgment of the peoples of the earth." (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html)