Was banned for asking...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2011, 08:06 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  S.T.

I'm just going to address your dismissal of the historical Christians.

You're seriously dismissing the Church Fathers? Because they are men? Who do you think compiled the very scriptures that you say are the sole authorities of history and your faith? Who do you think defined what Christians do and do not believe today? Over hundreds of years, bitter fighting and debate, additions and subtractions of various books, deciding what or what not to believe were the conditions under which the Bible was compiled. All of this was what men did. Men wrote the scriptures down. Men compiled it. Men preached it. Men propagated it. If you want to get all biblical about the authority of these words...you CAN'T take men out of it because men created it! Even if I believed in god, I would still be saying these things to you. (When I believed in god...I had great respect for the Church Fathers and the foundations of my belief in the church canons...even when I thought the bible was God's word)

Check out this quick and dirty bit on the Ecumencial Councils if you have any curiosity about how Christianity became organized and unified. I'll give you a hint...it was done by men. Jesus and god were woefully absent and no further "inspired" writing occured during that time. You'd think that a god would have at least had some say in what men claimed he said.

What really blows my mind is how you can honestly put all of your faith into a book that MEN made and copied and translated and printed, and then dismiss those very men because they aren't your god. Do you have no doubts or hesitations about this? I think I kind of know your answer, but I'd really like to hear it from you.

You better, at the very least, take the Church Fathers seriously if you really want to have any credible legs to stand on here. I understand the whole sola scriptura thing and wanting to have pure faith and trust in god only...but it's really not helping you to debate historical Christianity. Let's use a metaphor! Let's say you went to a doctor after having become ill, and you found out that, in medical school, he only studied from one book, and that he made his own diagnosis based on what he felt was right. How would you react to that? Seriously. You'd hightail it out of his clinic! You'd assume the dude was a quack and illegally practicing medicine, and you'd report him to the board. Right? You couldhave buckets of faith that the doctor knows what he's doing, but chances are, HE DOESN'T.

One can be the most pious and loving Christian ever in history...but one cannot be an authority of Christian history or theology by sticking with just. one. book.

I'm assuming (sorry) that you are part of the Protestant faction of Christianity. Please be aware that there were at least 1200-odd years (give or take) of Christian history before Protestant Christianity was even a thought. Those 1200 years of Christianity were based on church canon, and *everyone* followed those canons as truth and the law of god. Every intelligent Christian understood where the bible came from (men) and what the scriptures therein were meant to say *as interpreted by men.* It wasn't until the Protestants came along that this idea of personal translation and sola scriptura became mainstream and acceptable. (If I am wrong about any of this, someone please correct me and supply references, I would like to know) Your personal interpretation of the bible is fine...for you, in your home, and your day to day life. But you have no authority to propagate this personal interpretation as fact and truth to anyone else...unless you have the knowledge and resources to back it up with. Then, you'd at least have something to argue with. Just the bible isn't going to cut it. No amount of faith makes something true...just...possibly...delusional.

Well written zaika! You've hit the nail on the head here. The "New Testament" did not emerge until well into the 4th century, and is a confused, contradictory hotch potch collection of writings written by we don't know who (apart from maybe 6 genuine Pauline letters), and heavily edited and interpolated for some centuries by church fathers and others. ST and other Christians have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking this literature is the "word of god".
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2011, 08:40 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(19-09-2011 08:06 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Well written zaika! You've hit the nail on the head here. The "New Testament" did not emerge until well into the 4th century, and is a confused, contradictory hotch potch collection of writings written by we don't know who (apart from maybe 6 genuine Pauline letters), and heavily edited and interpolated for some centuries by church fathers and others. ST and other Christians have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking this literature is the "word of god".

Thank you! It was when I became Orthodox that I learned about the facts of church history and how the church came to be. It was a game changer. Growing up evangelical, I had *no clue* how the bible I thought was the law came to be, yet I still felt like I could speak with authority. I'm still just....blown away by the disconnect American Christians have between the historical, physical process of how Christianity began and today's modern Christianity. The religion wasn't some peaceful hippy commune under persecution in ancient Rome and then laid in stasis until Luther...it was a dangerous and scary movement, used by world leaders to gain and maintain power. You know what I'm talking about...I've read your posts on that. Fascinating stuff.

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.

- Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2011, 08:46 PM
RE: Was banned for asking...
St, I'm going to have to pull the plug with you, not because you are a Christian, but because you are unable or unwilling to question your own beliefs. You are extraordinarily unable to examine any idea critically, and have no demonstrated ability to listen to what people are telling you. I can't have meaningful productive conversations with anyone who has an attitude like that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2011, 06:47 AM
RE: One more...
(19-09-2011 09:51 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  
(19-09-2011 06:50 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Show me the passage where "it's okay to douse your child with the blood of a cow."

We can take it from there.
S.T.

I think I'd pay a little more attention the stoning of a rape victim question if I were you.
------

Hello Defacto, thanks for the response. It would make it easier if chapter and verse were given, so I will assume you mean the following passage:

Deuteronomy 22:23-29
New King James Version (NKJV)

23 “If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,

24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.



Implied in the sentence is a woman who is not raped, but has had consensual relations while betrothed.

What I would point out is that throughout this passage we see "so you shall put away the evil from among you." While many today would not see anything wrong with one's fiance "cheating," this was a serious matter not only to God (for adultery is a picture of spiritual harlotry in scripture), but to the people themselves. I would add that there are many, even today, who find adultery and infedelity to be a serious matter.

25 “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.

26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.


27 For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.


Here we see a woman who is raped (forced), and God commands no harm come to her...she has not sinned. In the city, it is thought that there will be those nearby to hear the cry of a woman being forced, whereas in the country, this may not be the case. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle echoes this thought in his works.



28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,

29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.



In some situations, this could be a fate worse than death. The man who commits such atrocity will be forced to live the rest of his life a life of shame for his actions. I myself believe a way to deal with sexual offenders should be to cut off the offending part, but that is just me.

If this is the passage you had in mind, I see nowhere that God calls for the death of an innocent rape victim. If there is another passage, lease give ch. and verse.


(19-09-2011 09:51 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  I want to comment to all those who are trying to argue with this guy. If this is just entertainment for you, have at it. Have fun. Enjoy the verbiage and nouniage... But if you think you are actually having a conversation of any reasonable use, think again. When religionists argue against reason it is futile. They have set you up for a maelstrom of useless proportion that is ultimately the point of their argument, to twist and negate and make blanket absolutes that only make it sound as if the sentences are actually readable.

Of course: all of my arguments have been unreasonable.

No-one is being "set up" here Defacto, it is merely conversation. I ask that you show where I have "argued against reason."

Please show me where "my sentences have been unreadable." I always seek to get across a point in few words and in an understandable fashion.


(19-09-2011 09:51 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  Every time you try to make a reasonable point, you are adding to the elation and gratification they feel of slaying the infidel even though his words are absolutely empty and without form.


You must have me confused with a muslim...lol.

The Christian witness does not seek to "slay infidels." Our only obligation is to be a witness for Jesus Christ. We understand that it is not we that change hearts and minds, and to be honest, if we understand our own weakness, that is all the more clear to us.

I have not "elation" in discussing God with those that reject His existance, it is actually very sad to me. Nor do I seek to "score points" over you or anyone else here. My primary goal is to challenge the basis of your non-belief, because I believe that it is founded primarily on a misunderstanding of scripture coupled with the nonsense that is called Christianity in our world today.

If all I had was the caricature that media exposure prtrays of Christianity, and the works of men that also reject God...I too would be an atheist.

But I have His word, as well as what He is doing and has done in m own life.

(19-09-2011 09:51 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  The more quotes, the more words he can use, the more he can hide behind them. I'm sure he feels he's getting his heavenly scout badge... and you are feeding that delusion.

Look closely around the camouflage... this is the ultimate troll.

Enjoy the frenzy. That's all it is.

Would you care to share what "words I am hiding behind?"

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2011, 08:39 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(17-09-2011 12:03 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  First, I would just like to say to all I apologize for not responding sooner, but work has been very busy. I will address as much sa I can with what time I have today.

Thank you for replying.

Again, the 3 quotations given in the bible are all supposed to be Jesus' last words on the cross. They're all very explicitly mentioned as the last things said before Jesus died (except Matthew, which mentioned a noise made after his quote but not another quotation). And they, all being the last thing said, are not the same quotation.

Okay, I apologize: now I understand your question. It is the placement of the last statement you are talking about.

The different accounts by different writers are from their views. Throughout the gospel accounts we have writers mentioning an account of an event, whereas another does not. That is how I view this.

Not a contradiction, just that all statements are not recorded by each.


(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  That is a contradiction.

Is it a contradiction...that a statement is not mentioned?

I only have a few minutes this morning (I shouldn't even have come on this morning, too much work I need to get done), but if you are interested, I will address this one point in detail for you. This is the kind of conversation that I seek to have...an examination of particular passages.

In brief, just a few things to consider: In Matthew's account, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" is the last direct quote of the Lord, however, in 27:50 we see "And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit."

Was this a cry of agony only? Or was there a statement not recorded? We have to decide for ourselves, of course, how we will answer this question, but if we go to Mark 15:37, we read (and again this is after the statement "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani") "And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last."

Again it seems we have His last statement on the Cross, but got to Luke 23:46, we read, "And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.' "

Now we can see that the liklihood is that the "loud cry" was this very statement. Does that mean that this was His last statment on the Cross? I believe it was.

Between "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" and "'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit," I also believe that He said, "It is finished."

Sorry about the confusion. I did not understand the context of the question as it was posed, and thought that you (it was) meant that the statements themselves contradicted each other. Hope that helps.

(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Your answer given to monk does not explain why 3 different things were said, merely what he meant by each thing. Perhaps I should put this question to you in a different way: According to the bible, what was the last thing Jesus said before he died?

Thanks for posing the question differently, it helped me to understand the argument better. As I say above, I personally believe that the last statement was "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."

When He yielded up His life, He did just that, I believe, rather than just succumbing to the beatings and crucifixion. He said also, "My life I lay down, I also take it back up again."


(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You disbelieve that I was a Christian, and so do many Christians.

Look, I don't presume to be able to read hearts. Is it possible you have been saved? Yes. Is it possible you were not, but as scripture warns against, had merely an intellectual understanding of the facts? Yes.

But it is not for me to say, and I will not. I will not neglect to mention this principle found in scripture, though, as scripture teaches that those who "believe" and then "fall away" indicate that salvation never took place. Can a born-again believer fall into rejection? Thats a hard thing to contemplate, given the many scriptural teachings that salvation involves the indwelling of God which is part of the new birth. As well as God's keeping power of His children.

What I can do, and what I seek to do, is this: converse with you as to that which you "believed," and look at it light of what scripture teaches. It does not have to be antagonistic, in an uncivil manner...we are just talking.


(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I agree that the bible says that people can't be "unborn again".


I appreciate that, Starcrash. You might be surprised that most "faiths" of today teach just that. Few, even among so-called brethren, understand this.


(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  My life is a contradiction to scripture. I can't prove that I was a Christian, only clarify that to be saved one needs to "believe in the lord Jesus Christ";


Guess what? My life is also a contradiction to the illustrative teaching of scripture, but that is exactly what scripture accomplishes in my life: it teaches me to examine my own life and heart, not according to my own standard, but that which is the standard of God.

And what scripture teaches is that man cannot of his own power meet a standard of righteousness that will "make up" for his sin. That is why Christ died in my place. In your place. He took upon Himself the penalty that I would, apart from Him, pay for.

Now, concerning that you believed: scripture does not advocate a "belief" apart from obedience. There are those in scripture that "believed," but are shown not to be saved. Simon the sorcerer, for one. He believed, was baptized, yet, his heart was not right with God.

James tells us, "You believe there is One God, you do well...the devils also believe, and tremble."

It escapes many, when reading the gospels, that there are many who believe, yet...are not born again. This includes, in my theological view, the twelve disciples.

We can look at Judas and recognize he is not a genuine believer in the sense that he "is not certain" that Jesus in in fact the Messiah. Most assume the other eleven are "true believers." But were they? I say no. Not until the New Covenant was ratified by the blood (death) of Christ, and they were in fact born again, were the other eleven truly "believers."

With that in mind, read John 13-17 and look at the teaching of Christ, and it cannot be missed that Christ is speaking of that which is to shortly come to pass, not (certain) things that are already in place. Such as the Comforter being sent to convict the world and to indwell believers.

Understanding this clears up many confusing things. An example would be Christ's command to "abide in Him." Is there one of the eleven who in fact...abided in Him? No, but as it was prophesied, the sheep were scattered. All forsook Him. Peter's denial of Christ was every bit as heinous as that of Judas, but some try to see this as "not as bad." It was. It was a forceful denial of Who Christ was, and that Peter was His disciple, one who had learned of and from Him, and one that "believed."

Even John the Baptist, though declaring Jesus to be "the lamb of God," the sacrifice that even he himself did not fully understand, sent his disciples while he was in prison, to inquire if Jesus was the Christ, the one that all of Israel looked for.

Now we come to a post-Pentecost scenario, and we evaluate ourselves in our relationships with the Lord, and see whether this relationship falls into the category of "belief" before the Cross and Pentecost, or if it falls into that described after Christ died, ascended to Heaven, and sent the Holy Spirit.

Only you can evaluate this relationship, I cannot do it for you, and will not. But, if you examine the basis of your belief, and compare it with that which scripture teaches, you might find that some of the "contradictions" are not so contradictory after all.

(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I did, but now I don't.


Would you be willing to examine the "belief" you once had? As well as the "belief" you now have?


(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I'm certainly not alone among this group - most of the ardent posters you'll find on atheist websites were once Christians, and we care about this issue more because we have an axe to grind.


Look, you might not believe this, but I understand this. You are not alone in harboring ill feelings to many things that are called "Christian." Believe it or not, most of the debating I do is with "Christians." I examine the basis of the doctrines they teach, and anger is stirred up far more often with some of these characters.

(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  We don't believe that religion should be imposed upon children,

Neither do I. I have no children, but played a large role in raising two nieces and a nephew. I have always approached my instruction to them with this in mind: I cannot cause them to decide how they will respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I feel fortunate that I did not "grow up in the Church," Because I feel that to do so will bring about complacency. Many that grow up in the church take for granted that they are saved due to "heritage." The old saying, "Familiarity breeds contempt" applies to "going to church" too.



(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  because most of us in our ignorant youths simply believed what our parents told us was true.


That describes probably 75% of those who call themselves "Christian." Maybe more. This is why a departure from "what man says" is crucial. I believe that the layman student can gain as good an understanding of scripture as the scholar.



(17-09-2011 12:03 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(06-09-2011 03:15 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  So even if we point out clear violations of logic (such as the age when Ahaziah began to reign... there's no logical way a person can start their reign at both 22 and 42)

It is thought this is a copyist error.

I would give two things to consider:

1-In what way does this make all of scripture unreliable? Is this enough to reject scripture as from God? In scripture we have several places where it is disputed as to what the proper rendering should be. Scribal insertions, for example, are thought to be how some things have ended up in the texts. A misplaced jot or tittle can have a serious impact on a word or passage, so at the heart of this "contradiction is not God making a "mistake," but man.

2-In what way does this alter doctrinal teaching of scripture?


Copyist error in the online version?
[/quote]


Not sure what you mean. The online version of what? All available translations are just that, they are translations of manuscripts. The copies made by men of what we believe to be "original manuscripts," meaning they were penned somewhere in time, have been passed down. However, when we look at all available manuscripts available, the underlying truth is that despite man's involvement in passing down these texts...no major doctrine is affected, and not one thing that is said to have been spoken by God is significantly different to the point where bible doctrine is called into question.

There are manuscripts where scribes have made marginal notes, and there is evidence that those notes themselves have ended up in later texts.

This may seem a big deal to some, but, I look at it as a general principle that it is the teaching itself that is primary, not the "discrepancies" that have arisen in the manuscripts available today.

I view scripture as coming into being under the direction of God, however, He used men in their own abilities to pen them. In other words, God did not make the writers flawless in grammar, knowledge, or practice.

But, I do not believe that though different men were used, you will find contradiction in what scripture actually teaches. Consider Moses as opposed to Peter. Peter had a better understanding of salvation than Moses. Was Peter flawless in his walk with the Lord? No. He played the hypocrite due to his heritage. Nevertheless, God used him to pen certain epistles.


(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You simply need to look it up your own bible. Copyist error in the bible?

All "bibles" are translations of the original languages. When I do look at the original languages, my understanding is increased. If I were well schooled in those languages themselves, I might have an advantage again.

Are there errors in the translations? Yes, I believe there are. But the goal of translations are to get the word of God into the hands of the common man, that "spiritual tyranny" does not take place, such as with the Catholic Church.

(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  That would make the scripture in error. Does this make all of scripture unreliable? Yes, even if contradictions didn't exist.


What can I say to this? "Even if there were no contradictions...scripture would still be in error."

Is that reasonable?

(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  The encyclopedia attempts to be completely factual, but you can still find mistakes in it because it was put together by humans and humans make mistakes.

Agreed. And you will find the same scenario in translations. But, again, is the general and specific teachings of scripture affected in these differences? That is all I ask.


(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  This is also true of the bible. Every part of scripture that you wish to place complete trust in was written and transcribed by man, and thus subject to error.


That is where I disagree. Scripture is given for man's benefit. I believe that it is given by God to man.

What man does with it is where the problems arise.

(19-09-2011 02:59 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  The reason I bring up the Muslims is because they make similar claims to knowledge and make similar arguments when they defend their bible (which is, as you say, based on the old testament, but rejects Jesus as God - check out paragraph 3 of the link) but we atheists can reject both claims of Christians and Muslims on the same basis, that their religions are based on belief rather than evidence. You can't test religious claims, and even in cases where we can, they fail.

The claim of the muslim that Jesus did not claim to be God can be seen in scripture to be false. Have you ever looked into the history of Islam? If you have, can you see the similarities of their claims to those of many, many religions and faiths in the world?

Have you ever looked at the contemporary actions of muslims? And of course, I want to clarify that Islam is just like Christianity in that it has many different "followers," so we do not put them all as equal in belief or application.

Christians are being put to death every day because of their faith in Christ. Isn't it strange that Christianity stands alone concerning persecution of it's adherents?

But, this is what I try to get across: if Islam is thought to be "no different" than Christianity, the way to compare the two faiths is to examine the doctrine of the two faiths.

The deity of Christ is a good place to start. If you can determine with certainty whether Christ claimed to be God or not, then you can determine which claim more accurately follows scriptural teaching. Islam denies Christ as God manifest in the flesh, and claim to accept the Old Testament as sacred writing, so, lets find out if their understanding lines up with what the Old Testament teaches concerning Christ. In this way we can determine if the basis of our (my) belief is either accurate, or off base. If it is true that Christ did not claim to be God, that should be pretty easy to work out, right?

Perhaps you would admit that Islam came after The New Testament, as did their sacred writings. If we compare those writings with the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, we have a starting point. Did the actions of Muhammed evidence adherence to these teachings? Is there reason to believe that Christ command not to add to the last penned book, Revelation, could be abrogated with "new revelation?"

No more than it could be by Joseph Smith, or Charles Taze Russell, or David Koresh.

Okay, sorry for the length, I am an admitted windbag, so I ask you be patient with me. Have to get going, I have already lost half a workday, but, I will not regret it.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2011, 09:29 AM
RE: One more...
(19-09-2011 09:51 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  Look closely around the camouflage... this is the ultimate troll.

Jury.... I rest my case.

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2011, 10:12 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  S.T.

I'm just going to address your dismissal of the historical Christians.

Who said I "dismissed them?" My point is this, Zaika: I do not look to man's understanding as the bottom line and see it as a reliable source to base truth upon.

While I can benefit from much that God has done in the lives of "Church Fathers," I recognize that they are not to be placed on a par with the biblical writers.

I know where you are coming from with this line of debate, but really, your surety that the Church Fathers are a reliable evidence of anything can be compared to my assurance that the biblical writers are a reliable source.

So the entire argument presented here is actually based upon a faulty understanding of whta I have been saying.

But I will address it quickly, as I am out of time.

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  You're seriously dismissing the Church Fathers? Because they are men?

I am dismissing them as authoritative sources of truth. Because man is flawed, primarily because as long as we dwell on this earth, we remain in unredeemed flesh.

I have looked at the theology of many Church Fathers, and I can appreciate God's work in their lives, even as I can appreciate the work God does in and through my Pastor, or many commentators that I have great respect for.

But I do not look to them as being doctrinally flawless, perfect in application of God's word, and direct sources of revelation from God. Pastors do stand in the place of the prophet in this age, in a manner of speaking, proclaiming God's word, but...when the book of Revelation was penned, the canon was closed.

I do not believe that there are people speaking new revelation today, God has spoken in this time through His Son. THat is the bottom line for me. It is those who proclaim to have new revelation that are to be viewed as in opposition with the teaching of scripture, and this includes Muhammed, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, and even the false prophets that frequent popular "christian" TV.

Show me one Church Father that claimed to be speaking new revelation. Then look at the claims of those listed above. The problem, Zaiko, is that they failed to embrace sound doctrine that would have prevented them from such action.

Again, I do not "dismiss" the Church Fathers (though there are a few that I am in opposition to some of the views held), but place them in their proper place, which is that of men that stood in a place of authority concerning leadership in the Church...not men who's teaching could be placed on a par with that of the writers of scripture.


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Who do you think compiled the very scriptures that you say are the sole authorities of history and your faith?

This argument is actually humorous to me, because both of us are going to say their belief is the correct one.

The difference being, I look to the internal claims of scripture, whereas you trust in the works of historians. The writers I believe God used were contemporaries of Christ, whereas the Church Fathers and historians came after.

The claim that the books of the New Testament came long after the first century is held by some, but why would you expect me to buy into this? That would be strange, wouldn't it?

Now, when scripture was canonized, and the books selected by Church Fathers chosen as inspired scripture made collective, there were certain determining factors for the choices. I can, in faith, believe that God had a hand in the decisions made, and I pore through those books in seeking to understand the doctrine found in those books. I have as of yet found no contradictory teaching concerning God and salvation, and that leads me to believe they are in fact, reliable.

Some see other books as inspired scripture, that is okay with me. I have enough books (66) to try to understand without adding other "epistles" and "commentaries to the list. I am willing to discuss the doctrine of those books in light of those I myself consider inspired scripture, and that is where we can determine if the canon was closed properly.


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Who do you think defined what Christians do and do not believe today?

Scripture. It is that simple. The Church Fathers expounded upon scripture, but they did not write it. There are going to be differences in interpretive skills and exegesis, but that is to be expected among men.

But the writers of scripture do not contradict in doctrine as many expositors do. If you feel there is biblical doctrine concerning God and salvation I would be happy to look at them with you.


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Over hundreds of years, bitter fighting and debate, additions and subtractions of various books, deciding what or what not to believe were the conditions under which the Bible was compiled. All of this was what men did. Men wrote the scriptures down. Men compiled it. Men preached it. Men propagated it. If you want to get all biblical about the authority of these words...you CAN'T take men out of it because men created it!

All of this goes on today. But what does that have to do with what scripture teaches?

The mistake made here is that the thought is that man gives meaning and understanding to God's word. The reverse is true. Scripture gives man, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit...the meaning and understanding scripture contains.

Man, instead of learning what is in scripture, seeks to put into scripture the meaning he wishes. It is like the preacher that said, "I have a great message, I just need to find a verse to put it in."

That is the difference between the exegete and the eisegete, and there are more who preach eisegetically due to a faulty approach and understanding than those who preach expositorily.


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Even if I believed in god, I would still be saying these things to you.

I appreciate that. But I just want to reiterate that though a man be blessed of God in understanding of scripture, there is still a need to distinguish between that which God says, and that which man says. Between that which scripture teaches, and what man teaches.

Even in scripture, we need to understand that there are things said by men in scripture that are not necessarily true.

The Nazarenes said, "He is Joseph's son." Is this a biblical teaching? No. Scripture is clear that Christ was not Joseph's biological son.

I hope you understand what I am saying.

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  (When I believed in god...I had great respect for the Church Fathers and the foundations of my belief in the church canons...even when I thought the bible was God's word)

Did you also elevate your pastor above that which you should have? Many do. And when they find out that he is just a man subject to unredeemed flesh, capable of stumbling...their faith is shaken.

Look, there are many Church Fathers that God has worked through, and I believe that there has always been a remnant of true believers even when the visible church is so far removed from scriptural truth, such as the Catholic Church. But Not one of them are to be "put on a pedestal" as men that were anything than that which they were...men.

Even certain writers of scripture can be seen to have faults. David was a murderer and adulterer, yet God saw fit to use him to pen what the Jews accepted as inspired writings. Christ validated many writers...by quoting them. But it is not the writers theselves that scripture teaches we place our faith in, but God.

It is not our Pastors or their understanding of scripture we place our faith in...it is God.

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Check out this quick and dirty bit on the Ecumencial Councils if you have any curiosity about how Christianity became organized and unified. I'll give you a hint...it was done by men. Jesus and god were woefully absent and no further "inspired" writing occured during that time. You'd think that a god would have at least had some say in what men claimed he said.

Even the early ecumenical movements have to be examined in light of their doctrine. By this we can discern their intent and purpose.

The Council of Jerusalem is the only one I would hold as one to be taken into consideration. The historical factors involved with that one council have to be considered, primrily Gentile inclusion.

The thought that God and Jesus were "woefully absent" is evidence that an understanding of biblical doctrine is what is actually "woefully absent." In this age, God ministers to the world in two primary ways: 1-By His Spirit in convicting the rebellious heart of man; 2-by His indwelling of His children in ministry through them.

Your assumptions as to my beliefs lead you to make arguments that really have no substance, for at no time have I ever denied the work of Christ through His physical body...the Church.

If we understand salvation and the process of sanctification and the fact that those saved are "growing up" in the Lord, rather than instantaneously transformed into perfectly sinless people, we would better understand why there are divisions among men concerning doctrine and application of the teachings of God.

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  What really blows my mind is how you can honestly put all of your faith into a book that MEN made and copied and translated and printed, and then dismiss those very men because they aren't your god.

Let me help you with that: I place my entire faith in the fact that the Bible is God's word to man. I also understand that because Peter, a man used of God, fell into sin after he was born again, does not mean that I write off the epistles Peter penned.

Man will stumble, but that which God communicated through Peter I believe to be exactly what God would have me to know.

My faith is not in the man, or men, for they will fail, despite how God uses them: but my faith is in God, that He will cause me to understand His word.

The above argument demands something that goes against scriptural teaching: that I am to try, to test, those who claim to speak for God. This includes those who copy, translate, and print the word of God. If I were to forego discernment that bible study will teach the student, I would fall prey to paraphrases and "translations" such as the New World Translation. But because we do have available manuscripts, I can compare the translation to the original language, and discern the translation, or the commentary.

The King James Version is my personal favorite, but the fact is, even the translation is in need of translation. If I asked you what "let" meant, what would be your response?

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Do you have no doubts or hesitations about this?

Not at all.

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  I think I kind of know your answer, but I'd really like to hear it from you.

How did I do?


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  You better, at the very least, take the Church Fathers seriously if you really want to have any credible legs to stand on here.


As far as "taking them seriously," I guess you could say I do, as I do all teachers. But their teaching will be examined in light of scripture. Not all Church Fathers agreed in doctrine, even as many very close in theology today do not agree. We can't have a theology that switches back and forth in position, so we must seek to understand what is in scripture to make our conclusions as to what is sound, and what is not. Some of the Church Fathers were sound, some were not. Some were sound in one area, while in another...it could be questionable.

But the bottom line is this: my relationship with God is not between me and other men, it is directly between me and God. I look to Him to "raise me up in the way I should go, but I do not think that even as a physical child grows, I will not skin my knees from time to time. Or be wrong about things. Or have a limited understanding of a particular doctrine. I can admit I am just as susceptible to error as anyone else.

But I look to God to teach me...not Pastors, not commentators, not Church Fathers. God.

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  I understand the whole sola scriptura thing and wanting to have pure faith and trust in god only...but it's really not helping you to debate historical Christianity.

Who said I am debating historical Chritianity? You might wish to do so, but I have no more interest in debating the history of the Church than I do debating the history of warfare.

We live in the here and now. You and I are the ones who are going to be held accountable for that you believe, not the Church Fathers. If they are an evidence for why you can reject scripture, that is your decision. But would you look at this for yourself, rather than looking to wht others say? Can you tell me that the beliefs you hold concerning the origin of scripture come from a source other than that which men have convinced you of?

Be honest. Are the historians a completely reliable source? Can those who dig through the dust of history, and interpret what they find, be expected to be better interpreters than those you say cannot be trusted...theologians, who look to the Bible as the source to be investigated?


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Let's use a metaphor! Let's say you went to a doctor after having become ill, and you found out that, in medical school, he only studied from one book, and that he made his own diagnosis based on what he felt was right. How would you react to that?

Same as anyone else. This is my approach to scripture as well.

But to make the analogy equitable, it would have to go like this: "Let's say you go to a library, and look at the medical books there. One person reads everything available, while the other reads only one book. Who do you think would be the better one to get advice from?"

And keep in mind, before you think, "See! You need to read and trust more than the bible!" Consider: we would then have to change the analogy to "Let's say two men go into a library: one reads every book in the library, while the other reads only medical books. Which of these would you go to for advice?"

See the difference?


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Seriously. You'd hightail it out of his clinic! You'd assume the dude was a quack and illegally practicing medicine, and you'd report him to the board. Right?

Depends on his offense.

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  You couldhave buckets of faith that the doctor knows what he's doing, but chances are, HE DOESN'T.

And this is supposed to be relevant?


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  One can be the most pious and loving Christian ever in history...but one cannot be an authority of Christian history or theology by sticking with just. one. book.

The bible itself is in large part a history book. There is much history given.

And there are actually 66 "books" in the Bible I embrace as inspired...does that count for anything?

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  I'm assuming (sorry) that you are part of the Protestant faction of Christianity.

And you would make the mistake that all who assume make. I am not a Protestant.

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Please be aware that there were at least 1200-odd years (give or take) of Christian history before Protestant Christianity was even a thought.


Are you familiar with Protestant Doctrine? Do you know the many various positions found in Protestantism?

Again, and it because of assumption, that you actually understand what I believe, and would seek to categorize me even as Christians make the mistake of placing all atheists in the same category...you present argument that is just not relevant.

Just so you know...I am a Christian, a follower and learner of Christ. I have brethren that are also the Body of Christ, though they may fellowship with certain denominations. Salvation is not just about what group one falls under, it is a personal relationship with the One True God. His children can be found throughout the world, and they are bound by one particular trait: faith in Jesus Christ.


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Those 1200 years of Christianity were based on church canon, and *everyone* followed those canons as truth and the law of god.

This is just not true. Catholic doctrine is a departure from the teachings found in the canon of scripture. A large part of Church History carries with it the stigma of their error.

This is like saying the shysters on TBN are all Christians, and they represent Christ.

It is a false argument.


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Every intelligent Christian understood where the bible came from (men) and what the scriptures therein were meant to say *as interpreted by men.*

A plea to intelligence seems to be a popular theme around here. Glad am I that I do not have to trust in coming across as intelligent, and I will be the first to point out my limitations. I never said I was smart.

Christians understand the word of God to have come from God. It is as simple as that. But we also understand that there is a difference between what scripture does teach, and the interpretations of men. It is scripture by which we measure the doctrine of men.


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  It wasn't until the Protestants came along that this idea of personal translation and sola scriptura became mainstream and acceptable.

Is that a fact? So when epistles were to be passed from Church to Church, God intended for the "common man" not to have access to the teaching of the Apostles?

When the Septuagint was created, did not man gain access to scripture is the more commonly used language of that day?

Even in the history of Israel, we see where men that were not of the Levitical order "rediscovered" God's word, and were brought to understanding and repentance.

That is a look at a larger view of history than just the formation of the Catholic Church and their belief that the common man could not, in contradiction to Christ's own teaching, understand scripture.


(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  (If I am wrong about any of this, someone please correct me and supply references, I would like to know)

Would it matter? Really?

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Your personal interpretation of the bible is fine...for you, in your home, and your day to day life. But you have no authority to propagate this personal interpretation as fact and truth to anyone else...unless you have the knowledge and resources to back it up with.

It is not my job to prove to anyone that scripture is reliable, it is just my obligation to preach the gospel.

If you have said in your heart, "There is no God," what can I do about that? However, if you were interested in testing your own belief, then I would suggest a look at the basis of your belief. Read scripture for yourself. See if God does not speak to your heart.

We can all find justification for our beliefs on the internet, but if we get away fromwhat man says and look at what God says...we may just be surprised.

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Then, you'd at least have something to argue with.

Who's arguing?

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  Just the bible isn't going to cut it.

Sure it will.

(19-09-2011 04:25 PM)zaika Wrote:  No amount of faith makes something true...just...possibly...delusional.

Now apply that to your own beliefs, rather just applying it to mine. Is it not at least possible that this would apply to you as well?

Gotta go,

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2011, 10:17 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
Theo
The concept of the fossil record being a chronology of the flood is highly illogical. This explanation implies that the ordering is a result of what animals perished first and that the progression towards today's faunas is a result of things like intelligence and speed. Let's look at the fossil record in a VERY general way and squint our eyes and see what we get. The lower sections have marine invertebrates and the upper sections contain marine invertebrates and terrestrial vertebrates. If I squint and use no other information, then maybe I can make that concept, nope...couldn't do it. Because I know what is in the details of those layers. If we assume that the organisms at the top were faster than those at the bottom and were able to get to higher ground quicker. What about organisms that could fly? We have dragonflies from the Permian that had the wingspan of an eagle! If anyone could have flown to higher elevation to escape the flood, surely he could have. If that is the case then we should see these bigger dragonflies associated with the upper units...we don't. Instead they are confined to this single interval of time. And what of the organisms in the upper layers? Surely some of them would have become trapped and/or were to sick/old to move with the rest of their species to make it to higher ground? We should therefore see at least some representatives of extant species in the fossil record...we don't. There are no Cambrian bunnies or Cretaceous humans. Let's stay with this train of thought...what about footprints? If I have a huge flood deposit...I am going to erase these, but alas, we have have dinosaur tracks below these upper units containing what one would call evidence of the flood, so that does not work either. What about plants? Even if god does not think they are alive, they still would have all died. Very few terrestrial plants can handle being over-watered, much less full submersion in water. Did Noah take at least one of every plant too? If so, how did he get them? I have heard some explanations say the animals came to Noah, but the plants too? And the fish? Did Noah take 2 of every fish and bottom dwelling vertebrate and invertebrate on the seafloor? Marine organisms would not have been capable of surviving in the torrential downpour of freshwater into the oceans needed to raise sea level up to Mt. Everest. And the water would have mixed, so any freshwater fish would have also been dead.

Let us delve into the stratigraphy now. We have sand dunes from terrestrial environments preserved within the rock record that are claimed to be a part of the flood sequence. How do I get terrestrial sand dunes in a flood? We have evidence of stream deposits throughout the record. If the flood covered the entire Earth, and stratigraphy shows that, then why do I not see less and less stream deposits as I get towards the top? Presumably the Earth was covered by water during these stages, so there would have been no terrestrial streams. And what about the glacial evidence within these layers? I work on Fossils from the Permian (>280 million years ago) of Australia and there is glacial evidence in them. Including a mineral known as ikiaite that forms at temperatures of less +7 degrees Celsius. How do I get terrestrial glaciers tilling up land mass and depositing glacial sediments, when all of the glaciers would have been floating or melted? I have even heard of another explanation that liquefaction causes the layering. Liquefaction often occurs in unconsolidated sediments during an earthquake. These unconsolidated sediments would have already been layered and liquefaction would destroy the layering, not create it.

I could ramble about this particular concept for hours and how erroneous it is, but perhaps it would be best to take an intro course in geology and paleontology in order to fully grasp why EVERYTHING that concept says is wrong.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2011, 10:29 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(19-09-2011 08:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  St, I'm going to have to pull the plug with you, not because you are a Christian, but because you are unable or unwilling to question your own beliefs. You are extraordinarily unable to examine any idea critically, and have no demonstrated ability to listen to what people are telling you. I can't have meaningful productive conversations with anyone who has an attitude like that.

Thats a little onesided, isn't it?

"I'm not talking to you because you won't question what you believe."

That would be a bit of an irony, wouldn't it? "Questioning...my faith!"

If you feel I have not examined the ideas presented critically, or that I have not listened to what you and others here have said, I would challenge you to go back and look at the conversations.

Okay, it is your choice. I will just ask one question again, Mark, and then I'll be gone:

You have claimed to be an authority on Christian doctrine, and have the right to not only show animosity to Christianity, but to "counsel those who have been damaged" by Christianity, and I challenged your understanding of Christianity on one basic principle: The New Covenant.

I ask again for an honest answer as to whether in your great knowledge of Christianity and what scripture teaches concerning Christ you would mind telling me if you have an understanding of the New Covenant and if you would mind sharing that understanding with me, and if you do not have an understanding if you would be honest to admit this to me and before your peers here...and you have not answered.

Perhaps it is just a matter that you will not condescend to talk to one as "petty, narrow-minded, stupid, and superstitious" as myself, and that I can understand. You may believe me to be one who holds to myths and fables, deluded and brain-washed by men who have no motive but personal gain.

I can understand that too.

So I ask once again, I before God, and you before your peers, for an answer to this question. And I ask this, not for the benefit of those who may also be reading this, but for yours: if you do not have an understanding of the New Covenant, how can you present yourself as an authority in decrying the word of God?

Decrying "christians" I can understand all too well, but that is not my point. What exactly does scripture teach that Christians are, do, behave, treat others, their motivations...

If you answer this to yourself that will suffice.

You cast "my attitude" as the one in error: have I cursed you? Called you names? Is there a question I have not answered, or tried to? Has you attitude been above reproach, either in my view, yours, or even in that of other atheists?

But, okay. I think that you may be right that the conversation is unproductive, with that, I might have to agree. So I will respect your feelings, and say, nice talking to you anyway. I have enjoyed it.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2011, 07:18 AM
RE: Was banned for asking...
(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Theo
The concept of the fossil record being a chronology of the flood is highly illogical.

Hello BeardedDude, first, let me say I usually do not involve myself in debates such as these, and do not plan to do so now, But merely respond due to some very interesting things you say in this post.

Also, just wanted to say I envy your profession: it is one that must be fascinating. It must be awesome to actually get paid to do work that, to me, has always been a fascination, and I would imagine you enjoy this very much.

As far as whether this position or that is illogical or not, I would point out that there are those on both sides of the fence (though I am sure there are actually many sides to the fence rather than just two) holding differing opinions and having reached different conclusions to the available data. So I am responding to this post simply to comment on a few things, as your post drew my interest.



(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This explanation implies that the ordering is a result of what animals perished first and that the progression towards today's faunas is a result of things like intelligence and speed.

I think it a mistake to try to put everything into a narrow happening of events, though, if there were a cataclysmic upheavel, there would surely be similarities that could be traced acoss the world. But would we not expect there to be discrepancies as well? Meaning, the events surrounding the upheavel and the "settling" process, or receding, would not have been identical in all locations?


(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Let's look at the fossil record in a VERY general way and squint our eyes and see what we get.

Okay, but I warn you: I will probably only expose my ignorance in this response, so, if you care to have a laugh, read on!...lol.


(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The lower sections have marine invertebrates and the upper sections contain marine invertebrates and terrestrial vertebrates.


The first question I would ask is this: wouldn't this make sense if prior to the flood these former had been for some time deposited, then, the latter?

Also, are the terrestial found in areas where scientists believe oceans and seas to have been?


(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If I squint and use no other information, then maybe I can make that concept, nope...couldn't do it.

Because I know what is in the details of those layers.

Again, this must be a fascinating job.

Another question that comes to mind is how much exploration of fossil records have been done in the beds of existing oceans today? I have heard it said that this is "the last great frontier" today. I would be curious to know if there has been much exploration in the depths of the sea. I imagine the costs would be huge, but, man is an inquisitive creature, so could you tell me what has been done in this area?


(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If we assume that the organisms at the top were faster than those at the bottom and were able to get to higher ground quicker.

This wouldn't seem to be reasonable, to me. When the tsunami struck a few years back, it was not a matter of "the faster" did better than the slower: destruction fell in short order on all.

Now, in the aftermath, the probability that "rearrangement" took place would seem a given. Some larger animals placed differently due to current, weight, obstructions, et cetera.



(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What about organisms that could fly? We have dragonflies from the Permian that had the wingspan of an eagle! If anyone could have flown to higher elevation to escape the flood, surely he could have.

This is what really piqued my curiosity: I have not heard of these before. When were they discovered? It is amazing to picture in one's mind a creature such as this. Imagine walking through a jungle and having one of these come at you, rather than the insects we have today!

Anyway, a thought that occurred to me was their wings, in particular. I wondered if you have an idea as to how well such large wings would do in a torrential downpour. It would seem that this insect would probably follow a general pattern of insects today, and just guessing, but I would think the instinctive habit would be to find cover and wait it out. Just in memory of dragonflies I have seen myself, their wings seem to be very sturdy, as opposed to say, a moth. I would imagine a dragonfly of such size would have had tremendously sturdy wings, but, I still wonder how they would hold up in heavy rains.

Can you give me an idea as to the habits of modern dragonflies, and how they behave in heavy rain?

(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If that is the case then we should see these bigger dragonflies associated with the upper units...we don't.

Is it possible that they "ducked for cover," and were thus destroyed? But, I would think that perhaps some may have escaped, though I would think that their natural habitat, and the conditions of that area (for I would speculate that there were varying degrees of calamity from region to region, similar to floods we witness today: narrower passages with greater current than wider passages where the water flow and force is much less) may have been a determining factor. If these dragonflies were found in a particular area, I would think that would have shared a similar fate, for the most part.

Which leads me to ask a question: how widespread are the areas where these are found? Are they found in one place, or many?

(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Instead they are confined to this single interval of time.

Sugestive, isn't it? At least it is to me. Is it par for the course for a species to perish in such a secluded manner, or is there fossil evidence that suggests vast periods of time between the fossils?

What do the dating measures used show concerning this aspect?


(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And what of the organisms in the upper layers? Surely some of them would have become trapped and/or were to sick/old to move with the rest of their species to make it to higher ground? We should therefore see at least some representatives of extant species in the fossil record...we don't. There are no Cambrian bunnies or Cretaceous humans.

I would need you to explain this a little more before I could offer an opinion. So far I am under the impression that there is a layer that contained marine fossils, then above that a layer that contains both marine and terrestial fossils. Which layer is it that does not contain the bunnies and humans, and which is it that you would expect to see them, if there was a flood?

I would guess it is the upper layer, right?

And I am also guessing you are saying that there is no fossil record within this layer of creatures that exist today, is that right?

(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Let's stay with this train of thought...what about footprints? If I have a huge flood deposit...I am going to erase these, but alas, we have have dinosaur tracks below these upper units containing what one would call evidence of the flood, so that does not work either.


But do we not also have footprints above, as well? Why would the existence of footprints below what some believe to be the layer from the flood preclude that there would footprints below?

I don't see that the existence of both denies one or the other? But perhaps you could expand on that.

(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What about plants? Even if god does not think they are alive, they still would have all died.

God said He would destroy " every thing that was in the earth...that had the breath of life."

Genesis 6

17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.


Concerning plants, two things I would ask you to consider: 1) plants do not have "the breath of life" and we understand that 'erets (underlined in the above verse) probably refers primarily to that which existed on the earth, rather than all life both on land and sea. It is doubtful that life on the cellular level completely died.

2) though all plant life may well have died, is it not true that plant life continues due to seed, rather than the plant itself? In order for plant life to be extinguished, both the plant as well as the seed would have had to die. And concerning seed...does it not "die" before it then grows?

But we know there was some plantlife that did survive the flood, as the dove retrieved an olive branch. Apparently the olive tree is either a sturdy tree capable of surviving the event, or God Himself preserved this tree for His own purpose.


Genesis 7

21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.


But again I would point out that it seems the land animals and man were the primary target. Verse 23 reiterates those who were destroyed, and absent from the list is fish and marine life. Which you bring up later, but is a good question.


(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Very few terrestrial plants can handle being over-watered, much less full submersion in water.

True, but seeds can hold up quite well in extreme conditions, and it would be necessary for just the seed to survive the flood.

Have seeds been found in the fossil record?


(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Did Noah take at least one of every plant too? If so, how did he get them? I have heard some explanations say the animals came to Noah, but the plants too?

Setting aside that believers have no issue seeing the God Who created the earth in the first place would have any trouble refurbishing the earth with the elements already in existance, I would again point out that it is not unreasonable that though most plantlife perished, they survived due to their seed. The events of the flood from start to recession are not indicated to pass a full cycle where we might question the sustenance of reproductive activity, at least, that would seem reasonable to me.

I do not get the impression from the record of scripture that it was necessary for all plant life to be extinguished for God to fulfill the judgment He imposed.


(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And the fish? Did Noah take 2 of every fish and bottom dwelling vertebrate and invertebrate on the seafloor? Marine organisms would not have been capable of surviving in the torrential downpour of freshwater into the oceans

Isn't that speculation? Can science say for certain that the water of the sea and the water from below the earth (the fountains of the deep) as well as that above the earth (rain)...thoroughly mixed?

We can see in scripture that it seems only creatures from land were collected, there is no indication that the creatures of the waters were, which makes sense in that they would have been able to survive in their natural habitat.

Here is a question that science could probably answer: what is the ratio of fresh water to sea water on the earth?

Now, if there were a cataclysmic upheavel and the water below the earth were to surface, what would we expect to happen with the current land structure we have today? Could we expect there to be a thorough and complete mixing of both fresh and saltwater, or could we speculate that there would be pockets of fresh here, saltwater there.

Also, another question I would seek an answer to would be this: of the dinosaurs that we believe to have populated the waters, can we say for certain that they had a capability or lack the capability to exist in water other than their natural habitat. I myself would guess no.

Which brings to mind evolution itself. If life has adaptive capabilities (and we know it does), would we negate the possibility of survival in a crisis moment, or would we speculate that at least some species could, in that crisis moment, overcome, at least temporarily, the changes that suddenly come upon their living conditions?



(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  needed to raise sea level up to Mt. Everest.

This is where I depart from my brethren that hold to an old earth position (and I know you will think me an idiot for my belief, but this is just my belief. I do not despise or ridicule those who believe the earth is millions of years old, some that I respect very much believe this way). I hold to the view that it was during the time of the flood that such lofty mountains were created. There is very little scriptural evidence for this belief, but, nonetheless, it is just what I believe. I know you, being in the work you are, may see this as silly (perhaps worse), but, it just seems to me to be what fits in the scriptural account of world history.

I believe that at the time of the flood the earth was (you're going to laugh)...flat. In the sense that mountains were not as high as they are today. I believe at the time of the flood, there is great upheavel and at this time we see the "fountains of the deep" opened up, and the "water above the firmament" coming down.

I also believe that when the waters receded, at this time, possibly (and I will point out this is merely speculation on my part, as I am sure you will heartily agree...just my opinion, not something I am saying is dogmatically true), the Lord raised mountains, split the earth in places...all to facilitate the recession of the waters of the flood.

I know that may be scoffed at, but, that is just my belief.


Psalm 104:5-9
King James Version (KJV)


5Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

6Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

7At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

8They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

9Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.


In the above passage, I view this as speaking of the flood. In Genesis, we see that the earth is apparently covered in water, and then land appears (I wish this site did not react as it it does...it took about five minutes just to enlarge the text above, so I cannot, due to time, insert as much scripture as I would like to in a conversation such as this).


(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And the water would have mixed, so any freshwater fish would have also been dead.

Since evolution teaches adaptation, I would ask two questions: 1) can science be dogmatic as to whether life at this time could or could not survive in brackish water; 2) can we dogmatically say that marine life has not actually become a weaker species to where introduction to a foreign environment would result in death?

(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Let us delve into the stratigraphy now. We have sand dunes from terrestrial environments preserved within the rock record that are claimed to be a part of the flood sequence. How do I get terrestrial sand dunes in a flood?

Not sure I follow. If you could expand a bit?

(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We have evidence of stream deposits throughout the record. If the flood covered the entire Earth, and stratigraphy shows that, then why do I not see less and less stream deposits as I get towards the top? Presumably the Earth was covered by water during these stages, so there would have been no terrestrial streams.


But is it not possible that they are a result of both the recession as well as erosion?

(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And what about the glacial evidence within these layers? I work on Fossils from the Permian (>280 million years ago) of Australia and there is glacial evidence in them.

You are going to really laugh at this, but...

I am one that believes that the "waters above the firmament" were actually a canopy surrounding the earth, and whether this was gaseous vapor or what have you, I wouldn't speculate, but it is thought that this would have created a "greenhouse" effect that kept the earth's temperature moderate across the globe.

If that were true, there would have been no glaciers at this time, though again I would not be dogmatic, as glaciers are found even in areas today apart from the poles.



(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Including a mineral known as ikiaite that forms at temperatures of less +7 degrees Celsius. How do I get terrestrial glaciers tilling up land mass and depositing glacial sediments, when all of the glaciers would have been floating or melted?

This one I can offer a suggestion about, but would first ask this: how long does science say that it takes for Ikaite to form?

I did google this in hopes of having at least a little understanding of your point, and think it is a valid question, though, it causes me to look at my own trade and the science involved in that to ponder this question.

Because I do not believe that there were glaciers at the time of the flood itself, I ask the question, how is it that conditions could exist where freezing temperatures could form something that would break down in warmer temperatures.

Working daily with refrigerants, I can create substantially below freezing temperatures with the gases I work with. Have, in fact, been burned by the pressure changes of them. Hence the question, how long would freezing temperatures have to be sustained for the formation of akaite?

If the earth were experiencing upheavel, I would expect that involved in the process would be conditions that would depart from the norm, such as the example of water being poured on excessive temperatures, and rather than extinguishing the fire, chemical breakdown occurs actually increasing the fire's intensity.

Keep in mind this is just a passing thought, I have not the time to devote to looking at this in detail as it would deserve, so, go easy on me.

Anyway, I ask: is it not possible that the formation of akaite could have resulted due to gas pressures created from an upheavel that veruy probably involved volcanic activity? Just a thought.

(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I have even heard of another explanation that liquefaction causes the layering. Liquefaction often occurs in unconsolidated sediments during an earthquake. These unconsolidated sediments would have already been layered and liquefaction would destroy the layering, not create it.

Again, I would have to decrease my ignorance of this in order to make a response. I would also have to have more information to the entire topic, and I am woefully ignorant of such matters.

However, it is of great interest to me, and I enjoy, and would enjoy, discussing it, particularly with one who is actually in this field. I hope, if you choose to respond, that you will be patient with me.

(20-09-2011 10:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I could ramble about this particular concept for hours and how erroneous it is, but perhaps it would be best to take an intro course in geology and paleontology in order to fully grasp why EVERYTHING that concept says is wrong.

Okay, BeardedDude, just wanted to touch on a few things said. Primarily because dragonflies with eagle-length wing spans fascinates me. I am amazed by some of the creatures we have. Both those in existence, and those from the past.

What do they say these days as far as man knowing the species in existance today? I have heard it said new species are being discovered on a daily basis...is that still true?

Okay, have to get going, I have yet again set aside my work to respond, it is a bad habit I am trying to break.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes S.T. Ranger's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: