Not just secular scientists, of course. There are loads of Christian scientists who looked at the evidence and rejected a global flood. Muslim scientists too, and Buddhist ones, etc. etc.
2 Likes
(it would have allowed the ark to have a moon pool, as suggested by some apologists, albeit a completely useless one)
The floodwaters being just 15 cubits high in total renders much of the tale nonsensical: the raven would have found a perch in a nearby tree, and the ark would have been sitting on the ground.
The question is whether a height of 23 feet is acceptable. Is that your opinion? Would it also be acceptable for “the mountains of Ararat”?
Hello, I am new to the forum and still catching up on the reading. I am seeing some consistent themes come out that I feel like need to be balanced out a bit on the theological side …The scientific community relies on precise definition of terms, but God doesn’t. Jesus frequently spoke in parables for the purpose of veiling truth to those that prefer to live wickedly in the dark (explained in Matthew 13:13, 34-35…the gospel of John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 John, 2 Peter (I guess everywhere) also explain the concept of God’s ability to selectively reveal truth to only those that seek Him in repentance.
2 Peter is a good reference, but the theme in the chapters that reference the flood is that (1) there are a lot of false teachers spreading destructive doctrine and to be wary and (2) That God’s promises (that have been consistently prophesied and fulfilled) have not yet been fulfilled…and will not be until the Second Coming, when again all will be made new. But look too at 2 Peter 3:8 - “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” So throw that into all the timelines and see what happens when…the timing becomes irrelevant.
I agree with the thought that the garden of Eden was separate from all humanity in the beginning. Maybe the story of Noah is similar. It seems reasonable to say that OT writing should always be taken in the context that it pertained to God’s chosen people and their lineage, not the world in total. The same applies in the New Testament, those that hear the call become new and no longer exist in the world, but are set apart in Spirit for new life beyond this world.
So, I guess my point is that if you take the Word of God so literally, then you miss the message of the promise of eternal life, which is a shame. Don’t get me wrong, I like precision and science and facts too, but I had to get on my knees and pray to find truth.
5 Likes
Speaking of the devil, he just called. He wants to know how it is you constantly know what he’s up to?
1 Like
Welcome to PS, @Mark10.45. 
Can you tell us a bit about yourself? We can create a new thread for this if you like, or post it here and I can move it to a new thread.
1 Like
Great to see you here @Mark10.45. Please do tell us more about your self.
That is very much the case. Scripture does not speak with scientific precision or terminology.
The issue isn’t literalism, but scientism. A literal reading of Scripture doesn’t have scientific precision.
1 Like
I think the translators caught the right inference when they chose “mountains” in the case of the flood story. But that is based on the sense of the overall story, not because the Hebrew word usage precludes lesser prominence’s. Did any Hebrew anywhere at any time use the word for a height of 23 feet? That is more a pile than a hill, but who knows?
How true. Apparently mountains can be molehills, and a centimeter is as a thousand meters.
I believe that’s the more relevant point than the meaning of the word in the abstract.
1 Like
I will confess that I am not a scientist, more of a mathematician that enjoys studying physics. In my former life I was a chef and a businessman, but the stresses of sinful life and the lure of success pretty much destroyed me. Then God called me and I answered the call. So now I am in bible college and have offered myself in sacrifice to serve God. I am not really sure how to define my beliefs, so far I haven’t found anything other than “Follower of Jesus” that defines me. The YEC argument seems biblically and scientifically inaccurate. So, I guess you guys will watch me figure out who I am as I lovingly argue along with you. My goal is to bring biblical truth to the conversation…I will warn you though, I am immersed in bible study and am fairly passionate about the subject.
5 Likes
Each of Jeanson’s books have copped a hiding from this forum. Which has caused me to wonder whether he was bouncing his ideas off anyone. Because of his atrocious track record, I figured the answer was “no-one”.
But now we find that he has a “team”; and the team members must have some relevant technical skills because they knew enough to “almost stop[…] completely after they uncovered that fact”. So then, aside from Ken “Rosetta Stone” Ham, who is on Jeanson’s team?
2 Likes
Not following, possible typo?
Quite certain because I have watched all the presentations that the plural there is at least a reference to Les Bruce who is acknowledged in the book as a collaborator and helped with ethnolinguistic research. His title is given as Ph.D., retired research specialist, Summer Institute of Linguistics International
Edited.
@Tim is right, there was a missing “p”. Seems to be mainly an Australian (Strine) saying. Once upon a time (late as the 1970’s???) it would have meant a literal beating, now it is more likely to be to figurative. This headline refers to an Aussie Rules match between Geelong (the Cats) and Essendon (the Dons): CATS COP A HIDING FROM DONS
Surely Aussies would have use “copped” rather than “coped”.
Too right, cobber. But me typng is hopeles and atocorrekt does some strange things.
2 Likes