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

[Barbarian]

how would i know Genesis is a history, and that none of the words mean what is written it is just allegory?""

It could easily be an allegory about an historical event, and thereby be both. I happen to think it was an actual event. Notice the Babylonians put their own allegory to it, involving numerous gods and a different lesson entirely. God used the same language and poetic structure to teach quite a different (and true) lesson.

Which doesn't mean that there wasn't a great flood on which both stories were based.

 

[Barbarian]

Creation of man means creation of man, not evolution of man.

You've confused your body with your living soul. Man was brought forth by the Earth as other animals were. But:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

the flood covering all the earth means all the earth, not a part of the earth.

Here, you assumed what you proposed to prove. As you now see, God says "land" not the whole Earth.

If Genesis is allegory, then it is an open allegory.

If you think so, you aren't paying attention to the lesson therein. The text itself says it's not a literal history.

 

[Free]

So, by your word, "mean", you're not referring to any volitional or intellectual activity? Do words think?

Words have accepted definitions, although they can change over time. It’s how we are able to communicate and understand each other. It’s why you’re using the words you’re using and not using other words. If words have no meaning, then we are not actually understanding each other at this moment and you have no idea what I’m saying.

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
Now we are arguing what "all the land" means.

Genesis 7:19-20 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Why is it impossible for the Bible to just mean what it says?

" . . . and the mountains were covered."

If you have to do the math, Mount Ararat, where thr Arc landed, is about 17,000 feet.
So the flood had to get at least that high.
The tree line, the point at which nothing will grow is about 13,000-14,000'.
The highest current human settlements are either in Peru, or Nepal at over 16,000'.
Man, plant or beast does not permanently live above about 16,000'.
Liquid water only remains permanently liquid to about the 19,000' level.
The permanent snow line, at which snow does not fully melt, and covers the ground continuously all year, is about 19,000'.
And what is snow?
Really really cold water.
If moisture remained water, and covered the whole earth, that water would freeze.
There would be 2-3 miles of ice above the liquid water.
And it would not evaporate faster than it was replaced by new ice.
Geologically, would not the earth become a permanent ice world?

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If words have no meaning,

I did not say "words have no meaning". I said "words do not mean things".

 

[Free]

I did not say "words have no meaning". I said "words do not mean things".

Is there a difference?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Is there a difference?

Between what and what? Between A) saying "words have no meaning" and B) saying "words don't mean things"? One difference between A and B is that, as I already pointed out, whereas I did B, I did not do A.

 

[Barbarian]

yes. this is why Genesis is not an allegory that can mean anything.

The point is that the text itself tells you that it's not a literal history. It's not just the poetic form.

On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose. Cassuto (1:11 [1961]), Loretz (1975) and Kselman (1978) have all pointed to poetic bicola or tricola in Gen 1, while admitting that most of the material is prose. It is possible that these poetic fragments go back to an earlier form of the creation account, though, as Cassuto observes, "it is simpler to suppose … the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry" (1:11).

Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament. It invites comparison with the psalms that praise God‘s work in creation (e.g., 8, 136, 148) or with passages such as Prov 8:22–31 or Job 38 that reflect on the mystery of God‘s creativity. It is indeed a great hymn, setting out majestically the omnipotence of the creator, but it surpasses these other passages in the scope and comprehensiveness of vision. In that it is elevated prose, not pure poetry, it seems unlikely that it was used as a song of praise as the psalms were. Rather, in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeeding narratives.

Genesis 1-15, Volume 1​

By Gordon John Wenham (available as E-book)

But the form also mentions mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. This is why theologians and Bible scholars recognize that it is not a literal history.

Creation of man means creation of man, not evolution of man.

Our bodies are the result of evolution, but as God points out, He directly gives each of the breath of life that makes us a living soul. You aren't your body. You have a body.

the flood covering all the earth means all the earth, not a part of the earth.

As you know, it doesn't say it covered all of the Earth. That's a modern revision to His word.

All other allegories in the Bible i know of are closed allegories, ie God says what they mean.

All allegories say what they mean. I don't think you've thought about this very well. My opinion is that the flood actually happened. But I could be wrong. Doesn't matter to one's salvation, unless one makes an idol of one's opinion. Be careful not to do that.

 

[Barbarian]

I'll give this for Barb to chew on, since he hasnt given any solid rebuttal to the Bible verses that i gave

18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 So all creatures that moved on the earth perished: birds, livestock, animals, and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 So He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from mankind to animals, to crawling things, and the birds of the sky, and they were wiped out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24 The water prevailed upon the earth for 150 days.

This is how we know it can't be worldwide. The text uses "eretz" (land) not "tebel" (entire world).

 

[Barbarian]

I noticed the strategy Barb used.
Set my statment up as if it refers to me and not him.
It is the one who denies the planetwide flood & sells evilution, who shifts, NOT me.

I just see a lot of people accusing others of things they do. I'm making it clear I wasn't suggesting you were up to that. Wasn't trying to get a reaction out of you.

Since I accept God's word as it is, I realize the flood wasn't global, and since we observe evolution going on in populations everywhere (remember what biological evolution is), it would be intellectually dishonest of me to say otherwise.

 

[Barbarian]

In this discussion, we need to realize the difference between "eretz" (land) and "tebel" (whole world). If God used "eretz", that is evidence for a regional flood. If He used "tebel", it's evidence for a worldwide flood.

And God used "eretz." Words mean things.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You aren't your body. You have a body.

Ah, so only something Jesus had was crucified, but He, Himself, was not crucified?

Only something Jesus had was resurrected on the third day, whereas Jesus never rose from the grave?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

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"

That's the usual use.

So, Genesis 1:1-2 should be read: "In the beginning God created the heaven and [some, but not all the earth]. And [some, but not all the earth] was without form and void"?

---

Words Mean Things – I Timothy 3:1-13​

Words Mean Things - I Timothy 3:1-13

Someone we know often uses the phrase: “Words mean things.” As a Bible teacher, he goes through a passage emphasizing key words, and aids the understanding of those he teaches, by defining words. Particularly when coming to instruction that some of us may resist because it challenges previously held

bereanbiblesociety.org

Someone we know often uses the phrase: "Words mean things."

What's your "point"? Doubtless lots of people like to chant that silly pop slogan. Another well-known slogan is "Soup that eats like a meal"; so, do you also wish to tell us that soup eats? When you buy a can of soup, do you also by some extra food for it to eat before you eat it? What's your favorite soup's favorite soup?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If a state permitted marriage of brother and sister, would that then cease to be incest?

Would what cease to be incest? To what are you referring by your pronoun, "that"? Marriage? Marriage has never been, and never will be, incest, so obviously marriage will never cease to be incest. You get that, right? Something cannot, and thus does not, cease being what it is not -- you get that? For example, someone's dog, Fred: Fred will always be a dog, and he will never be an elephant; therefore, Fred can never cease being an elephant. In order to cease being an elephant, Fred would first need to cease being a dog, and to start being an elephant.

Also, no incest ever ceases to be incest. Incest is always incest, whether or not some state(s) claim it is not.

The state assumes marriage entails sexual relations.

What do you mean? That people are married, or shall be married, does not entail that they have had, or shall have, sexual relations. Perhaps most people who are married, or shall be married, have had, or shall have, sexual relations. But that they have had/shall have sexual relations is not entailed by the fact that they are/shall be married.

Lot and his daughters?

What about them?

Thing is, incest isn't just immoral. Like most things God prohibits, it leads to unhappiness and pain. Genetically, humans just can't do it for generations without severe consequences.

True.

 

[Barbarian]

So, Genesis 1:1-2 should be read: "In the beginning God created the heaven and [some, but not all the earth]. And [some, but not all the earth] was without form and void"?

Rather, God created heaven and the world.

What's your "point"? Doubtless lots of people like to chant that silly pop slogan. Another well-known slogan is "Soup that eats like a meal"; so, do you also wish to tell us that soup eats? When you buy a can of soup, do you also by some extra food for it to eat before you eat it? What's your favorite soup's favorite soup?

So when someone tells you that their new car rides really well, you assume that the car is riding on something else? Really?

But the fact is, if you don't use words as they are commonly used in the appropriate context, you'll always be confusing people.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You quoted a line from my short dialogue at the bottom of my posts:

Rationally-thinking person: "Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?"
Darwinist: "Your question cannot really be answered straightforwardly yes or no."
Rationally-thinking person: "Sure it can be straightforwardly, and correctly, answered NO...but only by rationally-thinking people."

Ha! That's pretty good! I actually forgot that was there! I guess people really do sometimes read those things. When you quoted it in your post, you for some reason didn't tag me at Paul E. Michael, and I thus got no systematic notification that you had quoted it. So, I'd not have known about it except it happened to catch my eye while I was scrolling, and I immediately recognized the question as something I'd written at some time or another. It's a great question, for sure!

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

LOL

Words mean things

Oops! I guess your "Words mean things!!!" mantra just up and flew out the window. Suddenly, lo and behold!, apparently you don't think words ("terms") mean things -- at least in this case. Why ask me what I mean by those words, since you insist that words, themselves, mean things? Why not just ask those words to tell you what they mean?

What I mean by the word -- the noun -- "human", though, is a human. (I, for one, would not use the word "human" to refer to something that isn't a human. Wouldn't you, also, by the word "human", mean a human? Or, instead, by the word "human", would you choose to mean a non-human -- just for, like, some sort of joke, or maybe to sound cryptic or backwards? Or, perhaps you wouldn't even call anything "human", in the first place?

And, what I mean by the word "non-human" is anything that is not a human.

OK, so, again, here's the simple, Yes/No question that's apparently confusing you and has you tongue-tied so as not to be able to answer it: Has any human ever been born to a non-human? Yes or No?

Like I said in the little footer dialogue on my posts, the correct answer to that easy, Yes/No question is NO: No human has ever been born to a non-human.

If you'd call anything "human", and if you'd call anything "non-human", has anything you'd call "human" ever been born to anything you'd call "non-human"? Yes or No?

 

[Barbarian]

Perhaps most people who are married, or shall be married, have had, or shall have, sexual relations.

Ya think?

Oops! I guess your "Words mean things!!!" mantra just up and flew out the window. Suddenly, lo and behold!, apparently you don't think words ("terms") mean things -- at least in this case. Why ask me what I mean by those words, since you insist that words, themselves, mean things? Why not just ask those words to tell you what they mean?

"Human" has a scientific meaning, which may or may not be the same meaning to people otherwise. I'm just asking you for a testable definition of "human" so that I can answer the question. If you're uncomfortable with defining the term, then that's another issue.

Do you consider any member of the genus Homo to be human? Specifically, is H. erectus human? How about H. neanderthalis or H. heidelbergensis? H. antecessor? For each, why or why not? If you don't think all members of Homo are human, then the evidence shows that humans evolved from non-humans.

The problem is that it's just about impossible to distinguish between late H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens. So you need to clarify what you mean by "human." If on the other hand, you think all members of Homo are human (you'd be correct to think so), then give us a testable way to distinguish Homo from other hominids in the fossil record.

Let's put a little more light onto this. Cheetahs and lions are very different members of panthera. They are more different from each other than humans are from other apes. Creationists geneally think all of the "cat kind" evolved from a pair taken on the Ark by Noah. So the question is, "Has any lion ever been born to a non-lion?" If you think so, then yes, a human was once born to a non-human. If not, what's wrong with the creationist notion that all of those cats have a common ancestor?

Let me know what you think. It's a simple question. If you hesitate, it's understandable. You see, an anatomically modern human would not have been born to an earlier hominid. Nor would an anatomically modern lion have been born fully lionized from an earlier cat. As creationists seem to understand, it was a gradual process with one lineage becoming more "lionlike" over time.
We see that process producing anatomically modern humans as well. A gradual process, with early humans becoming more and more like anatomically modern humans.

Let me know about those lions.

 

[Barbarian]

Ah, so only something Jesus had was crucified, but He, Himself, was not crucified?

He died on the cross. You think only His body was affected? Really?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Ya think?

Why yes, I do. As a matter of fact, that's why I said it. So, what's your "point"?

My point was that it would be foolish to mistake marriage for sexual relations; wouldn't you agree with that point? Marriage is not sexual relations/sexual relations are not marriage. I needed to point out that fact for you, because you seemed to be mistaking marriage (which is not sexual relations) for incest (which is sexual relations). Do you get it now?

And my other point was that it would be foolish to think that the fact that people have married/shall marry entails that they have had/shall have sexual relations; wouldn't you agree with that point? I mean, that two, just-married virgins could die in a traffic collision en route to their honeymoon destination -- that, alone, entails that it is false that the fact that people have married/shall marry entails that they have had/shall have sexual relations.

So, I take your sarcastic "Ya think?" reaction to be your concession that even you knew you were not gonna get any satisfaction out of further pursuing the confused, erroneous, self-doomed course of thinking, down which you had started.

I'm just asking you for a testable definition of "human" so that I can answer the question.

I beg your pardon, but it seems to me that what you're doing is just blowing smoke in my face to try to hide the fact that you prefer to continue stonewalling against answering a simple, easy Yes/No question that even children could easily answer correctly:

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

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER. INSTEAD, MERELY POMPOUS, VACUOUS, DARWINISTSPEAK SONG AND DANCE.>

The Bible Truth (which, sadly, you despise and reject) is that the parents of every human ever born are humans. And the first human parents, Adam and Eve, were not born, and are the earliest ancestors of all other humans.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You aren't your body. You have a body.

• Was Jesus crucified? Yes or No?
• Did the Romans drive nails through Jesus? Yes or No?
• Or, instead, did the Romans drive nails through something Jesus has, but without driving nails through Jesus? Yes or No?

Clearly one must be egregiously wrong and confused (if not outright heterodox?) to say that The Resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is NOT His Body. Wouldn't you agree?