Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:55 pm I believe >>>>>>>.Revelation 22:18-19.So I have problems trusting anybody who relies on modern biblical scholorship for truth. I also think that when it comes to the OT the Christian church has allowed itself to be influenced by religious jews who reject Jesus as their Messiah.

Revelation 22 is referring to the book of Revelation, not the entire Christian selected collection we call the Bible. Revelation was written by itself to the unveiling or the revealing of Jesus Christ. Its logical that John would add that admonition to the end of Revelation.

The KJV was not translated into English but more a refined product of existing Bibles. IIRC the KJV used about 80% of Tyndale's work. Side note, sometimes Wycliffe surprises me with some of his translated passages, considering it was during the 1300's.

I just found out ... JButler must be older than ME! So, what is the birth order around here? Byblos, JB, B.W. and THEN me?

Philip wrote: ↑Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:17 am I just found out ... JButler must be older than ME! So, what is the birth order around here? Byblos, JB, B.W. and THEN me?

Now how did you figure that out? Are you working the carnie circuit again, guessing weights and stuff??

Figured B.W. and I are real close. But the rest of you seemed much older, looking more like white/gray ZZ Top.

JB: Now how did you figure that out?

I looked at your very first post!

Philip wrote: ↑Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:17 am

JB: Now how did you figure that out?

I looked at your very first post!

You earned your promotion....Detective Philip!

JButler wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:46 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:55 pm I believe >>>>>>>.Revelation 22:18-19.So I have problems trusting anybody who relies on modern biblical scholorship for truth. I also think that when it comes to the OT the Christian church has allowed itself to be influenced by religious jews who reject Jesus as their Messiah.

Revelation 22 is referring to the book of Revelation, not the entire Christian selected collection we call the Bible. Revelation was written by itself to the unveiling or the revealing of Jesus Christ. Its logical that John would add that admonition to the end of Revelation.

The KJV was not translated into English but more a refined product of existing Bibles. IIRC the KJV used about 80% of Tyndale's work. Side note, sometimes Wycliffe surprises me with some of his translated passages, considering it was during the 1300's.

I was just using Revelation 22 to back up my point.Also I think you are technically correct about the KJV bible but I don't want to get side tracked from my original point. You see the KJV bible is an old earth translation in both the old and new testaments,and so why are all new translations young earth translations?

I see no problem at all trying to translate a more readable bible from KJV style english,but how come all of them are now young earth translations?This is not meant to be a KJV only argument. Why can't there be new translations that retain an old earth translation like the KJV that are more easily read?There is a reason why they have removed phrases that reveal an old earth,have changed the meaning of hebrew words and translated the english to be a young earth translation with all of the new translations I've read.

I believe young earth creationists somehow got control of bible scholorship and these new translations are young earth translations. Also I do believe there is more bias today than back when Tyndale,etc were translating the bible into english.I don't buy it that modern bible scholors are more knowledgable when it comes to Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek and have better understanding today.

I was just using Revelation 22 to back up my point.Also I think you are technically correct about the KJV bible but I don't want to get side tracked from my original point. You see the KJV bible is an old earth translation in both the old and new testaments,and so why are all new translations young earth translations?

I see no problem at all trying to translate a more readable bible from KJV style english,but how come all of them are now young earth translations?This is not meant to be a KJV only argument. Why can't there be new translations that retain an old earth translation like the KJV that are more easily read?There is a reason why they have removed phrases that reveal an old earth,have changed the meaning of hebrew words and translated the english to be a young earth translation with all of the new translations I've read.

I believe young earth creationists somehow got control of bible scholorship and these new translations are young earth translations. Also I do believe there is more bias today than back when Tyndale,etc were translating the bible into english.I don't buy it that modern bible scholors are more knowledgable when it comes to Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek and have better understanding today.

Okay understand. I'm not sure about YEC influence on newer translation. Actually I've not heard that before. I use BibleGateway.com almost exclusively for on-line Bible work and use/compare a lot of their English translations. Haven't noticed a YEC slant but then I've not done research to compare them in this topic. I'm genuinely curious about your assertions, do you have some examples to show what you mean?

JButler wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:57 pm

I was just using Revelation 22 to back up my point.Also I think you are technically correct about the KJV bible but I don't want to get side tracked from my original point. You see the KJV bible is an old earth translation in both the old and new testaments,and so why are all new translations young earth translations?

I see no problem at all trying to translate a more readable bible from KJV style english,but how come all of them are now young earth translations?This is not meant to be a KJV only argument. Why can't there be new translations that retain an old earth translation like the KJV that are more easily read?There is a reason why they have removed phrases that reveal an old earth,have changed the meaning of hebrew words and translated the english to be a young earth translation with all of the new translations I've read.

I believe young earth creationists somehow got control of bible scholorship and these new translations are young earth translations. Also I do believe there is more bias today than back when Tyndale,etc were translating the bible into english.I don't buy it that modern bible scholors are more knowledgable when it comes to Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek and have better understanding today.

Okay understand. I'm not sure about YEC influence on newer translation. Actually I've not heard that before. I use BibleGateway.com almost exclusively for on-line Bible work and use/compare a lot of their English translations. Haven't noticed a YEC slant but then I've not done research to compare them in this topic. I'm genuinely curious about your assertions, do you have some examples to show what you mean?

Wow! It would take me time to give you every example as there are examples in both the OT and NT.I'd have to do a kindof bible study to show all of the examples.

But one example right off the top of my head is Genesis 2:4 In the KJV it says "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." You can click on the verse above for the NASB and the phrase "These are the generations" is not there,it has been removed to hide that fact that there were generations of the heavens and earth when they were created which means the earth is old.

And I don't understand why this phrase for an old earth was removed because we see the same phrase used in Genesis 5:1 for the generations of Adam and then in Genesis 10:1 we see generations of Noah. Yet when it comes to creation and Genesis 2:4 they just do not want us to know there was an old earth because there were generations of it when it was created.

This was done so that young earth creationists can just declare the earth is young because they say so.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:47 pm

JButler wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:57 pm

I was just using Revelation 22 to back up my point.Also I think you are technically correct about the KJV bible but I don't want to get side tracked from my original point. You see the KJV bible is an old earth translation in both the old and new testaments,and so why are all new translations young earth translations?

I see no problem at all trying to translate a more readable bible from KJV style english,but how come all of them are now young earth translations?This is not meant to be a KJV only argument. Why can't there be new translations that retain an old earth translation like the KJV that are more easily read?There is a reason why they have removed phrases that reveal an old earth,have changed the meaning of hebrew words and translated the english to be a young earth translation with all of the new translations I've read.

I believe young earth creationists somehow got control of bible scholorship and these new translations are young earth translations. Also I do believe there is more bias today than back when Tyndale,etc were translating the bible into english.I don't buy it that modern bible scholors are more knowledgable when it comes to Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek and have better understanding today.

Okay understand. I'm not sure about YEC influence on newer translation. Actually I've not heard that before. I use BibleGateway.com almost exclusively for on-line Bible work and use/compare a lot of their English translations. Haven't noticed a YEC slant but then I've not done research to compare them in this topic. I'm genuinely curious about your assertions, do you have some examples to show what you mean?

Wow! It would take me time to give you every example as there are examples in both the OT and NT.I'd have to do a kindof bible study to show all of the examples.

But one example right off the top of my head is Genesis 2:4 In the KJV it says "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." You can click on the verse above for the NASB and the phrase "These are the generations" is not there,it has been removed to hide that fact that there were generations of the heavens and earth when they were created which means the earth is old.

And I don't understand why this phrase for an old earth was removed because we see the same phrase used in Genesis 5:1 for the generations of Adam and then in Genesis 10:1 we see generations of Noah. Yet when it comes to creation and Genesis 2:4 they just do not want us to know there was an old earth because there were generations of it when it was created.

This was done so that young earth creationists can just declare the earth is young because they say so.

That is an important point - the word translated as 'history, account, or generations' in Gen 2:4 indeed refers to an exapance of time...

AMG's The Complete Word Study Dictionary says this about his this word:

"ôlēḏôṯ: A feminine noun meaning a generation. This key Hebrew word carries with it the notion of everything entailed in a person's life and that of his or her progeny (Gen 5:1; Gen 6:9). In the plural, it is used to denote the chronological procession of history as humans shape it. It refers to the successive generations in one family (Gen 10:32); or a broader division by lineage (Num 1:20 ff.). In Gen 2:4, the word accounts for the history of the created world."

It is used to denote generations as in years - not a 24 hour day.

My father's day lasted 84 years before he passed away. As you can see, even in English we can use the word Day the same manner it was used in ancient Hebrew.

My dad's generation is known as the "Greatest Generation" WW2 era - not many of these folks are left these days but that generation will pass... Some of the oldest are in their 100's now and the youngest in the late 80's...
-
-
-

My thoughts on Heiser:

I don't buy his stuff regarding the Nachash, it's curse far too much fits an actual snake.

I agree with him on Deut 32:8 and Psalm 82, but disagree with him on Genesis 6. I explain my views here:

https://riderontheclouds.wordpress.com/ ... ally-were/

Dr. Heiser on the flood:

http://drmsh.com/argue-biblical-text-lo ... bal-flood/

I’ve gotten this question before in podcast Q & A, but I was reminded of it today when someone posted this article on Facebook, aimed at “flood geology”: Twenty-One Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened. It’s by a retired geology professor. I don’t understand the science as I’m not a geologist, but I do know biblical studies. It’s actually not difficult to argue for a local-regional flood from the biblical text. In what follows I’ll show you how. My purpose is to say that, if a global flood really is geologically denied or impossible, you really don’t need to care with respect to biblical accuracy. The biblical text can indeed sustain a local-regional flood. Another purpose is to promote debate via inspection of the text, as opposed to pejorative or ad hominem attacks (i.e., promote charity among those who disagree). As you’ve heard me say many times on the podcast or elsewhere, we should care only about what the biblical text can sustain, not what tradition says. That means the task of both sides to read the text closely and think carefully about it. What follows is how a local-regional flood theorist would do that.

To begin, the argument / approach would go this way in a nutshell:

Demonstrating that the word “all” (כֹּל / kōl) doesn’t solve anything. Rather, it begs an obvious question: “all of what?” The same goes for words like “mountain” (הַר; har). What we think of as a mountain may not be what the word must mean. And let’s include the word translated “earth” in the flood account. It’s the frequently-found ʾerets (אֶרֶץ), which often means some point or piece of land.
Demonstrating that phrases like “all flesh” or “all humankind” or “the whole heavens” (all of which use kōl + noun) do not speak of exhaustive totality in various places in the Bible. Once that is known, you’d ask a simple question: are we justified in taking the “less than exhaustive totality” meaning back to Genesis 6-8 and interpreting the flood event accordingly — an event that did not cover the earth in exhaustive totality?
Supporting a “yes” answer to the above via context. Context in this case means interpreting Gen 6-8 in light of the known world at the time, described in Genesis 10. That also produces a question: Is there a textual way to connect Genesis 10, the nations that extend from the sons of Noah, to the flood account?
There are other ways to defend a local-regional view, but those are the backbone trajectories. So here’s the thought experiment….

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:15 am Dr. Heiser on the flood:

http://drmsh.com/argue-biblical-text-lo ... bal-flood/

I’ve gotten this question before in podcast Q & A, but I was reminded of it today when someone posted this article on Facebook, aimed at “flood geology”: Twenty-One Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened. It’s by a retired geology professor. I don’t understand the science as I’m not a geologist, but I do know biblical studies. It’s actually not difficult to argue for a local-regional flood from the biblical text. In what follows I’ll show you how. My purpose is to say that, if a global flood really is geologically denied or impossible, you really don’t need to care with respect to biblical accuracy. The biblical text can indeed sustain a local-regional flood. Another purpose is to promote debate via inspection of the text, as opposed to pejorative or ad hominem attacks (i.e., promote charity among those who disagree). As you’ve heard me say many times on the podcast or elsewhere, we should care only about what the biblical text can sustain, not what tradition says. That means the task of both sides to read the text closely and think carefully about it. What follows is how a local-regional flood theorist would do that.

To begin, the argument / approach would go this way in a nutshell:

Demonstrating that the word “all” (כֹּל / kōl) doesn’t solve anything. Rather, it begs an obvious question: “all of what?” The same goes for words like “mountain” (הַר; har). What we think of as a mountain may not be what the word must mean. And let’s include the word translated “earth” in the flood account. It’s the frequently-found ʾerets (אֶרֶץ), which often means some point or piece of land.
Demonstrating that phrases like “all flesh” or “all humankind” or “the whole heavens” (all of which use kōl + noun) do not speak of exhaustive totality in various places in the Bible. Once that is known, you’d ask a simple question: are we justified in taking the “less than exhaustive totality” meaning back to Genesis 6-8 and interpreting the flood event accordingly — an event that did not cover the earth in exhaustive totality?
Supporting a “yes” answer to the above via context. Context in this case means interpreting Gen 6-8 in light of the known world at the time, described in Genesis 10. That also produces a question: Is there a textual way to connect Genesis 10, the nations that extend from the sons of Noah, to the flood account?
There are other ways to defend a local-regional view, but those are the backbone trajectories. So here’s the thought experiment….

Sounds like a typical old earth compromiser, who ignores the plain reading of scripture, which makes him a denier of the inerrancy of scripture.

LOL !

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:15 am Dr. Heiser on the flood:

http://drmsh.com/argue-biblical-text-lo ... bal-flood/

I’ve gotten this question before in podcast Q & A, but I was reminded of it today when someone posted this article on Facebook, aimed at “flood geology”: Twenty-One Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened. It’s by a retired geology professor. I don’t understand the science as I’m not a geologist, but I do know biblical studies. It’s actually not difficult to argue for a local-regional flood from the biblical text. In what follows I’ll show you how. My purpose is to say that, if a global flood really is geologically denied or impossible, you really don’t need to care with respect to biblical accuracy. The biblical text can indeed sustain a local-regional flood. Another purpose is to promote debate via inspection of the text, as opposed to pejorative or ad hominem attacks (i.e., promote charity among those who disagree). As you’ve heard me say many times on the podcast or elsewhere, we should care only about what the biblical text can sustain, not what tradition says. That means the task of both sides to read the text closely and think carefully about it. What follows is how a local-regional flood theorist would do that.

To begin, the argument / approach would go this way in a nutshell:

Demonstrating that the word “all” (כֹּל / kōl) doesn’t solve anything. Rather, it begs an obvious question: “all of what?” The same goes for words like “mountain” (הַר; har). What we think of as a mountain may not be what the word must mean. And let’s include the word translated “earth” in the flood account. It’s the frequently-found ʾerets (אֶרֶץ), which often means some point or piece of land.
Demonstrating that phrases like “all flesh” or “all humankind” or “the whole heavens” (all of which use kōl + noun) do not speak of exhaustive totality in various places in the Bible. Once that is known, you’d ask a simple question: are we justified in taking the “less than exhaustive totality” meaning back to Genesis 6-8 and interpreting the flood event accordingly — an event that did not cover the earth in exhaustive totality?
Supporting a “yes” answer to the above via context. Context in this case means interpreting Gen 6-8 in light of the known world at the time, described in Genesis 10. That also produces a question: Is there a textual way to connect Genesis 10, the nations that extend from the sons of Noah, to the flood account?
There are other ways to defend a local-regional view, but those are the backbone trajectories. So here’s the thought experiment….

As a believer in a global flood whenever a bible scholar tries to explain by the Hebrew how it could mean a local flood I always have to ask,Then how come the english text reads as if it is global? If the Hebrew allows a local flood then the english should be translated that way and yet it was'nt.

I actually think that it is the way young earth creationists have taught Noah's flood that is the real problem.Because it makes it hard to believe,even if the bible says it was global.It matters how you teach a global flood and young earth creationists have butchered Noah's Flood because of the way they have taught it happened.

There are other global flood hypothesis's that do a much better job of presenting a global flood that is both biblical and scientifically sound.It may not prove it happened but it need not be proven if it is believable or acdceptable from a scientific perspective. I like the Geyser hypothesis and I believe if YEC's taught this Noah's flood would not be so unbelievable,even if it does'nt prove it happened. BUt above all, I believe in a global flood because of what I believe the bible says,not because of what man says.

I mostly ignore what man says because man has been wrong so many times throughout history about what he/she believed was true and taught was true,whole societies were indoctrinated.This is why I try so much to focus on evidence.I don't need as much evidence for the things God says are true,but the world seems to have it backwards and they trust and believe what man says and yet demand proof from God. With God all things are possible.

As a believer in a global flood whenever a bible scholar tries to explain by the Hebrew how it could mean a local flood I always have to ask,Then how come the english text reads as if it is global? If the Hebrew allows a local flood then the english should be translated that way and yet it was'nt.

What translation are you referring to?
Most are simply literal translations and as such, they will say what the words are not what they can/may mean.