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
"Yes, my stats do hold because there isn't any hint of vast periods of time in this story"
Actually I have noted some very clear and obvious hints of long periods, which have ignored.
"Actually, the idea that God takes tens of billions of years to accomplish paints a particularly unusual type of God....in fact, no "God" at all."
Or maybe God is smarter than you think. Instead of producing a world in seven days, he did it in a way that would impress time-bound humans by showing over millions of years the care and interconnected constants and systems that were ultimatley necessary just for man to exist. If a man produced a piece of fine furniture in 7 days we would think it junk and unthought. Part of the problem with the 7-day theory is it fails to take into account God's nature.
No. You said you "contribruted" to one of those articles. You did not claim authorship. Now you are claiming you wrote them. Interesting.
If in fact your wrote them as you claim, then this is a vanity thread, it is not? The rules are different in a vanity thread inasmuch as the freeper who posts a vanity thread is open to the same kind of criticism that is allowed against the author of any article that is posted on free republic. Thus we are free to question your motives as well as your credentials.
If in fact you are employed by or associated with Reasons.org, then that would explain your invective towards Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis and the Creation Research Institute as they have been at the forefront in criticizing the positions taken by Reasons.org.
It also would explain why just about everything you post comes directly from that site. It also would explain this little blub in the first paragraph in this thread.
"It's time we [meaning all of us freepers] start telling "Christian" [obviously in quotes because you are inferring that they are not "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 [inferring that those who doubt the story of creation and the flood are the real and mature "Christians"] (AIG recently refused to be subject to review, now there's the making of a cult!). [inferring that anyone who believes as they do is a cult member]"
I understand now. Thank you. BTW since you are claiming authorship of this article, which author are you?
You're right, I miswrote.
"It is illogical (and unnecessary) that the Father would “enter” His creation before He created it."
The universe was alrady created in Genesis 1:1. In Genesis 1:2 we see God "hovering" over the waters, hence "entering" the creation.
"Whenever there seems to be a conflict between Scripture and Creation, my presumption is that the failing is my own and not the indwelling Spirit, Scripture or Creation."
Our opproach is the same. The problem is that many creationists assume they're right a priori and discard any contrary evidences or contrive scripture to support their views.
"Again, you are accepting only a three spatial dimension universe evolving over time (time as a line). Relativity (and time as a plane) - does not apply to that worldview – it is based on a space/time continuum."
Not sure what you are getting at. General and Special relativity do operate in our universe. After the creation event, all of the dimensions that formed the universe existed (and still do) together. The universe has to be at a minimum of 10 dimensions, the 6 or more beyond our four remain "curled" up everywhere. Time in the universe as a whole, negelecting minor localized phenomenon, traveled at the same rate since the big bang.
Now Schroeder's main idea is that God's time frame is not the same as ours and God can move at relativistic velocities. Billions of years for people could be 7 days for God. The main problem with that, beyond some physics problems, is how it makes God sound like he is bound by time and needs to "move" place to place. God is neither bound by time or required to move around for he is outside all of the dimensions of this universe. Technically, God doesn't have a time frame. Schoreder is trying so hard to combine 7days/13.7billions years I think he is redefining who God is.
It was either instantaneous or it took time. Can't be both.
P.S. Let me help you out on your fanciful revision of what I wrote (your bizarre twist in [], my corrections in {}):
"It's time we [meaning all of us freepers] {meaning Christians} start telling "Christian" [obviously in quotes because you are inferring that they are not "Christian"] {obviously in quotes because people at AIG, etc., have a bad habit of unchristian attacks on other believers} 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 [inferring that those who doubt the story of creation and the flood are the real and mature "Christians"] {inferring that Christians who refer to other Christians as hertics, apostates and compromisers have a long way to go in their Christianity} AIG recently refused to be subject to review, now there's the making of a cult!. [inferring that anyone who believes as they do is a cult member] {inferring that anyone who refuses review, even by like-minded people as AIG did, is heading down an unchristian, unscholarly and dangerous road}"
You've done nothing but put words in my mouth. So again, unless you want to engage in rational discussion, save your personal attacks for someone else.
I have defended my beliefs as anyone on this thread can attest to. You started this thread with a call to arms against AIG and CRI and others that you accused of attacking other Christians, when in fact the attack was started on this thread by you against them, putting quotes around the word "Christian" when describing them, accusing them of turning people away from the bible and accusing them of being cults.
You started the thread by questioning the motives of those who hold to a literal six day creation and a literal world wide flood and accusing them of condemning other Christians, in essence doing exactly what you accused them of doing.
You accused me of being a parrot for Ken Ham, when I quoted nothing from him. All my thoughts on this board are my own. I don't hang around AIG or CRI and wait for my instructions on how to respond to critics of the Bible. I rely on the words of the bible and where my understanding departs from the words of the Bible, that gives me reason to question my understanding, not reason to question the Bible. I admittedly work from an apriori assumption that the Bible is the word of God. That may not be rational, but it is my starting point. You may criticize me for taking that position, but it is a position which holds scripture above science and not on an equal footing. When you place science on an equal footing with scripture, then you are building your house on sand.
So may I assume that you are, in fact, Derrick Dean?
If you're Derrick Dean, come clean.
Precisely.
Since all wine takes time, then the instantaneous appearance of fully documented wine means that the wine has an appearance of age.
One can assume that the earth in the time it was created had soil, trees, creatures, etc. Under normal circumstances, these would all take time to develop.
Therefore, the earth itself would have had ~some~ appearance of age.
Doesn't cut it.
hint of vast periods
'Hint' is another word that indicates an interpretation must be involved to arrive at the desired conclusion. I must again emphasize that we are discussing the observation stage of exegesis....what is there as opposed to what I interpret it to mean.
The straight-forward story gives a simple picture of a week of creation. What's so hard about this for those who wish to impose their interpretation on top of their observation?
Are you a Christian? If not, what is your interest in it?
Just to be fair: I am a Christian, and I am a retired Army Chaplain and an active ordained pastor in a major, mainline denomination.
I think what you wrote above could be taken to mean that you are the author of the article. Just for the sake of clarification....did you have anything at all to do with the writing of this article?
Exactly. The earth was created in a mature state because life could not exist as we know it based upon the natural laws which God put into effect unless the earth was in a mature state when he created that life and placed it upon the earth.
The fact that he turned the simple chemical of water into a mature complex food product instantly attests to the fact that when God makes something he makes it complete and he makes it good. He created man in a mature state. He did not create a puddle of slime and sit back for a billion years while it produced all life as we know it. We are not made in the image and likeness of viruses and bacteria, we are "made" in the image of God.
Natural laws can only be traced back to the time when God rested. You cannot extrapolate that God used natural laws to get to that point. In fact, it is quite clear that he didn't.
Is it hidden or do you/they just refuse to accept it? I just saw on Discovery Channel (?) where a scientist believed in a huge flood over in the western states (Washington/Oregon area). This was in the late 1800's or early 1900's. Regardless of the evidence he brought, they shut him down. Now they believe his findings were right.
Although the scientists in this story didn't see "global flood" it does show that evidence can be overlooked or just not accepted.
I live in the Mississippi River valley. You can hike on top of the bluffs overlooking the Mississippi and find shells in the sandstone. I know, the current belief is that this area was once covered by a large in-land sea. However, who's to say that it wasn't a global flood and the "science community" is just ignoring the evidence just like in that Discovery story?
The point is there is evidence, it's just a matter of how you interpret it.
Sincerely
Precisely. For anyone to suggest that the passage about God forming Adam from the dust of the ground is actually a "hint" of a long process of slow change from the primordial slime IS to read one's opinions into the text.
Pure eisegesis.
In this instance, the Spiritual leaning I have received is that ‘waters’ is not literally H2O - but rather spiritually the metaphor for language as in the water of life, the words of God :
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. – Rev 22:1
For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. – Jer 2:13
And you are way off base on time with reference to relativity. Time is geometry. The equivalence principle derives from the Newtonian notion that all objects fall with the same acceleration and thus how fast an object accelerates (inertial mass) and gravitational mass are the same. Therefore falling toward gravity indentations of space/time (general relativity) and velocity are equivalent. In the strong version even gravitational self-energy must follow the same rule.
For lurkers, here is an animated introduction to Special Relativity. General relativity can be seen as the warping of space/time.
He is immanent in His creation according to His own will. There is nothing of which anything can be made but His own will.
There is no space, no time, no energy, no mass, no physical laws, no physical causation, no qualia – nothing – in the void. I repeat there is no physical causation in the void. Only God can be the uncaused cause of all that there is, both physical and spiritual.
And concerning Schroeder – I obviously don’t agree with him on everything, he is a Jewish scientist with a background in both physics and biology. Nevertheless I find his physics and mathematics on the issue of the age of the universe to be spot-on..
You guys are a heck of a lot smarter than me so perhaps you can explain how a wall of water at least 16,000 feet high could be contained locally so as not to spill over onto neighboring localities.
http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ararat.htm
All I can say is just... Dam.
One of those new inflatable swimming pools......very tall :>)
But I would like to take this grand occasion to agree with B-D that we are much smarter than him.
However, I say this with all modesty, so that should take the edge off. :>)
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.