Creation / Age of Earth / EGW

[Pinkpanther007]

For a long time I have questioned the traditional view of creation, and a six thousand year age of the earth. I know that EGW is a proponent of the traditional teachings, but as I question various teachings I have grown to question her authenticity as well.

I am not a scientist, but the ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica seem to be a rather compelling evidence that the earth is much older than six thousand years.

I have also been told by various Jewish friends that the Biblical stories of creation and the flood are allegorical and not meant to be taken literally.

[daro2096]

Fifteen layers of snow can be laid down in one day. There is plenty of snow and ice at the artic and Greenland to account for 4400 years.

Ever heard of the lost squadon story?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/squadron.asp

[StormyOne]

For a long time I have questioned the traditional view of creation, and a six thousand year age of the earth. I know that EGW is a proponent of the traditional teachings, but as I question various teachings I have grown to question her authenticity as well.

I am not a scientist, but the ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica seem to be a rather compelling evidence that the earth is much older than six thousand years.

I have also been told by various Jewish friends that the Biblical stories of creation and the flood are allegorical and not meant to be taken literally.
there are other cultures whose history is older than 6000 years.... while I don't necessarily put alot of stock in the ice core hypothesis, it is clear from other evidence that humans on earth have existed longer than 6000 years....

[JonMiller]

Scientifically there is no question that the earth is older then 6000 years. Whether that is reality or not, I don't know. I beleive in a powerful God.

In the 19th century there wasn't near the scientific evidence for an old earth that there is today. To expect EGW to beleive in an old earth is silly.

Ice core samples aren't the most compelling scientific evidence, but they are some of the evidence that supports.

JM

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

For a long time I have questioned the traditional view of creation, and a six thousand year age of the earth. I know that EGW is a proponent of the traditional teachings, but as I question various teachings I have grown to question her authenticity as well.

I am not a scientist, but the ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica seem to be a rather compelling evidence that the earth is much older than six thousand years.

I have also been told by various Jewish friends that the Biblical stories of creation and the flood are allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. In the beginning God created the heavens /// and the earth. Epoch of time. God said to Adam, in the day you eat of that fruit, you will surly die; but yet Adam continued to live for hundreds of years until he died. Epoch of time. For thousands of years it has been taught that those creation days were epochs of time. Does that mean that I believe in evil lution. Absollutly Not. Because we are told that God formed man in His image from the dust of the earth.

[Pinkpanther007]

Is it true that the Bible or EGW says that the Garden of Eden was between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers?

[daro2096]

Is it true that the Bible or EGW says that the Garden of Eden was between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers?
No, not quite right.

The four rivers are/were:
Pison
Gihon
Hiddekel
Euphrates

But just because it meantions a river that exists today doesn't mean it is the same river. Could be when Noah's sons got off the arc and went off exploring they came to a river that looked like the river from Eden and they said well it looks like the Euphrates lets call it the Euphrates.

[daro2096]

In the beginning God created the heavens /// and the earth. Epoch of time. God said to Adam, in the day you eat of that fruit, you will surly die; but yet Adam continued to live for hundreds of years until he died. Epoch of time. For thousands of years it has been taught that those creation days were epochs of time. Does that mean that I believe in evil lution. Absollutly Not. Because we are told that God formed man in His image from the dust of the earth.
No, up til about 160 years ago everybody believed the days of Genesis were literal 24 hour days.

When I read the Bible and it says Adam lived 930 years and then died I believe it. You see the earth before the flood had an protective water or ice canopy that protected the earth from radiation that comes from the sun that causes aging in humans and animals. Water filters out harmful x-rays and UV light. These cause damage to your skin and your body has to fix the damage. Well after about 60 years or so you start to lose the battle for damage control and you start to grow old and wrinkle up. Scientists said if you could get rid of the free radicals that cause aging you could live for hundreds of years just like they did before the flood.

When the Hunza tribe were discovered about 100 years their lifespans were about 160 years old but the more they became westernised the more they lifespans dropped and now they live to about 90 years.

[DrStupid_Ben]

So what is the evidence for a water canopy or an ice canopy?

[StormyOne]

So what is the evidence for a water canopy or an ice canopy?
probably the flood narrative that says something about the waters coming from above and from below....

Gen 7:11-12 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep came bursting through, and the windows of heaven were open; (12) And rain came down on the earth for forty days and forty nights.

I suspect that is what they are talking about.....

[DrStupid_Ben]

I know that that is often the biblical argument, but does it have any scientific backing.

[By the way, I think that the Biblical argument for a water canopy is a misinterpretation. The waters are above the firmament, the stars are in the firmament, and the birds fly below the firmament. This would mean that the stars were below the water canopy in our atmosphere.]

[StormyOne]

I know that that is often the biblical argument, but does it have any scientific backing.

[By the way, I think that the Biblical argument for a water canopy is a misinterpretation. The waters are above the firmament, the stars are in the firmament, and the birds fly below the firmament. This would mean that the stars were below the water canopy in our atmosphere.]agreed... but that is the text where they hang their hat..... also an issue of mine is the one of pre flood humans in general.... if they were 15 feet tall why haven't there been any large human bones been found to validate that claim.... plenty of dino bones, but none of giant humans.... makes me wonder...

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

agreed... but that is the text where they hang their hat..... also an issue of mine is the one of pre flood humans in general.... if they were 15 feet tall why haven't there been any large human bones been found to validate that claim.... plenty of dino bones, but none of giant humans.... makes me wonder... Human remains of people 8 to 12 feet tall have been found. I subscribe to Yahoo.com science and archaeology. I think if you do a internet search you may find something. Some of my relatives in the states and Sweden are almost 8 feet tall. It is also believed that before the flood that the earths gravity use to be less.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

No, up til about 160 years ago everybody believed the days of Genesis were literal 24 hour days.

When I read the Bible and it says Adam lived 930 years and then died I believe it. You see the earth before the flood had an protective water or ice canopy that protected the earth from radiation that comes from the sun that causes aging in humans and animals. Water filters out harmful x-rays and UV light. These cause damage to your skin and your body has to fix the damage. Well after about 60 years or so you start to lose the battle for damage control and you start to grow old and wrinkle up. Scientists said if you could get rid of the free radicals that cause aging you could live for hundreds of years just like they did before the flood.

When the Hunza tribe were discovered about 100 years their lifespans were about 160 years old but the more they became westernised the more they lifespans dropped and now they live to about 90 years. Only in the Christian community was the 24 hour creation day taught, starting about 160 years ago.

[StormyOne]

Human remains of people 8 to 12 feet tall have been found. I subscribe to Yahoo.com science and archaeology. I think if you do a internet search you may find something. Some of my relatives in the states and Sweden are almost 8 feet tall. It is also believed that before the flood that the earths gravity use to be less.
if the pre-flood world was populated by the descendants of Adam and Eve and they were allegedly 12 to 15 foot tall then there should be a lot of human bones found which suggest that size.... finding some bones here and there does not qualify....

I have done several internet searches... finding big human bones are the exception and not the rule... and it should be the other way around....

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

if the pre-flood world was populated by the descendants of Adam and Eve and they were allegedly 12 to 15 foot tall then there should be a lot of human bones found which suggest that size.... finding some bones here and there does not qualify....

I have done several internet searches... finding big human bones are the exception and not the rule... and it should be the other way around.... It would be to presumptious for me to say that there should be lot of bones for evidence.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Fifteen layers of snow can be laid down in one day. There is plenty of snow and ice at the artic and Greenland to account for 4400 years.

Ever heard of the lost squadon story?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/squadron.asp
The lost squadron has nothing to do with an ice core. Depth of snow is not the same as an ice core.

[StormyOne]

It would be to presumptious for me to say that there should be lot of bones for evidence.there are a whole lot of animal bones.... and a whole lot of dino bones... what's missing in this picture? Bones from humans who were giants... that's what is missing...

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

there are a whole lot of animal bones.... and a whole lot of dino bones... what's missing in this picture? Bones from humans who were giants... that's what is missing... There is to many varibles.

[StormyOne]

There is to many varibles.there may be, however the fact remains, dino bones, animal bones, human bones, but very few giant human bones....

[daro2096]

there are a whole lot of animal bones.... and a whole lot of dino bones... what's missing in this picture? Bones from humans who were giants... that's what is missing...
Humans are more smart than animals. Humans would manage to live longer. The animals would die quicker and be buried. Bones have to be buried in order to become fossils. Human bones would be on the top and would rot. Got to remember it took 5 months for the flood to kill everything.

Proof for the water canopy:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Genesis 1:6-8

When the earth was created it was covered in water and divided the waters and created the heaven or sky and he put water above the sky. On day 3 God put the surface water into underground chambers.

When the flood began the water trapped underground came rushing to the surface causing the flood. You can see where the water came up from. The fault lines are all over the earth. And at the same time the water canopy collasped.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:11-12

Toward the end of the flood the mountains were formed and the land appeared and the water recedded. Mountains such as Everest didn't exist before the flood. Before the flood the oceans didn't exist. Did you know there is enought water in the oceans the flood the entire world 1.5 miles deep?

They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. Psalms 104:8-9

And finally Peter believed in the water canopy:

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. 2 Peter 3:5-6

[sentipente]

Humans are more smart than animals. Humans would manage to live longer. The animals would die quicker and be buried. Bones have to be buried in order to become fossils. Human bones would be on the top and would rot. Got to remember it took 5 months for the flood to kill everything.

Is this some kind of joke? Do you think you are talking to a kindergarten class?

[daro2096]

Is this some kind of joke? Do you think you are talking to a kindergarten class?
What? You want me to explain in such langauge so nobody understands a word I am writing?

[sentipente]

What? You want me to explain in such langauge so nobody understands a word I am writing?
Humans have always buried their dead. Being smart has nothing to do with being buried. There is no way to make that post make sense.

[StormyOne]

Humans are more smart than animals. Humans would manage to live longer. The animals would die quicker and be buried. Bones have to be buried in order to become fossils. Human bones would be on the top and would rot. Got to remember it took 5 months for the flood to kill everything.
the same flood that caught the animals off guard would catch the humans off guard too.... in a flood everything initially floats then is buried.... so your explanation is suspect... IMO

[sentipente]

the same flood that caught the animals off guard would catch the humans off guard too.... in a flood everything initially floats then is buried.... so your explanation is suspect... IMO
And we know that animals are more attuned to changes in natural conditions than humans. Before the Tsunami killed thousands of humans most of the animals had already retreated to higher ground.

[mva1985]

And we know that animals are more attuned to changes in natural conditions than humans. Before the Tsunami killed thousands of humans most of the animals had already retreated to higher ground.

I have to agree here. That is one of the reasons we find the more "sophisticated" animals higher up in the geological column.

I might add that while I believe in the 6000 year age of the earth. If you look at the creation story it seems apparent that the animals and Adam and Eve were created with an apparent age - even though they were only one or two days old - depending on what day they were created. It is possible that the earth had an apparent age much greater then 6000 years while only being one week old at the end of creation week.

I wish this thread were in the main forum. Thank you for indulging me.

[StormyOne]

I have to agree here. That is one of the reasons we find the more "sophisticated" animals higher up in the geological column.

I might add that while I believe in the 6000 year age of the earth. If you look at the creation story it seems apparent that the animals and Adam and Eve were created with an apparent age - even though they were only one or two days old - depending on what day they were created. It is possible that the earth had an apparent age much greater then 6000 years while only being one week old at the end of creation week.

I wish this thread were in the main forum. Thank you for indulging me.
no need to apologize.... and you can post here as often as you wish... just know that people will not always agree with you or the "official" position whatever that might be....

I think life on earth is older than 6000 years... I say that based on the some of the fossil records, the fact that Noah could not preserve in the Ark everything that had been created, and the Sumerian culture, which seems to be 8,000 to 11,000 yrs old depending on who you believe...

[mva1985]

no need to apologize.... and you can post here as often as you wish...

Thanks Stormy! I appreciate that.

[mva1985]

oops.... double

[StormyOne]

Thanks Stormy! I appreciate that.
not a problem.... I realize that you might not always agree with me and vice versa, but you are always welcome...

[RC_NewProtestants]

I have to agree here. That is one of the reasons we find the more "sophisticated" animals higher up in the geological column.

I might add that while I believe in the 6000 year age of the earth. If you look at the creation story it seems apparent that the animals and Adam and Eve were created with an apparent age - even though they were only one or two days old - depending on what day they were created. It is possible that the earth had an apparent age much greater then 6000 years while only being one week old at the end of creation week.

I wish this thread were in the main forum. Thank you for indulging me.

If one assumed the 6 day creation it would certainly be acceptable to assume that everything was given an apparent age. If they worked the soil the soil would have to have been created to appear as the result of decay and degeneration of rock. Things like the carbon cycle would have to have been created with sufficient age so that the cycle could work.

Though if you assume that you surely can't criticize science when it dates rocks so old, you just have to say God made them that way and so God screwed up science. Of course that does not solve many of the geologic problems of a short age earth.

[JonMiller]

I can't think of anything that that kind of thinking leaves as a problem. What are you thinking is still a problem if you follow the concept that God created the world as if it older (and had come together through standard scientific process).

JM

[sentipente]

The problem we have is that we insist on believing that Genesis was written contemporaneously with the Creation event, even though we know that this is not true. Of course, we are forced to believe that because of our strange view of inspiration. We think that God called Moses and said, "I'm going to give you an account of how I created the universe." That is not what happened but we insist on believing it. When Moses said "The evening and the morning was the first day" he was writing thousands of years later when days and weeks were already in use. The Egyptians already had a ten day week. It would be best if we only took from Genesis what it truly wants to teach us: the universe is the creation product of a superior mind, everything else on earth was in place before humans appeared on earth, humans are superior in intelligence to other animal life, and the first humans worked cooperatively and in harmony for a while until they became too independent. That led to distrust and murder.

[StormyOne]

The problem we have is that we insist on believing that Genesis was written contemporaneously with the Creation event, even though we know that this is not true. Of course, we are forced to believe that because of our strange view of inspiration. We think that God called Moses and said, "I'm going to give you an account of how I created the universe." That is not what happened but we insist on believing it. When Moses said "The evening and the morning was the first day" he was writing thousands of years later when days and weeks were already in use. The Egyptians already had a ten day week. It would be best if we only took from Genesis what it truly wants to teach us: the universe is the creation product of a superior mind, everything else on earth was in place before humans appeared on earth, humans are superior in intelligence to other animal life, and the first humans worked cooperatively and in harmony for a while until they became too independent. That led to distrust and murder.
but if we accepted your view, then there would be one less thing that we could be dogmatic about....:D

[JonMiller]

The problem we have is that we insist on believing that Genesis was written contemporaneously with the Creation event, even though we know that this is not true. Of course, we are forced to believe that because of our strange view of inspiration. We think that God called Moses and said, "I'm going to give you an account of how I created the universe." That is not what happened but we insist on believing it. When Moses said "The evening and the morning was the first day" he was writing thousands of years later when days and weeks were already in use. The Egyptians already had a ten day week. It would be best if we only took from Genesis what it truly wants to teach us: the universe is the creation product of a superior mind, everything else on earth was in place before humans appeared on earth, humans are superior in intelligence to other animal life, and the first humans worked cooperatively and in harmony for a while until they became too independent. That led to distrust and murder.

You are leaving out a bit from the Adam myth.

JM

[StormyOne]

You are leaving out a bit from the Adam myth.

JM
which says what?

[DrStupid_Ben]

Humans are more smart than animals. Humans would manage to live longer. The animals would die quicker and be buried. Bones have to be buried in order to become fossils. Human bones would be on the top and would rot. Got to remember it took 5 months for the flood to kill everything.

Proof for the water canopy:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Genesis 1:6-8

When the earth was created it was covered in water and divided the waters and created the heaven or sky and he put water above the sky. On day 3 God put the surface water into underground chambers.

When the flood began the water trapped underground came rushing to the surface causing the flood. You can see where the water came up from. The fault lines are all over the earth. And at the same time the water canopy collasped.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:11-12

Toward the end of the flood the mountains were formed and the land appeared and the water recedded. Mountains such as Everest didn't exist before the flood. Before the flood the oceans didn't exist. Did you know there is enought water in the oceans the flood the entire world 1.5 miles deep?

They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. Psalms 104:8-9

And finally Peter believed in the water canopy:

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. 2 Peter 3:5-6

The simple belief behind the Genesis accounts of the universe in the creation and the flood, and also in Psalms and Job etc is a pre-Copernican cosmology. It seems that the writer believed that the earth was flat, the centre of the universe, and that there were great waters above a firmament which held back the those waters, and the stars were in the firmament and the birds flew below the firmament.

If you read Genesis 1 you can see that the stars were below the waters, so it couldn't have been a water canopy.

Also on the flood - the amount of seismological movement needed to create the mountains and move the continents in such a short amount of time would create an increadable amount of heat.

[daro2096]

The simple belief behind the Genesis accounts of the universe in the creation and the flood, and also in Psalms and Job etc is a pre-Copernican cosmology. It seems that the writer believed that the earth was flat, the centre of the universe, and that there were great waters above a firmament which held back the those waters, and the stars were in the firmament and the birds flew below the firmament.

If you read Genesis 1 you can see that the stars were below the waters, so it couldn't have been a water canopy.

Also on the flood - the amount of seismological movement needed to create the mountains and move the continents in such a short amount of time would create an increadable amount of heat.
Well I don't know how it happened but I know it happened. Have you heard of the hydroplate theory?

[daro2096]

The simple belief behind the Genesis accounts of the universe in the creation and the flood, and also in Psalms and Job etc is a pre-Copernican cosmology. It seems that the writer believed that the earth was flat, the centre of the universe, and that there were great waters above a firmament which held back the those waters, and the stars were in the firmament and the birds flew below the firmament.

If you read Genesis 1 you can see that the stars were below the waters, so it couldn't have been a water canopy.

Also on the flood - the amount of seismological movement needed to create the mountains and move the continents in such a short amount of time would create an increadable amount of heat.
The birds fly in the firmament.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Genesis 1:20

Also if mount Everest existed before the flood then if the waters completely covered the earth and were above the higest mountain by 15 cubits then that much water falling on the earth would have cooked the earth too.

[DrStupid_Ben]

However both the stars and the birds are below the water

[StormyOne]

The birds fly in the firmament.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Genesis 1:20

Also if mount Everest existed before the flood then if the waters completely covered the earth and were above the higest mountain by 15 cubits then that much water falling on the earth would have cooked the earth too.
there is not enough water to do all of that in our atmosphere... and there was not enough water in the "canopy" to flood the whole earth. If there was that much water vapor above the earth, life could not exist..... likewise there is scant proof of a global flood.... not as recent as the last 5,000 to 7,000 years...

[JonMiller]

which says what?

Well, really the whole part of Adam/etc. As well as a bunch of other stuff. It seems to me as if he went through the Creation myths judging what was true or false based upon current knowledge. Which from a spiritual standpoint is pretty silly.

We should look to the myth for spiritual truth, disregarding the literal truthfulness of it.

Parts of the Adam myth which have been ignored is the sinning part, the blessing a day part, and really most of it even. I mean, if that is what he get's from genesis he has thrown away most of it.

I agree that genesis should be read as myth, but that doesn't mean any of it can be disregarded. It can only be disregarded as a statement of scientific fact.

JM

[StormyOne]

Well, really the whole part of Adam/etc. As well as a bunch of other stuff. It seems to me as if he went through the Creation myths judging what was true or false based upon current knowledge. Which from a spiritual standpoint is pretty silly.

We should look to the myth for spiritual truth, disregarding the literal truthfulness of it.

Parts of the Adam myth which have been ignored is the sinning part, the blessing a day part, and really most of it even. I mean, if that is what he get's from genesis he has thrown away most of it.

I agree that genesis should be read as myth, but that doesn't mean any of it can be disregarded. It can only be disregarded as a statement of scientific fact.

JM
thanks for clarifying that...

[sentipente]

JM, the following, "the first humans worked cooperatively and in harmony for a while until they became too independent. That led to distrust and murder" is a reference to man sinning. There is no
Sabbath institution in Genesis.

[JonMiller]

I didn't say instituted. Your statement is in terms of your theology, like that of the 'traditionals', rather then reading the scripture, and then making an interpretation.

JM

[sentipente]

I didn't say instituted. Your statement is in terms of your theology, like that of the 'traditionals', rather then reading the scripture, and then making an interpretation.

JM
This means that you believe the Scripture determines reality. The truth is that the Scripture only reflects reality and sometimes imperfectly. The total absence of any reference to the Sabbath in the entire book of Genesis negates the view that it was instituted at the Creation.

[JonMiller]

Once more, where did I say that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation?

Second, where did I say that scripture determines reality. I do think that scripture gives a source for detemining spiritual reality...

The issue is that you tie physical reality, what we can see with our science and academia, with spiritual reality. While it is obvious that if you beleive in God, such can't be done. It stops being logically consistent.

JM

[JonMiller]

Our science, and as such our history/etc, is based on the assumption that an active God doesn't exist.

JM

[sentipente]

The issue is that you tie physical reality, what we can see with our science and academia, with spiritual reality. While it is obvious that if you beleive in God, such can't be done. It stops being logically consistent.

JM
Strange that I have no such problem. Besides, I have no idea what you mean by spiritual reality.

[sentipente]

Our science, and as such our history/etc, is based on the assumption that an active God doesn't exist.

Your practice of science may be based on such an assumption. Science is based on no such assumption.

[sentipente]

Once more, where did I say that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation?

Then why did you imply that the blessing of a day was a significant aspect of the Genesis story?

[JonMiller]

So we have some knowledge of physical reality, acheived by our science/etc. I include history with this. You seem to have interpreted the Bible based upon this knowledge... however, you rightly pointed out that the writers of the Bible had no knowledge of physical reality.. and so if there is any truth in their words, it would be of the spiritual.

Spiritual reality means spiritual knowledge, the creation accounts exist to help us understand God and our interactions with Him.

Now obviously, at some level they are the same reality (I am not follower of Plato). However, they definitely don't now, and I don't forsee them doing so at any point in the future.

I know I have said this before, but:
Our science is only correct, our scientific theories only work, if God hasn't acted. At any point where God acts, the theories fail, and not in any way I or anyone else can exptrapolate.

Science only works with a deist God; if God acts, then science fails (at some point).

JM

[JonMiller]

Then why did you imply that the blessing of a day was a significant aspect of the Genesis story?

Is it part of the story?

JM

[sentipente]

I know I have said this before, but:
Our science is only correct, our scientific theories only work, if God hasn't acted.
That is demonstrably false. If God had not acted, (I prefer to say the Creator), we would not be here to do any science. Period. I think you have a very narrow view of science.

[StormyOne]

problems with the flood story.... fish and whales were not in the ark... how about insects... i.e. spiders, ants, bees, butterflies? so if they were all destroyed when were they recreated? Or were they not all destroyed?

[JonMiller]

That is demonstrably false. If God had not acted, (I prefer to say the Creator), we would not be here to do any science. Period. I think you have a very narrow view of science.

I have the view of the science that works, and that scientists call science.

To name other things science when they don't follow the scientific practices and assumptions, and don't have the same successes (and limitations) as science is to lend false validity to them. OR to use them to create false problems with science.

JM

[JonMiller]

That is demonstrably false. If God had not acted, (I prefer to say the Creator), we would not be here to do any science. Period. I think you have a very narrow view of science.

I really don't think you understand science at all.

Science is based upon the assumptions that experiments can be repeated, that hypothesis can be falsified, that the laws/etc at one location in 4-space is the same as at some other location in 4-space (inherent in this assumption is that the laws are, in mathematical terms, well behaved). Any failure in this, is a failure in science at the most fundamental level. A God that acts, rather then just being a set of laws which can be probed, fundamentally removes science as being able to explain everything (there are also mathematical theories which state that completeness won't be possible) and science as an approximation of a complete understanding of everything only works where God hasn't acted.

This is the reason that most physicists are atheists, and most of those that beleive in God don't beleive in an acting God.

JM

[freeindeed2]

So what is the evidence for a water canopy or an ice canopy?
Actually, the Ice Canopy Theory makes a lot of sense and there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory. Do a search and see if you can find a reliable source that discusses it. It's fascinating, and we know the earth was different before the flood. I recored a presentation of if from TV (PAX, if I remember correctly) from a few years ago, and I had a class that covered it as well.

As far as the earth being young (6000 or so years) or old, I believe God is All-Powereful and could have created everything in six literal, 24 hour days. But I don't think the observable evidence supports it. And we can be certain that the known universe is at the very least millions of years old, for we are able to see galaxies millions of light years away. If all of it were only 6000 years old the light from those galaxies wouldn't have reached us yet, and wouldn't for millions of years.

The bottom line for me is this. I believe God created it. The rest is on a need-to-know basis, and apparently we don't need to know. I think he leaves it for us to ponder over in awe of a Sovereign God who is the sole source of life and power in the infinite universe. He gave us just enough information to know that. The rest, I believe, is beyond what we can even comprehend. But it sure is fun trying!

[sentipente]

JM, all you have demonstrated are the limitations of a certain view of scientific investigation. Nothing more.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Actually, the Ice Canopy Theory makes a lot of sense and there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory. Do a search and see if you can find a reliable source that discusses it. It's fascinating, and we know the earth was different before the flood. I recored a presentation of if from TV (PAX, if I remember correctly) from a few years ago, and I had a class that covered it as well.



Even if we assume the flood story is accurate history how do you determine that the earth was different before the flood. Typically SDA's have thought that there was no rain before the flood but that is not found in the Bible. The only mention of there not being rain is in reference to the earth before there was any growing thing. Even in the Genesis story it talks about rivers, which would be evidence of rain, the ideas that rivers are only made up of water flowing from a spring does not hold up to well with the actual physics involved.

[sentipente]

Christians are yet to find place for the flood story in the Plan of Salvation. It does not fit.

[JonMiller]

JM, all you have demonstrated are the limitations of a certain view of scientific investigation. Nothing more.

No, I have told you what scientists think and practice. You might have something different in mind when you talk about science, but it isn't what scientists have in mind. And if you remove the 'limitations' you remove the foundations of what we scientists call science, and our theories and hypothesis are no longer (what scientists call) scientifically valid.

Perhaps though instead of me having to always say 'what scientists call science' (to differentiate it from what you call science) you could come up with a different word for your 'science'? It makes a hassle for me...

Maybe you can tell me what you mean by 'science'? Communication relies upon some understanding of what th words the other is using mean.

JM

[freeindeed2]

Even if we assume the flood story is accurate history how do you determine that the earth was different before the flood. Typically SDA's have thought that there was no rain before the flood but that is not found in the Bible. The only mention of there not being rain is in reference to the earth before there was any growing thing. Even in the Genesis story it talks about rivers, which would be evidence of rain, the ideas that rivers are only made up of water flowing from a spring does not hold up to well with the actual physics involved.
RC, according to the theory there was a layer of water beneath the surface of the earth (waters of the deep, and a LOT of it). This would allow for water to come up through springs since there would be a constant pressure on the water because of the force of gravity.

The theory also hypothesizes that whatever penetrated the ice canopy also penetrated the waters from the deep giving the pressurized water a hole to gush out of at supersonic speeds, clear to the upper atmosphere. Eventaully, as water was shot out, the surface of the earth cracked all over and the evidence for this can be seen by looking at a surface map of the floors of the oceans. It looks like the seams of a baseball. It also explains the continental shifts.

Like I said. It's an interesting theory that attempts to explain the even of the flood by working backwards based on the evidence left behind.

[daro2096]

Actually, the Ice Canopy Theory makes a lot of sense and there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory. Do a search and see if you can find a reliable source that discusses it. It's fascinating, and we know the earth was different before the flood. I recored a presentation of if from TV (PAX, if I remember correctly) from a few years ago, and I had a class that covered it as well.

As far as the earth being young (6000 or so years) or old, I believe God is All-Powereful and could have created everything in six literal, 24 hour days. But I don't think the observable evidence supports it. And we can be certain that the known universe is at the very least millions of years old, for we are able to see galaxies millions of light years away. If all of it were only 6000 years old the light from those galaxies wouldn't have reached us yet, and wouldn't for millions of years.

The bottom line for me is this. I believe God created it. The rest is on a need-to-know basis, and apparently we don't need to know. I think he leaves it for us to ponder over in awe of a Sovereign God who is the sole source of life and power in the infinite universe. He gave us just enough information to know that. The rest, I believe, is beyond what we can even comprehend. But it sure is fun trying!
The Bible never says anywhere that the entire universe is only 6000 years old. Only the creation of the earth and the solar system is 6000 years old.

Young earth in an old universe makes more sense.

[daro2096]

problems with the flood story.... fish and whales were not in the ark... how about insects... i.e. spiders, ants, bees, butterflies? so if they were all destroyed when were they recreated? Or were they not all destroyed?
Noah only had to take on the ark the animals that lived on the land. Noah didn't have to take insects because insects survive a flood pretty well. Go take a look at soil after a flood, what do you see? Bugs by the bucket load.

[mva1985]

The Bible never says anywhere that the entire universe is only 6000 years old. Only the creation of the earth and the solar system is 6000 years old.

Young earth in an old universe makes more sense.
I can go along with this.

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC, according to the theory there was a layer of water beneath the surface of the earth (waters of the deep, and a LOT of it). This would allow for water to come up through springs since there would be a constant pressure on the water because of the force of gravity.

The theory also hypothesizes that whatever penetrated the ice canopy also penetrated the waters from the deep giving the pressurized water a hole to gush out of at supersonic speeds, clear to the upper atmosphere. Eventaully, as water was shot out, the surface of the earth cracked all over and the evidence for this can be seen by looking at a surface map of the floors of the oceans. It looks like the seams of a baseball. It also explains the continental shifts.

Like I said. It's an interesting theory that attempts to explain the even of the flood by working backwards based on the evidence left behind.
But the statement was that there was some kind of known difference between the world to day and the pre flood world. It seems most of these other theories are based upon the few verses about the flood such as waters of the deep I see little that would be called evidence in a scientific sense.

[StormyOne]

Noah only had to take on the ark the animals that lived on the land. Noah didn't have to take insects because insects survive a flood pretty well. Go take a look at soil after a flood, what do you see? Bugs by the bucket load.
so then every living thing was not destroyed in the flood....

Gen 7:4 For in seven more days I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights. And I will destroy from off the face of the earth every living thing that I have made.

I suppose you are going to suggest that the phrase every living thing does not apply to insects, snakes, lizards.....

[freeindeed2]

But the statement was that there was some kind of known difference between the world to day and the pre flood world. It seems most of these other theories are based upon the few verses about the flood such as waters of the deep I see little that would be called evidence in a scientific sense.
Hey, RC. I am not claiming it to be absolute truth. It is a theory, afterall. Nor have I presented you anywhere near the whole theory. The video I have on it is 2 hours long. I've, probably very poorly, only presented a couple of pieces. The fact is we don't know how it happened. These scientists develope theories in an attempt to understand how it 'possibly' could have taken place being careful that they match with the short Biblical record. The flood certainly left its mark on the planet though and a lot of evidence.

Is that fair enough?

That's why I encouraged anyone interested to do a search or find material for their own study. It is a well-developed theory with much documentation. In other words, it's not just someone's musings on their personal blog on some website somewhere. A lot of research has gone into it and my little quips don't do it justice here.:)

[freeindeed2]

Delete.

[freeindeed2]

The Bible never says anywhere that the entire universe is only 6000 years old. Only the creation of the earth and the solar system is 6000 years old.
Actually, it doesn't say at all. We can not, with absolute certainty, say that creation happened in six literal 24 hour periods of time. And this is not to say that God isn't powerful enough to do so. He IS!

Also, how long were Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall? A day, week, month, year, 10 years, 500 years? We don't have any idea!

And how long was the 'earth' 'void and without form' prior to God's creative work?

So not you, me, or anybody else can say with absolute certainty that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Young earth in an old universe makes more sense.
I do believe the created earth is relatively young compared to the universe.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Hey, RC. I am not claiming it to be absolute truth. It is a theory, afterall. Nor have I presented you anywhere near the whole theory. The video I have on it is 2 hours long. I've, probably very poorly, only presented a couple of pieces. The fact is we don't know how it happened. These scientists develope theories in an attempt to understand how it 'possibly' could have taken place being careful that they match with the short Biblical record. The flood certainly left its mark on the planet though and a lot of evidence.

Is that fair enough?

That's why I encouraged anyone interested to do a search or find material for their own study. It is a well-developed theory with much documentation. In other words, it's not just someone's musings on their personal blog on some website somewhere. A lot of research has gone into it and my little quips don't do it justice here.:)
That is indeed my point they are trying to make a theory which could explain something that is very briefly mentioned. It is a theory that assumes a completely different earth then we have now. The only reason for these assumptions is to say that the flood story as a world wide phenomena is true.

As for there being evidence of a world wide flood I can't think of any. Most people who think they see evidence are usually just looking at the evidence of the water from the last ice age. some look at areas like Oregon where I grew up and see the sea shells on the hills and assume that that is the flood but they ignore the large amount of evidence of multiple times areas of our land mass were covered by oceans.

I am sure it is an interesting video but I also think that there is a reason those people make little headway in the scientific community. As science attempts to falsify a hypothesis and there is not even any evidence to support a hypothesis other then an ancient story it is not so much a scientific question as a faith question. Those that look at the Black sea flood at least try to use the land features to correlate to the story. There is not ice canopy or great underground sea to use as evidence, just speculation that it once existed.

[freeindeed2]

That is indeed my point they are trying to make a theory which could explain something that is very briefly mentioned. It is a theory that assumes a completely different earth then we have now. The only reason for these assumptions is to say that the flood story as a world wide phenomena is true.
I didn't realize that you didn't believe there was a flood. Of course they're theorizing based on the Biblical account of a world-wide flood. In order for the Bible to be true the earth would definitely have to be different today, as God promised that it COULDN'T happen again. For that to be true something had to be different.

I do believe the Bible's account to be true.

As for there being evidence of a world wide flood I can't think of any. Most people who think they see evidence are usually just looking at the evidence of the water from the last ice age. some look at areas like Oregon where I grew up and see the sea shells on the hills and assume that that is the flood but they ignore the large amount of evidence of multiple times areas of our land mass were covered by oceans.
I lived in Oregon.

Yeah, and let's forget about the fact that they've found shells on many of the highest peaks around the whole globe. If you don't believe the Bible's account of the flood, what do you believe, and how can you just dismiss it?

I am sure it is an interesting video but I also think that there is a reason those people make little headway in the scientific community. As science attempts to falsify a hypothesis and there is not even any evidence to support a hypothesis other then an ancient story it is not so much a scientific question as a faith question. Those that look at the Black sea flood at least try to use the land features to correlate to the story. There is not ice canopy or great underground sea to use as evidence, just speculation that it once existed.
These are not 'quack' scientists. They are able to examine the physical evidence and theorize what caused it. If a tornado ripped through a forrest and nobody was there to witness it, we could still determine with some degree of certainty what caused it based on the physical evidence.

Peace, my brother. Thanks for discussing.:)

[daro2096]

so then every living thing was not destroyed in the flood....

Gen 7:4 For in seven more days I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights. And I will destroy from off the face of the earth every living thing that I have made.

I suppose you are going to suggest that the phrase every living thing does not apply to insects, snakes, lizards.....
The Bible says:

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Genesis 6:7

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. Genesis 6:17

Only the life that lived on the dry land was going to completely die out. That is man, horses, cows, sheep and so on. This doesn't include sea life. Why would Noah want to take animals on the ark that could survive a flood very nicely? Noah didn't have to take insects on the ark. As I have said already bugs can survive a flood without problems, even if the adults die the offspring, the eggs and larve hatch out and come crawling out of the soil with no problems at all.

See this link:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Insects_survived_on_floating_vegetation_mats

By the way I don't nessecerly agree with the above link.

[StormyOne]

The Bible says:

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Genesis 6:7

And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. Genesis 6:17

Only the life that lived on the dry land was going to completely die out. That is man, horses, cows, sheep and so on. This doesn't include sea life. Why would Noah want to take animals on the ark that could survive a flood very nicely? Noah didn't have to take insects on the ark. As I have said already bugs can survive a flood without problems, even if the adults die the offspring, the eggs and larve hatch out and come crawling out of the soil with no problems at all.

See this link:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Insects_survived_on_floating_vegetation_mats

By the way I don't nessecerly agree with the above link.
so again, you are saying that insects are not "living things" yet the bible says that God said he would destroy every living thing.... don't you see the contradiction?

[daro2096]

so again, you are saying that insects are not "living things" yet the bible says that God said he would destroy every living thing.... don't you see the contradiction?
Every living thing that has the breath of life and lives on the earth, the land.

Insects don't breath, they take in oxygen through their skin.

[StormyOne]

Every living thing that has the breath of life and lives on the earth, the land.

Insects don't breath, they take in oxygen through their skin.
that is breath.... its respiration... I see your position... when the bible said every, it doesn't really mean every.... not a problem....

[RC_NewProtestants]

I didn't realize that you didn't believe there was a flood. Of course they're theorizing based on the Biblical account of a world-wide flood. In order for the Bible to be true the earth would definitely have to be different today, as God promised that it COULDN'T happen again. For that to be true something had to be different.



God said He wouldn't destroy the earth again with a flood. If the action was from an all powerful God it would not require there to be any difference in the world of then from today.

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." 12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."


Oh by the way I reject the logic where you said in order for the Bible to be true the flood had to occur. That is no more legitimate then to say that in order for the Bible to be true the people who die go to Abraham's bosom or that there are really going to be literal insect warriors as mentioned in the book of Revelation. In other words the Bible's truth is not defined by every story contained therein.

[freeindeed2]

God said He wouldn't destroy the earth again with a flood. If the action was from an all powerful God it would not require there to be any difference in the world of then from today.
You are entitled to your opinions as well. But that doesn't mean the earth is the same today as it was before the flood. I happen to believe that a flood that destroys the earth would have an effect on the earth and changes would be the result.

Oh by the way I reject the logic where you said in order for the Bible to be true the flood had to occur.
You just acknowledged that God did destroy the earth with a flood. Which is it? Did he, or didn't he?

That is no more legitimate then to say that in order for the Bible to be true the people who die go to Abraham's bosom or that there are really going to be literal insect warriors as mentioned in the book of Revelation. In other words the Bible's truth is not defined by every story contained therein.
What are you saying the flood was symbolic of then. If the flood didn't happen, what did it symbolize that did happen.

I take the Bible for what it says, rightly discerned by the Holy Spirit living IN me. What other parts of the Bible do you not believe in?

[StormyOne]

You are entitled to your opinions as well. But that doesn't mean the earth is the same today as it was before the flood. I happen to believe that a flood that destroys the earth would have an effect on the earth and changes would be the result.


You just acknowledged that God did destroy the earth with a flood. Which is it? Did he, or didn't he?


What are you saying the flood was symbolic of then. If the flood didn't happen, what did it symbolize that did happen.

I take the Bible for what it says, rightly discerned by the Holy Spirit living IN me. What other parts of the Bible do you not believe in?
so then you believe that when God created the carnivores they looked different than they do now? When did those changes occur if they were created differently? How about humans, how much different were Adam and Eve from us here and now?

[freeindeed2]

so then you believe that when God created the carnivores they looked different than they do now? When did those changes occur if they were created differently? How about humans, how much different were Adam and Eve from us here and now?
What does genetics have to do with a world-wide flood?:confused:

Before going on a tangent, do you believe God destroyed the earth with a flood that covered the earth or not?

[StormyOne]

What does genetics have to do with a world-wide flood?:confused:

Before going on a tangent, do you believe God destroyed the earth with a flood that covered the earth or not?I believe a local flood happened.... I do not believe a global flood occurred...

[sentipente]

What are you saying the flood was symbolic of then. If the flood didn't happen, what did it symbolize that did happen.

Have you figured out what would be the purpose of sending a flood to destroy all the humans on earth but leaving the devil and his angels untouched?

[freeindeed2]

I believe a local flood happened.... I do not believe a global flood occurred...
What do you do with Genesis 6-8 then? When God gave the words to Moses to write and told Noah he would destroy the earth, he really meant only a small area of the earth. When 7:24 says that water covered the earth for 150 days it didn't mean it? After 5 months of waters of water gushing from the waters of the deep, and over a year of time in the ark, it just flooded a local area?

Also, apparently rainbows were not possible before the flood. How would a local flood change that?

(Just asking Stormy. No offense intended AT ALL.:D)

[freeindeed2]

Have you figured out what would be the purpose of sending a flood to destroy all the humans on earth but leaving the devil and his angels untouched?
Good question. Sinful man populates the earth, 'take two'?

Like any cycle in the Bible, what happened pointed forward to something else, something more complete, a reality. The flood pointed forward to the fire which will put an end to evil's reign of terror.

[sentipente]

Good question. Sinful man populates the earth, 'take two'?

Like any cycle in the Bible, what happened pointed forward to something else, something more complete, a reality. The flood pointed forward to the fire which will put an end to evil's reign of terror.
That's a rationalization. What purpose does the flood serve? Who was responsible for sin? Our problem is that while we are making theories about the facts of the Bible we are missing the lessons of the Bible.

[freeindeed2]

That's a rationalization. What purpose does the flood serve? Who was responsible for sin? Our problem is that while we are making theories about the facts of the Bible we are missing the lessons of the Bible.
We weren't discussing the lesson. Some don't even believe it happened. If it never happened, what lesson was God teaching?

[sentipente]

Aesop's fables never happened but the lessons therein are very real and valuable.

[StormyOne]

What do you do with Genesis 6-8 then? When God gave the words to Moses to write and told Noah he would destroy the earth, he really meant only a small area of the earth. When 7:24 says that water covered the earth for 150 days it didn't mean it? After 5 months of waters of water gushing from the waters of the deep, and over a year of time in the ark, it just flooded a local area?

Also, apparently rainbows were not possible before the flood. How would a local flood change that?

(Just asking Stormy. No offense intended AT ALL.:D)
we don't know if rainbows were possible pre-flood or not.... nor do we know that people inhabited the whole globe or were they concentrated in a certain area.... the recent flooding in New Orleans demostrates in my mind how a flood can be local and destroy everything in that particular locale.

Did God give Moses the words, or did he show him a picture as it were and Moses described what he saw? Moses was not there, just as he was not there in creation.... likewise what was the lesson Moses was attempting to teach and to whom?

Those are things I am considering when I say that the flood was not global....

[daro2096]

I believe a local flood happened.... I do not believe a global flood occurred...
If it were just a local flood why didn't God just tell Noah to move?

Why spend 120 years building a big boat if all Noah had to do was to move?

[daro2096]

we don't know if rainbows were possible pre-flood or not.... nor do we know that people inhabited the whole globe or were they concentrated in a certain area.... the recent flooding in New Orleans demostrates in my mind how a flood can be local and destroy everything in that particular locale.

Did God give Moses the words, or did he show him a picture as it were and Moses described what he saw? Moses was not there, just as he was not there in creation.... likewise what was the lesson Moses was attempting to teach and to whom?

Those are things I am considering when I say that the flood was not global....
The Bible says in Genesis chapter 9 that God put his bow in the sky as a sign of the covenant that he would never again destroy the world by water.

[StormyOne]

If it were just a local flood why didn't God just tell Noah to move?

Why spend 120 years building a big boat if all Noah had to do was to move?
Noah did not spend 120 years building the ark... nor was the ark built to save anyone but Noah and his family.....

[freeindeed2]

nor was the ark built to save anyone but Noah and his family.....
I completely agree with this (I'll have to check on the other). The ark was not designed to save 'all who would listen and respond'. It was for Noah and his family ONLY.

[sentipente]

I completely agree with this (I'll have to check on the other). The ark was not designed to save 'all who would listen and respond'. It was for Noah and his family ONLY.
And still we miss the lesson.

[StormyOne]

I completely agree with this (I'll have to check on the other). The ark was not designed to save 'all who would listen and respond'. It was for Noah and his family ONLY.
check it.... God came to Noah when he was 500 yrs old, made the covenant with him and is family, told him to build the ark... Noah entered the ark when he was 600 yrs old... he left the ark when he was 601 yrs old....

[RC_NewProtestants]

You just acknowledged that God did destroy the earth with a flood. Which is it? Did he, or didn't he?

No I did not, I related what the story said which was not that God couldn't destroy the world again with a flood but that in the story He said He wouldn't destroy the earth again, and then He said that He would not destroy it with a flood. So if you think the purpose was to show that God would destroy the earth with fire at the end you are taking a view that was 1000's of years subsequent to the flood story and those who heard the flood story.

I also don't think the flood story is accurate when it says that God regreted He made man.
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 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."

This does not work well with the concept of an all knowing God, however as a story it does express well the sinful nature of people.



What are you saying the flood was symbolic of then. If the flood didn't happen, what did it symbolize that did happen.

It does not have to symbolic but it does convey the idea of wickedness versus righteousness. That God cares about how people behave, it actually can be used for many different things. For instance when the people meet some other people with their gods and their stories they will have their own story of the power of their God. Like many stories it can be used for many different things. In the main I think the story like much of Genesis is designed to teach obedience as that was the real major issue we see after the exodus and when these stories were written down.


I take the Bible for what it says, rightly discerned by the Holy Spirit living IN me. What other parts of the Bible do you not believe in?

Well there are many things actually, for instance David and Bathsheba's first child according to the Bible was killed by God as a punishment of God for David's sin in fact according to the story the baby suffered for a week of sickness before dying. Or what about the thousands who died of the plague from God because David numbered Israel. Then again what about God's instructions to kill all of an enemy accept virgin females which they may take for themselves. What is most likely happening is that the writers of the Old Testament in various places have inserted their understanding of God into the stories. It is a time and place representation of what they thought about God. It is why we or at least some of us believe in progressive revelation. As such we can see as we learn more about God we also see where other's may not be revealing God as much as their idea of God. Which while not the ultimate truth can be a baby step in the process of learning more about God. It is why there is very little in the old Testament about life after death but it is the clearly found in the New Testament, because the knowledge had increased. It is why the revelation of Jesus Christ is much more accurate at revealing God then is the ancient stories even though those stories may claim to recount the words of God.

[freeindeed2]

No I did not, I related what the story said which was not that God couldn't destroy the world again with a flood but that in the story He said He wouldn't destroy the earth again, and then He said that He would not destroy it with a flood. So if you think the purpose was to show that God would destroy the earth with fire at the end you are taking a view that was 1000's of years subsequent to the flood story and those who heard the flood story.

I also don't think the flood story is accurate when it says that God regreted He made man.
I'll stick with the Bible. Why would God relay a ficticious story that never happened to Moses? Does this mean maybe the creation story didn't happen too? It's recorded just before Noah, right before the fall of man.:)

This does not work well with the concept of an all knowing God, however as a story it does express well the sinful nature of people.
Check the Hebrew (I'm not a Hebrew scholar). I bet it's conveyed better that it's English counterpart.

It does not have to symbolic but it does convey the idea of wickedness versus righteousness. That God cares about how people behave, it actually can be used for many different things. For instance when the people meet some other people with their gods and their stories they will have their own story of the power of their God. Like many stories it can be used for many different things. In the main I think the story like much of Genesis is designed to teach obedience as that was the real major issue we see after the exodus and when these stories were written down.



Well there are many things actually, for instance David and Bathsheba's first child according to the Bible was killed by God as a punishment of God for David's sin in fact according to the story the baby suffered for a week of sickness before dying. Or what about the thousands who died of the plague from God because David numbered Israel. Then again what about God's instructions to kill all of an enemy accept virgin females which they may take for themselves. What is most likely happening is that the writers of the Old Testament in various places have inserted their understanding of God into the stories. It is a time and place representation of what they thought about God. It is why we or at least some of us believe in progressive revelation. As such we can see as we learn more about God we also see where other's may not be revealing God as much as their idea of God. Which while not the ultimate truth can be a baby step in the process of learning more about God. It is why there is very little in the old Testament about life after death but it is the clearly found in the New Testament, because the knowledge had increased. It is why the revelation of Jesus Christ is much more accurate at revealing God then is the ancient stories even though those stories may claim to recount the words of God.
If you can't believe the Bible, what writings can you believe?

[freeindeed2]

check it.... God came to Noah when he was 500 yrs old, made the covenant with him and is family, told him to build the ark... Noah entered the ark when he was 600 yrs old... he left the ark when he was 601 yrs old....
That sounds right. I will check it.:)

[StormyOne]

That sounds right. I will check it.:)

Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old. And Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Gen 6:10-13 And Noah fathered three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (11) The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. (12) And God looked upon the earth. And, behold, it was corrupted! For all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. (13) And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. And, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:18 But I will establish My covenant with you. And you shall come into the ark, you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you.

Gen 7:5-7 And Noah did according to all that Jehovah commanded him. (6) And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. (7) And Noah went in. And his sons and his wife and his sons' wives went in with him into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

Gen 8:13-16 And it happened in the six hundred and first year, at the beginning, on the first of the month, that the waters were dried up from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked. And, behold, the face of the earth was dried! (14) And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. (15) And God spoke to Noah, saying, (16) Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons' wives with you.

there you go.....

the reality is was less than 100 years, because Noah's sons were grown and had wives.... so God told him to build the ark and as soon as they completed it, God sent the flood....

[sentipente]

I'll stick with the Bible. Why would God relay a ficticious story that never happened to Moses?
Who said that God "relayed" the story to him?

[freeindeed2]

Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old. And Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Gen 6:10-13 And Noah fathered three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (11) The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. (12) And God looked upon the earth. And, behold, it was corrupted! For all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. (13) And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. And, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:18 But I will establish My covenant with you. And you shall come into the ark, you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you.

Gen 7:5-7 And Noah did according to all that Jehovah commanded him. (6) And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. (7) And Noah went in. And his sons and his wife and his sons' wives went in with him into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

Gen 8:13-16 And it happened in the six hundred and first year, at the beginning, on the first of the month, that the waters were dried up from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked. And, behold, the face of the earth was dried! (14) And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. (15) And God spoke to Noah, saying, (16) Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons' wives with you.

there you go.....

the reality is was less than 100 years, because Noah's sons were grown and had wives.... so God told him to build the ark and as soon as they completed it, God sent the flood....
Wow. It's not often I get spoonfed Scripture here. Thanks.

[sentipente]

Wow. It's not often I get spoonfed Scripture here. Thanks.
The sad thing is that 2000 years after Christ departed we still need to be spoonfed to understand the obvious. We underestimate the staying power of human doctrines.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I'll stick with the Bible. Why would God relay a ficticious story that never happened to Moses? Does this mean maybe the creation story didn't happen too? It's recorded just before Noah, right before the fall of man.:)


Check the Hebrew (I'm not a Hebrew scholar). I bet it's conveyed better that it's English counterpart.


If you can't believe the Bible, what writings can you believe?

Do I believe that the creation story is meant to be taken literally by mankind for all time? No. It was written in a form that ancient man good understand and draw information from in his understanding of God. Does that mean that it must be viewed as literal because that is what the ancients believed, people who did not know the earth was round or what a star was. Clearly even to the literal mind the story does not work, as what was the light created before the sun, how were days determined before there was even a sun. Even the SDA lesson quarterly on Genesis said we would have to wait till we get to even to understand what the whole day of the creation of the sun moon and stars was about. Of course the reason is that the science is too strong to say that the earth was created before the sun and stars. How could the earth be floating out in space with no sun and yet be covered with water. The water like the other ancients myths is a symbol for the chaos, from which God brought order.

When you say you are believing the Bible you mean you are believing your interpretation of the Bible which is no doubt a traditional view as there is nothing in Genesis to say that God showed the writer what to write or even that it was given by any type of inspiration to the writer. Even the idea that it was written by moses is doubtful. Jewish tradition assigns the first 5 books to Moses but few scholars really think that any more.

I believe it is inspired but inspired does not mean something is literal a classic example is Jesus in Luke 16. A tool to teach does not have to incorporate everything to be literal nor does it have to use reality. We create models of chemicals or atoms and present them in a static form as a way to learn concepts but those models have very little similarity to the true atoms or molecules. Children learn in concrete ways because they can't fathom the abstract concepts that does not mean that they can't someday handle the abstract or that abstract cannot every be used because they learned something was presented in a concrete form. Yet in religion we tend to ignore the concepts of education that are well known assuming instead that if it gets written down it must be literal even though we know that most all the modern methods of written material is also present in ancient writing.

Even the flood story is written in a Chaistic poetic form.

[daro2096]

Do I believe that the creation story is meant to be taken literally by mankind for all time? No. It was written in a form that ancient man good understand and draw information from in his understanding of God. Does that mean that it must be viewed as literal because that is what the ancients believed, people who did not know the earth was round or what a star was. Clearly even to the literal mind the story does not work, as what was the light created before the sun, how were days determined before there was even a sun. Even the SDA lesson quarterly on Genesis said we would have to wait till we get to even to understand what the whole day of the creation of the sun moon and stars was about. Of course the reason is that the science is too strong to say that the earth was created before the sun and stars. How could the earth be floating out in space with no sun and yet be covered with water. The water like the other ancients myths is a symbol for the chaos, from which God brought order.

When you say you are believing the Bible you mean you are believing your interpretation of the Bible which is no doubt a traditional view as there is nothing in Genesis to say that God showed the writer what to write or even that it was given by any type of inspiration to the writer. Even the idea that it was written by moses is doubtful. Jewish tradition assigns the first 5 books to Moses but few scholars really think that any more.

I believe it is inspired but inspired does not mean something is literal a classic example is Jesus in Luke 16. A tool to teach does not have to incorporate everything to be literal nor does it have to use reality. We create models of chemicals or atoms and present them in a static form as a way to learn concepts but those models have very little similarity to the true atoms or molecules. Children learn in concrete ways because they can't fathom the abstract concepts that does not mean that they can't someday handle the abstract or that abstract cannot every be used because they learned something was presented in a concrete form. Yet in religion we tend to ignore the concepts of education that are well known assuming instead that if it gets written down it must be literal even though we know that most all the modern methods of written material is also present in ancient writing.

Even the flood story is written in a Chaistic poetic form.
You are assuming that people before the flood were stupid. You have no proof for this.

They were not stupid. They were much more smarter than we are today. They lived nearly a thousand years. Think of the knowledge you could learn in that lifetime. They were bigger and stronger too. Adam was 16 feet tall and Eve was 14 feet tall. People who lived just before the flood were 12 feet tall. Noah was 12 feet tall. They didn't need books because their memory was much better then ours today. They could memorise and recite entire books(if they had books that is) no problem. 7 generations of one family would be alive at any time so you could visit someone for help and advice.

By the way the whole Bible is written in a chaistic structure.

[StormyOne]

You are assuming that people before the flood were stupid. You have no proof for this.

They were not stupid. They were much more smarter than we are today. They lived nearly a thousand years. Think of the knowledge you could learn in that lifetime. They were bigger and stronger too. Adam was 16 feet tall and Eve was 14 feet tall. People who lived just before the flood were 12 feet tall. Noah was 12 feet tall. They didn't need books because their memory was much better then ours today. They could memorise and recite entire books(if they had books that is) no problem. 7 generations of one family would be alive at any time so you could visit someone for help and advice.

By the way the whole Bible is written in a chaistic structure.
you have what proof to suggest that Adam and Eve and Noah were tall?

[RC_NewProtestants]

You are assuming that people before the flood were stupid. You have no proof for this.

They were not stupid. They were much more smarter than we are today. They lived nearly a thousand years. Think of the knowledge you could learn in that lifetime. They were bigger and stronger too. Adam was 16 feet tall and Eve was 14 feet tall. People who lived just before the flood were 12 feet tall. Noah was 12 feet tall. They didn't need books because their memory was much better then ours today. They could memorise and recite entire books(if they had books that is) no problem. 7 generations of one family would be alive at any time so you could visit someone for help and advice.

By the way the whole Bible is written in a chaistic structure.
He has no proof that they were that tall and he has no proof that they knew much more then any other hunter/gather/farmer society. The fact is that knowledge did not increase until people had leisure time to pursue studies. When you life is consumed with providing food and shelter it matters not how long your life is.

By the way the whole Bible is not written in Chaistic structure that is the kind of generalization which shows that you don't really know what you are talking about.

[DrStupid_Ben]

It doesn't matter if they were smarter before the Flood, because Genesis was written long after that time for a totally different set of people. The most conservative opinion is that it was written by Moses after the Exodus, so the original audience would have been the Israelites wandering in the desert.

[daro2096]

He has no proof that they were that tall and he has no proof that they knew much more then any other hunter/gather/farmer society. The fact is that knowledge did not increase until people had leisure time to pursue studies. When you life is consumed with providing food and shelter it matters not how long your life is.

By the way the whole Bible is not written in Chaistic structure that is the kind of generalization which shows that you don't really know what you are talking about.
All the fossils of animals found are much bigger then the animals that are alive today. Fossils of dragon flies with 50" wing span have been found. Impossible for insects to get that big in todays atmosphere. Fossilised amber been found with air bubbles and the oxygen content is 50% more than todays oxygen content. Human femurs have been found that would have made a man 12 feet tall.

This is all kept hushed up because it goes against the evolution theory(that man started out small and is getting bigger and smarter when infact the opposite is true) and anything that goes against the stupid theory is buried.

[RC_NewProtestants]

All the fossils of animals found are much bigger then the animals that are alive today. Fossils of dragon flies with 50" wing span have been found. Impossible for insects to get that big in todays atmosphere. Fossilised amber been found with air bubbles and the oxygen content is 50% more than todays oxygen content. Human femurs have been found that would have made a man 12 feet tall.

This is all kept hushed up because it goes against the evolution theory(that man started out small and is getting bigger and smarter when infact the opposite is true) and anything that goes against the stupid theory is buried.
Well I guess you don't have to answer the question I was going to ask which was where you found out about the human femur. Since you say it is hushed up. Apparently it is another conspiracy.

Though I don't know why as they release all the information about the ice age animals Pleistocene megafauna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_megafauna) in which case there was considerable bigger animals such things as Giant beaver and short faced bear (50% larger then our largest bears today),
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Beaver

[daro2096]

Well I guess you don't have to answer the question I was going to ask which was where you found out about the human femur. Since you say it is hushed up. Apparently it is another conspiracy.

Though I don't know why as they release all the information about the ice age animals Pleistocene megafauna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_megafauna) in which case there was considerable bigger animals such things as Giant beaver and short faced bear (50% larger then our largest bears today),
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Beaver
No they sell you half truths like the two samples from the same fossil will give two different answers as to age. They once examined the a rock taken from the Moon and they cut it up into 6 pieces and dated each piece and got results ranging from 10,000 years to 6 billion years, which answer is right. When samples of known age are tested for age the dating method doesn't work but when testing unknown samples for age it is assumed to work. Do you see the logic here? I don't.

When I was talking about fossils of animals been found that are much bigger before the flood I was comparing animals that exist today like dragonflies. Fossilised cattails have been found that would have been 60 feet tall.

[sentipente]

When I was talking about fossils of animals been found that are much bigger before the flood I was comparing animals that exist today like dragonflies. Fossilised cattails have been found that would have been 60 feet tall.
Did you find those fossils yourself? How come you accept their word on those fossils?

[RC_NewProtestants]

When I was talking about fossils of animals been found that are much bigger before the flood I was comparing animals that exist today like dragonflies. Fossilised cattails have been found that would have been 60 feet tall.

And your evidence for the assumption that they were before the flood is what?

[DrStupid_Ben]

Here is an article by Des Ford, The Genesis Debate:

http://www.adventistreform.com/TheGenesisDebate.html

[StormyOne]

good article... great article thanks for sharing it...

[Gabriela]

There is scientific evidence to back up a literal interpretation of the Bible as well as many scientists' beliefs in evolution and an old Earth. Both views, in my opinion, involve faith to believe in them. Since I believe in God and that the Bible is His inspired word, I choose to put my faith in that.

That being said, here is some interesting evidence. Recently bones from a Tyranasaurus Rex were found, and upon examination, marrow was found in them. They had not fossilized yet. I can't remember where I found this. I just googled "blood in dinosaur bone" I think. The science magazine that gave the stroy said that they would have never believed that a bone that old would not have fossilized and that it would change their theory on how bones fossilize. That to me is a prime example of bias shaping how we view evidence. The obvious answer to why it wasn't fossilized is that it wasn't that old, but because they had a world view that did not allow for God, they adjusted their theories to fit that view. That's why, as Christians, we need to recognize that bias and take a stand. Will we believe in our Creator and that His word is true or will we compromise with the world and reject the first angel's message?

One other point about evidence, where is the "missing link" so often spoken of? When has even one fossil found that appeared to be in the process of evolving?

[DrStupid_Ben]

There is scientific evidence to back up a literal interpretation of the Bible as well as many scientists' beliefs in evolution and an old Earth. Both views, in my opinion, involve faith to believe in them. Since I believe in God and that the Bible is His inspired word, I choose to put my faith in that.

I too believe in God that the Bible is his inspired word, but that doesn't mean I have to read certain things as literal. Why can't the account of this earths primeval history be written in the knowledge and worldview of an early semitic culture? We don't take Revelation to be literal, except for some convenient verses. We don't think that the devil is actually a dragon, and that the beast is actually a beast.

[Gabriela]

Is the issue that you have been inculcated with a paradigm espoused by a public school system that requires that you accept what is in point of fact a metaphysical assumption of the Universe, i.e. everything is random chaos and chance and thus there is no God and we can abandon any moral responsibility and simply abandon ourselves to a self-determined hedonism rather than actually taking full responsibilities for our actions? This new evidence threatens the very core of this paradigm and is thus simply shouted down by condemning the written word of a thoughtful and intelligent Creator. It flies in the face of the idiom, "We used to be monkies, so we have no moral imperative to follow," or in the baser sense, "If it feels good, do it."

[DrStupid_Ben]

I went through the public school system and was taught evolution. At the same time I was raised in an Adventist home and read the creation science magazines cover to cover each month. All that time I maintained a literal belief in Genesis. However, my interpretation of scripture has changed since then.

[JonMiller]

Umm, public schools do (And should) teach scientific thought. And evolution definitely is the scientific thought to teach in biology.

JM

[sentipente]

Umm, public schools do (And should) teach scientific thought. And evolution definitely is the scientific thought to teach in biology.

JM
It is as unethical for ethical to ignore what they cannot explain as it is for creationists to do the same. We cannot pretend that the human race and other animal species are only biology.

[JonMiller]

Err, once more I am not at all sure what you are trying to say? I (nor other physicists) am not at all sure what Dark Energy is in physics, but we still investigate it in a scientific manner...

I don't ever see God (Before Christ's return) being part of any scientific explanation. And that isn't because we are godless athiests..

JM

[sentipente]

Life is not only about physics. You can study physics alone when you are studying physics. If you claim to be studying the origins of the species you cannot confine yourself to physics or biology.

[Jimlarmore]

There is no irrefuteable evidence that man has existed for more than 10,000 years on earth which puts things in the ball park of what the Bible says our tenor here is.

The dating methods are very suspect especially that of the crust of the earth. Look at this http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a.htm to study up on some of the reasons why.

I have a science back ground and have been on both sides of this debate. Believe me what science has is not bullet proof at all.

Opps sorry this http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-6a.htm is on the dating methods.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[StormyOne]

There is no irrefuteable evidence that man has existed for more than 10,000 years on earth which puts things in the ball park of what the Bible says our tenor here is.

The dating methods are very suspect especially that of the crust of the earth. Look at this http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4a.htm to study up on some of the reasons why.

I have a science back ground and have been on both sides of this debate. Believe me what science has is not bullet proof at all.

Opps sorry this http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-6a.htm is on the dating methods.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
depends on what evidence you put your faith in..... as for your statement "believe me what science has is not bulletproof....." what does that mean exactly? I mean its not like we really know who you are that your testimony should be accepted without question....

[sentipente]

There is no irrefuteable evidence that man has existed for more than 10,000 years on earth which puts things in the ball park of what the Bible says our tenor here is.

Show me where the Bible speaks on this subject. Show that Adam refers to a single human being rather than being a representation for the human race. Your assumptions are reasonable but they are wrong. Hint: No single human being has ever named all the animals on earth.

Bishop Ussher is not God.