Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood

Religions > Bible > Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Gabriel"
Date:	27 Dec 2007 10:15:50 AM
Object:	Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	30 Dec 2007 03:52:27 PM

On Dec 30, 12:41=A0am, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 29, 9:48=A0pm,

wrote:

On Dec 29, 5:53=A0pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

What harm does seeing both the origin story
and the flood story as a symbolic message from God do to salvation and=
the core teachings of the Bible? =A0

Wrong question. =A0

It is very much the right question because if the answer is "no harm"
then all of these accusations that have been leveled at me are false.

The burden of proof lies at your feet. =A0

That is funny. =A0I would think that my accusers bear the burden of
proof. =A0But people around here don't do that now do they? =A0If someone
suggests that their favorite man-made doctrine / interpretation might
be less than perfect the spiritual ad hominems fly.

The burden of proof lies at your feet because it is you who is
proposing a non-literal reading of the text. Even for arguments
sake, I were to allow for the allegorical hermeneutic, one must
still provide a reasoning why that particular text is NOT to
interpreted literally. This is elementary rules of speech. If
language is to bear the weight of transmission, then it requires
form to counter the freedom of expression. Otherwise it all
becomes relativistic.
As I have continually stated, for a system to be True, it
must consistently be lived out in all areas of life. You do
not allegorize what other post here nor would you allow
for the allegorization of what you post. The burden is yours
to defend that which is not the normative reading.
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	30 Dec 2007 05:19:56 PM

On Dec 30, 1:52=A0pm,

wrote:

On Dec 30, 12:41=A0am, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 29, 9:48=A0pm,

wrote:

On Dec 29, 5:53=A0pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

What harm does seeing both the origin story
and the flood story as a symbolic message from God do to salvation a=

the core teachings of the Bible? =A0

Wrong question. =A0

It is very much the right question because if the answer is "no harm"
then all of these accusations that have been leveled at me are false.

The burden of proof lies at your feet. =A0

That is funny. =A0I would think that my accusers bear the burden of
proof. =A0But people around here don't do that now do they? =A0If someon=

suggests that their favorite man-made doctrine / interpretation might
be less than perfect the spiritual ad hominems fly.

The burden of proof lies at your feet because it is you who is
proposing a non-literal reading of the text.

That is a nice switch-a-roo you got going there. You are being
dishonest.
I am not the one who claimed "Through 'theistic evolution', Satan is
(has attempted, had success in, etc.) confusing common understanding
of days (for example) in Genesis so that understanding throughout
scripture becomes confused."
The burden of proof lies at the feet of those who claim I am doing the
work of Satan. Otherwise anytime anything new comes along we can just
accuse the person in question of doing the work of Satan and since
they could never prove that isn't what was going on we could use that
excuse to squash anything. Even if the burden of proof was at my feet
as you incorrectly state don't I get a chance to try?

=A0Even for arguments
sake, I were to allow for the allegorical hermeneutic, one must
still provide a reasoning why that particular text is NOT to
interpreted literally.

That I have already done. When are those who claim I work for Satan
going to back up any of their accusations?

=A0This is elementary rules of speech.

It is not an elementary rule of speech that people can just fling
spiritual accusations at me and they are presumed true while my
efforts to demonstrate they are false get dismissed because you
declare them to be the "wrong question".

=A0If
language is to bear the weight of transmission, then it requires
form to counter the freedom of expression. =A0 Otherwise it all
becomes relativistic.

As I have continually stated, for a system to be True, it
must consistently be lived out in all areas of life. =A0You do
not allegorize what other post here nor would you allow
for the allegorization of what you post.

That is stupid. Did you gouge out your eyes? I'm sure you didn't.
Yet you eyes have lead you to sin. Yet the Bible tells you that when
that happens you must gouge out your eyes. By your own reasoning you
can't take that as an allegorization unless you allegorize what others
post here and clearly you don't.
That is, of course, hogwash.

=A0The burden is yours
to defend that which is not the normative reading.

So "Satan uses me to do his work" is the normative reading? That
can't be what you mean. Yet this issue of Satan using me to do his
work is specifically the issue for which you won't let me defend
myself. You say it's the wrong question. So how do I prove it
false? Would you accept a sworn statement from Satan? You are being
more that a bit unreasonable.
As for reasons to stop persecuting those who want to separate science
and religion, I keep providing those and my words fall of deaf ears.
The audience isn't listening because they have already made up their
mind. Perhaps if my detractors try to shout me down I will just quote
the arguments I have already made that went unchallenged.
JC
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	31 Dec 2007 03:27:12 PM

On Dec 30, 5:19=A0pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The burden of proof lies at your feet because it is you who is
proposing a non-literal reading of the text.

That is a nice switch-a-roo you got going there. =A0You are being
dishonest.

I am not the one who claimed "Through 'theistic evolution', Satan is
(has attempted, had success in, etc.) confusing common understanding
of days (for example) in Genesis so that understanding throughout
scripture becomes confused."

You're not quoting me because I have purposely not used the term
"theistic evolution." I think you have confused me with someone else.
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	31 Dec 2007 05:01:51 PM

On Dec 31, 1:27=A0pm,

wrote:
[...]

I am not the one who claimed "Through 'theistic evolution', Satan is
(has attempted, had success in, etc.) confusing common understanding
of days (for example) in Genesis so that understanding throughout
scripture becomes confused."

You're not quoting me because I have purposely not used the term
"theistic evolution."

I didn't attribute that quote to you. It is from Ted J L.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/262049bb50ca3cb6
The reason I mentioned it is because this is what I was responding to
when you declared that I was asking the wrong question. I'm about to
be burned at the stake for witchcraft and I'm not even allowed to
defend myself.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/126feafab48ac9b2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/msg/0e7142aa6d69c8cd
You said "The burden of proof lies at [my] feet. Why should we
subvert the revelation of God?"
Yet I am not proposing we subvert the revelation of God and even if
the burden of proof were at my feet how can I prove my case if you
will not allow me to ask my questions?

=A0I think you have confused me with someone else.

You are making your share of personal attacks. Some are unsupported
spiritual judgments while others are more run of the mill. However
the serious problem is how you are trying to make it look like I'm
making some kind of argument about Greek grammar, that I have not
supported my arguments, and my position is either random or must be
applied everywhere when in fact I have made it clear by repeatedly
pointing out that my position is based upon the evidence that
evolution took place and the resulting logical dilemma. The ancient
grammar is irrelevant because it does not limit God. If God is the
true author then He decides when he will use a metaphor. All we can
do is try to understand Him. As for my position having consequences
that are either random or continuous that is nonsense for the only
applicable part of the Bible is the specific areas where overwhelming
evidence from nature disagrees regarding what actually happened.
http://www.noolmusic.com/blogs/rocket_explodes_shortly_after_takeoff_-_youtu=
be_technology_videos.shtml
Once the rocket of Creationism has spun around in the sky and blown
itself to bits raining fiery debris on everything within a square mile
it does not take a rocket scientist to realize it's time to go back to
the drawing board. Essentially my position is "back to the drawing
board".
JC
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	29 Dec 2007 11:10:47 PM

On Dec 29, 5:24=A0pm,

(Ted J L) wrote:

In article <54375739-b626-4a0a-9f88-

Not only that, but the Gap theory that is posited to take place in the fir=

verses of Genesis requires the 'creative' force of evolution (death and
suffering)to take place before sin and separation of Genesis 3.

Though there should be surprise because of personally accepting the
scriptural
doctrine of total depravity, it still strikes me odd that those who
claim to have
a desire for God, are so naive as to the relationship of Genesis to
the rest of
scripture. It is foundational. I kayak. When I am out on Lake
Michigan
leaving from Chicago headed over to So. Haven, if I am off on my
compass
heading by just one degree, I will end up in either Holland or Benton
Harbor.
And this illustrates the importance of correctly navigating out of
Genesis. If
you do not accept the trustworthiness of God from the get go, your
eternal/
infinite destination completely "misses the mark."
I love good sci-fi so much that my masters thesis was "Messianic
Themes in
Contemporary Society." Frank Herbert in his DUNE series, wonderfully
and
unknowingly states a truth: "God created Arakkis to train the
faithful."
But men are born blind. And when truth comes to them, Satan snatches
it away. So "we wrestle not against flesh and blood." We are called
only to declare the
Truth and then leave to Him "who causes the growth."
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	29 Dec 2007 04:13:31 PM

On Dec 29, 1:19=A0pm,

wrote:
[...]

2 Pet. 3:3-7 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers
will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and
saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the
fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning
of creation." [i.e. uniformitarianism] For when they maintain this, it
'escapes their notice' [lit. the Greek is, "stupid on purpose"] that
by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was
formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time
was destroyed, being flooded with water. But the present heavens and
earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of
judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Granted, if the flood were symbolic that would change our
understanding of reference to the flood.

Gap theories are all based upon allegorization or spiritualization of
the text which provides NO means of verification

Well there is all the evidence in the world. One solution is to think
God left that for us to discover.

. . . let alone the all
important safeguard against error. =A0They totally destroy standard
rules of interpretation. =A0

These would be rules set up by men?

Properly understood, evolution is indeed,
evilolution in that it's origin is traced back to Lucifier who
believed that the Godhead was only a higher evolutionary model to
which he would himself ascend to. =A0

I was not there.

And think about, he was the first
on the scene. =A0He saw everything else come into being "under" or
"beneath" (after) him. =A0

That would be against evolution.

His fall was to think that he could ascend
(evolve) to the height of God Himself (Isa 14; Eze 28). =A0THIS is the
great lie of Rom 1.

I'm sorry but to me it looks like Isaiah 14: 12 to 15 is talking about
social order rather than biology. I don't even know that angelic
beings have biology. The other seems the same. It's about upsetting
the proper place/order rather than changing into something new.
JC
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	29 Dec 2007 10:58:59 PM

On Dec 29, 4:13=A0pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

. . . let alone the all
important safeguard against error. =A0They totally destroy standard
rules of interpretation. =A0

These would be rules set up by men?

Who do you think designed language? Who do you think designed "all
thinks came into being through Him?"
The irony is (I love the study of irony in scripture) is that here you
are writing replies presuming that what you have written will be
interpreted normally, i.e. literally. But you believe it strange to
think
that God would "shuffle the dice" and play word games. That is the
primary knock against allegorism. What are the rules? And tell
me this, once you open the Pandorian box of arbitrarily ruling this
passage is to be understood literally but that passage is to be
"spiritualized", then where does it stop? You play a shell game.
Essentially you would have the Word of God be that the "husk"
of revelation to be a lie while the "kernel" be the truth of the
matter.
The problem lies is who determines the "kernel?"
However, if "faith" is the rule of life, then are we not called to
take God at His word, literally? One God was there at the genesis
of all that came into being outside of Himself. So doesn't it
stand to *reason* that when He discloses what occurred, that His
first hand witness is to be taken on faith as being True? After
all, in truth, all presuppositionally, if not actually, recognize that
God is good, not evil. The God of the Bible is a God who discloses
Himself, His works and His will to His creation.
Even if you allegorize the opening chapters of Scripture, you still
have the principle that man has now severed his link to God. No
longer does He walk with us in the "cool of the night" or "face to
face as one speaks to a friend." That tree, regardless of whether
you interpret it literally or figuratively, exhibits the fact that the
fall
destroyed the original pure reference point for man being God. In
stead what all men now operate under is that they themselves are
the final arbitrator as to what is and what is not true. "Everyone
did what was right in their own eyes." This has been my point
all along. When you regard Scripture with a "daisy hermeneutic"
of "He loves me. He loves me not." you pull the rug of absolute
Truth out from beneath, not just men, but God as well.
Presuppositional apologetics takes suppositions to their logical
end while rooting back to causality of the fruition. If you honestly
stand before the God of the Bible, then you must come before
Him as the creator acknowledging Him as the sovereign Creator.
His word, and His alone grants both truth and life. You place
yourself before God as did scoffing as Pilate, "What," in utter
contempt, "is truth?"
You seem to presume that the intellect of man was not ruined
when he fell.
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	30 Dec 2007 01:26:24 AM

On Dec 29, 8:58=A0pm,

wrote:

On Dec 29, 4:13=A0pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

. . . let alone the all
important safeguard against error. =A0They totally destroy standard
rules of interpretation. =A0

These would be rules set up by men?

Who do you think designed language?

The same person who designed evolution.
[...]

And tell
me this, once you open the Pandorian box of arbitrarily ruling this
passage is to be understood literally but that passage is to be
"spiritualized", then where does it stop?

I didn't write the Bible. You should take this up with someone who
did.

=A0You play a shell game.
Essentially you would have the Word of God be that the "husk"
of revelation to be a lie . . .

Hold on now. There is no call for that kind of language.

. . . while the "kernel" be the truth of the
matter.
The problem lies is who determines the "kernel?"

God.

However, if "faith" is the rule of life, then are we not called to
take God at His word, literally?

Not when he is using a metaphor. Why would Jesus turn Simon ~into~ a
rock? I mean sure Simon had his faults but turning him into stone
seemed like it was a bit harsh. Oh wait, Jesus didn't change him into
a rock - he was just using a metaphor. He only changed Simon's name.
Wow!!! And to think Jesus can call someone a rock and ~not~ mean it
literally. I don't know where He got the idea He could do something
like that. He shouldn't have done that without permission.

=A0One God was there at the genesis
of all that came into being outside of Himself. =A0So doesn't it
stand to *reason* that when He discloses what occurred, that His
first hand witness is to be taken on faith as being True? =A0

He should have burdened Abram with the knowledge of X-rays, gamma
rays, radio waves, and all the other knowledge we have learned in the
last 3000 years. In fact he should have also included all the
knowledge we will learn between now and the end of time. Anything
less than full disclosure might seem like a lie.
Or maybe God realized that we were not ready for the knowledge back
then so he gave us a symbolic yet meaningful origin story to hold us
over. Maybe he knew that when we were ready we would see the evidence
he left for us to find in creation and we would figure out the deeper
meaning. He seems to let us figure out all the other discoveries we
have made.

After
all, in truth, all presuppositionally, if not actually, recognize that
God is good, not evil. =A0The God of the Bible is a God who discloses
Himself, His works and His will to His creation.

Where do you get this idea that disclosure is a requirement for God to
be good?

Even if you allegorize the opening chapters of Scripture, you still
have the principle that man has now severed his link to God. =A0No
longer does He walk with us in the "cool of the night" or "face to
face as one speaks to a friend." =A0That tree, regardless of whether
you interpret it literally or figuratively, exhibits the fact that the
fall
destroyed the original pure reference point for man being God.

Sure I will go along with that.

=A0In
stead what all men now operate under is that they themselves are
the final arbitrator as to what is and what is not true. =A0"Everyone
did what was right in their own eyes." =A0This has been my point
all along. =A0When you regard Scripture with a "daisy hermeneutic"
of "He loves me. =A0He loves me not." you pull the rug of absolute
Truth out from beneath, not just men, but God as well.

You assume you are right. This might not be the case. Then I would
be the one trying to save you from a minor error. How do you ~know~
God is on your side?

Presuppositional apologetics takes suppositions to their logical
end while rooting back to causality of the fruition. =A0If you honestly
stand before the God of the Bible, then you must come before
Him as the creator acknowledging Him as the sovereign Creator.

I have no problem acknowledging God as sovereign Creator.

His word, and His alone grants both truth and life.

Sure.

=A0You place
yourself before God

You are such a hypocrite. Oh if we do the same thing then I'm being
an evil usurper of God and you are his defender because you just
~know~ it is so. Do you guys think that if you keep up these ad
hominem attacks eventually I will roll over? Are you going to douse
me with Holy Water next? How dare I believe something you don't
believe?

. . . as did scoffing as Pilate, "What," in utter
contempt, "is truth?"

I don't see you dealing with my ideas too much but I do see you going
after me with a broad paint brush.

You seem to presume that the intellect of man was not ruined
when he fell.

I could only guess how human intellect was affected by the fall but I
don't see what that has to do with this conversation.
JC
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	30 Dec 2007 05:07:25 PM

On Dec 30, 1:26=A0am, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 29, 8:58=A0pm,

wrote:

On Dec 29, 4:13=A0pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

. . . let alone the all
important safeguard against error. =A0They totally destroy standard
rules of interpretation. =A0

These would be rules set up by men?

Who do you think designed language?

The same person who designed evolution.

[...]

And tell
me this, once you open the Pandorian box of arbitrarily ruling this
passage is to be understood literally but that passage is to be
"spiritualized", then where does it stop?

I didn't write the Bible. =A0You should take this up with someone who
did.

And this is exactly why these forays are pointless. The type of
"debate" that usually plays out wouldn't make it out of a high
school classroom. Your response above is empty, contentless,
evading the question and the point made. You do play a shell
game, a moving target that bares no responsibility (and thus
respectability) to answer your opponent intelligently.

=A0You play a shell game.
Essentially you would have the Word of God be that the "husk"
of revelation to be a lie . . .

Hold on now. =A0There is no call for that kind of language.

Do you honestly think this some sort of kids game? Do you
think the proverb, "As a man thinketh, so he is" is without
meaning? You fail to take your position to fruition and when
someone does it for you you babble, "Unfair! Unfair!" when
it you who is unfair by hiding your head in the sand wishfully
thinking that it will protect you from having to think.

. . . while the "kernel" be the truth of the
matter.
The problem lies is who determines the "kernel?"

God.

How old are you? Your failure to reply substantiality leaves
me little room to other than that you are young and naive. It
_seems_ that you do not think your thought through. Please,
I'm not being demeaning in tone or in thought. I'm simply
asking you to take another look at our discussion. You have
proposed that the opening chapters of Genesis must be
read via some sort of figurative way such that evolution be
allowed for. But what you do not do is provide a substantiation
for your rationale.
Now I have tried to illustrate for you what occurs when your
actions are investigated presuppositionally. In your denial
of the literal reading of Genesis record, you set up a paradigm
or establish a system of interpretation. I have merely pointed
out the shifting sand of such a system because as a system
it offers no support for its position, let alone any standard or
rules for further employment of that system. You would
think yourself ill used if we like wise concluded that Jesus
did not actually rise from the dead. It was just one big
metaphor for living a life based on hope in hope. But this is
exactly how your system plays out if it is consistently applied.

However, if "faith" is the rule of life, then are we not called to
take God at His word, literally?

Not when he is using a metaphor. =A0

Figures of speech have rule by which they are governed. You
have not offered one, even one shred of evidence to support your
position that the writer is employing metaphoric figuration. Now
maybe this is beyond your grasp. However, if this is so, then
perhaps you should be less bold in your bravado.

Why would Jesus turn Simon ~into~ a rock?

Now here is a perfect example. First, here is a passage which
is almost universally admitted dubious. It is also a passage which
absolutely requires Greek rules of syntax to be employed. To
presume that the English reader can establish doctrine from the
employment of English rules of syntax is as the very best, naive.
Here it would aid you greatly to study such works as A.T. Robertson's
"A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research," or James Clyde's "Greek Syntax with a Rationale of the
Constructions." Even layman level reference works such as Vine
or Wuest word studies in the NT would instruct you in the verities.
No one is denying that figures of speech are used in Scripture. That
is a very big distinction, however, than using the allegorical method
of interpretation. Paul clearly notes an allegory in Galatians but
that by no means adds support for allegorical interpretation. Again,
these are elementary things (Heb 5:14).
Back to your quoted passage. To draw a doctrine from this requires
harmonization with the rest of Scripture. Scripture interprets
scripture,
not physical science or history or archeology.

=A0I mean sure Simon had his faults but turning him into stone
seemed like it was a bit harsh. =A0Oh wait, Jesus didn't change him into
a rock - he was just using a metaphor. =A0He only changed Simon's name.
Wow!!! =A0And to think Jesus can call someone a rock and ~not~ mean it
literally. =A0I don't know where He got the idea He could do something
like that. =A0He shouldn't have done that without permission.

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. We are not talking about
the employment of figures of speech to communicate truth; we are
discussing the employment of allegorization or spiritualization as a
principle for hermeneutics. What you write above is a red herring
which has only served to lead yourself astray!

He should have burdened Abram with the knowledge of X-rays, gamma
rays, radio waves, and all the other knowledge we have learned in the
last 3000 years. =A0In fact he should have also included all the
knowledge we will learn between now and the end of time. =A0Anything
less than full disclosure might seem like a lie.

Presumption. If you were an honest scientist, you would know that
it is the interpretation of data that leads one toward the
evolutionary
constructs. Look at the tests dating wooly mammoths where one leg
is 75K years old while another is 25K yrs.
But lets look at your proposal from the scriptural vantage. You want
some sort of gaps between the "days" of Genesis. How can vegetation
evolve in Gen 1:9-13 or the 3rd "day" but photosynthesizing light nor
to come into being until the 4th "day" if these days are actually long
evolutionary ages? How could the vegetation have been pollenated
if it wasn't until the 5th "day" that insects and birds evolved?
But I will once again ask the question which NO evolutionist has
ever answered, how did cosmic evolution transpire into chemical
evolution, that into stellar evolution (and why shouldn't stellar
preceed chemical?) and stellar into organic and that into macro.
Micro evolution isn't even evolution, its variation. Evolutionary
scientist can't even consistently employ their own terminology
and definitions. Real evolution would evidence an increase
in complexity not at best a mere shifting in gene frequency
let alone a lost.
And as for your mentioned "X-rays, gamma rays, radio waves"
they all are employed on the singular uniformitarian presupposition.
There is **good** evidence that there was once an ice canopy
or some form of watery canopy encapsulating our planet.
Remember near the beginning of "Jurassic Park" the scene
with amber? Why do we find oxygen levels 3 times our present
levels in trapped in amber?
Truth be told, evolution is consistently contrary to the Bible.
For its requires the sun to exist prior to the earth, land before
oceans, sun before light, fish prior to fruit trees yet after
insects; sun before plants, land animals before marine animals,
reptiles before birds and large amounts of death prior to
the evolution of man. Evolution is cruel, wasteful and
completely retarded as for design.
As for biblical consistency, look at Zeph 1:2 & 3 which reverses
the order of creation in the prophesied macrocosmic judgment.

Where do you get this idea that disclosure is a requirement for God to
be good?

You really are naive, aren't you! You should study what you
are wishing to discuss before advocating a position.
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	30 Dec 2007 07:11:16 PM

On Dec 30, 3:07 pm,

wrote:
[...]

And tell
me this, once you open the Pandorian box of arbitrarily ruling this
passage is to be understood literally but that passage is to be
"spiritualized", then where does it stop?

I didn't write the Bible. You should take this up with someone who
did.

And this is exactly why these forays are pointless.

If you give me insults and your Ivory Tower game then what do you
expect in return?
[...]

You do play a shell
game, a moving target that bares no responsibility (and thus
respectability) to answer your opponent intelligently.

It is your shell game demanding answers for positions I did not take.
[..]

Do you honestly think this some sort of kids game?

Did you miss the part where I was declared to be a servant of Satan?
I would prefer to have a real conversation but I can't find anybody
interested.
[...]

You fail to take your position to fruition and when
someone does it for you . . .

It isn't my position once someone changes it.
[..]

How old are you? Your failure to reply substantiality

Pointing out that the author of a message is the one who decides what
He means by his message is a substantial reply.

leaves
me little room to other than that you are young and naive. It
_seems_ that you do not think your thought through. Please,
I'm not being demeaning in tone or in thought.

From where I sit it looks like that is exactly what you are doing. If
you wish to be taken seriously then tone it down.

I'm simply
asking you to take another look at our discussion.

I'm getting quite bored with all the side trips and pointless insults.

You have
proposed that the opening chapters of Genesis must be
read via some sort of figurative way such that evolution be
allowed for. But what you do not do is provide a substantiation
for your rationale.

You need to see it yet again? I grow tired of repeating myself only
to have my words fall on deaf ears.
Delema ->
1. Atheism
2. Delude yourself into rejecting reality
3. See the Origin story and Noah as a metaphor.
4. Admit God lies either in nature or the Bible
I'm sure there are other options. I just like mine.
Now you want to set yourself up as option 2 being the normal condition
and the burden of proof being on anyone who disagrees with it.
Naturally you call it by a different name.

Now I have tried to illustrate for you what occurs when your
actions are investigated presuppositionally.

They are not my actions when you change them.

In your denial
of the literal reading of Genesis record, you set up a paradigm
or establish a system of interpretation.

Not one that must interpret everything as figurative.

I have merely pointed
out the shifting sand of such a system because as a system
it offers no support for its position,

You will be able to say "no support" more often than I care to remind
you that I provided support. However repeating yourself won't make
your claim true.

let alone any standard or
rules for further employment of that system. You would
think yourself ill used if we like wise concluded that Jesus
did not actually rise from the dead. It was just one big
metaphor for living a life based on hope in hope. But this is
exactly how your system plays out if it is consistently applied.

Nope. Dream on. As I said "Not when he is using a metaphor".

Figures of speech have rule by which they are governed.

Yeah like if I were to say something that flies in the face of all
available evidence that would make it clear that I was using a
metaphor.

You
have not offered one, even one shred of evidence to support your
position that the writer is employing metaphoric figuration.

All the evidence in the world that supports evoution. Turn a blind
eye to it if you wish but that doesn't mean I didn't mention it.
[...]

Here it would aid you greatly to study such works as A.T. Robertson's
"A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research," or James Clyde's "Greek Syntax with a Rationale of the
Constructions."

If I do will they convince me that up is down and left is right?
[...]

No one is denying that figures of speech are used in Scripture.

Well that is a step in the right direction.
[...]

Back to your quoted passage. To draw a doctrine from this requires
harmonization with the rest of Scripture. Scripture interprets
scripture,
not physical science or history or archeology.

Then you must get busy since someone is spreading the heresy that the
Earth goes around the Sun. Oh wait maybe physical science does impact
man's interpretation of scripture and, like I said, doing so doesn't
bring religion to an end.
[...]

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. We are not talking about
the employment of figures of speech to communicate truth;

I was not aware that calling people a rock was a figure of speech at
the time. Now that you mention it why are Shakespeare's plays filled
with so many cliches?

we are
discussing the employment of allegorization or spiritualization as a
principle for hermeneutics. What you write above is a red herring
which has only served to lead yourself astray!

Sorry but that is not the case as the Bible is full of symbolism.
[...]

But lets look at your proposal from the scriptural vantage. You want
some sort of gaps between the "days" of Genesis.

No, I don't. Really, I don't.

How can vegetation
evolve in Gen 1:9-13 or the 3rd "day" but photosynthesizing light nor
to come into being until the 4th "day" if these days are actually long
evolutionary ages? How could the vegetation have been pollenated
if it wasn't until the 5th "day" that insects and birds evolved?

I would conclude that these "days" were not long ages laid out in
order.
If plants were made on day 3, animals on day 5 and male and female
humans on day 6 then how could Adam be made before plants? How could
Adam name every animal and still fall asleep in time for Eve to pop
out of his rib all in under 24 hours?
Clearly the book combines two separate origin stories. This is not a
problem for the atheist, those who accept that God lies, and those
like me who think the passage is a metaphor. Those who deny the
evidence of evolution will need to invent a fancy linguistic
explanation.
[...]

And as for your mentioned "X-rays, gamma rays, radio waves"
they all are employed on the singular uniformitarian presupposition.

My point was that if God needs to tell us about evolution, DNA and all
the other things then why didn't he disclose everything? The answer
is that His agenda for us isn't about science.

There is **good** evidence that there was once an ice canopy
or some form of watery canopy encapsulating our planet.
Remember near the beginning of "Jurassic Park" the scene
with amber? Why do we find oxygen levels 3 times our present
levels in trapped in amber?

Please tell me that your "good" evidence is more than that.

Truth be told, evolution is consistently contrary to the Bible.
For its requires the sun to exist prior to the earth, land before
oceans, sun before light, fish prior to fruit trees yet after
insects; sun before plants, land animals before marine animals,
reptiles before birds and large amounts of death prior to
the evolution of man.

All of which isn't contrary to the Bible if I am right about the
passage being a metaphor.

Evolution is cruel,

Life is cruel.

wasteful and
completely retarded as for design.

We don't know how the parameters of the Universe were set up. It
might be designed there.
[...]

Where do you get this idea that disclosure is a requirement for God to
be good?

You really are naive, aren't you! You should study what you
are wishing to discuss before advocating a position.

Now look who is playing the shell game so as to bare no responsibility
to answer his opponent intelligently. Hey, you get what you give.
JC
.

User: "Gabriel"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	27 Dec 2007 06:13:01 PM

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:59:45 GMT,

(Ted J
L) wrote:

In article <d8e00eb5-1360-4758-8c8e-dd9170000c5e@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

says...

I didn't see that message posted by

-- did it
not include 'alt.bible' in its header?
Thanks for any info.
gabriel
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	28 Dec 2007 02:13:33 PM

On Dec 27, 4:13=A0pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:59:45 GMT,

(Ted J

L) wrote:

In article <d8e00eb5-1360-4758-8c8e-dd9170000...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups=

..com>,

says...

I didn't see that message posted by

-- did it
not include 'alt.bible' in its header?

It did and I don't know why it didn't show up on your end but I am
willing to try again.
<<quote>>
On Dec 27, 8:15 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-...
"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "

This guy started with the wrong conclusion and then went looking for
ways to justify it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-...
<quote>
Jesus Christ our Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17), who is the
Truth and would never tell us a lie, said that during the "days of
Noah" (Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26-27) "Noah entered the Ark" and "the
Flood came and took them all away" (Matthew 24:38-39). He spoke of
these events as real, literal history, describing a global Flood that
destroyed all land life not on the Ark.
Therefore, we must believe what Christ told us, rather than the ideas
of fallible scientists . . .
</quote>
-Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. September 18, 2007
See how he has confused science and religion? He is ready to throw
away his Bible and never attend church again if it turns out we
evolved. But the stories of the Ten Brides, the Good Samaritan, and
the Three Servants are not lies even though they never happened.
These parables are meant to teach us. If the Days of Noah also
turned
out to be a parable that would not make it a lie. People did not
give
up on religion when we learned that Earth goes around the Sun. The
evidence that we evolved shouldn't threaten religion either. Learn
to
separate the two fields.
<</quote>> -JC Dec 27, 10:34 am
It has come to my attention that my words might have been vage so let
me clarify that by "threaten religion" I mean that some people would
no longer believe in the
God of the Bible if evolution were true. I'm saying it doesn't have
to be that way.
JC
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	28 Dec 2007 02:21:57 PM

Jayne Cobb wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:13 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:59:45 GMT,

(Ted J

L) wrote:

In article <d8e00eb5-1360-4758-8c8e-dd9170000...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

says...

I didn't see that message posted by

-- did it
not include 'alt.bible' in its header?

It did and I don't know why it didn't show up on your end but I am
willing to try again.

<<quote>>
On Dec 27, 8:15 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-...

"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "

===>That only proves that the "Jesus Christ" of the Bible is NOT real
but a product of the creative imagination of those writers.
There is certainly no more evidence for the existence of any historical
"Jesus Christ" than there is of any universal "Flood".
Both are FABLES created by imaginative writers. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	28 Dec 2007 02:59:21 PM

On Dec 28, 12:21=A0pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
[...]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-...
<quote>
Jesus Christ our Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17), who is the
Truth and would never tell us a lie, said that during the "days of
Noah" (Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26-27) "Noah entered the Ark" and "the
Flood came and took them all away" (Matthew 24:38-39). He spoke of
these events as real, literal history, describing a global Flood that
destroyed all land life not on the Ark.

=3D=3D=3D>That only proves that the "Jesus Christ" of the Bible is NOT rea=

but a product of the creative imagination of those writers.

It proves nothing of the kind. Abraham Lincoln got religious in his
speaches and even quoted Christ. That doesn't mean Lincoln was not
real or just a fable.

There is certainly no more evidence for the existence of any historical
"Jesus Christ" than there is of any universal "Flood".

Millions of people existed without making it into the history or the
archeology books. Yet Jesus made a clear and measurable impact on the
world.

Both are FABLES created by imaginative writers. -- L.

If you have evidence that Jesus did not exist I would be happy to take
a look. Otherwise you are just spreading your faith like a good
religious person should. Having zero evidence does not prove your
ideas are right.
JC
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	28 Dec 2007 05:16:25 PM

Jayne Cobb wrote:

On Dec 28, 12:21 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:

[...]

===>That only proves that the "Jesus Christ" of the Bible is NOT real
but a product of the creative imagination of those writers.

It proves nothing of the kind. Abraham Lincoln got religious in his
speaches and even quoted Christ. That doesn't mean Lincoln was not
real or just a fable.

===>Ah, but no one claimed Abe to be the "Son of God"!

There is certainly no more evidence for the existence of any historical
"Jesus Christ" than there is of any universal "Flood".

Millions of people existed without making it into the history or the
archeology books. Yet Jesus made a clear and measurable impact on the
world.

===>FALSE.
The CHRISTOS CULT made an impression, not "Jesus".

Both are FABLES created by imaginative writers. -- L.

===>Having zero evidence, plus a number of mutually contardictory
stories reflecting the lives of historical persons but performing
superhuman "miracles", is sufficient to imply that no such person
existed or could have existed. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	28 Dec 2007 06:11:10 PM

On Dec 28, 3:16=A0pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
[...]

=3D=3D=3D>Ah, but no one claimed Abe to be the "Son of God"!

So it is the Son of God part that you have a problem with? Are you
saying you don't have a problem with a real preacher existing and
Christianity forming around him?

There is certainly no more evidence for the existence of any historical
"Jesus Christ" than there is of any universal "Flood".

Millions of people existed without making it into the history or the
archeology books. =A0Yet Jesus made a clear and measurable impact on the=
world.

=3D=3D=3D>FALSE.
The CHRISTOS CULT made an impression, not "Jesus".

If you will present the evidence I'll be happy to look.

Both are FABLES created by imaginative writers. -- L.

If you have evidence that Jesus did not exist I would be happy to take
a look. =A0Otherwise you are just spreading your faith like a good
religious person should. =A0Having zero evidence does not prove your
ideas are right.

=3D=3D=3D>Having zero evidence, plus a number of mutually contardictory
stories reflecting the lives of historical persons but performing
superhuman "miracles", is sufficient to imply that no such person
existed or could have existed. -- L.

In other words you have nothing. Hey, don't feel bad. You don't have
to justify your atheism. People come in a variety of religious
orientations. We can agree to disagree.
JC
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	27 Dec 2007 04:16:21 PM

Jayne Cobb wrote:

On Dec 27, 8:15 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-...

"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "

This guy started with the wrong conclusion and then went looking for
ways to justify it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
<quote>
Jesus Christ our Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17), who is the
Truth and would never tell us a lie, said that during the "days of
Noah" (Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26-27) "Noah entered the Ark" and "the
Flood came and took them all away" (Matthew 24:38-39). He spoke of
these events as real, literal history, describing a global Flood that
destroyed all land life not on the Ark.

Therefore, we must believe what Christ told us, rather than the ideas
of fallible scientists . . .

===But in fact what you do believe is a fictional story written by a
"fallible man" ABOUT a fictional character called "Christ".
THAT is all you have to rely on, by "faith" as your only "evidence".
-- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	29 Dec 2007 12:14:51 PM

On Dec 27, 10:34=A0am, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 27, 8:15 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-...

"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "

This guy started with the wrong conclusion and then went looking for
ways to justify it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-...
<quote>
Jesus Christ our Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17), who is the
Truth and would never tell us a lie, said that during the "days of
Noah" (Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26-27) "Noah entered the Ark" and "the
Flood came and took them all away" (Matthew 24:38-39). He spoke of
these events as real, literal history, describing a global Flood that
destroyed all land life not on the Ark.

Therefore, we must believe what Christ told us, rather than the ideas
of fallible scientists . . .
</quote>
-Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. =A0 =A0 =A0September 18, 2007

See how he has confused science and religion? =A0He is ready to throw
away his Bible and never attend church again if it turns out we
evolved. =A0But the stories of the Ten Brides, the Good Samaritan, and
the Three Servants are not lies even though they never happened.
These parables are meant to teach us. =A0If the Days of Noah also turned
out to be a parable that would not make it a lie. =A0People did not give
up on religion when we learned that Earth goes around the Sun. =A0The
evidence that we evolved shouldn't threaten religion either. =A0Learn to
separate the two fields.

JC

Yes, and what if it turns out that religion is the gnosis and
blueprint for this entire creation in a scientific sense? Will you
***** your metaphorical panties?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	27 Dec 2007 03:52:46 PM

On Dec 27, 12:34=A0pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

=A0If the Days of Noah also turned
out to be a parable that would not make it a lie.

Then the passage in Mt 24 would not make sense.
Also, there are plane indicators if a parable is involved. The story
of
the rich man in Hades is not a parable, though this is widely taught
other wise. Parables are for teaching, as you noted, and that is why
there are clarification, discussions and interpretations after each or
each series of parables.

=A0People did not give
up on religion when we learned that Earth goes around the Sun. =A0

That's because even in the writings of David, it was believed not that
the earth sat still, but in fact, that the earth revolved around the
sun.
Read, "Dimensions of TIme: The Structures of the Time of Humans
of the World and of God." By Achtner, Kunz, and Walter. This is NOT
Sunday supplicment reading. Much physics is involved.

The
evidence that we evolved shouldn't threaten religion either. =A0Learn to
separate the two fields.

Threatened? Who's threatened? No one's threatened by it. It just
simply isn't true. I'll tell you who's really threatened, those who
don't
believe in the literal historical judgment of God upon earth at the
time
of Noah (because this might mean it could happen again!!) or the
literal rendering of the Genesis record because that would again, hold
us directly accountable to God. Now that is what threatens the world.
Truthfully, if evolution could be absolutely and convincingly true, it
wouldn't find it threatening at all. I would no longer believe in the
God
of the Bible, that is true. But then also, I would realize that the
only
right or wrong in the world is what I can or cannot get away with.
Now
that would not be threatening, that would be terrifying.
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	28 Dec 2007 12:28:34 PM

On Dec 27, 1:52=A0pm,

wrote:

On Dec 27, 12:34=A0pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

=A0If the Days of Noah also turned
out to be a parable that would not make it a lie.

Then the passage in Mt 24 would not make sense.

Of course Mt 24 still makes sense. It might mean that some popular
interpretations wouldn't work.

Also, there are plane indicators if a parable is involved. =A0The story
of
the rich man in Hades is not a parable, though this is widely taught
other wise.

Have you been to Hades and did you meet that man? How would you know
it isn't a parable/metaphor/symbolic?

=A0Parables are for teaching, as you noted, and that is why
there are clarification, discussions and interpretations after each or
each series of parables.

Some have interpretations but most don't. The crowds listening to
Jesus preach didn't hear the interpretation. That was only for his
closest disciples and it wasn't possible to share every mystery with
them.

=A0People did not give
up on religion when we learned that Earth goes around the Sun. =A0

That's because even in the writings of David, it was believed not that
the earth sat still, but in fact, that the earth revolved around the
sun.

That did not stop the Church from persecuting Galileo. They saw his
discoveries as an end to their religion much the way some people today
see evolution as a direct threat to the Bible. It doesn't have to be.

Read, "Dimensions of TIme: The Structures of the Time of Humans
of the World and of God." By Achtner, Kunz, and Walter. =A0This is NOT
Sunday supplicment reading. =A0Much physics is involved.

Not unless you give me a good reason.

The
evidence that we evolved shouldn't threaten religion either. =A0Learn to=
separate the two fields.

Threatened? =A0Who's threatened? =A0No one's threatened by it.

You must not understand what I meant by that. I'm talking about those
like you who would "no longer believe in the God of the Bible". That
means for you evolution is a direct threat to your religion.

=A0It just
simply isn't true. =A0I'll tell you who's really threatened, those who
don't
believe in the literal historical judgment of God upon earth at the
time
of Noah (because this might mean it could happen again!!)

That doesn't make any sense to me.

. . . or the
literal rendering of the Genesis record because that would again, hold
us directly accountable to God.

Your conclusions don't follow. If the creation story and/or Noah's
story are metaphors then they probably have many important lessons in
those storys.

=A0Now that is what threatens the world.

If God sent us those stories then the moral is important whether they
are symbolic or history. I would argue that they would be more
meaningful if they are engineered to illustrate God's message.
History is useful for learning from mistakes but those with free will
might not do what makes for the most useful case study.

Truthfully, if evolution could be absolutely and convincingly true, it
wouldn't find it threatening at all. =A0I would no longer believe in the
God
of the Bible, that is true. =A0But then also, I would realize that the
only
right or wrong in the world is what I can or cannot get away with.

Do you not realize how those profound consequences you just named
above would affect your life? This is what I meant by "threat".

Now
that would not be threatening, that would be terrifying.

You have been listening to the wrong people and they have you all
mixed up. You don't have to turn your back on God if you discover
evolution is true. Learn to separate religion and science. We still
have preachers preaching that the Earth was created in six days yet we
now know that time is relative and part of the creation. Do you not
understand that there are things science will never be able to test or
observe? If you keep the disciplines separate they won't threaten
each other.
JC
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	29 Dec 2007 02:42:01 PM

On Dec 28, 12:28 pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 27, 1:52 pm,

wrote:

On Dec 27, 12:34 pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:

If the Days of Noah also turned
out to be a parable that would not make it a lie.

Then the passage in Mt 24 would not make sense.

Of course Mt 24 still makes sense. It might mean that some popular
interpretations wouldn't work.

No. Because those who are "taken" are the unrighteous, swept away in
a universal flood of judgment. To deny the literal and historical
nature of
Gen 6 is to deny Christ's many literal references to such events as
being
just that -historically accurate. It's very much like a house of
cards. When
you remove the Greek rules of syntax and replace them with English
rules,
especially those of our own era, then you pervert the orginial intent
of both,
in this case, Christ and Matthew. There are NO indicators in the
context
that allude to symbolism as you seem to presume.

Also, there are plane indicators if a parable is involved. The story
of
the rich man in Hades is not a parable, though this is widely taught
other wise.

Have you been to Hades and did you meet that man? How would you know
it isn't a parable/metaphor/symbolic?

Here you illustrate my point. You seem not to be studied in
theological
inquiry in such things. Might I suggest Bullinger's "Figures of
Speech use
in the BIble." After all, what is the purpose of a parable? Jesus
told the disciples, "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because
while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor
do they understand" (Mt 13:13) Closely related to one's understanding
of the purpose of the parables is the question of what they teach,
which of necessity also entails the meaning of the
"mysteries" (13:11). If parables were given to conceal information
from those who had heard the but rejected what was stated in plain,
then one may ask what information (mysteries) is suddenly being
withheld from the crowds and revealed to the disciples? For if, on
the other hand, these parables were meant to illustrate the spiritual
dullness of the crowds and have little or no connection with their
rejection, then the information (mysteries) they contained was not
necessarily new. In that case the parables only represented in
different form what Jesus had been saying all along, which had always
been a "mystery" to those outside.
Might I further suggest you reading Mark Bailey's, "Guidlines for
Interpreting Jesus' Parables".

Parables are for teaching, as you noted, and that is why
there are clarification, discussions and interpretations after each or
each series of parables.

But you forget when the Gospels where written. They were written
after the advent of the HS and His leading them to remember and to
understand.

People did not give
up on religion when we learned that Earth goes around the Sun.

That's because even in the writings of David, it was believed not that
the earth sat still, but in fact, that the earth revolved around the
sun.

That did not stop the Church from persecuting Galileo.

Correction, the "Roman Catholic Organization!" Please, don't equate
the two.

They saw his
discoveries as an end to their religion much the way some people today
see evolution as a direct threat to the Bible. It doesn't have to be.

Then you miss the point of discussion. As soon as man becomes the
arbitrator as to what is true in Scripture and what is not, then you
might
as well throw the whole thing out the window. It all becomes
confusion
after that. Either one accepts sola scriptura or he/she accepts that
they themselves are the "light of the world." If you have no absolute
standard on which to judge men/society by, then men/society become
absolute. Humanism, pure and simple. You are naively mistaken if
you think you can reduce this to a both/and situation. It is and can
only be that of an either/or situation. This was the whole purpose in
the giving of the Law. It was to establish antithetical thinking.

Now
that would not be threatening, that would be terrifying.

You have been listening to the wrong people and they have you all
mixed up.

Why do you presume me to be "listening." If you are, as you statement
presumes, to be capable of original thought, then why do you not
extend
that courtesy to me? Do you see both the double standard and the
dilemma
you yourself are faced with?

You don't have to turn your back on God if you discover
evolution is true.

You do not understand "knowing" and all that is involved!

Learn to separate religion and science.

That is impossible. I've already made comment on the illogic of such
a proposition. Presuppositionally, what you are advocating is an
experiential and philosophical impossibility! selah!

We still
have preachers preaching that the Earth was created in six days yet we
now know that time is relative and part of the creation.

And you ask me for proof as to why you should read that book?

Do you not
understand that there are things science will never be able to test or
observe? If you keep the disciplines separate they won't threaten
each other.

Perhaps it is because you are young?
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	29 Dec 2007 03:45:46 PM

On Dec 29, 12:42=A0pm,

wrote:
[...]

Because those who are "taken" are the unrighteous, swept away in
a universal flood of judgment.

That doesn't rule out symbolism.

=A0To deny the literal and historical
nature of
Gen 6 is to deny Christ's many literal references to such events as
being
just that -historically accurate. =A0It's very much like a house of
cards. =A0When
you remove the Greek rules of syntax and replace them with English
rules,
especially those of our own era, then you pervert the orginial intent
of both,

And how do you know God's intent?

in this case, Christ and Matthew. =A0There are NO indicators in the
context
that allude to symbolism as you seem to presume.

I'm not using literal references in any language. You are faced with
1) A book filled with symbolism has a number of stories.
2) All available evidence shows that some of these stories are not
historic
There are a number of ways to resolve this problem. Atheism is one of
them. Another is rejecting reality. However those are not the only
two options.
[...]

Have you been to Hades and did you meet that man? =A0How would you know
it isn't a parable/metaphor/symbolic?

Here you illustrate my point. =A0You seem not to be studied in
theological
inquiry in such things.

I have not been to seminary if that is what you are asking.

=A0Might I suggest Bullinger's "Figures of
Speech use
in the BIble."

Is it going to force me to either reject God or reject science? I'm
not interested in either.

=A0 After all, what is the purpose of a parable? =A0Jesus
told the disciples, "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because
while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor
do they understand" (Mt 13:13) =A0Closely related to one's understanding
of the purpose of the parables is the question of what they teach,
which of necessity also entails the meaning of the
"mysteries" (13:11). If parables were given to conceal information
from those who had heard the but rejected what was stated in plain,
then one may ask what information (mysteries) is suddenly being
withheld from the crowds and revealed to the disciples? =A0 For if, on
the other hand, these parables were meant to illustrate the spiritual
dullness of the crowds and have little or no connection with their
rejection, then the information (mysteries) they contained was not
necessarily new. In that case the parables only represented in
different form what Jesus had been saying all along, which had always
been a "mystery" to those outside.

If if if if . . .
My point still stands. There are mysteries we still don't
understand. There may be some we don't even recognize yet.
[...]

Some have interpretations but most don't. =A0The crowds listening to
Jesus preach didn't hear the interpretation. =A0That was only for his
closest disciples and it wasn't possible to share every mystery with
them.

But you forget when the Gospels where written.

Actually I don't. This has no effect on what I said above.

=A0They were written
after the advent of the HS and His leading them to remember and to
understand.

I don't know why you brought this up.

People did not give
up on religion when we learned that Earth goes around the Sun. =A0

That's because even in the writings of David, it was believed not that=
the earth sat still, but in fact, that the earth revolved around the
sun.

That did not stop the Church from persecuting Galileo.

Correction, the "Roman Catholic Organization!"

a.k.a. the Church.

=A0Please, don't equate
the two.

While "the Church" has multiple meanings it was clear from the context
I was talking about the one that persecuted Galileo.

They saw his
discoveries as an end to their religion much the way some people today
see evolution as a direct threat to the Bible. =A0It doesn't have to be.=

Then you miss the point of discussion. =A0As soon as man becomes the
arbitrator as to what is true in Scripture and what is not, then you
might
as well throw the whole thing out the window.

I'm not saying that man should be the arbitrator. If anything I am
against the men who are acting as arbitrators demanding that people
reject science for the sake of Christ.

=A0It all becomes
confusion
after that. =A0Either one accepts sola scriptura or he/she accepts that
they themselves are the "light of the world." =A0If you have no absolute
standard on which to judge men/society by, then men/society become
absolute. =A0Humanism, pure and simple.

Boy are you going off on a side trip. Why do you keep bringing up the
irrelevant?

=A0You are naively mistaken if
you think you can reduce this to a both/and situation. =A0It is and can
only be that of an either/or situation.

Why is that?

=A0This was the whole purpose in
the giving of the Law. =A0It was to establish antithetical thinking.

Now
that would not be threatening, that would be terrifying.

You have been listening to the wrong people and they have you all
mixed up. =A0

Why do you presume me to be "listening."

I'm sorry. I assumed it would be far worse and quite insulting to
presume you don't listen to anybody.

=A0If you are, as you statement
presumes, to be capable of original thought, then why do you not
extend
that courtesy to me? =A0

I'm pretty sure you are not the first person to think evolution was
counter to the Bible. This debate is older than anybody alive today.
This does not mean you are incapable of original thought and I had no
idea you would read that in my words.
However if this was your original idea then IMO it's wrong. Is that
better?

Do you see both the double standard and the
dilemma
you yourself are faced with?

No, what DS/dilemma are you talking about?

You don't have to turn your back on God if you discover
evolution is true.

You do not understand "knowing" and all that is involved!

Well I have no way to know the precise meaning you associate with the
word in this context unless you define it. I may have incorrectly
assumed you meant a standard meaning.

Learn to separate religion and science. =A0

That is impossible.

Maybe for you but those who have done it prove that somebody can.

=A0I've already made comment on the illogic of such
a proposition. =A0Presuppositionally, what you are advocating is an
experiential and philosophical impossibility!

Yet it's been done. It must be like that old saying about the bumble
bee. The bumble bee doesn't know it can't fly so it just keeps flying
anyway.
[...]

=A0Do you not
understand that there are things science will never be able to test or
observe? =A0If you keep the disciplines separate they won't threaten
each other.

Perhaps it is because you are young?

Are you not happy with the subject? If you want to talk about my
flaws then I'm sure you can do better than that. You seem to take
insult where none is intended.
JC
.

User: "Jayne Cobb"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	31 Dec 2007 01:00:40 AM

On Dec 29, 1:45=A0pm, Jayne Cobb <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

I'm not using literal references in any language. =A0You are faced with
1) A book filled with symbolism has a number of stories.
2) All available evidence shows that some of these stories are not
historic

There are a number of ways to resolve this problem. =A0Atheism is one of
them. =A0Another is rejecting reality. =A0However those are not the only
two options.

[...]

There are mysteries we still don't
understand. =A0There may be some we don't even recognize yet.

[...]

I'm not saying that man should be the arbitrator. =A0If anything I am
against the men who are acting as arbitrators demanding that people
reject science for the sake of Christ.

I find it interesting that I provided this back on the 29th. Yet the
next day Isend claims "But what you do not do is provide a
substantiation for your rationale."
I'm not responsible if my audience chooses to be blind.
JC
.

User: "john w"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	29 Dec 2007 10:09:25 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:15:50 -0500, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
� 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "

Gabe!
If you don't have it, if you haven't seen it or heard of it, go to
Amazon.com, or even do a search on your favorite search engine for:

Deluge Story in Stone by Bryon C. Nelson (Paperback - Jun 1968)
6 Used & new from $5.15
Books: See all 27 items

I count at least 10 copies for sale at this moment..
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-4703188-8936664?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22The+Deluge+Story+In+Stone%22&x=8&y=17
I had a copy for several years, until all my worldly goods-- including
a large library-- were stolen a few years back.
As time and $$$ permit, I am replacing my lost books.
This book shows conclusive geological evidence (including "inverted
strata layers") for a universal WORLD-WIDE flood, something the
atheists claim "just did not happen, and just isn't possible."
It's possible and it happened.
See evidence like fossils of sea life that have been deposited at the
highest levels of the tallest mountains in the world.
What are sea creature fossils doing in the MOUNTAINS?
.

User: "Wild Bill"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	29 Dec 2007 11:01:42 AM

"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:3urcn3ldtkog1cgegvl7qjjr0v4nevn97p@4ax.com...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "

Gabe!

If you don't have it, if you haven't seen it or heard of it, go to
Amazon.com, or even do a search on your favorite search engine for:

Deluge Story in Stone by Bryon C. Nelson (Paperback - Jun 1968)
6 Used & new from $5.15
Books: See all 27 items

I count at least 10 copies for sale at this moment..

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-4703188-8936664?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22The+Deluge+Story+In+Stone%22&x=8&y=17

I had a copy for several years, until all my worldly goods-- including
a large library-- were stolen a few years back.

As time and $$$ permit, I am replacing my lost books.

This book shows conclusive geological evidence (including "inverted
strata layers") for a universal WORLD-WIDE flood, something the
atheists claim "just did not happen, and just isn't possible."

It's possible and it happened.

See evidence like fossils of sea life that have been deposited at the
highest levels of the tallest mountains in the world.

What are sea creature fossils doing in the MOUNTAINS?

Ever heard of the geologic process of uplifting of the earth's crust? Of
course not, geology isn't your strong point. Put simply so you can
understand it John, those fossils were once under the sea and they simply
rode out of the sea with the mountains. No world-wide flood explanation
needed.
Shalom,
Bill

User: "vernono vernono@hereandthere"
Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood	29 Dec 2007 12:20:55 PM