Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[NATEDOG]

If Zakath is having a hard time that is a good thing.

I'm not surprised Zakath didn't do too well in this debate.
He's a fundamental atheist argueing with a fundamental Christian pastor.
I don't really think Bob Enyart has done well in this debate either.
I think an agnostic would have made things a lot harder on him.

 

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by bmyers

Nor would I expect it to - but then I have to ask again, why is the acceptance of a "young Earth" model seemingly so important to a certain relatively small group of Christians?



I already stated one reason. Death would have been happening for billions of years and would have preceded Adam's appearance and contradict the statements that everything was "good" until Adam sinned and brought death into the world.
You answer that this could simply mean a spiritual death. But this is not how most scholars- theologians read the meaning of the word "death" in context.
How could everything be good, when wolves are ripping the throats of young lambs for millions of years., to mention only one carniverous act. Isaiah 65-25 says what the Lord desires and considers good.
Another reason is that it would portray a more distant God, than the rest of Scripture indicates. He simply would be a God who wound up the evolutionary clock and watched His Creation unfold as animals fought and killed each other to survive. As if He were watching a PBS documentary about the wild kingdom for fun. The God of the Bible takes note when a single sparrow falls.
Another reason is that it clearly says He "spoke" and things sprang into existence. Again you can call it a myth and a fairy tale for small minds, but clearly it is a different type of Creation, then the one that you, and or science proposes.
Clearly if all the killing and dying of the evolutionary survival of the fittest is happening due to God's design, rather than man's sin, when God gave to the man dominion and care over the earth. Then God brought evil and death into the world and not man. This is a huge theological problem.







:think: :think: :think:

 

[jeremiah]

....... or are you proposing that the Creation account is accurate, only it happened possibly billions of years ago.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Originally posted by Psycho Dave
And the relevence of your personal snipe at me to the Enyart/Zakath debate is precisely what?

None whatsoever. But, as you had no similar objections when asked about your avatar, I thought it fair to ask why you linked to your site when you'd been asked not to do so before.

I don't mind trolls who cannot deal with other people's senses of humor...

While I disagree with the "troll" label, you're right-- I can't deal with some people's sense of humor. Especially when it's particularly unfunny, as the cartoon in question is.

To your credit, Dave, the photo of nuns holding guns is funny. God asking someone to pull his finger is quite hysterical (indeed, I would think the result of God's flatulence would come out looking somewhat like you, Dave).

But the fellatio cartoon shows no sense of humor. Rather, it shows a jaded perversion on the part of the writer (you, Dave?) who, upon not being able to meet any standard of goodness for himself, must project his own depravity upon someone who has met that standard.

 

[NATEDOG]

Hey Jeremiah,
I appreciate your prayers. Your attitude as well.
I know so many Christians that get frazzled by the tough questions and or intentionally obscure the fact they don't have an answer. You seem to be willing to take them head on, or admit lack of knowledge.

Another question I have, is in regards to the Sumerian legends of Gilgamesh and other heroes.
The legends of Gilgamesh predate the writing of Genesis by well over a thousand years.
In the stories of Gilgamesh, you find mention of a global flood and an ark, the garden of eden, Noah and his wife being preserved in the garden of eden as demi-gods by eating from the tree of life.
There is also an account of Gilgamesh's journey to find the Garden of Eden and to bring back the tree of life or part of it to his city.
When he finds the garden of eden, the gate is being protected by a higher being wielding a sword.

Abram was born into a region where he no doubt would have grown up familiarized with these stories.
So, we have the sumerian legends of Gilgamesh. The core stories that define the regions culture. We over a thousand years later, another account of the beginning of the world in Genesis that incorporates many of the characters we see scattered in the sumerian legends, arise out of the same region.
As a secular scholar, how would you view that?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Psycho Dave -- were you asked not to link to this site before? If so, I'd suggest that you remove it.

 

[PastorZ77]

**********I'm not surprised Zakath didn't do too well in this debate. He's a fundamental atheist argueing with a fundamental Christian pastor.
I don't really think Bob Enyart has done well in this debate either.
I think an agnostic would have made things a lot harder on him.
***********QUOTE BY NATEDOG

So why don't you finish him off?

 

[NATEDOG]

Because I'm not agnostic.

 

[jeremiah]

To NATEDOG

Thanks for the kind words. I just simply believe that God is the "way the truth and the life" I also believe that "His word is truth." I readily admit that there are many difficult things in His word and some of His ways are unknowable to us in our physical bodies, but if we study to know what the words of the Bible truly said in the original languages, and then properly interpret them, the world we live in matches up to it. I was not told the truth as a Catholic schoolboy, so I don't want to be tricked again.
I am not anywhere close to being a secular scholar, however I do know a little more than the average Christian because I want to know more, and am willing to at least explore the tough questions. For some reason we all have been made to be afraid to say "I don't know." But I do know that God wants me to be honest.
Therefore I try not to pretend I know more than I do, but sometimes we all slip up on that one. It is very tempting.
Regarding your question about the epic of Gilgamesh, I do remember it being a fairly accurate record of the flood. I don't remember it going into such details about Noah and the Garden of Eden. I would caution you to remember that for years Bible critics said that there was no worldwide flood. Yet when they found an older written mention of it in the Epics of Gilgamesh, they try a new tack. There may have been a worldwide flood, but see God didn't inspire the Bible, they are simply writing books based on old Sumerian legends or history.
Well if it is history than the two corroborate each other, don't they. You would expect the surviving generations after the flood to record the greatest physical event to ever occur wouldn't you. So it was written before the Bible. So what?
If it was a myth and the Bible copied it, then we have a problem. But what has modern science and geology discovered. Real evidence all over the world of a global flood.
I don't know if this answers any questions you had, but that is what I think off the top of my head, right now. Let me know if you have a specific question?

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by jeremiah
You answer that this could simply mean a spiritual death. But this is not how most scholars- theologians read the meaning of the word "death" in context.

I think I was the one that said spiritual death, but perhaps I wasn't alone. Here's a dilema I struggled with when I was trying to cling to my Young Earth view. In Genesis 2:17, it says that on the "day" Adam ate from the tree he would surely die. Yet we all know he didn't physically die on that 24-hour day (the Hebrew for day here is the same as used repeatedly in Genesis 1 to supposedly designate 24 hour periods). The commentaries I checked say it was a spiritual death (seperation from intimate fellowship with God). So if "death" in this context refers to spiritual death why can't "death" in the context of Romans 5:12 also be referring to spiritual death? Another interesting facit of Romans 5:12 is that it doesn't say Adams sin resulted in death to animals, but to all men. And apart from the Biblical issue, I could never reconcile the idea that a Shark with it's teeth was created to be a vegetarian.

Pardon my challenge to your statement, but most people I've come across that say things like: "most scholars - theologians..." have in actuality only checked 2 or 3 sources from their own basic doctrinal camp or even worse are merely repeated a statement someone else told them. So in honesty, on what size of a sample set do you make the statement that most "scholars - theologians" support the notion that no animal death could have occured before Adam sinned?

[QUOTEJ]Another reason is that it clearly says He "spoke" and things sprang into existence. [/QUOTE]

Species springing into existence doesn't conflict with an Old Earth view. Both the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism can easily fit that concept in an Old Earth context. You're concept only conflicts with Theistic Evolution.

While you may consider animals dieing as an evil, it could very we be part of God's orginal plan for nature. Without the death of animals there could not be the birth of new babies (unless God intended the world to become incredibly overcrowded).

 

[jeremiah]

To ex-fundy, bmyers, Natedog, et. al.
I just read a fascinating webpage where an apparently young earth Bible believing Creationist, discusses how Evolution is God'S plan for survival of man and animals in the Post flood world. It requires non evolutionists like me to admit that there is macro- evoltion and some quick transitional forms.
It requires Evolutionists to admit that there was a recent worldwide flood, and that Speciation and macro evolution of a kind has occurred rapidly and in the last several thousand years. It is this kind of thinking that could reconcile theistic evolutionists and Creationists. Old earthers, and young earthers. Give it a read and let me know what you all think.
http://nwcreation.net/evolution_creation.html

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by jeremiah
I would caution you to remember that for years Bible critics said that there was no worldwide flood. Yet when they found an older written mention of it in the Epics of Gilgamesh, they try a new tack....
Well if it is history than the two corroborate each other, don't they.

Corroboration requires independence. If I set-up a web-page with information I likely read in the National Enquirer, that wouldn't add credibility to the stories. As Natedog said, Abram grew up in a region that would have made him familiar with the Gilgamesh legends. If Natedog is correct, then there is no independence between these 2 sources. They are merely edited copies of the same legend.

Independent evidence would be something like a record of a horible flood starting (around the same time period) from 1000's of miles away. The kind of thing someone may have written before they drowned.

Other independent evidence would be geological records from various points around the world of simultaneous floodings.

But what has modern science and geology discovered. Real evidence all over the world of a global flood.

I've not seen any of this. All I've been able to uncover is regional floods at various points around the world at different points in history. Can you provide some credible references that support your statement?

 

[attention]

jeremeiah:

What astonishing new evidence lead to that break through in theistic evolutiuon "science", or just a wishfull thought to keep the crowd together?

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jeremiah,

If it was a myth and the Bible copied it, then we have a problem. But what has modern science and geology discovered. Real evidence all over the world of a global flood.

There is NO evidence of a world wide Global flood. In fact it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for the World to have been entirely inundated.

There is evidence of large scale flooding following the end of the last Ice Age. Coastal peoples would have had tremendous difficulty during this time.

The Sumerians lived between 2 Great Rivers the Tigris and the Euphrates. This would have been a great place for growing crops and herding.. but it also would have been subject to flooding and at times massive floods.

Can you imagine what happened in the Tigris/Euphrates basin when the Northern Glaciers melted ? The Sumerians entire World would have been inundated.

THAT is where your WW Flood legend comes from.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
There is NO evidence of a world wide Global flood.

How'd all those dead things get buried in the rock then?

In fact it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for the World to have been entirely inundated.

That's ridiculous. Ever looked at a globe? It's mostly inundated now.

There is evidence of large scale flooding following the end of the last Ice Age.

This is some of the very evidence of which you say there is none. All you've done is shift the time frame (the Ice Age occured after the flood).

Coastal peoples would have had tremendous difficulty during this time.

Depends on how fast the ice melted. Last time I checked, a good chunk of it was still frozen.

The Sumerians lived between 2 Great Rivers the Tigris and the Euphrates. This would have been a great place for growing crops and herding.. but it also would have been subject to flooding and at times massive floods.

Yeah, but how massive?

Can you imagine what happened in the Tigris/Euphrates basin when the Northern Glaciers melted ? The Sumerians entire World would have been inundated.

Sure, if the whole thing melted overnight, but like I said before, a lot of it is still frozen.

THAT is where your WW Flood legend comes from.

I don't think so.

 

[jeremiah]

To Attention:
No astonishing new evidence. I found it a thought provoking article. The problem that I see with most scientists is they start with the premise, there is no way that God is going to enter into any of our equations or theories, therefore they would not even test a hypothesis based upon the thought of a young earth or a worldwide flood. At least this man is thinking outside the standard boxes of evolution and Creationism. Don't you at least give him credit for that?

 

[jeremiah]

Thanks for the help One Eyed Jack. I really need it since this is not my field of specialty. I could have never re researched those answers that fast.:thumb:

 

[jeremiah]

To ex-fundy:

You are technically, and cynically correct. An account written a thousand years after the previous account does not corroborate.
I suppose one could think that Moses was simply rewritting oral history that had been passed down. It would not mean that he had received it as revelation from God. The same charge is levelled concerning the code of Hammurabi and the Ten commandments and the other social laws and judgments in the Torah.
So what is your stance. The global flood never happened? The epic of Gilgamesh is acccurate? inaccurate? The differences between the two accounts, which is more accurate?

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
How'd all those dead things get buried in the rock then?

Floods are a great way to create fossils (as are landslides, volcanic eruptions, and tar pits). But flood induced fossils can occur in any sized flood - not just worldwide.

That's ridiculous. Ever looked at a globe? It's mostly inundated now.

The volume of water necessary to rise above Mt. Everest simply doesn't exist on this planet. Therefore, one would have to theorize that the mountains rapidly rose a significant amount AFTER the water started to recede.

This is some of the very evidence of which you say there is none. All you've done is shift the time frame (the Ice Age occured after the flood).

"large scale" as Aussie said doesn't infer world-wide. But it does support the concept of multiple cultures having myths about big floods.

Depends on how fast the ice melted. Last time I checked, a good chunk of it was still frozen.

The melting of huge glaciers doesn't necessarily result in a linear trickle of water into the ocean. Obstacles would tend to clog the paths until the pressure became too much and the obstacles collapsed causing huge waves of water (just as we often see in naturally occurring floods today).

Sure, if the whole thing melted overnight, but like I said before, a lot of it is still frozen.

You misunderstand how large masses of ice melt. Almost yearly my region suffers from floods caused by melting ice and snow. And the creeks and rivers are already well established. If you multiply the amount of ice by 10 a 100 or 1000 times and don't already have all the nicely established water routes to the sea there'd be horendous flash floods.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jeremiah.. don’t worry Jack didn’t research his answers either. Lets have another look at them. No offence but they are misinformed answers at best and purile childish answers at worst.

That's ridiculous. Ever looked at a globe? It's mostly inundated now.

Because the Globe has a lot of oceans Jack thinks that it could have somehow covered the highest peak in the World. That would be and extra 5 miles of ocean around the entire Globe. Or more than twice as much water than we have now.. where did it all go ?? Evaporation.. Aside from the inability for life to recover as we know it now.. also Jack thinks evolution can’t work but what would have had to happen to re-make the world after his Global flood.

I repeat again A Global Flood is scientifically impossible.

This is some of the very evidence of which you say there is none. All you've done is shift the time frame (the Ice Age occured after the flood).

Global Flood = World covered in Water
Global Flooding = Pockets of flooding throughout the world.

These are 2 completely different things. 1 we have evidence for.. the other is a fantasy from the ancient Sumerian Legends.

Depends on how fast the ice melted. Last time I checked, a good chunk of it was still frozen.

I know time is a problem for you Jack.. it is too quick for evolution but too slow for animals post ARK.. you really struggle with some simple concepts don’t you ?

If the sea level rose a few metres every year it would pose huge problems. Especially if people had build permanent structures and docks. Have you seen Venice ?

Yeah, but how massive?

The same as happen today except we have dams etc to control it.

Sure, if the whole thing melted overnight, but like I said before, a lot of it is still frozen.

Jack sometimes I wonder about you. If glaciers meted the melt would mean a constant overflowing of the rivers. Over years they would expand and flood the entire valley. If you have cities etc in that Valley it is an immense disaster !