|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So you not only reject the traditional understanding of the first verses of Genesis but the whole account of the Flood. Instead of reinterpreting the science to fit God's word you turn God's word into a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My mistake. I was thinking of Abraham, and Shem who was still alive in Abraham's time, whose reports were of course oral, and handed down to Moses. Eyewitness account by Shem nevertheless, which Abraham would have heard, though they didn't write it into the scripture.
I've added a correction to that statement in the post Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Kbertsche mentioned a book titled Grand Canyon Monument to an Ancient Earth (obviously playing off creationist Steve Austin's earlier book, Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe.) I just reread the first few pages.
This book needs a rigorous debunking but if I'm going to do it that will have to wait. I have two complaints to make here:
I see I have notes in the margins for pages to come. I think I'll be rereading it for a while, if I can stomach it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I believe it was actually Gregory the Great (a pope) who is first known to have equated the claim to be universal bishop with the antichrist. Yes, I'd forgotten that, thanks for the reminder.
. Phocas' recognition of the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church should be understood in terms of the struggle for dominance between the Roman Bishop and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The establishment of a formal church hierarchy was already long complete by this point - now they were just fighting over who was in charge. The title "Universal Bishop" seems to have been a major turning point. There was already deviation from the true doctrine before that and it kept on accumulating afterward. But all of this jockeying for position is utterly contrary to the spirit of Christ and deserves the Pope the title Antichrist. the Reformers were very serious about that title, they proved it in various ways from scripture that the Pope really IS the Antichrist the scripture says will come.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Dating is not "real-world evidence." Sure it is! It is very fine evidence. Its too bad you won't allow yourself to accept it, as it is our key to understanding the past. I have a better source of knowledge about the past, but the point about your dating methods is that they are confined to the present and their application to the past is all pure conjecture. Granted it "makes sense" but there is really no way to verify it and as I said I have a better method that says it's wrong.
Without dating we are stuck with old folk myths about the past. I think it is way beyond the time that you should be allowed to refer to the Bible as a myth the way you do. That is not your call, and there's no point as a debate tactic either. You can't win the debate by declaring your opponent's premise a myth. It is also unproductive to keep repeating your main, or one and only, argument from dating methods. For a Biblical Creationist the Bible is a trustworthy witness to the past and anything that contradicts it is necessarily false. What's "too bad" is that you so doggedly reject the only reliable source of truth on this planet. There are many of us who started out with your notions and came to recognize the Bible as a supernatural revelation of The Truth. For your sake it would be great if you also came to the same conclusion but nobody is requiring it of you. What SHOULD be required here is the basic respect for a belief system you don't share, as per Rule 10. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
A question. How is declaring the Flood story a myth different from your assertion that it is a reliable historical account ? And how is it worse than your rejection of the evidence confirming the reliability of scientific dating methods ? Let me see if I can make the point clearer. It's become a broken record that doesn't further the debate in the slightest. We've been exchanging the same opinions over and over but this can never go anywhere because they are basic premises that aren't going to be changed. They are just being asserted rather than used in the argument to any real purpose. It's just a huge waste of time to keep getting this same old same old stuff about the Bible being a myth and dating methods being the last word on the discussion. Or jar's endless carrying on about his ridiculous interpretations of the Bible. Or my statements about the absurdity of the OE/ToE assumptions or that the Bible's dates trump the dating methods. They can be stated as a conclusion from an argument but too often they are just stated over and over and over and over and over in the place of an argument. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What would really help is if you could describe geologic features that your model could NOT produce. But that could be asked of your model too. The real issue isn't that either model can't account for this or that but that we dispute the validity of the theories on both sides that account for this or that. And that's the whole debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The topic is the Flood, not the validity of the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So name the "best exegetes" of Protestant theology between AD 500 and 1500. Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, William Tyndale There really aren't any Protestant theologians during that period so basically I skip it in my list of exegetes; but there were inspiring true Christian leaders and preachers, most of them concerned to spread the gospel in the people's languages since Rome had forbidden it, and they had to do it under the threat of RCC murderous attacks on "heresies." Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, William Tyndale are a few of the "heretics." Hus was burned at the stake, so was Tyndale, Wycliffe managed to escape but he'd made the RCC so furious that after his death they dug up his bones and burned them and threw them in the river. I don't know how Waldo died. He was mainly a preacher associated with the Waqldensians who were a Christian group that hid in the valleys of the Alps from the RCC. He is wrongly considered to have founded that sect, he was simply a prominent member of it. The name Waldensian comes from a word for valley IIRC not from Waldo. They'd lived in the Alps for a long time before Waldo showed up. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You so cleverly miss the point. The Bible is assumed as the premise of a creationist argument for the Flood; that is why I say we shouldn't have to keep asserting our premises.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But that's like arguing aerodynamics with a pilot. When you don't know what you're talking about, your opinion doesn't need to be counted. Then there is no debate you see. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In that case we need to invoke Rule 10 against you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't think that you can fairly ask us to stop using strong evidence just because you point blank refuse to accept it. It's just repetitive assertions, and yes I answser with my own repetitive assertions. What's the use of that? But I give up this line of reasoning anyway. It doesn't matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, I'm now taking the position that the Bible is evidence. It's God's word, it's the truth, it trumps all the contradictory dating claims. I see no point in repeating this basic conflict ad nauseam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1760 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What do you get out of your silly disruptive little word games?
No, I meant evidence for the argument t for the Flood of course. You had to make me say that? Why? What are you accomplishing with your little games?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025