If one throws out all supernatural events and evidence, then I would agree with you...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
what if it is Noah's Ark
- Thread starter qdz3se
- Start date
If one throws out all supernatural events and evidence, then I would agree with you...
Quote from Turok:
Shoe:
>In Genesis 41:56, the King James Version states
>"the famine was over all the face of the earth."
>Now I don't believe anyone would interpret that
>globally.
Shoe, you are the only Christian I know that DOESN'T interpret that to mean globally.
JB
It is true that Flood Geology is very widespread. It's just ingrained in our society.
But consider this: how could an olive tree even survive a world wide flood? Most Christians never even stop to ask themselves that question.
And consider II Pet 3:6 with which most Christians are familiar. It says, "By...waters also the world OF THAT TIME was deluged and destroyed." Peter states clearly that it was the world of that time, i.e. that that is the correct context.
And, furthermore, for general informtion, the word "world" there is the Greek word "kosmos" which can mean the whole earth or a portion of the earth. But most Christians never even stop to consider that. Unfortunately, imo there are things where our culture and twentieth century base leads to extreme bias in the interpretations. That's not to slam or criticize anyone - it's just to point out that we are easily locked into our own cultural paradigm...
Here's another issue that is rarely considered: a global flood that would clear Mt. Everest (29.000+ feet) would require over four and a half times the amount of water on and in the entire planet!
Could God do such a thing? Well, of course. Being a theist, I believe anything is possible for God. But why believe in that when such a spectacular requirement is not even needed?
Could God do such a thing? Well, of course. Being a theist, I believe anything is possible for God. But why believe in that when such a spectacular requirement is not even needed?
Forcing interpretation is what you are doing. Saying the Word of God - which is said to have been sent by God, as God's own Word - can be interpreted to mean something it doesn't say.Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
I still say you're showing your cultural bias. Let me give an example. In Genesis 41:56, the King James Version states "the famine was over all the face of the earth."
Now I don't believe anyone would interpret that globally. In other words, noone would say that the author was referring to Antartica or Greenland, etc.
I believe that you are trying to force an interpretation that you would not apply anywhere else.
God created the heaven and the earth.
But according to what you say, it is cultural bias to assume that means the whole of the heavens and the earth. In your words "noone would say that the author [God!!] was referring to Antartica or Greenland, etc. !!!???...even though God says in Genesis, God created the heaven and the earth!
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven
Not heaven...whole heaven. Just in case someone wanted to interpret God's Word to exclude Antarctica or Greenland, etc. , he sends the words whole heaven.
You want God's Word, which states whole heaven to mean, not whole heaven.
Faith has no legitamacy by or of itself. Therfore it is not validated by itself.Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
If one throws out all supernatural events and evidence, then I would agree with you...
That statement has nothing to do with throwing out supernatural events or evidence.
Supernatural events do not validate faith.
Evidence is the only thing that would start to.
Shoe:
>In Genesis 41:56, the King James Version states
>"the famine was over all the face of the earth."
>Now I don't believe anyone would interpret that
>globally.
Me:
>Shoe, you are the only Christian I know that
>DOESN'T interpret that to mean globally.
Shoe
>It is true that Flood Geology is very widespread.
>It's just ingrained in our society.
First, I wasn't refering to the flood. I was referring to your Genesis 41:56 quote where you follow up by saying that (and I paraphrase) 'no one would interpret that to mean gobally'.
But I am now REALLY confused. You first make the statement... 'no one would believe that means globally', and then you say (and again I paraphrase) 'that these widespread beliefs are "ingrained in our society"'. So, which is it...does no one believe this, or is this belief widespread?
JB
>In Genesis 41:56, the King James Version states
>"the famine was over all the face of the earth."
>Now I don't believe anyone would interpret that
>globally.
Me:
>Shoe, you are the only Christian I know that
>DOESN'T interpret that to mean globally.
Shoe
>It is true that Flood Geology is very widespread.
>It's just ingrained in our society.
First, I wasn't refering to the flood. I was referring to your Genesis 41:56 quote where you follow up by saying that (and I paraphrase) 'no one would interpret that to mean gobally'.
But I am now REALLY confused. You first make the statement... 'no one would believe that means globally', and then you say (and again I paraphrase) 'that these widespread beliefs are "ingrained in our society"'. So, which is it...does no one believe this, or is this belief widespread?
JB
The Ark was not needed. Why believe in the ark. The flood was not needed. 99.999% of the bible is not needed.Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Here's another issue that is rarely considered: a global flood that would clear Mt. Everest (29.000+ feet) would require over four and a half times the amount of water on and in the entire planet!
Could God do such a thing? Well, of course. Being a theist, I believe anything is possible for God. But why believe in that when such a spectacular requirement is not even needed?
Any God worth its salt could make itself clear in half a dozen words and one action.
So why believe in a bible when such spectacular requirements within it are not even needed???
Quote from stu:
Forcing interpretation is what you are doing. Saying the Word of God - which is said to have been sent by God, as God's own Word - can be interpreted to mean something it doesn't say.
God created the heaven and the earth.
But according to what you say, it is cultural bias to assume that means the whole of the heavens and the earth. In your words "noone would say that the author [God!!] was referring to Antartica or Greenland, etc. !!!???...even though God says in Genesis, God created the heaven and the earth!
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven
Not heaven...whole heaven. Just in case someone wanted to interpret God's Word to exclude Antarctica or Greenland, etc. , he sends the words whole heaven.
You want God's Word, which states whole heaven to mean, not whole heaven.
Okay, this is weird. This is like having a conversation with a Flood Geologist. Well, to answer your question, there are two reasons:
1. The word in Genesis 1 translated "heaven" is the Hebrew word "shamayim" and likewise the word translated "earth" is "erets". Put together with conjunctions and articles, this phrase, according to Hebrew scholars, can only mean one thing: everything. My understanding is that it has no alternate translations.
2. When there are two interpretations possible, let Scripture interpret Scripture. There are many places including Isaiah, Job, John and Colossians where God is clearly stated to have created the universe, i.e. the whole cosmos.
Quote from stu:
The Ark was not needed. Why believe in the ark. The flood was not needed. 99.999% of the bible is not needed.
Any God worth its salt could make itself clear in half a dozen words and one action.
So why believe in a bible when such spectacular requirements within it are not even needed???
Now you're pulling a Gordon Gekko. His logic is often: "God does not do things the way I would do them, therefore He does not exist." Well, I cannot possibly argue that because I don't doubt that you would do things differently.
I can only argue from the facts and that is that the Genesis Flood story is scientifically reasonable, that there was a Mesopotamian Flood at the approximate time and there are Flood accounts in the majority of cultures around the globe.
And there are many explanations for why God allowed Noah to take 100 years to build the ark, etc., but I don't see the point in debating it.