Is the Bible the Word of God II?

QUOTE:
Ok. I'm game. What are those legitimate ways?

Reply:
I think I read your arguments, or at least a good chunk of them, that you used on the other threads. The issue here is one of the availability of food. What's to stop the earth from becoming lush with an incredible abundance of food once the seeds start to grow all over the place after Noah's Flood?

In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)

--Marty

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
What's to stop the earth from becoming lush with an incredible abundance of food once the seeds start to grow all over the place after Noah's Flood?

---

First there is the question of the survival of the seeds themselves under the conditions of the flood. Most seeds do not survive under water for very long, particularly important in this case are the grains. Grains absorb water and burst, or just simply rot. Try it.

Of course, they could plant seeds kept on the ark but this wouldn't solve the problems I am about to mention. Nor would it account for the survival of the seeds of inedible plants.

Secondly, there is the topsoil. There wouldn't be any after such a catastrophic flood.

Third, what dirt is laying around ought to be very salty due to the ocean surges onto land. Not many plants like that environment, though some do.

Fourth, the environment would be a mess (especially if you subscribe to the idea, as TB and TC, that the flood was driven by massive volcanism)

There are more specific issues related to the survival of Noah's family, such as:

Even in the best of cases it would take many months before a harvest. What do they eat in the meantime? They have already been on the ark for a year, along with the animals, eating the stores of food they brought along.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
QUOTE:
I think the longer life-spans add to the problem in this case.

The founders of the radically different Egyptian culture would
have near-direct knowledge of the one God through their still-living
clan elders (i.e. Shem, Ham, Japheth, and possibly even Noah).

Reply:
I don't believe that this indicates a problem other than the tendency of Fallen creatures to reject the ways of the true God. And very early groups could've branched out to begin in new areas that became alienated from the influence of Noah.

---

But how many generations do you think would be required for
the influence of Noah and Sons to wane ?

I know this is supposition (on both sides), but we are talking
credibility here.

Even the grandchildren of Shem etc. would have been raised with
the stories of first hand experience of God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
QUOTE:
Quote:
Also, even the isrealites at the time of Moses, fell back to worshipping their 'old' Gods (or at least worshipping in the
old manner), which suggests a religion prior
to the worship of the one God ...

Reply:
Prior to the time of Moses and the ten commandments, i.e., the time of their several hundred year exposure to the pagan Egyptian practices, but not the ORIGINAL practice.

---

So you are saying that the Pagan God's worshipped by the israelites
were Egyptian in origin ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
QUOTE:
Quote:
. . . but after Noah why would
those old God's be mentioned at all (by people)?

Reply:
As a historical backdrop to God's plan of redemption, it seems reasonable to include, among other things, the ongoing tendency of rebellious man to embrace pagan ways, rather than humbly accept the truth and be delivered.

---

What I was really meaning is this ... after the Flood any theistic
tradition that is NOT centred on the one God had to have been
made-up by someone, from scratch.

Therefore, this would not be considered as an OLD god, but
as a new God who is better to worship than Noah's God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
What about cultures outside Northern Africa and the Middle East? Chinese culture has been around since before the flood and has remained, with no evidence of Jewish interference. How does this get explained by the flood?

---

A thought just occurred to me on this ... that is that this year is
the year 4699 in the Chinese calander, and they basically have
one year for each of ours ... so the YEC interpretation of a flood
at 4500 years ago is clearly incorrect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:
I think the longer life-spans add to the problem in this case.
The founders of the radically different Egyptian culture would
have near-direct knowledge of the one God through their still-living
clan elders (i.e. Shem, Ham, Japheth, and possibly even Noah).

Reply:
I don't believe that this indicates a problem other than the tendency of Fallen creatures to reject the ways of the true God. And very early groups could've branched out to begin in new areas that became alienated from the influence of Noah.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But how many generations do you think would be required for
the influence of Noah and Sons to wane ?

I know this is supposition (on both sides), but we are talking
credibility here.

Reply:
As many generations as it takes for children of Godly households today (to reject Godly ways). It's not all about psychological and environmental influences.

Quote:
Even the grandchildren of Shem etc. would have been raised with
the stories of first hand experience of God.

Reply:
I guess my latter response still applies here.

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, even the isrealites at the time of Moses, fell back to worshipping their 'old' Gods (or at least worshipping in the
old manner), which suggests a religion prior
to the worship of the one God ...
Reply:
Prior to the time of Moses and the ten commandments, i.e., the time of their several hundred year exposure to the pagan Egyptian practices, but not the ORIGINAL practice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you are saying that the Pagan God's worshipped by the israelites
were Egyptian in origin ?

Reply:
Could be. But there was probably a tendency even before this to reject the worshipping of the true God.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
QUOTE:
Quote:
. . . but after Noah why would
those old God's be mentioned at all (by people)?
Reply:
As a historical backdrop to God's plan of redemption, it seems reasonable to include, among other things, the ongoing tendency of rebellious man to embrace pagan ways, rather than humbly accept the truth and be delivered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I was really meaning is this ... after the Flood any theistic
tradition that is NOT centred on the one God had to have been
made-up by someone, from scratch.

Therefore, this would not be considered as an OLD god, but
as a new God who is better to worship than Noah's God.

Reply:
If one was to accept the premise of the biblical concept of good and evil, spiritual forces would have to be factored into the equation. Demonic influences have been around since before Adam, and they have impacted people since Eden. It's not all about mere people starting from scratch.

In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)

--Marty

Hi Theo!

This is a reply to your Message 276 from the Biblical contradictions II thread.

Theologian63 writes: "And acceptance of the validity of any particular Biblical account or miracle is not the measure of belief in God." I disagree. If you discount portions of the Bible then you say God is a liar or Jesus is or many of the authors, speaking under inspiration of God, are. How can a person be a believer and think that GOD lies? Why would a person trust in an untrustworthy deity?

I don't believe the Bible contains the inerrant Word of God. What evidence do you have that it does?

--Percy

Forgive me, I'm rather new to this forum and I don't have the time to read through 90 pages of discussion about population rates and such. So if these questions are repetitious, please discount any impatience or angst you may have toward me.

The primary questions that should be asked, or at least as it seems to me, are three justifications.

1.) Why should the entire Bible be taken literally?
2.) What proof is there that the entire Bible is divinely inspired (or any portion thereof)?
3.) Why should the Bible be treated (regardless of literal intent or figurative intent) as absolute Truth?