Noahs Ark

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Actually, Genesis 1 is incompatible with both the Big Bang stuff and evolution. A simple reading of Genesis 1 will make this evident.

I would totally disagree, when I read genesis I don't get that message at all. A simple reading of Genesis leads me to believe that is supports these things easily once you understand it's context.

Like any book in the Bible, without proper context it can say whatever you want it to say. That's how we get excuses for hating homosexual people, colored people, the earth is flat, there was a dome of water above us, the earth is held up by big pillars etc... etc... but if read in it's proper context we find that it does not support these ideas at all.

Nope. Gen 1:11 has complex plants appearing on the third day; the sun only was made on the fourth day. You need an Eraseable Bible to get around this. Evolution: Gen 1:21 - and in other places - says that creatures were created ''after their kind''...read all of Genesis 1 and pay special attention to this. Again, you'll need an Eraseable Bible or a very good imagination to fit Evolution into animals created ''after their kind.'' It is possible! ...some people read the future in tea leaves, after all!

As for the rest of your post, the prideful and the hateful will always find a justification for their twisted ideas in Scripture. A simple example: You - you! - must know that a Christian can have no hate towards a homosexual, right? So how can a ''Christian'' hate a homosexual? There is a difference between a literal-like interpretation (and its misapplication) and a literal interpretation.

Actually, I'm just guessing, but I think a literal-like interpretation and its misapplications has a lot in common with allegorical interpretations (such as yours): both require an Eraseable Bible in order to remove/reinvent those passages which contradict the extra-biblical revelations.

Anyway, let us wait for the others to weigh in.

FL

[Danieltwotwenty]

As per usual I get sucked into these stupid debates, there are plenty of answers to your points but I am sure we have been over them many times, so I'm just going to walk away again.

Y.E.C is just an interpretation and no matter how many times you try to twist it or repeat yourself it does not make it any more valid than other interpretations, your have an erasable Bible also it's just that you don't know it.

[Jac3510]

I appreciate the question, but let me ask you one back, though. How much looking have you done into the matter? I ask because when you so bluntly declare that there is no evidence, that implies that you are done a rather exhaustive search. But in light of that, your question doesn't sound so forthright. I have a strong suspicion that were I to offer some rather common examples, you would move the goalposts.

If you want to have an honest discussion about some of the evidence and why you do or don't think it lines up with a global flood, then just say so plainly. Having hidden agendas lying behind questions isn't conducive do constructive conversation.

I would like you to address the tone in your post. You just declare that there is no evidence for a global flood and then just declare that several components of such a flood are impossible in principle. I'm sure you can hear the less than charitable implications you are directing towards advocates of a global flood. Perhaps it was unintended. But perhaps it wasn't.

What say you, WannaLearn?

Sounds good. And I asked the question that way to see how one would defend their stance and or breakdown that statement.
I have not done much research on the evidence of the flood so convincing me probably wont be that hard.

Well I should hope it's not easy to convince you, especially if by "evidence" you are referring to scientific data. Lord have mercy, in that case, you'll be changing your mind about what you believe every other day.

As far as evidence goes, the most important is:

• For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. (Gen. 7:17-20, NIV)

Now, OEC advocates and most of the people on this site will argue that the flood was local. Therefore, they will challenge the translation of "earth" and "high mountains" and suggest that they be rendered "land" and "high hills" respectively, such that only the area in which they lived was in view. You can see that argument in some detail here:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Let me say a bit as to why I think their linguistic arguments fail.

First, as an appeal to authority, I would point out that absolutely no major English translation renders the words in question as local flood advocates insist. That should tell you something. Go check for yourself. Look at the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, RSV, NRSV, ASV, and NET. The only exception is the KJV/NKJV which render 19 "high hills," but the very next verse renders it "mountains," and it is the same underlying Hebrew word (Har, if you want to know). Just because a word can be translated this or that way, it doesn't follow that we should. It is absolutely terrible translation to provide a translation based on convenience for a preexisting view you are trying to defend.

Second, the evidence put forward for the alternative translation is incredibly weak. Take, for instance, the idea that Kol HaAretz ("all the earth") can be translated "all the people." In the first place, there are no instances in the Pentateuch I have seen where such a translation is appropriate. We don't get a clear example of that usage until 1 Samuel. Second, there are many, many instances of the phrase throughout the Pentateuch, and they almost always refer to the entire earth. Even the examples Deem cites (2:11 and 2:13) are not the same phrase in question. He doesn't tell his readers that, of course. Our phrase is, again, Kol [all] Ha-[the] Aretz [earth]. The phrase in Deem's verses is Kol [all] Eretz [earth/land] of Havilah/Cush. So the phrase in Gen. 7 includes the article ("Ha"), and the two "exceptions" in Gen. 2 lack that article and include a geographical modifier. It would be stupid to translate Gen. 2:13 "all the earth of cush."

But there is still more linguistic evidence for the standard English translations. When God first introduces the fact that He is going to flood the "earth," He pairs it with "the heavens" (Gen. 6:17). That is a clear allusion back to Gen 1:1. Further, in both Greek and Hebrew, one of the ways to clarify one's meaning and one's emphasis is by repetition of words and phrases. That makes for bad English but for great Greek and Hebrew. The rule is that the more often a word or phrase is used, the more the author wants you to see that is a very important idea. With that rule in mind, consider the distribution of the word Kol (all). I did a quick search and found that it occurs in 82 verses in Gen 1-11. Here's the breakdown:

Gen 1 - 7 verses (Gen 1:21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31)
Gen 2 - 11 verses (Gen 2:1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20)
Gen 3 - 4 verses (Gen 3:1, 14, 17, 20)
Gen 4 - 4 verses (Gen 4:14, 15, 21, 22)
Gen 5 - 9 verses (Gen 5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 27, 31)
Gen 6 - 9 verses (Gen 6:2, 5, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22)
Gen 7 - 14 verses (Gen 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23)
Gen 8 - 6 verses (Gen 8:1, 9, 17, 19, 20, 21)
Gen 9 - 11 verses (Gen 9:2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 29)
Gen 10 - 2 verses (Gen 10:21, 29)
Gen 11 - 5 verses (Gen 11:1, 4, 6, 8, 9)

Just a comparison of the numbers is revealing. It occurs in Gen 7 more than any other chapter, and in Gen 9 second only to 7 and tied for second with 2. In fact, of the 82 verses total, 31 of the occurrences (about 38%) of the word are found in Gen 7-9. That is significant in light of the fact that out of the the total 298 verses in Gen 1-11, Gen 7-9 contains 74 verses or 25% of the total verses. So why does a section containing only 25% of the whole text contain nearly 40% of all the occurrences of "kol." And this is all the more outstanding that between Gen. 6:17-7:24 (which accounts for the actual story of the act of the flooding of the earth) contain 19 occurrences. That is, out of 29 verses, the word Kol is found in 19 of them--that's an astounding 65%! By comparison, consider the percentage of verses using Kol vs total verses in each of the rest of the chapters: Gen 1 - 22%; Gen 2 - 44%; Gen 3 -17%; Gen 4 - 15%; Gen 5 - 28%; Gen 6:1-16 - 25%; Gen 6:17-7:24 - 65%; Gen 8 - 27%; Gen 9 - 39%; Gen 10 - 6%; Gen 11 - 16%.

Those numbers should speak for themselves. The part of the story where the flooding happens has a WAY higher percentage of the use of the word "kol" that anywhere else in Gen 1-11. What all this tells us is that Moses is saying as emphatically as he knows how that the Flood was absolutely UNIVERSAL.

The last thing I'd note goes back to the passage I quoted above. The Flood covered all the high hills/mountains under heaven. There's no getting around that point. Even if you take Har to refer to hills (and no translation does except the (N)KJV, and then it immediately translates it "mountains" as well), the fact remains that the text is in error if only the "high hills" in "the land" were covered, because there are lots of high hills not in "the land" that are "under heaven."

So the bottom line is that there is just no good linguistic argument for reading Gen 6-9 as teaching a local flood. The ONLY way to get there is to start with the idea that it MUST have been local and then look for alternative translations by which we can justify our preexisting beliefs. That, however, is standard eisogesis, and is simply not to be taken seriously. Put differently, there is absolutely NO warrant in Gen 1-11 for reading the text to teach a local flood, but there is significant warrant for taking it to teach a universal flood.

Beyond the biblical evidence, I'm tired of typing, so I'll just refer you to these two videos of an Andrew Snelling (who holds a PhD in geology and is widely published, which is only to say that he can't be accused of ignorance on scientific matters). He works for AiG, which will, of course, make him anathema on this board, but genetic fallacies aside, you might find his arguments interesting:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8[/youtube]

[Seraph]

If a non-erasable Bible undeniably says that the sun was created after the earth, then the Bible is just flat out wrong. Luckily this is not the case, as is pretty much the thesis of this G&S website.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I wish we had people like Dayage still around as his knowledge of this subject was astounding, same with Bart and others.

I know Jac can make some serious arguments but like anything there are always two sides and both have good and bad evidence.

My vote still goes with local and that's what I think the Bible says and since it's not a matter of salvation, I couldn't care enough anymore to continue doing any more research, same goes for creation perspectives.

This is a win less argument for any side, no one can bring enough Biblical evidence to support any side 100%.

I am happy to sit back and watch for now or I just get angry at the lack of respect and down right rudeness from some people, which inevitably brings out the worst in me.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

If a non-erasable Bible undeniably says that the sun was created after the earth, then the Bible is just flat out wrong.

Exactly! You can't have it both ways!

In all fairness, you don't really need an Eraseable Bible. All you need is an allegorical method of interpretation: a particular passage's meaning can be molded to conform to any idea you wish to promote: miracle healing, wealth, health, universal redemption...whatever! And you'll always be popular with the majority of Christians!

FL

[Jac3510]

I wish we had people like Dayage still around as his knowledge of this subject was astounding, same with Bart and others.

I know Jac can make some serious arguments but like anything there are always two sides and both have good and bad evidence.

My vote still goes with local and that's what I think the Bible says and since it's not a matter of salvation, I couldn't care enough anymore to continue doing any more research, same goes for creation perspectives.

This is a win less argument for any side, no one can bring enough Biblical evidence to support any side 100%.

I am happy to sit back and watch for now or I just get angry at the lack of respect and down right rudeness from some people, which inevitably brings out the worst in me.

Ah yes, I remember DA. He tried to argue that the restriction on meat given to humans didn't apply to animals because the implied state of being verb was missing, even though that is a standard feature of Hebrew grammar . . .



Daniel, I'm sorry that you feel people get rude about this. There's nothing particularly rude in my view. You can claim that no one can prove their views 100%, but I'll just point back to the postmodern drivel again. The question isn't what is 100% provable. The question is what is warranted, what we have reason to accept, and what the basis of those reasons are. The fact is that while the text CAN be translated to ALLOW for a local flood (with exception to the "under the heavens" part), there is no WARRANT for that position. So you take that as being rude when I point out the facts behind the text.

Okay. Fine. I'll take it as rude that you call people a fruitcake for believing what the text actually says without resorting to hermeneutical contortions to justify their beliefs. *shrug*

[Danieltwotwenty]

Okay. Fine. I'll take it as rude that you call people a fruitcake for believing what the text actually says without resorting to hermeneutical contortions to justify their beliefs. *shrug*

Like I said people's attitude bring out the worst in me, pretty sure I openly admitted it.

This is why I walk away, your whole post is layered condescension and down right rudeness. You may be smart Jack but you have absolutely no people skills whatsoever which has been shown time and time again with your interactions with non believers, same goes for FL. The wall of the internet seems to amplifies this, I am sure you both wouldn't no be so abrasive in real life.

[Jac3510]

Actually, I'm a chaplain in real life, which is to say I specialize in people skills, and I am precisely this way with my patients (and for what it is worth, I have been told by a number of other professionals in the field that I am very good at what I do). When you say I lack people skills, what it sounds like you mean is that I'm not "polite" and not "nice" and other such things. I used to be that way. And then I started studying how to deal with people . . . I can't speak for FL, but suffice it to say I know exactly why I approach things the way I do.

You can, of course, accuse me of rudeness all you like. That tells me far more about you than it does about me (and, of course, you'll think that is rude, too, but I know that because I've learned something about you). For instance, I know that when someone disagrees with you, you take it as a personal attack. That, by your own admission, causes you to start making personal attacks. Now there is a reason for that, and were I "chaplaining" you, we'd have a very interesting conversation, I'm sure. But such interaction is impossible over the internet for a variety of reasons. In any case, what I am not going to do is get caught up in triangle in which I'm overfunctioning and you're underfunctioning (don't take that as a personal attack, either--again, that's the terminology for it in the professional literature--I highly recommend if you get some time to read Generation to Generation by Friedman. Family Systems Theory FTW!).

The bottom line is that I would encourage you to ask yourself where your belief that we ought to be nice and non-confrontational comes from. Your immediate reaction, of course, is likely to be an appeal to Scripture. But it's just as easy--easier, in fact--to show quite a different example from the same texts. On reflection, you're reaction (which is very telling, by the way--reactions come out of our unconscious, uncontrolled, and in many ways "true" self . . . not the mask we put on of the self we want others to see . . . reactions comes out of what Jung called our "shadow self") is born out of deeply ingrained familial and cultural messages around why we ought to be polite. As I said, I'm not going to play into that.

So feel free to continue with the personal attacks, snide remarks, and condescending headshakes. It truly doesn't affect me, and it truly tells me something about what's going on behind the words you are actually saying. That, by the way, is why I don't really take it personally, because I understand there are underlying issues here. And that's nothing against you. We ALL have them. Recognizing that about others required me to see it in myself first, and when I saw that in myself, I became much more gracious to everyone else. It's hard to get offended on a personal level when you see in yourself the very thing others are doing that you think hurts you . . .

No worries, bro. Come stateside, I'll buy you a beer. An American beer, of course. I don't drink that stuff, but I hear you Aussies like it. In fact, I'll invite FL, and I'll let him pick out your brews. I'll then order us all a round of his favorite whiskey.

[Danieltwotwenty]

You just proved my point.

Like so many before me, my time on this board is done.

[Jac3510]

And you just proved mine!

[Philip]

Pretty smug and childish sendoff, Jac!

NO one cares about what you have to say until they know you CARE! Yep, being direct and speaking truth will offend people - but you can speak truth without being abrasive and offensive - or coming off like you always have the superior intellect or understanding.

[neo-x]

I don't see where Dan was personally attacking anyone (except in the last 2-3 posts and even there I think he thought he had reason to because he thought you were also being rude) and what I do know of him from interactions other than this board, he is a very nice guy and happens to get along with almost everyone.

This is sad guys.

And whats with the fruitcake meme running around...are we calling eachother that now?...this has to be controlled guys.

This whole theme of eraseable bibles implies that people who don't hold to one special dogma are inevitebly disrespecting scripture, this is too much guys...can we not move forward please. We are all brothers here.

I just don't know what to say to you guys, Fl and Jac...I have been guilty of being harsh and too academic in the past, being too dismissive, didn't earn me any points really. I just lost friends. He called you rude and you said words quite insulting also when you said their view is just basless drivel and Danielism, thats insulting too or that some beleiver who does not agree to your view should have an eraseable bible. The church has been divided for centuries, its simply not ok to think only one of us got it right 100%. These things may be written with mild harmless motivations but they do hurt peoples' faith at times.

please lets be more open to each other.

Dan, take some time off if you have too...come back though because we're gonna miss you. Heck, if I can change your mind about leaving, then please don't leave.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

This whole theme of eraseable bibles implies that people who don't hold to one special dogma are inevitebly disrespecting scripture

No, that's not what I mean by Eraseable Bible. The term simply means that you must disregard or re-imagine portions of Scripture that you cannot accept at face value. This is a very common practice, and one that is also used by many YEC kooks who sometimes visit this Forum as well.

FL

[neo-x]

This whole theme of eraseable bibles implies that people who don't hold to one special dogma are inevitebly disrespecting scripture

No, that's not what I mean by Eraseable Bible. The term simply means that you must disregard or re-imagine portions of Scripture that you cannot accept at face value. This is a very common practice, and one that is also used by many YEC kooks who sometimes visit this Forum as well.

FL

Thanks Fl.

I fear though that Dan may have had percieved it otherwise.