thesometimesaint Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 So what is legend and what is truth?Were Adam and Eve our first parents on the earth?Did Noah and the global flood really exist?Was Christ real?Is the resurrection real or fable?Will we live again with God? Depends on the legend. Yes. But I see it as a Priesthood rite and not as biological fact. I believe Noah really did exist. He really was a prophet of God. He accurately recorded exactly what he saw. A massive albeit regional flood. It is us that have expanded the tale out of all proportion to reality. Did a man named Yeshua bar Yosef really live in ancient Palestine some 2000 years ago? Yes. Do I believe he is Jesus the Christ, only begotten son of God in the flesh? Yes I do. Did the Resurrection of Jesus actually occur? Yes. I believe it did. Fables are not necessarily false. IE; George Washington, our first President of the USA really did live. The fable of his chopping down a cherry tree as a youth, not so much. Though I see through that glass darkly. I hope and believe I will.
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Depends on the legend. Yes. But I see it as a Priesthood rite and not as biological fact. I believe Noah really did exist. He really was a prophet of God. He accurately recorded exactly what he saw. A massive albeit regional flood. It is us that have expanded the tale out of all proportion to reality. Did a man named Yeshua bar Yosef really live in ancient Palestine some 2000 years ago? Yes. Do I believe he is Jesus the Christ, only begotten son of God in the flesh? Yes I do. Did the Resurrection of Jesus actually occur? Yes. I believe it did. Fables are not necessarily false. IE; George Washington, our first President of the USA really did live. The fable of his chopping down a cherry tree as a youth, not so much. Though I see through that glass darkly. I hope and believe I will. I am curious as to why you wont believe in a global flood, of which we actually have evidence for, but yet you believe in the resurrection of which no evidence stands or exists?
Rob Osborn Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Because that water is not in the air. http://www.123rf.com/photo_7884395_dead-planet-earth-without-water--the-global-ecological-catastrophe-a-fantastic-assumption-of-the-fut.html ?
katherine the great Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I am curious as to why you wont believe in a global flood, of which we actually have evidence for, but yet you believe in the resurrection of which no evidence stands or exists?There is no evidence of a global flood.
volgadon Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I believe in modern revelation. I believe in prophets of God and I believe in the word of God and discerning his word through the holy spirit. We may be as dfferent culturally of the ancients as if one compared the night with day, but we do have the power of discernment manifest in many forms. I take this as a no, you don't belive that the Bible contains cultural differences. At least not any significant ones.
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I am curious as to why you wont believe in a global flood, of which we actually have evidence for, but yet you believe in the resurrection of which no evidence stands or exists? If I make a claim about the natural world using scientific methodological materialism such as a global flood becomes problematic. I should be able to produce convincing evidence for a disinterested(Nothing to be gained either way) knowledgeable critic, except for maybe emotional satisfaction. SEE A Global Flood comes nowhere close to that simple requirement of science. There is no evidence for a global flood, and literally mountains against it.SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html OTOH is God were to personally tell me exactly how he did it, and it did include a global flood. Then of course I'd believe it, but that would spark a lot more question to ask. Religions(Supernatural) have no such requirement. So neither you nor I nor anyone else are under any requirement to believe or not believe as is our own choice. We even have an Article of Faith governing that. Which I'm pretty sure you are aware of. So it is just one of my many cognitive dissonances that make life interesting for me.
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I find it rather intriguing that there is ampke evidence that al the earth at one time was under water yet mainstream science refuses to acknowledge it happened at one specific time. When we actually prove the gloal flood just think of all the millions of scientific research that was wasted chasing false theories.
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I find it rather intriguing that there is ampke evidence that al the earth at one time was under water yet mainstream science refuses to acknowledge it happened at one specific time. When we actually prove the gloal flood just think of all the millions of scientific research that was wasted chasing false theories. I eagerly await that day.
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I eagerly await that day. Just think, for me that day is already here!
Ahab Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 There is no evidence of a global flood.Testimony from a first hand witness is evidence, sis. Heck even testimony from a false witness is evidence too. I think what you mean is that you don't believe there was a global flood.
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I take this as a no, you don't belive that the Bible contains cultural differences. At least not any significant ones.Define "cultural differences"
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 There is no evidence of a global flood.And what would you assume would be evidence for a global flood- what should we find?
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Just think, for me that day is already here! I have no problem with people whom believe in something not provable, even proven wrong. I'm half Irish so have no problem with leprechauns. Happy Saint Patrick's Day. 1
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I have no problem with people whom believe in something not provable, even proven wrong. I'm half Irish so have no problem with leprechauns. Happy Saint Patrick's Day. My daughter is probably just about now finding the trapped leprechaun in the trap we made for her that she took to school as part of her kindergarden class so even I had to convince her they are real! Funny thing about the flood is that my peoples have already proven your peoples wrong. Denial is a funny thing!
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 And what would you assume would be evidence for a global flood- what should we find? Superevolution. Restricted gene pool. Mixed geologic column. Mixed life column. Wildly different radiometric datings. Just for starters.
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 My daughter is probably just about now finding the trapped leprechaun in the trap we made for her that she took to school as part of her kindergarden class so even I had to convince her they are real! Funny thing about the flood is that my peoples have already proven your peoples wrong. Denial is a funny thing! People whom know what the heck their talking about have proven you wrong.
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Superevolution. Restricted gene pool. Mixed geologic column. Mixed life column. Wildly different radiometric datings. Just for starters.Humm. lets see- not sure about "superevolution" ? Is this some new hyper analogy thing you invented?The gene pool models are inconclusive as to how many individuals there were and from whence they cameThe geologic column is replete with out of place layers and out of place fossils. Not my fault evolutionists automatically throw these out.Radiometric dating? We shouldn't even get started in that deabte. Our peoples have already shown these to be completely inconsistant. To top all that off you have things like dinosaur "bones" found that still have soft tissue in them.
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 People whom know what the heck their talking about have proven you wrong.No, their egos only tell them that. We have equally, if not smarter, people on our side that have proven you guys wrong.
David T Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Nothing excites scientists more than being shown substantial evidence of something that completely upsets the status quo. A scientist that could show the flood conclusion based on following the evidence in a way that is not highly problematic would go down in the annals as a scientific pioneer and hero. Those who have begun with the position that there was a global flood and have chosen to discount the mountains of evidence and methods that disproves their own pre-determined conclusion don't register, because their process begin by discounting and ignoring established principles without giving any convincing reason why they should be thrown out. Your claim that that the vast majority of scientists are ignoring blatant and clear evidence doesn't make any sense, at all. The difference between a scientist and dogmatist is that a scientist is a scientist is willing to allow strong evidence to change his position, because positions of scientists are based on evidence. Rob, if the First Presidency came out with a statement accepting the age of the earth and life on it as consistent with the current scientific consensus, would your approach to interpreting the evidence change? Edited March 17, 2014 by David T 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Humm. lets see- not sure about "superevolution" ? Is this some new hyper analogy thing you invented?The gene pool models are inconclusive as to how many individuals there were and from whence they cameThe geologic column is replete with out of place layers and out of place fossils. Not my fault evolutionists automatically throw these out.Radiometric dating? We shouldn't even get started in that deabte. Our peoples have already shown these to be completely inconsistant. To top all that off you have things like dinosaur "bones" found that still have soft tissue in them. Superevolution.http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/super_evolution_and_creationists/ Gene pools are conclusive proof of evolution. There has never been a case of one species suddenly appearing in another gene pool.http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/big-gene-pool-evolve.htmhttp://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/four.html Please go dig up a fully modern humans skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. The National Academy of Science will be most interested. Radiometric datinghttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE1aAtomicclocks.shtml
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 No, their egos only tell them that. We have equally, if not smarter, people on our side that have proven you guys wrong. CFR
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 My daughter is probably just about now finding the trapped leprechaun in the trap we made for her that she took to school as part of her kindergarden class so even I had to convince her they are real! Funny thing about the flood is that my peoples have already proven your peoples wrong. Denial is a funny thing! Do you really want to claim these people.http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/17/judge-rules-against-creationist-teacher-who-called-buddhist-students-faith-stupid/
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Nothing excites scientists more than being shown substantial evidence of something that completely upsets the status quo. A scientist that could show the flood conclusion based on following the evidence in a way that is not highly problematic would go down in the annals as a scientific pioneer and hero. Those who have begun with the position that there was a global flood and have chosen to discount the mountains of evidence and methods that disproves their own pre-determined conclusion don't register, because their process begin by discounting and ignoring established principles without giving any convincing reason why they should be thrown out. Your claim that that the vast majority of scientists are ignoring blatant and clear evidence doesn't make any sense, at all. The difference between a scientist and dogmatist is that a scientist is a scientist is willing to allow strong evidence to change his position, because positions of scientists are based on evidence. Rob, if the First Presidency came out with a statement accepting the age of the earth and life on it as consistent with the current scientific consensus, would your approach to interpreting the evidence change?Dogmatic...Thats definitely a word I would use to define some of mainstream science. The first presidency backs up scripture which states the global flood and a temporal age of the earth at 7000 years and no death amongst any of the creation before that. So, perhaps the more important question here is why is your approach not in line with the First Presidency?
David T Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Dogmatic...Thats definitely a word I would use to define some of mainstream science. The first presidency backs up scripture which states the global flood and a temporal age of the earth at 7000 years and no death amongst any of the creation before that. So, perhaps the more important question here is why is your approach not in line with the First Presidency?I asked you a question. I will answer nothing more from you until you answer me. What would it take to change your position? Ken Ham said nothing could change his scriptural interpretation. I wonder if you feel the same way. You have yet to answer this in any meaningful way. Edited March 17, 2014 by David T
Rob Osborn Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 CFRWhy? So you can laugh and hack at it. We already know each others references- each others sources and positions.
Recommended Posts