Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
40 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,775 Year: 16,811/19,786 Month: 936/2,598 Week: 182/251 Day: 11/59 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Using the Bible as fact...
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 113 (13925)
07-22-2002 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by William E. Harris
07-20-2002 12:58 AM


WEH

I may sound like a broken record but we suspect that the flood occurred pre alot of the mountain building and that the tectonic gynmnastics of sea-floor spreading etc covered the continents as understood by mainstream science using the water we have. We can't prove that the entire land surface was simulataneously covered due to erosion of strata - but about 50% was certainly.

Your 0.0023% and 29,000 feet Everests are very poor strawmen. There is not a creationist (scientist) on earth who is proposing the flood of your imagination. I had a headmaster in primary school who could prove that becasue of all our holidays and time spent sleeping in our beds that we only spent a couple of days at school a year. At least he was joking.

We simply believe in the mainstream theory of marine innundations and bring it forward via accelerated tectonics. The story of the flood is gloriously recorded in the marine strata world-wide.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by William E. Harris, posted 07-20-2002 12:58 AM William E. Harris has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by John, posted 07-22-2002 10:46 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 86 by William E. Harris, posted 07-22-2002 10:24 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 113 (13962)
07-22-2002 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by William E. Harris
07-22-2002 10:24 PM


William

That's nice that you believe in the flood. But in coming up with an alternative to Baumgardner et al please don't create a strawman - that's all I ask. With low relief and the mainstream source of water and innundations there is no a priori problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by William E. Harris, posted 07-22-2002 10:24 PM William E. Harris has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 113 (14883)
08-06-2002 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by gene90
08-05-2002 9:34 PM


Gene90

The depressing context of the compilation of the Bible is no more depressing than the early life of Joseph, Egypt, the captivity in Babylon or the crucifiction of Jesus. We are in the world not of it - so is the Bible. The dead sea scrolls and numerous other evidence suggest that tthe Bibl we have is in pretty good nick. And which books do you want to remove from the canon? I hardly think any teaching of scripture would be compromised if you threw away 25%.

As food for thought I will repeat my two littel hints that we might have the right Bible:

1. 66 book Isaiah appears to be a picture of the entire word. The 40th chapter begins with 'a new coveant' as does the 40th book of the Bible (Matthew, 1st book of NT). The 66th chapter discusses the 'new heavens and the new earth' as does the 66th book of the Bible (Revelations).
2. The 7-sticked candlestick was the source of light (cf the word) in the Tabernacle. It had 66 pieces. When broken in 'half' (4/3 sticks) it breaks into 39 and 27 part components.

But I agree with you that the 'letter of the law' killeth whilst the Holy Sprit brings the word of God alive.

There is no reason to suspect that the Bible we have is not essentially the direct word of God.

Have a look at Jesus' use of the Old Testament.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by gene90, posted 08-05-2002 9:34 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by John, posted 08-06-2002 12:28 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 97 by gene90, posted 08-06-2002 12:32 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019