Agreed. Most Christians believe in an old earth. But there is always those few who believe in a young earth. However, all Christians believe in Jesus.
I reviewed Psalms to the best of my ability. My conclusion is this chapter is a song exempliying God's wonders of creation.
Below is the only text in the Genesis account which describes the extent of the flood: Gen 7:18-22 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. Notice how it reads that all the "high hills" were covered, but not all the mountains. The word "all" is specifically left out before the word "mountains." Therefore, not "all" of the mountains were covered meaning that the flood was large, but relatively local. The flood was large enough to wipe out the entire Middle East, but not the entire world. Further, as we already have discussed before, Jesus never said that the flood was global. Ever. I think the issue is settled.
I need more. ah...Well I believe it was a Global Flood. Ther flood had a purpose...to wipe out anyone not on the boat. A Global Flood would ensure that nothing less that a Global catastrophe would have this effect.
Why do you believe it was global? Does Genesis have a verse which says, "And the flood covered the entire earth like a garment"? Nope. Did Jesus ever say it was? Nope.
I don't understand what you want. by my perspective...I have answered the question. By the way I've answered the first question before...do you wish me to reiterate it? The bible makes clear..." all the tall mountains under the heavens" His intention to wipe out ever creature namely all that walked the Earth. It's pretty clear it was a global flood. There is an abundant amount of context to support it. At least from my perspective.
You have answered basically all of my questions and I thank you for that. Given, now that you've agreed with me that the "fountains of the deep" were not the Mid-Ocean Ridge and that Psalms 104 was describing creation and not the flood, you are now on IAC's shit list, with me and everyone else on this site (because nobody believes his lame hypotheses). This is obvious from the sudden change in his view towards you in which now he will continue to degrade you because you don't believe in his bullshit. Saquist, you say the Bible says that the waters covered "all the tall mountains under the heavens." Please, let's not alter the what the Bible says to conform it to our opinions. In reality the Bible says that the waters covered "the mountains". A bit of difference, wouldn't you say? Also, you claim that "There is an abundant amount of context to support [a global flood]." Not quite. In reality, the whole context describing the extent of the flood is found in a mere 3 VERSES!!! That's it! Not too abundant by any means, Saquist. Below is the only text in the Genesis account which describes the extent of the flood: Genesis 7:19-21 19 - And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 - The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 - And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. Notice, Saquist, that there is no mention of waters covering "all the tall mountains under the heavens." There are two geological formations mentioned: 1) High hills 2) Mountains There is no mention of "high mountains." Notice how it reads that all the "high hills" were covered, but not all the mountains. The word "all" is specifically left out before the word "mountains." Hmmmmmmm. Therefore, not "all" of the mountains were covered meaning that the flood was large, but relatively local. The flood was large enough to wipe out the entire Middle East, but not the entire world. Further, as we already have discussed before, Jesus never said that the flood was global. Ever. Let's also keep in mind that the entire land surface area was not populated by men or animals yet. All life was limited to the mid east. Therefore, there need not be a global deluge to kill all life on the earth.
What's up everybody!! I had a busy week, so sorry I couldn't get back sooner! Well okay look--what must you do before you have faith in the Bible as this is clearly written in Scripture? Please answer me M*W or SkinWalker since both of you have read in detail and comprehend the truths of Scripture. I am looking for one clear simple answer--one word in fact. Unless you do this you will never have faith in the Bible. (That pretty much gives you the answer.) If you cannot answer this simple question--and there is only one answer--you do not know the Bible as you claim and your whole work is in vain. P.S. Because you have refused to do this--you do not have faith. And that is exactly what the Bible says. Isn't that interesting?
what exactly are you asking. I can be absolutely certain that neither skinwalker or M*W never comprehended any truths from bible scripture. you are clearly mistaken there. please elaborate to the question, you want answering. or is it you cant know the bible unless you first wack yourself on the head with a mallet and start to hallucinate, thats the only way you would go from rational to irrational.
************* M*W: Good morning, Jim. It's good to see you again! ************* M*W: I'm not sure I understand the question. I believe the bible is allegory written as prose, poetry, drama, and maybe even musical theatre. I've read, but I can't remember where, that the Book of Job, for example, is the oldest book of the bible and was written as a tragedy and performed on ancient stages. With that said, I want to mention that the bible was NOT written in chronological order, but I suspect you knew that. Another point I want to make is that the story of Noah and the Ark was to have occurred before the story of creation with A&E in the GoE. We're just so used to seeing these mythological stories in the order we've been taught them, but again, it's not chronological order. Most people who believe the bible, believe it to be written as literal truth, but this is not so. I interpret the bible entirely different than maybe even SkinWalker, so the answers you get from each of us may be entirely different. Atheists don't interpret the bible in the same way that christians would interpret it. (Obviously). After years and years of research, I interpret the bible as a major astrological calendar, at least the NT. I have read the OT, but my study has focused on the NT, so I don't feel educated enough to begin discussing the OT. And, I am for the most part alone in my interpretation. I see the astro-theological side of the interpretation. I would venture to say that I believe most atheists would not agree with me on this. So, I don't think I can answer you question with the answer you are looking for. The bible probably means something different to everyone who reads it. We are not all of like mind. The only way I can believe anything in the bible is astro-theologically. That's what makes sense to me. That's how I understand it. ************* M*W: If I am understanding the question, I think you're looking for one must be "spirit-filled" to interpret scripture. Even so, what is "spirit-filled?" How can one determine if they are truly "spirit-filled?" What? Are they supposed to get the same exact interpretation of the bible if they are "spirit-filled?" My question to you, then, would be the "gifts of the spirit," how can one determine the gifts of everyone interpreting the bible? Are there any variations to the gifts per individual? It's just so subjective. When you sit in your church with the congregation, and you look around at everyone... how do you know who's spirit-filled and who is not? There is no way you can know what is going on in the efficacy of their being. This would require a judgment on your part. Sure, you can make that judgment, but is that the honest thing to do? What difference does it make to you, personally, how SkinWalker and I interpret the bible? It shouldn't make any difference to you unless you're trying in some devious way to convert our beliefs to yours. You must understand, Jim, that I have already been where you are now. I've already received all the appropriate sacraments. I have taught christianity to multitudes, but I'm not there anymore. I read the bible backwards and forwards, and now it means something entirely different than what christianity purports to teach. This is where my disagreement comes in. It's not what it seems. The story the bible is telling is STILL mythological, in other words, the whole premise of the NT is not what it appears to be to christians and others. I cannot change what I've come to believe, and that is that the NT is an astro-theological calendar. The stories are told as if Jesus were god, but in reality, Jesus is the Sun, and all things written around the central character, Jesus, is astro-theological and mythical. ************* M*W: I'm not sure what the answer is that you're looking for, but I gave you the most honest answer I have. ************* M*W: Faith is not something you can judge in another. Understanding the bible has absolutely NOTHING to do with 'faith.' That's a christian trick, telling people that they won't be able to understand the bible unless they have 'faith.' Faith is so subjective. When I was a christian, that's what I believed, and that's the old phrase that I used to try to convert someone else... they had to have 'faith' that the bible was true. I can tell you first-hand that I still have 'faith' in the NT, and I believe the 'faith' I have in it leads me to the understanding that it is an astrological chart with Jesus and his disciples as characters representing astrological figures of the zodiac. I know this is not the asnwer you were looking for, but it's the only answer I've got for you.
The answer is one single word and the true Christians around the world have all done this before they've had faith. They had to do this first before they understood and accepted the Bible truths. It doesn't involve anything magical or spritual yet--it is a very simple yet totally crucial first step. It is the difference between those who have faith and those who don't. It is the Gospel of the Creator. But alas it is sad that most "churches" around the world do not emphasis this as it is the fundamental root of all of Christianity. HEY M*W!! ok look--You are a very pretty lady if that is you in your profile picturePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! --and no I'm not a creep but honest! But M*W I really am surprised that you did not know this simple and basic Biblical truth considering you were a Christian for 30+ years? You had to have done this first in order to have had true faith. Unless you do this you cannot nor will you ever have faith. What's your answer SkinWalker?--here is even a major clue: (John 3:16-21)
and this word is? are you a true christian, can I test that? so you got to have faith, (Faith: a belief that is not based on proof) so you agree with what I said "you cant know the bible unless you first wack yourself on the head with a mallet and start to hallucinate" so pure delusion, OK!
************* M*W: SkinWalker and I are in the same time zone, so he might be sleeping right now (6:30 AM). I think you're talking about Jesus as the sacrifice for mankind. Well, truth is, I used to believe Jesus died for me, but not anymore. Not only did Jesus NOT die, he did not even live! That's why I don't believe it anymore. I realized the foolishness of my naivete. Nothing can change that understanding. Thanks for the compliment. I decided to "face the world."
This is not the answer--in fact one doesn't need to even have faith before they do this. It is the true way to see if a person is humble enough to searth the spiritual truths. M*W you were not naive--many people would be willing to die for their belief in the resurrection. That was not simply a naive belief--but a grasp for spiritual truth. But what bothers is me when you say "nothing". Are you really open to spiritual truth? Alas the truth in the necessity of doing this before you have faith.
************* M*W: Well, I am not good at riddles. At one time I did have faith... a very strong faith... and I would have slam-dunked anyone who said anything against christianity. My faith led me to new knowledge which, at first, I didn't want to believe because it was so totally against everything that I believed. But it just wouldn't go away. I couldn't ignore it anymore. I wasn't an atheist when I came to sciforums. I still believed in a god and that Jesus actually lived. I was way beyond believing he died for me or anyone, but the greatest influence on my becoming atheist has been sciforums.
Thank you so much for being honest M*W! It is so amazing how you can get to know people in forums like these! When I first joined this forum I didn't believe you could really get to know a person. Thinking everyone would be all defensive. All I hope to be is honest as do you in these forums to really get an understanding of what others in here believe and what draws them to their conclusions. I will answer you this fundamental question, but I would like to wait until SkinWalker has a chance to respond.
Well this one is easy, like Abraham, they simply must be morally bankrupt enough to be willing to murder their own child on command. Am I right? What do I win?
Ha HA! Good attempt but no. It is a simple concept but has profound implications. "For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints."
