The TRVE history of the Flood...

So you not only reject the traditional understanding of the first verses of Genesis but the whole account of the Flood. Instead of reinterpreting the science to fit God's word you turn God's word into a lie.

My mistake. I was thinking of Abraham, and Shem who was still alive in Abraham's time, whose reports were of course oral, and handed down to Moses. Eyewitness account by Shem nevertheless, which Abraham would have heard, though they didn't write it into the scripture.I've added a correction to that statement in the postEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Kbertsche mentioned a book titled Grand Canyon Monument to an Ancient Earth (obviously playing off creationist Steve Austin's earlier book, Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe.) I just reread the first few pages.This book needs a rigorous debunking but if I'm going to do it that will have to wait. I have two complaints to make here:

• They say nothing against the early Old Earth interpretations of the canyon, although they are supposedly Christians who should care that the Old Earth contradicts the Bible.
  ​
• Then in discussing the Christian creationist opposition to the Old Earth interpretations, they indulge in the straw man canard about how such creationists make use of the products of science while criticizing science. That stupidity alone discredits the authors of this book.

I see I have notes in the margins for pages to come. I think I'll be rereading it for a while, if I can stomach it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I'd forgotten that, thanks for the reminder. The title "Universal Bishop" seems to have been a major turning point. There was already deviation from the true doctrine before that and it kept on accumulating afterward. But all of this jockeying for position is utterly contrary to the spirit of Christ and deserves the Pope the title Antichrist. the Reformers were very serious about that title, they proved it in various ways from scripture that the Pope really IS the Antichrist the scripture says will come.

I have a better source of knowledge about the past, but the point about your dating methods is that they are confined to the present and their application to the past is all pure conjecture. Granted it "makes sense" but there is really no way to verify it and as I said I have a better method that says it's wrong. I think it is way beyond the time that you should be allowed to refer to the Bible as a myth the way you do. That is not your call, and there's no point as a debate tactic either. You can't win the debate by declaring your opponent's premise a myth. It is also unproductive to keep repeating your main, or one and only, argument from dating methods.For a Biblical Creationist the Bible is a trustworthy witness to the past and anything that contradicts it is necessarily false. What's "too bad" is that you so doggedly reject the only reliable source of truth on this planet. There are many of us who started out with your notions and came to recognize the Bible as a supernatural revelation of The Truth. For your sake it would be great if you also came to the same conclusion but nobody is requiring it of you. What SHOULD be required here is the basic respect for a belief system you don't share, as per Rule 10.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Let me see if I can make the point clearer. It's become a broken record that doesn't further the debate in the slightest. We've been exchanging the same opinions over and over but this can never go anywhere because they are basic premises that aren't going to be changed. They are just being asserted rather than used in the argument to any real purpose. It's just a huge waste of time to keep getting this same old same old stuff about the Bible being a myth and dating methods being the last word on the discussion. Or jar's endless carrying on about his ridiculous interpretations of the Bible. Or my statements about the absurdity of the OE/ToE assumptions or that the Bible's dates trump the dating methods. They can be stated as a conclusion from an argument but too often they are just stated over and over and over and over and over in the place of an argument. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But that could be asked of your model too. The real issue isn't that either model can't account for this or that but that we dispute the validity of the theories on both sides that account for this or that. And that's the whole debate.

The topic is the Flood, not the validity of the Bible.

Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, William TyndaleThere really aren't any Protestant theologians during that period so basically I skip it in my list of exegetes; but there were inspiring true Christian leaders and preachers, most of them concerned to spread the gospel in the people's languages since Rome had forbidden it, and they had to do it under the threat of RCC murderous attacks on "heresies."Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, William Tyndale are a few of the "heretics." Hus was burned at the stake, so was Tyndale, Wycliffe managed to escape but he'd made the RCC so furious that after his death they dug up his bones and burned them and threw them in the river. I don't know how Waldo died. He was mainly a preacher associated with the Waqldensians who were a Christian group that hid in the valleys of the Alps from the RCC. He is wrongly considered to have founded that sect, he was simply a prominent member of it. The name Waldensian comes from a word for valley IIRC not from Waldo. They'd lived in the Alps for a long time before Waldo showed up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You so cleverly miss the point. The Bible is assumed as the premise of a creationist argument for the Flood; that is why I say we shouldn't have to keep asserting our premises.

Then there is no debate you see. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In that case we need to invoke Rule 10 against you.

It's just repetitive assertions, and yes I answser with my own repetitive assertions. What's the use of that?But I give up this line of reasoning anyway. It doesn't matter.

Well, I'm now taking the position that the Bible is evidence. It's God's word, it's the truth, it trumps all the contradictory dating claims. I see no point in repeating this basic conflict ad nauseam.

What do you get out of your silly disruptive little word games?No, I meant evidence for the argument t for the Flood of course. You had to make me say that? Why? What are you accomplishing with your little games?