|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 1, 2009 10:23:20 GMT -8
I was just kidding (sorry for not being clear). I really do want to hear your perspective because it interests me.  |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 1, 2009 21:21:50 GMT -8
I still say the flood mythology is more important in the idea of preserving what is rightious than trying to justify as an actual local or global event of any stripe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 2, 2009 6:50:01 GMT -8
I think all of us can agree that there is a spiritual meaning to the story that is paramount.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 2, 2009 18:09:22 GMT -8
krhagan wrote:
I believe the text only requires that Noah brought all the local animals important for the survival of humanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 2, 2009 19:26:58 GMT -8
Ok Josh, so me something in SCRIPTURE which you believe to be "inerent" that even IMPLIES that the flood is a localized event. Also SHOW ME, IN SCRIPTURE, Which, you BELIEVE TO BE INERENT a localization of animals that are "important to the survival of humanity"? If you can show me this in Genesis then I will pay close attention to your point, but if this is wild contrivance in an attempt to bring "coherency" into a book that lacks it, I find little to support your claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 2, 2009 19:27:17 GMT -8
so=SHOW
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 2, 2009 19:39:44 GMT -8
Where did I say I adhere to innerancy? I said I don't. I just don't think your examples of inconsistancies are errors.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 3, 2009 7:35:51 GMT -8
Yet, the question still remains, can you show me something in Genesis, ANYTHING... to support you hypothesis that A. The flood was a localized event that still killed all of humanity but Noah's family and B. That Noah was only charged with saving the animals that were local and important to human survival?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 3, 2009 13:09:37 GMT -8
I am currently compiling the evidence and will share it when I have it ready. I just started back to work this week, so my time on the internet is slowing down.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 3, 2009 14:31:02 GMT -8
I understand. Note I am a simple fellow. I expect something that shows a preponderance of evidence from the Text, or Atleast someone speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit (I.e. Paul) Not some extremely tenious evidence, from some "Scholar" based unprovable pre historic hypothesis. The only mythology that I will accept to PROVE this point is DIRECT evidence FROM GOD'S BRAIN to YOUR MOUTH. I.e. From Genesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 3, 2009 15:52:38 GMT -8
I understand. Note I am a simple fellow. I expect something that shows a preponderance of evidence from the Text, or Atleast someone speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit (I.e. Paul) Not some extremely tenious evidence, from some "Scholar" based unprovable pre historic hypothesis. The only mythology that I will accept to PROVE this point is DIRECT evidence FROM GOD'S BRAIN to YOUR MOUTH. I.e. From Genesis. Well it's a good thing that I am not beholden to your expectations in my views on interpreting the passage. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 3, 2009 16:12:03 GMT -8
Ok, here's a start:
Gen. 6:-8. The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
First off, though they may conjure up to the modern mind pictures of the globe, words and phrases like “earth”, “the face of the earth” and “under the entire heavens” in Hebrew in the Old Testament need only refer to “the known world” or a large region of political dominance.
A couple cases in point:
In Genesis 41:56, speaking of the famine in Joseph’s time, the Bible says:
And the famine was over all the face of the earth: and Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.
1 Kings 10:24
And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart.
Romans 1:8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
Colossians 1:6
All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth.
Acts 24:5
"We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world.
No one would interpret these passage globally. We understand that they are written with some hyperbole and from the writer’s context and perspective.
Rose is home. Gotta go... more later....
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 3, 2009 16:18:15 GMT -8
Hmmm... Some would, if you read the Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus Christ, we find that Jesus was in fact ministering to the people of the America's at the very time Paul was writing this!!! On a serious note though, where does it LIMIT the scope of the species to be saved?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 3, 2009 18:16:24 GMT -8
I'm getting there, but a few more things. "Earth" in Biblical languages often means simply "land" in a localized sense. For instance, many eschatology scholars see the references to the "earth" being burned up in Revelation to be referring to the land of Israel only. On another note, in this passage in the Flood account: Gen 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. the Hebrew word for covered, which is kasah, can also be translated "running over" or "falling upon", which if used would change the rendering to something like: ...and more than 20 feet of water ran over all the high mountains under the entire heavens.This could indicate a flash flood originating in the mountains north of the Mesopotamian flood plain (the site I would propose for the biblical Flood). Also the phrase translated in the English as "all the high mountains" in the Hebrew is kol heharim hugebohim, which can mean prominent small hills on the plain just as easily as towering peaks. If there were a Flood as deep as 200-300 feet on the plain of Mesopotamia, an ark floating in its midst would have been unable to see any mountains from it's vantage point. In Gen. 8:5 we are told that the tops of some hills or mountains finally became visible to Noah in the tenth month. These must have been hills because the dove plucked an olive leaf* from them, which do not grow in high elevations. On yet another note, the text says in 8:1 that God sent a wind to speed the drying process. This would word on a gigantic flat plain like Mesopotamia but be a useless method for a global flood. *btw, I'd like to know how young-earthers with their theory of a catastrophe so big that it created the mountains ranges and tectonic plates account for any trees surviving at all  More yet coming. Thoughts so far? |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 3, 2009 19:13:07 GMT -8
My thoughts thus far are thus..."If there were a Flood as deep as 200-300 feet on the plain of Mesopotamia, an ark floating in its midst would have been unable to see any mountains from it's vantage point." Mesopotamian is an OPEN FREAKIN PLACE THAT OPENS ONTO THE OCEAN. Unless some Godly force field held the water back (highly unlikely) that would mean that the OCEAN LEVEL WORLD WIDE would have to rise by 2-3 HUNDRED FEET. Accommodate that in your world view, or the natural history of the world as we know it as of 24K years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 3, 2009 19:23:13 GMT -8
I forgot something. Actually, the ark came to rest in the mountains of ararat after only 150 days, so some mountains were already visible then.
I would say that the flood was probably only very deep (in the hundreds of feet) during the period when it was raining and the fountains of the deep were opened. The ark then rested high, and the water receded as the text says so that later the tops of the hills lower down became visible.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 3, 2009 19:44:51 GMT -8
Josh says " flood was probably only very deep (in the hundreds of feet" Still wonders how in an open steppe with direct access to the Indian Ocean flood of "hundred of feet" would be possible without the oceanlevel rising globablly?
|
|
