Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,877 Year: 4,134/9,624 Month: 1,005/974 Week: 332/286 Day: 53/40 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 610 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(7)
Message 216 of 409 (680353)
11-19-2012 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:27 AM


Re: The ENTIRE geological column.
faith writes:
That Black Sea stuff is an accommodation to the OE paradigm. The Bible SAYS "the whole world," that MEANS the WHOLE WORLD. You've bought the OE. You'd be a lot better off if you just gave up the Bible, because it's a great sin to try to conform it to such nonsense. Go whole hog and become a secular geologist, you'll be a lot safer. Maybe later on if there's still time you can rethink it all and come back to the Bible. A compromised Bible is worse than no Bible.
The bible was not written in modern english. The bible says the whole "eretz". It means the whole "land". What was the land to noah? It certainly wasn't the concept of the massive square footage we call the surface of the planet earth today. Every part of the "eretz" that noah knew about was indeed covered 15 cubits in water and did wipe out all life in the black sea basin. I have come to learn that english translations of a hebrew bible do not always get the full original meaning across.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:59 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 610 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 234 of 409 (680446)
11-19-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:59 PM


Re: The ENTIRE geological column.
faith writes:
I'm sorry to hear that. You have no idea how good the King James translators were. Well, Forever, you've made your choice.
By the way, maybe you should spend some time at the Biblical Geology site I linked upthread a ways. It really isn't necessary to give in to the unbelievers.
Here is a portion of an article from a christian blogger. After reading it, you will realize that your interpretation of "whole world" in genesis is not the only possible interpretation and may in reality be the least likely interpretation. Why must you condemn sincere christians of not believing their bible when they have a different interpretation than you do? The following article is from the blog "Austin's Blog~ Washed and Waiting for the Resurrection. Blogging until that Day." It is written by Austin D who is a graduate of southeastern bible college.
austin.d writes:
The account is from the viewpoint of the narrator, and from his perspective, it is total. All doesn’t always mean all (Gen. 41:57; Deut. 2:25; 1 Kings 18:10). The writer would then be seen as speaking phenomenologically (as he sees it from his own personal perspective). Furthermore, certain words do not have to be translated as they are within the passage. The word for earth (eretz) can mean and does mean just the land (ha eretz) in other parts of Genesis. The same word is used when Genesis 41:57 says all the land came to Egypt. The translation of this word as earth or world biases the reader to understand this as the globe or planet, but this meaning is not in the original text. Did everyone on the entire globe go to Egypt? The Hebrew phrase whole (kol) earth (eretz) does not mean the whole earth in other passages within the Hebrew bible (Gen. 13:9; Exo. 34:10; Lev. 25:9, 25:24; Jud. 6:37; 1 Sam. 13:3; 2 Sam. 18:8; 1 Kings 10:24, ect.) . Two examples would be Gen. 2:11 and 2:13. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [eretz] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Gen. 2:11) And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [eretz] of Cush. (Gen. 2:13) Obviously, the description of kol erezs is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erezs is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area of land, instead of our entire planet. Furthermore, possible other translations of the phrases within the text exist (e.g. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep could be as the NIV says rose more than 20 feet, and the mountains/hills were covered).
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 3:39 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 610 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(4)
Message 251 of 409 (680470)
11-19-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
11-19-2012 3:39 PM


Re: Local fllood?
faith writes:
It's possible to nitpick about words to prove just about anything you want. I do doubt that it is true Christians who get engaged in that sort of thing.
Why is any deviation in interpretation of words for your interpretation a "nitpicking"? I can claim that you are nitpicking about words as well. On what basis could you claim i was wrong?
faith writes:
The skills of the English Bible translators, of the KJV and the versions that preceded it, were excellent. Tyndale, the Geneva Bible and others. Why do you think you can do better?
I am not saying they translated it incorrectly. They used the phrase "whole world" and depending on context, that phrase is entirely appropriate as well. It is inappropriate to assume "whole word" means the total surface of the planet earth. Where is your basis for such a stand?
faith writes:
If the Flood was merely local God would not have had Noah spend a hundred years building the ark, He would have had him and his family move to a place where they'd be out of the way of the Flood.
It took a hundred years for a small family to build such a monstrosity. Try building it today with the tools noah had in his day with just you and 3 sons. Beyond that, think of the witnessing tool the ark was. Noah was showing the "whole world" his obedience and faith in God. Do you think he was showing his obedience to people on easter island? The people on easter island and the inuits in the arctic regions of canada, among others, had no idea that noah existed, much less that he was building an ark.
faith writes:
Looks like God had in mind destroying ALL men, ALL flesh. Would that have happened in a limited flood?
He certainly didn't have to use a flood to kill all men on the face of planet earth. In fact, there is evidence that other major catastrophes occurred in other areas of the planet fairly close to the time of noah's flood. Beyond that, ALL flesh doesn't necessarily mean all organisms. Even a world wide flood would not destroy all lifeforms from the earth. A simple, unbiased reading of the text indicates that God destroyed all humans and animals noah depended on for survival in the whole area in which noah was aware of even by word of mouth.
faith writes:
Don't fool around with alternative translations of words for the sake of believing what unbelievers tell you or arguments you think you understand through your own fallible mind.
I don't have to fool around with other translations. I don't necessarily have to get the understanding of the flood story that you do when I read the Kind James Version of Genesis.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 3:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 610 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(5)
Message 308 of 409 (680691)
11-20-2012 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by RAZD
11-20-2012 4:25 PM


Re: still not seeing biblical references ...
RAZD writes:
No, I am pointing out that your assertions do not appear to be from literal reading of the bible, but rather they come from imagination. Reading the bible to mean rain gentle enough that it does not cause mudslides is not contradicting the bible is it?
Given a steep enough slope, a mudslide will occur once the soil reaches saturation. The subsoil usually has a low water permeability and so it will not slide. However, if water can make its way past the subsoil and penetrate in the saprolite, there will be a landslide if the saprolite is saturated with water and the slope is steep enough. I am not saying this to support a worldwide flood; i'm just clearing up some misinformation here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2012 4:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2012 8:40 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 610 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(8)
Message 310 of 409 (680704)
11-20-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Tangle
11-20-2012 6:17 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Faith is confusing a liquid suspension with a solution. Particles of sand, silt, and clay are heavy enough that in very still conditions, they settle to the bottom. Particles in a solution are small enough to be held in solution by hydrogen bonding to water molecules. Only those substances that permanently "float" in the water are said to be soluble or dissolvable. Many ionic substance fit this description. Not all ionic substances are dissolvable or are weakly soluble. For example, Calcium carbonate does not break into its constituent ionic parts in water. It is however slightly soluble in acid. Rocks in general are silicates. Silicates are generally not polar and therefore do not participate in hydrogen bonding in the presence of water. Silicate rocks do, however, bond with water to form other minerals such as clays, but this only occurs on the outside surface or within cracks. This bonding takes a long period of time and is the reason soil takes so long to form.
A world covered in water for a period of one year would only slightly weather the rocks and would do a minor shuffling of loose unconsolidated sediments. It certainly would not be enough to form miles of sedimentary layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2012 6:17 PM Tangle 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