New Testament Support for the FLOOD

You are totally correct; How do you explain that Adam could live to that great age? It's not physically possible. Would you like to try to prove it's physically possible to live to 900?

I also totally agree with you on the second part; that is why I don't create my God to be a liar by imposing a literal Genesis (which it obviously isn't). I do not have to smudge science and ignore meteors in order to make my God speak the truth. My God speaks truth in many forms and the truth of Genesis attests to this (because it's not supposed to be taken literally). Your God on the other hand is set up to be deceptive. If he created a young earth then why doesn't it look like it is?

 

You are totally correct; How do you explain that Adam could live to that great age? It's not physically possible. Would you like to try to prove it's physically possible to live to 900?

It's not possible now. It was the norm then.


I also totally agree with you on the second part; that is why I don't create my God to be a liar by imposing a literal Genesis (which it obviously isn't).

Instead, your God is incompetant when it comes to communicating clearly; relying on human wisdom to attempt to discern what He is 'really' talking about. On the other hand, the God of the Bible is perfectly capable of communicating clearly to all generations, which is why we can take Genesis as the straightforward history it presents itself as.


I do not have to smudge science and ignore meteors in order to make my God speak the truth. My God speaks truth in many forms and the truth of Genesis attests to this (because it's not supposed to be taken literally). Your God on the other hand is set up to be deceptive. If he created a young earth then why doesn't it look like it is?

You don't have to smudge science because it does a good enough job of smudging itself! Especially evolutionary 'science'! Nor is anyone ignoring meteors. You simply don't like a take on them which you disagree with.

How do you know Genesis is not supposed to be taken literally? Did you have an affadavit from a thunderstorm? A writ from Gabriel? Or are you depending on men's finite, sin-drenched minds to say that?

And, by the way, it does look like a young earth. A very young earth.

 

Meatros

How do you know that it wasn’t possible to live 930 or 950 yrs old during the Genesis account? I’m assuming that you believe the Genesis account to be “folklore.”

If you’re going to rely on science to say that it is physically impossible for someone to live to be 950 yrs old, then science also says that it is medical impossible for a human to be resurrected 3 days after death.

The basis of our salvation is our belief that God didn’t allow His Son to remain dead and that God raised Him from the dead!! An all infinite God chooses how long one should live. If Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD, and the Lord allowed Noah to live 950 yrs as Genesis says, then I’m not or never will, allow science to tell me otherwise!

 

Some posts were deleted due to insults

 

[Regarding OT long ages] It's not possible now. It was the norm then.

To be fair, the OT records that only certain people lived lived to ages of hundreds of years. It should not automatically be assumed that that was the norm for all people. Just the people listed.

Changing topics slightly, I have been told by several rabbinic instructors that the Jews of old were familiar with numerological significance (though not practicing numerology), and that it's very likely that the ages listed in the OT are representative of their faithful lives. There's an old Hebrew saying that says "may you live to be 120". It doesn't mean that literally, it means "may your life be full and complete". That is evidenced by the listings of people in the OT living 777 years.

I'm not saying the numbers are definitely symbolic, I'm saying it's in the realm of likelihood.

 

Johnv, look:

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years and then he died.

When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.

When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.

When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.

from Genesis 5

Allegorical? In what way?

Symbolic? Where?

This is a bloodline history. If their ages had been remarkable, it would have been remarked on.

 

Name one evangelist or missionary that doesn’t accept donations or offerings. I don’t have a problem with Hovind traveling (and it seems he’s booked up for the year) and preaching that Gods word is above all and is truth and that the Bible is not in error. The problem I have with certain evangelists is their claim to heal the sick and their clearly taking advantage of the ill and poor.

The problem some have with Dr. Dino is that he’s not afraid to hurt your little feelings, cross the line or step on your big toe. Some probably feel threaten b/c he’s questioning someone’s faith. Many want the kingdom, but they don’t want God in it.

I find it sad when I raise a question and the answer is “it’s physically impossible.” Well if that’s your answer then your faith needs to be questioned, b/c nothing is physically impossible when our God is involved.

Johnv, that’s the biggest bunch of boloney I’ve ever heard.

In the words of Jesus Christ recorded accurately in (Mark 6:11) “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them…”

 

The problem some have with Dr. Dino is that he’s not afraid to hurt your little feelings, cross the line or step on your big toe.

No kidding. He's also not afraid to do a lot of other things:

http://205.152.130.14/cv_web_1.asp?ulname=Hovind&ufname=Kent

It's far from the only legal problems he's had.

True, but if you have to trot out a miracle to save your theory, then it's no longer science, and just another religious doctrine, like a million others, true or not.

 

How were their bodies different? What mechanism let them live so long?

No, my God is not incompetent and the important messages in the bible are universally understood. I think salvation is more important then a literal Genesis. You keep saying that Genesis is straightforward, but it clearly isn't. How do you explain this, without your God becoming deceptive?

You act as if there had been a good explanation given to the meteors-there wasn't and you know it.

Because it couldn't be taken literally, the first two chapters contradict and all the evidence points to an old earth. The fact is it's absurdly easy to dispell notions of a young earth by using my meteor argument. It simply isn't possible. The beauty of the argument doesn't rely on dating techniques or complicated science that can be obfuscated. It's common sense.

How about you quit assuming what my views are? You are wrong and I'm getting sick of the rhetorical way people on this board twist my beliefs.

If you want to argue with yourself, go ahead; but don't make the mistake in assuming I agree with your ridiculous analogies, comparisons, and perversions on *my* faith.

I believe there is a significant difference between the old testament and the new testament.

Actually the problem people have with Hovind is that he's a liar. AiG even disagrees with him.

 

AiG disagrees with Hovind? A liar? Bold words there pal. Both agree on a literal 6-day creation and a global flood. Below is a link a debate with Hovind and Ross, which is commented on by AiG. Although a few answers Hovind gives are disagreed upon by AiG, but for the most part they strongly agree.

Concerning Hovind’s record. One takes a big risk when one enters a college campus to debate a college professor on evolution. I’d have to see the facts before I make an opinion. My wife’s uncles go to New Orleans to witness the good news of Jesus Christ. They get assaulted on a regular basis.

Hovind and Ross Debate

 

AiG *does* disagree with Hovind, just off the top of my head, they disagree with his moon-dust argument. AiG does not call him a liar-I do, primarily because he is one. He denies what has been shown to him (by AiG no less) and chooses to ignore it. He also has redefined evolution completely in his 250k challenge. A brief look over of it and it becomes immediately obvious he's obfuscated the term intentionally (IMO).

What else would you call someone who sets up a blatantly obvious strawman and then claims no one can prove evolution? It's pure deception.

Of course you take a risk in arguing evolution if you don't understand it (Hovind). He shouldn't debate it since he doesn't know it.

I have an anecdotal for you too, I used to get assaulted (manhandled) on my college campus as well. It was by a preacher who seemed to think that every college student was a sexual deviant.

So what does your anecdote prove? I admit all that mine proves is that their is one crazy guy out there.

 

Quit lumping people together.

Only if you accept it at face value.

Cites.

 

Hey, I don't disrespect people just because I might disagree with them. I don't think he's a charlatan just because he talks a 6 day creation. Do an internet search on the man and you'll see for yourself. What he ends up doing is discrediting those who sincerely seek information about literal creationism. The man's a fraud, regardless of one's views on earth origins.

I disagree with Helen on much of the subject, but helen is educated, knowlegeable, and sincere, and is neither fraudulent nor deceiving. I would never knowingly disrespect her on this board, nor anywhere else. Unfortunately, Dr Dino is none of those.

[ June 03, 2003, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Using science and science alone, please list evidence for the canopy theory. I'd like to hear more about it, but I want to see scientific evidence. Citing a bible verse is not science. (I'm not directing that towards you, but towards others who might post bible verses in response)

 

What does it mean when the word “day” follows “evening” and “morning” in Genesis chapter 1? If it was physically impossible for Adam to have lived 930 yrs as the Bible plainly indicates and Adam was created on day 6 and lived thru day 6 as well as day 7; how old was Adam using your old earth logic?

Referring to my “boloney” remark:

If you believe any of what these “rabbinic instructors” have said concerning the age of those in the days of Adam and Noah, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell ya.

 

Arguments Creationists Should Not Use.

Seems like Answers in Genesis disagrees with you.

 

You can say that, but proving it is entirely different. I could refute this by saying "you are wrong". Can you provide some cites for your assertions?

In what post? It would be a lot easier if you used the quote feature.

 

If you believe any of what these “rabbinic instructors” have said concerning the age of those in the days of Adam and Noah, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell ya.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Jews don't know anything about the OT, unless it involves land in the middle east.