The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
So-called theistic evolutionists believe that those scientists, who argue that scientific observations can be explained by Divine creation better than evolution, are either fruitcakes, ignorant, uneducated, and/or liars.

Many are. Others are well informed, ethical, educated and sincere.

There are uneducated, lying, fruitcakes on the evolution side of things too.

The difference is that in one community, those folks are denounced while in the other community, they are lifted up. And yes, we believe it to be the opposite community that does each.

 

[OCC]

"Though I disagree with you on this matter, I think you have hit the nail on the head. It is not relevant to salvation and every one of us here assert God as the Creator of everything whether we believe in six days or accept 13.7 billion years. I wish everyone could keep that in mind. This can digress into questioning of faith, motives and salvation fairly quickly. I think that in reality you will see many different reasons from those of each side who choose to participate in these discussions and who find them either important or interesting or both."

Right on

 

[Mercury]

Okay, I'll do the verse-by-verse that OldRegular seems to be after.

Originally posted by OldRegular:
What does the Scripture of the New Testament tell us about Divine Creation?

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

TEs believe this too. This verse does not say that there were no intermediate processes. For instance, God creating by his word does not mean dirt wasn't used. If you interpret this passage to rule out intermediate processes, you force it to contradict Genesis 2 (as well as creation itself).

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

TEs believe these verses too. In fact, on this forum, TEs seem to be more consistent with this. Many times YECs fall into the fallacy of only giving God glory for what was originally made during the six days, while everything that's come about since is said to only be due to "natural processes" that God is not involved with. TEs are more likely to see God's hand in making everything that exists, much the way the psalmist was also able to see God's hand in how his body formed (Psalm 139:13-16) and not just in how Adam's body was formed. In brief, TEs are less likely to see nature as something autonomous from God.

Jesus Christ quotes Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5. Are we to believe that Jesus Christ, who we say died that we might be saved, used a mythological story to describe the sanctity of marriage? It is obvious that Jesus Christ believed in a real Adam and real Eve as He says:

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Probably at least half of the TEs on this forum accept a literal Adam and Eve. I'm on the fence myself. Regardless of whether Adam and Eve were individuals or representative of more humans, they were still real, and neither view undermines Jesus' words.

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ obviously thought Noah was a real man or He misled us all for He said in Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man.

Probably more than half of the TEs on this forum accept the historicity of Noah and the flood, but believe the flood was local. A local flood could certainly still provide an example of the coming of the Son of man. In fact, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was also used as such an example in the exact same context (Luke 17:26-30), and nobody claims that destruction was global.

Luke the physician obviously believed that Adam was a real man since he writes in Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Nobody takes that completely literally. Adam was not the son of God in the way that Jesus is the son of God. Jesus' sonship implies deity while Adam's sonship does not.

Also, there's evidence that genealogies sometimes skip generations. In Acts 7:6, it says that Abraham's descendents would be subject to others who would "enslave them and afflict them four hundred years." This was the time between Jacob and Moses. There are two genealogies that trace this time, one for Moses, and another for Joshua. Moses was four generations from Jacob (Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses; Exodus 6:16-20). Joshua was twelve generations from Jacob (Joseph, Ephraim, Beriah, Rephah, Resheph, Telah, Tahan, Ladan, Ammihud, Elishama, Nun, Joshua; 1 Chronicles 7:23-27). Since Joshua was one generation later than Moses, we can subtract one from his list. That leaves us with four generations for one line and eleven for the other, and both spanned 430 years, rounded by Stephen to 400. In other words, Moses' ancestors on average bore their child in the lineage when they were 100 years old, while Joshua's bore theirs on average at 36 years. It seems quite unreasonable that people living during the same time frame would have such a great difference in child-bearing ages. It is more likely that Moses' genealogy has significant gaps.

Based on that, it seems entirely reasonable that Jesus would be connected to Adam, whether Adam was an individual or representative of the first humans.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The points made in these passages holds equally true whether Adam was an individual or representative of the first humans. And again, about half the TEs on this board believe in a literal, individual Adam.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

An analogy does not have to be to a historical event. Jesus often used analogies to fictional events or parables to make his point. I don't believe the story in Genesis 3 is fiction, but this passage is no help in establishing that it isn't.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

If you completely understand what 1 Timothy 2:13-15 means, including why someone who was willfully disobedient makes a better leader than someone who was deceived, and how women will be saved through childbearing, then you have me at a disadvantage. To me, that is about the most obscure passage in the New Testament.

The author of Hebrews certainly believed that the flood of Genesis 7ff was real and world wide since he writes in Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

This passage does support that Noah was a historical person, but it doesn't prove a global flood. The word "world" is often used to refer to less than the entire planet.

Peter also believed that the flood of Genesis 7ff was real since he states in 2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

The "old world" and the "world of the ungodly". Interesting! Some evidence that the whole planet is not meant when Scripture refers to the world. The old world did pass away due to the flood, but that doesn't mean we live on a different planet now. The world isn't the entire globe.

The Apostle Peter certainly did not believe that Genesis 1-11 was mythological when he said in 1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Again, this supports a historical Noah, but not a global flood.

It is obvious that the writers of the New Testament believed the Scripture of Genesis 1-11, but then they are the words of God Himself.

Yes, I believe Genesis 1-11 as well. I just think you've misinterpreted it in some places.

 

[garpier]

If the flood was not global, what was the purpose of 120 years forewarning and instructions to build an ark, when it would have been easier and quicker to move to an area not affected by the flood?

 

[Mercury]

Where do you get 120 years from? Genesis 5:32 says Noah was 500 years old when he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth. Genesis 7:6 says Noah was 600 years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. As far as I know, we aren't told how much time elapsed between the birth of Noah's sons and God's command to build an ark. God says that man's days will be 120 years in Genesis 6:3, but again there's no mention of how many years pass before God speaks to Noah. One clue that some time has passed is that Noah's sons have grown up and have wives (see Genesis 6:18).

Anyway, perhaps God didn't tell Noah to leave to another land because Noah was to be a witness to those who were left (see 2 Peter 2:5). Noah couldn't be a preacher of righteousness to them if he moved away from that land.

 

[garpier]

As you point out the 120 years is found in Gen 6:3. If God made that decision is it likely He kept it to himself? Noah cold have begun his building before his sons were born or after, It doesn't make a difference. We do know that Shem was born 98 years before the flood(Gen 11:10) He certainly would have been able to help his father build the ark. As to your comment about Noah being a witness to those who were left- there weren't any survivors other than Noah and his family. He was a preacher of righteousness before the flood came. The flood was definitely world wide, not only does the Bible say it was (Gen 6:7; 7:17-24), but the earth shows the evidence of it. (Grand canyon, shells on top of Mt. Everest etc.)
Again I ask if the flood was ocal what was the purpose of the ark? It seems to me God would have not only Noah move, but all of those animals also.

 

[OldRegular]

Initial question by OldRegular:
What does the Scripture of the New Testament tell us about Divine Creation?

Response posted by Mercury:
Okay, I'll do the verse-by-verse that OldRegular seems to be after.

In general Mercury your response is essentially the same that one would expect from an unbeliever confronted by the same Scripture.

Initial question by OldRegular:
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Response posted by Mercury:
TEs believe this too. This verse does not say that there were no intermediate processes. For instance, God creating by his word does not mean dirt wasn't used. If you interpret this passage to rule out intermediate processes, you force it to contradict Genesis 2 (as well as creation itself).

Hebrews 11:3 states that the worlds and all things were made by the word of God. This Scripture rules out an evolutionary process in which a single living cell developed by some undefined means from non life and that single living cell developed by time and chance to form all living things including you and me.

It pleases me to see that you at least recognize the Scripture Genesis 2:7. However this passage states: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul..

We see then that God made man, Adam, out of the dust of the earth. God alone can create life out of non-life as Scripture tells us. Time and chance can neither create life out of non-life or create all living things from this single cell, regardless of the length of time involved.

Initial question by OldRegular:
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Response posted by Mercury:
TEs believe these verses too. In fact, on this forum, TEs seem to be more consistent with this. Many times YECs fall into the fallacy of only giving God glory for what was originally made during the six days, while everything that's come about since is said to only be due to "natural processes" that God is not involved with. TEs are more likely to see God's hand in making everything that exists, much the way the psalmist was also able to see God's hand in how his body formed (Psalm 139:13-16) and not just in how Adam's body was formed. In brief, TEs are less likely to see nature as something autonomous from God.

You make a number of false statements. First of all theistic-evolution is an oxymoron and is contrary to Scripture. To say that theistic-evolutionists believe John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 is simply untrue. Creation is not evolution. Evolution is an atheistic philosophy and prefacing it by theistic does not change that fact.

You also make some false statements about what those who accept the Biblical account of Creation. Those of us who believe the Biblical Revelation take the following Scripture literally:

Colossians 1:12-18
12. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Hebrews 1:1-3
1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Initial question by OldRegular:
Jesus Christ quotes Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5. Are we to believe that Jesus Christ, who we say died that we might be saved, used a mythological story to describe the sanctity of marriage? It is obvious that Jesus Christ believed in a real Adam and real Eve as He says:

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Response posted by Mercury:
Probably at least half of the TEs on this forum accept a literal Adam and Eve. I'm on the fence myself. Regardless of whether Adam and Eve were individuals or representative of more humans, they were still real, and neither view undermines Jesus' words.

Mercury, are you proposing group marriage?

Initial question by OldRegular:
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ obviously thought Noah was a real man or He misled us all for He said in Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man.

Response posted by Mercury:
Probably more than half of the TEs on this forum accept the historicity of Noah and the flood, but believe the flood was local. A local flood could certainly still provide an example of the coming of the Son of man. In fact, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was also used as such an example in the exact same context (Luke 17:26-30), and nobody claims that destruction was global.

Scripture states that the flood was world wide, it does not say that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was world wide. Also please note the words of the promise God made following the flood: And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. [Genesis 9:11]

Initial question by OldRegular:
Luke the physician obviously believed that Adam was a real man since he writes in Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Response posted by Mercury:
Nobody takes that completely literally. Adam was not the son of God in the way that Jesus is the son of God. Jesus' sonship implies deity while Adam's sonship does not.

Also, there's evidence that genealogies sometimes skip generations. In Acts 7:6, it says that Abraham's descendants would be subject to others who would "enslave them and afflict them four hundred years." This was the time between Jacob and Moses. There are two genealogies that trace this time, one for Moses, and another for Joshua. Moses was four generations from Jacob (Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses; Exodus 6:16-20). Joshua was twelve generations from Jacob (Joseph, Ephraim, Beriah, Rephah, Resheph, Telah, Tahan, Ladan, Ammihud, Elishama, Nun, Joshua; 1 Chronicles 7:23-27). Since Joshua was one generation later than Moses, we can subtract one from his list. That leaves us with four generations for one line and eleven for the other, and both spanned 430 years, rounded by Stephen to 400. In other words, Moses' ancestors on average bore their child in the lineage when they were 100 years old, while Joshua's bore theirs on average at 36 years. It seems quite unreasonable that people living during the same time frame would have such a great difference in child-bearing ages. It is more likely that Moses' genealogy has significant gaps.

Based on that, it seems entirely reasonable that Jesus would be connected to Adam, whether Adam was an individual or representative of the first humans.

Well Mercury you are spinning like a top. I did not say that Adam was a son of God in the same sense that Jesus Christ was. True believers are called children of God but certainly not inferring any deity.

Also it is well recognized that there is no intent in Scripture to give complete genealogies, however, that has nothing to do with evolution, and it certainly has nothing to to with the fact that the Word of God as recorded by the New Testament writers recognize Adam as the first man created in the image of God..

Response to Mercury continued in next post.

 

[OldRegular]

Continuation of response to Mercury.

Initial question by OldRegular:
What does the Scripture of the New Testament tell us about Divine Creation?

Response posted by Mercury:
Okay, I'll do the verse-by-verse that OldRegular seems to be after.

In general Mercury your response is essentially the same that one would expect from an unbeliever confronted by the same Scripture.

Initial question by OldRegular:
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Response posted by Mercury:
The points made in these passages holds equally true whether Adam was an individual or representative of the first humans. And again, about half the TEs on this board believe in a literal, individual Adam.

Mercury, to state that these Scripture do not teach a literal Adam is what is called eisegesis, that is reading your own thoughts into Scripture, but that is what you evolutionists do. You keep telling me what half the theistic evolutionists on this forum believe. The truth is that all of you are evolutionists and prefer to believe atheistic scientists rather than believe the Word of God and those Christian scientists who do believe the Word of God.

Initial question by OldRegular:
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Response posted by Mercury:
An analogy does not have to be to a historical event. Jesus often used analogies to fictional events or parables to make his point. I don't believe the story in Genesis 3 is fiction, but this passage is no help in establishing that it isn't.

Eisegesis again? Paul is simply warning the Church at Corinth not to be deceived by Satan as Eve was. He would give evolutionists the same warning today.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.[/QUOTE]

Response posted by Mercury:
If you completely understand what 1 Timothy 2:13-15 means, including why someone who was willfully disobedient makes a better leader than someone who was deceived, and how women will be saved through childbearing, then you have me at a disadvantage. To me, that is about the most obscure passage in the New Testament.

Mercury, you can worry about the entire passage to obscure the truth that Paul teaches if you choose. The fact is that the Apostle Paul verifies in 1 Timothy 2:13 that which is taught in Genesis 2, namely: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Initial question by OldRegular:
The author of Hebrews certainly believed that the flood of Genesis 7ff was real and world wide since he writes in Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Response posted by Mercury:
This passage does support that Noah was a historical person, but it doesn't prove a global flood. The word "world" is often used to refer to less than the entire planet.

I am glad to find out that Noah was a real person. Given that you admit that Noah was a real person you cannot allegorize the rest of the flood history.

It is true that world does not always mean the entire planet when used in Scripture. However, as shown below in 1 Peter 3:20 only Noah’s family survived the flood so it stands to reason that the flood was world wide. Furthermore, given that water flows down hill how were all the high hills under the whole heaven covered [Genesis 7:19] if the flood were not world wide. Also please note that all the water in the flood did not come from rain but Scripture tells us in Genesis 7:11: In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Don’t you find it odd that those much vaunted scientists in which you put your Faith can view a few acres of the surface of Mars and declare that there was a planet wide flood while looking at the entire geologic history of the earth deny the same. Could it be that these scientists are driven by the desire to discredit the Revelation of God? I think so!

Have the scientists ever explained the presence of mammoths in Siberia with undigested vegetation in their bellies? A world wide flood, followed by a change in the earth’s climate, is the logical explanation.

Initial question by OldRegular:
Peter also believed that the flood of Genesis 7ff was real since he states in 2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

Response posted by Mercury:
The "old world" and the "world of the ungodly". Interesting! Some evidence that the whole planet is not meant when Scripture refers to the world. The old world did pass away due to the flood, but that doesn't mean we live on a different planet now. The world isn't the entire globe.

Poor Mercury! Who said that we lived on a different planet. However, in light of Genesis 7:11, 19 above there is no reason to believe that the surface of the earth was not drastically changed by the world wide flood.

Initial question by OldRegular:
The Apostle Peter certainly did not believe that Genesis 1-11 was mythological when he said in 1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Response posted by Mercury:
Again, this supports a historical Noah, but not a global flood.

What happened to all the rest of the people since only eight were left alive after the flood. Could it be that the reason you evolutionists want to deny a world wide flood is that it lends credence to the scientific evidence as interpreted by those who believe in Divine Creation.

Initial question by OldRegular:
It is obvious that the writers of the New Testament believed the Scripture of Genesis 1-11, but then they are the words of God Himself.

Response posted by Mercury:
Yes, I believe Genesis 1-11 as well. I just think you've misinterpreted it in some places.

Mercury, don’t try to salve your conscience by deluding yourself that you believe Genesis 1-11. You don’t or you would not call yourself a TE. By the way are you ashamed to admit that you are an evolutionist and hide behind TE? I believe in a young earth, though not necessarily 6000 years as Bishop Usser calculated, and am not ashamed to admit it.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Don’t you find it odd that those much vaunted scientists in which you put your Faith can view a few acres of the surface of Mars and declare that there was a planet wide flood while looking at the entire geologic history of the earth deny the same."

Please support your assertions that scientists think there was a global Mars flood.

"Have the scientists ever explained the presence of mammoths in Siberia with undigested vegetation in their bellies? A world wide flood, followed by a change in the earth’s climate, is the logical explanation."

How is that? The mammoths floated around for a year in water and were then flash frozen? This left undigested food?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Oldreg,


Really - you should argue the facts and not make rude statements about the faith of others.

Don’t you find it odd that those much vaunted scientists in which you put your Faith...

As we've said many times - a belief that science can teach us does not equal faith in man above God.

Mercury, don’t try to salve your conscience by deluding yourself that you believe Genesis 1-11

Another attack on the beliefs of another. Mercury does believe Genesis. He just doesn't believe what various humans have insisted regarding it.

Why must YEC arguments be full of this sort of willful misrepresentation of the opposite sides? It only serves to hurt the credibility of the YEC stance.

Just stick to the facts and stop insinuating things about other brothers which are not true.

 

[OCC]

Are "TE's" all Liberals? Just curious.

BTW, I'm not a TE.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
The mammoths floated around for a year in water and were then flash frozen? This left undigested food?

That is an interesting theory, especially the "flash frozen" part.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Oldreg,


Really - you should argue the facts and not make rude statements about the faith of others.

Don’t you find it odd that those much vaunted scientists in which you put your Faith...

As we've said many times - a belief that science can teach us does not equal faith in man above God.

Mercury, don’t try to salve your conscience by deluding yourself that you believe Genesis 1-11

Another attack on the beliefs of another. Mercury does believe Genesis. He just doesn't believe what various humans have insisted regarding it.

Why must YEC arguments be full of this sort of willful misrepresentation of the opposite sides? It only serves to hurt the credibility of the YEC stance.

Just stick to the facts and stop insinuating things about other brothers which are not true.

Mercury could not make the New testament Scripture in the OP go away, can you?

 

[UTEOTW]

Not my interesting theory...

"Have the scientists ever explained the presence of mammoths in Siberia with undigested vegetation in their bellies? A world wide flood, followed by a change in the earth’s climate, is the logical explanation."

Maybe I missed what you mean. Could you explain how frozen mammoths point specifically to a young earth and support your assertion about scientists claiming a global Mars flood?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by King James:
Are "TE's" all Liberals? Just curious.

BTW, I'm not a TE.

My definition of a Biblical liberal is one who denies the inerrancy of Scripture. Don't know what yours is.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Oldreg,
As we've said many times - a belief that science can teach us does not equal faith in man above God.

Charles:
Science can teach us but it cannot teach us about beginnings, that is a philosophical or religious issue. That is the reason I say evolution ia an atheistic philosophy.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Oldreg,

Evolution is accepted by most atheists - but that doesn't mean that a theist cannot subscribe to it.

My assertion is that you should argue against evolution and the science behind it, while NOT making remarks about the faith of other believers.

Secondly, I don't intend to make any scripture "go away". The fact that NT writers refer to the OT neither helps nor hurts the case for YEC, OEC, or TE. Writers in NT times were not likely to have had the scientific knowledge, or even the curiosity, to speculate about the physical genesis of the earth. The OT revealed theological truth and the NT refers to it.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Mercury, are you proposing group marriage?

Definitely not. Trust me, if I ever propose marriage to someone, it won't be you.

I may have more time to respond later. Just wanted to get that cleared up right away before any rumours spread.

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by King James:
Are "TE's" all Liberals? Just curious.

BTW, I'm not a TE.

My definition of a Biblical liberal is one who denies the inerrancy of Scripture. Don't know what yours is. </font>[/QUOTE]The same thing.

But I was talking about "political" liberals. I'm sorry you don't share my sense of humour.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by garpier:
As you point out the 120 years is found in Gen 6:3. If God made that decision is it likely He kept it to himself?

We have scriptural testimony that God didn't keep it to himself. Noah found favour with God, and at some point (we aren't told when) God provided Noah and his family with a way to be saved from the flood.

As to your comment about Noah being a witness to those who were left- there weren't any survivors other than Noah and his family. He was a preacher of righteousness before the flood came.

Yes, he was a witness before the flood came. That was my point. He couldn't do that if he moved away.

Again I ask if the flood was ocal what was the purpose of the ark? It seems to me God would have not only Noah move, but all of those animals also.

As I said, perhaps God had Noah stay put so he could be a witness to those around him before the flood came.