If Evolution

[Jose Fly]

"Anti-literalists" (yourself and Jose included) have only said "It must be figurative or it's contradictory!" but never gave any details.

FYI, I'm not an "anti-literalist". I'm a non-Christian who has noted that if fundamentalists want to insist that Genesis literally means that the universe is ~6,000 years old and the entire earth was flooded ~4,500 years ago, then the Bible is simply wrong and I am justified in rejecting it.

Also, the "hydroplate theory" is hardly new. It was first proposed by Walt Brown 38 years ago. But because it involves massive, relatively rapid movements of so much mass, the physics don't work without miracles.

That's why in the almost 4 decades since it was first proposed, it's had absolutely zero impact on science.

 

[Stripe]

Because it involves massive, relatively rapid movements of so much mass, the physics don't work without miracles.

Hold on a second, sonshine. You believe in the exact same work being done.

That's why in the almost 4 decades since it was first proposed, it's had absolutely zero impact on science.

:darwinsm:

You have no idea what the theory teaches, let alone any concept about what effect it has had.

 

[Jose Fly]

Hold on a second, sonshine. You believe in the exact same work being done.

Do tell.

You have no idea what the theory teaches, let alone any concept about what effect it has had.

Then show where Brown's "hydroplate theory" has had any impact on science.

 

[Stripe]

Do tell.

Oh.

You don't know what you believe?

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh.

You don't know what you believe?

That's what I thought.

 

[Stripe]

That's what I thought.

What the heck was that? :AMR:

That's the weirdest cut and run I've ever heard. :chuckle:

You declare the Hydroplate theory impossible from a physics perspective, but your own ideas see the same work done.

 

[The Barbarian]

Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
Where does the Bible say the waters were?

Barbarian observes:
Above the earth.

(Stipe opposes God's word)
Nope.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:

Stipe often finds God's word unacceptable to him. He's definitely not in this for what the Bible says.

 

[6days]

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:

Stipe often finds God's word unacceptable to him. He's definitely not in this for what the Bible says.

?? You just quoted a verse showing Stripe was correct. 40 days of rain certainly is not enough water to cover the mountains. Read that verse again... but slowly.

 

[6days]

have given good reason from the Bible why the six days don’t mean what they say.

What you did is try compromise Scripture with secular opinions.

The second creation story, which starts in Genesis 2.4b, gives a different order and method of creation. But you deny what the text says.

What the text says?

* It says God created light before He made the stars.

That's what the text says!

* The Earth was created before the sun.

That's what the text says!

* It says earth started in a watery state. (Sea before dry land)

That's what the text says!

* Plants created before the sun.

That's what the text says!

* Birds were created before land animals

That's what the text says!

* Man existed before death entered the world.

That's what the text says!

* Thorns and thistles came into existence after man.

* Everything was created in 6 days and not recreated.

That's what the text says!


The Bible has one creation account. Your denial of God's Word in Genesis, is why you don't understand the gospel, and why Last Adam had to suffer physical death. (Or, do you think the cross and resurrection is just figurative?)

 

[2003cobra]

Not really. If it was good reason, we might be convinced.

No, I find people are far more dedicated to their traditions than to what the text actually says.

Pointing out contradictions in the Bible doesn't lead to the idea that it is figurative; it leads to the idea that it is wrong.

They aren’t contradictions.
The contradiction is declaring the two creation stories, with different and mutually exclusive orders and methods and creation, must be read as literal history.

And you don't give any reason for the figurative approach. What does it all mean if it doesn't mean what it plainly says?

Have you read the conclusion to the second creation story?

The conclusion and meaning is right there in the Bible: Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 2And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

I have done that for 43 years with my first wife.

The story has a practical, useful meaning.

Read the text. It disagrees with you.

Where were the waters?

Above and below the dome (as some translations call it) or firmament on which the sun and moon were set.

Of course this is not accurate.

 

[2003cobra]

Still waiting for what the supposedly figurative language of Genesis is supposed to mean.

If everything in the creation week is figurative, then what does each figurative object mean or represent?

The first creation story tells us God is the creator and caused the earth to bring forth life. Its conclusion is that man is to be fruitful and multiply and that man has dominion over the earth.
God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.


The second creation story has a clear conclusion: Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.


Read the text. It states the meanings of the two creation stories.

Be fruitful and multiply.
Be responsible for the earth.
Men are to be dedicated to their wives.

Practical and useful meanings. Do not pervert the passages by ignoring what they say and denying the two stories differ in methods and orders of creation.

 

[2003cobra]

FYI, I'm not an "anti-literalist". I'm a non-Christian who has noted that if fundamentalists want to insist that Genesis literally means that the universe is ~6,000 years old and the entire earth was flooded ~4,500 years ago, then the Bible is simply wrong and I am justified in rejecting it.

Also, the "hydroplate theory" is hardly new. It was first proposed by Walt Brown 38 years ago. But because it involves massive, relatively rapid movements of so much mass, the physics don't work without miracles.

That's why in the almost 4 decades since it was first proposed, it's had absolutely zero impact on science.

Rejecting Christianity because a few Christians deny what the text says and irrationally insist on a literal reading of some of the text while ignoring the texts in contrast
is like
Rejecting pizza because a few pizza have been made with legless crickets.

I have seen such a pizza. I still order a Pizza Hut Meatlovers frequently.

I would come up with a better analogy, but my wife and I are watching the Crown on Netflix.

 

[2003cobra]

?? You just quoted a verse showing Stripe was correct. 40 days of rain certainly is not enough water to cover the mountains. Read that verse again... but slowly.

You want to test the facts of the flood story and limit it based on physical characteristics?

If so, the story cannot be taken literally, because, among others:
The germination and growth period required to get an olive branch brought back ark is longer than the time the story allows if the flood was global.

 

[2003cobra]

What you did is try compromise Scripture with secular opinions.



What the text says?

* It says God created light before He made the stars.

That's what the text says!

* The Earth was created before the sun.

That's what the text says!

* It says earth started in a watery state. (Sea before dry land)

That's what the text says!

* Plants created before the sun.

That's what the text says!

* Birds were created before land animals

That's what the text says!

* Man existed before death entered the world.

That's what the text says!

* Thorns and thistles came into existence after man.

* Everything was created in 6 days and not recreated.

That's what the text says!


The Bible has one creation account. Your denial of God's Word in Genesis, is why you don't understand the gospel, and why Last Adam had to suffer physical death. (Or, do you think the cross and resurrection is just figurative?)

Yes, I know you deny what the text actually says in the second creation story.

You embrace the first story as literal and deny the second.

It is a strange path you have chosen. I know you can read the text of the second creation story. So you will be held accountable for your rejection of it.

 

[Jose Fly]

You declare the Hydroplate theory impossible from a physics perspective,

Yup.

but your own ideas see the same work done.

Do tell.

 

[Jose Fly]

Rejecting Christianity because a few Christians deny what the text says and irrationally insist on a literal reading of some of the text while ignoring the texts in contrast
is like
Rejecting pizza because a few pizza have been made with legless crickets.

Oh, that's not why I'm not a Christian. I was just making a point about fundamentalists and their insistence that the Genesis creation stories must be read literally, or else Christianity itself is false.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Barbarian observes:
Above the earth.

(Stipe opposes God's word)
Nope.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:

Stipe often finds God's word unacceptable to him. He's definitely not in this for what the Bible says.

Hey, Barb, you do realize that there are two water sources there, right? Not just one?

As I said above, I reject the canopy theory because there could never be enough water held above the earth without suffocating all life on earth.

I look at what the Bible says, and what the Hydroplate theory says, and am convinced that most of the water from the Flood came from beneath the crust of the earth, through fountains of the great deep.

 

[2003cobra]

Oh, that's not why I'm not a Christian. I was just making a point about fundamentalists and their insistence that the Genesis creation stories must be read literally, or else Christianity itself is false.

They are very misled.

 

[Stripe]

Above the earth.

:darwinsm:

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up.

Oh, look. There it is. Foundations of the great deep breaking up in the sky.

:darwinsm:

By golly, but you're stupid.

The flood gates of heaven were opened:

What goes up must come down.

 

[Stripe]

Above and below the ... firmament.

Where was the ocean before the firmament was created?