Forum Monk wrote:In fact, Billy Graham was an evangelist and not an apologist nor christian scientist nor an acclaimed hebrew scholar (no doubt he was knowledgable in any of these fields). Dr. Graham was interested in souls, and so am I.
FM, Billy Graham is one of the most revered spokespersons for God among most religious sects whether they are OEC or YEC creationists.. Perhaps we should all take his theology of the Bible and his interests in souls,
especially those who have no faith in God to begin with... Looks like he is doing it the right way to me, and others agree (including you)..
Forum Monk wrote:Then I shall prayerfully consider whether I have fashioned an elite, non-committed, point of view.
Well, don't feel too alone.. Let's face it, haven't we all fashioned an elite, non-committed point of view in our own way?
Forum Monk wrote:Everyone seems convinced that if science has any truth then it can not contradict the Bible, as the Word is inerrant and yet, as Dr. Graham has said, the Bible is not a science book, rather a book of redemption and revelation. Still, I caution against completely adopting such a view as it easily leads to allegorizing the content as many Theistic Evolutionists seem to do. I think Genesis is a historic narrative and so, must be interpreted more literally than say, the Psalms which is clearly poetic.
There are many unknowns that will probably never get answered between the Bible and conventional science. Yes, the Bible is not a science book which is why we shouldn't get too hung up on
how God did things.. Only that he did create it all..
Forum Monk wrote:What was Moses' frame of reference? No one knows when Moses received these words nor when he wrote them and no one knows the context in which God presented them. In fact, we are not absolutely certain Moses wrote any of the book or parts of it, although authorship is attributed to him. Clearly God was presenting some historical background for the benefit of the Hebrews, but he was also presenting background for the world at large, speaking of the future redemption of many nations and tongues. He was showing the entire world who he was by great signs and wonders and establishing Himself as the one true God by which the entire world could find salvation.
But if the people were gathered in one location as they were in Genesis 11:6, then salvation would only apply to that one area because that is where the people were. Later on they spread themselves out over the world..
Forum Monk wrote:These kinds of extreme examples are designed to make the opposing view seem absurd but in reality they are ridiculous exaggerations. It would be like me saying "when God said he was going to flood the entire "land" he didn't mean only Noah's neighborhood did he" or "when God said he made the earth he didn't mean just Palestine did he?
Again we still have to interpret scripture and creation or the flood in light of the authors frame of reference. Obviously today we understand earth as being the whole world, but back then I doubt if people knew that God had created South America along with the garden of eden in the first years of creation.
But since you liked that one.. Here is another one for you.
In Exodus 10:5-15 we read about a plague of locusts "5 And they shall cover the face of the earth (erets), that one cannot be able to see the earth (erets)." In other words, they covered the
face of the whole earth.
Forum Monk wrote:I don't advocate literal translation. I advocate proper translation in light of the context, for example: in the context of universal judgment, references to a global flood make sense from a scriptural point of view, although the scientific evidence is open for interpretation.
When interpreting scripture there are many things to consider how the Bible interprets itself.. Among them are in it's verse, in its context, in its previous usage, to whom it was written for, and lastly from the authors frame of reference. As for the scientific evidence, there is still more scientific evidence to back up the local flood than the global flood.
Forum Monk wrote:No, as I said, there are probably many physical evidences remaining. The problem, is, they are never associated with the global flood, because science is very clearly biased against believing such a thing is even possible, because science cannot recognize a God of miracles.
FM, the evidence is there for all to see. There is no conspiracy against the Biblical creationists... Certain aspects of science are factual and are not open to one's own interpretation. In light of the scientific evidence, the global flood theory faces far more obstacles and problems than the local flood theory and actually impedes believers and non-believers from believing the Bible as a true historical event..
Please see the links below..
Source:
http://www.answersincreation.org/floodlist.htm
Source:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm
Forum Monk wrote:The archaeological evidence states otherwise, unless you are willing to down-date the lithics, cave-paintings, and fossilized skeletal remains.
I wouldn't hang your hat on the supposed lacking archaeological evidence... There is still alot of research that needs to occur in the regions in the northern Mesopotamian areas.. In fact recently in Armenia (the landlocked country between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea) was found to be the place where wine was invented. "An earthenware pot discovered in the Miyandoab plain (where we place both Aratta and Eden) was found to contain a dark residue. Analysis of the remains determined that this was a primitive wine sediment. The context of the find and the pottery style places the manufacture of the container in the sixth millennium BC, which makes its contents the oldest vintage in the world - Chateau Aratta circa 5,500 BC. The passage mentioning Noah's invention of wine comes immediately after the departure from the ark following the recession of the floodwaters. The resting place of the ark, if we are to believe it exists cannot therefore be very far away from the place where wines was first manufactured."
Here are some other interesting quotes to support those claims as well...
"Historically, the ancient city states of Mesopotamia in the fertile crescent are most cited by Western and Middle Eastern scholars as the cradle of civilization. The convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers produced rich fertile soil and a supply of water for irrigation. The civilizations that emerged around these rivers are among the earliest known attempts humanity made at establishing non-nomadic agrarian societies. But it is due to the fact that Ubaid, Sumer, Akad, Asyria and Babylon civilizations all emerged around the Tigris-Euphrates, the theory that Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilizatons
might be the strongest. It's also due to the fact that Ubaid (5500 B.C.) the oldest civilization known to exist was in the same area."
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Civilization
"Archaeological evidence shows that the earliest known farming settlements of the Fertile Crescent were in this core area. Also, the limited genetic variability of these crops implies that they were domesticated only once rather than by several different cultures at roughly the same time. Evidence of domesticated crops in the core area dates to about 10,000 years ago, while the earliest signs of farming elsewhere are about 9,300 years ago."
Source:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/ararat.html
Forum Monk wrote:The population growth rate sources are based on the scriptural accounts of men living multiple hundreds of years in age prior to the flood. Certainly much longer than our measley 70-80 years and most were fathering children at later ages as well.
Some might have lived longer, but we also need to take into account that there was alot of violence and bloodshed in the earth those days too that probably kept the populations down..
Genesis 6:13
Further backed up in the Book of Jubilees: Chapter 5, verse 2.
2. "all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began
to devour each other."
And the Book of Enoch, Chapter 7, verse 4, 5.
4 The giants turned against them and
devoured mankind.
5 And they began to sin against birds, and beast, and reptiles, and fish, and to
devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood.
Forum Monk wrote:It can also be argued there is no scientific proof that a local flood wiped out all of mankind. As I stated, some evidence probably has been found and the flood mythologies from around the world speak of a huge, traumatic event. There is no scientific proof, God created the universe from nothing or man as well. We accept it on faith because there are some lines even the most die-hard OEC advocate is reluctant to cross.
FM, if you still believe in the global flood then you are going to have to explain how all the civilizations would have been destroyed throughout the world before the global flood along with their inventions, language, art and whatever other advancement each unique civilization would have made and then were replaced by a newer or different civilization. History does not reveal gaps or a large void in any of these cultures which would be the natural result of a catastrophic event such as a global flood.