[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Barbarian]

Associating YEC with SDA is called the Guilt By Assoc. fallacy.

It's historically provable:

George McCready Price (1870-1963) was the leading young-life creationist of the first half of the twentieth century.
Largely self-taught, Price shared his creationist views in more than two dozen books and more than 800 articles—
mostly intended for the lay believer. Price argued that true science involves deriving absolute truths by inductive
syllogism from known truths. Price believed the Creation Week was 144 consecutive hours in length, six or seven
thousand years ago, and everything on the earth was created in that Creation Week. Price believed the creation was created in the state of perfection and that natural evil entered the world at the Fall of man. Price believed the only natural group of organisms, the created kind (what he called the ‘natural species’ when he was being careful), was
at about the taxonomic level of genus or family, and could be identified by successful hybridization. Except in the
high altitudes, Price believed the entire pre-Flood world enjoyed a sub-tropical climate and supported a biota of much
greater size and beauty than the biota of the present world. Price believed the Genesis Flood was global and was caused by some sort of upheaval of the oceans—possibly the sloshing back and forth of the oceans as the earth sustained a sudden, axis-changing astronomical impact. Price believed that all Phanerozoic sediments were formed in the Flood, and organisms were buried close to their pre-Flood habitation. Price believed that the global biostratigraphic column was artificially arranged according to organismal development, reversals of that order are due to normal sedimentation (not post-depositional thrust faults), and most so-called ‘extinct’ organisms are actually identical to modern organisms.

Price believed that a sudden freeze was somehow associated with the Flood (to explain frozen mammoths), and the
warm pre-Flood ocean water in inland seas caused a regional ice age in the years following the Flood. Price believed
created kinds diversified largely by splitting and differentiation following the Flood. Price believed the post-Flood
Cro-Magnon people are the oldest humans from which we have evidence, and all other hominoids (fossil and living,
ape and human) are degenerate humans. Price also believed that God created languages and races and gave them to
different people groups spreading out from Babel. Finally, Price believed that human civilization has degenerated
from its highest form in Eden.

Price’s geological ideas formed the core of the geological arguments of Whitcomb and Morris’s The Genesis Flood, but without appropriate citation. Many of the discussions of modern creationism are similar to ideas Price shared a century or more ago. Although many of current creationist discussions are likely to be derived from Price, not only is
this not obvious, but much valuable discussion has been lost. Creationists should reconstruct their intellectual history
and thus enrich current discussions.

A host of Price’s claims are echoed in modern creationist discussions. Many of those discussions may turn out to be
derived from Price’s ideas and this intellectual heritage should be studied in detail. Price’s philosophy of science,
for example, seems to be echoed in such things as the creationist tendency to present anti-evolutionary arguments
rather than build models, the preference of quantitative over non-quantitative research approaches, and the adoption
of positivist definitions of science. Price’s climatology seems to be echoed in such things as adherence to the canopy
model, associations of warm climate with large body size, and discussions about the nature and timing of the ice
age. Price’s biology seems to be echoed in such things as creationists’ use of Mayr’s biological species definition,
references to ‘natural limits to variation’ and ‘living fossils’, and post-Flood diversification by segregation of genetic information. Price’s geology seems to be echoed in such things as the rejection of the biostratigraphic column and disputes about the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the stratigraphic record.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=icc_proceedings

There were many Genesis-trusters who knew better than to think Genesis was some "allegory".
WITHOUT any SDA stuff.

There were many OE creationists. Until Price evangelized SDA doctrine to fundamentalists, most of them were OE; the creationism presented in the Scopes Trial, for example, was OE. Because of Bible scholarship and scientific discoveries, OE creationism is growing, even as YE declines.

AIG would gun down the sda position, using Scripture and logic, quickly.

AIG is promoting many SDA doctrines. See above. No point in denying the fact.

 

[KV-44-v1]

"Genesis should be interpreted allegorically, not literally!"


Do you agree with the above statement? YES or NO?

 

[Barbarian]

"But as I began to think more critically about the evidence for biological evolution and…began to search it out myself, I realized there was a whole host of problems,” Fuz comments."

Well, let's take a look...

• Repetition of biological features in unrelated life-forms (e.g., echolocation in bats and dolphins)

Echolocation is an ability in almost all mammals capable of hearing. Humans use it. Vikings used it to navigate in foggy fjords. Blind people use it.

Echolocation in blind people reveals the brain's adaptive powers
Spatial maps in “visual” processing areas help interpret echoes

https://www.science.org/content/article/echolocation-blind-people-reveals-brain-s-adaptive-powers

Some bats and AFAIK all cetaceans (whales and their kin) are particularly good at it. Some bats don't use echolocation at all.

I don't think your guy thought this one through very well. Two ears means we all have the potential to echolocate. I don't know what he thought would stop natural selection from favoring some species becoming better at it.

• Genesis’ fit within the history genre rather than in poetry or any other genre

The account of Creation in Gen. 1-2:4a gives, as has long been recognized, the same order of events as is found in the Babylonian Genesis, or Enuma elish. In both sources the successive stages are listed as primeval chaos, light, sky, dry land, and astral bodies; and each account culminates in the creation of man. What is more, the correspondence between the respective statements extends even to the syntax of the opening verses: “When…–at which time…–then…” The same scheme, incidentally, is followed in the second Biblical account of Creation (Gen. 2:4b-7).

Expedition Magazine | Mesopotamian Motifs in the Early Chapters of Genesis

<p>Biblical history proper begins with the call to Abraham to leave his native country and set out for a destination […]</p>

www.penn.museum

The poetic form used in Enuma elish seems to have been used to turn the creation account from the original idea of many gods, instead affirming the existence of one Creator who is the unique and One God. The similarlity of styles using allegory for different aspects of nature and creation, is less important that Who is is doing the creation.

 

[Barbarian]

You think Genesis didn't happen it is mere allegory?

Nothing "mere" about allegory. And if you think allegory can't be about real events, you are once again refusing to accept scripture.

 

[Barbarian]

They are both too evolved in their own ways for one to have produced the other.

Oh?
You believe allelic change has limits then?

Another set of arms would be a useful adaptation for humans. But we aren't going to get them for reasons Darwin showed. Every step in such evolution would have to be at worst, neutral. And there seems to be no way for that to happen.

Monkeys and humans are both quite evolved in different ways from primitive primates. Different enough that the transitional forms to make one into the other just aren't feasible. The mutations could happen, of course, but they'd tend to be quickly removed from the population by natural selection. So the process would never get started.

 

[Josef]

Nahhh, Genesis invented my old doctrines.


?
He simply said that all the days happened in only 1 day.



Do you believe in common descent or not?
Both CD and Bioevo = false!





There is exactly 0 verification for old earth.

Because the God revealed in Scripture created a perfect world, a world with no death, suffering, or disease. Yet to believe that He used evolution is to deny what God says He did in creating everything in six normal-length days. It also denies that He created a perfect universe, perfect world, and a perfect first man and woman (who was made from the man).

Genesis 1:31 states that everything God made was “very good.” Since 1 Corinthians 15:26 calls death the “last enemy” that will be destroyed, how could we possibly think that God called death very good? Why did Jesus (who is the same yesterday, today, and forever according to Hebrews 13:8) heal the sick and raise the dead if sicknesses and death are very good?


If God used evolution, then it logically follows that death and disease were His doing rather than ours, and Jesus would have been sent to cover God’s mistakes. That is, if the Lord gave the first spark of energy and life to the universe, and then let it run amok, He would have sent His Son to atone for His own mistakes. This is not an accurate description of the God of the Bible.

answersingenesis.org/hermeneutics/the-god-of-old-earth/


if you really accepted it His way you would be able to give verses showing how it was His way. I can. And do.


biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NASB1995

YEC proven Bioevo defeated!





Here's something to chew on:

From an Evolutionist’s Perspective​

The leading humanist of Darwin’s day, Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), eloquently pointed out the inconsistencies of reinterpreting Scripture to fit with popular ["]scientific["] thinking. Huxley, an ardent evolutionary humanist, was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” as he did more to popularize Darwin’s ideas than Darwin himself. Huxley understood Christianity much more clearly than did compromising theologians who tried to add evolution and millions of years to the Bible. He used their compromise against them to help his cause in undermining Christianity.

In his essay “Lights of the Church and Science,” Huxley stated,


Huxley [the Evolution beliver]made the point that if we are to believe the New Testament doctrines, we must believe the historical account of Genesis as historical truth.

Huxley was definitely out to destroy the truth of the biblical record. When people rejected the Bible, he was happy.

Hux was Darwin's Bulldog. You like Darwin's ideas a lot. Mabye you will like Huxley's.

IF EVOLUTION IS GOD'S CREATION, EXPLAIN THIS.

Hey All,

"Because the God revealed in Scripture created a perfect world, a world with no death, suffering, or disease." Quote from KV-44-v1

What translation are you using?
KJV reads very good.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I don't believe we can say the earth was death free. The fish still ate other fish. So predator/prey relationship was happening. If not, the fish would have died off. Of course I could be giving Adam and Eve more credit than they deserve. Maybe they sinned on day 3. Maybe they had childlike mentalities. When you tell a child don't do something, that's all they want to do.

What does this passage mean?
Presumably, Peter is speaking about Noah's flood.

2 Peter 3:5-9 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I read it as time does not matter to God.
But the long-suffering nature of God will not be ignored forever.
The people of Noah's time had two generations, plus part of a third, to repent.
Not one, NOT ONE, that we know of, repented.
(Sorry for the tangent. That really gets to me though)

Back to the subject, time.
And I recognize that Moses wrote evening and morning before each day.
But realistically, why does that define the days of creation as single days?
All days have evenings and mornings.

Plus, the Sun did not exist until day four.
How was time measured on days one to three?
Without a Sun, how can we be dogmatic about how long a day was?

Which is why I say it takes faith to believe the creation account was six actual days.
Nobody will ever be able to prove the time scientifically.

I believe the creation account.
But I fail to see the importance of time.
What did Moses write about creation in Genesis 2:4? (I put in verse three for reference.)

Genesis 2:3-4 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Is not Genesis 2:4 saying, " . . . generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created . . . "
Now we know this is about time because Moses uses "when" which is always used in association with time.
That is indisputable.
But, in the same verse, this is followed by:

" . . . . the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

So Moses is saying all of creation also only took a day.
This completely parallels what Peter wrote.
And that is why it is hard for me to get dogmatic about how long creation took.

I don't believe old or young matters. Time has no relevance to an eternal being.

Faith, baby, faith

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[KV-44-v1]

I don't believe we can say the earth was death free.

Really? think about it. Why would animal or human death exist in God's very good world?? Nothing, repeat NOTHING died before man's fall.
And plants don't count. they do not die in the sense even animals do.

The fish still ate other fish.

This is an assumption. To claim animal death before the fall is Bible-contradicting.

So predator/prey relationship was happening.

If not, the fish would have died off.

Wrong. EVERYTHING was vegetarian.
And there is no evidence that things back then NEEDED to eat to survive. Perhaps food was just a helpful thing. nowadays, it is a survival necessity.
I dont get why you try to project what we see TODAY , back into the pre-sin world. The fall and the real worldwide flood. Athiests make the mistake of failing to factor in those 2 massive events. Read about these in answersingenesis.org . Clear the assumptions.

Of course I could be giving Adam and Eve more credit than they deserve. Maybe they sinned on day 3.

Why do you say mabye? you are uncertain. the Bible says that man was made on day 6. there is no "woulda coulda shoulda" on whether Genesis' specific described events happened. it really happened. like the Flood.

the serpent made adam n eve UNCERTAIN about God's Truth.
and to the Barbarian, this is the danger of allegorizing history - It makes one uncertain.

Maybe they had childlike mentalities.

Scripture is clear they were fully formed adults.
But their mentalities? Well, idk. They got pretty easily tricked and then blamed each other. So perhaps.
And so it comes to us.

When you tell a child don't do something, that's all they want to do.

That mindset is inherited from adam n eve.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

We are not all descended from members of Noah's family who must have had incestuous relationships if the flood story is history.

So, according to you, 1) Shem's relations with his wife were incestuous, 2) Ham's relations with his wife were incestuous, and 3) Japheth's relations with his wife were incestuous? Let's hear your "proof" for those asinine, Bible-despising claims.

I've numerous times seen people err by making false accusations of incest against Adam's sons, Cain and Seth, but seeing such false accusations against Noah's sons as you've just brought is new to me. Have fun with your inability and failure to back up your false claims with the Bible.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

We don't actually know that. The flood certainly was not worldwide, nor does the Bible say it was.

Depends on what you mean by "worldwide". The flood covered all the dry land -- all the earth. So, indeed the flood was earthwide.

But it could have been an allegory.

The flood was a flood, no? No flood is an allegory. See, a flood, according to the dictionary, is "an overflowing of a large amount of water beyond its normal confines, especially over what is normally dry land." An overflowing of a large amount of water beyond its normal confines is not "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one", is it? Allegories, stories, poems are composed of words, and not of water, right?

It really doesn't matter.

Well, obviously it doesn't seem to matter to people who refuse to believe the Genesis flood account, calling it "allegory". So, you may be speaking for yourself, but you're clearly not speaking for everyone. So, it seems that all you mean is "It really doesn't matter [to me]."

People who worry about whether it was a literal flood or an allegory

Whom are you trying to describe? Since Bible-believers, at least, know that the Genesis flood account is an account of the Noahic flood, we're obviously not worried by the vacuous pontifications of those who say it's not that, and who dismissively label it "allegory".

Now, you, for one, obviously call the Genesis flood account "allegory"; so, are we to take it that you "worry about whether it was a literal flood or an allegory"?

miss the entire message God is giving us within the story.

Please tell us whatever "message" you are referring to, there. What "message" are you saying we "miss" due to our taking the Genesis flood account to be a flood account? Surely, if you didn't "miss" whatever "message" you are referring to, then you can share it with us, right here in this thread, no?

 

[Barbarian]

We don't actually know that. The flood certainly was not worldwide, nor does the Bible say it was.

Depends on what you mean by "worldwide". The flood covered all the dry land -- all the earth. So, indeed the flood was earthwide.

The Bible doesn't say that, either. It merely says "land." Which can mean a lot of things, but in Hebrew "the entire world" is "tebel."

But it could have been an allegory.

The flood was a flood, no? No flood is an allegory.

But there are allegories about floods. It really doesn't matter.

Well, obviously it doesn't seem to matter to people who refuse to believe the Genesis flood account, calling it "allegory".

I think you're wrong. If it was an allegory,then the people who refuse to believe it are refusing to believe the Genesis flood account. Why not just accept it as whatever God intended, and be done with it? God doesn't care if you think it's a real flood or an allegory. If you focus on that, you're ignoring what He's telling you.

Whom are you trying to describe? Since Bible-believers, at least, know that the Genesis flood account is an account of the Noahic flood, we're obviously not worried by the vacuous pontifications of those who say it's not that, and who dismissively label it "allegory".

You've simply assumed that whoever agrees with you on this are the "Bible-believers."
I happen to believe that the flood story is about a real event. But those Bible-believing Christians who think it's an allegory just interpret it differently. As you and I do. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Please tell us whatever "message" you are referring to, there.

I wouldn't think that was such a hard question:

In Judeo-Christian tradition, the story of the Flood symbolizes God’s punishment of sin among mankind. He decides to destroy all of man except for Noah and his family, because Noah alone among men had lived a life free from sin and evil. Noah and his descendants thus mark the beginning of a new relationship between God and man, with the rainbow symbolizing God’s promise not to flood again.

This ‘covenant’ paves the way for the New Testament and Jesus Christ, whose covenant with mankind will be even more pronounced, since Jesus will sacrifice himself for all humans, to redeem their sins.

It should be obvious, if one isn't obsessed with finding a way to make it a literal history. The story is older than Abraham, and it's found in earlier Babylonian texts where gos, annoyed at human disturbance kill all of them off, but save a few so they can continue to make sacrifices to them.

But the story in the Bible connects it to the action of the one God, concerned with the spread of evil among men, and saving one good man and his family because He continues to love humans, not saving them for His own satisfaction.

I assumed all Christians understood the lesson of the story.

 

[Barbarian]

So, according to you, 1) Shem's relations with his wife were incestuous, 2) Ham's relations with his wife were incestuous, and 3) Japheth's relations with his wife were incestuous? Let's hear your "proof" for those asinine, Bible-despising claims.

I suppose he's thinking of the next generation, where eveyone would be reproducing with their own cousins. Which is not considered incest or is at least not illegal in all jurisdictions.

Cousin marriage law in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

However, inbreeding would pretty quickly become a fitness and health issue, absent some sort of intervention by God.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The flood certainly was not worldwide, nor does the Bible say it was.

What do you mean by "worldwide"?

And, by referring to the flood, you're admitting that the Genesis flood account is about the flood, and thus not an allegory.

The Bible doesn't say that, either.

The Bible doesn't say what? That the flood covered all the earth?

It merely says "land."

What merely says "land"? Please cite/quote whatever verse you are referring to by your pronoun, "it".

Which can mean a lot of things, but in Hebrew "the entire world" is "tebel."

In what English version(s) did you find your phrase, "the entire world"? Please quote/cite whatever verse(s) you're talking about.

But it could have been an allegory.

No, that's obviously false. Since no flood is an allegory, no flood could be an allegory. Since the Noahic flood was a flood, it was not, and could not have been an allegory.

Remember what a flood is: "an overflowing of a large amount of water beyond its normal confines, especially over what is normally dry land."

Remember what an allegory is: "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one."

Is a story, poem, or picture an overflowing of a large amount of water? Yes or No? (Correct answer: No.)
Is an overflowing of a large amount of water a story, poem, or picture? Yes or No? (Correct answer: No.)

Thus, even you can see that since every flood is an overflowing of a large amount of water, no flood is, or could be, an allegory.

Also, why do you keep choosing to say "But it COULD HAVE BEEN an allegory," and choosing to not say, instead, "But IT IS an allegory"? Do you think the Genesis flood account IS an allegory? Yes or No?

But there are allegories about floods.

Wait...aren't you claiming that the Genesis flood account is NOT about a flood, but instead, is an allegory for something that isn't a flood? So, what's your "point" in saying that some allegories ARE about floods? Kind of bizarre to say that a text that reads as though it were an account of a flood is allegory about a flood.

Genesis 6:17 reads as an account of a flood: "And, 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." But, according to you, it's an allegory about something that's not a flood. So, what's the "relevance" of saying "But there are allegories about floods"?

It really doesn't matter.

You already said that, but obviously you don't stand by that, since It obviously matters to you at least enough to have reacted to my post, now, doesn't it.

I think you're wrong.

So what? You said it really doesn't matter to you.

If it was an allegory,then the people who refuse to believe it are refusing to believe the Genesis flood account.

Which propositions are you saying they do not believe?

Why not just accept it as whatever God intended, and be done with it?

As what God intended, or as whatever you claim God intended?

God doesn't care if you think it's a real flood or an allegory.

Oh? Then why do you care about that? Why did you even react to my post?

If you focus on that, you're ignoring what He's telling you.

Then why are you focusing on that?

You've simply assumed that whoever agrees with you on this are the "Bible-believers."

I did not use sneer quotes when I stated the fact that they are the Bible-believers. Why did you?

Whoever believes the propositions that are God's Word, the Bible -- His historical account in Genesis of the Noahic flood He sent against antediluvian mankind -- are Bible-believers. To not believe those propositions is to fail to be a Bible-believer.

I happen to believe that the flood story is about a real event.

It's about the Noahic flood, the flood God sent against antediluvian mankind, killing all but eight men and women. Since you don't think the Genesis flood account is about the Noahic flood, then what event do you think it was about?

But those Bible-believing Christians who think it's an allegory just interpret it differently.

Those who say the Genesis flood account is not about the Noahic flood, but is instead an allegory, do not interpret it at all. To interpret is to give the meaning of a text. You are failing to give the meaning of the Genesis flood account, and thus, you are failing to interpret the Genesis flood account. For you to give something you claim is the meaning, but which is not the meaning, is for you to not interpret the Genesis flood account.

As you and I do.

I interpret it. You do not interpret it.

 

[Barbarian]

What do you mean by "worldwide"?

I mean that the flood, according to the Bible covered land but not the entere world.

And, by referring to the flood, you're admitting that the Genesis flood account is about the flood, and thus not an allegory.

I happen to think there was a flood, and it wasn't an allegory. Evidence supports a great flood in the Middle East at about the right time. However, I could be wrong.

The Bible doesn't say what? That the flood covered all the earth?

Right. If it meant the entire world, it would have said "tebel", not "eretz."

No, that's obviously false. Since no flood is an allegory, no flood could be an allegory.

But there can be allegories about floods. And of course, there can be allegories about things that really happened. So that's not very useful about determining a literal event.
It really doesn't matter.

You already said that, but obviously you don't stand by that, since It obviously matters to you at least enough to have reacted to my post, now, doesn't it.

It doesn't matter as to one's salvation or to one's relationship with God. It's interesting to discuss, of course.
If it was an allegory,then the people who refuse to believe it are refusing to believe the Genesis flood account. But as I said, it doesn't really matter. God doesn't care what you think of the flood story. Your salvation doesn't depend on your opinion.

I did not use sneer quotes when I stated the fact that they are the Bible-believers. Why did you?

Because I was using your term. So I made it clear that I was quoting you.

Whoever believes the propositions that are God's Word, the Bible -- His historical account in Genesis of the Noahic flood He sent against antediluvian mankind -- are Bible-believers.

Unless you're wrong in your assumption of what He says, and then Christians who see the flood as an allegory are Bible-believers, and you and I are wrong. As I said, it doesn't matter.

Those who say the Genesis flood account is not about the Noahic flood, but is instead an allegory, do not interpret it at all. To interpret is to give the meaning of a text. You are failing to give the meaning of the Genesis flood account, and thus, you are failing to interpret the Genesis flood account.

You've merely assumed your particular assumption is "interpretation", while the opinions of others are not. Again, unless you make a idol of your opinion, God doesn't care.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I suppose he's thinking of the next generation, where eveyone would be reproducing with their own cousins. Which is not considered incest or is at least not illegal in all jurisdictions.

Cousin marriage law in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

However, inbreeding would pretty quickly become a fitness and health issue, absent some sort of intervention by God.

If sexual relations between cousins were the definition of incest, then sexual relations between, say, mother and son, or brother and sister, or father and daughter would not be incest. Since sexual relations between father and daughter are not sexual relations between cousins, and so on. Virtually nobody ever seems to even bother to so much as refer to a dictionary before they begin saying that this or that is incest.

Incest: "sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other."
OED's definition of incest seems to make your phrase, "not considered incest", redundant. I say that because of the word, 'classed', already in the definition:

"Which is not considered [sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other]"

Your "considered", there, seems rendered superfluous by the fact of "classed" being already part of the definition, so that it would be better to say, instead: "Which is not [sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other]". I mean, I doubt you would want to mean therein that one party is considering, and that another party is classing.

The thing, though, about the OED definition I have quoted is that, though it seems good as far as it goes, it leaves open the question, "Classed BY WHOM as being too closely related to marry each other?"

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I mean that the flood, according to the Bible covered land but not the entere world.

Well, besides the land, what else are you denoting within your phrase, "the entire world"? I mean, minus the land, what would be the remainder of your "the entire world"?

I happen to think there was a flood, and it wasn't an allegory. Evidence supports a great flood in the Middle East at about the right time. However, I could be wrong.

Interesting. Well, so, are you saying that the Genesis flood account reads as though it is an account of a flood that covered all the earth, but that you take it not to be so, but rather, to be an allegory of a flood that did not cover all, but only some of the earth? Like, that the allegorization you posit is not using the image of a flood as a symbol for something that is not a flood, but is, instead, using the image of a flood of immense magnitude as a symbol for a flood of far smaller magnitude?

(Looking forward to reading and responding to the remainder of your post as soon as possible. You're all right, Barbarian -- never been boring wrangling with you.)

 

[sandyj]

The level of knowledge you guys have when debating is mind blowing. I must remember to get some popcorn watching this continue

 

[Barbarian]

Well, besides the land, what else are you denoting within your phrase, "the entire world"? I mean, minus the land, what would be the remainder of your "the entire world"?

You still don't get it. "Land" means some ground. Could be "my land", "this nation (ertetz Israel)", "hereabouts", or whatever. "Tebel" means "the whole world." Which is why God said "land" not "whole world."

And, by referring to the flood, you're admitting that the Genesis flood account is about the flood, and thus not an allegory.

Actually, I don't know for sure, but given that there was a large flood in the Middle East about the right time, and it went into the Mountains of Ararat (Not the much-later-named Mt. Ararat), I believe there was an actual flood. Doesn't matter; that's not what the lesson is about.

Interesting. Well, so, are you saying that the Genesis flood account reads as though it is an account of a flood that covered all the earth,

No, I'm pointing out that God does not say it covered the entire Earth. It reads as though it were a regional flood.

Like, that the allegorization you posit is not using the image of a flood as a symbol for something that is not a flood, but is, instead, using the image of a flood of immense magnitude as a symbol for a flood of far smaller magnitude?

Don't focus on the things men added; focus on the lesson.

(Looking forward to reading and responding to the remainder of your post as soon as possible. You're all right, @Barbarian -- never been boring wrangling with you.)

Iron sharpens iron.

 

[Barbarian]

"Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?"

Give us a testable biological definition of "human" and "non-human." Depends on what you mean by those terms.

 

[Barbarian]

If sexual relations between cousins were the definition of incest, then sexual relations between, say, mother and son, or brother and sister, or father and daughter would not be incest.

" sexual intercourse between closely related persons."

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Personally, I think all of these would be incest, but some states don't regard it as so. Cousin marriage is permitted in some of them. Interestingly, Arkansas is not a state that permits it. Take that, Yankees!

Incest: "sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other."
OED's definition of incest seems to make your phrase, "not considered incest", redundant. I say that because of the word, 'classed', already in the definition:

That's a legal definition. Which is somewhat different. If a state permitted marriage of brother and sister, would that then cease to be incest?

I'm told the word in Japanese literally is "a beautiful view of a close relative."

Bottom line; cousin marriage is a really bad idea, because it is very likely that offspring would have two copies of harmful recessive genes, and suffer genetic disorders.

It is interesting to note that species that do frequently inbreed, have few harmful recessives. For the obvious reason; natural selection quickly kills off lines that have them.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You still don't get it. "Land" means some ground.

Well, no, it really doesn't. "Land" is a word, and words don't mean things. Only sayers of words (and only sometimes) mean things, and they do so by means of the words they choose to say. Words are not sayers of words, and words do not say themselves. Words just kind of sit there passively, silently, waiting for somebody to use them, and perhaps mean something by them.

So, what you have to do is cite/quote whatever Scripture passage(s) you have in mind, in which you are controversially claiming the Author used the word "land" to mean "only some, but not all land", and then try to prove to those of us who do not share your assumptions about, and very low view of the Bible, that He means what you assume He means, and doesn't mean "all the land". But, since you already stated that it really doesn't matter to you, you thereby already provided your convenient "excuse" for why (as you know) you will not be proving that: "It's not that I can't prove He doesn't mean ALL the land, it's just that it really doesn't matter to me; I could prove it if I wanted!"