[_ Old Earth _] The Reliability of the Whole Bible Depends on Genesis as History

[stovebolts]

To take the idea of a parable and do what your doing is to bastardize scripture.

yeah, yeah, yeah,...

Anyone who see the intent different than you is bastardizing while your interpretations should have prominence in any discussion simply because you have a large and traditional medieval way of explaining the parable, in spite it is NOT a metaphor that can be shown to correspond exactly to what you attribute the author to be talking about.

You actually end up with a myth after explaining your metaphor, because the details are surrealistic and irrational when you finish.

You will see a local flood, not one under the whole heavens.
You will see water pilled up 5 miles to the mountain tops.
You will see a boat carrying the physical animal both extinct and alive now into the last 4000 years for the first time.

You oppose a rational supporting version of the Bible for magic, myth, and made up things that are illogical.
Why?

Isn't religion better when Science supports genesis?

It's not about seeing something different than me. It's about seeing what is clear and concise. Science can be used to support a global flood, but to my point, nowhere will you find hint that the flood was a Mashal. To call the flood a Mashal goes against all Jewish thought and the plain reading of scripture. Even Peter believed the flood to be global.

Furthermore, to state that the flood was a local flood says that Peter didn't know what he was talking about. And if Peter was wrong on this, what else was he wrong on? Do you see where this leads?

 

[Sparkey]

To the one who ignores the command, "Love God First," the only judgment that may be made is relative. Compared to whom? To self or others who are admired, or compared self and to those who are not admired. It (all judgment of man) is therefore ALL relative. This path may seem right (certainly it would in the sight of the one who can do nothing but look through their own eye) but it leads to destruction. Seek God first.

 

[cupid dave]

1) Furthermore, to state that the flood was a local flood says that Peter didn't know what he was talking about. And if Peter was wrong on this, what else was he wrong on?

2) Do you see where this leads?

Agreed.

2) So we have three views here.

A] There are those people who understand the Flood story to be local and that removes a great deal of the argument against a world-wide flood that rose up to the height of mountains.

B] There are those people who insist that story specifically reports that the Earth was covered totally by water everywhere.

C] And, there is this view that the "flood" was not water, but modern man who flooded out-of-Africa and covered the whole earth up to the tops of the mountains.



In spite of the defense/objections of the first two views above, and the reluctance of those supporting those views to change their own OPINION in regard to how they understand Genesis, the third Theistic Evolution point of view presents science based arguments for the Noah's Ark story that are valid.

1) The correspondence between those science facts and Genesis include the congruency between the 22 links , in both cases, to the ascent of the three racial stocks of Noah's three sons.

2) These three are reported in Genesis as the stock that produced the Table of Nation enumerated in Genesis.

3) Prior to the flood, the now recognized hybridization with Neanderthals is accounted for in Gen 6:4.

4) The total extinction of all mankind except the modern people living today finds paleontological support as well.

5) That genetic evidence now confirms all people now living had a common ancestor, a man whose Y-chromosome we all carry today, supports a Noah, and coincidentally, dates to @40 thousand years of "days and nights" ago.

6) Another previous genetic discover of what was misnomered as "Mitochondria Eve" who lived 150-200,000 years ago supports Gen 5:31 which tells us that Noah had three sons 100,000 years before the "flood", the three racial stocks of Modern Homo sapiens.

7) These correspondences between the Science facts and Genesis are used to support the view that the Noah tale did happen, and was reported by divine revelation in Genesis. The validation of verses such as those which tell us that "a day is a thousand years to the lord," the genealogy of 22 links to modern man, and that the first man and woman were a species called Adam (Gen 5:2) give scriptural support to holding this view, regardless of the protest from those holding different opinions.

 

[Sparkey]

And, there is this view that the "flood" was not water, but modern man who flooded out-of-Africa and covered the whole earth up to the tops of the mountains.

So we see the fountains of the deep and the people there flood out from the depths and we also see the rain contributing to the floods of men whom you have 'synthesized' and conflated together in your OPINION, as expressed here, and we see the scientific thoughts of modern thinkers whom we hold in high esteem. But do we see their specific agreement to these concepts and images [as expressed here by you] as fact?

Furthermore, to state [other than what the Bible states] [also states] that Peter didn't know what he was talking about. And if Peter was wrong on this, what else was he wrong on? Do you see where this leads?

1) Furthermore, to state [anything different than what the Bible states] [also states] that Peter didn't know what he was talking about. And if Peter was wrong on this, what else was he wrong on?

2) Do you see where this leads?

Agreed.

You are trivializing scripture as well as diminishing its credibility.

Now enters your statement made in another thread. This statement speaks to the elephant in this room:

I am a synthesis between the theological dialectic of our times, Science Vs Ancient Genesis interpretations.

Do we see the elephant?

U C D LFN?

I C D

LFN.

Sparrow's thought: . o O (I C D LFN = 'I see the elephant'.) :toofunny

There is an old story that has been around for a long time and told with many variations to the moral of the story and so today this story sums up part of what is seen here between some of our brothers and sisters in our community.

One day three blind men encountered an elephant.

Upon touching the elephant's tail, the first blind man exclaimed, "I declare, an elephant is exactly like a rope."

The second blind man, bumping into the elephant’s side, said, "No sir, you are wrong. An elephant is exactly like a wall."

Then the third, having grasped the elephant's trunk, declared, "You are both mistaken. The elephant is exactly like a snake!"

Yes, it's all a matter of perspective. And it's that simple word, perspective, that creates one of the biggest disconnects between us and the community we are together trying to serve.

So then, if you can see the elephant, see now also the lions.

 

[stovebolts]

So then, if you can see the elephant, see now also the lions.

seems to me a story where somebody was thrown into the lions den... He seemed to fair pretty well through it all if memory serves me well. As for the ones who suggested he be put there, well now, that's a different story :D

 

[Sparkey]

So then, if you can see the elephant, see now also the lions.

seems to me a story where somebody was thrown into the lions den... He seemed to fair pretty well through it all if memory serves me well. As for the ones who suggested he be put there, well now, that's a different story :D

True that! See Genesis 49:8-10 and Rev 5:5 for the clue.

Genesis 49:8–10
8 “Judah, you are he whom your brothers shall praise; Deut 33:7; Rev 5:5
Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Ps 18:40
Your father’s children shall bow down before you. Gen 27:29; 1 Chr 5:2
9 Judah is a lion’s whelp; Deut 33:22; Ezek 19:5–7; Mic 5:8; [Rev 5:5]
From the prey, my son, you have gone up.
He bows [couches] down, he lies down as a lion; Num 23:24;24:9
And as a lion, who shall rouse him?
10 The scepter [A symbol of kingship] shall not depart from Judah, Num 24:17; Jer 30:21; Matt 1:3;2:6; Luke 3:33; [Rev 5:5]
Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Ps 60:7
Until Shiloh comes; Isa 11:1; Matt 21:9
And to Him shall be the obedience of the people. Deut 18:15; Ps 2:6–9;72:8–11; Isa 42:1,4;49:6;60:1–5; Luke 2:30–32

The New King James Version

 

[cupid dave]

One day three blind men encountered an elephant.

Upon touching the elephant's tail, the first blind man exclaimed, "I declare, an elephant is exactly like a rope."

The second blind man, bumping into the elephant’s side, said, "No sir, you are wrong. An elephant is exactly like a wall."

Then the third, having grasped the elephant's trunk, declared, "You are both mistaken. The elephant is exactly like a snake!"

This story makes sense when the number of men are closer to 12.

I believe that Jesus intentionally chose a dozen different types of men, using what today would be a psychological inventory to accomplish that job.
We would base the choices upon such Psychology Tests as The Meyers/Briggs Type Test, the Richard Cattle Type Inventory, or my preference, the Luscher Color Test.

What Jesus was doing was talking to the whole Brain when he addressed his idea to these twelve different kinds of thinkers, each man see a part of what Jesus meant from his own genetically formed human perspective.
This way of looking at how we come to find what is True, as a group, all working together and gathered in the name of seeking Truth, is expressed today by the formation of the twelve major mainstream denominational Christian churches.
These twelve major churches all hold slightly different views in regard to scripture, and what the perceive to understand after intense study:

Ecumenicalism is the final step we await when the Lion of Judah appears in the midst and opens the book with these seven seals in such a way that all denominations turn to one insight and meaning.

4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

 

[Sparkey]

This way of looking at how we come to find what is True, as a group, all working together and gathered in the name of seeking Truth

I would seek to 'gather in the Name of Jesus'. Having said that, I am familiar with The Meyers/Briggs Personality Type test, with the concepts behind the 16 'flavors" that are often described, the more ancient thoughts about the "elements" of wind, water, earth and fire, as well as other such tests to reveal the preferred learning styles of students and to assist the business man (and others) while helping to communicate with compassion from a position of informed understanding. Frankly? I like 'em. I've not previously heard of "Richard Cattle Type Inventory, or your preference, the Luscher Color Test," but will likely travel out into the Land of Google to explore them too.

You speak of the Reveal of Jesus to John on the isle when you mention Ecumenicism. I am stopped in my tracks when I consider the phrase, "The Wrath of the Lamb." What is this? Can we even imagine such a thing? A Lamb, filled with wrath? He is The Lion. He is The Lamb. Can we imagine that meek one coming and the wrath of the Lamb? And yet, so it will be. So no. I will not gather in the "name of seeking Truth". There is one name and one name only unto whom every knee shall bow. This name is not Moses; it is not Elijah; it is not 'sparrow'. That name is the Name of the Lamb of God the very one promised, that one who is coming with our reward 'in his hand'. The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." Let those who hear their voice say, "Come."

 

[Adam]

We would base the choices upon such Psychology Tests as The Meyers/Briggs Type Test, the Richard Cattle Type Inventory, or my preference, the Luscher Color Test

It isn't for us to do the choosing, so it does not matter what "we" would base our choices on. However, I highly doubt Jesus would use a mood ring to choose his disciples.

 

[cupid dave]

There is one name and one name only unto whom every knee shall bow.

True.


Mat 18:20

For where two or three are gatheredtogether in my name (Truth: [ John 14:6]), there am I, (Truth),in the midst of them.



"I am the Truth" is the Word which once and for all has been delivered to the saints, a rose by another name no withstanding.

 

[cupid dave]

Frankly? I like 'em. I've not previously heard of "Richard Cattle Type Inventory, or your preference, the Luscher Color Test," but will likely travel out into the Land of Google to explore them too.

By urim and thummim, here they are...

 

[Adam]

Sir, you are disguising and manipulating someone else's work. This is a bait and switch for your own obsession with this disorganized form.

Cattell never presented a chart like this. Furthermore, you have altered his factors to mean that 4 of these traits are derivatives of the other 12 when they are not. Cattell's factor traits are 16. Neither does he concur with or even mention Democritus in his body of work.

 

[cupid dave]

It is interesting and perhaps scientifically invaluable to notice that the classification of Mental Illness is supportive of these Personality Inventories which becomes more obvious when the ideas are Graphically Organized the same way:

Of interest is the growing evidence that Mental Illness is genetically source, which suggests that the personality likewise if sources within the Tree of Life, as if 12 manner of fruit issues monthly from the pregnancies of the human race, i.e.; Rev 22:1.

(NOTE: The colors are related to another Psychological Inventory created and developed by Max Luscher whch is widely used in Europe for Industrial Psychology)

 

[Adam]

It is really not useful to try to force everything into 12. The relationships are invalid and your information is incomplete.

I am also curious as to why you are designated DSM-III-R classifications as "current."

 

[Sparkey]

Ahhh... cd? I can not help but notice the upside down copyright notice, "All rights reserved by The Kohf Co" contained within the graphic you have used.

Do you have a link so that I may back-trace your image, please?