Posted on 05/29/2006 6:28:25 AM PDT by truthfinder9
I often hear skeptics point to the belief in the global flood as a reason to not believe Christianity. I also see "Christian" creationist groups condem other Christians who believe the local flood is the literal interpretation. It's time we start telling "Christian" groups like ICR and AIG to stop turning people away from the Bible and tell them to stop their childish, immature attacks on other Christians (AIG recently refused to be subject to review, now there's the making of a cult!). And it's time for Christians to stop blindly believing everything they are told, just because it comes from other Christians.
Why the Local Flood is the Literal View
Let me explain something to you, I know the authors of those articles. In fact I contributed to those articles.
So stop embarassing yourself by talking about things you don't know anything about.
"And you have the nerve to tell me I don't have the ability to think for myself (that I'm just a parrot for Ken Ham)"
Which is still true, by the way.
See here is one of those classic unchristian young-earth/global flood insinuations that they are the ones who accept the miracles. Local flood proponents believe in the miracle of the flood as well. If global flood people actually read what they local flood people say, instead of what other people tell them they say, the global flood people would know this is what the local flood proponents believe: A massive flood in the Middle East occured early in man's history when they hadn't yet left the area and destroyed civilization.
But some people just don't want to actually learn what they are talking about before they pretend they already know.
People who assume they already know they are correct on what the Bible reads aren't actually taking it seriously.
So that gives you carte blanche to quote from their articles without acknowledgment? Whatever. You still should provide a cite when you pull a quote from somebody else.
So stop embarassing yourself by talking about things you don't know anything about.
I know a little about plagiarism, and that looked like plagiarism to me.
It says evening and morning in Genesis. Unless God was trying to mislead us, the implication is that it is, in fact, a 24 hour day (by our clocks).
I don't believe you ever answered yes or no to the question of whether you believe what God wrote on the Tablets of stone, specificially that the Lord made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is in six days. Now do you believe that? Yes or no?
The first miracle in the bible is that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Do you believe that Miracle? How about the parting of the red sea? Do you accept that? Was that a "natural" event or can God suspend the laws of nature in order to do his miracles?
Do you believe in the Miracle of changing water into wine? Walking on Water? Feeding 5000 with a couple of fish? Healing a man born blind? If you believe all that, then why can't you believe that God did what he said in Exodus Chapter 20?
Obviously when they say the world was flooded back then, it could have easily been the whole known world.
I don't have a problem with that, that makes sense.
Also, nobody could know exactly where the Garden of Eden is because despite two modern river names being mentioned in the Bible, they could not have existed right where they were because of the flood mentioned in the Bible.
The river names may be the same, but only God knows where the rivers all ran before the flood.
I provided the links as citiations a number of times. Was that too complicated for you?
The Hebrew for the phrase evening and morning or evening, and there was morning has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refer to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day.
(And since you weren't able to follow the chain of posts before, I'll spell it out for you: this is from Young-Earthism is NOT Biblical
No, God did not create the world in 6 24 hr days. The bible doesn't say that. Only your force-fitted, contradictory interpretation does. It's poor biblical skills like that that confuse so many people.
I see, you can't defend your position so you red herring your way to miracles and redefine the debate to be about miracles. Here's a tip, don't ever publicly debate anyone.
"Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."--Professor James Barr, (1984) former Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford.
FWIW (according to my limited research), Professor Barr, like you, rejects the idea of a six day creation, but is honest enough to admit that the Hebrew cannot be twisted to infer that these are ages or that the Noahic event was anything other than a world wide flood.
It is clear that if anyone is force fitting the scripture to fit their pre-conceived notions it is you.
It is true that the story reads 6 days and that it does give the impression of normal days.
It is, therefore, legitimate for that interpretation to be one of the possible interpretations that should be investigated.
Case closed.
My apologies. I was pinging you to my reply to Alex Murphy which was inspired by the article you wrote (and he linked for my perusal) vis-a-vis this one.
It clearly is the historic view. The day/age view is clearly a modern invention which is not supported by any historical evidence. That includes Augustine's non-literal interpretation which is so often quoted by those who wish to allegorize Genesis into a 13 billion year long creative process.
The GPTS Faculty Statement on Creation |
|
We the faculty of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary wish to acknowledge publicly our view on creation so that the churches and individuals supporting the Seminary may know what to expect from classroom instruction and faculty writing. In so doing, we note the following as preliminaries: (1) the issue of creation has long been considered a fundamental Christian belief, one that distinguishes Christianity from other religions; (2) this particular doctrine has been subject to prolonged attack since the mid-19th century, but continues to be critical for orthodoxy; (3) although the history of belief on this subject is clear, some fine and notable theologians from our communions have held differing views on this subject; and (4) that as a Seminary we are obligated not to teach contrary to the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Standards may be changed by the church courts, but, in our view, the seminaries ought not to be teaching contrary to those Standards, so that when there are changes they will occur as a result of the churchs mature deliberation and not in a de facto manner. Thus, we offer our view on the subject of creation as a school that serves a number of Reformed denominations, especially the PCA and the OPC.
We admit that some Christians have been too lax on this subject, and others have been too narrow. Hence, we hope to enunciate in this statement a moderate, historic, and biblical position. Even should other fine men differ with us on this subject, we hereby announce our intent to remain faithful to the teaching of the Westminster Standards and other Reformed confessions of faith on this subject. To God alone be glory. |
|
"So you believe that Moses/God was hiding the truth about the time it actually took to create the world"
No I don't believe they were hiding anything. Or lying. The Hebrew isn't tricky either, people are simply forgeting basic Bible reading skills including context, original intent, point of view, etc. P-Marlowe ignores all of these very basic skills to support his belief. That is the point to all this.
Sorry, but here is a list of quite a few world-class scholars, apologists, theologians, etc., who disagree with that statement:
Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation
In fact most of these people are well known for the defense of the literal Bible, contrary to the accusations that people who support local flood/old earth don't.
Also, the statement "the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story" is perhaps one of the most unscholarly statements I've seen in awhile. Hebrew scholarship proves without a doubt that, especially the early chronologies, cannot be and were never intended to be added up.
Blatantly untrue. (And of course appealing to history is a fallacy. In other words, if were to appeal to history we will still have to believe the Earth was at the center of the universe).
See, among others,
PCA Report of the Creation Study Committee
Creedal Controversy: The Orthodoxy of "Days"
Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation
And don't forget church "fathers" like Origen, Augustine and others also open to long days.
I'm just asking people to follow some basic bible reading exegesis. I realize churches don't teach this anymore, but that's why we have all these problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.