Scientists Question Darwinism

[Stripe]

If we accept the hydroplate hypothesis and the Bible, in general, we have at least three events that could have drastically affected the rotation rate. The creation of the moon, the flood, and the Earth coming to a complete stop for a day and then starting up again.

This shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[JudgeRightly]

To the best of our knowledge, yes the Earth never had a million-year day.

:AMR:

I can't say how much the impact that created the moon changed rotational speed

It didn't.

We know it didn't because the moon could not have come from the earth.

We know that because the moon doesn't have the same composition as the earth. It's not made of the same materials.

So that theory is blown out of the water... pardon the pun.

or the hydroplate thing if it happened

The Hydroplate Theory says that the orbit of the earth increased by about 5 days (from a 360 day year), and that the rotation of the earth sped up by about 3 minutes and 56 seconds (from 24 hours to 23 hours, 56 minutes and about 4 seconds, and that the moon's orbit went from a 30-day month, to a 29.53-day month.

I recommend you check out http://kgov.com/360 (and the links on that page) for more on this subject.

and those are the only two events I can think of that would have that much impact.

Considering the first one never happened, and the HPT doesn't suggest such, it seems you're out of options.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not a young earth creationist, if the universe was created just 6,000 years ago

More like 7000 years ago...

you would think it would have shown up in Mesopotamian records from that time period.

Uh... which period?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sort of curious how long were those six days were?

24 hours.

Days on Venus are almost a year long.

Venus != Earth

We have no idea what the rotational period of the Earth was at creation

Sure we do. We have a good idea of what the rotational period of the earth was, and why.

See http://kgov.com/24

as it has changed considerably since

Since when?

Going from 24 hours to 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds isn't a considerable change.

and been affected by many outside forces.

Such as?

Our current day has not been 24 hours since the 1800s, which is why we have to have leap events built into the time measurements.

Again, see kgov.com/24 for an accurate history.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hence the question mark.

As noted, I don't believe in the 6,000-year figure though it is interesting that the creation of the world occurring at the same time as the earliest account of beer being made.

Uh, actually that came about 1650 years AFTER the creation of the earth, and it was wine, not beer, that Noah got drunk off of.

If we accept the hydroplate hypothesis

It's called the Hydroplate THEORY for a reason.

and the Bible, in general, we have at least three events that could have drastically affected the rotation rate. The creation of the moon, the flood, and the Earth coming to a complete stop for a day and then starting up again.

I've already told you how the HPT affected the orbit and rotation of the earth and orbit of the moon, and it wasn't significant enough to change any of those three things to be completely different than before.

The creation of the moon doesn't work, because we know by Genesis 7:11, 24, and 8:3-4 that exactly five months elapsed in the first 150 days (five 30-day months) of the Flood. And the Flood happened about 1650 years after the creation of the universe. Definitely not enough time for there to be any change in the rotation of the earth in that time.

As for the third...

We know from the text of Joshua that the sun stood still in the sky.

I haven't gotten to studying this yet, but as far as I can tell, God halted the rotation of the earth, and after the battle was finished, he caused the rotation of the earth to resume.

Why it would it be impossible for the Creator of the universe to halt the rotation of the earth and then resume it, without any negative side effects, is beyond me.

:idunno:

 

[genuineoriginal]

No one said the fountains were "merely a spring."

You did.

The word "fountain" in Genesis 7 has the implication of a spring of water coming up from the ground.

You just did it again.

what the HPT actually proposes are the fountains of the great deep... it's NOT imaginary.

There is zero evidence that the super heated water that the HPT relies on is anything but imaginary.

Ezekiel 31.

The allegory about how God brought down the king of Assyria that was to be told to the king of Egypt as a warning that God could bring him down as well?
You do know what an allegory is, right?

Please provide an estimate of how many meteors, and their sizes, are needed for this to occur.

NASA gets the dates wrong, but not the meteor impacts and their effects.

Ancient Earth saw a huge spike in meteor impacts. It may be ongoing. ... Now, researchers using data from a NASA moon probe report something startling in the journal Science: 290 million years ago, the rate of impacts on the moon—and thus, Earth—increased dramatically, and that onslaught has possibly not yet died down. ... This matters, not least because asteroids large enough to make it through the atmosphere can smash into Earth and trigger mass extinctions. One such impact proved to be the coup de grâce for the age of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. ... According to Bottke, almost all the impacts we have on Earth came from objects that escaped the asteroid belt. A large body broke up, perhaps through a collisional event, creating many fragments. ... It’s possible that multiple break-ups in the asteroid belt contributed to the overall spike, or it may be due to one really catastrophic event. This is something future modelling work will hopefully nail down. Whatever the cause, this impact flux spike will no doubt continue to intrigue scientists hoping to not only understand Earth’s past, but also to avoid the fate of the dinosaurs.

​

A meteor shower would leave debris, craters, and other evidence that just doesn't exist.

You mean the evidence that does exist and has been studied by NASA, unlike the lack of evidence for the imaginary superheated ocean that the HPT depends on?

First of all... "destruction of the cataclysm"?

A cataclysm is "a large-scale and violent event in the natural world."

An event cannot be "destroyed". You may want to fix your wording.

You may want to fix your reading ability.
The "destruction of the cataclysm" refers to the destruction caused by the cataclysm.
Similar wording can even be found in encyclopedia articles.

Noah - Encyclopaedia Britannica In the Babylonian story the destruction of the flood was the result of a disagreement among the gods; in Genesis it resulted from the moral corruption of human history.

​

And second.... Please provide the passage of scripture that describes a miraculous meteor shower causing the flood.

There are more accounts of the flood than just the Bible.

Did a Comet Cause the Great Flood? The universal human myth may be the first example of disaster reporting. ... Masse’s biggest idea is that some 5,000 years ago, a 3-mile-wide ball of rock and ice swung around the sun and smashed into the ocean off the coast of Madagascar. The ensuing cataclysm sent a series of 600-foot-high tsunamis crashing against the world’s coastlines and injected plumes of superheated water vapor and aerosol particulates into the atmosphere. Within hours, the infusion of heat and moisture blasted its way into jet streams and spawned superhurricanes that pummeled the other side of the planet. For about a week, material ejected into the atmosphere plunged the world into darkness. All told, up to 80 percent of the world’s population may have perished, making it the single most lethal event in history. Why, then, don’t we know about it? Masse contends that we do. Almost every culture has a legend about a great flood, and—with a little reading between the lines—many of them mention something like a comet on a collision course with Earth just before the disaster. The Bible describes a deluge for 40 days and 40 nights that created a flood so great that Noah was stuck in his ark for two weeks until the water subsided. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the hero of Mesopotamia saw a pillar of black smoke on the horizon before the sky went dark for a week. Afterward, a cyclone pummeled the Fertile Crescent and caused a massive flood. Myths recounted in indigenous South American cultures also tell of a great flood. “These stories are all exactly what you would expect from the survivors of a celestial impact,” Masse says, leafing through 2,000-year-old drawings by Chinese astronomers that show comets of all shapes and sizes. “When a comet rounds the sun, oftentimes its tail is still being blown forward by the solar winds so that it actually precedes it. That is why so many descriptions of comets in mythology mention that they are wearing horns.” In India, he notes, a celestial fish described as “bright as a moonbeam,” with a horn on its head, warned of an epic flood that brought on a new age of man. Among 175 flood myths, Masse found two of particular interest. A Hindu myth describes an alignment of the five bright planets that has happened only once in the last 5,000 years, according to computer simulations, and a Chinese story mentions that the great flood occurred at the end of the reign of Empress Nu Wa. Cross-checking historical records with astronomical data, Masse came up with a date for his event: May 10, 2807 B.C. On its own, the mythological evidence is weak, as even Masse recognizes. “Mythology can help us hypothesize about events that might have occurred,” he says, “but to prove the reality of them, we have to go beyond myths and search for physical evidence.” In 2004, at a conference of geologists, astronomers, and archaeologists, Masse outlined his evidence for a world-ravaging impact in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Ted Bryant, a geomorphologist at the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia, was intrigued and enlisted the help of Dallas Abbott, an assistant professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. In 2005, they formed the Holocene Impact Working Group (referring to the geological period covering the last 11,000 years) to seek out the geological signatures of a megatsunami. If a 600-foot-high wave ravages a coastline, it should leave a lot of debris behind. In the case of waves generated by asteroid impacts, the debris they leave in their wake is believed to form gigantic, wedge-shaped sandy structures—known as chevrons—that are sometimes packed with deep-oceanic microfossils dredged up by the tsunami. When Abbott began searching satellite images on Google Earth, she saw dozens of chevrons along shorelines and inland in Africa and Asia. The shape and size of these chevrons suggest that they might have been formed by waves emanating from the impact of a comet slamming into the deep ocean off Madagascar. “The chevrons in Madagascar associated with the crater were filled with melted microfossils from the bottom of the ocean. There is no explanation for their presence other than a cosmic impact,” she says. “People are going to have to start taking this theory a lot more seriously.” ...

​

I can and have quoted scripture to support the HPT.

Not quite.
You have quoted scripture that does not support the HPT.

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”Thus 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. So the evening and the morning were the second day.Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:6-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:6-10&version=NKJV

the HPT has earth being created with a sphere of crust, a global continent, dividing the waters above from the waters below (like it says in Genesis 1),

And that is where HPT goes off the rails.
The passage quoted states that the "firmament" is not the crust of the earth, it is what God called "Heaven".
You seem to be confused about the difference between the crust of the earth and the sky.

Not one giant super-continent surrounded by an ocean, but a GLOBAL continent, with seas scattered around the surface, just like Genesis says.

Genesis describes a single continent surrounded by the great deep (ocean).

First of all, Noah isn't the person giving the account.

That would be MOSES, who got it directly from God.

You may want to check the accuracy of your assumptions.

In other words, you're making stuff up to try to validate your position, instead of letting scripture speak for itself.

No, I am not making up the evidence of the meteors that have struck the earth and caused mass destruction.
I leave the making up stuff to the people that can't tell the difference between the sky and the earth's crust, so they have to make up an imaginary ocean of superheated water that never existed.

https://youtu.be/tpQSPaJ-X_U?t=2913

The five minutes after the point in the video I linked to explains verse 8 extremely well.

Actually, it appears like the speaker (was that Bob Enyart?) doesn't know what he is talking about.
Silly person thinks that the birds fly above the earth in the earth's crust. :chuckle:

Genesis 1:20 20 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.​

Could you please point out where in the verse that it says the firmament is the sky?

Here is a link to the Lexicon on blueletterbible which shows the definitions of the Hebrew word and lists all occurrences of that word in the Bible.
H8064 - shamayim שָׁמַיִם

If we assume, like you assert, that the firmament in Genesis 1 ONLY describes the heavens, that the "Heaven" Genesis 1:8 is that firmament, then we're left with waters above the heavens and waters below the heavens, and a firmament dividing those waters.

Unless you believe that there's water in the heavens, I don't see how your position could be correct.

Does rain fall from the crust of the earth, or does water fall from the sky (heavens)?

Firmament, as the root word "firm" implies, describes something firm or unyielding.

You are relying upon translations that aren't very accurate.
As you can see from the dictionary entry, the original Hebrew word conveys the sense of stretching to describe the great arch or expanse over our heads.

Firmament FIRMAMENT, noun ferm'ament. [Latin firmamentum, from firmus, firmo.] The region of the air; the sky or heavens. In scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; for such is the signification of the Hebrew word, coinciding with regio, region, and reach. The original therefore does not convey the sense of solidity, but of stretching, extension; the great arch or expanse over our heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Genesis 1:6. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament Genesis 1:14.

​

 

[Stripe]

There is zero evidence that the super heated water that the HPT relies on is anything but imaginary.

Except for the superheated water coming out of the Earth.

 

[Derf]

What creationist does that? Scientists who accept evolution, certainly don't do that.

That was Darwin's point, when he suggested that God created the first living things.

For a Christian, who accepts that God is omnipotent, He can use contingency as easily as He uses necessity to effect divine providence. So it might look "unguided", but God is always Lord.

Evolutionists don't say it looks "unguided"; they say it looks designed. They just make the claim that it is unguided. But God tells us how far He guided it in the beginning--that each living thing recreates after its own kind. Which tells us not only that the variation won't cross over some line, but also that there were multiple kinds in the first place, including
[Gen 1:11, 21, 24 KJV] 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. ... 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. ... 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

I count at least 8 or 9 kinds that can't cross over. When God brought the animals to Adam (beasts of the field and birds in Gen 2:19) on the 6th day, there were enough of them that the plural was used, despite there not being enough time for generations to have sprung forth, and also that there were enough to give Adam the impression that someone was missing in his life, however many that might take.

So while Darwin might have considered a small group of animals being the created kinds, all others coming from them, I don't think he allowed for fish and birds and beasts and crawling things, etc, since he considered man to have descended from lower forms, as well as birds to have descended from land animals and land animals from fish.

Other than the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo", which is directly ruled out by God in Genesis, I can't think of another case. Christians recognize that it makes no difference to your salvation if you accept Genesis creation stories as literally true, or as figurative. God doesn't make it a salvation issue.

I've never heard of that doctrine. I've heard of "creation ex nihilo", but all else came from the sea (fish and birds) and the land (man and beasts).

There aren't any conflicts between scripture and science, and only one I know of between YE creationism and scripture.

That's the "life ex nihilo" you mentioned above? Then you accept the possibility of the YE timeframe fitting with scripture?

Good point. As St. Augustine wrote:
My greatest certainty was that "the invisible things of thine from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even thy eternal power and Godhead." For when I inquired how it was that I could appreciate the beauty of bodies, both celestial and terrestrial; and what it was that supported me in making correct judgments about things mutable; and when I concluded, "This ought to be thus; this ought not"—then when I inquired how it was that I could make such judgments (since I did, in fact, make them), I realized that I had found the unchangeable and true eternity of truth above my changeable mind. (Confessions 7:17)

I'm not sure I get what you are getting from Augie.

God guiding a contingent process, however, is perfectly consistent with omnipotence.

But an omnipotent God would surely be able to communicate His actions in a way that doesn't confuse immutability of kinds with a single or very few ancestors for all creatures and plants. At the least you should acknowledge the bible doesn't allow for birds to come from land animals, land animals to come from fish, or any of the moving creatures to come from plants, right? If you can't, of what value are the scriptures. Do they ever mean anything except what you want them to mean?

Making a human out of dust isn't the same as making a human out of a different animal.

What was God thinking when He told us such nonsense? lain:

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not sure I get what you are getting from Augie.

But an omnipotent God would surely be able to communicate His actions in a way that doesn't confuse immutability of kinds with a single or very few ancestors for all creatures and plants.

If it mattered to him that you know how things evolved, I suppose He would have made it unequivocally true. But it doesn't matter. That's not the way He says He'll decide your eternal home.

At the least you should acknowledge the bible doesn't allow for birds to come from land animals, land animals to come from fish, or any of the moving creatures to come from plants, right?

It doesn't offer a statement either way.

If you can't, of what value are the scriptures.

It tells you about God and how to be with him for eternity. That's a good thing, I suppose.

Do they ever mean anything except what you want them to mean?

The creationist revision of scripture doesn't totally reject His word. They just read a little extra in it, to make it more acceptable to them.

Making a human out of dust isn't the same as making a human out of a different animal.

If it's allegory, why would that offend you?

What was God thinking when He told us such nonsense? lain:

Other than YE creationists, I don't think the unvarnished version of Genesis is considered "nonsense."

 

[Derf]

If it mattered to him that you know how things evolved, I suppose He would have made it unequivocally true. But it doesn't matter. That's not the way He says He'll decide your eternal home.

If it doesn't matter, why try to read it the way you do?

It doesn't offer a statement either way.

Hmmm. I think I wasted a lot of time on that last post, showing the statements that could only be read in a way that does not allow for evolutionism's common ancestor.

It tells you about God and how to be with him for eternity. That's a good thing, I suppose.

What if that part is just allegory? Would that offend you?

The creationist revision of scripture doesn't totally reject His word. They just read a little extra in it, to make it more acceptable to them.

I'm pretty sure you have it backwards. They read it as it is written, assuming no allegory to change the meaning to something else. If they're wrong, who cares--the words have no intrinsic truth value then. If they're right, everyone should care.

If it's allegory, why would that offend you?

See above. and below.

Other than YE creationists, I don't think the unvarnished version of Genesis is considered "nonsense."

Of course, if allegorized, nothing is nonsense for the author, but the reader can treat it as nonsense. This is where the offense is (not to me, but to the author), that if the account is actual, and God really meant 6 days instead of 4.5 billion years or so, what are we saying about God? "Did God really say...?"

[Gen 3:1, 4-5 NLT] 1 The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the LORD God had made. One day he asked the woman, "Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?" ... 4 "You won't die!" the serpent replied to the woman. 5 "God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil."

"You won't die, that's just allegory! Let me tell you what God really meant to say." And death was the result. Why would God suddenly decide that disregarding Him and following Satan is now ok? Does it really make any sense that Jesus would come to earth as a man and die on a cross in order for us all to continue with the same thing that caused death in the first place?

Oh, but that's just allegory, too, so we can ignore what God said in chapter 3, as well.

 

[ok doser]

he's trolling you derf

i reported him

 

[The Barbarian]

If it doesn't matter, why try to read it the way you do?

Just letting the text say what it is. Not everything that's of interest matters to salvation.

It doesn't offer a statement either way.

Hmmm. I think I wasted a lot of time on that last post, showing the statements that could only be read in a way that does not allow for evolutionism's common ancestor.

It was a good try, and I believe you're sincere. But it doesn't work.

It tells you about God and how to be with him for eternity. That's a good thing, I suppose.

What if that part is just allegory?

Some of it, as Paul notes, is allegory. But you'd be wrong if you called it"just" allegory. The word of God can be in parables or allegory, and still be important to your salvation.

Would that offend you?

If Jesus uses parables, why should I be offended? If God used figurative verses about creation, why should anyone object?

I'm pretty sure you have it backwards. They read it as it is written,

Everyone believes that of themselves. Even people who take it as literal history, believe that they read it as it is written. The important thing is, it won't matter to your salvation.

He doesn't care about that. He cares about other things...

Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

That's what God says will save you. Not whether you think Genesis is literal or not. And that's a good thing, I think.

 

[The Barbarian]

[Gen 3:1, 4-5 NLT] 1 The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the LORD God had made. One day he asked the woman, "Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?" ... 4 "You won't die!" the serpent replied to the woman. 5 "God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil."

It's very like Satan to deceive by giving you a part of the truth, and concealing the rest. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from that tree. The serpent is a Biblical literalist, and said, "no you won't die and your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil."

So Eve eats, and Adam eats, and as the serpent said, their eyes were opened, and they become like God, knowing good and evil. They didn't die physically that day, but they did die spiritually, becoming like God, but being unable to be truly good.

God confirms the partial truth that the serpent told them:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil:

They were no longer innocent, but being unable to be truly good, they were dead to God. And that required a Redeemer.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

We know it didn't because the moon could not have come from the earth.

We know that because the moon doesn't have the same composition as the earth. It's not made of the same materials.

NASA says their examination of lunar soil and composition shows the opposite.
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/

 

[JudgeRightly]

You did.

You just did it again.

No, I said the word used has the IMPLICATION of being a spring.

There is zero evidence that the super heated water that the HPT relies on is anything but imaginary.

Except for the supercritical water coming out of the sea floor.

https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060522/full/060522-15.html

The allegory about how God brought down the king of Assyria that was to be told to the king of Egypt as a warning that God could bring him down as well?
You do know what an allegory is, right?

A similar passage is Ezekiel 28, which describes God warning the King of Tyre.

It ALSO describes the Fall of Lucifer in the Garden of Eden. Not from (what we today call) heaven to earth, but from the Garden into the Pit.

Which just reinforces what I said about there being TWO firmaments in Genesis 1, the "firmament of the heavens" and the "firmament CALLED Heaven".

In the same way, Ezekiel 31 is in fact talking about Pharaoh, but it's also alluding to what happened to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Did I not mention that the tree in the story I told was the Tree of Knowledge?

*asks for an estimate of how many meteors, and their sizes, are needed to cause the flood of Noah's time*

NASA :blabla:

*no estimate of numbers, their sizes, and has no relevance to any time anywhere near the flood of Noah*

So you mean to tell me that you don't have any idea of how many meteors or how big they would need to be to cause the Flood of Genesis 7?

Shocker.

Try again.

Please provide an estimate of how many meteors, and their sizes, are needed for the Flood of Noah to occur.

You mean the evidence that does exist and has been studied by NASA, unlike the lack of evidence for the imaginary superheated ocean that the HPT depends on?

Show me the evidence that meteors caused the Flood of Genesis 7, roughly 5200 years ago.

You may want to fix your reading ability.
The "destruction of the cataclysm" refers to the destruction caused by the cataclysm.
Similar wording can even be found in encyclopedia articles.

Noah - Encyclopaedia Britannica In the Babylonian story the destruction of the flood was the result of a disagreement among the gods; in Genesis it resulted from the moral corruption of human history.

​

Ah, ok, I get what you meant now.

Why not just say "the destruction caused by the cataclysm" then? :idunno:

*asks for scripture describing meteors causing the Flood*

There are more accounts of the flood than just the Bible.

*proceeds to give examples of flood stories from outside the Bible*

Look, GO, I asked for you to provide scripture to back up your claims. Extra-Biblical accounts of flood stories, while they validate the historicity of the Flood of Noah, because cultures across the world, who have never had any contact with each other, have similar stories, altered by history, do not qualify as scripture themselves, and therefore do not satisfy my request for scripture that describes meteors causing the Flood.

Try again.

Please provide scripture that describes meteors causing the flood.

Not quite.
You have quoted scripture that does not support the HPT.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

It also doesn't change the fact that so far you have quoted very little scripture in support of your beliefs, while I have consistently provided scripture to back up my claims.

And that is where HPT goes off the rails.
The passage quoted states that the "firmament" is not the crust of the earth, it is what God called "Heaven".

Begging the question.

The passage says:

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus 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. So the evening and the morning were the second day. Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:6-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:6-10&version=NKJV

Did you notice that God did not call the work He did on day 2 good?

Of the 6 days of creation, only 5 of them does God call what He did good or very good.

Day 2 is the only day He did not say that His work was good.

Why?

Because He wasn't finished working with the things He started to make on day 2.

He started making land on day 2, and finished making land on day 3.

The dry land He called Earth in verse 3, is the same firmament He made in day 2. Because He wasn't finished by the end of day 2.

When God made the earth in Genesis 1:1, there was no dry land. The surface was all water (1:2). On day 2, God started to make land, by creating a firmament, raqia, in the midst of the waters, to divide the waters below from the waters above (1:6-7). He called that Heaven.

Here's a cross section of what it looked like (credit Bryan Nickel):

That's Heaven (1:8).

God doesn't see that it was good, He doesn't call it good, because it's not finished.

-End of the second day, beginning of the third-

God gathers the waters under the heavens (remember, God had already created "the heavens" in verse 1), which were above Heaven (see the image above, which is called Heaven by God in verse 8) and let the dry land appear. (1:9)

God called the dry land, which was the firmament of day 2, which was covered by the waters above the firmament but has now been made to appear, Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. (1:10)

This is a cross section of what it would have looked like, what God called Earth and Seas.

And here, again, is a birds-eye view of what the earth would have looked like at this point:

It was ONLY at this point that God saw that what He had done was good, and was finished with the work He had started on day 2, and so He started on the rest of the work of day 3.

You seem to be confused about the difference between the crust of the earth and the sky.

No, that would be you.

You're the one saying that the firmament, which is a latin word (Hebrew word used is "raqia/raqiyah" which means "expanse"), is always referring to the heavens, when it's not.

Firmament (Hebrew: raqia) simply means expanse, and describes BOTH the sky AND the firmament called Heaven...

The sky is "the firmament of the heavens."

The earth is "the firmament called Heaven."

Heaven is a paradise, no?

God created Heaven on earth for His creation, man, to enjoy. He didn't create the earth and also create Heaven up in the sky, where man couldn't enjoy it. Last I checked, man can't fly. :idunno:

Genesis describes a single continent surrounded by the great deep (ocean).

Saying it doesn't make it so.

See above.

You may want to check the accuracy of your assumptions.

:blabla:

No, I am not making up the evidence of the meteors that have struck the earth and caused mass destruction.

Never said you made up evidence.

If I didn't say it before, what I meant was that you made up some theory to try to reconcile the secular interpretation of evidence with the Biblical interpretation, when the two are not compatible.

The secular interpretation says millions of years.

The Bible says 7-10 thousand years.

The secular interpretation says the earth was destroyed by a giant meteor to wipe out the dinosaurs, and man came along afterwards.

The Bible says that dinosaurs and man walked together in the Garden of Eden, and that a worldwide flood wiped out all life on earth, except for 8 people, 4 men and their wives, and an ark with a bunch of air breathing animals on it

The two views are not compatible, yet you've come up with an ad hoc rescue to try to reconcile the two.

I leave the making up stuff to the people that can't tell the difference between the sky and the earth's crust,

Considering that I make the distinction just fine, recognizing that there are not one, but TWO firmaments in Genesis 1, you surely can't be talking of me.

so they have to make up an imaginary ocean of superheated water that never existed.

Again, it's not imaginary, and it did exist.

Saying it never existed doesn't make it so.

I have the Bible and the link I posted above as my evidence, where's yours?

Actually, it appears like the speaker (was that Bob Enyart?)

Yes, that was Bob.

doesn't know what he is talking about.

Did you watch the full video?

Silly person

Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy. So is ad hominem. And this is also libel.

thinks that the birds fly above the earth in the earth's crust. :chuckle:

No, He doesn't.

Again, you're the one who assumes there is only one firmament, and that it must be the sky.

WE have shown that there are TWO firmaments, the earth (which God called Heaven, because it was a paradise), and the sky (called the firmament of the heavens).

You're the one who can't make the distinction between the earth's crust and the sky, GO.

Genesis 1:20 20 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.​

Clearly talking about "the firmament of the heavens," the sky.

It is NOT talking about "the firmament called Heaven" or simply "the firmament."

Here is a link to the Lexicon on blueletterbible which shows the definitions of the Hebrew word and lists all occurrences of that word in the Bible.
H8064 - shamayim שָׁמַיִם

Right, the heavens.

Not "Heaven."

You seem to be having a hard time understanding my position, GO. Why?

Does rain fall from the crust of the earth, or does water fall from the sky (heavens)?

It falls from the firmament of the heavens onto the firmament called Heaven.

You are relying upon translations that aren't very accurate.

They're not?

So, raqia doesn't really mean "expanse"?

God didn't create an "expanse" in the midst of the waters, dividing the waters above the expanse from the waters below the expanse? And He then did not call the "expanse" samayim? And He then did not say "let the laters under hasamayim gather together into one place"?

Did you catch that?

Do you know the difference between samayim and hasamayim?

As you can see from the dictionary entry, the original Hebrew word conveys the sense of stretching

Yes, that's what I've been saying.

to describe the great arch or expanse over our heads.

Actually, that bit comes from the latin, the firmament.

If you read Strong's definition carefully, you'll notice that the definition says nothing about the sky, only that it's used to describe the sky.

Here is where I disagree with Strong's, though I can't blame them for making this mistake, as it's a very easy mistake to make.

Strong's correctly lists raqia's definition as being "expanse", but here's what it then says:

Strong's h7549 - Lexical: רָקִ֫יעַ - Transliteration: raqia - Part of Speech: Noun Masculine - Phonetic Spelling: raw-kee'-ah - Definition: expanse. - Origin: From raqa'; properly, an expanse, i.e. The firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky. - Usage: firmament. - Translated as (count): the firmament (9), in the expanse (2), in the firmament (2), of the firmament (2), a firmament (1), firmament (1).

Except that it doesn't JUST describe the arch of the sky, but also describes the ground beneath our feet, according to scripture, as I explained above.

Firmament FIRMAMENT, noun ferm'ament. [Latin firmamentum, from firmus, firmo.] The region of the air; the sky or heavens. In scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; for such is the signification of the Hebrew word, coinciding with regio, region, and reach. The original therefore does not convey the sense of solidity, but of stretching, extension; the great arch or expanse over our heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen.

​

Yes, I'm well aware of what the latin word "firmamentum" means. Had you been paying attention to my last post, I actually used it in defense of my position. However, the Latin is a 3rd tier translation. What I mean by that is that the 1st tier is the original language, Hebrew, the 2nd tier is Greek (the Septuagint), and then the 3rd tier is Latin. In other words, the lower the number, the higher the accuracy of the version/translation. But, since we know (as much as we can without the original copies of the texts, which have long since been lost to time and decay) what the Hebrew says, and can translate the Hebrew directly to English, we can consider English Bibles to be tier 2, not tier 4 (especially thanks to texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, and especially (at least in my own opinion) the Wescott-Hort). Which means that while I agree that firmamentum/firmament and part it's modern definition of "the arch of the sky" might be acceptable for general study, it's not really the best translation of the word. If you're going for accuracy, the closer you can get to the original language, the better. "Raqa" and "raqiyah/raqia" more accurately represent the original intent of the author. I mentioned in my last post that "raqiyah" is a noun, but the root word for raqia (raqiyah) is a VERB that means "to pound out," raqa. Here's another interesting tidbit that's important to know: "raqa" (Hebrew) "rocca" (Latin) "rock" (English) Does the sky sound like a rock to you? something pounded out? Or would the crust of the earth be a better fit? Keep in mind when you answer this question that my position is that there are two firmaments, "the firmament called Heaven," which refers to the earth, and "the firmament of the heavens," which refers to the sky, be that just the atmosphere or space itself. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Genesis 1:6. See above, considering that this verse is used as part of my main argument that it means what it plainly says, the only thing you can do is show how it doesn't mean what it plainly says, that God created an expanse in the midst of the waters of verse 2. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament Genesis 1:14.

​

You cut off the verse.

Here's what it actually says:

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; - Genesis 1:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:14&version=NKJV

Once again, we see the sky being called "the firmament of the heavens", and not "the firmament called Heaven," and not "the firmament."

 

[Derf]

Just letting the text say what it is. Not everything that's of interest matters to salvation.

It doesn't offer a statement either way.

I'm losing focus on what you're saying. What is the "it" referring to in your third sentence?

It was a good try, and I believe you're sincere. But it doesn't work.

It tells you about God and how to be with him for eternity. That's a good thing, I suppose.

Not if eternity is allegorical. Not if death is allegorical. If real death came because of a real act--disobeying God's word not to eat of the wrong tree. And real life comes through obeying His command to believe in the right sacrifice. Doesn't the reason for death need to be clear in order to understand why we need this life He offers? Isn't that why the message was, "repent and believe"?

And if Gen 1 and 2 tell us how to be with God forever, it seems important to get it right. I'm more of the opinion it tells us how NOT to be with God forever, which is almost as important as how TO be with God forever, isn't it? I can't imagine that throughout eternity, we will be ok to ignore what God says about Himself and His work, and do the opposite of what He says to do. That seems to be the message of Gen 3, based on the information given in Gen 2, which depends on Gen 1 for defining the characters and the timeframe.

Some of it, as Paul notes, is allegory. But you'd be wrong if you called it"just" allegory. The word of God can be in parables or allegory, and still be important to your salvation.

Paul uses historical material to draw on for his allegory. He never said the people in the historical account were not real or did not do what Genesis said they did.

If Jesus uses parables, why should I be offended? If God used figurative verses about creation, why should anyone object?

Jesus explained His parables, at least for those that needed to know. He also explained parts of the creation story--by repeating them verbatim.

Everyone believes that of themselves. Even people who take it as literal history, believe that they read it as it is written. The important thing is, it won't matter to your salvation.

While I can't begin to know which of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons, or "Christian Witches" (I just heard about them for the first time today) are really going to be saved, nor even which of the Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., what I think they have in common with me and with you, hopefully, is that they recognize there are sections of the bible that are NOT allegorical, and need to be taken literally and seriously. You've picked one below, and it's a good one, but how is it that we can know that Matt 25 is NOT allegorical, and therefore helpful to our salvation, but the creation one, which Jesus seemed to think was talking about a real event, was allegorical, and NOT helpful to our salvation?

He doesn't care about that. He cares about other things...

How do we know what God cares about? Don't we look in His revelation to us to determine what He cares about? And if He reveals to us how He created the world, and explains how He is the only one that can reveal such to us (20 That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the LORD hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it. ... 22 Let them bring [them] forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they [be], that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. [Isa 41:20, 22 KJV]), then it seems like He thinks it important. If God's power to show us the former things is clouded in allegory, so that it fits any beginnings model, how useful is it to show how powerful He is in comparison with idols, a la Is 41?

Matthew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

That's what God says will save you. Not whether you think Genesis is literal or not. And that's a good thing, I think.

But isn't the devil just an allegory? From what you are saying, Satan (2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, [Rev 20:2 KJV]) was just as allegorical in the beginning as the creation, since he was conversing with an allegorical first woman. How is it that there is a place that is reserved for the devil and his angels that's NOT allegorical? From what are we saved, if not from death and hell?

It's very like Satan to deceive by giving you a part of the truth, and concealing the rest. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from that tree. The serpent is a Biblical literalist, and said, "no you won't die and your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil."

So Eve eats, and Adam eats, and as the serpent said, their eyes were opened, and they become like God, knowing good and evil. They didn't die physically that day, but they did die spiritually, becoming like God, but being unable to be truly good.

God confirms the partial truth that the serpent told them:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil:

They were no longer innocent, but being unable to be truly good, they were dead to God. And that required a Redeemer.

Ok, now Satan is NOT allegorical?
Satan was NOT a biblical literalist. He twisted God's word and denied what God said, “Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?”, and “You won’t die!”

Aren't you doing the same thing when you say, "God didn't mean 6 days and in that particular order, He meant some incomprehensible amount of time and in a different order. But it's ok that we don't believe what God said, because it's allegorical."

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm losing focus on what you're saying. What is the "it" referring to in your third sentence?

The text. It doesn't say how God created the diversity of life.

Not if eternity is allegorical. Not if death is allegorical.

Death, in the creation story, is figurative, in that it didn't mean what it usually means. God says Adam will die the day he eats the fruit of that tree, but he eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. The "death" is real, but spiritual.

While the word "Yom" can mean eternity, it can also mean "in my time" "days" etc. I don't see a problem with that. It's figurative.

If real death came because of a real act--disobeying God's word not to eat of the wrong tree. And real life comes through obeying His command to believe in the right sacrifice. Doesn't the reason for death need to be clear in order to understand why we need this life He offers? Isn't that why the message was, "repent and believe"?

Yes. You got the message God was intending. That's what all of that allegorical material was saying. I get that you don't see it that way. My point is that if you get the message, it doesn't matter if you take it as figuratively presented or literal history.

And if Gen 1 and 2 tell us how to be with God forever,

Jesus tells us exactly what that is, in Matthew 25:31. No specific instruction in Genesis.

it seems important to get it right.

Yes. It's why it's laid out so precisely in Matthew.

I'm more of the opinion it tells us how NOT to be with God forever, which is almost as important as how TO be with God forever, isn't it?

Yes. But it lacks the two great commandments, only hinting at the first and saying nothing about the second:

Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

I can't imagine that throughout eternity, we will be ok to ignore what God says about Himself and His work, and do the opposite of what He says to do.

That wouldn't be loving Him with all your heart, would it? So, yes. That's why Genesis suggests the first of the two great commandments without actually saying it.

Paul uses historical material to draw on for his allegory. He never said the people in the historical account were not real or did not do what Genesis said they did.

Real people and real incidents can be in allegories, as in Genesis and Abraham's family.

Jesus explained His parables, at least for those that needed to know.

He didn't overtly say "this is a parable." For each of those we know about, it didn't matter if it was an actual incident, or if he was using a story to merely illustrate something important.

He also explained parts of the creation story--by repeating them verbatim.

He did. But mentioning an allegory doesn't mean it's not an allegory anymore.

While I can't begin to know which of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons, or "Christian Witches" (I just heard about them for the first time today) are really going to be saved, nor even which of the Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., what I think they have in common with me and with you, hopefully, is that they recognize there are sections of the bible that are NOT allegorical, and need to be taken literally and seriously. You've picked one below, and it's a good one, but how is it that we can know that Matt 25 is NOT allegorical, and therefore helpful to our salvation, but the creation one, which Jesus seemed to think was talking about a real event, was allegorical, and NOT helpful to our salvation?

If, for example, He doesn't really say "O.K. everyone, sheep on the right, goats on the left", does it mean he wasn't serious about how your eternal home would be decided? No, I don't think so. Likewise, if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is merely a figurative one, does it mean that disobeying God is O.K.? No, it doesn't. And Jesus indicates that the disobedience was real, even if He realized that the story was an allegory about that disobedience.

How do we know what God cares about?

For example, He tells you what will determine your eternal home. He cares about the way you care for your fellow man, saying that when you do it, you also care for Him.

Don't we look in His revelation to us to determine what He cares about?

That sounds like a revelation to me. The Pharisees said it was by following the law to the letter. He says it's by caring for the unfortunate among us, and if we do that, we are showing our love for Him.

But isn't the devil just an allegory?

He's presented allegorically. Satan is a spirit. He's not a serpent. The representation of him as such is very deep. In that time and place, a serpent represented wisdom and eternal life. So Satan presented himself deceptively, as he always does.

Ok, now Satan is NOT allegorical?

Like Adam, he's real, just presented allegorically.

Satan was NOT a biblical literalist.

He was. He denied that Adam would die the day he ate the fruit. And of course, he didn't die physically that day. But God didn't mean a literal death. Likewise, he told Eve that she would become like God. A partial truth, used to deceive. The fall required them to become like God, as God said.

He twisted God's word and denied what God said, “Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?”, and “You won’t die!”

Yep. A literalist.

Aren't you doing the same thing when you say, "God didn't mean 6 days and in that particular order, He meant some incomprehensible amount of time and in a different order. But it's ok that we don't believe what God said, because it's allegorical."

No. Those who accept Genesis as it is, say "the six days are figurative for categories of creation, but it's O.K. if you don't accept that, because your salvation does not depend on it."

 

[Stripe]

The text ... doesn't say how God created the diversity of life.

Except that you take great delight in telling people that God said "let the Earth bring forth," but downplay "from the dust," "from Adam" and "let the waters abound."

The simple answer: God spoke creatures into existence over the course of a couple of days. That's what the text says.

Darwinism is a non-starter.

 

[Stripe]

A literalist.

No, a liar.

The correct answer to Satan — as it is to you — was "no."

The serpent said to the woman: “Has God indeed said: ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

That's not a "literalist's" account; it's a lie. The answer is "no."

 

[Omniskeptical]

It is always assumed Noah's ark had all full-grown animals of 2. I think it was more likely baby-sized animals of 2.