Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Ken Ham Today: An Interesting Flood Claim!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    To try and clear the air a bit further, Daniel, here s another angle I came up with: Ken Ham posted the following:
    Message 1 of 38 , Dec 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      To try and clear the air a bit further, Daniel, here's another angle I came up with:

      Ken Ham posted the following:

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v7/n1/what-does-erets-indicate

      > ...just as we can be sure that the waters
      > once covered the entire planet at the time
      > of the Flood, so also we can be confident
      > that our Messiah and Savior will one day
      > return to the "erets" and reign in glory -
      > over all of it!
      >
      > And the Lord shall be King over all the
      > earth [erets] (Zechariah 14:9).

      I think I can, and have, handled it either way, but it might be important to our exercise to step back and try to come to an agreement as to whether Ken Ham is making the statement as a "conclusion" or as the "premise" of an argument.

      That the comment is found in a section of an article entitled "Conclusion" is not determinative. The article did not deal at all with Zechariah 14. Zechariah 14 is just thrown in there.

      Daniel, I think Ken Ham's statement, in the context of the article, is a "premise" and not a "conclusion".

      I think the following statements from the beginning of the article adds support for my position:

      > Erets...is the word which we would expect
      > Moses to have used, as indeed he did, in
      > describing a world-wide Flood.
      >
      > The context, particularly of the description
      > of the Flood in Genesis 7, demands that the
      > meaning of erets here is global and not local,
      > and should be translated as "earth" (or "world")
      > and not "land" (or "region").

      That set up for the article seems to make it clear to me, in light of the absence of any effort to affirm or defend the millenial speculations of Ken Ham, that the following statement is intended to be a "premise" and not a "conclusion":

      > ...just as we can be sure that the waters
      > once covered the entire planet at the time
      > of the Flood, so also we can be confident
      > that our Messiah and Savior will one day
      > return to the "erets" and reign in glory -
      > over all of it!
      >
      > And the Lord shall be King over all the
      > earth [erets] (Zechariah 14:9).

      Alas, as I noted earlier, I can take it either way you may wish to deal with it, Daniel.

      Either way, we can construct valid arguments and either way the arguments have one or more premises that are not true (if you ask me).

      And so, I conclude, my criticism as originally stated, is quite defensible.

      For ready reference, here is how all of this started:

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29925
      "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote on December 5, 2012, in part:

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v7/n1/what-does-erets-indicate

      >> ...just as we can be sure that the waters
      >> once covered the entire planet at the time
      >> of the Flood, so also we can be confident
      >> that our Messiah and Savior will one day
      >> return to the "erets" and reign in glory
      >> - over all of it!
      >
      > My comments:
      >
      > Ken Ham has no assurance that Jesus will ever come
      > back to this earth (i.e., land on this earth for
      > the purposes of taking political control) and
      > "reign in glory - over all of it"!
      >
      > Therefore, believing Ken's millenial theology
      > false I can also, based on Ken's position on that,
      > discount his flood claims.

      If I knew then where that discussion would lead us, I probably could have worded my criticism a lot better.

      In any case, Daniel, keep me advised as to how close we are to coming to an agreement on all the relevant issues involved in our little critical thinking exercise.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      -----------------------Previous Message----------------

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29973
      "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      Daniel,

      What you wrote is starting to sink in a bit.

      See if you think I am beginning to "get it" based on the following:

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/29968
      "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...> wrote, in part:

      > The word erets, whenever it is used
      > in the phrase "cover the whole earth"
      > in Hebrew, means the entire surface
      > of the globe.
      >
      > Minor Premise A:
      >
      >> Erets is used in Genesis 7
      >
      > Minor Premise B:
      >
      >> Erets is used in Zechariah 14
      >
      > Combined A & B Conclusion (can also be stated separately):
      >
      >> Just as we can be sure that the waters
      >> once covered the entire planet at the
      >> time of the Flood, so also we can be
      >> confident that our Messiah and Savior
      >> will one day return to the "erets" and
      >> reign in glory - over all of it!

      That may be reasonably interpreted to mean that you, Daniel, are arguing as
      follows:

      Major Premise:

      > IF (p), erets is used in Genesis 7 and Zechariah 14,
      > THEN (q), just as we can be sure that the waters once
      > covered the entire planet at the time of the flood,
      > so also we can be confident that our Messiah and
      > Savior will one day return to the "erets" and
      > reign in glory - over all of it!

      Minor Premise:

      > (p), erets is used in Genesis 7 and Zechariah 14.

      Conclusion:

      > (q), just as we can be sure that the waters once
      > covered the entire planet at the time of the flood,
      > so also we can be confident that our Messiah and
      > Savior will one day return to the "erets" and
      > reign in glory - over all of it!

      Daniel,

      If that is what you are proposing is Ken Ham's argument, then I would simply
      propose that the major premise is not true.

      As to the exercise, it follows the modus ponens form:

      > If (p), then (q).
      > (p).
      > (q).

      While it has a modus tollens counterpart, which would deny that erets is used in
      Genesis 7 and Zechariah 14, since it appears that is clearly not the case, we
      need not consider the modus tollens side of it.

      So, perhaps that is some more progress in that we have eliminated the modus
      tollens matter and have only the modus ponens side to consider.

      And on that side of it, it would appear the only matter in dispute from my
      perspective would be the truth of the major premise.

      I don't think the major premise is true.

      Daniel, do you think the major premise is true?

      My apologies for not picking up on this issue earlier, Daniel.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • bucksburg
      Major Premise: IF (p), in Genesis 7 and Zechariah 14 the term erets means the whole earth , THEN (q), just as certainly as the waters once covered the
      Message 38 of 38 , Dec 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Major Premise:

        IF (p), in Genesis 7 and Zechariah 14 the term "erets" means "the whole earth",

        THEN (q), just as certainly as the waters once covered the entire planet at the time of the Flood, Christ will return to rule over the entire planet.

        Minor Premise:

        (p), in Genesis 7 and Zechariah 14 the term "erets" means "the whole earth".

        Conclusion:

        (q), just as certainly as the waters once covered the entire planet at the time of the Flood, Christ will return to rule over the entire planet.

        I'm still not happy with this, because certainty seems to be assumed. But at least it all fits on one screen now.

        Daniel Buck
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.