[qs]
Faith writes:
I apologize for imputing too much of the argument about soggy soil to you, though you did mention waterlogging as a problem. But the principle still applies. You imagined a deficient amount of soil due to the Flood and let that imagination discredit the Biblical account of the olive tree. The Biblical account says the dove brought back a living olive leaf. That proves that the conditions were sufficient for an olive tree to live wherever it was planted. No further ponderings are necessary.
Yet you always seem to ponder and make stuff up.
And I'm pointing out what I've often said, there is no way to deal with events in the past EXCEPT by imagination, by educated imaginative reconstruction, and you can't get any closer to the truth than a reasonable plausibility. What I'm objecting to is your accusing me of making up stuff as if that's an error when that's all you are doing too.
And I'm going further and saying that my imaginations start from the basis of the truth of God's word whereas you don't bother to respect what the Bible says but freely come up with imaginings that discredit it. You assume things about the Flood that make the account of the dove's bringing back an olive leaf false; you assume things about the Flood that make the account of Noah's vineyard false. There is no reason to assume such things about the Flood. We can't know such things about the Flood with the certainty you seem to claim.
But whatever the Bible says about it should be taken as the truth, which you don't do. So I read up on olive trees and vineyards and construct a scenario that supports the Flood in opposition to your kneejerk debunkery. You put your own thoughts above God's. In contrast, I'm looking for possibilities in the real world that support the Biblical account.
And they aren't all that hard to come up with. Clearly the soil was NOT completely destroyed by the Flood even if you imagine it should have been. The higher the tree was planted the more likely the soil would have survived. Whatever the reason, the Bible is clear there was a living olive tree even if we can't imagine how it was possible.
More time may have passed than you assume before Noah planted his vineyard. It may have been planted on a well-drained slope. Of course I'm imagining, but I'm doing it in the service of supporting what you are trying to tear down. Neither of us can possibly know what happened, but your trusting in your own guesses as if you could know, against God's word, is reprehensible in someone who considers himself a Christian.
I am describing what must be seen if one of the Biblical Flood stories were true.
No you aren't. You are selectively imagining a few things that might have been the case. There are lots of other possibilities you aren't taking into account. And you can't prove any of it, it's pure speculation, there is hardly the certainty you impute to it, as "what must be seen" as if you have prophetic hindsight or something. And there are not two stories of the Flood.
I actually believe there is a GOD and that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen. That means the Earth and it's makeup was created by GOD.
As scripture tells us, even the demons believe that much, and they tremble at the knowledge.
The Bible on the other hand is simply a collection of stories written mostly by unknown authors, edited by unknown editors, selected by unknown Conference of Canon members, copied by unknown scribes, translated by unknown translators and redacted by unknown redactors.
How do you let yourself assert such a fallible human perspective as if there is any real basis for it other than your fallible prejudices? The Bible is God's word, inspired by Him through His own chosen representatives. You are pitting yourself against God. He gave us His word because without it we don't stand a chance of interpreting His character accurately, and especially not events of the past where we are blind as bats and subject to the influences of our own fallen nature aided and abetted by Satan.
I acknowledge the Bible stories contain the words that are there, including all the inconsistencies, factual errors and contradictions.
In that you are pitting yourself against all the Biblical writers and all the believers in God's revelation and God Himself.
I do not simply check my brain at the door and further pondering is not just necessary but desirable.
Your brain is FALLEN. You'd be a lot better off if you checked it at the door. Trusting in your own fallible impressions is a deadly mistake. There is no loss of intelligence involved in belief; it is simply to be applied in the service of supporting God's word instead of destroying it.
And all I posted was what the conditions would need to be IF the Olive Tree really existed and the Vineyard really existed.
And that's what I did too. Only you allowed yourself to treat them as fiction, which no Bible believer should ever do with God's word. And it isn't necessary. There are many ways of imagining the conditions to support the olive tree and the vineyard. All we have is imagination, you let yours oppose God as the fallen human mind always does. You need to be regenerated and receive a renewed mind.
If those conditions then conflict with some other part of the story it behooves us to look beyond the mere words of unknown men to the actual record of what does exist.
You flatter yourself. There is no reason to imagine conditions conflicting, it's your fallen nature that does that, not the requirements of reality.
Edited by Faith, : correct punctuation
Edited by Faith, : Paragraphing
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
