Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Confidential Informant

Are Evangelicals "Required" to Believe?

Recommended Posts

Matt,

Sorry, my sarcasm meter is turned off this morning. Are you saying that you don't really buy into the "science" that seeks to discredit the notion of a global flood?

C.I.

Share this post


Link to post

I certainly don't have time to read all of these, but I glanced at this one.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-311.htm

It has nothing to do with science. It explain's why Morris interprets the Bible to be describing a universal flood. All of what Morris says may be true, and it would still not engage the issue raised here.

Let me be specfic. If there was a universal flood, we would expect to see the complete destruction of every inhabited city in the world by flooding at precisely one moment. Archaeologically this should be very easy to find. Could an Evangelical universal flood proponant point me to any studies on the evidence for the universal flooding layer in all world archaeological sites?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Just Curious
Let me be specfic. If there was a universal flood,

Without going into too long an explanation, what is your personal take on the "universal flood" or more accurately the "complete earth flood"? thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Bill,

I believe that Matt was being facetious. I've spent some time on most of those sites, and they are not particularly illuminating -- which, I believe, is Matt's point. "Science" used to support biblical events (particularly the Creation and the Great Flood) is not exactly fodder for the journal "Science".

Share this post


Link to post
Let me be specfic. If there was a universal flood,

Without going into too long an explanation, what is your personal take on the "universal flood" or more accurately the "complete earth flood"? thanks

Just Curious,

If you want this questioned answered start your own thread!

This my thread and it doesn't deal with LDS views of the flood. The topic of this thread is the fact that Peter (and Christ) appear to have given an "official" stance or view of the deluge event which view supports the global rather than local flood theory. The "official" view, as Dr. Hamblin has aptly pointed out, contradicts the "schoarly" or "scientific" view.

I want to know how the EV's reconcile this, and depending on how they reconcile it, how they reconcile that with their insistance that LDS account for seemingly "authoritative" views on the location of Cumorah.

C.I.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Just Curious
If you want this questioned answered start your own thread!

This my thread and it doesn't deal with LDS views of the flood.

Ok I get it now..it is quite alright for you to ask questions on my thread but it is not ok for me to ask them on yours..sounds fair to me...as for your second statement, I didn't ask what the LDS views were I asked what Hamblin's views were. But your a smart lawyer and you already knew that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Ok I get it now..it is quite alright for you to ask questions on my thread but it is not ok for me to ask them on yours..sounds fair to me..

Oh pleez, you are the master of your threads. If you don't like the questions I ask then do exactly as I've done and ask off-topic posters to start their own thread.

as for your second statement, I didn't ask what the LDS views were I asked what Hamblin's views were.

Fine, but I'm not sure you could strain at that gnat any more if your tried. Dr. Hamblin's views on the flood, LDS views of the Flood, RLDS views of the flood, are all irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

But your a smart lawyer and you already knew that right?

"It is no longer enough to be smart — all the technological tools in the world add meaning and value only if they enhance our core values, the deepest part of our heart. Acquiring knowledge is no guarantee of practical, useful application. Wisdom implies a mature integration of appropriate knowledge, a seasoned ability to filter the inessential from the essential." -- Doc Childre and Deborah Rozman

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Just Curious
Oh pleez, you are the master of your threads. If you don't like the questions I ask then do exactly as I've done and ask off-topic posters to start their own thread.

Thanks for the advice I will definitely keep that in mind...and consider yourself forewarned...

Fine, but I'm not sure you could strain at that gnat any more if your tried.

What is this with you and insects..is it a phobia or something, please get another line you wore that one out months ago...

Dr. Hamblin's views on the flood, LDS views of the Flood, RLDS views of the flood, are all irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

ONLY if they are contradictory to what you claim the EV view is. And actually even if they are, the are totally relevant to the topic as to explain why one is more correct than the other...or are they both correct, or both wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
I believe that Matt was being facetious. I've spent some time on most of those sites, and they are not particularly illuminating -- which, I believe, is Matt's point. "Science" used to support biblical events (particularly the Creation and the Great Flood) is not exactly fodder for the journal "Science".

Oh the irony! I, who relish irony in my own posts, fail to see it in another's. My kingdom for a smiley face! :P

Share this post


Link to post
what is your personal take on the "universal flood" or more accurately the "complete earth flood"? thanks

My personal view is irrelevant to this topic.

If Mr. Curious would like to start a topic on my personal views, I would consider answering him there.

I note that, so far, no Evangelical has directly engaged this issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the advice I will definitely keep that in mind...and consider yourself forewarned...

I will.

What is this with you and insects..is it a phobia or something, please get another line you wore that one out months ago...

:P I haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. Are you sure you aren't thinking about another poster? I don't recall referring to insects at all in any of my posts. If you insist that I have, could you, perhaps, provide a link so that I may refresh my memory on the subject?

ONLY if they are contradictory to what you claim the EV view is.

No, actually it makes no difference. You see, because Mormons are not fundamentalists, and because Mormons do not view either the scriptures or their prophets as inerrant, we (speaking of Mormons in general) are not burdened in the same way as EV's are in respect to this issue.

And actually even if they are, the are totally relevant to the topic as to explain why one is more correct than the other...or are they both correct, or both wrong...

I don't think you are quite grasping the topic of this thread or the point that it is trying to make.

C.I.

Share this post


Link to post
*...* I like Deuteronomy 29:29 that says "There are secret things that belong to the Lord our God." So there's alot in the Bible that I have questions about but am I supposed to know all the answers or know everything?

Oh and finally the Lord reveals some of those secret things to Joseph Smith who told it to the Saints, and the world has a cow. Give me a break.... Well like Joseph said "Get over it if you can..."

The Evangelicals get to claim mysteries, which the LDS don't? How many threads have I seen these Evangelicals mocking the LDS view of God, saying "who is his father?". And in their mockery Blaspheme God too. Quite a double standard there.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Lux
I note that, so far, no Evangelical has directly engaged this issue.

Bump

Share this post


Link to post
Let me be specfic. If there was a universal flood, we would expect to see the complete destruction of every inhabited city in the world by flooding at precisely one moment. Archaeologically this should be very easy to find. Could an Evangelical universal flood proponant point me to any studies on the evidence for the universal flooding layer in all world archaeological sites?

Dr. Hamblin,

Have you read the 'Genesis Flood' by Whitcomb and Morris (probably the same Morris on subject website)? It was published in 1959. I believe (and it has been a long time since I looked at it) that Whitcomb or Morris was a PHD in Civil Engineering while the other author was a professor at Grace Theological seminary in Indiana. In that book they go extensively into Archeological evidence including many photographs of strata, fossils, footprints, etc. to show that the uniformitarian view is incorrect. They do say that Carbon 14 is accurate to about 5000 years ago, but inaccurate beyond that. (I don't have the answer.) They also mention Potassium Argon as another dating means. They use the rather large human footprints (photograph) found in the Paluxy riverbed in Texas alongside the dynosour tracks as evidence of the large prediluvian men mentioned in Genesis.

"...there were giants in those days, men of renown..." (nephilim).

Now I have read that some skeptics said a large wooden foot was made with a handle, and some cynic went around forming these foot prints by hand by planting them into the ground. However the riverbed is extremely hard and dried. I was there in 1980 and looked at the dynosaur tracks. If I had taken a hammer and chisel perhaps I could have destroyed them, that is how hard the surface was.

Share this post


Link to post

'Darth' Bill Hamblin wrote:

I certainly don't have time to read all of these, but I glanced at this one.

I don't have that time, either.

I was just making a little joke about how some posters will throw up a bunch of links to pages and pages of material, and expect all other participants in the discussion to either admit that they are wrong and grossly uniformed, or slog through it all, page by tedious page.

I will probably never read all those links. Will it affect my eternal salvation if I'm wrong about the flood? Or whether I come to the wrong conclusion about the likely origins of Native americans, or on whether the available evidence about early polygamy is more consistent with the idea that Joseph Smith was an adulterer or the idea that he was an inspired prophet of God?

God speaking to Matt at the judgement bar:

"Matt, I know it wasn't really clear given the evidence you had, the time you had to examine it, and the limited intelligence I gave you,  but you made the wrong decision about Joseph Smith.  Turns out he was really a Prophet/Con man (the reader can pick which one they think God will actually say).  Yes, you really missed that one.  Yes, yes, I know you were trying to figure it all out while still doing all the other things you felt were important.  You gave it a good try, my boy.  I love you.  Go to hell."

Maybe. . . but I hope not. There's enough uncertainty about these issues in my mind that I doubt very much that I would be able to prove one side or the other.

(Sorry about being off-topic, C.I. For the record, I'm not an Evangelical, and my limited knowledge of the relevant evidence leads me to believe that there was not a global flood at the time Noah is purported to have lived.)

Share this post


Link to post
Have you read the 'Genesis Flood' by Whitcomb and Morris (probably the same Morris on subject website)? It was published in 1959. I believe (and it has been a long time since I looked at it) that Whitcomb or Morris was a PHD in Civil Engineering while the other author was a professor at Grace Theological seminary in Indiana. In that book they go extensively into Archeological evidence including many photographs of strata, fossils, footprints, etc. to show that the uniformitarian view is incorrect. They do say that Carbon 14 is accurate to about 5000 years ago, but inaccurate beyond that. (I don't have the answer.) They also mention Potassium Argon as another dating means. They use the rather large human footprints (photograph) found in the Paluxy riverbed in Texas alongside the dynosour tracks as evidence of the large prediluvian men mentioned in Genesis.

"...there were giants in those days, men of renown..." (nephilim).

Now I have read that some skeptics said a large wooden foot was made with a handle, and some cynic went around forming these foot prints by hand by planting them into the ground. However the riverbed is extremely hard and dried. I was there in 1980 and looked at the dynosaur tracks. If I had taken a hammer and chisel perhaps I could have destroyed them, that is how hard the surface was.

Well, at least William's position has the merit of being consistent. However, he may have a double standard also.

For exampl4e, if Mormons were to dig in their feet and insist that ALL amerindians ARE INDEED directly descended from Hebrew immigrants -- in contradiction to all current scientific evidence -- I doubt that William would allow us to get away with it. Certainly such EV outfits as Living Hope Ministries would mock such an intransigent position.

So again, why is it okay for inerrantist fundies to insist in the face of all evidence that there was a global flood while simultaneously mocking LDS for insisting (in face of much less persuasive evidence) that a small group of Hebrew immigrants arrived in Central America approximately 2500 years ago?

Yes indeed, you gotta love Noah. His story helps to crystalize so many issues.

C.I.

Share this post


Link to post
Have you read the 'Genesis Flood' by Whitcomb and Morris (probably the same Morris on subject website)? It was published in 1959. I believe (and it has been a long time since I looked at it) that Whitcomb or Morris was a PHD in Civil Engineering while the other author was a professor at Grace Theological seminary in Indiana. In that book they go extensively into Archeological evidence including many photographs of strata, fossils, footprints, etc. to show that the uniformitarian view is incorrect.

I don't have the time, space, or inclilnation to go into a point-by-point analysis of Whitcomb and Morris's book. I will say that I feel that they gave a sincere effort. But I must also add that the vast majority of science is not in their corner. The issue of uniformitarianism can be argued, but not very effectively, franly, by its critics. Just one example of problems with a global flood, from a scientific perspective --

On p. 23, the authors state:

For the sake of realism, imagine waiting at a railroad crossing while ten freight trains, each pulling 52 boxcars, move slowly by, one after another. That is how much space was available in the Ark, for its capacity was equivalent to 520 modern railroad stock cars. A barge of such gigantic size, with its thousands of built-in compartments (Gen. 6:14) would have been sufficiently large to carry two of every species of air-breathing animal in the world today (and doubtless the tendency toward taxonomic splitting has produced more

Share this post


Link to post
Have you read the 'Genesis Flood' by Whitcomb and Morris (probably the same Morris on subject website)? It was published in 1959. I believe (and it has been a long time since I looked at it) that Whitcomb or Morris was a PHD in Civil Engineering while the other author was a professor at Grace Theological seminary in Indiana. In that book they go extensively into Archeological evidence including many photographs of strata, fossils, footprints, etc. to show that the uniformitarian view is incorrect. They do say that Carbon 14 is accurate to about 5000 years ago, but inaccurate beyond that. (I don't have the answer.) They also mention Potassium Argon as another dating means. They use the rather large human footprints (photograph) found in the Paluxy riverbed in Texas alongside the dynosour tracks as evidence of the large prediluvian men mentioned in Genesis.

"...there were giants in those days, men of renown..." (nephilim).

I haven't read that book, but I've heard those claims. They are unconvincing to me, but that is a different issue.

You still haven't engaged the issue raised here.

If there was a universal flood, we should expect a flood-caused destruction layer in ALL archaeological sites throughout the entire world at precisely the same time. This seems to me to be an inescapable byproduct of a universal flood. Is there any study that provides such evidence?

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't read that book, but I've heard those claims. They are unconvincing to me, but that is a different issue.

You still haven't engaged the issue raised here.

If there was a universal flood, we should expect a flood-caused destruction layer in ALL archaeological sites throughout the entire world at precisely the same time. This seems to me to be an inescapable byproduct of a universal flood. Is there any study that provides such evidence?

Well I don't claim to be an archaeologist, biologist, or paleontologist. I am an Electrical engineer doing building design. However I have a thought (and you maybe far more studied and read on this issue than I am).

By flood caused destruction layer in ALL archaeological sites throughout the entire world and precisely the same time, I take it you mean the following:

This layer would be in the same strata (Level?) throughout the world and have tribolites, dynosaurs, mammals, man made artifacts, and possibly man himself in this strata. Maybe I have misinterpreted what you meant. Also I am not a geologist.

The good book says that water rose from beneath the earth as well as rain from the sky. Whitcomb/Morris brought out the fact that it would be impossible to inundate the earth by heavy rain from the sky over 40 days. Therefore to make the job complete water had to come from below as well. Now Whitcomb/Morris (W/M) say for that to happen there would be tremendous upheaval on the ocean floor changing the whole ocean bed and bringing mountainous areas beneath the ocean to higher levels and even creating mountains under the water. And after the flood waters receded these mountains (ranges) were above the surface of the ocean.

Also they say an animal that died (drowned) would have to be covered by earth or rocks rapidly in order to preserve its carcas (bones), otherwise it would decay to nothing over a few years (hundreds?) by the wearing away from the elements in the atmosphere. This covering up would have occurred in many instances caused by the upheaval from the ocean floor and probably some tusanamis as well. Also they say that during the flood stage the more agile or smaller animals could have gotten to higher ground quicker than the larger more cumbersome dynosaurs, hence reptilian stratas are lower than mammalian stratas.

However there are exceptions where both are found in the same strata. Also the earth was probably one large land mass until sometime after the flood.

"...in the days of Peleg the earth was divided..."

Also the climate changed drastically from a temperate zone to four seasons.

So if it was possible to inundate the earth by rain from the sky alone (which would take a lot longer than 40 days), then I could agree with you that there would have been a universal flood layer as the basic topography would not have changed.

However per scripture that is not what happened.

Share this post


Link to post

No I was referring to strata on archaeological sites. Human cities survive archaeologically as levels or strata. The lowever the older. If there were a universal flood, it would have destroyed all extant human cities. Thus, there should be evidence in a strata or level of each human city of global destruction.

We should see:

Human habitation

flood and destruction

Then either complete abandonment or eventual rebuilding.

I am looking for a book which accepts the universal flood, which then examines archaeological sites and looks for universal flood strata.

Of all the claims of universal flood I've seen, this should be the simplest to document. However, I've never seen anyone try to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

CI: Surely there is out there an EV who is willing to take up this challenge? Richard? FormerLDS? Someone? Anyone?

RA: Now answered in other thread, Idaho Journal thread.

Ra

Share this post


Link to post

Bill Hamblin posted:

Let me be specfic. If there was a universal flood, we would expect to see the complete destruction of every inhabited city in the world by flooding at precisely one moment. Archaeologically this should be very easy to find. Could an Evangelical universal flood proponant point me to any studies on the evidence for the universal flooding layer in all world archaeological sites?
You still haven't engaged the issue raised here.

If there was a universal flood, we should expect a flood-caused destruction layer in ALL archaeological sites throughout the entire world at precisely the same time. This seems to me to be an inescapable byproduct of a universal flood. Is there any study that provides such evidence?

No I was referring to strata on archaeological sites. Human cities survive archaeologically as levels or strata. The lowever the older. If there were a universal flood, it would have destroyed all extant human cities. Thus, there should be evidence in a strata or level of each human city of global destruction.

We should see:

Human habitation

flood and destruction

Then either complete abandonment or eventual rebuilding.

I am looking for a book which accepts the universal flood, which then examines archaeological sites and looks for universal flood strata.

Of all the claims of universal flood I've seen, this should be the simplest to document. However, I've never seen anyone try to do so.

I think that a global flood with its massive geologic work completely obliterate all pre-flood evidence of organized human habitation. All extant archaeological sites would therefore be post-flood. Any flood/sediment layers with these sites would be from post flood regional catastrophies.

Share this post


Link to post
Would not a global flood with its massive geologic work completely obliterate all pre-flood evidence of organized human habitation?

Perhaps. Which is why continuity of human existence and habitation the evidence for continuity of human settlement is all the more conclusive against a universal flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps. Which is why continuity of human existence and habitation the evidence for continuity of human settlement is all the more conclusive against a universal flood.

How would you determine that the continuity of human settlement is not post flood?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...