[__ Science __ ] Is Historical Science Useful?

[Barbarian]

The text clearly says the entire world was flooded.

No. The confusion is in mistaking "erets" (land) for "tevel" (world). The Bible says the land was covered, but it does not say the world was covered.

There's no point in arguing that these mean the same thing; they clearly don't. And if God meant to say the world instead of land, He would have done so.

Again, please answer my post (128) directed at you.

You already have your answer from me. I explained how the Bible presents parables and allegories in a different way that historical passages. Since you refused to accept it, that's where we will remain.

 

[Quantrill]

No. The confusion is in mistaking "erets" (land) for "tevel" (world). The Bible says the land was covered, but it does not say the world was covered.

There's no point in arguing that these mean the same thing; they clearly don't. And if God meant to say the world instead of land, He would have done so.

You already have your answer from me. I explained how the Bible presents parables and allegories in a different way that historical passages. Since you refused to accept it, that's where we will remain.

No, your error is ignoring what is said and trying to use one of many Hebrew definitions for 'earth' to support your unbelief.

The same word is used in (Gen. 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." You can pursue the use of the word through a concordance and find it used constantly for the whole earth.

You ignore "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19)

You ignore "and the mountains were covered" (7:20)

You ignore "all flesh died that moved upon the earth" (7:21)

You Ignore "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life of all that was in the dry land, died." (7:22)

You ignore "Noah only remained alive and they that were with him" (7:23)

In other words you 'refuse' to believe what is clearly said because it goes against your science.

Concerning my question in post #(128), no, you haven't answered them. Your answer was not an answer to my questions. To just say the Bible has parables and allegories doesn't answer my questions. You don't know how to answer them because they reveal your error.

In other words, ignoring the questions in post #(128) which you dodge continually, doesn't support your scientific faith. Pretending you have answered them, when you certainly haven't, doesn't support your scientific faith.

Quantrill

 

[hawkman]

The Bible declares it, so it is so.

I know this and you know this because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to us being we are Christians .

But what about the non-Christians reading here ? They may look at the Bible as nothing more than a fable and fairy tales . So is it alright if we show them things in our world that point back to God's truth ?

The link I shared was not science but it was oral history . Are you offended by history ?

Once you begin using the proofs of the world to prove the Bible, you lose.

Proofs that exist in History ? Archaeology ? Are they ok ?

​

Everything about the flood was miraculous and from God. Everything.

I agree .

 

[Barbarian]

No, your error is ignoring what is said and trying to use one of many Hebrew definitions for 'earth' to support your unbelief.

I've heard all those excuses before. But as you see, not one of them says the whole world was flooded.

And yes, I've shown you several times that the text of the figurative passages is in the poetic form used for myths in Sumerian and Akkadian literature, while the others are written as literal histories. I realize that you don't accept it. But it still remains.

Indeed, the key to understanding the story of Noah, is to realize that God put it forward in a way that rejected the previous religious ideas of that civilization, asserting that there was one God, not many gods, and that He is a just and ethical God for Whom evil is offensive and goodness is pleasing, as opposed to the old Mesopotamian gods, one of whom flooded the land because people were so noisy his nap was disturbed.

Another key is in the description of Noah. From Paul's letter to the Romans:
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

But in Genesis:
Gensis 6:9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.

Here, Noah is the archetype, the model of the righteous man, as opposed to the sinful people around him. It's another sign that this is an allegory. Keep in mind, one can have an allegory about real people and real events. But these are signs given by God that show there is more than just an account of someone and some happening; there is a lesson therein that was particularly needed in the time that the story of Noah was written.

 

[hawkman]

Another key is in the description of Noah. From Paul's letter to the Romans:
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

But in Genesis:
Gensis 6:9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.

Here is the way I understand this verse .
Genesis 6
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Noah was not a "perfect " man but his genetics were untainted , perfect in his generations . The flood was a genetic cleansing of the world .

 

[Barbarian]

That's a new one for me to think about. If God culled the human population, Noah and his family could have had, at most, 10 alleles for each gene locus. Today there are over a hundred alleles for most gene loci in humans. That's a lot of evolution for a few thousand years, but not impossible.

 

[Quantrill]

I know this and you know this because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to us being we are Christians .

But what about the non-Christians reading here ? They may look at the Bible as nothing more than a fable and fairy tales . So is it alright if we show them things in our world that point back to God's truth ?

The link I shared was not science but it was oral history . Are you offended by history ?


Proofs that exist in History ? Archaeology ? Are they ok ?

​

I agree .

You're not going to prove the Bible is the Word of God through history or science.

You may provide enough proofs for them to say they believe it. But then guess what? Along comes someone smarter than you and can prove through history or science that the Bible is in error and so can't be believed as the Word of God.

Because you brought them in by your proofs. So you lose them by others proofs. They never came by simple faith.

The Bible is the Word of God. What it declares is so and absolute. Give them that alone. If they balk...so be it.

Quantrill

 

[Edward]

You may provide enough proofs for them to say they believe it. But then guess what? Along comes someone smarter than you and can prove through history or science that the Bible is in error and so can't be believed as the Word of God.

High intellect does not speak the language of wisdom so there can never be a meeting of the minds.

 

[Barbarian]

High intellect does not speak the language of wisdom so there can never be a meeting of the minds

It's not high intellect, but convoluted exegesis that trips up clever people. Instead of telling one's self "well, this verse must mean...", be content with it as it is. God didn't detail how life began; he merely said that it was produced by things he had already created to do it.

The Bible is about God and man and our relationship, how we are to become His. That's good enough. We shouldn't add all that other stuff.

 

[Quantrill]

I've heard all those excuses before. But as you see, not one of them says the whole world was flooded.

And yes, I've shown you several times that the text of the figurative passages is in the poetic form used for myths in Sumerian and Akkadian literature, while the others are written as literal histories. I realize that you don't accept it. But it still remains.

Indeed, the key to understanding the story of Noah, is to realize that God put it forward in a way that rejected the previous religious ideas of that civilization, asserting that there was one God, not many gods, and that He is a just and ethical God for Whom evil is offensive and goodness is pleasing, as opposed to the old Mesopotamian gods, one of whom flooded the land because people were so noisy his nap was disturbed.

Another key is in the description of Noah. From Paul's letter to the Romans:
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

But in Genesis:
Gensis 6:9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.

Here, Noah is the archetype, the model of the righteous man, as opposed to the sinful people around him. It's another sign that this is an allegory. Keep in mind, one can have an allegory about real people and real events. But these are signs given by God that show there is more than just an account of someone and some happening; there is a lesson therein that was particularly needed in the time that the story of Noah was written.

My, my. I removed your complaint about the Hebrew word for earth. So, you now ignore that. And yet you were so sure that was proof positive. How foolish. Just like you trusted your complaint that the sun was created on the 4th day so there could be no morning or evening. That was removed also.

You see? Of course not. You're not looking for reasons to believe the Bible. You're looking for reasons to cast doubt on the Bible as the Word of God.

That the Bible has symbols and figurative language at times is well known. Means nothing. You didn't answer my questions. You continue to ignore and dodge them. Just go back to post #(128) and answer them. Simple.

The key to understanding the record of the Flood in (Genesis) is to believe it occurred just like God said it did. No problem. The key to disbelieving the Flood as recorded in (Genesis) is to take sciences view...your view.

The Flood is presented as an historical event and fact. It is not presented as a parable or figurative. Just like the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ are.

(Romans 3:10) and (Gen. 6:9) do not prove the record of the Flood was an allegory. What it does prove is the extent you will go to cast doubt on the Bible.

The righteousness that describes Noah in (Gen. 6:9) is the imputed righteousness of God. As God so declares in (Gen. 7:1) "...for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." As a believer God sees Noah as righteous. But it is not Noah's righteousness. (Gen. 6:8) "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." Why did Noah find grace? Because he needed it.

The eyes that saw Noah righteous were the same eyes that saw Noah needed grace. How perfect the Word of God is.

Quantrill

 

[hawkman]

You're not going to prove the Bible is the Word of God through history or science.

What would happen if I did ?

You may provide enough proofs for them to say they believe it.

I just want to plant a seed in their mind that will get them to read God's word and maybe , just maybe go hear God's word preached . And then the Holy Spirit can bring them to knowledge of saving grace .

 

[Barbarian]

My, my. I removed your complaint about the Hebrew word for earth.

You disagreed with the fact, but it really doesn't change things.

And yet you were so sure that was proof positive.

I'm pretty sure that if God had meant "world", He would have said "world."

I get that you don't accept these facts. But they are still facts.

 

[Quantrill]

What would happen if I did ?

I just want to plant a seed in their mind that will get them to read God's word and maybe , just maybe go hear God's word preached . And then the Holy Spirit can bring them to knowledge of saving grace .

I explained what would happen if you did in post #(167).

Nothing wrong in planting a seed through the giving of the Gospel and the Truth that the Bible declares.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

You disagreed with the fact, but it really doesn't change things.


I'm pretty sure that if God had meant "world", He would have said "world."

I get that you don't accept these facts. But they are still facts.

It means your attempt to use 'earth' as just local dirt was wrong. (Gen. 1:1) and (Gen. 7:13-23) proves it.

Neither you or your science has presented any facts yet. You have displayed considerable unbelief though. As well as the inability to answer the questions in post #(128).

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

It means your attempt to use 'earth' as just local dirt was wrong.

If you think "erets Israel" means the whole world, that would make sense. But it doesn't.

As you learned "erets" merely means "land." As in "my land", the "land of Israel" and so forth. "Tevel" is the word used for the world.

No way to avoid it.

 

[Quantrill]

If you think "erets Israel" means the whole world, that would make sense. But it doesn't.

As you learned "erets" merely means "land." As in "my land", the "land of Israel" and so forth. "Tevel" is the word used for the world.

No way to avoid it.

What does earth mean in (Gen. 1:1)?

All I have 'learned' from you is your unbelief. You trust your 'science' to interpret the Word of God. And, I am a good student.

Really, give me some Scriptures for 'Tevel' and how it is used.

Then, go back to post #(128) and try and answer the questions, which you have not.

Quantrill

 

[Barbarian]

Then, go back to post #(128) and try and answer the questions, which you have not.

I've answered it several times, now. I get that you don't like the answer. But it is what it is. And it won't change.

 

[Quantrill]

I've answered it several times, now. I get that you don't like the answer. But it is what it is. And it won't change.

No, you never answered my questions in post #(128). You said some things, but never answered the questions.

And why haven't you answered my questions in post #(176)?

What it is, is that you can't answer the questions as they reveal your error. They reveal your use of science to interpret Scripture.

Of course it won't change.

Quantrill