Scripture PRIOR to the Flood

Charles Meadows & Craigbythesea, [and all us unlearned on this Forum]

Thank God folks! Isn't it most comforting to know that in these latter days God has sent us two prophets, who also claim to be learned, if not eminent, scientists, to straighten out all the poor unlearned on this Forum regarding His Revelation. [Also Craig I am really glad that you finally acknowledged that this is a Christian Forum. Reading your posts I sometimes wondered. Did you receive it by revelation or did you learn it from that other prophet Charles?]

Seriously, is it just possible that you two are incarnations of Elijah and Enoch who some dispensationalists say show up with miriculous powers after the Rapture? If so I hope you showed up early otherwise what are we all doing here?

 

Oldreg,

I think that was a little uncalled for.

I'm sorry if I offended you. That was not my intent.

I do not assert that you or anyone is unlearned.

Yes CTBS and I have spent alot of time in the study of sciences and theology. And while I do not presume to speak for him I can certianly say that neither he nor I think we are any better than anyone else.

But it seems to me that some people here look down on me for having been educated - that being a scientist automatically means that I trust in me and not in God.

I would happily give up my old earth stance if it could be shown me that it was not reasonable. But when I look at the Bible I see an account of creation that bears all the hallmarks of a theological epic and not of a story intended to be concretely factual. When I look at science I see evidence that the earth is old. And I am not afraid to admit that.

And what is wrong with using the brain God gave me.

I guess my position can be boiled down to this:

While I respect the position of those who are Genesis literalists I REJECT the stance that a literal Genesis is a sine qua non for being a loyal Christian.

 

And sometimes—for a very good reason!

</font>[/QUOTE]And what reason would that be?

No - scientists do not believe this.</font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying that no scientist believes in teh water vapor canopy theory? Why would you make such a statement? It seems false on its face. There are "some scientists" who believe it. It may be a wrong theory; it may be unscientific; it may be neither wrong nor unscientific. But what seems flatly wrong to me is to say that no scientist believes it.

Why would you say that no scientist believes it, when some scientists clearly do?

 

I have to go with Pastor Larry with a few words "added." Divine inspiration from God delivered via oral tradition.

Almost every culture had a pretty accurate system of oral tradition. There were, in most socities, people whose duty was to preserve history by teaching it to the next generation.

 

Why would you say that no scientist believes it, when some scientists clearly do?

Because this is a laughable explanation. It is derived from nothing but a desire to harmonize Genesis with science.

Like I said before - no one has to believe modernist theories over a literal creation. But we should not resort to half-truths and far fetched schemes just to give SOME explanation to counter the evolutionists.

 

Charles,

Speaking purely from a scientific stand point, I have to tell you that I have very little faith in a lot of "scientific facts" such as the age of the earth.

Understand that I'm not totally stupid when it comes to such things. I used to be the coordinator of a DNA lab, and I spent several years working for a truly brilliant research scientist helping write his grants.

They told us that there was absolutely nothing smaller than the atom, it couldn't be broken down smaller than it was. - Then they split the atom, and started teaching about neurons and protons and electrons.

They told us that cromagna man was the oldest, then Lucy was the oldest, then Lucy wasn't the oldest. I'm not even sure who the oldest is now. But each time they discovered someone "older" they also seemed to be "more advanced."

They taught Big Bang like it was proven fact. Then someone pointed out that there are flaws, of a scientific nature, in Big Bang.

They teach that the universe is still expanding today. They teach that plants and stars are contracting. They teach in thermodynamics that when you explode something it either expands or it contracts, and it may expand and THEN contract, but it is "either/or". It doesn't do both at once. If, as Big Bang teaches, all the universe started from unintelligent, chaotic, coincidence that had the affect of the catalyst in an explosion.. we should be doing one or the other. Not both. Science admits to this "problem" with thermodynamics, then goes, "Well, Big Bang isn't perfect, but it works for the most part."

Scientific theory says that to call something "proven" others have to be able to follow behind and reproduce it. Now science brags that they created life out of amino acids, but the claim is laughable. It is no more valid in what it claims that it would be valid for my child building a sand castle in the backyard to claim he reproduced the great pyramid's of Egypt. Taking carefully measured, carefully controlled lab conditions to mix what you already know to be elements in living cells and watching those cells reproduce is ~not~ creating a human being with the delicate balance that makes man man. It is certainly not making it happen out of total randomness. If the theory is that it can and did happen out of total randomness - why can't we, with all our brilliant science, reproduce it to the full extent God created it?

Then look at evolution. It started with Darwinism, but that was so flawed even the evolutionists don't teach it now. My generation was taught that creature adaptation resulted in mutation, and then taught that mutation cannot reproduce itself as the same mutation - yet told us that was how man went from sea-life to man.

Now you can take a lion and a tiger and produce a liger. You can take a horse and a donkey and produce a mule, but you can't take a bird and mix it with anything to create a dog or a human or a cat. You can't even trade DNA between them, and yet, supposedly, the whole world started from one pool of something?

One of the more fascinating facts of the bible is that where the bible describes the word always being here, the Greek translates that as "the intelligence," was always here.

Look at a human being. The absolute perfect mixture of potassium, sugar, water, salt..... and the body works perfectly. Too much of one, too little of another, and the body kills itself. Yet, millions are born - perfectly made. Look at a flower - the sheer beauty that comes from a set of cells forming into petals, and the sheer miracle of how it functions, drawing what it needs from the soil and the air, to produce what it needs to reproduce. The miracle of how the bees and birds and wind cross polinate it.

That just can't be "coincidence."

I, for one, don't really care if you want to say God did it slowly over time or if you want to say God did it in a human heart beat. I don't care what method or time frame God used.

I do, though, care greatly, that science tries to tell me that total chaos created a prefectly balanced order, while calling Christians insane for saying an omnipotent intelligence created order.

All in all, we all come to the final question - where did "It" come from? I say, in the beginning there was God. Nonbelievers say, in the beginning there was gas. I say, in the beginning intelligence created order. Non believers say, in the beginning chaos created order. Which is more logical?

 

That may be ... It may not be. But wouldn't you admit that it is incorrect to say "no scientist believes it"? Very clearly, some scientists do believe it, whether they are right or wrong. Some scientists also believe man evolved from single cell life forms, something far more laughable than a water vapor canopy.

You have always seemed to be more judicious with your words than some others, Charles, and that is why I point this out. It seems to me that it is impossible to say "no scientist" believes the water vapor canopy.

 

Larry,

You have always seemed to be more judicious with your words than some others, Charles, and that is why I point this out. It seems to me that it is impossible to say "no scientist" believes the water vapor canopy.

OK - I'll concede on this one. You're right - some scientist may believe this.

The reason I don't like this explanation is because it seems to be derived from this line of thought:

"Let's see - what kind of explanation can I come up with that will accomodate the patriarchs being very old before the flood..."

It is not rooted in any concepts of physics or astronomy.

I don't like this kind of explanation because (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART) it appears to be a "grasping at straws" argument. And I think this is evident to believers who (having a scientific background) are wrestling with these issues. I don't want them to think that this kind of thing is as cerebral as Christians can get!

 

TexasSky....Right ON!!! That was awesome!

Greg Sr.

By the way...Glad you came back...we need some good proponents of scriptural LOGIC in here!

 

Charles,

I see major holes in the entire radiometric dating theory.

To begin with - it is based on the following assumptions. Substitute "guesses" for assumption.

1) That the whole solar system was formed out of a single pool of matter.
2) That this pool of matter was distributed equally in terms of lead isotopes (PB206, PB207, or PB208/PB204).
3) That measurements taken from metorites can be applied to the earth.

Okay - obviously number 1 is up for debate.
Number 2 - I've never seen an explosion distribute anything "equally" like the theory suggests. Why am I supposed to accept this part of this theory just to make it easier to accept the whole theory?
3) You are measuring the decay of radioactive isotopes. Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I don't have to be one to know that the atmosphere changes things. That gravity affects things. That the heat of passing THROUGH the atmosphere changes things.
In my life time science has changed its mind about whether or not Mars ever had water or not about every other year. Why should I believe that the tests run on a meteorite can actually tell them accurate data about the earth?

Now - Let's say I decide to give you all of the above. I'll pretend I agree it all started out as one pool. I'll forget what I know about explosions and say that during its explosion it managed to distribute the lead isotopes equally.

They tested a few hundred metorites and said, "Okay, that means it is 4.5 billion."

Where did that leap come from?
Did they find a "new" rock, and test their theories on it, and then go, "Okay, we absolutely know for a fact that THIS rock is just 2 years old, and the test says 2 years, so that means if THIS test says the meteorite is 4.5 billion years, it is right?"

Clearly the earth, and her weather, and her atmosphere, have undergone changes. How did they rule out the possibility that those changes might have caused a greater deterioration of radioactive isotopes? Where is the scientific evidence that they're even CLOSE to being right when they say, "This decay = this many years?"

Now - another problem I have with the idea.

The theory holds that at some time the entire surface of the earth was molten rock, - however, when dating the earth, they only find the rocks they declared 3.5 billion years old in a few places. Wouldn't at least 75% of the earth's surface be pretty close to the same age? Even with the plates moving, mountains forming, .. wouldn't you find more than a few?

If the theory holds, why are you testing 100 meteorites? Instead of 100 volcanoes?

Radioactive decay produces helium. Old earther's claim that helium escapes the atmosphere in the solar winds. However, science itself teaches that helium is too heavy to escape the earth. Which, seriously, makes more sense? That the difference in accululation of helium in the atmosphere that accounts from 4.5 billions years vs a few thousands years was caught on solar winds and whisked away? Or that since it is still accumulating today, with little escape, odds are it has always accumulated?

Then there is the simple fact that radiometric dating HAS failed. As in, we have been able to prove it failed. You can not, without a time machine, prove it has been successful.

 

I agree with Pastor Larry on this!

 

Just like anyone espousing that Genesis 1-11 is should be subjected to human theories about ancient mythology/literature does so because he has already decided that the text is not literal and needs to come up with an excuse as to why this does not constitute a denial of God's Word.

My statement may not be true of you Charles but it is every bit as fair as your statement.

Creationists operate on a certain set of assumptions just like non-creationists do.

 

I think this is the key point. Many unbelievers accuse Christians of interpreting the world through our lens of Christianity. Well, they're right. In fact all people interpet the world through their own assumptions. Scientists may claim they don't, but one of their assumptions is that what one can observe today will accurately describe all that has happened before and all that will happen in the future.

We must not forget how very temporal and unknowledgeable we are. Otherwise we come off like Job's friends to God.

 

I guess I'm just a goofy, hillbilly preacher who doesn't know a whole lot but to me I believe Moses wrote Genesis being guided by the Holy Spirit. Even if he used resources such as oral tradition or some type of written records. Personally,to me the Bible is the best commentary on the Bible. I believe it is very possible that he had neither written records nor oral tradition. I believe if God chose to do so Moses could've just sat down and wrote out Genesis as the Spirit moved. Either way the book is 100% literal.

 

AMEN Shannon!...and personally I believe that anybody who doesn't believe that needs to get on their knees before God and make sure they are right with Him.The Holy Spirit(who is supposed to be IN us)would never lead a true believer to ANY OTHER CONCLUSION.I know this is BLUNT but I'll stand on that.You can't play "fast and loose" with the Word of God.There just ain't no "wiggle room" on that.

Greg Sr.

 

By the way...whenever science conflicts with or casts doubt on scripture...reject science and TRUST GOD...it's NOT even worth arguing about.The lost man needs but ONE thing...salvation through the shed Blood of Jesus Christ....and the saved man needs only to have absolute FAITH in the God he has trusted...and gratitude for the mercy of God that God graciously opened his eyes to the truth.One of these days,when we stand before Him as His redeemed bride,we'll know all the answers to the non-essential questions that we don't necessarily have answers for here.True biblical faith doesn't engender frivilous questions but rather accepts without question the truths of the Word of God.Just my own opinion.

Greg Sr.

 

One other thing Shannon...if that makes you a "goofy hillbilly"...then where can I sign up?What we need in this world is more faith-filled,God-honoring "goofy hillbillies"!

Greg Sr.

 

Excellent post.

 

I would like to suggest to you that I also agree that everything is true from Gen 1:1 to Rev 22:21. Within that there are many accounts that are allegorical. You don't even need to mention the controversial ones like Genesis and prophesy. Just look at psalms and the gospels.

It is the modernism of the enlightenment that tells as that allegorical accounts are "not true".

 

Greg,

The Holy Spirit(who is supposed to be IN us)would never lead a true believer to ANY OTHER CONCLUSION.I know this is BLUNT but I'll stand on that.

I'd say that that's a bit presumptious. YOU know where the Spirit leads people? What old earthers suggest is that those who are ardent literalists are the ones playing "fast and loose" with the word of God, caring not what the words might actually have meant to Hebrew ears, but rather caring that they conform to our predetermined 20th century western theology.

There is nothing UNChristian about trying to find the real truth in a passage of scripture. In the NT it usually is the literal sense - in the OT it often is not.