Pyramids

[sag38]

I agree with glfredrick. I'm not going to debate the veracity of the scripture. It's one thing to debate interpretation but this is going into questioning the very integrity of God's word. In my opinion that is heretical.

Sorry Crabby, when men and women want to question the very integrity of God's word based on a viewing the world through the lens of the human heart, they need to be invited to leave. Go teach and promote your liberal views somewhere else but not in my house. I'm glad there was a fight and I'm glad that many were invited to leave. What you view as harmful many viewed as being a fight worth fighting and evidently the vast majority of Southern Baptists agreed.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I agree with glfredrick. I'm not going to debate the veracity of the scripture. It's one thing to debate interpretation but this is going into questioning the very integrity of God's word. In my opinion that is heretical.

Sorry Crabby, when men and women want to question the very integrity of God's word based on a viewing the world through the lens of the human heart, they need to be invited to leave. Go teach and promote your liberal views somewhere else but not in my house. I'm glad there was a fight and I'm glad that many were invited to leave. What you view as harmful many viewed as being a fight worth fighting and evidently the vast majority of Southern Baptists agreed.

Nothing particularly liberal about my belief. I believe God did it and I never limit how God did anything to my understanding.

Too many who call themselves conservative or fundamental insist that God has to have done things according to their human understanding and call those who do not try to put God in any pigeon hole liberal. That is a huge error IMHO.

It was not the fight that was so distasteful. Rather it was the extremely unethical, dishonest and unchristian methods used. But that is another topic. Would you like to start a thread on that issue?

 

[sag38]

I know it. The poor mistreated people. They were all such innocent little lambs, oppressed, and done dirty!!!

 

[Amy.G]

What "bunk" all I've done is quote scripture and shown how it doesn't reflect reality or observation.

Thinkingstuff, you're not thinking. The bible records all kinds of things God has done that fly in the face of "reality" and "observation", the parting of the Red Sea, plagues on Egypt, Christ being born of a virgin, the dead being raised to life, God coming to earth in human flesh.

We either accept God's word or we don't. We don't get to pick and choose what makes sense from the view of sinful flesh.

 

[glfredrick]

I am offended. I have never once, since becoming a Christian, have ever indicated that there was no God. I believe there is a God and that the bible is his word. I believe God interacts with humanity through his word. I've never denied such things. And I understand that Jesus sited the LXX. That brings up two questions 1) if the LXX why limit OT to just the Massoretic text copied 500 years later. and 2) Did he actually quote the LXX or Quote the Hebrew copy but because the writers wrote in greek they chose the greek referrence over re-translating a hebrew or aramaic text back into greek since the work of the LXX was already established and well used? See maybe its all these questions I have that get me into trouble.

Scholars have indicated that Christ's many quotes were almost all from the LXX, not that it was re-translated. Of course, we may never truly know without the autographs, which is your point, but the larger point is that the Scriptures AT HAND were sufficient for even the Savior and Son of God.

Discussing the transmission of Scripture is another subject entirely from the OP here.

Of course, because you have sufficiently studied the use of Scripture in the 1st century you already know that Hebrew was not often used. Greek was the language of scholarship, and Aramaic the common language of the people. Hebrew was reserved for the highest level of Judaic scholarship almost exclusively in Jerusalem in conjunction with the Temple, and not many were fluent, nor did they often read the scrolls in Hebrew in public. The rationale behind the LXX was the lack of Hebrew ability in Alexandria and that was 250 years before Christ.

 

[glfredrick]

Nothing particularly liberal about my belief. I believe God did it and I never limit how God did anything to my understanding.

Too many who call themselves conservative or fundamental insist that God has to have done things according to their human understanding and call those who do not try to put God in any pigeon hole liberal. That is a huge error IMHO.

It was not the fight that was so distasteful. Rather it was the extremely unethical, dishonest and unchristian methods used. But that is another topic. Would you like to start a thread on that issue?

I came after this "fight" so I have no idea what you all are talking about, but from what I've seen since, it must have been interesting at the very least... I frequent an off-road group called pirate 4x4 and I expect that the fight on this board was kin to the fights they have about everything over there. Don't click in if you are offended by language, for the first line of greeting most folks get over there is F... off. If one can wade past the garbage, there is a ton of good info and I've even used that site for some ministry-related debates that have born some fruit.

In any case, my issue is with your middle statement above. I think that you have that statement exactly wrong and though I cannot judge your motives, based on other things I've seen you write here, I can only expect that the reason you are at odds is because the "interpretations" take you to task, so you assume that they are from the fertile imaginations of the ones doing the writing. The very nature of a "conservative" is to conserve. What? In the case of the Christian, God's Word in its entirety. We do not make up our own doctrines or manufacture things to place in God's mouth. We focus on reading His Word and seeing what He had to say -- knowing that in that Word there are prescriptions and descriptions, poetry and history, gospel tract and apocalyptic writing, and I can go on. We "rightly divide the word of truth" so as to formulate our doctrines based on the whole counsel of God's Word. To do anything less is to be other than "conservative" or one who holds to the fundamentals of the faith. We only know those fundamentals from the text.

 

[Amy.G]

the very nature of a "conservative" is to conserve. What? In the case of the christian, god's word in its entirety. We do not make up our own doctrines or manufacture things to place in god's mouth. We focus on reading his word and seeing what he had to say -- knowing that in that word there are prescriptions and descriptions, poetry and history, gospel tract and apocalyptic writing, and i can go on. We "rightly divide the word of truth" so as to formulate our doctrines based on the whole counsel of god's word. To do anything less is to be other than "conservative" or one who holds to the fundamentals of the faith. We only know those fundamentals from the text.

amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Scholars have indicated that Christ's many quotes were almost all from the LXX, not that it was re-translated. Of course, we may never truly know without the autographs, which is your point, but the larger point is that the Scriptures AT HAND were sufficient for even the Savior and Son of God.

Discussing the transmission of Scripture is another subject entirely from the OP here.

Of course, because you have sufficiently studied the use of Scripture in the 1st century you already know that Hebrew was not often used. Greek was the language of scholarship, and Aramaic the common language of the people. Hebrew was reserved for the highest level of Judaic scholarship almost exclusively in Jerusalem in conjunction with the Temple, and not many were fluent, nor did they often read the scrolls in Hebrew in public. The rationale behind the LXX was the lack of Hebrew ability in Alexandria and that was 250 years before Christ.

Ok. Which then brings me back to the first question. But as you say that discussion is beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to start another thread where we can continue that line of questioning that would be fine.

However, I would like to ask another question with regard to your statement

but the larger point is that the Scriptures AT HAND were sufficient for even the Savior and Son of God.

the question being in what context? and to what extent? Certainly, the theological implications of the passages cited are critical and consistent with Jesus' teaching. However, because there is a theological consistency such as the nature of sin, or the relationship of man and woman, etc... am I to believe that Jesus believed in a metal dome that kept the primordial waters above it out from the seperated earth and oceans as is described in Genesis? Or am I to believe Jesus believed plants that had no light by which to survive for a couple of days? I wonder? Since we learn in scriptures that

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. - Colossians 1:15-18

. And it seems reasonable that if Jesus created the Universe (Cosmos) Then he knew the lightyears spread out between Galaxies and the black holes at the center of everyone. He would have known about quasars and black matter. He would have known about the infinate space which the stars move and their nebulae birthplaces. Having this knowledge then do you think it reasonable he held to a metal dome held over the earth? Or that there were flood gates which held the storms in check when he refers to a spiritual principle?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Well putting aside our interpretation of scripture, the question asked was, "Were the pyramids built before or after the flood?"

I believe most Egyptologists agree that the pyramids were built by the Egyptian pharaohs in the Old Kingdom dating back to Khafra in 2500 BC. There are interesting themes in that the older pyramids seem to be better built than the newer ones, almost as if the Egyptian society was forgetting more than they were learning.

There is doubt however to the age and source of the Great Sphinx. Unlike the pyramids, the Sphinx shows evidence of flooding and water erosion. It was either built before Egypt became desert or was subject to severe flooding. While some historical accounts give credit to Khafra as the builder of the Sphinx, others claim that he found the Sphnix buried in the sand and simply uncovered it.

I believe that the Sphinx may well be a pre deluvian monument that perhaps once was simply a sculpture of a lion. If you look at the head it is way out of proportion, it’s too small. I believe it was dug up and modified by the Egyptians. But hey, that’s just my opinion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff, you're not thinking. The bible records all kinds of things God has done that fly in the face of "reality" and "observation", the parting of the Red Sea, plagues on Egypt, Christ being born of a virgin, the dead being raised to life, God coming to earth in human flesh.

We either accept God's word or we don't. We don't get to pick and choose what makes sense from the view of sinful flesh.

The argument doesn't work. Simply because the scripture I'm speaking of isn't regarding miracles but a report on nature itself. Of course the miracles go contrarily to nature the parting of the Red (reed) Sea, the sun stopping for over a day, the incarnation. These are easily accepted in faith. However, what I am speaking of is the description of nature itself where the sky is described as a metal dome holding out water. Where plants exist without light, etc... We can observe those things ourselves and see that the correlation doesn't reflect what we observe. That is the distinction.

 

[glfredrick]

Ok. Which then brings me back to the first question. But as you say that discussion is beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to start another thread where we can continue that line of questioning that would be fine.

However, I would like to ask another question with regard to your statement the question being in what context? and to what extent? Certainly, the theological implications of the passages cited are critical and consistent with Jesus' teaching. However, because there is a theological consistency such as the nature of sin, or the relationship of man and woman, etc... am I to believe that Jesus believed in a metal dome that kept the primordial waters above it out from the seperated earth and oceans as is described in Genesis? Or am I to believe Jesus believed plants that had no light by which to survive for a couple of days? I wonder? Since we learn in scriptures that . And it seems reasonable that if Jesus created the Universe (Cosmos) Then he knew the lightyears spread out between Galaxies and the black holes at the center of everyone. He would have known about quasars and black matter. He would have known about the infinate space which the stars move and their nebulae birthplaces. Having this knowledge then do you think it reasonable he held to a metal dome held over the earth? Or that there were flood gates which held the storms in check when he refers to a spiritual principle?

All this is nothing more than a red herring argument designed to get us off track in this post. You've argued your "metal dome" hypothesis in other threads. I suggest keeping that discussion there instead of here.

In fact, what you ARE attempting to do here is to discount the veracity of Scripture, which I have noticed you doing elsewhere. You seem to wish to pull some of God's words out of the text of Scripture instead of seeing Scripture as God's Word. To do what I (we) see you doing is one of the definitions of liberal in the Christian sense.

 

[Amy.G]

The argument doesn't work. Simply because the scripture I'm speaking of isn't regarding miracles but a report on nature itself. Of course the miracles go contrarily to nature the parting of the Red (reed) Sea, the sun stopping for over a day, the incarnation. These are easily accepted in faith. However, what I am speaking of is the description of nature itself where the sky is described as a metal dome holding out water. Where plants exist without light, etc... We can observe those things ourselves and see that the correlation doesn't reflect what we observe. That is the distinction.

I think it's your interpretation that doesn't work. Yes, God does miracles but a miracle simply put is something that only God can do. Only God can create life. There is no reason to doubt God's word. Science only knows what it knows as of today. Science will change, God does not.

I don't know anything about a metal dome. Where did that come from??

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think it's your interpretation that doesn't work. Yes, God does miracles but a miracle simply put is something that only God can do. Only God can create life. There is no reason to doubt God's word. Science only knows what it knows as of today. Science will change, God does not.

I don't know anything about a metal dome. Where did that come from??

re read genesis 1 and look at the definition of Firmament and then look at the Hebrew word raqiya or רקיע. Which describes the seperation of waters the placement of the stars etc... Raqiya is metal pounded out and spread over a surface and in genesis above this Raqiya or Firmament are waters placed as well as below on our earth. Also note the sun and stars are placed in this Raqiya or metal dome which would mean the stars are below the primordial waters kept out from before their creation indicating that they are part of the dome. Then follow the creation account and see if it makes sense. Also Genesis 2 doesn't seem to corrispond to genesis 1. The creation account also sets up the flood in that it describes the flood gates being opened such as a dome keeping water out of may have. Many many reasons I halt at the literal view.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I think it's your interpretation that doesn't work. Yes, God does miracles but a miracle simply put is something that only God can do. Only God can create life. There is no reason to doubt God's word. Science only knows what it knows as of today. Science will change, God does not.

Actually God changes in that he changes him mind as we see in several instances in the OT.

Also, as science advances we see a clearer and clearer picture of how God creates and works.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Amy...

Originally Posted by Amy.G
Vegetation was created on the 3rd day. The sun and moon were created on the 4th day. How did plant life survive millions of years before the sun was created?

Not everyone believes there has ever been "millions" of years regarding the earth, or even the universe.

I myself, and many many others, believe the earth and universe are approximetly 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The young earth view is a very reasonable view, that many very intelligent christian teachers hold to.

 

[sag38]

I judge creation based on what the Bible says rather than judging the Bible based on what modern science has observed. One is fact. The other is observation. I'll trust fact over observation any time.

 

[DHK]

Read again the account of the Flood. The earth forced up water from the deep. The heavens let loose waters from above. The very ground was breaking apart. The entire world was flooded. Every mountain was covered. If the highest mountain was covered, as was recorded, where and how does the water settle? It must cover the rest of the earth. It was not a local flood.
Furthermore the Ark was massive. Noah was commanded to take two of every kind of animal and seven of every clean animal on board with him. Why, if local? The could have just fled to another region. The flood was destructive. It destroyed everything and everyone outside of the Ark. Only Noah and his family were saved. Only 8 people, and that was all. Everyone else perished. The Bible records that the world perished. The world was destroyed. That is why there was a rainbow put in the sky afterward--with the promise that God would never again "destroy" the world with a flood.

When were the Pyramids built? Not before the Flood! It is an impossibility. Nothing survived the flood--nothing! Even the rivers, such as the Euphrates which we have named before the Flood are not the same rivers after the Flood. They were so named out of fond memories that they had from before the Flood.

Before the Flood the entire world had a climate that was much like a greenhouse. After the flood great mountain ranges had been pushed up. There were now volcanoes. There were four season: winter, summer, spring and fall. There was a north and south pole, both of which were cold.There were desert areas which had arid climates. There were climactic regions that were very humid. The whole world had changed from what it was before the flood. It indeed was a different world. Only 8 people had survived that flood. The Pyramids certainly didn't.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Even the rivers, such as the Euphrates which we have named before the Flood are not the same rivers after the Flood. They were so named out of fond memories that they had from before the Flood.

Off topic and out of pure curiosity: How do you this, DHK?

 

[DHK]

Off topic and out of pure curiosity: How do you this, DHK?

The floods covered the face of the whole earth. The Euphrates was one of those rivers mentioned in reference to the Garden of Eden. We know that the Garden of Eden doesn't exist anymore. Neither do the rivers that safeguarded it or ran through it. The entire topography was changed. Nothing remained intact. The Bible clearly says: Only 8 souls were saved. All else was destroyed.

 

[Alcott]

So the Garden of Eden might have been in America, or Antarctica, or Greenland? or on a former continent?