Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,101 Year: 5,358/9,624 Month: 383/323 Week: 23/204 Day: 23/21 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noahs Flood
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 76 of 100 (562691)
05-31-2010 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Huntard
05-30-2010 4:49 AM


Ok, that's two, where are the other eight? Can we chuck them out safely? Thou shalt not bear false witness? Isn't in the law.
Well, I guess I can go through the whole list and justify each one through a current law or NT reference, AND/OR give a new covenant rendering of how the old law works into the new law (Christ's death and resurrection). Until one understands the correlation between the two, we'll continue to argue the wordage of OT law and not the meaning.
Anyway, it is a crime to bear false witness. Perjury, false police reports against someone are both punishable by law in America. Thou shall not covet is listed in Romans 7:7
I John 3:4 states, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments..." To which commandments was John referring? Undoubtedly, to the commandments of God which, when transgressed, result in sin (1John 3:4). The apostle Paul tells us plainly which commandments these are. He writes that he would not have known what sin was except the law told him, "You shall not covet" (Romans 7:7). This directly references one of God's Ten Commandments! Unquestionably, James was referring to the Ten Commandments when he wrote about the perfect law of liberty.
It is abundantly clear that the Ten Commandments are not confined to the old covenant. Specific examples from the Bible make it evident that the Commandments were in effect from the very start of the human race. They formed the core of the old covenant not because they pertained only to the nation of Israel, but because they form the core of all peaceful, happy human existence. As such, they also form the core of the new covenant. In Matthew 19, a young man asked Jesus what he should do in order to have eternal life (verse 16). In verse 17, Christ answered him by telling him to keep the Commandments. In the next two verses, Christ told the man which Commandments He was referring to by giving five specific examples from the Ten Commandments as recorded in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.
As Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 42:21, Christ did not come to earth to nullify or make obsolete the Ten Commandments. Rather, He magnified them and made them honorable by illustrating in His daily life how to perfectly keep them to their full spiritual intent.
And in 1John 2:4, he explains that if anyone says he knows Christ, but doesn't "keep His commandments, [he] is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
Could anything be more clear? Though many attempt to deny it, the Bible plainly shows that God's Ten Commandments are not unique to the old covenant. Rather, they comprise the eternal, immutable laws set in place from the very beginning which reveal to mankind how God expects him to live.
A few of these quotes I got from here: The Ten Commandments
As far as your Jesus quote goes, any commentary will show the context of what and who Jesus was speaking to in these verses...the Pharisees, the very thing that Jesus loathed here on earth. Most commentaries state that Christ was talking about a Christian's role in the church. Notice that Christ does NOT say that one will be cast into hell and one taken into heaven. It's a statement on the role of a Christian in the church and Christian living. Christ also says in the context of that passage that he did not come to destroy, or change, the OT law, but to fulfill it.
they pick and choose what suits their fancy, and run with that, meanwhile telling everybody else how they are sinners because they don't follow "god's laws" (not saying you are like this, there are people like this though, care to join me in stopping them? )
You are right, people do pick and choose what they wish to believe in Scripture, or to "fit their fancy". I'm certainly, as a sinner, guilty of that also, but it doesn't make it right even if "everyone is doing it". I also hope you don't think I'm calling OEC "sinners". I don't understand their thinking at all or their reasoning but in no way have I ever stated that one's view of origins is a salvation issue.
BTW, in your very last line, and you may or may not know this, you are referring to legalism. For example, the little old church mom explaining, "oh my, you can't have a beer with that food!" Many Christians mix up rules with salvation and spiritual liberty. I just read a tremendous Spurgeon sermon yesterday on this exact topic of spiritual liberty.
Edited by Flyer75, : Did "off-topic" banner 1st edit, which was credited to Flyer. Tried 2nd edit which overwrote 1st edit attribute with new message still credited to Flyer. 3rd edit is this message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Huntard, posted 05-30-2010 4:49 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Iblis, posted 05-31-2010 10:20 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 4003 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 77 of 100 (562693)
05-31-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Flyer75
05-31-2010 10:06 PM


commandments
I'm certainly, as a sinner, guilty of that also, but it doesn't make it right even if "everyone is doing it".
Hi Flyer75, I'm enjoying your argument but I'm not inclined to answer it just yet, I want to continue following its course with the current respondents.
In the meantime though, I would appreciate it if you could give your views, feeling and actions, in relation to the actual New Testament commandments. I'm thinking of things like not just not killing, but not hating; not just not adultering, but not lusting; not just loving your neighbor, but also loving your enemy.
When someone shoots you in the left leg, do you roll over on it to make it easier for them to pop one into your right leg as well? When someone kidnaps your daughter, do you run after them and make sure they take your wife too? When someone chains you to a truck and drags you a mile, do you grab onto the bumper and make sure you go along with them that second mile?
I'm stretching, I know. But you know what I'm talking about. Do you "resist not evil" ??? Or is that just crap that you can safely ignore?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Ya got me, marshall!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 10:06 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 78 of 100 (562695)
05-31-2010 10:38 PM


People - WAY off-topic
Do you have any clue what the topic theme is? Something to do with a flood.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2
Thread Reopen Requests 2
Topic Proposal Issues
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150

  
glowby
Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 79 of 100 (562701)
05-31-2010 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:43 PM


Picking and choosing
Flyer writes:
But why would someone pick and choose what is real in the Bible if one wants to follow Christ?
I think a rational Christian has no choice but to pick and choose what is real in the Bible. A rather basic education in the sciences of astronomy, geology, or biology leaves no doubt that a literal interpretation of the Bible is impossible. These sciences all prove an old earth. Many good-hearted people who are untrained in these sciences - Christian and otherwise - understand and appreciate the knowledge and technologies they bring to us.
Are these people supposed to unlearn what they've learned, in order to follow Christ correctly? Should an astronomer repent each time he uses a formula that is based on the lie that the universe is billions of years old? If a geologist wanted to convert to Christianity, but had already seen first-hand that a global flood could never have occurred, would your church turn him away? And what about the biologist who has seen a thousand times the unmistakable mark of evolution in his work? Excommunication?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:43 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:36 PM glowby has replied
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 05-31-2010 11:38 PM glowby has seen this message but not replied
 Message 83 by Iblis, posted 05-31-2010 11:40 PM glowby has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


(1)
Message 80 of 100 (562704)
05-31-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by glowby
05-31-2010 11:05 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
These sciences all prove an old earth. Many good-hearted people who are untrained in these sciences - Christian and otherwise - understand and appreciate the knowledge and technologies they bring to us.
This is just not a factually true statement. IF the sciences all proved that the earth was millions of years old, there probably would not be the amount of discourse and discussion going on that we have right now. There are ways to interpret the evidence that can fit into both sides. You invoked astronomy, probably which is the least known of the sciences still at this point. Watch any science show on the planets or solar systems and you'll hear terminology such as "might have", "could have", "possibly", ect...certainly not the "these sciences all prove an old earth" statement that you made.....care to address the life span of a comet, with evidence that is, and not a mysterious Oort cloud. I'm not saying an Oort cloud does not exist....lack of evidence to the proof does not necessarily mean that it does not exist but at this point is all a hypothesis.
But anyway....if you had read my previous post from about an hour ago, I clearly said that just because one believes in OEC or TE does not make them a "sinner".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by glowby, posted 05-31-2010 11:05 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 05-31-2010 11:44 PM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 97 by glowby, posted 06-01-2010 9:57 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 81 of 100 (562705)
05-31-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by glowby
05-31-2010 11:05 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
The problem is that modern science has conclusively disproved the idea of a global flood some 4,350 years ago. The early creationist geologists did this about 200 years ago, and they set out to document the flood!
It is so easy to disprove the idea of a global flood now-a-days that even my own local archaeological data does it. As do the data from archaeologists around the world. And geologists. And geneticists. And sedimentologists. And biologists. And Zoologists. And a lot of other -ologists.
To believe that the story of a global flood about 4,350 years ago is true one has to deny all of that evidence.
It is not just picking and choosing, it is denial of overwhelming evidence.
Yet we see this all the time.
Truly, as Heinlein said, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by glowby, posted 05-31-2010 11:05 PM glowby has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:42 PM Coyote has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 82 of 100 (562706)
05-31-2010 11:38 PM


Iblis and Huntard,
Maybe we can start a thread on OT/NT law and ethics or something. I had no intention of delving into that when I first posted in this thread....
I'm hoping to keep this as a debate to a literal global flood or a localized flood discussion.

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 4003 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 83 of 100 (562707)
05-31-2010 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by glowby
05-31-2010 11:05 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
Hi glowby, welcome to the monkey-toss.
I'm not giving you crap, not only is it not my job but you did manage to mention the Flud thingie. But you may get more mileage out of your question in Bible Buffet (Run-off From Noah's Flood). I'm going to stick close here to the part that is at least vaguely relevant.
If a geologist wanted to convert to Christianity, but had already seen first-hand that a global flood could never have occurred, would your church turn him away?
Does it really make any difference, to the message, if those are the exact historical details of the drowning of Uruk III? What I mean is, are those chapters in Genesis a genre of news story or court finding? Or are they, as they appear to be, an ecclectic mix of folk tale, navy drinking song, and spiritual commentary?
If I were to start a club called "the Jedi Knights" which used Lucasfilm pap to teach ethics and co-operation to young people, and it caught on and made being good fun for a million kids -- would it matter that there really was no meter-wide hole in the aft ports of the mighty death star? That there were no galaxies far far away full of droids and clones and midichlorians? That your lightsaber was just a plastic toy?
If god were merely "real" he would just be another idol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by glowby, posted 05-31-2010 11:05 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by glowby, posted 06-01-2010 10:15 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


(1)
(1)
Message 84 of 100 (562708)
05-31-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Coyote
05-31-2010 11:38 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
Coyote,
I respect your scientific post and how you think but there again lies the difference in presuppositional worldviews that you, and most here take, compared to the one that I, and a certain percentage of Christians take. Scripture, not science, is my standard...I can admit it.
My problem is not with you and what you believe science tells you about a global flood. For a second I'll digress; haven't many scientists begin to take a position (s) that yes indeed, catastrophic events did take place, more so then what was originally thought years ago, and that is what can explain many geological structures/strata that we see today. Whether one believes a Genesis Noah flood is not the issue in this, just the fact that something big did occur??
But anyway, again, when I brought this up the other day, my intention was to debate the TEs here on the literal interpretation of Genesis. Maybe there aren't as many here as I thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 05-31-2010 11:38 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Coyote, posted 05-31-2010 11:50 PM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 87 by hooah212002, posted 06-01-2010 12:04 AM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2010 2:16 AM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 06-01-2010 6:26 AM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 85 of 100 (562709)
05-31-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Flyer75
05-31-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
This is just not a factually true statement. IF the sciences all proved that the earth was millions of years old, there probably would not be the amount of discourse and discussion going on that we have right now. There are ways to interpret the evidence that can fit into both sides.
Sorry, no.
The data lead to one interpretation, and that is an old earth.
To make the data fit into a young earth interpretation you have to ignore the overwhelming majority of it, and then twist and misrepresent the rest.
This "we have our own interpretation" stuff that creationists come up with is nonsense. They are lying to themselves to try to prop up their religious beliefs.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:36 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Flyer75, posted 06-01-2010 2:13 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 86 of 100 (562710)
05-31-2010 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Flyer75
05-31-2010 11:42 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
My problem is not with you and what you believe science tells you about a global flood.
Sorry, wrong again. I am one of those scientists. I am an archaeologist with decades of experience. (My life is in ruins!)
My own evidence has disproved the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago. I don't have to rely on some "scientists" and their interpretations. I can look at the evidence for myself.
Here is one bit: In testing somewhere over 100 sites which span the time period of about 4,350 years ago not once have I found a massive layer of flood deposits, nor a massive erosional feature. One or the other of these would have been associated with a flood. I don't find either.
Another: I find continuity of human cultures, genetics, fauna and flora, and sedimentology before to after the date attributed to the flood. That disproves the flood right there.
But if it was just me, one could question my results. Tens of thousands of other scientists from around the world report the same kinds of results.
Face it, the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago is a myth contradicted by a massive amount of scientific evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:42 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 909 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 87 of 100 (562712)
06-01-2010 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Flyer75
05-31-2010 11:42 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
I've no idea why you get a shred of respect around here.
In Message 80
There are ways to interpret the evidence that can fit into both sides.
This isn't the first time you've claimed to have some evidence for something. Your entire tenure at EvC has shown you to do no more than make vapid assertions. You've got no legs to stand on. Then, when confronted, you turn around and claim "well, it's just my belief" admitting you have no empirical data to back up your claims, just like you do here:
Scripture, not science, is my standard...I can admit it.
You may have others fooled, but I see right through you.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:42 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


(1)
Message 88 of 100 (562722)
06-01-2010 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Coyote
05-31-2010 11:44 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
The data lead to one interpretation, and that is an old earth.
To make the data fit into a young earth interpretation you have to ignore the overwhelming majority of it, and then twist and misrepresent the rest.
This "we have our own interpretation" stuff that creationists come up with is nonsense. They are lying to themselves to try to prop up their religious beliefs.
So are you saying, it's a shut and locked case coyote? In every case? There aren't problems with millions of years still, such as comets? At the very least, there is still debate on these issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 05-31-2010 11:44 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rahvin, posted 06-01-2010 2:36 AM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2010 2:56 AM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 06-01-2010 11:02 AM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2010 4:51 PM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 96 by Coragyps, posted 06-01-2010 8:44 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 89 of 100 (562723)
06-01-2010 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Flyer75
05-31-2010 11:42 PM


Re: Picking and choosing
quote:
My problem is not with you and what you believe science tells you about a global flood.
But you do have a problem with accepting it as true. However people that even the ICR calls "Bible believing scientists" - Cuvier and Agassiz - played a major role in disproving the myth of a global flood. Cuvier's study of the fossils of the Paris basin showed a number of drastic changes in the occupying fauna - more than could be explained by a single flood wiping out everything and starting again. Agassiz showed that the last piece of evidence attributed to the flood was in fact the result of glaciation.
quote:
For a second I'll digress; haven't many scientists begin to take a position (s) that yes indeed, catastrophic events did take place, more so then what was originally thought years ago, and that is what can explain many geological structures/strata that we see today. Whether one believes a Genesis Noah flood is not the issue in this, just the fact that something big did occur??
Ignoring those who convert to creationism for religious reasons, the answer is no. The most that can be said is that geologists have assigned a slightly larger role to catastrophes in explaining geology. But definitely NOT to one big catastrophe, something firmly ruled out by the evidence. Scientifically speaking Noah's flood has been a dead issue since the 19th century, and the evidence is so strong that there is no realistic prospect of it ever making a comeback.
quote:
But anyway, again, when I brought this up the other day, my intention was to debate the TEs here on the literal interpretation of Genesis. Maybe there aren't as many here as I thought.
Probably there aren't. But your attitude isn't exactly helpful. If you won't admit that the only difference between them and you is that they accept the clear evidence of geology and the other sciences - if you accuse them of going against Jesus, rather than admitting that they are simply interpreting the Bible differently than you then why should they want to talk to you ? Why would they think it worthwhile debating someone who wishes only to attack their position but can't even take the time to understand it ?
And if OECs and TEs strain the text to make it fit the facts, I have no doubt that you would happily do the same if it was your beliefs in question. I've seen it often enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Flyer75, posted 05-31-2010 11:42 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 90 of 100 (562725)
06-01-2010 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Flyer75
06-01-2010 2:13 AM


Re: Picking and choosing
So are you saying, it's a shut and locked case coyote? In every case? There aren't problems with millions of years still, such as comets? At the very least, there is still debate on these issues.
It's as open and shut as the Theory of Gravity, Flyer. That meaning, there are still debates over specifics, but just like we're pragmatically certain that you won't go flying away suddenly, we're certain that the age of the Earth is measured in billions of years.
There is absolutely no question whatsoever in the scientific community that the Earth is younger than that to any significant degree. There is no actual debate suggesting that the Earth may in fact be some thousands of years old, a difference of about four orders of magnitude, for the same reason that there is no debate over whether mass attracts mass, or whether the motion of electrons can be used as a power source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Flyer75, posted 06-01-2010 2:13 AM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024