The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

col_nicholson

Hi, first time post here...

J.C, I really think that thinking along the lines that you are, (i.e creationist) you really miss the whole point of the Bible. By interpreting a common narrative that is metaphorical, one that occurs in almost all ancient civilizations literature from that (broad) period (+ before it) with several variations really misses the entire point of the narrative. By your thought you obscure the Divine revelation in the Bible and to me the only question you should be asking is not why you believe what you believe, but why would you want to?

Sorry if some of this has been mentioned in the previous 300 pages!

J C

col_nicholson wrote:

Hi, first time post here...

J.C, I really think that thinking along the lines that you are, (i.e creationist) you really miss the whole point of the Bible. By interpreting a common narrative that is metaphorical, one that occurs in almost all ancient civilizations literature from that (broad) period (+ before it) with several variations really misses the entire point of the narrative. By your thought you obscure the Divine revelation in the Bible and to me the only question you should be asking is not why you believe what you believe, but why would you want to?

Sorry if some of this has been mentioned in the previous 300 pages!

So are YOU saying that the early chapters of Genesis are just another rehash of previous (widespread) alternative versions of the Creation Story......and therefore NOT the infallible Word of God.....upon which we can rely upon as the TRUE version of what ACTUALLY happened in and around the Creation of the Cosmos????

Such a conclusion would seem to RULE OUT the Divine revelation (of at least this section) of the Bible ????

.....and do you believe that all apparently historical accounts in the Bible are in fact, allegorical???

...and what is the point of the Genesis Narrative......if it doesn't give a true account of Creation and the Flood???

pH

col_nicholson wrote:

By interpreting a common narrative that is metaphorical, one that occurs in almost all ancient civilizations literature from that (broad) period (+ before it) with several variations really misses the entire point of the narrative.

What is the creation story in Genesis a metaphor for?

zod

JC,

If insects were allowed to survive by floating on various debris, were humans that had access to fishing boats etc allowed to survive, or would they have been struck down directly ?

Similarily did he strike down the birds (not on the ark) that would have been able to land on the floating debris ?

J C

zod wrote:

JC,

If insects were allowed to survive by floating on various debris, were humans that had access to fishing boats etc allowed to survive, or would they have been struck down directly ?

Similarily did he strike down the birds (not on the ark) that would have been able to land on the floating debris ?

The 'jury is out' on whether insects were on the Ark or not.
In any event, insects might survive as pupae or in otherwise dormant states in/on debris.......but birds would be washed off the debris by the huge waves of the Flood processes and drown ........while any small boats would have been swamped by these huge waves as well !!!

The only sufficiently large ocean-going vessel, at the time, that was capable of surviving the Flood, was the Ark......and it's scale was unsurpassed in Europe until The Great Eastern Liner during the mid-nineteenth Century

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

So are YOU saying that the early chapters of Genesis are just another rehash of previous (widespread) alternative versions of the Creation Story......and therefore NOT the infallible Word of God.....upon which we can rely upon as the TRUE version of what ACTUALLY happened in and around the Creation of the Cosmos????

Such a conclusion would seem to RULE OUT the Divine revelation (of at least this section) of the Bible ????

.....and do you believe that all apparently historical accounts in the Bible are in fact, allegorical???

...and what is the point of the Genesis Narrative......if it doesn't give a true account of Creation and the Flood???

I see - only two possibilities? Either it's the way you say, or it's all codswallop?

cordially,
Scofflaw

MooseJam

Hey the number of replies this thread has contains the number of the beast - 6666 replies !

zod

J C wrote:

The 'jury is out' on whether insects were on the Ark or not.
In any event, insects might survive as pupae or in otherwise dormant states in/on debris.......but birds would be washed off the debris by the huge waves of the Flood processes and drown ........while any small boats would have been swamped by these huge waves as well !!!

There are at least a million species of insect, if he collected 10 pairs a day it would take 270 years to collect them all do you think this could be feasable? If it is the insects must be long lived also.

Also all plant life is supposed to be as a result of the floating debris, huge waves of salt water crashing over it would have poisoned it surely ? Or do we have strange waves that kill birds (who it seems can't fly away during rough periods) but don't poison plants?

With regard to birds not on the ark like the albatross ( stay at sea for 5 years ) did he smite them ?

pH

J C wrote:

The 'jury is out' on whether insects were on the Ark or not.
In any event, insects might survive as pupae or in otherwise dormant states in/on debris.......

Noah must have been a genius knowing where to find the nymphs of the periodic cicadas (like the 13 and 17 year Magicicadas).

MooseJam

All the animals went to Noah, he didn't have to find any

passive

Wow... This is just... wow... This is real? How can this... oh dear... wow...

Dunno if this has been put up before.. but... http://xkcd.com/154/

Yeah, we have a problem...

Zombrex

J C wrote:

No……..but you seem to not be able to understand that a plain reading of Scripture requires it to be read within context and with the appliance of logic !!!!!!!!!:eek:

The context was that God was wiping out all life and starting again with what survived in the Ark. We know this was the context because it says so

J C wrote:

“Wipe from the surface of the Earth" in this context, means to destroy all LAND-BASED creatures except those on the Ark.

Firstly are you saying that the oceans are not on the surface of the Earth? Seriously?

Secondly all land based creatures includes insects.

J C wrote:

We are ALREADY AGREED that it isn’t ALL life …….because it EXCLUDES all of the creatures on the Ark

Those are the creatures that God saved. All life except those in the Ark were wiped out. It actually says this JC

Genesis 6:17
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

God is going to destroy "all life under the heavens". All. Life. Its pretty simple JC

Genesis 6:19
You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

"All living creatures" JC.

God is going to wipe out all living creatures except for th two of each species on the Ark. That includes fish. That includes insects.

I mean do you want me to count how many times it says "all life" :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

…..and it also excludes all plants and aquatic life as well!!!:D

ALL. LIFE. UNDER. THE. HEAVENS

J C wrote:

No mention of plants or WATER-BASED creatures in that list…………that I can see!!!

ALL. LIFE. UNDER. THE. HEAVENS

J C wrote:

…..it is quite clear that God is confining His comments to the members of the Animal Kingdom that inhabit 'dry land' in these passages…….and the word ‘earth’ therefore means ‘dry land’…..in these verses…….

And tell us JC, what does "under the heavens" mean?

ALL. LIFE. UNDER. THE. HEAVENS :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

The statement by God that "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth" clearly implies that the word ‘earth’ means ‘dry land’ in this instance......as 'bringing floodwaters forth under the sea' would be a meaningless action!!!:eek:

No, it clearly means the planet. Why? Because God says (all together now)

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens"

Pretty simple JC.

ALL. LIFE. UNDER. THE. HEAVENS

J C wrote:

Great to see an Atheist advocating a PLAIN reading of Scripture!!!:eek:

It says what it says JC

You just want it to means something different because even you admit that having insects and fish on the Ark would be impossible.

J C wrote:

Anyway, a plain reading of Scripture would indicate that all LAND-BASED animals (except those in the Ark) were wiped out…….and "the face of the earth" referred to in this passage is clearly the DRY LAND surface of the Earth ……and NOT the "face of it's WATERS"!!!!:D

ALL. LIVE. UNDER. THE. HEAVENS

J C wrote:

Could I ask you for the Chapter and Verse where the Bible says that there were “no fish in the sea and no insects floating on the trees” after the Flood????

Certainly JC

Gen 6:17-19
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

Every thing alive under the heavens that is not in the Ark will perish.

That is as plain as one can get. All life, under the heavens, will be destroyed except those in the ark. There were supposed to be 2 of all living creatures on the Ark, that includes fish and insects (and bacteria one would imagine). And I think we both agree that isn't possible.

Face it JC. It didn't happen.

Sangre

J C wrote:

Could I ask you for the Chapter and Verse where the Bible says that there were “no fish in the sea and no insects floating on the trees” after the Flood????

Aside from the whole 'everything under the heavens' reference in the Bible. This verse would seem to indicate all insects were wiped out...

Genesis 7:21
Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

Every living thing that moved on the earth. This obviously includes insects, especially since it says all creatures that 'swarm'. A characteristic attributed to insects.
To say insects survived on floating debris is to imply that God failed in what he said he would do i.e. wipeout every living thing that moved on earth.

col_nicholson

J.C. The Bible is seen by most as not "the infallible word of God", the Vatican teaches that it is not that, also the Vatican warns against a literalist interpretation of scripture as it leads to extremism. But how much you care for the Vatican I do not know.

By saying the Bible is "the infallible word of God", you make me think that you are confusing it with the Qur'an which is believed to be "the infallible word of God"

Also, don't get me wrong, the old and new testament are a wealth of historical knowledge (regardless of anything else contained in them). But saying that the point of genisis is how we were created is not the point.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
So are YOU saying that the early chapters of Genesis are just another rehash of previous (widespread) alternative versions of the Creation Story......and therefore NOT the infallible Word of God.....upon which we can rely upon as the TRUE version of what ACTUALLY happened in and around the Creation of the Cosmos????

Such a conclusion would seem to RULE OUT the Divine revelation (of at least this section) of the Bible ????

.....and do you believe that all apparently historical accounts in the Bible are in fact, allegorical???

...and what is the point of the Genesis Narrative......if it doesn't give a true account of Creation and the Flood???

Scofflaw wrote:

I see - only two possibilities? Either it's the way you say, or it's all codswallop?

These are important questions that demand an answer....
..... and IF there is a 'third way' ........please tell us what it is!!!:eek:

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

I see - only two possibilities? Either it's the way you say, or it's all codswallop?

cordially,
Scofflaw

In fairness, that would be the same opinion of atheists.

J C wrote:

These are important questions that demand an answer....
..... and IF there is a 'third way' ........please tell us what it is!!!:eek:

As mentioned in another post: theistic evolution.

J C

zod wrote:

There are at least a million species of insect, if he collected 10 pairs a day it would take 270 years to collect them all do you think this could be feasable? If it is the insects must be long lived also.

Also all plant life is supposed to be as a result of the floating debris, huge waves of salt water crashing over it would have poisoned it surely ? Or do we have strange waves that kill birds (who it seems can't fly away during rough periods) but don't poison plants?

With regard to birds not on the ark like the albatross ( stay at sea for 5 years ) did he smite them ?

There may be a million species of insect .......but they belong to less that 1,000 original KINDS!!!:D
.....and IF they were on the Ark, they flew/crawled there of their own accord!!!!

Many sensitive plant seeds may have been carried aboard the Ark.......and many plants survived as floating debris.

Yes, the birds were DROWNED under the big waves.......while the trees just popped up again!!!

Intense Natural Selection during and since the Flood gave the modern Albatros it's renowned stamina!!!!!:D

.....all but the two on the Ark, fell into the sea from exhaustion/starvation!!!:D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

There may be a million species of insect .......but they belong to less that 1,000 original KINDS!!!:D
.....and IF they were on the Ark, they flew/crawled there of their own accord!!!!

Where, then, did the other 995,000 species come from? Did they spontaneously appear after the flood? Did they pull themselves up by their bootstraps to create a million various predatory and defence characteristics?

Many sensitive plant seeds may have been carried aboard the Ark.......and many plants survived as floating debris.

Um...

Yes, the birds were DROWNED under the big waves.......while the trees just popped up again!!!

lmao

You seem to have trees confused with...er...something that doesn't exist.

Intense Natural Selection during the Flood gave the modern Albatros it's renowned stamina!!!!!:D

.....all but the two on the Ark, fell into the sea from exhaustion/starvation!!!:D

And again, you're just making stuff up.

Cite, please? Because, as usual, exclamation marks don't reinforce a point. They just make you look like an excitable fool.

MooseJam

J C wrote:

There may be a million species of insect .......but they belong to less that 1,000 original KINDS!!!:D
.

I don't see the significance of kinds, if you were to save insects you would have to take the million species into the ark, how many kinds doesn't matter , if you just took one of each kind well you would lose most of the million and they couldn't be bred again

J C

Wicknight wrote:

No, it clearly means the planet. Why? Because God says (all together now)

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens"

To REPEAT......the statement by God that "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth" clearly implies that the word ‘earth’ means ‘dry land’ in this instance......as 'bringing floodwaters forth under the sea' would be a meaningless action!!!:D

Equally, a flood WOULDN’T logically drown AQUATIC creatures……..and therefore God’s chosen punishment (of a Flood) de facto EXCLUDED all water-based creatures from it’s direct effects.:D

Wicknight wrote:

Gen 6:17-19
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

Every thing alive under the heavens that is not in the Ark will perish.

That is as plain as one can get. All life, under the heavens, will be destroyed except those in the ark. There were supposed to be 2 of all living creatures on the Ark, that includes fish and insects (and bacteria one would imagine). And I think we both agree that isn't possible.

Face it JC. It didn't happen.

It certainly DID happen, whatever about the nitty gritty details that you are 'hung up' on.......and we have the billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth to PROVE it!!!!!:eek:


The 'creatures under heaven' are limited by the previous sentence which defines them as creatures that have "the breath of life" in them.......i.e. are air breathing (which at a considerable stretch might also include the insects).......and the aquatic creatures are excluded because of the reasons itemised above!!!

J C

Sangre wrote:

Aside from the whole 'everything under the heavens' reference in the Bible. This verse would seem to indicate all insects were wiped out...

Genesis 7:21
Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

Every living thing that moved on the earth. This obviously includes insects, especially since it says all creatures that 'swarm'. A characteristic attributed to insects.
To say insects survived on floating debris is to imply that God failed in what he said he would do i.e. wipeout every living thing that moved on earth.

As I have previously said, I have an open mind about how/where the insects survived:D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

It certainly DID happen, whatever about the nitty gritty details that you are 'hung up' on.......and we have the billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth to PROVE it!!!!!:eek:

Er...all that they prove is that they died.

The 'creatures under heaven' are limited by the previous sentence which defines them as creatures that have "the breath of life" in them.......i.e. are air breathing (which at a considerable stretch might also include the insects).......and the aquatic creatures are excluded because of the reasons itemised above!!!

At a considerable stretch?!

What do you think insects breathe?!

Besides, 'breath of life' does not mean 'creatures that breathe'. It just poetic language for 'alive'.

J C

col_nicholson wrote:

J.C. The Bible is seen by most as not "the infallible word of God", the Vatican teaches that it is not that, also the Vatican warns against a literalist interpretation of scripture as it leads to extremism. But how much you care for the Vatican I do not know.

By saying the Bible is "the infallible word of God", you make me think that you are confusing it with the Qur'an which is believed to be "the infallible word of God"

Also, don't get me wrong, the old and new testament are a wealth of historical knowledge (regardless of anything else contained in them). But saying that the point of genisis is how we were created is not the point.

I know Roman Catholics who hold practically every opinion across the 'origins spectrum' from Materialistic Evolution to 6-Day Creationism .......and I assume that opinion in the Roman Heirarchy is equally diverse!!!:D

The Bible is either the Word of God (and therefore infallible) .....or it isn't the Word of God........and can be disregarded with impunity.:eek:

I don't see how a plain reading of the Word of God in the Bible could lead to extremism........as Jesus Christ plainly asked all Christians to LOVE their fellow Human Beings!!!!:)

......and you still haven't told us what the point of the early Chapters of Genesis was......if they don't give an accurate account of Creation and the Flood.:eek:

passive

okay... I don't see how you can ignore this.

"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"

If you're f*cked up enough to think that the bible must be interpreted literally enough to disregard science and BS your way through every field to alter your perception of reality to suit this 6,000/10,000 year old planet theory, you can't then disregard and refuse to read plainly and clearly the bits that don't suit the half assed, idiotic "scientific" explanations for fantasy made up foolishness that you have constructed.

ARGH!!! >_<.

The Mad Hatter

passive wrote:

okay... I don't see how you can ignore this.

"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"
"to destroy all life under the heavens"

If you're f*cked up enough to think that the bible must be interpreted literally enough to disregard science and BS your way through every field to alter your perception of reality to suit this 6,000/10,000 year old planet theory, you can't then disregard and refuse to read plainly and clearly the bits that don't suit the half assed, idiotic "scientific" explanations for fantasy made up foolishness that you have constructed.

ARGH!!! >_<.

And the prize for most inappropriate username goes to...

passive

-_-
if it helps any, the name is derived from Placebo's song/the mental condition, "passive aggressive" and, in my mind at least, the aggressive is implied :P

2Scoops

J C wrote:

The 'creatures under heaven' are limited by the previous sentence which defines them as creatures that have "the breath of life" in them.......i.e. are air breathing (which at a considerable stretch might also include the insects)

Hey, you stole my idea!

Scofflaw

2Scoops wrote:

JC wrote:

The 'creatures under heaven' are limited by the previous sentence which defines them as creatures that have "the breath of life" in them.......i.e. are air breathing (which at a considerable stretch might also include the insects)

Hey, you stole my idea!

Ah, you've been JC'd. He's firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick, and is now hitting people with it.

In a very particular way, our boy is a genius - a sort of anti-genius, if you like.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

To REPEAT......the statement by God that "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth" clearly implies that the word ‘earth’ means ‘dry land’ in this instance

To repeat

And "under the heavens" means under the heavens.

And "all life" means ALL LIFE

That would include life on land, as well as everywhere else.

J C wrote:

......as 'bringing floodwaters forth under the sea' would be a meaningless action!!!

Are you calling God stupid?

J C wrote:

Equally, a flood WOULDN’T logically drown AQUATIC creatures

Logically? Logically JC!

Of course a flood wouldn't logically drown Aquatic creatures!

NONE OF THIS REALLY HAPPENED!!!

It is myth dreamed up by a small bronze age religion with little grasp of the natural world.

What is described in the Bible (the destruction of aquatic creatures by a flood, 2 of 1.7 million species surviving on a wooden ark, a flood that covers the entire Earth), is NONSENSE. None of it happened.

J C wrote:

……..and therefore God’s chosen punishment (of a Flood) de facto EXCLUDED all water-based creatures from it’s direct effects.:D

The Bible says what it says. All life under the heavens, created by God, except those in the Ark will be destroyed by a massive flood.

You are now realising what the rest of us have known for a while, that such an event is nonsense.

J C wrote:

It certainly DID happen, whatever about the nitty gritty details that you are 'hung up' on

What is described in the Bible is "all life" being wiped out by a flood. You yourself admit that such an event is impossible, so by your own admission what is described in the Bible is wrong.

You can claim that it is simply inaccurate, that some life not on the ark (fish, insects, plants) did survive the flood, but either way the Bible is shown to be incorrect and fallible

J C wrote:

.......and we have the billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth to PROVE it!!!!!:eek:

To prove what JC? That the Bible got it half right? The Bible is half wrong?

All life under the heavens.

J C wrote:

The 'creatures under heaven' are limited by the previous sentence which defines them as creatures that have "the breath of life" in them

Yes, perhaps you should learn how English works

pH

Wicknight wrote:

To prove what JC? That the Bible got it half right? The Bible is half wrong?

...

Yes, perhaps you should learn how English works

Wicknight, obviously you are not a bible scholar, nor did you attend 'Theology 101' - Where the bible contradicts itself simply choose the part that supports your argument and ignore the other one, it's not a case of being half right and half wrong - it's a case of being 100% right and "What other bit? Nah - can't see that! - see this bit here! that's what I'm talking about! - that bit? nah can't see that - hey have I shown you this bit right here ...."