« Links Mentioned on the Show | Main | Chapters & Verses: On/Off »

January 10, 2011

Comments

Makes sense. God was dealing with sinners. Only people sin.Therefore deal with people where they were living. Which was only one area. Mesopotamia region. The area's around earth that show the appearance of flooding was probably a result of creation week.

Reasons to Believe uses the term "universal," meaning "the scope included all human beings" at the time.

Does anybody know if the present Tigris and Euphrates rivers are the same rivers the Bible refers to as the Tigris and Euphrates. I've always assumed they were, but I guess it's possible that people started calling those rivers the Tigris and Euphrates AFTER Genesis had been written, in which case, they may have just been named after the story. The thing is, rivers change course over time, and it seems to me that if there had big a big Mesopotamian flood, those rivers would either be non-existent now or they would be unrecognizable when compared to how they were before the flood.

Greg has not trafficked deeply in this issue and it is not obvious to Greg that there was no Noah's Ark.

Maybe Greg should traffic deeply in this issue.

When was this supposed to have happened?
Where was this supposed to have happened?
What exactly did happen?

Doesn't it seem to be a made up story more than a true one?

Anybody trafficked deeply in this issue?

RonH

@RonH

what you may consider deep and what i consider deep maybe different, or minuscule compared to others, but i have had great interest in this subject for the past 8 or 9 years now.

that being said, i take the evidence we see on earth as being in complete agreement with scripture.

However, i want to point out that i started with scripture, and not with the uniformitarian view that geology was/is entrenched in, ie. i did not start with man's knowledge or understanding.

So, i say i believe in a worldwide flood, that buried all the mountains on earth under water. i also think that when the "fountains of the deep" burst forth, that this event is what caused Pangaea to migrate to where its members currently are, still moving, but not at the rate it did in the past.

@doug

"Makes sense. God was dealing with sinners. Only people sin.Therefore deal with people where they were living. Which was only one area. Mesopotamia region. The area's around earth that show the appearance of flooding was probably a result of creation week."

i dont think it makes sense at all. i believe a non-worldwide flood finds itself against more scripture than it supports.

water finds its own level, so if the water level was 15 cubits higher than all the mountains "in that area" like some support, then how could this same water line not be the same height on the opposite side of the sphere?

i very much doubt the continents were spread out as we see today after the flood. but the scope of those reasons i wont get into right now.

i also think the building of an arch the size described in the Bible, would not be needed for a non-worldwide flood. the animals in the other regions could repopulate the region where mankind lived. if they were created in the Garden, and made it to the ends of the land, then they could make it back, couldnt they?

This is silly. RonH I haven't been around here enough to know, but if you are not a Christian, I ask that you be patient with us...

Dogbyte, I don't think the flood could've happened during the time of Pangea because (1) there was no Tigris and Euphrates river during the time of Pangea, and (2) the flood happened after the Tigris and Euphrates river were formed.

@Sam

how do you know there were no Tigris and Euphrates river? are you saying that two rivers cannot have the same name before the flood and after? do we see instances of this today? like where cities are named after an older precursor by the same name?

i think (2) is an assumption, that the tigris and euphrates river in the Garden are the same as the Tigris and Euphrates river of today.

But scripture does not agree with these modern day rivers coming out of Eden.

Genesis 2:10 (ASV) And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads.

the tigris and euphrates rivers of today, in no way agree that 4 rivers came from one.

also, the T and E rivers of today, are sitting on top of thousands of feet of fossilized dead things. So this would allow billions of dead things before the time of the Garden, before Sin occurred. But we know when God deemed everything "very good" there was no death before sin.

a world wide flood would have wiped away the exact known location of where the Garden of Eden was. there would be no record of it, as it would be buried under thousands of layers of sea sediment, during the year long flood, strong ocean currents would dump many many cubic tons of sediment over the entire face of the earth. a localized flood makes light of Noah's flood in the sense of its destruction. the thousands of feet of fossils underneath present day Israel to me, suggests a catastrophic event where thousands of layers were laid down in a short about of time.

How do you know there was no Tigris and Euphrates river during the time of Pangaea? either you have a historical witness, or you assume Pangaea was during the time frame that modern geologists propose, geologists that share a uniformitarian veiw, which is the assumption that todays present rates are the key to past. this method is the primary variable, in radiometric dating. meaning, a prescribed system of thought is assumed, and included into the method, before it provides an answer. this is a major assumption.

So if Pangaea was still connected during the days of the Garden of Eden, then the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, plus the other two, would have been there, in the area between the Caspian Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and the Persian Gulf.

often names transfer, when a group of people come from the original place and settle in a new one.

regarding the 4 rivers, some of their names were transferred over as names of people. Like Noah's grandson through Ham, was named after the land of Havilah. this is a clear example of pre flood names, transferring over to post flood times.

one of Ham's other sons were named Cush, one of the other preflood rivers.

I seem to remember Hugh Ross having some interesting material on the flood over at Reasons to Believe and, after a bit of poking around, came upon this:

http://www.reasons.org/astronomy/noahs-flood/noahs-flood-article-1

See what you think.

-Bruce

Dogbyte, my argument is based on the assumption that the present Tigris and Euphrates rivers are the same rivers as the ones mentioned in Genesis. If they're not, then my argument doesn't work. I'm inclined to think they are. After all, the Euphrates is mentioned in Genesis 15 during the time of Abraham. Since Genesis is one book, both cases of "Euphrates" probably refer to the same river. Otherwise, it would be odd that the author would give them both the same name. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely.

I don't think the present Tigris and Eurphrates rivers could've existed during the time of Pangea just because the landscape has changed so dramatically since then. Besides, that would put the flood no later than about 250 million years ago. There weren't any people around back then.

@sam

" If they're not, then my argument doesn't work. "

and im inclined to say they are not, because of all the thousands of feet of death underneath them. that would put the Garden of Eden, after the death of billions of life forms, which is in contrast to scripture.

" After all, the Euphrates is mentioned in Genesis 15 during the time of Abraham."

im not saying the names cannot be transferred. did you know there is a river Thames in America? immigrants named it so, because of the original river Thames in England, where they came from. I already pointed out that some of Noah's grandsons were named after these rivers, and pre flood named regions. why cant a river transfer back to the same region it was before, sort of like the river THames did? The actual river isnt the same, but the name is. anyway, the flood sediment underneath them is a huge obstacle to overcome, when aging the modern day rivers with respect to scripture.

"I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely."

like i already said, this still happens today. more than likely, either Noah, or his immediate offspring, were responsible for naming those two rivers the same as before the flood. dont discredit the absence of the other two rivers. where are they, if these two are the original? if they are the preflood versions, then the other two rivers should be coming from the same headwaters, but is this the case? scripture says, out of one great river, these four sprang.

if you rode out a flood, in an arc, and landed near the very place you first started, or had knowledge of, wouldnt you be inclined to name a river the same as before, even though it may not be turn for turn the same river as before? i really believe i would.

if a flood carried me away from my hometown, near the Arkansas River, and then once it was over, i rested back near the place i started, i'd still be inclined to name the river nearby, the Arkansas River. even though it was thousands of feet higher than the original.

"I don't think the present Tigris and Eurphrates rivers could've existed during the time of Pangea just because the landscape has changed so dramatically since then. Besides, that would put the flood no later than about 250 million years ago. There weren't any people around back then."

just because you think the landscape has changed so much? or because you assume Pangaea must be 250 million years old?

this is where our worldviews split. i think if you honestly researched how geologic strata is dated, then you would see how huge amounts of time is reconciled by rates we see TODAY, and then for no reason, apply them to the past. this is like walking into a room with a candle already burning. calculate the burn rate, and subtract back to get a lighting time. except you have no way of knowing, if the candle burns faster near the top, or bottom, no way of knowing if someone blew the candle out before you got there, and relighted the candle afterwards after a period of time before you came in, ect.... just a lot of assumptions go into their dating. this is called uniformitarianism.

When Mt. St. Helens erupted, thousands upon thousands of sediment was layed down due to the massive flooding and ash deposits. these layers would be deemed millions of years old, had the eruption not have been witnessed, due to uniformitarian methods.

layers that bury fossils in ways where little to no decomposition happened, due to lack of exposure to oxygen, combined with extreme amounts of pressure. when animals die in water, they float, not sink. even if they do sink, its after they go rotten, and fall apart. dinosaur eggs are fossilized on every continent on earth, (did you know that?) spanning through layers of rock that represent thousands of years. how can a clutch of eggs, not wither away over thousands of years? on every continent? fossilized trees standing upright through "millions" of years worth of rock layer, which was laid down as flood sediment. how could that happen?

a world wide flood in just one year, could lay down layer upon layer upon layer of sediment, from currents and tectonic movement churning the water.

the millions of years, are assumed, based on the presupposition, that rates observed today, is the rate it has been in the past, for all of time past. That is a huge assumption. the same assumption is used in radiometric dating. except they assume the amount of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere. its a huge leap.
if their assumptions were valid, they would not have such large swings in their dating results. right after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, dating resulted rocks made weeks earlier, to be thousands of years old, even though they were just born. (upon cooling when all the elements are locked into the rock)

so your belief that Pangaea is millions of years old, is based on uniformitarian assumptions. That the rate that we see tectonic plates moving today, is the same as it has been in the past.

i believe the Bible sheds better light on what we actually see in the world.

Dogbyte - I appreciate your comments

I'm sorry guys, but all you have to do to know this "localized" flood idea is false is to actually read the account of the Flood in Genesis. If God through Moses was trying to describe to use that the Flood was going to destroy the whole earth and every living thing on the earth, then he could not have been more clear. However, if he was trying to convey the idea of this localized flood that only covered a smaller area and not the whole globe, then he could not have been more misleading. Also, the rainbow convenant has been broken by God IF the Flood was only a localized flood. There have been many since then, look at Australia today. However, if the flood was global (covered the whole globe), then God has certainly kept his promise. Think about it. Be Bereans.

Genesis 6:11-13,17 "Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth." ... "For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die."

Genesis 7:4, 7-24 "For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground." ... "The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days."

Regarding the main point of Global vs Local (worldwide, universal)...Genesis 7 has these phrases:

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.




While I have not gone back to original languages of these "earth" words, these contexts really say complete earth-covering to me.

@Dogbyte

"geologists that share a uniformitarian veiw, which is the assumption that todays present rates are the key to past. this method is the primary variable, in radiometric dating. meaning, a prescribed system of thought is assumed, and included into the method, before it provides an answer. this is a major assumption."

Isn't this the assumption of all science? Isn't science (especially in regard to the past) contingent on this uniformity of nature in general? Are you implying that the fundamental laws of physics changed between then and now? And if so...

"a world wide flood in just one year, could lay down layer upon layer upon layer of sediment, from currents and tectonic movement churning the water. "

How do you know that floods layed down sediment the same way back then as they do now? Is that not under the assumption of uniformitarianism too?

"layers that bury fossils in ways where little to no decomposition happened, due to lack of exposure to oxygen, combined with extreme amounts of pressure. when animals die in water, they float, not sink. even if they do sink, its after they go rotten, and fall apart. "

How do we know that in the past, animals didn't sink in the water instead of float? Is this based on uniformitarian assumptions regarding their density, or the way that we use fossils to measure their bone density? How do we know that these measures were the same back then as they are now?

I regard you highly because of the fact that you seem to have looked into these measures. My problem is that you seem to be using bits of science here and there which utilize the same uniformitarian measures that you think so lowly of.

Dogbyte,

so your belief that Pangaea is millions of years old, is based on uniformitarian assumptions. That the rate that we see tectonic plates moving today, is the same as it has been in the past.

It's true that these dates are based on uniformitarianism. But the thing is, the dates aren't just arrived at by counting layers and assuming the rate at which layers have been laid down is uniform. Rather, there are multiple lines of evidence that all agree--the rate of laying layers down, radioactive dating, and magnetic dating. If we only had one of these to rely on, that would definitely throw some ambiguity into the mix for the reasons you gave. But the fact that we have three different lines of evidence that all converge and agree seems to indicate that the assumption of uniformitarianism works.

@sam
"But the fact that we have three different lines of evidence that all converge and agree seems to indicate that the assumption of uniformitarianism works."

Sam i urge you to look deeper into those three dating methods, they all need a base assumed rate of decay/layering before you can put pen to paper. they assume Uniformitarianism, not Uniformity of Nature. saying conditions today are the same as the past. Uniformity assumes the natural order of things (laws) are constant, but conditions and processes can be different. if they are different, then the outcomes would be different as well. This is why these dating methods are flawed, as is a blanket use of Uniformitarianism, we just dont have access to all past process and conditions.

there was a paper done by the RATE group, they sent the same specimens to different labs, and got different ages depending on which lab they used, they used all the top dating facilities where your normal geologist would have at his disposal. i urge you to give it a read, it can explain their methods better than i can. the results are eye opening.

for example, they sent 12 diamond samples for dating, and they all came back with amounts of carbon 14. the decay rate for the carbon 14 isotope has a ceiling of < 58000 years. Geologists date diamondss as among the oldest formations on earth, millions, or even billions of years old. yet all 12 samples were independently found to contain an isotope that cannot stay together more than 58000 years tops. this is a major discovery, and undermines the old age assumption.

@Austin

"Isn't this the assumption of all science? Isn't science (especially in regard to the past) contingent on this uniformity of nature in general? Are you implying that the fundamental laws of physics changed between then and now?"

there is a distinct difference between Uniformity and Uniformitarianism. Uniformity asserts a consistency in the way the universe operaters (if the conditions are the same, then you can expect the same outcome). the laws of nature are constant, but the conditions or processes may be quite different. It is Uniformitarianism that asserts these conditions and processes are constant, as in geology, the assertion that the present conditions and processes must be the key to the geologic past. So, the examples you give are not examples of variant laws of nature, but different conditions and processes. We cant know all past conditions. science is not based on the assumption that all conditions and processes are the same in the past, present, and future. Uniformity of nature deals with the laws of nature, not what their specific conditions and processes may be. Uniformity says if the conditions are the same, then so are the results. but the laws themselves are constant.

example: canyon formations that we observe today, are slowly being eroded by weather and river, slowly eating away layers of rock, deepening the canyons. But Uniformitarianism says that this has always been the case (conditions and processes), however this need is not necessarily so, many geologists recognize some canyons ( like the grand canyon), were not entirely formed by erosion but formed quickly, by catastrophic conditions. so the present is not the key to the past. this is Uniformity, not Uniformitarianism. the laws of nature were the same, but not the conditions they were active in.

flood layers due to a catastrophe like Mt. St. Helens, DO lay down thin layers quickly, the conditions were different, but reading those layers after they turn into rock would give a false age if you held to Uniformitarianism. Mt. St. Helens eruption shows that rock layers, coal beds and canyon formations do not have to take millions of years (only days). although this eruption was small compared to what happened during the flood, its effects shouldnt be taken lightly, but viewed as a small window into what a global flood could have done, just on a larger scale. so again in this case, the present is not the key to past (with respect to formations). Thats Uniformity, not Uniformitarianism, i hope ive showed the difference with these two examples.

Dogbyte,

How did you know to start with scripture?

RonH

Dogbyte, I don't think you're appreciating the force of my argument. Let me try to explain it a little further.

Granted, it's possible that the rate of layering has changed over time. And granted it's possible the ratio of radioactive isotopes to non-radioactive isotopes of any dating element (e.g. carbon) may have changed over time. And granted it's possible the rate of the earths magnetic poles switching may have changed over time. But it would be an incredible coincidence of all three of these things have changed at the same rate. It turns out that these three methods of dating produce the same dating, which means either that they have NOT changed, or that it's an incredible coincidence that they have changed at the same rate.

Imagine, for example, that the rate of layering has changed over time, but the other two factors haven't. In that case, all three dating methods would not produce the same dates. Or, imagine that the cyclic switching of magnetic poles as changed at a different rate than the rate of change of the ratios of radioactive and non-radioactive isotopes of dating elements. In that case, you would not get consistent dates when using these different methods. But it turns out that all three of these methods agree with each other in placing Pangea about 250 million years ago. That has got to be more than a coincidence.

@sam

i do appreciate your argument, but ive already went down those roads. so maybe my lack of appreciation is because propositions are not new to me. Did you get a chance to look at the RATE papers? i believe they are an excellent study done on the very issue we are discussing, done by professionals in that field. thats why i am suggesting you look into it.

all of these dating methods are built on a matrix of assumptions. there nothing objective about these dating methods, that is to say, someone manually inputs the starting variables at onset of the tests. What im saying is, the test is not without bias.

So with respect, all three "rates" are not known in time past. this is where observational science meets historical science. a distinct understand of what both are, is cruicial. sometimes, we can only guess, what reality was in the past. we dont know how much they (the rates) have changed, because no one was there to test those conditions in the past. we can look at evidence that shows they may have been different, but to what end, there is no objective way to determine this. it takes a man with a dart board to start some of these methods, except the dart knows where it wants to land.

we cant even date brand new rock days after its formed, with any real accuracy, the results are all but "consistent". and thats after the correct (known today) rates are plugged into the equation. then you get into "open" and "closes" rock systems, its a big mess, because uniformitarians claim a closed system, until a date doesnt match their predictions, then they claim its "open". just seems convenient and anemic to me.

i just think a bias has been built into a lot of these dating methods, by people that hold to uniformitarian beliefs. ive shown how this is flat wrong in some cases. A world wide flood would all but be invisible (to these folks), since it would effect the entire earth at the same time. At least there is a new shift in geology, where neocatastrophism is at least acknowledging that there are events that can have drastic effects on structures thought to be millions of years old, yet were formed in days. this notion is thicker with observational science, and uses less historical science that uniformitarianism. less assumptions.

the problem with getting into which proof is better, or which evidence sheds more light than the rest, is that it gets to be a contest. at least thats how it usually ends up in my experience.

so instead of choosing evidence that fits the glove, i would rather question the more basic assumptions, and ask why? we all have the same evidence anyway, it doesnt speak for itself. it takes a worldview on the front end, to determine how that evidence is interpreted, im not ignorant of this fact. so, my view is that there is but one ultimate authority, others might take man's beliefs as their ultimate authority. when all things are said and done, new evidence must be judged up against scripture, or up against theory, to ensure that our worldviews are what we consider to be the truth. im not denying science as some folks will claim, but i am merely using the Bible as a guide. a literal interpretation of Genesis says there was a world wide flood. that the Garden of eden was created in a perfect world without death or sin, these assumptions can and do lead to very sound logical reasons to trust the Bible, and do not disagree with the world we see around us.


@RonH

"How did you know to start with scripture?"

in the context, i meant i started with scripture to reach my current understanding regarding the topic of discussion. i make sure i interpret new information against scripture first, or else fallacies will become apparent, this is my starting point for knowledge, eventually a higher authority can only appeal to itself. So, this method has allowed my understanding to have guidance, instead of an arbitrary path, that changed every time man was found to be in error. i did not always trust in this method, but over time i learned. i find it more rational to believe in the Bible, than i do in fallible man. It is no different than having a starting point that puts trust in men, and depends on mankind for understanding, which is still faith, i find that side of the fence to lack rational starting points. I admit the Bible is my key starting point to my current understandings, but it was not always the case.

through the Bible, i found that it gives more rational sense out of axioms we already take as self evident. philosophy and math for example, or other immaterial entities like morality. without God or the Bible i do not see that the physical realm is sufficient enough to explain the world i am part of.

so although i didnt initially start with the Bible as my curiosity grew (from childhood to adulthood), i did notice which one seemed more intuitive, to me it works, for some it will not, and cannot. we choose what we want (in the epistemic sense), and you cannot ultimately make yourself choose what you dont want.


This is a very hard thing for me to take in. I am an Ex-Mormon, and the day I realized it was all a farce, well too much to explain here. I could buy the flood if the Bible did not talk about how high the water went, but that really is a stretch to try and explain. I have heard some folks bypass the issue by telling me to look at the larger scale which is; if you can believe God spoke the universe into existence, then how hard was the flood? I guess it is a mystery because no one can really prove it either/or.


Now this also has a severe implication with me as a Christian. Christ explicitly mentions the flood when describing the last day. Some folks try to water it down by saying he was simply referring to a story, but it is clear Christ is not talking about a story. That said, this is the reason I still believe. If Christ is God in the flesh then it did happen. So you can see here where the problems mount when Christ himself mentions the flood. Either he is God and was telling the truth, or he was pretty clever with all the stuff he did. I'm just saying I was duped into Mormonism and this part of the Bible really bothers me.

Honest answer…

@John

honestly, why does the fact that the Bible is specific about how high the water line was, at the peak of the flood, bother you??


there are ocean fossils on the tops of every mountain range on earth. meaning at one point, the material on top of those mountains, were once underwater where dead things could have been buried by silt layers, and under enough pressure to fossilize.

i do not believe the waters rose over the mountains we see today, but rather those mountain ranges through subduction of tectonic plates, rose up out of the flood waters. the big mountain ranges we see today, are on the edge of a tectonic plate, where one plate subducted or slides underneath the other one, pushing up material to the levels we see today. you cannot deny the fossil record, its a wonderful witness. billions of dead things on top of mountains that are supposedly millions of years old, puts death and disease before Sin.

the amount of evidence supporting a global flood is not small. when put up against secular science, you can readily point to fundamental assumptions that cause them to rule out such a flood, based on what boils down to, presupposition.

Dogbyte, the reason I didn't think you appreciated the force of my argument is because you weren't addressing my argument. I don't know if that's because you don't understand the argument I'm making or if you're just choosing not to address it. Or maybe you ARE addressing it and I'M the one with the misunderstanding.

Changing channels, now. I'm curious about what you said to Ron because I've heard other people say the same things--especially presuppositionalists like James White. About the scriptures, you said, "eventually a higher authority can only appeal to itself." You also said, "i find it more rational to believe in the Bible, than i do in fallible man."

Whenever I hear people say things like this, I get the feeling some kind of false dichotomy is going on. After all, YOU are a man, right? And YOU are the one who has come to the conclusion that the Bible is the highest authority. So, in a sense, even though you are fallible, your belief in the authority of the Bible rests own your own sense of what is rational. So it's a false dichotomy to say it is more rational to believe in the Bible than to believe in fallible men since, being a man, you have come to believe in the Bible. You're trusting your own belief-producing cognitive faculties when they deliver to you the belief that the Bible is the highest authority. So it isn't really the case that the highest authority can only appeal to itself. You're appealing to your own sense of rationality in your belief that the Bible is the highest authority.

@sam

i hope that i am addressing your proposal that there are seemingly 3 systems of time, that coincide. thats what dating methods are, figuring out how they relate to time, and then subtracting backwards. i believe these systems are based on uniformitarian beliefs, which i see no good reason to harbor.

" After all, YOU are a man, right? "

but that doesnt mean i cannot appeal to something outside myself can it?

what if someone asked you:

how do you know your name is sam?

could you answer this on your own? by not appealing to some other outside source, how do you know your own name? im using this example in the basic understanding of how we get our names, at birth.

So in my case, that outside source is the Bible, in mans case, the outside source is other men. i have no way to determine what happened in the past, without a witness. Just like you have no way to know your own name, without some kind of witness, birth certificate, or more than likely, your parents calling you by your name, they were there, they named you, they were witness.

But can a cause for good reason not come from outside himself? i may be using my senses to discern what that cause is, but did i (man) cause it?

im distinguishing what the cause for my reasons are. that it is more reasonable for me, to choose belief in the Bible, than to choose belief in Man's juxtaposition. yes based on my discerning abilities, but still the cause is outside of myself.

if your using the word appeal in the sense that i cannot make a choice without using my cognitive senses, then yes, i have to appeal to myself, i trust that my senses are basically true.

but is that what the Bible does? appealing to itself the same way i do? i honestly dont think so.

just by being a man, is not to say i offer a side by side comparison of the same things the Bible claims.

can we not appeal to man in the corporate sense, and yet at the same time appeal to man on the individual level? both are Man. one cannot represent the other.

by the way, appealing to the idea of uniformitarianism, would be a case where i say this is a "belief of man", mankind is his own cause for this teaching. even if it stems from evidence, he was the one that interpreted the evidence.

Therefore, man puts forth ideas that directly oppose ideas put forth in the Bible.

so here, i would say, i see better reasons to believe in the Bible than i do reasons to believe in Man.

im appealing to Biblical authority, rather than man's authority.

there may be a better way to put what im meaning, i dont know, im sure there is. if there is, then im willing to listen. im relatively new to putting forth my thoughts in type, so i understand that i may be holding views that ive never been challenged on before in written form. im more used to verbal arguments i guess.

i dont want to say things that are contradictory. Like Sam's claim that im setting up a false dichotomy. but right now, i dont think i have.

Regarding uniformitarianism, I believe if you consider Calvin's translation of Hebrews 11:3, the universe can be as old as you like, having only taken on time space and matter recently as the bible chronology suggests.

"So that they became the visible of things not visible," Calvin Hebrews 11:3 And Rom. 1: 20, where it is said, that the
invisible things of God are made known to us by the creation of the world,

As far as sin and death. I believe the saber tooth tigers were eating meat before Adam sinned. Even before they became visible through the creation of time space and matter.

another dave,

What is the universe besides time space and matter?

@another dave

i see it a far stretch to take hebrews 11, which is all about faith, which is "a conviction of things not seen" and take it to mean the universe is any other age than a plain reading of Genesis suggests. Genesis is a historical narrative. the rest of Hebrews 11 speaks of the same faith, throughout many of the Bible characters.

saying that saber tooth tigers existed before the fall as meat eaters goes against what scripture suggests. There was a cat "kind" in the Garden, but it was not necessarily a saber tooth tiger. it could have been, but its not necessary. Every creation was said to eat only of the plants. But we know a cat kind was made, because we have cats today. variation among species is evident. so do we know that a saber tooth tiger was the original kind? or a variation of that "kind"? God would not need all variations of cats on the arc, just the original "kind" of cat, that cat species through variation, can still lead to the variations we see today. the more original version of "kind" the more DNA info present.

same with dogs, horses, birds, ect.

you cant get to a wolf from a coyote, or a dingo, or some other wild dog. With the discovery of DNA information, we can see that wolves share the most genetic makeup of all dogs. whenever a variation is made, info is lost, not gained. so a shiatsu can never be bred back up to a wolf, but the opposite is still true, a wolf can be bred down to a shiatsu. they have all the genetic information that the shiatsu has, but loses some at each degradation, shiatsu's cannot gain information. This is the crux of the problem, with evolution.

Dogbyte, are you saying you don't believe that any meat eating dinosaurs existed before the fall, or fly-eating Venus fly-traps? What about plants? Do you believe any flowers, leaves, or grass died before the fall?

@sam

"Dogbyte, are you saying you don't believe that any meat eating dinosaurs existed before the fall, or fly-eating Venus fly-traps? What about plants? Do you believe any flowers, leaves, or grass died before the fall?

yes i believe any living animal that ate meat, came after the fall, and as a direct result of the curse of sin. this is straight forward scripture. how else could death enter into a perfect creation, if it wasnt absent at one point? outside of Eden, after the fall, you had to eat what you could either farm, herd, or catch. Abel herded sheep, Cain tilled the earth.

plants do not have "breath", or "ruach". Plants were there to be as food. so yes they were harvested as they were intended.

thats one of the good reasons for the conclusion, that thousands of feet of death and disease in the fossil layer, cannot come before Eden, only after. And if after, then the Flood is that cause for the rapid burial, high pressure conditions that can fossilize animals in short periods of time. it does not take millions of years to make a fossil, they have been created in labs in just weeks, when the right conditions are met.

Dogbyte,

How did you know to start with scripture?

RonH

RohH,

why are you asking me a question you already asked?

How can Genesis be historical narrative when it was not written by eyewitnesses, or anyone even close to the events? It is likely a collection of oral traditions, meant to explain complex ideas in a mythical format.

Most cultures have creation stories that read just as mythically as Genesis. Why, then, do we need to accept Genesis as literal? Is it because we come to it with a pre-suppositional bias that it is "the Word of God?" What if we approach it as a cultural creation myth, alongside the many other cultural creation myths?

Dinosaurs clearly did not exist alongside Man. And T-Rex is nothing if not a voracious meat eater, as was velociraptor.

@Austin & Dogbyte,

Acts 17:28 "For in him we live, and move, and have our being"

God is the spiritual dimension who in himself created time space and matter. He is infinite, it is temporal.

If you imagine a magnet beneath a piece of paper, the fields become visible when we dust iron shavings onto the paper. So it is with the creation of time space and matter upon the already present spiritual dimension.

@perry

" It is likely a collection of oral traditions, meant to explain complex ideas in a mythical format."

this is your starting point, it is not my starting point. I see what Moses wrote, as an eyewitness account given to him by the Creator.

"Most cultures have creation stories that read just as mythically as Genesis."

i would also disagree with "just as mythically". here you are committing a guilt by association fallacy. when rather, if nearly all cultures have a global flood story, then maybe the reason for that is a real global flood, and not a mass delusion that manifested itself in the exact same way, across all cultures.....

"Why, then, do we need to accept Genesis as literal? Is it because we come to it with a pre-suppositional bias that it is "the Word of God?" "

yes you are right, just as this bias also leads you to believe other ideas that dont even have a Genesis equivalent. why should there be laws of logic in a material only world? The Bible explains this immaterial entity. i find the materialist view a bit lacking, and arbitrary. the only reason you discount Genesis is because it goes against what you think is a better alternative, but that alternative is also based on unprovable presuppositions, and processes that no one has witnessed. you need to assume Biblical principles even before you argue against Biblical ideas. you dont need the Bible to do "logic", but you'd be consistent if you at least admitted that the physical world alone cant even put logic on its map.

" What if we approach it as a cultural creation myth, alongside the many other cultural creation myths?"

then you will not see its usefulness for describing the world we see around us, and giving a consistent representation of all that we experience on Earth.

"Dinosaurs clearly did not exist alongside Man."

this is another presupposition you have due to bias. If a flood wiped all life from earth, do you think humans would be found buried along side a T-Rex? or would land animals be one of the first to die, as the waters rose? I bet you would be found on high ground, and as a thinking human, be the last to die as the waters overtook the high places. the first to be fossilized would be sea floor inhabitants, then fish, then larger sea creatures, then smaller land animals, then larger land animals, then humans, which can think, and hide from the rising waters, get away from raging waters, ect... animals do these things too, but not as well. a cow would rather stand on a barn during a flood, a human would rather run to the moutians.

" And T-Rex is nothing if not a voracious meat eater, as was velociraptor."

they may have been strictly meat eaters, but that does not say they were the original created kinds. nothing forces these variations to be in the Garden, before the fall. the fact that a T-rex was uncovered still with soft tissue inside the bones, which were not fossilized should be common sense that it isnt millions of years old. saying they did not exist the same time as humans is a belief with many pre suppositional requirements already fully anchored.

Dogbyte, I appreciate your response. As a Christian of 31 years, I have hit the wall on this notion:

"I see what Moses wrote, as an eyewitness account given to him by the Creator."

This assertion, in my opinion, is unprovable and unsupportable, as much as Joseph Smith's account of meeting the angel Moroni and seeing the Golden Plates (and he supposedly had witnesses). I just can't put my weight behind it anymore. I see it as a matter of faith.

I read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With 1000 Faces" and he makes good points about the similarity of worldwide creation myths, and I can buy that they all reflect a basic truth (God created the world out of nothing). I can also buy a worldwide flood. What I can no longer put my faith in is the "literalness" of these accounts. I see no need to, if a greater truth can be gleaned from them.

@Perry

"This assertion, in my opinion, is unprovable and unsupportable"

and your opinion, from what i can see, has a lot of other authors opinions in it.

i think people that come to find doubt in the Word, also have unprovable and unsupportable beliefs as well, and they dont even know it. I dont know what you believe per se, but in general this is what ive found to be true. The literalness of the Biblical account is being put in opposition to ideas by other men, or other new strains of science that supposedly disagree.

so i say this. If you cannot trust the literal Biblical account of creation, then this undercuts the need for salvation, which undercuts the entire Gospel. Bending what we find (or dont find) in the lab to agree what we read in the Bible is leaving the Bible out of the equation at all really. your picking and choosing the parts that agree with today's ideas, so you can justify believing in a "myth". So i do not give the same authority to Joseph Smith, as i do Moses, or any other man not written in the Word. faith can be just as much anchored in todays ideas, than in the Bible. even more so in some cases. i dont see how you can believe in Jesus, who also believed Genesis, and not believe what he did. He quoted other Bible scriptures as he was being tempted by Satan. Jesus knew that Moses wrote the truth about Him. saying "how can you not believe what Moses wrote, and yet believe what i say?".

So in exodus, when Moses wrote, "in six days God made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and rested (hebrew ceased)the seventh day", this goes against nearly all modern day origins science, which is not as heavy in observational science as you think, a lot of presumptions, and speculation is there.

So just picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that you feel may be plausible is not giving the Bible its due purpose. It is to be witness either for or against us come judgment, even if you only challenge the Bible so your own opinions can rest, then test it against itself, not against what mankind may or may not know. Good observational science emboldens scripture is my opinion, but not historical science or origins, this needs more man made conjecture. Paul wrote that every scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so if you cannot trust one bit of scripture, why would you believe the rest? this is not consistent or rational. if Jesus knew the Bible was His Word of truth, then so should i, but not a blind faith, the Creator gave witness to Moses. The Bible does not teach that it is incompatible with science. Good observational science lends support is my opinion. naturalism is not the same as science. you can have faith, and believe science at the same time. there are many false things presented as "science", like "fish to philosopher" evolution, billions of years, or the big bang. these are all based on assumptions and unprovable circumstances that man cannot recreate. Science has confirmed many Bible truths, they are out there to know and learn about. Uniformity in nature is a Biblical idea, way before natural laws were discovered. so in retrospect, was this faith unwarranted? That the Creator upholds the heavens and the earth by his "ordinances" and sustaining power? this from the same Creator that allowed Moses to write Genesis, and as Jesus, reaffirmed the validity of what Moses wrote as the truth?

Dogbyte, why do you equate taking the Bible literally with trusting the Bible, and taking it metaphorically as not trusting the Bible? Doesn't this have more to do with identifying the genre of the different parts of the Bible than it does with trusting in the reliability of the Bible?

@sam

i take it literally where it is given literally, and take it metaphorically where it is given as such, often also giving the meaning of the metaphor elsewhere. the metaphors are usually present where poetry is concerned, or in prophecy where it is pointed out. these metaphors are not used as some say others are. the days of creation (that some claim are metaphors) arent used to be ambiguous, where the reader wont know its truth, until thousands of years later, when uniformitarianism is applied by budding scientists of a new discipline called Geology. This is the true grounding that Genesis cannot be taken literally, not how it is written. This is an important fact.

If Jesus takes them literally, then this should be a huge clue that they are written literally. after all He is the creator. He was the witness to it all, his opinion should be noted! like i said before, putting billions of years of death and disease before Man's creation, is in direct conflict with Genesis, or the need for salvation. because death and suffering couldnt have been both before Eden, and after eden at the same time.

I take Genesis as literal history, as did Jesus. Not as metaphors without their meaning being shown. but regardless, i dont remember saying that you cannot take any of the Bible in terms of metaphors, and in doing so, equates to a distrust of the Bible.


now we can argue what are the qualifications of all types, but yes all the Bible is written in different style. poetry as poetry, history as history, prophecy as prophecy, metaphor as metaphor, ect...

Dogbyte,

i make sure i interpret new information against scripture first,

Why?

or else fallacies will become apparent

How do you know that?

eventually a higher authority can only appeal to itself

And you ask why I ask the same question 2 times. Thanks anyway.

RonH

If Jesus was indeed God, then He knew a lot of things which He could not share with people because they weren't ready for it - things like integral calculus, molecular biology, astrophysics, etc. These are not "new" discoveries, they have always been there; it's just taken us a while to find them. But there is no need to measure any of these topics against Scripture. Indeed, if you measure what we know about astrophysics against Scripture, you'll find quite a different (and technically incorrect) cosmology there. For example, the Bible speaks in terms of the sun revolving around the earth, the moon giving light, and stars falling from the sky.

Scripture must be understood through the culture, knowledge, and norms of the society in which it was produced, which is why scientific discoveries can trump Scriptural "literalness." Therefore, I do not feel compelled to take geological or other Scriptural explanations for what we now know as measurable physical processes literally.

Perry, when you discover that something in science contradicts a literal reading of something in the Bible, it seems like you have two options.

1. The Bible was not meant to be literal at that point.
2. The Bible was literal at that point, but was wrong.

Why do you choose 1 instead of 2?

@RonH

i said:

i make sure i interpret new information against scripture first,

you said:

"Why?"

so i can come to the truth in a consistent manner. but if YOU choose to put info through the ringer of origins science, then i could ask you the same thing. why? because that is your chosen method for interpreting evidence... you may not like the choice, as i do not like yours, but i see a little more consistency in my method, than yours.

i said:
or else fallacies will become apparent

you said:
"How do you know that?"

how do i know a fallacy? im not sure what you mean here. if i compare what the big bang says up against scripture, then a contradiction is apparent. I choose my unprovable starting point, you choose your unprovable starting point. however, your starting point is also based on past conditions that no one witnessed, had theoretical assumptions that no one witnessed, yet if i choose to believe in the Bible where eye witness account is given, then how is that basically different than what you do? if you choose to debate evidence only, and not the starting presuppositions, then you get into a proof contest. not to say i do not enjoy debating the "proofs" but i think at least acknowledging the fact that different starting points are present, that really have a lot of similarities, ie. unprovable axioms.

i said:
eventually a higher authority can only appeal to itself

you said:
"And you ask why I ask the same question 2 times. Thanks anyway."

except your missing the point im making, or your ignoring the point.
im not the source for the big bang theory, but mankind is. im a man, so by your reasoning, im appealing to myself. yes, i am appealing to myself in the sense that i am claiming, "i can basically trust my senses are accurate." is that really appealing to myself the same way the Bible is, claiming itself IS the true word? or secular origins science claiming its theory is the true word?

@perry

" But there is no need to measure any of these topics against Scripture."

im not measuring natural law, or specific disciplines of science against the Bible. not only is natural law and these other fields comparable, but of themselves they do not "teach" anything. it is Man that teaches. evidence is inanimate, it cannot "speak for itself". We all have the same evidence. Evidence needs a belief system before it can "speak". Mankind is what brings that belief system. i use the Bible to explain the evidence.

i think its irrational to think an omniscient God, who eyewitnessed his own handiwork, is incapable of explaining the truth to infallible man who were not there in the beginning, and know more than God.

i simply dont have the faith that some do, to put their faith in infallible man.

" For example, the Bible speaks in terms of the sun revolving around the earth, the moon giving light, and stars falling from the sky."

have you ever said the sun rises and sets? well then you are guilty of the same earth centric explanation. the moon DOES give light to earth, by way of reflection, it didnt say the moon emits the light. i'd like to see which star reference you mean before i assume.

"scientific discoveries can trump Scriptural "literalness." Therefore, I do not feel compelled to take geological or other Scriptural explanations for what we now know as measurable physical processes literally."

such as? i'd like to see your examples. i assume you have more than the few you hinted at up above. people would be astonished of how much origins science they take to mean the same thing as observational science, as if they carry the same weight, good hard observational science does not go against scripture. and when some one says its a "discovery", a closer look can shed more light on the subject, if you look what starting points were taken.

@sam

"

Perry, when you discover that something in science contradicts a literal reading of something in the Bible, it seems like you have two options.

1. The Bible was not meant to be literal at that point.
2. The Bible was literal at that point, but was wrong.

Why do you choose 1 instead of 2?"

why do you lump science with being equal to "truth". all of science is not proven. i'd rather hear about the purported contradictions of science claims, than just saying all science is the truth. some is bad, some is good.

so i think there should be a 3rd option.

3. The Bible was literal at that point, but "science" was wrong.

if you equal all of science to the truth, then you've never seen a revised paper, or science text book that chages. i have, and it does change, which means "science" in the strict sense is not the same thing as fact.

without the 3rd option, a bias is apparent. because both 1. and 2. force the Bible to do something unnecessary, which is conform to modern science or else be forced into a non-literal meaning.

when the literal meaning could both meant to be literal, and be the truth over what modern scientific theory states.

really would be a good exercise to see how much origins science is part of these "science truths" that people take at face value. there are numerous assumptions and starting points that have no base what so ever. even if that base is because it needs to agree with another strain or discipline, like Geology uniformitarianism. all it does is use the assumptions derived from an earlier or more base theory. not standing on its own. those assumptions are the ones that bother me. observational science that happens in a real lab, that other people can repeat, is what science is really about.

The comments to this entry are closed.