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

Re: ? About Noah's flood

Expand Messages
  • ed.horwood@btinternet.com
    LOL, I find your posts quite funny. You are looking so deep into the scriptures for scientific evidence on everything. It isn t there my friend, it isn t a
    Message 1 of 141 , Dec 1, 2001
      LOL, I find your posts quite funny. You are looking so deep into the
      scriptures for scientific evidence on everything. It isn't there my
      friend, it isn't a science text book. If God wanted to write it in a
      scientific way, with the way everything works, his mathematical
      equations etc, do you really believe we could even begin to
      understand it?. Good grief man, you have a hard enough time believing
      a God may exist, let alone handle his knowledge.
      Genesis is a list of visions (or dreams). Try to think of the vantage
      point given to the author. He didn't take the author for a ride
      around the solar system, he simply wrote what he saw from his vantage
      point. Read genesis again with that in mind. try to imagine if you
      would be able to see anything through the atmosphere, like the sun or
      the moon. Light may have penetrated, but could the spheres be seen.

      --- In creationism@y..., "Todd S. Greene" <tgreene@u...> wrote:
      > ###### Ed Horwood ######
      > > --- In creationism@y..., "Todd S. Greene" <tgreene@u...> wrote:
      > >> Hi, Ed.
      > >>
      > >> Here's a comment about Genesis 2:6 by an Old Testament scholar:
      > >>
      > >> The Hebrew word translated mist in the RSV ('edh) appears
      > >> only in this verse and in Job 36:27 in the entire OT. Its
      > >> meaning is debated. (a) Some scholars think it refers to
      > >> an underground source of water because the text says it
      > >> went up from the earth. Then, they call attention to the
      > >> inconsistency between "rain" (which apparently is
      > >> anticipated in vs. 5) and mist (vs. 6). (b) It seems more
      > >> likely, however, that the writer is using commong biblical
      > >> terminology for rain here. Frequently, the biblical
      > >> writers speak of moisture rising from the earth, gathering
      > >> to form clouds, then descending on the parched ground as
      > >> rain (1 Kings 18:44-45; Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13; 51:16; and
      > >> as a symbol for invading armies, Jer. 4:13; 47:2; Ezek.
      > >> 38:9). It is significant that all these passages use the
      > >> same Hebrew verb translated "went up" ('alah) that appears
      > >> with mist in Genesis 2:6. Accordingly, verse 6 describes
      > >> the coming of the rain anticipated in verse 5. The
      > >> implication is that God finally caused it to rain, the
      > >> plants and herbs sprang up and the earth was covered with
      > >> vegetation, so that everything is ready for the creation
      > >> of man.
      > >
      > > Then this scholar is not reading the scriptures. Genesis states
      > > quite clearly that the firmament was created to seperate the
      > > above and below. Waters above to me means water in the sky, yes?
      > > Waters below means water on the ground or under the ground. So the
      > > water was already in the sky. The problem is, it didn't rain, I
      > > can't say why. Then God caused a mist to rise up. The events are
      > > straight forward.
      > Hi, Ed.
      > Open your eyes, man. You are so tied to your English translation
      > men) and this idea (by men) that the text is supposed to be
      > interpreted literalistically as some kind of science manual. What
      > does the Hebrew actually mean, in the context of the Israelite
      > culture within which it was written? That's what this OT scholar is
      > pointing out to you. Did you read Job 36:37? Did you read any of
      > those other scripture references that he gave? You're the one not
      > reading the scriptures! To dismiss all of this as you so lightly do
      > shows us, I guess, that you are more interested in your YEC-based
      > interpretation of the text that in what the text actually means.
      > I notice that I forgot to give the citation for this quote, and I
      > don't actually have it handy at the moment. But it is from the Old
      > Testament commentary on Genesis by John T. Willis, from the set of
      > Old Testament commentaries put out, I think, by the Sweet
      > Co. John T. Willis writes from a very conservative Christian
      > background.
      > In another post I had also asked you "Now read Genesis 1:16-17. Now
      > go back and read Gen. 1:7 again. What is this water above the
      > firmament? Where is the sun and moon located?" You did not answer
      > this last question. Where is the sun and moon located? Read Gen.
      > 17, then go back and read Gen. 1:7 again. A literalistic
      > interpretation of this comes up with complete nonsense, which
      > one of two things: (1) If the literalistic interpretation is the
      > genuinely correct interpretation then the Bible genuinely teaches
      > absurd notions, so you can just throw away the idea of biblical
      > inerrancy. (2) If the literalistic interpretation actually gives an
      > incorrect interpretation, then perhaps you can salvage this idea of
      > biblical inerrancy, by interpreting the language as metaphor. The
      > firmament, with water below it and above it, and with the sun,
      > and stars in it, proves that the Genesis account is either
      > scientifically absurd or is using picturesque language. Take your
      > pick.
      > >> You are also assuming that Genesis 2:5-6 is referring to the
      > >> entire earth. (It may actually be only in reference to the Garden
      > >> of Eden.)
      > >
      > > Not possible. Man had already been evicted from there and it was
      > > guarded by a flaming sword.
      > What in the world (no pun intended) are you talking about?!?!
      > 2:5-6 is substantially *before* the angel with the flaming sword
      > >> Perhaps more importantly, you are also assuming that the context
      > >> of Genesis 2:5-6 is some kind of straightforward literal,
      > >> technical, historical description of things, when it may not be
      > >> this at all.
      > >>
      > >> Ed, the other thing that's really bothering me about your
      > >> discussion is how you've repeatedly stated that you are not a
      > >> young earth creationist, yet you keep using YEC arguments. Vapor
      > >> canopy??? "The ground was virtually flat, no mountains" prior to
      > >> just a few thousand years ago? Golly, man, don't you know how
      > >> loopy these YEC arguments are? What's up with this? Are you a
      > >> young earth creationist or not? If you really are not, then why
      > >> are you constantly using these YEC arguments, some like these of
      > >> which are rather bizarre. If the Bible really does teach such
      > >> false ideas about the earth, then atheists are absolutely
      > >> correct that the Bible teaches bizarre religious notions and
      > >> thus has no rightful claim to being inspired by God.
      > >>
      > >> Regards,
      > >> Todd
      > >
      > > I'm simply not limited to believing God takes millions of years
      > > to do something. If something happens naturally then yes it does.
      > > When God parted the red sea, the slaves would have been damn
      > > disappointed if God said "hang on lads, I'll have this done in 50
      > > million years".
      > You did not answer the question: Are you a young earth creationist
      > not?
      > However, if you are interested in the truth about the state of the
      > real world as it is, then you *are* constrained by the empirical,
      > objective information that we possess that proves that (1) the
      > is ancient, having existed for billions of years, and (2) there was
      > no global flood on this planet a few thousand years ago. If your
      > approach is to simply ignore what the real data about the real
      > shows, then you have absolutely no claim to being interested in the
      > truth about reality.
      > Regards,
      > Todd
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... Use your mail client s filter to move the objectionable posts to a junk folder (or just delete them). Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667
      Message 141 of 141 , Feb 19, 2003
        On 19 Feb 2003 at 10:15, Chris Bliss-Jones wrote:

        > --- Dave Oldridge <doldridg@...> wrote: >
        > > If it did not say Anglican on the outside, you would
        > > immediately
        > > think RCC.
        > >
        > > Yet this church probably put more money into the
        > > community in aid
        > > than any three others.
        > >
        > > Dave Oldridge
        > > ICQ 1800667
        > Why the 'yet' in the last paragraph? There's no reason
        > why Anglo-Catholics (or other catholics) should not be
        > more socially concerned thann other churches.
        > I would suggest that they may be more so, particularly
        > in comparison with the so-called Evangelicals, who put
        > personal self-salvation in front of any social
        > commitments, even on a local or personal level.
        > BTW, I'm going to have to switch to digest format due
        > to the volume of emails. I am very willing to listen
        > to serious scientific objections to evolutionary
        > theory and geological uniformitarianism, but this
        > claptrap about dinosaur skeletons being hoaxes is not
        > worth anybody's while even bothering to consider. If
        > the hundreds of dinosaur remains throughout the world
        > are a hoax, they must be the most widespread,
        > co-ordinated and successful hoax in human history.
        > As Monty Python would say, this started as a sensible
        > discussion about creationism and has got very silly.

        Use your mail client's filter to move the objectionable posts to a
        "junk" folder (or just delete them).

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.