PDA

View Full Version : "Stood forth" in 2 Pet 3 KJV is very good



Interplanner
October 7th, 2015, 08:42 AM
The KJV on 'estosa' went with 'stood forth' "The universe existed from of old, and the earth stood forth out of water and through water." It is useful in that it reflects the vertical tectonics that we now know are the 'engine' of what happened in the flood.

It means that the step in creation when the earth was formless, void, dark, submerged was a step before dry land was pushed up. The motion itself does not appear to take much time, but it doesn't answer how long the earth was formless, void, dark, watery prior to that. v9 is when this uplift happened, the 3rd day.

False Prophet
October 7th, 2015, 09:19 AM
And God said, g“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,4 and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. ESV
Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together so the dry land will appear.” And it happened. 10 God named the dry land “earth” and the water that was gathered together “seas.” God saw that this was good.
NCV
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. NASB
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. NIV
And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. RSV
And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. YOUNG'S

patrick jane
October 7th, 2015, 09:20 AM
the planet has molten rock, the crust is comparatively thin. The crust cracks, the plates move, the molten layers move the crust AND cause vertical lift. God caused these changes in an instant, which may seem impossible today, but not for God

Colossians 1:16 KJV -

Interplanner
October 7th, 2015, 05:10 PM
And God said, g“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,4 and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. ESV
Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together so the dry land will appear.” And it happened. 10 God named the dry land “earth” and the water that was gathered together “seas.” God saw that this was good.
NCV
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. NASB
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. NIV
And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. RSV
And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. YOUNG'S


Those are nice quotes, but the place in question was 2 Pet 3's 'estosa'. Forming is certainly a strong possibility, but if you can express how God lifted the land masses, all the better.

Interplanner
October 7th, 2015, 05:16 PM
the planet has molten rock, the crust is comparatively thin. The crust cracks, the plates move, the molten layers move the crust AND cause vertical lift. God caused these changes in an instant, which may seem impossible today, but not for God

Colossians 1:16 KJV -


True, but there is more. See Silvestru on 'Geology and Deep Time' on youtube, 3 years ago I think. There are mounds that have built like Hawaii that show the speed and force that is possible. The British geologist Clemens in London geo society has written that Yosemite's domes could form in as few as 5 hours, if the right crack was lined up with the right boil of magma.

There is a Nordic flood record which says that the person saw land masses pushed up, others sucked down, and Iceland-style volcanic activity all through it. He also mentioned a huge whirlpool, which must have existed at several places per Silvestru's models and drained water. "Nobody talks about the Monterey Canyon. The Monterey is 3 times the size of Grand Canyon but is underwater with most of the same features draining out to the deep Pacific."

6days
October 7th, 2015, 06:56 PM
True, but there is more. See Silvestru on 'Geology and Deep Time' on youtube, 3 years ago I think.

Emil Silvestru was a 'all-in' evolutionist at one time. He now believes God created everything 6000 years ago....and that there was no previous ruined creation (He suffered a stroke about 4 years ago)

Silvestru, "I am now convinced of six-day, literal, recent, Genesis creation. That doesn't mean that there are not still some unanswered problems, but researching such issues is what being a scientist is all about."

Interplanner
October 7th, 2015, 07:08 PM
I don't know why the previous form of the earth is an issue for you. What matters about the evil that gets its foothold in ch 3 is that it is mankind's issue, affect everyone downstream from him. It doesn't matter to man what else was going on in the universe.

Anyway, Silvestru's presentation mentioned above was about the flood, but I see a retroactive angle to it in the KJV choice.

btw, do you think that the NIV note on Gen 1:2 is mistaken? "The earth became..." is 2nd choice.

patrick jane
October 7th, 2015, 07:39 PM
True, but there is more. See Silvestru on 'Geology and Deep Time' on youtube, 3 years ago I think. There are mounds that have built like Hawaii that show the speed and force that is possible. The British geologist Clemens in London geo society has written that Yosemite's domes could form in as few as 5 hours, if the right crack was lined up with the right boil of magma.

There is a Nordic flood record which says that the person saw land masses pushed up, others sucked down, and Iceland-style volcanic activity all through it. He also mentioned a huge whirlpool, which must have existed at several places per Silvestru's models and drained water. "Nobody talks about the Monterey Canyon. The Monterey is 3 times the size of Grand Canyon but is underwater with most of the same features draining out to the deep Pacific."

God's Work is amazing; set into perpetual motion

6days
October 7th, 2015, 08:21 PM
I don't know why the previous form of the earth is an issue for you.

I don't know why you add non scriptural ideas into scripture.




What matters about the evil that gets its foothold in ch 3 is that it is mankind's issue, affect everyone downstream from him.

What matter is that Adam's sin corrupted God's perfect creation. Death sin and suffering affect all creation, and we inherit Adam's sin nature.

Rom. 5:12 "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."



Anyway, Silvestru's presentation mentioned above was about the flood, but I see a retroactive angle to it in the KJV choice.

Silvestru does not believe there was a previous creation that was destroyed.


btw, do you think that the NIV note on Gen 1:2 is mistaken? "The earth became..." is 2nd choice.

BTW, do you think that all major Bible translations of Genesis 1:2 is incorrect? None say "The earth became..."

Interplanner
October 8th, 2015, 07:14 AM
I don't know why you add non scriptural ideas into scripture.



What matter is that Adam's sin corrupted God's perfect creation. Death sin and suffering affect all creation, and we inherit Adam's sin nature.

Rom. 5:12 "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."



Silvestru does not believe there was a previous creation that was destroyed.


BTW, do you think that all major Bible translations of Genesis 1:2 is incorrect? None say "The earth became..."




The point about Rom 5:12 would be that sin entered [I]man's[I] world. If Gen 1:31 declares that it was very good, 1:2 is obviously not very good. I don't know yet if you think that is sin, but I don't think it is. Or it is other entities sin if the earth was one of the black darknesses for the confining of rebellious angels of 2 Pet 3 and Jude.

I don't expect Silvestru to have a literary background, which a person logically needs to read Gen 1. There are far too many similarities to the others, and as P. James-Griffiths shows, we get a full-color or HD image when we hear some of the others and work back to Genesis. "Tracing Genesis through Ancient Culture" youtube.

The NIV has "Now the earth..." which is a standard literary way of expressing a pre-existing condition. So is "The earth became..." (the NIV note). So is NEB's "The earth was already..."

That is how Moses wrote, which you don't seem to accept:
1, title or summary statement
2, pre-existing condition
3, new action or information.
This is repeated over and over in Genesis. #1 is not action in the story. Therefore v1 is not action, otherwise the "literal" reading is that there are two creative acts, v1 and v2 (or 9 depending on what POV is taken, remote or local). Either that or literalists have no attention span!

I don't recall you answering how it is that Job 38 is absolutely clear that some entities that were evil had to be "shaken out" like from a carpet (cockroaches! lol) before God could lay the earth's foundations.

I don't know why it matters to the 6 days, which are still intact, if there were other things going on in the universe. That is crushingly geo-centric, and neither Paul nor Peter nor the Rev are that way. The earth is just one place where God works redemptively.

If it is about human redemption, it is a completely confused soteriology, because man's justification is only in relation to the 1st representative Adam. We never hear of mankind being charged with sin by other entities--Satan or others.

Any logical reading of 2 Pet 3 about 'estosa' through water and with water means that the water was already there. And that 'estosa' was not in the same category as to simply exist for a long time (the heavens).

As Dr. Waltke says in CREATION AND CHAOS, Gen 1-11 was verbally recited around campfires as people came and went among the early Hebrew tribe. There was no surprise about the pre-existing condition of earth. Sometimes this condition was referred to simply as the lizard, and there are plenty of cultures where the 'creator' kills the 'lizard' and the earth is a safe place afterward. (One of these just surfaced last year in the Pacific NW--a petroglyph of Raven killing a lizard). In some accounts, the word for earth is lizard, but it means the chopped up, demolished body of the lizard now safe for human life.

The surprise to the visiting tribes was to hear that Yahweh was the creator and form-er of the earth's present condition. It was He who was so powerful he could make land appear and then he could sink the land in the flood and make it move and crash together in his anger, and end up with mountains and massive piles of sediment here and there. The Nordic legend says the creator drained away water that had covered everything and forced it to stay put, which is pretty much what the Psalms are saying. That's the surprise to the visiting tribes as they heard the evangelistic Gen 1-11.

HisServant
October 8th, 2015, 08:08 AM
The KJV is the LAST place anyone should look for the validity of a translation.... it is just that bad.

6days
October 8th, 2015, 08:14 AM
The point about Rom 5:12 would be that sin entered [I]man's[I] world.*
Rom. 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"

Adams sin has subjected ALL creation to God's curse. Rom. 8:20-22 "Against its will, all creation was subjected to God's curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.


If Gen 1:31 declares that it was very good, 1:2 is obviously not very good.
God declared the completed creation "very good". *You are being a bit heretical if you are judging God saying creation was "not very good" as He completed each step / each day.*



I don't expect Silvestru to have a literary background, which a person logically needs to read Gen 1.
So, only smart people like you can really understand Scripture?
Oh... and compromises like Hugh Ross also understand scripture?

Greg Jennings
October 8th, 2015, 10:49 AM
Emil Silvestru was a 'all-in' evolutionist at one time. He now believes God created everything 6000 years ago....and that there was no previous ruined creation (He suffered a stroke about 4 years ago)

Silvestru, "I am now convinced of six-day, literal, recent, Genesis creation. That doesn't mean that there are not still some unanswered problems, but researching such issues is what being a scientist is all about."

Please don't take this as an attack 6days. I found this comment interesting because I'd never heard of what you described happening to a scientist before. So I researched it, and unfortunately Mr. Silvestru's quotes make it quite clear that he only believes in a 6000 year old Earth and the like because he became a Christian then had to change his scientific views to fit his new religion. For example:

"Once I became a Christian, I knew I had to tune up my scientific knowledge with the Scriptures."
"Although philosophically and ethically I accepted a literal Genesis from my conversion, at first I was unable to match it with my technical side."

Science did not convince him that a 6000 year old Earth was the right answer. In fact he admits it told him differently. He just believed that in order to be a good God-fearing Christian he had to accept a literal Genesis. The scientific method was not employed

patrick jane
October 8th, 2015, 10:55 AM
The KJV is the LAST place anyone should look for the validity of a translation.... it is just that bad.

you poor soul

Grosnick Marowbe
October 8th, 2015, 11:08 AM
Delete

Interplanner
October 8th, 2015, 11:20 AM
Rom. 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"

Adams sin has subjected ALL creation to God's curse. Rom. 8:20-22 "Against its will, all creation was subjected to God's curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.


God declared the completed creation "very good". *You are being a bit heretical if you are judging God saying creation was "not very good" as He completed each step / each day.*


So, only smart people like you can really understand Scripture?
Oh... and compromises like Hugh Ross also understand scripture?



There is nothing good by Gen 1's own standards about being formless, chaotic, dark, watery and not having the Spirit at work in it. Every reference to the 'deep' in Hebrew is frightful; just check Job--Isaiah. You are such a confused reader of what is actually there. That is before the 6 days. There was a pre-existing condition.

In addition, what is good about 'formless and void' in Jer 4:23? Nothing!!! What is good about God having to remove evil ____s from the earth before laying the foundation of what we now have, Job 38? Nothing. Are those not the two closest literary comparisons we are forced to make?

Besides, he didn't say that the pre-existing condition was good. Instead, he needed to redeem it, to reform it. The indications of other texts on this do not lay the fault of a mess at God's feet but others. Or it is simply what's there when he has finished executing judgement on something, which is not his fault either.

re Ross: I think you missed that I heard Ross recently in debate and he did very poorly on answering counter-questions about 'what do things look like after millions of years?' It would have been better if he had said 'I don't know' than what he did. I don't remember the counterpart person but it was on NRBTV about 2 weeks ago. He may have a point about the age of the distant universe (like 2 Pet 3), but yes, I believe he has missed the point about the speed and force with which granitic magmatism can take place and catastrophic vertical tectonics. In fact, I get the impression he'd rather like to avoid the flood altogether.

The creation that Paul was speaking of in Rom 8 is everything downstream from mankind. I don't believe he meant it universally. Sin was already in the universe when Satan tempted Adam, and who knows where he'd been. What exactly did the rebellious angels do who sinned, and how long would that take? How long were they confined at 'blackest darkness' places which also show up in other cultures? Even Peter borrowed 'Tartarus' regarding that in 2 Pet 2.

Your conception of a strict absence of time, drama, action, entities except for day 1 of creation forward is completely foreign to the Bible and an unnecessary obstacle to people inquiring here. Jn 17:24. God's works are manifold. Unless God is at work in many things and levels in his universe, it is silly to have him show up just for things here, and doing only the most unusual things here. What I'm saying is what Lewis said, and should relieve some of the difficult pressure a person like OliviaM has reading Gen 1-11.

And I haven't even talked about 'sons of God', Nephilim, giantism, etc.

HisServant
October 8th, 2015, 11:23 AM
you poor soul

Why?... because I don't have my head in the sand?

I have pity on people like you because you have closed your mind to the Holy Spirit leading in favor of the doctrines of the Anglican Church... yet, I bet you aren't Anglican or Episcopalian....

Doesn't that strike you as funny?... it always makes me laugh a little.

6days
October 8th, 2015, 11:28 AM
Please don't take this as an attack 6days. I found this comment interesting because I'd never heard of what you described happening to a scientist before. So I researched it, and unfortunately Mr. Silvestru's quotes make it quite clear that he only believes in a 6000 year old Earth and the like because he became a Christian then had to change his scientific views to fit his new religion.

Attack? .... no, of course not. I'm well aware of Emil Silvestru's testimony. He describes how difficult it was to come to the realization that everything he had been taught...everything he believed was wrong.

His testimony is not unusual, since origins science interprets evidence according to our beliefs about the past. Geneticist John Sanford says something similar." I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being. Later, I came to believe in “God”, but this still did not significantly change my intellectual outlook regarding origins. However, still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history. I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see. It sounds simple, but it was a slow and painful process. I still only see “as through a glass, darkly” [1 Cor. 13:12]. But I see so much more than I could before!"

Greg Jennings
October 8th, 2015, 11:34 AM
Attack? .... no, of course not. I'm well aware of Emil Silvestru's testimony. He describes how difficult it was to come to the realization that everything he had been taught...everything he believed was wrong.

His testimony is not unusual, since origins science interprets evidence according to our beliefs about the past. Geneticist John Sanford says something similar." I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being. Later, I came to believe in “God”, but this still did not significantly change my intellectual outlook regarding origins. However, still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history. I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see. It sounds simple, but it was a slow and painful process. I still only see “as through a glass, darkly” [1 Cor. 13:12]. But I see so much more than I could before!"

I'm glad you are more thick-skinned than some creationists. Truly I am.

As I pointed out previously, Mr. Silvestru did not come to his new views regarding the age of the Earth because scientific evidence told him he needed to rethink some things. In fact he says himself that scientific evidence was at odds with the Genesis creation account, and that he only changed his views because he thought he needed to in order to accommodate his new faith. At a glance it would seem that Sanford came across the same dilemma. I even remember reading about a British scientist (his name and exact field of study escapes me) who stated that even if all of the evidence available to him contradicted his belief in a 6000 year old Earth that he would still believe in a literal Genesis, which is of course is very obviously illogical.

I wouldn't consider that a ringing endorsement for the scientific accuracy of creationism, would you?

Interplanner
October 8th, 2015, 11:38 AM
Please don't take this as an attack 6days. I found this comment interesting because I'd never heard of what you described happening to a scientist before. So I researched it, and unfortunately Mr. Silvestru's quotes make it quite clear that he only believes in a 6000 year old Earth and the like because he became a Christian then had to change his scientific views to fit his new religion. For example:

"Once I became a Christian, I knew I had to tune up my scientific knowledge with the Scriptures."
"Although philosophically and ethically I accepted a literal Genesis from my conversion, at first I was unable to match it with my technical side."

Science did not convince him that a 6000 year old Earth was the right answer. In fact he admits it told him differently. He just believed that in order to be a good God-fearing Christian he had to accept a literal Genesis. The scientific method was not employed



Yet some of the best quotes about CPT (catastrophic plate tectonics) or vertical tectonics are not from Christians. I don't know about the distant universe or its age, but the 6 days and the deluge are increasingly linked together along these lines. Both geologically and culturally. There is an emormous amount of information in the world wide flood accounts, and where they are located, and why certain details reached those far locations, etc.

Just two geologic examples: the Centralia theory of Australia is now that rapid sedimentary deposit accounts for the entire center of the contintent, partially burying Ayers Rock, which is itself J shaped, ie, bent/folded. (Folding is located in many places around the world and takes huge amounts of energy, heat, water, etc.). 2, Clemens in the London geology association journal writes that granitic magmatism could produce domes like Yosemite's in as little as 5 hours. This planet has been rocked and rolled.

The reformation seems to be taking place in geology because uniformitarianism was slopped together when geology was very naive.

Greg Jennings
October 8th, 2015, 11:50 AM
Yet some of the best quotes about CPT (catastrophic plate tectonics) or vertical tectonics are not from Christians. I don't know about the distant universe or its age, but the 6 days and the deluge are increasingly linked together along these lines. Both geologically and culturally. There is an emormous amount of information in the world wide flood accounts, and where they are located, and why certain details reached those far locations, etc.

Just two geologic examples: the Centralia theory of Australia is now that rapid sedimentary deposit accounts for the entire center of the contintent, partially burying Ayers Rock, which is itself J shaped, ie, bent/folded. (Folding is located in many places around the world and takes huge amounts of energy, heat, water, etc.). 2, Clemens in the London geology association journal writes that granitic magmatism could produce domes like Yosemite's in as little as 5 hours. This planet has been rocked and rolled.

The reformation seems to be taking place in geology because uniformitarianism was slopped together when geology was very naive.

Pure uniformitarianism was abandoned some time ago. But that's beside the point. While there is ample evidence that large floods can dramatically alter landscapes and that they have occurred frequently throughout Earth's history, there is no evidence of a single worldwide flood outside of those brief deluges caused by impact tsunamis, and those would not have lasted long enough to cause significant landscape alterations akin to creating a new canyon.

Maybe in the future such evidences will emerge. But for now there isn't a reason to assume a worldwide flood is the reason for features that we see

6days
October 8th, 2015, 04:11 PM
. But for now there isn't a reason to assume a worldwide flood is the reason for features that we see
Of course there is evidence. God's Word tell us about it.
Even evolutionists agree the whole world has been covered in water. There only argument is that it was different floods.
Funny sort of... Evolutionists are eager to believe planets such as mars (Which seems to have no liquid water) was once covered by vast oceans.... Yet, they are afraid to admit earth (Currently 2/3 water) was covered in water.
Evolutionists hate evidence which contradicts their beliefs.

6days
October 8th, 2015, 04:13 PM
I'm glad you are more thick-skinned than some creationists. Truly I am.

As I pointed out previously, Mr. Silvestru did not come to his new views regarding the age of the Earth because scientific evidence told him he needed to rethink some things. In fact he says himself that scientific evidence was at odds with the Genesis creation account, and that he only changed his views because he thought he needed to in order to accommodate his new faith. At a glance it would seem that Sanford came across the same dilemma. I even remember reading about a British scientist (his name and exact field of study escapes me) who stated that even if all of the evidence available to him contradicted his belief in a 6000 year old Earth that he would still believe in a literal Genesis, which is of course is very obviously illogical.

I wouldn't consider that a ringing endorsement for the scientific accuracy of creationism, would you?
I would consider that a ringing endorsement for the absolute truth of God's Word.

Greg Jennings
October 8th, 2015, 06:15 PM
Of course there is evidence. God's Word tell us about it.
Even evolutionists agree the whole world has been covered in water. There only argument is that it was different floods.
Funny sort of... Evolutionists are eager to believe planets such as mars (Which seems to have no liquid water) was once covered by vast oceans.... Yet, they are afraid to admit earth (Currently 2/3 water) was covered in water.
Evolutionists hate evidence which contradicts their beliefs.

6days we've been over this: the Bible isn't itself tangible evidence. It provides potential anecdotal evidence, but that's all.

And though I myself have never heard that Mars was "covered" in water, it has visible ice caps and liquid water. Perhaps you missed the whole liquid water on Mars thing that's been in the news?

So.....nothing there that contradicts or is even related to evolution. Why does everything come back to evolution with you?

Greg Jennings
October 8th, 2015, 06:17 PM
I would consider that a ringing endorsement for the absolute truth of God's Word.

So you consider the fact that, in order to accept a literal Genesis, these scientists had to admittedly disregard what the evidence told them actually happened and instead believe that what they were studying and knew about the natural world was a pack of lies?

That's anything but a ringing endorsement for truth

6days
October 8th, 2015, 06:37 PM
So you consider the fact that, in order to accept a literal Genesis, these scientists had to admittedly disregard what the evidence told .....On the contrary. They embraced the evidence and rejected the evolutionary beliefs they had grown up with. They now acknowledge that the evidence best fits God's Word... and as geneticist Sanford says "evolytion is impossible".

Greg Jennings
October 8th, 2015, 06:46 PM
On the contrary. They embraced the evidence and rejected the evolutionary beliefs they had grown up with. They now acknowledge that the evidence best fits God's Word... and as geneticist Sanford says "evolytion is impossible".

As I've pointed out to you several times, according to their own quotes the scientists only rejected what their studies showed them after conversion. And I don't know about Sanford, but in Silvestru's case he admits that the real-world evidence in no way points to creation. He admittedly believes what he does despite what the evidence tells him. All of that is on these two pages.

6days
October 8th, 2015, 06:49 PM
6days we've been over this: the Bible isn't itself tangible evidence. It provides potential anecdotal evidence, but that's all.
The Bible is eye witness testimony from the only One who was there at the beginning.

As to other evidence..... all scientists from atheist to creationists examine the same evidence..... the same genetic evidence, same fossils, same DNA code, same universe Etc.


And though I myself have never heard that Mars was "covered" in water, it has visible ice caps and liquid water.
Once upon a time there was a fellow in TOL that rarely replied honestly to what had been said (straw man fallacy arguments)
I never said Mars was covered (singular) in water. What I really said was.......
"God's Word tell us about it (Global flood).
Even evolutionists agree the whole world has been covered in water. There only argument is that it was different floods.
Funny sort of... Evolutionists are eager to believe planets such as mars (Which seems to have no liquid water) was once covered by vast oceans.... Yet, they are afraid to admit earth (Currently 2/3 water) was covered in water.
Evolutionists hate evidence which contradicts their beliefs"

BTW.....
http://www.space.com/3933-mystery-solved-mars-large-oceans.html

Greg Jennings
October 8th, 2015, 07:28 PM
The Bible is eye witness testimony from the only One who was there at the beginning.

As to other evidence..... all scientists from atheist to creationists examine the same evidence..... the same genetic evidence, same fossils, same DNA code, same universe Etc.

Once upon a time there was a fellow in TOL that rarely replied honestly to what had been said (straw man fallacy arguments)
I never said Mars was covered (singular) in water. What I really said was.......
"God's Word tell us about it (Global flood).
Even evolutionists agree the whole world has been covered in water. There only argument is that it was different floods.
Funny sort of... Evolutionists are eager to believe planets such as mars (Which seems to have no liquid water) was once covered by vast oceans.... Yet, they are afraid to admit earth (Currently 2/3 water) was covered in water.
Evolutionists hate evidence which contradicts their beliefs"

BTW.....
http://www.space.com/3933-mystery-solved-mars-large-oceans.html

"Covered by vast oceans" is what you said word for word. Is it not? How does "covered by water" misrepresent that? Since you've more or less called me a liar, I would very much like a response to this particular part of my post.


And I'm sorry 6days, but there is no way to verify almost everything in the Bible. Is it eyewitness testimony? Possibly. It's certainly anecdotal evidence. But that doesn't constitute proof, and you know that.

Try winning a court case using only anecdotal evidence from a book and see how far that gets you. Maybe then you'll get the point

George Affleck
October 8th, 2015, 09:29 PM
I'm glad you are more thick-skinned than some creationists. Truly I am.



Not me!

I'm hurt. Cut to the quick. Truly crushed and it was you who did it.
I can't think of where exactly, but it was you! YOU!

:chuckle:

Oh... and don't call him Truly.

Greg Jennings
October 8th, 2015, 10:11 PM
Not me!

I'm hurt. Cut to the quick. Truly crushed and it was you who did it.
I can't think of where exactly, but it was you! YOU!

:chuckle:

Oh... and don't call him Truly.

Lol this was a good comment. If I knew how to rep you I would

6days
October 9th, 2015, 10:18 AM
Covered by vast oceans" is what you said word for word. Is it not? How does "covered by water" misrepresent that?
Can you see a difference;
A) The earth is covered with vast oceans
B) The earth is covered by water

*The word oeans (plural) implies different bodies of water... not a singular body of water. In any case.... I accept your misrepresentation was not deliberate. I apologize for implying that.*



And I'm sorry 6days, but there is no way to verify almost everything in the Bible. Is it eyewitness testimony?

Then in the same sense you can't verify Hitler wanted to exterminate Jewish people, and many other events of WW2. * In spite of overwhelming evidence, there are those who deny it.*

Greg Jennings
October 9th, 2015, 10:21 AM
Can you see a difference;
A) The earth is covered with vast oceans
B) The earth is covered by water

*The word oeans (plural) implies different bodies of water... not a singular body of water. In any case.... I accept your misrepresentation was not deliberate. I apologize for implying that.* It's fine. I overreacted a bit




Then in the same sense you can't verify Hitler wanted to exterminate Jewish people, and many other events of WW2. * In spite of overwhelming evidence, there are those who deny it.*
We have video footage, testimony from the Nazi leaders themselves, and of course the actual concentration camps, gas chambers, and burial pits that confirm the Holocaust was very real. We have no such tangible evidence for most of what the Bible says

6days
October 9th, 2015, 03:46 PM
We have video footage, testimony from the Nazi leaders themselves, and of course the actual concentration camps, gas chambers, and burial pits that confirm the Holocaust was very real.
And in spite of the overwhelming evidence, there are still deniers.


We have no such tangible evidence for most of what the Bible says Sure we do, but you deny it.

We have the overwhelming *evidence of divinely inspired scripture. We have the "appearance" of design in nature. We have eye witness testimony. We have the evidence that life only comes from life. We have the evidence that there is a *all powerful cause of everything which has existed eternally. We have the evidence that every known code has an intelligent creator..etc etc.

Its not that there isn't evidence...its that you deny it.*

Greg Jennings
October 9th, 2015, 04:05 PM
And in spite of the overwhelming evidence, there are still deniers.
There are always deniers. Moon landing deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the list is endless. The common thread in each of these cases is that the people who are clearly wrong are a tiny minority


Sure we do, but you deny it.

We have the overwhelming *evidence of divinely inspired scripture. We have the "appearance" of design in nature. We have eye witness testimony. We have the evidence that life only comes from life. We have the evidence that there is a *all powerful cause of everything which has existed eternally. We have the evidence that every known code has an intelligent creator..etc etc.

Its not that there isn't evidence...its that you deny it.*

Me and everyone (that includes most Christians) who isn't a fundamentalist Christian denies it. So unlike the above examples, I am in the overwhelming majority.

You on the other hand, are the conspiracy theorist in the tiny minority. Who somehow believes that all of science is wrong and purposefully lying in order to further their cause of atheist global domination. You are the one who fits neatly into the category you tried to project onto me, ironically.

If you want to pretend that the Bible is evidence, then you can at least give me a good reason why the Koran isn't, can't you?

6days
October 9th, 2015, 05:33 PM
We have the overwhelming *evidence of divinely inspired scripture. We have the "appearance" of design in nature. We have eye witness testimony. We have the evidence that life only comes from life. We have the evidence that there is a all powerful cause of everything which has existed eternally. We have the evidence that every known code has an intelligent creator..etc etc.

Its not that there isn't evidence...its that you deny it.
Me and everyone (that includes most Christians) who isn't a fundamentalist Christian denies it. So unlike the above examples, I am in the overwhelming majority.Evolutionists think science is the shifting *popular opinion. Fortunately science is about knowledge and truth.

If we just believed majority opinion we would still think ....

*... our appendix was a useless evolutionary leftover

* ...our DNA was mostly useless "flotsam" / garbage.

*....that Neandertals were unrelated to modern humans (no interbreeding)

*...that life can come from non-life

And...we would still believe that aquired traits like my huge biceps would be passed on to my children.

Two things Christians should be thankful for:

1. Science which keeps showing us how evolutionary beliefs are false.

2. God's Word which is absolute truth and stands forever...unlike mans shifting opinions.*

Greg Jennings
October 9th, 2015, 06:33 PM
Evolutionists think science is the shifting *popular opinion. Fortunately science is about knowledge and truth.

If we just believed majority opinion we would still think ....

*... our appendix was a useless evolutionary leftover

* ...our DNA was mostly useless "flotsam" / garbage.

*....that Neandertals were unrelated to modern humans (no interbreeding)

*...that life can come from non-life

And...we would still believe that aquired traits like my huge biceps would be passed on to my children.

Two things Christians should be thankful for:

1. Science which keeps showing us how evolutionary beliefs are false.

2. God's Word which is absolute truth and stands forever...unlike mans shifting opinions.*

What I'm thankful for: that people who won't accept reality can't change that reality by repeating false statements over and over again

6days
October 9th, 2015, 06:36 PM
What I'm thankful for: that people who won't accept reality can't change that reality by repeating false statements over and over again

Ain't that the truth!

George Affleck
October 9th, 2015, 07:02 PM
The common thread in each of these cases is that the people who are clearly wrong are a tiny minority


As a principle, I disagree.

Greg Jennings
October 9th, 2015, 07:11 PM
As a principle, I disagree.

In principle you are welcome to. But in each and every example mentioned that was indeed the case

George Affleck
October 9th, 2015, 07:51 PM
In principle you are welcome to. But in each and every example mentioned that was indeed the case

But these are not all the examples and the principle is flawed.

If you lived in the days of Galileo, would the minority or majority belief about geocentrism be the correct or incorrect one at that time?

If you lived in the days of Jesus, would the minority or majority belief about slavery be the correct or incorrect one?

It is a logical fallacy to suggest that numbers has anything to do with validity. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. In fact, history shows us that very often an idea that is eventually adopted by the majority began in obscurity.

Interplanner
October 9th, 2015, 07:56 PM
Evolutionists think science is the shifting *popular opinion. Fortunately science is about knowledge and truth.

If we just believed majority opinion we would still think ....

*... our appendix was a useless evolutionary leftover

* ...our DNA was mostly useless "flotsam" / garbage.

*....that Neandertals were unrelated to modern humans (no interbreeding)

*...that life can come from non-life

And...we would still believe that aquired traits like my huge biceps would be passed on to my children.

Two things Christians should be thankful for:

1. Science which keeps showing us how evolutionary beliefs are false.

2. God's Word which is absolute truth and stands forever...unlike mans shifting opinions.*



GregJ,
could you kind of clear the deck on this one (yours was the subject of this post). I simply can't tell what you're saying, what the "it" is, who you think is in denial, etc.

Greg Jennings
October 9th, 2015, 11:22 PM
But these are not all the examples and the principle is flawed.

If you lived in the days of Galileo, would the minority or majority belief about geocentrism be the correct or incorrect one at that time?

If you lived in the days of Jesus, would the minority or majority belief about slavery be the correct or incorrect one?

It is a logical fallacy to suggest that numbers has anything to do with validity. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. In fact, history shows us that very often an idea that is eventually adopted by the majority began in obscurity.

In your example, science was on Galileo's side and he was never doubted by anyone that didn't have a religious agenda.

In today's world, with all of our technology and advances due to science, it's a safe bet to assume that anytime the overwhelming majority of scientists (95+%) agree on something then it is true. Otherwise, you're saying that scientists either aren't good at their jobs (which can be proven false by the advances and technology all around us) or that they are all conspiring to trick you (which is a ridiculous conspiracy theory)

Greg Jennings
October 9th, 2015, 11:25 PM
GregJ,
could you kind of clear the deck on this one (yours was the subject of this post). I simply can't tell what you're saying, what the "it" is, who you think is in denial, etc.

Creationists are the tiny minority that is in denial of what science is very clear on: namely, the age of the Earth according to evidence across dozens of fields of science. Creationists seem to think that either scientists are incompetent, or that they are all in cahoots to push an agenda of atheist global domination. Obviously both of the above are ridiculous, but that's what a very large percentage of creationists think

6days
October 10th, 2015, 06:27 AM
Creationists are the tiny minority....

The tiny minority that said there may be purpose and function in what evolutionists called "junk DNA".


Creationists seem to think that either scientists are incompetent, or that they are all in cahoots to push an agenda of atheist global domination.

Not true at all Greg. Biblical creationists understand that science improves our lives with better medicine and technology. Most fields of modern science were founded by Bible believing Christians who rejected the majority opinion of their day. (Aristotolean 'science').*

George Affleck
October 10th, 2015, 07:25 AM
In your example, science was on Galileo's side and he was never doubted by anyone that didn't have a religious agenda.

Couched in this reply is the incorrect assumption that some people do not have a religious agenda. This is untrue.

All humans are religious. It is just that some do not have the God of the Bible as the object of their faith.


In today's world, with all of our technology and advances due to science, it's a safe bet to assume that anytime the overwhelming majority of scientists (95+%) agree on something then it is true.
Again, this is a logical fallacy and untrue as a proof of anything. Google "Argumentum ad populum" for an explanation. Your faith is in today's technology and advances due to science and is good enough for you personally.


Otherwise, you're saying that scientists either aren't good at their jobs (which can be proven false by the advances and technology all around us) or that they are all conspiring to trick you (which is a ridiculous conspiracy theory)

No, there is another possibility - the Bandwagon Effect, and what I call the Marketing Effect. That which is well marketed (evolution is an example) will be accepted more than that which is not and once it catches on, others will follow because of the Bandwagon Effect.

Interplanner
October 10th, 2015, 08:51 AM
A few of the more recent resources on the Biblical deluge, some of which relate back to the OP and how the continents were made to stand up or forth from the deep.




DELUGE OF INFORMATION
Annotated Bibliography


Ager, D. THE NATURE OF THE STRATIGRAPHICAL PROCESS. A peer scientist disputes Lyell's basis for uniformitarianism by evidence about rapid deposition and the Epeiric sea over north America.

Ager, D. NEW CATASTROPHISM.

Baugh, C. PRE-FLOOD ARTIFACT DEVASTATES UNIFORMITARIANISM. Youtube. A hammer made of sophisticated metal from England in a 'strata' where it does not 'belong.'

Baugh, C. THE WORLD AND MANKIND BEFORE THE FLOOD. Youtube. “Bizz-artifacts” of the ancient world re longevity, giantism.

Boudreaux. NEW THEORY FOR THE PRE-FLOOD CANOPY re sugilite, a trace found all over the earth's surface. Youtube.

Bretz, J H. 1920s. Geologic catastrophism in connection with Lake Missoula.

CENTRALIA THEORY. A newer catastrophic view that the entire central 80% of Australia is a rapid deposit zone as part of a global event.

Clemens, J. Research on granitic magmatism. Geologist Association of London.

Cooper, B. AFTER THE FLOOD.

Dona, K. ARTIFACTS FROM PRE-FLOOD WORLD & FALLEN ANGELS. Pres. By Habsburg Haus curator. Youtube. “Bizz-artifacts” of the ancient world.

FINDING NOAH. Oct.8.2015 limited screening.

Haynes. MAMMOTHS... Research on the thousands of mammoths in permafrost.

Hovind, K. FLOOD OF NOAH. Youtube. Hundreds of flood legends around the world. Hovind tends to wander off topic.

Hovind, K. THOUSANDS OF DRAGON LEGENDS AROUND THE WORLD. Youtube. Hovind tends to wander off topic.

Howorth, 1887. Early research on mammoths unable to explain the huge numbers found in permafrost.

James-Griffiths, P. TRACING GENESIS THROUGH ANCIENT CULTURE. Youtube. Extensive and well-illustrated comparative legend and literature.

Giem, P. IS PLUTO YOUNG? Youtube.

Guthrie. FROZEN FAUNA... Research on the plant life around the time and place of the huge numbers of frozen mammoths.

Job 9. 'God moves and overturns mountains.'

Johnson, C. THE PRE-FLOOD WORLD: CREATION AND CANOPY. Youtube.

LIVING WATERS. See nrbtv (Direct 378). This is a rich photoessay against several aspects of Darwinism.

Lyell. Mid-1800s scientist who developed the idea of uniformitarianism 'to free geology from Moses.'

THE MAN WHO FOUND TIME. Re Hutton (mid-1700s) and the first attempts to state that there are vast amounts of time manifesting in the universe.

Mial, A. (research on failures of uniformitariansm) Springer International Publishing.



National Geographic Society. (100 mammoths at Hot Springs, South Dakota).

Nurre, P. EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY AND THE BIBLE. Nwcreation.net. Comparing new archeology with Biblical record.

Oard, M. THE LAKE MISSOULA FLOOD. Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Oard, M. WHAT HAPPENED TO WOOLLY MAMMOTHS? Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.


Psalm 104. The creation psalm with a few verses on the deluge, if not on Gen 1:2.

Psalm 136. The earth is set on top of water.

Siccar Point, Scotland. This site is contested as a clinching site by both uniformitarians and Biblical creation/deluge believers.

Silvestru, E. GEOLOGY AND DEEP TIME. Youtube. Vertical tectonics, rapid sedimentary deposits by a highly-trained ex-uniformitarian.

Snelling, A. WORLDWIDE FLOOD; GEOLOGIC EVIDENCE. Youtube.

Steno, N. Mid-1600s 'father of geology' and his Biblical basis.

Tolmachoff. 1929. Studies on woolly mammoths as anomalies.

Vereshagin. MAMMOTH CEMETERIES. Research on cause of death of thousands of mammoths in permafrost.

Walker, T. (THE GENESIS DELUGE). Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Walker, T. MEGA-CATASTROPHE. Nwcreation.net Seattle creation conference 2015.

Waltke, B. CREATION AND CHAOS. Study of ancient near east legend to show how Gen 1's mission is to declare that the LORD is the redemptive-creator.

Ward. CALL OF THE DISTANT MOUNTAINS. Research on the anomalies of woolly mammoths.