# Noah's flood



## Fuzzy D Fellers (Jun 7, 2017)

Majority of the biblical facts are proven by science. Except the Flood. There should be geological layer  of earth that would show human and animal fossils all killed at the same time.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 7, 2017)

Wouldn't your talents be better utilized in a Useless Billy thread?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 7, 2017)

.....


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 7, 2017)

so, Hobbs, what other accounts in the Bible do you consider fairy tales and unreliable?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 7, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> so, Hobbs, what other accounts in the Bible do you consider fairy tales and unreliable?



None.. I believe the Bible speaks of a local flood.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> None.. I believe the Bible speaks of a local flood.



you know that is not what it says.  So, you believe that the worldwide flood is a fairy tale.  Gotcha


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 7, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> you know that is not what it says.  So, you believe that the worldwide flood is a fairy tale.  Gotcha



Actually,  I do know that's what it says,  but if you want to keep believing what you believe.. Go right ahead,  this topic is not really that difficult,  but it's not my passion.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 7, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Actually,  I do know that's what it says,  but if you want to keep believing what you believe.. Go right ahead,  this topic is not really that difficult,  but it's not my passion.



I find it hard to believe that people can be so deceived that they will not even admit that what is written down is written.

Good day.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 7, 2017)

The ark was a predestined event to give us a "shadow" of salvation through Christ. Knowing this, does it change whether the flood needed to be local or worldwide?

What's a good biblical definition of the world?

Comparison;

Colossians 1:23
if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Romans 1:8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

Acts 2:5
Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

What I'm getting at is, what is the whole world in relation to scripture?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 7, 2017)

"World?" 

"Creation?"

God loved the whole world?

All creation struggled?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 8, 2017)

Art,  it was their known world. None of the verses you listed means a global world.. Of course you know this.  Strict literalism of scripture has created a lot of bad doctrines over the years.. 

I read recently that it was prophetess Ellen White: Founder of the seventh day Adventist that brought the idea of a global flood into Christianity and other denominations followed.. Maybe I will research that more if I find time.


----------



## PappyHoel (Jun 8, 2017)

Funny how you can't carbon date dino bones. Watch Genesis on Netflix.  It will break it down for you on evidence of a world wide flood and carbon dating.


----------



## ryanh487 (Jun 8, 2017)

The pangean theory helps justify a global flood and explain animal dispersion afterwards.  And if you look at the geologic column,  animals that were less likely to be able to swim and avoid crushing debris from roaring flood waters are at the bottom,  and get more advanced as you work your way up.  There are no human fossils at the bottom because humans swim and know how climb onto debris/etc, so they would have died last,  and anything that wasn't trapped rapidly under mud and silt would rot /get eaten instead of being preserved.  And with 40 days of submersion, all the scavengers and predators of the deep would have had plenty of time to pick carcasses clean and prevent the land from being covered in rotting nastiness after the water receded.  Then over time,  the continents drifted,  and the isolated groups of kinds of animals changed into multiple species from natural selection/ localized breeding. Animals can change completely in 2-3 generations of selective breeding in captivity,  the same happens in the wild.  And if you notice,  the most "prehistoric" looking animals on earth have longer gestation periods  and/or much later sexual maturity ages and less genetic variation/fewer traits in general.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 8, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I find it hard to believe that people can be so deceived that they will not even admit that what is written down is written.
> 
> Good day.



With all due respect Sir.  Given what is known about his other beliefs and how he forms them, why does this surprise you?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 8, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> With all due respect Sir.  Given what is known about his other beliefs and how he forms them, why does this surprise you?



https://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1.pdf

The most common taught flood doctrine was recently ( in church age)  invented by a known false prophetess.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 8, 2017)

Fuzzy D Fellers said:


> Majority of the biblical facts are proven by science. Except the Flood. There should be geological layer  of earth that would show human and animal fossils all killed at the same time.


My dad owned a piece of property in Morgan County TN on a mountain. There was petrified palm tree found there and various other places throughout TN. Weird how petrified palm tree showed up on a Mtn top nowhere near an ocean.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 8, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> https://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1.pdf
> 
> The most common taught flood doctrine ....



is in Genesis and it's not ambiguous.  You believe everything but the Original Source.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 8, 2017)

I find the proposition of a local flood absurd in addition to being heresy.  If it was just a local flood, why not just tell Noah to move?

Estimates for how long it took Noah to build the ark range from 40-120 years.  Let's just say it took only *10* years.  If he and his family caravan averaged just 10 miles a day he could have traveled 36500 miles in 10 years.  The earth is only 25000 miles around.  That means he could have went around the entire earth, came back to his original starting point, seen that it was still dry (or flooded) and still had time to walk around to the other side of the earth in just 10 years.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 8, 2017)

I wonder how far humans had ventured out away from the middle east at the time of the flood?


----------



## welderguy (Jun 8, 2017)

The flood covered all dry land. But all the dry land in that day was undivided.
The continents did not divide until later.

Genesis 10:25
25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

This dividing did not take millions of years or even thousands. The Word says it happened during Peleg's lifetime. So, possibly hundreds at most.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 8, 2017)

j_seph said:


> My dad owned a piece of property in Morgan County TN on a mountain. There was petrified palm tree found there and various other places throughout TN. Weird how petrified palm tree showed up on a Mtn top nowhere near an ocean.



The Appalachian Orogeny may have had a bit to do with that.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 8, 2017)

welderguy said:


> The flood covered all dry land. But all the dry land in that day was undivided.
> The continents did not divide until later.
> 
> Genesis 10:25
> ...




Gem.  10:25 
New Living Translation
Eber had two sons. The first was named Peleg (which means "division"), for during his lifetime the people of the world were divided into different language groups. His brother's name was Joktan.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 8, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Gem.  10:25
> New Living Translation
> Eber had two sons. The first was named Peleg (which means "division"), for during his lifetime the people of the world were divided into different language groups. His brother's name was Joktan.



Wow. 
Was that a difference in translations, or a difference in interpretations?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 8, 2017)

ky55 said:


> Wow.
> Was that a difference in translations, or a difference in interpretations?



That was an example of how two people can believe every word of God,  yet come to different conclusions. The translation is different,  but one really needs to study the text and not always just say the Bible clearly says X about X.


----------



## Milkman (Jun 8, 2017)

Not exactly the topic but it lends itself to the general discussion of understanding and interpreting what happened during the days of Noah.

The trouble we humans have with trying to interpret anything is we have to reference it against something else. Measure it in some way.

We just can not comprehend something without limits.  Things like time and space without limit is beyond our human comprehension. 

To me the most important thing that has no limits is the love  of God.


----------



## ryanh487 (Jun 8, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> That was an example of how two people can believe every word of God,  yet come to different conclusions. The translation is different,  but one really needs to study the text and not always just say the Bible clearly says X about X.



In this example, it can "technically" be interpreted either way, because the phrase is, according to Strong's concordance, the earth was divided, and the word for earth, 'erets, can mean either the population of the earth OR the phsyical earth itself.

The big question to reasearch is whether or not the geneology timeline for Peleg matches up with the period that the Tower of Babel division occured or not.  If not, then it must refer to the physical division of the earth.  If it does, then it most likely refers to the division of people.

Regardless of that verse, the Pangean theory is pretty sound aside from sciences interpreted timeline.  I think things happen on this earth a lot faster than they believe they do.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 8, 2017)

If the earth was physically divided, wouldn't the hot goo ooze out?


----------



## ryanh487 (Jun 8, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> If the earth was physically divided, wouldn't the hot goo ooze out?



"physically divided" meaning "the land moved apart", i.e. continental drift.

One theory is that the flood waters coming forth from the ground, as described in Genesis, would have triggered techtonic activity.  The continental plates already move a little every year, imagine if it were accelerated by an event like the flood and the initial drift occured over a few centuries and gradually slowed down.  Such an occurance would allow the earth to be populated by man and beast far and wide before the continents were divided enough to isolate populations, resulting in regional genetic variation of globaly found kinds of animals.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 8, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> If the earth was physically divided, wouldn't the hot goo ooze out?



Can you look at a photo of the earth and see that at one time all the continents were connected?

Have you ever studied how many volcanic islands there are? Lots


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 8, 2017)

OH ok, just the surface was divided. I missed that part when I read Genesis 10:25.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 8, 2017)

I have not studied this, so shooting from the hip. I would think that there is evidence from a flood???? Sand, once everywhere to a small degree, washed until it began to slow, and was deposited.... along the coastal areas In my state, it is sandy 75 miles inland. Higher areas, did not cover with water as fast so were more prone to erosion until they became covered in water. Lower coastal areas covered quickly, resulting in little erosion. Rather became almost as silt beds. We have a major river nearby. One side of the river, one county is extremely different than the other side, county. One side is steep rocky banks, the outer, other side, low land, sandy soils for half the county.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 8, 2017)

Speaking of the flood. It is a picture of the so called rapture. Read the original language. "They were caught up above the waters" a deliverance from the coming wrath.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 8, 2017)

Those that hold to the global flood. 

Genesis 6:4 In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.

 Were these Nephilim wiped out or were they part of Noah's family?


----------



## welderguy (Jun 8, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Those that hold to the global flood.
> 
> Genesis 6:4 In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.
> 
> Were these Nephilim wiped out or were they part of Noah's family?



It seems to indicate they were wiped out.


----------



## ryanh487 (Jun 8, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Those that hold to the global flood.
> 
> Genesis 6:4 In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.
> 
> Were these Nephilim wiped out or were they part of Noah's family?



The wording makes it reasonable to accept that the nephillim were wiped out in the flood, but more were born afterwards.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 8, 2017)

ryanh487 said:


> The wording makes it reasonable to accept that the nephillim were wiped out in the flood, but more were born afterwards.



can you explain how a people can be wiped out but be born later?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 8, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> can you explain how a people can be wiped out but be born later?



Only if they came back from outer space or the South Pacific!


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 8, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Only if they came back from outer space or the South Pacific!



This only one of the mysteries that makes a global flood unlikely.  The Nephilim were around before the flood... And after. 

Numbers 13:33 English Standard Version
And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 8, 2017)

1gr8bldr said:


> Speaking of the flood. It is a picture of the so called rapture. Read the original language. "They were caught up above the waters" a deliverance from the coming wrath.



I mentioned this picture or shadow in post #9. I think the Arks purpose as a shadow is way more important than whether it was worldwide or local.

How it relates to the message of Christianity, God's judgement and grace. The ark we call Jesus took the place of our sin.  God gave us this shadow to show us his plan.

It's a story of God's grace.  “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.”


----------



## welderguy (Jun 9, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> This only one of the mysteries that makes a global flood unlikely.  The Nephilim were around before the flood... And after.
> 
> Numbers 13:33 English Standard Version
> And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”



Word: LITP

Pronounce: nef-eel'

Strong: H5303

Orig: or nphil \i nef-eel'\i0\plain\f3\fs21\cf23 ; from 5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant. H5307

Use: TWOT-1393a Noun Masculine

Grk Strong:

1) giants, the Nephilim



So your argument is that large bullies and tyrants could not exist after a global flood?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> can you explain how a people can be wiped out but be born later?



Only Joshua and Caleb had an accurate assessment of the situation.  Maybe you missed the context.....and the irony of the fact that you are quoting an inaccurate assessment from unbelievers to base your opinion on.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 9, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Only Joshua and Caleb had an accurate assessment of the situation.  Maybe you missed the context.....and the irony of the fact that you are quoting an inaccurate assessment from unbelievers to base your opinion on.



I was quoting scripture.. What are you talking about?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 9, 2017)

welderguy said:


> Word: LITP
> 
> Pronounce: nef-eel'
> 
> ...



 Most believe they were a people,  not just someone unusually large or with a bad attitude,  but I can accept that as an argument.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 9, 2017)

Here is something I don't get. Christianity was never about being righteous. Salvation is all about God's grace. Noah was chosen by God's grace and his righteousness?
The world leading up to the flood became very evil. I'm not exactly sure what the flood did. Did it rid the earth of evil flesh and spirits? 
Noah and his family still had some evil in them as evil continues today. Everything came back. This to show us we needed a new and better Ark. That we can't overcome evil without an Ark.
Did God try to fix evil with the flood and even that didn't work? I don't think so.


----------



## ryanh487 (Jun 9, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> can you explain how a people can be wiped out but be born later?



If angelic/ demonic beings were reproducing with human women,  it would have happened again with Noah' s bloodline years later as sin again spread through humanity.


----------



## ryanh487 (Jun 9, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Here is something I don't get. Christianity was never about being righteous. Salvation is all about God's grace. Noah was chosen by God's grace and his righteousness?
> The world leading up to the flood became very evil. I'm not exactly sure what the flood did. Did it rid the earth of evil flesh and spirits?
> Noah and his family still had some evil in them as evil continues today. Everything came back. This to show us we needed a new and better Ark. That we can't overcome evil without an Ark.
> Did God try to fix evil with the flood and even that didn't work? I don't think so.



God sent the flood because man had become so evil and so advanced that Noah was the last of those faithful.  If Noah and his family had been allowed to die,  the world would have lost touch with salvation. in order to keep the promise of Christ and salvage humanity, all but Noah and his family had to be wiped out.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 9, 2017)

I'm not sure Noah's ark saved anyone from sin. It appears to have been more of a physical salvation. So in reality sin never disappeared from Noah's descendants.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 9, 2017)

I wonder though that at the time of the flood if man had ventured to the Americas and beyond. Even if it was still one giant land mass. 
So wouldn't it have been possible for men to have lived far away and in isolation of the evil surrounding Noah's nation? People who didn't need to be erased.

People who were not under a covenant with God such as Adam.  Noah's purpose could have been for God to elect a new generation to a covenant. This would also be the way to eventually give a covenant to Abraham who was a descendant of Noah. Noah's three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth, from which were derived Semites, Hamites and Japhetites.

There could have been some Asians, Negros, or Americans who were not under covenant with God until they were grafted in to the covenant with Israel. People who were strangers to the hope and promises of the covenant the Commonwealth of Israel had with God. Possibly not from the lineage of Noah.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> I was quoting scripture..



That apparently you have not read.  

Numbers 13:30

30 Then Caleb quieted the people [n]before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.” 31 But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us.” 32 So they gave out to the sons of Israel a *bad* report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its [o]inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. 33 There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

You are quoting a BAD report as acknowledged as "bad" INNNNNNN scripture and INNNNNNN context to support your inaccurate claim.  Ironic huh?  Not suprising.  Just ironic.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 9, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That apparently you have not read.
> 
> Numbers 13:30
> 
> ...



 Yeah,  it was a bad report... An evil report,  not a good report they wanted to hear.. The Nephilim being there was bad. 

 I realize some view that as a false report.. Others an evil report.. But the fact is whether the Nephilim were there or not.  They knew who they were speaking of and knew who they were descendants of and did not rebuke the claim as saying.. " They all died in the great flood"... No.  They absolutely accepted the fact that these people were living.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Yeah,  it was a bad report... An evil report,  not a good report they wanted to hear.. The Nephilim being there was bad.
> 
> I realize some view that as a false report.. Others an evil report.. But the fact is whether the Nephilim were there or not.  They knew who they were speaking of and knew who they were descendants of and did not rebuke the claim as saying.. " They all died in the great flood"... No.  They absolutely accepted the fact that these people were living.





> But the fact is whether the Nephilim were there or not........They absolutely accepted the fact that these people were living.


 
No better example of eisegesis.

Twisting scripture to refute scripture. 

Like I said, not surprising.

My only question again, is why do you even bother with scripture at all.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 9, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No better example of eisegesis.
> 
> Twisting scripture to refute scripture.
> 
> ...




 I know you really dislike me on a personal basis.  I'm sorry you feel that way,  but I just showed a perfect example of allowing scripture to answer scripture and you called that eisegesis. I don't limit my ability to learn from only those I'm in agreement with. 

Why do I bother with scripture.. If there were a perfect fit for me in a denomination somewhere I would call it Sola Scriptura . I have taken down all the blinders and pride that builds in denominational beliefs and I accept God's word for what it says.. Scripture is my article of faith.


----------



## ryanh487 (Jun 9, 2017)

Another theory is that Seth,  being a righteous man and therefore a son of God,  was also a giant.  His bloodline mingling with Cain produced the nephillum.  Noah was of Seth's bloodline,  as were his sons,  so there is always the distinct genetic possibility that he had grandchildren/ great grandchildren that were giants.  The gene still exists today,  and is highly recessive -- most giants are not born to giant parents.  The limited genetic understanding of the time,  plus a might makes right culture,  would fully explain nephillum being present before and after the flood.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> I know you really dislike me on a personal basis.  I'm sorry you feel that way,  but I just showed a perfect example of allowing scripture to answer scripture and you called that eisegesis. I don't limit my ability to learn from only those I'm in agreement with.
> 
> Why do I bother with scripture.. If there were a perfect fit for me in a denomination somewhere I would call it Sola Scriptura . I have taken down all the blinders and pride that builds in denominational beliefs and I accept God's word for what it says.. Scripture is my article of faith.



It would stand to reason that to dislike you on a personal basis I would have to know you.  I don't, therefore I don't.

To be clear, I don't care at all for the dogmatic propagation of your unorthodox, unfounded and ill-informed opinions in a public forum where those who may be immature Christians are exposed to them and thus potentially led astray.  Therefore I will do my best to expose them and the absurdity of them at every opportunity.  

I am NOT implying you are not a Christian nor unsaved.  I AM becoming increasingly convinced thru your postings, that although you may be saved, you doctrine renders salvation and thus a Savior unnecessary.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 9, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It would stand to reason that to dislike you on a personal basis I would have to know you.  I don't, therefore I don't.
> 
> To be clear, I don't care at all for the dogmatic propagation of your unorthodox, unfounded and ill-informed opinions in a public forum where those who may be immature Christians are exposed to them and thus potentially led astray.  Therefore I will do my best to expose them and the absurdity of them at every opportunity.
> 
> I am NOT implying you are not a Christian nor unsaved.  I AM becoming increasingly convinced thru your postings, that although you may be saved, you doctrine renders salvation and thus a Savior unnecessary.



I also want to correct the bad doctrines that lead people astray.  like the young earth creationists that originated from a woman with a brain injury that had hallucinations and went on as one of the founders of the seventh day Adventist. 

 It's a very new idea,  as new as dispensationalism and just as wrong.  Both those man made doctrines are hurting Christianity because Christians say you must believe this... Well most educated people can see the hypocrisy in what scripture says and what those two doctrines teach... Then once they see the obvious error.. It makes it harder to show them the Truth.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 9, 2017)

The only way it works is that they are non human.?????? [Nephilim], Angels, fallen angels, etc are immortal. That is why the socalled he11 was created. They were before and after the flood. But where are they now if immortal ? It could also be a mythical type of figure. The name applied to large people.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 9, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> Wouldn't your talents be better utilized in a Useless Billy thread?



So.... Where would your time be best spent. 
Everyone is welcome in the Billy thread. Is the spiritual forum , for the chosen few.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2017)

kmckinnie said:


> Is the spiritual forum , for the chosen few.



No, but we do try to keep the troll threads to a minimum.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 9, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> No, but we do try to keep the troll threads to a minimum.



Fuzzy may just wanted to understand better so u made that statement because you felt because he hangs out in a thread where everyone gets along....... Cuts up & has humorous comments, we are trolls. 
Thankyou for your thoughts.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2017)

kmckinnie said:


> Fuzzy may just wanted to understand better so u made that statement because you felt because he hangs out in a thread where everyone gets along....... Cuts up & has humorous comments ...



We get along fine here, and I certainly do my best to add humorous comments.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 9, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> We get along fine here, and I certainly do my best to add humorous comments.



I see how well all of y'all get along with the biblical discussions.  I have seen the humorous comments.

I read this forum from time to time for knowledge. I keep my commits to myself. 
Carry on.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2017)

kmckinnie said:


> I read this forum from time to time for knowledge.



That's your first problem.  This forum should come with a warning label:  FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.




kmckinnie said:


> I keep my commits to myself.



Jump in anytime.  The water is warm and very shallow.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 9, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> That's your first problem.  This forum should come with a warning label:  FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fuzzy is a troll & I have a problem. Thankyou for pointing that out. 

Thankyou for warning me about how shallow this warm pool is, I may of jumped in and broke my neck. I prefer cool flowing springs that have deep pools to dive in. They are more refreshing for my soul.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2017)

kmckinnie said:


> I have a problem.



I'd say that to anybody who takes this forum too seriously.




kmckinnie said:


> I prefer cool flowing springs that have deep pools to dive in. They are more refreshing for my soul.



Check out the "Deer Hunting with Dogs" forum.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 9, 2017)

More questions about the young earth creationists view of a global flood. 

1) If the Genesis flood created the geologic column and reshaped the topography of the Earth,  why do we still have the same rivers in Mesopotamia that Genesis references?  The Tigris and Euphrates should have been obliterated if a global flood laid down thousands of feet of strata around the world. 

2) Why would the Ark land in the same part of the world after drifting on a worldwide ocean for many months?  ( A local flood would answer this question more easily)


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2017)

kmckinnie said:


> I prefer cool flowing springs that have deep pools to dive in. They are more refreshing for my soul.



Brother.  That was profound.  Can you elaborate?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 9, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That apparently you have not read.
> 
> Numbers 13:30
> 
> ...





 I went back over what I had read earlier just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, especially after this fit,  and accusations were flying. 

The accusation is the report was false and they didn't see Nephilim there... The Sons of Anak. The accusation was that I didn't read carefully enough and was relying on a false report..  The accusations have been very negative when they need not be.. I mean,  we are sharing God's word,  we owe it to our Lord to share it in love. 

So here is what I missed earlier.  The report was bad... Not because it was a lie but because it was not what they wanted to hear ( sound familiar)...  Anyway back up in the Chapter and you will see where God's Holy word proclaims they indeed did see the Sons of Anak. 

22 And they went up through the South and came to Hebron; Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak, were there. 

God bless.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 9, 2017)

I went back and read it too. There was in fact descendants of Anak, lots of fruit, and a bit of crow!
Thus the false report was about the land and not the Anak. The report was half false and all bad. They knew who the Anak were and were afraid.
It wasn't like telling them dinosaurs lived there.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 9, 2017)

Why wouldn't a worldwide flood kill all the vegetation? No mention of fish on the ark but they too were living created fleshy animals. The salt water could have killed the fresh water fish and the fresh water could have killed the salt water fish. Somewhere though there had to be a pair of each to restart the circle of life.

Genesis 8:11
When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

Genesis 8:5
The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

Mount Everest is 29,029 feet tall. That's a lot of evaporation or drain holes in the earth's surface. No wonder it took awhile for the water to recede. Some of the water may have turned into hydrogen and oxygen. The Great Scientist wouldn't have any trouble doing that. He's the one who made water out of hydrogen and oxygen.
Most of the water might have been borrowed from the firmament that was above the earth back in those days. It may have just been returned to that firmament.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 9, 2017)

did anyone see the report last month saying they now believe the core of the earth is filled with water?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 9, 2017)

Deuteronomy 1:28-30
'Where can we go up? Our brethren have made our hearts melt, saying, "The people are bigger and taller than we; the cities are large and fortified to heaven. And besides, we saw the sons of the Anakim there."' 29"Then I said to you, 'Do not be shocked, nor fear them. 30'The LORD your God who goes before you will Himself fight on your behalf, just as He did for you in Egypt before your eyes,

I'm thinking the residents of Jerico were descendants of the Anakim. Perhaps God didn't want the Israelites to reproduce with the giants. I guess Rahab was from a different bloodline. God needed a pure bloodline(human) in order for Jesus to be 100% human.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 9, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> did anyone see the report last month saying they now believe the core of the earth is filled with water?



Interesting, maybe that's where the flood waters came and went;

"A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/

I read there would have to be more water than could be contained by ten Atlantic Oceans to flood Mt Everest under 15 cubits of water. It might round out to be three times the volume of all the oceans. Man, that's a lot of underground water!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2017)

I didn't, but it wouldn't suprise me in the least.  The Bible is true, when science manages to stumble upon it, their conclusions lead them right to what they should have expected if they were familiar with the bible.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 9, 2017)

What comparisons were there in God choosing Noah and Rahab in relation to a blood line for Jesus? Grace, faith, genetics?
There are some similarities between the flood destruction and the Jericho destruction when comparing Noah and Rahab.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 9, 2017)

Genesis 15:16
In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

Acts 17:26
From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries.

Goodbye Jericho giants! Babies and all.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 10, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Interesting, maybe that's where the flood waters came and went;
> 
> "A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from."
> 
> ...



That would put an interesting spin on the bromide-- "draining the swamp".

  So what might of happened is that the earth dirt shrivelled  as the watery earth oozed  out of her, which in turn means the mountains sunk and a good part of the reason they were covered with liquid. Think of a prune which once was a plum with the juice surrounding it as to cover the valleys and even the high spots...-- Same volume different day. Given that gravity is constant for the earth, it would be rather difficult to pore the water in a can somewhere outside the stratosphere--as we can with prune juice in the space between sea level and the borders of outer space. So if I understand correctly the great flood was a plum to prune event?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 10, 2017)

Art,  you may find this interesting since you've asked about how far man had gone in those days. 

 First,  the early church did not recognize the earth as a globe so they could have never considered the flood as global.  They viewed the Earth as a disk and they lived on top of it.  Sheol was below them and the heavens above. 

So there was a great debate in the early church if man could possibly live on the bottom side of this disk... It's interesting how they viewed it. 

Here... http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/007/0070075.htm

Here Augustine weighs in to the possibility of Antipodes... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01581a.htm

I agree scripture is 100% correct.  Science is not and should not be in conflict with scripture.. Science has in the past and will in the future refine our way of thinking about scripture.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 10, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> First,  the early church did not recognize the earth as a globe so they could have never considered the flood as global.  They viewed the Earth as a disk and they lived on top of it.  Sheol was below them and the heavens above.
> ...........
> I agree scripture is 100% correct.  Science is not and should not be in conflict with scripture.. Science has in the past and will in the future refine our way of thinking about scripture.



funny....  if you agree that scripture is 100 percent correct, why do you twist it around and look at interpretations that make one do mental gymnastics to arrive at their beliefs?    I thought all scripture was inspired by God.  It is amazing to me that God was confused as to the shape of the world he had created, and to how much land mass he created.  You would think, being the creator He would have kept up with such things.

And, in my feeble mind, you would think if He were inspiring Moses to write the first 5 books of His written word, God would have at least made sure that those were correct.  After all, if you start building a house on an uneven foundation, the entire house is uneven.  Do you suppose that God couldn't even get the foundation of His scripture correct for Moses to write it down?  


I don't think so.  

Why is it so hard to believe God, who through only His spoken word created everything, could arrange mountains, valleys, water, oceans and rivers anywhere and everywhere He wished them to be?  And then, tear those same mountains down and later re-establish them?  Scripture says during the flood there were earthquakes and great rivers of water gushing from the earth.  Don't you think those rivers would erode the mountains and fill the valleys?  And then, with a saturated soil and earth, it would be an easy matter to raise up mountains exactly where God wanted them to be.

People get in the habit of limiting God, and trying to make Him fit into a nice cube in the corner.  God is all powerful and all knowing.  Don't you think rinsing a small globe with water, then drying it up would be easy for Him?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 10, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> funny....  if you agree that scripture is 100 percent correct, why do you twist it around and look at interpretations that make one do mental gymnastics to arrive at their beliefs?    I thought all scripture was inspired by God.  It is amazing to me that God was confused as to the shape of the world he had created, and to how much land mass he created.  You would think, being the creator He would have kept up with such things.
> 
> And, in my feeble mind, you would think if He were inspiring Moses to write the first 5 books of His written word, God would have at least made sure that those were correct.  After all, if you start building a house on an uneven foundation, the entire house is uneven.  Do you suppose that God couldn't even get the foundation of His scripture correct for Moses to write it down?
> 
> ...



The only limitation God has is the one He put on Himself. He cannot lie. 

 If you read the links above I addressed to Art,  you will see early church fathers arguing that there's no way man could live on the other side of the earth per their view of scripture. 

See they were wrong.  Their interpretation of scripture was wrong,  because their world view was wrong. 

 My argument is that young earth creationists worldview is wrong... Not scripture,  but they are in error of interpreting scripture to support their wrong world view.  I might add just one more time.. The common teaching today of the young earth creationists was first invented by a known false prophetess with a brain injury that caused her hallucinations ( visions).  It's a very new view.. Shouldn't we question it?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 10, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> funny....  if you agree that scripture is 100 percent correct, why do you twist it around and look at interpretations that make one do mental gymnastics to arrive at their beliefs?    I thought all scripture was inspired by God.  It is amazing to me that God was confused as to the shape of the world he had created, and to how much land mass he created.  You would think, being the creator He would have kept up with such things.



I think when one finds one teaching/interpretation   twisted by others, he begins to test the other teachings as well.

One such view might be the way one views the Trinity against Oneness and Unity. 

Another twist is one going to Heaven as a spirit even before Judgement Day only to return to the earth in spirit form to receive a new body to only return back to Heaven. If one was already in Heaven and saw Jesus as he is, then they would already be like him. They wouldn't need to return to the earth. 

So in Hobbs defense and mine, it's not just us doing the twisting of scripture to make it all work out. We are all equally as guilty as denominations of "twisting" scripture to make it work out for our beliefs.
This concept is done equally by all; free will believers, election believers, Trinitarian, Oneness, OSAS, works based believers, and on and on. Many things the Bible shows all to be true and other scriptures show none to be true. So in a way we all pick and choose what we were indoctrinated into to believe what we believe.
Even though we can read that early Christians and the clergy believed differently than we have.

If one has been told that "world" always mean global as a child, then that's the way they read 'world" in every scripture.  

If one has been taught that God himself incarnate as the man Jesus instead of spirit Jesus becoming man Jesus then either they are twisitng scripture or the Trinitarians are twisting scripture. It can't be both. Either the one God became Jesus or the equally, spiritually,  always being, 1/3rd of the Godhead became Jesus.

Just examples of how we twist the scripture. I can show you verses that support OSAS and I can show you verses that don't. I can form data to prove my research or disprove my research just like scientist do.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 10, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Just examples of how we twist the scripture. I can show you verses that support OSAS and I can show you verses that don't. I can form data to prove my research or disprove my research just like scientist do.



But you can't show scripture that shows that Moses and God thought of the world as just what they could see out the back door of the camel barn.

As I said, God inspired Moses to write the foundation of all scripture, and I believe God knew what he was saying when He said "The world" flood and "all flesh perished" save Noah, his family and the creatures in the ark.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 10, 2017)

So why would someone such as Hobbs or myself suddenly cast aside beliefs we have been taught as little children to the side?
I guess it all boils down to wanting to seek the truth. 

It is said that great scholars before us have read the scripture and figured it out for us. Well I reckon this is good enough for some people but not for others. 
I would think God would want us to test the spirits. To read the scripture for ourselves and discuss as we do. Maybe to just seek the truth. To learn and to share. 
Not for reasons of boasting or ridicule. To test the other's belief and return to your belief if so found.  

To wonder what it would have been like to live on an isolated island and finding a Bible. To read that Bible with no insight from anyone other than God.

I'm sure some Churches are more open to individuals having their own beliefs that are different form theirs and some Churches are very closed to the idea. In some Churches one must also believe their dogma. Even believing their dogma is inspired by God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 10, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> But you can't show scripture that shows that Moses and God thought of the world as just what they could see out the back door of the camel barn.
> 
> As I said, God inspired Moses to write the foundation of all scripture, and I believe God knew what he was saying when He said "The world" flood and "all flesh perished" save Noah, his family and the creatures in the ark.



That's great and I respect your beliefs. You have scripture to back it up. What about the fish and trees?

It would also be possible that God created the earth as a disk and later, maybe after the flood, changed it to a sphere. The Great Architect of the universe can operate outside of the science he created.

Like I said earlier, I don't think it matters much one way or the other. Local or Global the symbol of the Ark for salvation was given. Either way it serves it's purpose. It does show the Ark wasn't for everyone.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 10, 2017)

Trees and all plants would be growing back from seed, or maybe some survived the months long drenching.  Who knows. 

I figure the fish survived in brackish water, with many, many dying.  We know the oceans are getting saltier every day, (another reason to believe in a young earth creation) and I would say the fishes have adapted over thousands of generations to live in the waters where they are now.  The Bible doesn't give any explanation of how this could have worked.  These are just my thoughts


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 10, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> But you can't show scripture that shows that Moses and God thought of the world as just what they could see out the back door of the camel barn.
> 
> As I said, God inspired Moses to write the foundation of all scripture, and I believe God knew what he was saying when He said "The world" flood and "all flesh perished" save Noah, his family and the creatures in the ark.



And we should  not forget that Moses was an Egyptian with some learning and we should not forget what Egyptians knew about the world when Moses was kicking the can.

I suspect he and the Egyptians knew a lot about the world's nations and about the peoples within its own boundries , about the spiritual variations in their empires, past and present, and the spirituality in other empires past and present-- such as India for example and more. ( The Egyptians had a robust and challenging spiritual history especially that it was mixed-up with their politics.) 

 The flood account in scripture is older than Moses... if I understood correctly. "Moses" most likely cut and pasted it-- with good reason.

The world for empires is a relative thing but also a bit of bombast.  For example the World Series of Baseball or the " world heavy weight champion" makes an interesting take on the meaning of the word, world and who uses it and why it is used in this fashion.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 10, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> But you can't show scripture that shows that Moses and God thought of the world as just what they could see out the back door of the camel barn.
> 
> As I said, God inspired Moses to write the foundation of all scripture, and I believe God knew what he was saying when He said "The world" flood and "all flesh perished" save Noah, his family and the creatures in the ark.



Luke 2:1
King James Bible
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Not what they could see out of the back door of the camel barn,   but certainly not the entire Globe,  unless you think Native Americans, Vikings,  and Aberigenes received a tax statement.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 10, 2017)

Also... According to the measurements we know of the Ark.  It would have taken the entire size of the Ark to store enough hay to feed two elephants for the time it was a float.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 10, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Also... According to the measurements we know of the Ark.  It would have taken the entire size of the Ark to store enough hay to feed two elephants for the time it was a float.



Must of had more than two peanuts on board.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 10, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Also... According to the measurements we know of the Ark.  It would have taken the entire size of the Ark to store enough hay to feed two elephants for the time it was a float.



according to who's feed calculations?  Just how big where those elephants?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 10, 2017)

but back to fuzzy's OP....  there is a geological layer of rock that runs from the southwestern US (can't remember if it is New Mexico or Arizona right off) all the way across the continent to New England, and then starts again in Europe.  The same sedimentary layer of stone stretches over almost 1/2 the world. 

Check it out.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 10, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> but back to fuzzy's OP....  there is a geological layer of rock that runs from the southwestern US (can't remember if it is New Mexico or Arizona right off) all the way across the continent to New England, and then starts again in Europe.  The same sedimentary layer of stone stretches over almost 1/2 the world.
> 
> Check it out.



The layer you point out is not from the Yucatan asteroid strike? It is seperate?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 10, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> Art,  you may find this interesting since you've asked about how far man had gone in those days.
> 
> First,  the early church did not recognize the earth as a globe so they could have never considered the flood as global.  They viewed the Earth as a disk and they lived on top of it.  Sheol was below them and the heavens above.
> 
> ...



Interesting that St. Augustine's view of the inhabitants of the whole world was smaller until proven by science. 
Did he twist the scripture or was he just not as informed because the science to prove it wasn't around yet?

He couldn't even fathom that man had come from his part of the world to another;

" For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01581a.htm

What can we learn from this? Should we ignore everything from St. Augustine or just realize that as we learn from science, perhaps they were twisting the scripture a bit. Not on purpose but just by not having the knowledge yet. 
Maybe God is giving us knowledge that the men or old didn't possess. Could knowledge be increasing daily?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 10, 2017)

gordon 2 said:


> The layer you point out is not from the Yucatan asteroid strike? It is seperate?



these are sedimentary layers.  Laid down by water.

D. V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record  pp. 1–2.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 10, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> but back to fuzzy's OP....  there is a geological layer of rock that runs from the southwestern US (can't remember if it is New Mexico or Arizona right off) all the way across the continent to New England, and then starts again in Europe.  The same sedimentary layer of stone stretches over almost 1/2 the world.
> 
> Check it out.





KT extinction level?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 10, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> Interesting that St. Augustine's view of the inhabitants of the whole world was smaller until proven by science.
> Did he twist the scripture or was he just not as informed because the science to prove it wasn't around yet?
> 
> He couldn't even fathom that man had come from his part of the world to another;
> ...




 I'm amazed at how human nature never changes,  but we do indeed gain in knowledge thanks be to God.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 10, 2017)

I have found one fossil that I could carry home with me.  I found it hunting on top of a high ridge in eastern KY . Once I got it home and researched it I found out it was the root of a pre historic tree that grew near the coastline. 

These fossils are common in eastern KY,  so there goes the idea of a flood washing those animals up on mtns. This was the root of a tree that grows on the shore... So the coastline was once near eastern KY.  Not for a month or so,  but long enough to grow tropical trees.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 10, 2017)

hobbs27 said:


> I'm amazed at how human nature never changes,  but we do indeed gain in knowledge thanks be to God.



There are many Bible verses discussing the heart because God’s word is clear that the condition of your heart is critical in your walk with the Lord. Yet now we know the condition of the heart is from the brain instead. 
Our concepts change as we learned with science.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jun 10, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> What can we learn from this??



We can learn that when Man A quotes Man B, to make his point, he is little concerned with the point being made by Man B; and we should therefore make no judgment as to the validity of what is being said by Man B based on that which is provided by Man A.



> Should we ignore everything from St. Augustine



Certainly not until we know all that was said by Augustine; and understand what was said.



> or just realize that as we learn from science, perhaps they were twisting the scripture a bit. Not on purpose but just by not having the knowledge yet.



I don’t think you can show that Augustine, in the linked quote, “twisted”, or in any way misrepresented scripture in light of the extant certain knowledge or what we might call certain knowledge today.

He throws a shadow of doubt on scientific conclusions which had not been proven by exploration (“even should it be believed or demonstrated), and exposes as pure conjecture the supposed geography and human habitation of unexplored regions.  So, his point is that a supposed population of men, descended from Adam, resides in the unexplored regions of the earth is pure speculation; which it was at the time.

His larger point is shown by the unquoted remainder of the paragraph/chapter in question, which is:



> Wherefore let us seek if we can find the city of God that sojourns on earth among those human races who are catalogued as having been divided into seventy-two nations and as many languages.  For it continued down to the deluge and the ark, and is proved to have existed still among the sons of Noah by their blessings, and chiefly in the eldest son Shem; for Japheth received this blessing, that he should dwell in the tents of Shem.


He is correct that we have no need to consider speculative information, from any source, or engage in the development of speculative scenarios, as we search the scriptures for the truth which God has revealed.

The last few years of this forum surely show that God’s revealed truth can only be corrupted by speculation; especially when speculation is considered foundational and the touchstone of all scripture.


----------



## Israel (Jun 11, 2017)

Who is Augustine...who is Paul...or Apollos? Except for the seeing of a thing to the measure in which one is able to see, and the measure in which this has been entrusted, imbued, received...of them.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 11, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> We can learn that when Man A quotes Man B, to make his point, he is little concerned with the point being made by Man B; and we should therefore make no judgment as to the validity of what is being said by Man B based on that which is provided by Man A.





hummerpoo said:


> Certainly not until we know all that was said by Augustine; and understand what was said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Regards Man B. When I get real uncomfortable with man A is when Man B is God. And I mean God in this way:


Man A declares:

1) God cannot
2) God can
3) God would never
4) God is always
5) God is
^) God is not

In other words when man A tells me on, or speaks for the God of Abraham as if "God" was an inanimate fixture in a cosmology, predictable as a fox and to be feared as one fears a lion... His demeanor proved by centuries of logic, and man A curtain of what God can and cannot do,  seeing Him fully formed... in motivation, in trajectories... etc.

I get uneasy. But that's just me. I want to think that the bug-a-bear Sola Scriptura as a sole revelation of the Divine is not cut out to be...

And then words escape...  and I leave the bear alone.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 11, 2017)

Israel said:


> Who is Augustine...who is Paul...or Apollos? Except for the seeing of a thing to the measure in which one is able to see, and the measure in which this has been entrusted, imbued, received...of them.




So bros? What is truth?  Of what did the living God inform them? What was formed in them?

Blind He informed them they were. Seeing He informed them to look.

So what I get from you is that the manner of their seeing is just as important as what was seen?

That manner was informed from a profound faith? Maybe?


----------



## Israel (Jun 11, 2017)

gordon 2 said:


> So bros? What is truth?  Of what did the living God inform them? What was formed in them?
> 
> Blind He informed them they were. Seeing He informed them to look.
> 
> ...



Remember those leading you, who spoke the word of God to you, of whom, considering the outcome of their way of life, you are to imitate the faith.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 11, 2017)

Israel said:


> Remember those leading you, who spoke the word of God to you, of whom, considering the outcome of their way of life, you are to imitate the faith.




Hebrews 13:7 ah yes.  Remember those people and their lives.  Scripture is very helpful in this case to us remembering them.  Thanks.

I think that in the remembering sometimes we leave out one of Paul's arms for example or add a third one. So Paul is a one armed man for some and has three arms for others--even if both camps shore up on scripture...?

What would account for this? When is remembering just? That is, just in that we remember someone as they and their lives were? What would provide that we do this with some justice? Even the black and white marks of scripture fail us? Or it is something else perhaps?  What, in what way, who gives us truth?

To remember those people and their lives....? I can name my biological fathers on my father's side to nine generations back and have a good appreciation on their lives I like to think. I wonder today if the last one I recall could remember nine generations back? And so on.  I have to wonder if Paul accounts for someone's father in my family? A down to earth yet to heaven spiritual father of course, a man not unlike my brothers today who's children will witness  Paul and his Lord in  their children's days to come?

Faith? When is  one's faith a candle's flicker and when is it a light to trust, even in Christ? Are there essential relationships between the faithful and the Holy Spirit ( between the individual and God) and again between scripture and church,  between the served and the servants?

I had faith in Jonah and his God long before I knew that the Cross was a better testament in faith. Everlasting life? would account one greater witness? Everlasting life would account for a greater faith than that professed by a prophet's warnings?  Everlasting life within the pilgrim for the loving gift of the cross? And maybe that is the life to see, to know to cleave to in, "their way of life" in Paul which accounts for  the truth: everlasting life due to being near to the cross?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2017)

Perhaps things are revealed differently according to the knowledge of the time period. Thus there was a time the earth was flat and people had matters of the heart. That was the truth then.

God never changes but his revealing could. Would it be terribly wrong if we could explain scientifically what a rainbow is? It's purpose from God remains the same. So with the flood. It's purpose of a shadow of the Ark remains the same.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2017)

Manna from Heaven? If we explained it as lichen or honeydew, wouldn't it still have been provided by God?

"In the summer of 1864, tens of thousands of Union POWs were dying of thirst at the military prison in Andersonville, Georgia. Suddenly, a spring erupted from the ground within the stockade. The POWs credited its appearance to divine intervention, and "Providence Spring" became part of the established lore of the Civil War."

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/28460

Even water from the ground as in this spring or floodwaters from God can be explained as H2O. God's water is H2O and possibly his manna was some type of carb or protein.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2017)

A future revealing;

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

What we will be has not yet been made known.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 11, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> A future revealing;
> 
> 1 John 3:2
> Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
> ...



  70AD


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 11, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> 70AD



Don't be silly.. We all know John was just kidding when he said they would see Him.. Or lying.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2017)

NE GA Pappy said:


> 70AD



And if it is a future event then we want see Christ until he appears and we become like him. I wonder where we'll wait?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 12, 2017)

Artfuldodger said:


> And if it is a future event then we want see Christ until he appears and we become like him. I wonder where we'll wait?



Purgatory.


----------

