Summations Only

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ. The Old Testament is also all about Him as He says in the NT.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't come to believe from any "need" whatever that I was aware of. I wasn't looking for anything.Once you know that the Bible is God the Creator's own revelation to us blind and deaf human beings you know better than to try to make it conform to the thoughts of other blind and deaf human beings.I've been studying the stuff connected with this debate for a decade now and the more I know the stronger my faith grows, contrary to your supposition.The thing I may finally need to learn and am learning now is the futility of the debate. I know it and then I'm just blown away to discover it again. THAT I no doubt need to learn. But trust in God, no, that only grows.Oh it does fit with reality. I see it though you don't. You will eventually though.

Peter says the Old Testament writers knew they were writing to a future generation about salvation through the Messiah to come: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, it isn't about ME, it's what GOD says and I've said nothing tht isn't in accord with two millennia of Bible-believing theology.If any science whatever contradicts what GOD says then yes those who contradict Him are blind.

It's known for DISSOLVING stuff. Soaking, saturating, dissolving.

The laws had different purposes. All that teach principles that apply today are to be used as guideliness.I have no authority over you and this isn't Church which was the context of Paul's teaching.

Where have I said one thing that implies that my thoughts about the geology of the Flood come from the Bible? What I'm doing is taking what I understand from Geology and showing that it supports the Flood. Everything in this world supports the Bible ultimately whether we yet have a grasp of it or not.

About the Levitical laws, that's all part of the Books of Moses and Moses was definitely one of the prophets Peter was writing about who knew what God was doing in his time pointed forward to the Messiah. So did Abraham for that matter, as explained in the Letter to the Hebrews.

The Grand Canyon is the best example of it I know of.Why don't you just tell me what you are talking about?

Oh come on Tangle that's REALLY ridiculous. The earth isn't made of marble, and the earth would have been pummeled by rain for 40 days already., Whatever could dissolve would dissolve. If it rains for even three days off and on where I am I get a six inch deep muddy stream outside my door. Don't tell me it's all that different where the rest of you live.

I don't recall making much out of turbulence, no idea why you do. I believe I said something about the first 40 days and nights of ceaseless rain as breaking up the land, dissolving it etc, but I also mentioned that a point came where the water was simply standing for some long period, and I think I even used the word "tranquil." What on earth would prevent it in an event of this size raining on every inch of land in the world? I think you're just being contrary for no reason whatever. Why on earth would I need a source for something as intuitively obvious as that? If you like I can go with "ceaseless rain" or "steady rain," I don't see that the result would be much different. I believe I've said three or four times by now, possibly on this thread, that there is precious little IN the Bible but that what IS in the Bible is the basis for INFERENCES about the Flood, how it most likely would have behaved, and that whatever speculations are used must not contradict the Bible. Your questions are meaningless. Oh honestly, RAZD, this Flood could not possibly have NOT caused mudslides. Again you are obviously just making up stuff to be contrary, you have no honest reason for this nonsense. The idea here is that the AMOUNT of water PLUS the pounding by the rain for forty straight days and nights would have dissoved the whole land mass, and the idea that it wouldn't have is just perverse. I'm doing exactly what you are doing, imagining what such a Flood would have done, and just what evolutionists do when they imagine what swupposedly happened in a layer of sandstone they laughably refer to as a huge era of time. Yes I'm speculating, imagining what the Flood would have done based on my understanding of what rain and floods do and what the Bible says about the Flood. Pardon me if I think my speculations make a ton more sense than your nonsense here. We're talking intelligent inferences from the Bible here, not your silly excuses for inferences. To multiply appropriately should give us at least millions of mudslides around the globe and you know what, you know that, but as long as we must depend on speculation you figure you can give the most unlikely speculations and get away with it. Oh how about thousands if you need a more conservative estimate? Oh it could have been fairly nonturbulent, but probably not just a gentle welling up, and the rain would have done the work of dissolving the land mass anyway. Again, we're talking inference BASED on the very little information given in the Bible and you know it. I'm just better at imagining what a worldwide Flood would do than you are. By a long shot. As are all creationist Flooodists. The rain would have loosened so much sediment the water would be full of the stuff by now. I've many times wondered if the sediments started precipitating out during this phase of the Flood. But we're talking ocean here you know, tides, waves, currents and all that. However quiet the water was it wasn't PERFECTLY quiet by a long shot. Gee another failure of imagination, RAZD? I know you don't want the Flood to make any kind of sense but you are really bending over backwards to be ridiculous about it. Again, of course not, we're talking intelligent reasonable inference. What a strange idea, of course not. But I avoid the term "literal." I read the Bible the way it was meant to be read, which is sometimes literal, sometimes poetic, sometimes symbolic, sometimes figurative and so on and so forth.I came back to answer this post because you've brought up these issues later in the thread as well, but I have to say the reason I didn't answer it at first is that most of it is just silly. And you know it.

Jesus is the Logos, the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God. But I'm not even talking about that, I'm saying that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit who is also called the Spirit of Christ. "Holy men of God were moved by the Spirit" is the New Testament way of describing how scripture was written.Jesus died, resurrected and ascended, He's living today. He inspired the writing of the New Testament by men through the Holy Spirit just as He did the Old.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm trying to get you to look again, but obviously you don't want to.

Oh we do adjust all the time to new understandings about how geology works. It always improves our knowledge of what the Flood would have done. But what you don't seem to notice is that establishment geology, same as evolutionist science, that is, the sciences that pertain to the PREHISTORIC PAST, are just as speculative and once established just as dogmatic and unfalsifiable.

What's very odd here is that I haven't said one word about dissolving ROCKS, you guys are making that up. Tangle and now you. I've said many times that the Flood would have dissolved WHATEVER COULD BE DISSOLVED. The sediments now in the geological column had to be in some condition that made them dissolvable and separable into their separate types. (Actually, I suspect that if the conditions of the Flood were to reoccur you'd find the walls of the Grand Canyon breaking up again so yeah, some rock would most likely dissolve. Muddy Colorado River, eroded skirts of the walls already show that a LOT of rain would only increase that effect)I have no idea what rock existed before the Flood but the stratified rocks of the geological column didn't. Granite didn't because that's a product of volcanism and volcanoes didn't occur until the Flood. Etc. etc.