Any like-minded believers out there?

LightofTruth said:

I know very little about polar ice.I major in Scripture.

Click to expand...

You hardly need to be a expert to see that if polar
ice deeply predates any possible flood, and, IF there
had been a flood, it would have floated the ice off,
broken it up, and it would not be there.

That is one very simple obvious and direct way to
disprove the flood story.

Isnt it about time to let a little "light of truth" shine
on your "scripture"?

Audie said:

Oh? Many people can figure out what a few facts tell them.
Learning does involve thinking and understanding.

You really have to have it spelled out how world wide flood
as per genesis and ancient polar ice are incompatible?

Click to expand...

Scripture tells us that because of the wickedness of man, God's intention in bringing the flood, was to destroy man from off the face of the earth. That was accomplished. The flood also killed every land creature and bird of the air.

A good question might asked whether God needed to cover the entire world with the flood to accomplish His purpose.

Audie said:

You hardly need to be a expert to see that if polar
ice deeply predates any possible flood, and, IF there
had been a flood, it would have floated the ice off,
broken it up, and it would not be there.

That is one very simple obvious and direct way to
disprove the flood story.

Isnt it about time to let a little "light of truth" shine
on your "scripture"?

Click to expand...

I've never debated about whether the flood was universal or not. On the surface, the language seems to indicate that the flood was universal, because it says things like "the whole earth or land" and "all the high mountains".
However, that type of language is often used in Scripture to mean only what is intended.

What we know is that God intended to destroy all man from off the face of the earth. And He accomplished what He intended.

LightofTruth said:

Scripture tells us that because of the wickedness of man, God's intention in bringing the flood, was to destroy man from off the face of the earth. That was accomplished. The flood also killed every land creature and bird of the air.

A good question might asked whether God needed to cover the entire world with the flood to accomplish His purpose.


I've never debated about whether the flood was universal or not. On the surface, the language seems to indicate that the flood was universal, because it says things like "the whole earth or land" and "all the high mountains".
However, that type of language is often used in Scripture to mean only what is intended.

What we know is that God intended to destroy all man from off the face of the earth. And He accomplished what He intended.

Click to expand...

It actually does say that the highest mountains went
underwater but your judgement exceeds that of the
actual words?

In the event, there is ample proof that there was no
world wide flood.

As for all the animals except those on the "ark",well,
that is pretty silly too. Little blind worm snakes from
Australia made their way to the ark? Every species
of beetle from Brazil?

Audie said:

It actually does say that the highest mountains went
underwater but your judgement exceeds that of the
actual words?

Click to expand...

But it also says that the earth was destroyed. But it wasn't.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

If we are ignorant of the language of the Scripture we will be led into all sorts of errors.

Audie said:

In the event, there is ample proof that there was no
world wide flood.

Click to expand...

I'm not against science.

I believe the earth existed before it was created as we know it today. Before God formed the earth as we know it, it was surround by water. And the scientific evidence proves that there were creatures upon the earth before it became surrounded by water.

Audie said:

As for all the animals except those on the "ark",well,
that is pretty silly too. Little blind worm snakes from
Australia made their way to the ark? Every species
of beetle from Brazil?

Click to expand...

I don't even know if those creatures existed in those places at that time or not.

LightofTruth said:

But it also says that the earth was destroyed. But it wasn't.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

If we are ignorant of the language of the Scripture we will be led into all sorts of errors.



I'm not against science.

I believe the earth existed before it was created as we know it today. Before God formed the earth as we know it, it was surround by water. And the scientific evidence proves that there were creatures upon the earth before it became surrounded by water.




I don't even know if those creatures existed in those places at that time or not.

Click to expand...

Scientific proof that the earth was surrounded by water?
I sure dont think so.
As for creatures living all over the world long before,
and remaining after the time of the "flood", yes.
They were there, and they are there now.

Of course, with "interpretation" of gods inerrant word,
the flood story can shrink to the Euphrates valley, or
expand to the top of Mt Everest.

Nice if you are not against science. It will shrink your flood
to nothing but a story. Unless, of course you successfully
shrink from the, you know, light of truth.

LightofTruth said:

What we know is that God intended to destroy all man from off the face of the earth. And He accomplished what He intended.

Click to expand...

Well, He did leave a few, that apparently in a few centuries morphed into several different races who dont look much alike.

David1967 said:

Well, He did leave a few, that apparently in a few centuries morphed into several different races who dont look much alike.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, we may be drifting off into hyperevolution of
created kinds next.

Audie said:

It actually does say that the highest mountains went
underwater but your judgement exceeds that of the
actual words?

In the event, there is ample proof that there was no
world wide flood.

As for all the animals except those on the "ark",well,
that is pretty silly too. Little blind worm snakes from
Australia made their way to the ark? Every species
of beetle from Brazil?

Click to expand...

Dinosaurs were too big so they drowned. See the mess that comes of trying to use religious scripture for authority on Paleontology or geography or pretty much any science. Religious books are religious books, not science books.

David1967 said:

Dinosaurs were too big so they drowned. See the mess that comes of trying to use religious scripture for authority on Paleontology or geography or pretty much any science. Religious books are religious books, not science books.

Click to expand...

The difference is not, as I see it, between "religious books"
and "science books".

The bible is presented as being True, highest
truth, perfect, infallible and the word of god.

There is nothing there but a book.

Research, sometimes written up in a book,
shows that little of the bible except for some
names of people and places can be shown to
be accurate.

Much else can be shown to simply be false.

False, phony,and a lie v fact is not the difference
in religion v science.

Audie said:

Scientific proof that the earth was surrounded by water?
I sure dont think so.
As for creatures living all over the world long before,
and remaining after the time of the "flood", yes.
They were there, and they are there now.

Of course, with "interpretation" of gods inerrant word,
the flood story can shrink to the Euphrates valley, or
expand to the top of Mt Everest.

Nice if you are not against science. It will shrink your flood
to nothing but a story. Unless, of course you successfully
shrink from the, you know, light of truth.

Click to expand...

Your kind are a dime a dozen. They are so frustrated because they have no real proof which can disprove the Scripture so what they always resort to is to mock the Scripture and those who believe it and who disagree with their unproven ideas.

You see, if you had any real proof for what you think you wouldn't find it necessary to mock anyone or anything.

LightofTruth said:

Your kind are a dime a dozen. They are so frustrated because they have no real proof which can disprove the Scripture so what they always resort to is to mock the Scripture and those who believe it and who disagree with their unproven ideas.

You see, if you had any real proof for what you think you wouldn't find it necessary to mock anyone or anything.

Click to expand...

You are simply lying about me, as there is no mocking
of scripture, and none of you either.

Science does not do "proof", of course, but it is pretty
good at disproving things.

I can supply that in abundance, so again, lying
about me.

It is a cinch to disprove world wide flood, as per
polar ice, for one.

Of course, if you will not say anything definite as to
what YOU think scripture means, then it is hard to
show there is any error in it.

It appears to me that this scurrilous attack on me
is nothing but a smokescreen behind which you can
flee the interview.

Audie said:

You are simply lying about me, as there is no mocking
of scripture, and none of you either.

Science does not do "proof", of course, but it is pretty
good at disproving things.

I can supply that in abundance, so again, lying
about me.

It is a cinch to disprove world wide flood, as per
polar ice, for one.

Of course, if you will not say anything definite as to
what YOU think scripture means, then it is hard to
show there is any error in it.

It appears to me that this scurrilous attack on me
is nothing but a smokescreen behind which you can
flee the interview.

Click to expand...

The Scripture is not concerned with giving every detail of the flood. God said he would destroy all man but He did not destroy all man as the eight remained.

Like I said, I don't know if the flood was worldwide or not. If science has proof that it was not then I guess it was not. I don't really care. God's intended purpose was met.

I come from the stand point of one who believes the Scripture be inspired teaching of God. It gives a starting point for discussion with those who also are convinced by Scripture.

Where's your starting point?

LightofTruth said:

The Scripture is not concerned with giving every detail of the flood. God said he would destroy all man but He did not destroy all man as the eight remained.

Like I said, I don't know if the flood was worldwide or not. If science has proof that it was not then I guess it was not. I don't really care. God's intended purpose was met.

I come from the stand point of one who believes the Scripture be inspired teaching of God. It gives a starting point for discussion with those who also are convinced by Scripture.

Where's your starting point?

Click to expand...

I guess it would be whatever it is on which you
are willing to take a stand as being what the
bible really means when it says something.

What was "god's purpose"?

Did you say that "god's purpose" was to kill
everyone except those on the ark?

All "breath of life" things not on the ark?

Audie said:

I guess it would be whatever it is on which you
are willing to take a stand as being what the
bible really means when it says something.

What was "god's purpose"?

Did you say that "god's purpose" was to kill
everyone except those on the ark?

All "breath of life" things not on the ark?

Click to expand...

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2Pe 2:5 and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Peter says that the ancient world was not spared. Meaning that the ancient world was destroyed. The flood destroyed the world of the ungodly.
Obviously, it would be an error to say that the plant earth (world) was not spared by the flood. The world there refers to the people and their ungodliness.

God's intended purpose was to destroy the world by a flood. And He did destroy the world. All flesh which had corrupted His way (the world) were destroyed.

LightofTruth said:

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2Pe 2:5 and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Peter says that the ancient world was not spared. Meaning that the ancient world was destroyed. The flood destroyed the world of the ungodly.
Obviously, it would be an error to say that the plant earth (world) was not spared by the flood. The world there refers to the people and their ungodliness.

God's intended purpose was to destroy the world by a flood. And He did destroy the world. All flesh which had corrupted His way (the world) were destroyed.

Click to expand...

So... nobody except for those on the ark survived?

About how long ago was this?

And animals... all killed except those on the
ark?

For brevity, just a yes / no and a number would do.

I have, after all, read the book.

Audie said:

So... nobody except for those on the ark survived?

About how long ago was this?

And animals... all killed except those on the
ark?

For brevity, just a yes / no and a number would do.

I have, after all, read the book.

Click to expand...

Since it was God's purpose to destroy "all" flesh which had corrupted His way upon the earth, He would only need to bring a flood great enough to accomplish His purpose.
If science has determined that polar ice is older than a worldwide flood and could not have possibly been effected by a flood like that then the flood would have been sufficient enough to destroy all mankind except the eight.

LightofTruth said:

Since it was God's purpose to destroy "all" flesh which had corrupted His way upon the earth, He would only need to bring a flood great enough to accomplish His purpose.
If science has determined that polar ice is older than a worldwide flood and could not have possibly been effected by a flood like that then the flood would have been sufficient enough to destroy all mankind except the eight.

Click to expand...

I was hoping for no more than three words, but oh well.

You did not say about the non human animals.
Or how long ago.

IF, btw, the "flood" were high enough to take out
all humankind, it would have to be at least a mile
high to get to Denver Colorado and with the time
it took the water to get that high, people could have
run higher. This may account for the story specifying
"15 cubits over highest mountains" so's nobody could
just outpace the flood.

Dont you suppose water over a mile high would leave
some sign that it had been there?

Audie said:

I was hoping for no more than three words, but oh well.

You did not say about the non human animals.
Or how long ago.

IF, btw, the "flood" were high enough to take out
all humankind, it would have to be at least a mile
high to get to Denver Colorado and with the time
it took the water to get that high, people could have
run higher. This may account for the story specifying
"15 cubits over highest mountains" so's nobody could
just outpace the flood.

Dont you suppose water over a mile high would leave
some sign that it had been there?

Click to expand...

The earth is much older than when it is said to have been created by God in Genesis 1.
I believe there were previous inhabitants/creatures of the earth who have become extinct. I also think that angels were once inhabitants of earth.
There are Christian sects who claim that Genesis 1:1 means that God created the heaven and earth out of nothing. They suppose the word "created" means that something which does not exist comes into existence from nothing.
if that were true, than man, who was created by God, would also have been created from nothing. But man was not created from nothing, he was created from the earth, which did exist.
When it is said in Genesis 1 that God created the heaven and earth it does not mean that there was nothing before they were created.

LightofTruth said:

Jesus had to be a man, made in all things like unto his brethren. His brethren have sinful flesh and so must he have had.

Click to expand...

Was Adam created sinful?

Jesus is called "the last Adam" because he was "sinless" like Adam was when God created him. Adam abused his free will and chose disobedience along with his wife, bringing sin into the world and physically passing on defective DNA to their children. (Romans 5:12; Romans 5:19)

Heb 2:16 For surely it is not the angels he helps, but the descendants of Abraham. 17 So he had to be made like his brothers in every way, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, in order to make atonement for the sins of the people.

When Jesus offered his sinless life it was so that God could condemn the sin in the flesh.

Click to expand...

Jesus had no sin in his flesh any more that Adam did.

Rom 8 2 For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the Law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh,

When the scripture says Jesus was without sin it does not mean his flesh was not sinful, it simply means he personally committed no sin.

Click to expand...

The devil already had two 'scalps' on his belt.....he managed to tempt 2 perfect humans into disobeying their God, knowing full well that the death penalty applied. He tried the same tactic with Jesus. You seem to misunderstand that sin came from abusing free will, not because there was a defect in their physical structure. God did not created defective creatures.

"The tree of life" in the garden would have given mortals the opportunity to live forever. Being mortal doesn't mean you can't live forever, it just means that continued life was conditional. If humans abused their free will, then the death penalty would apply.

Everlasting life is not immortality....."mortal" simply means that you "can" die, not that you "must". Death is not mentioned in Eden except as a penalty for disobedience.

Sin introduced death.....a condition that resulted from sin. Jesus did not have that sinful condition. He chose to remain faithful under temptation....something Adam and his wife failed to do. It showed that they had no excuse for their disobedience and why God cannot forgive perfect beings, even angels for transgressing his laws.

Jesus' sacrifice ransoms faithful believers from the grave.

Click to expand...

That is true, but they are not the only ones he died for. We have thousands of years where people did not have an opportunity to hear about God or to make choices about worship.God does not penalize people for sins committed in ignorance.

John 5:28-29
"Don’t be surprised by this, because the time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice. Those who did good things will come out into the resurrection of life, and those who did wicked things into the resurrection of judgment. (CEB)

Acts 24:15 where the apostle Paul said.....
"The hope I have in God I also share with my accusers, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (CEB)

It is God's will that "all attain to repentance" so the resurrection is also for the "unrighteous" who died in ignorance, with an opportunity to bring their lives into harmony with God's requirements. At death, one is acquitted of sin.

Romans 5-7....
"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin." (ESV)

Paul is speaking on behalf of those who are chosen to rule with Christ in heaven. These will be 'kings and priests' and they will be 'resurrected first'. (Revelation 20:6) But not all who are Christ's followers will go to heaven. If they are 'kings and priests' then they need subjects to rule....and if they are to act as priests, then they will need sinners for whom to perform their priestly duties. Those who go to heaven leave their sinful flesh behind.
So who are these ones?

Jesus was not a substitute but a representative.

Click to expand...

All the temporary blood sacrifices in Israel pointed forward to the permanent sacrifice of the blood of Christ.
He died instead of us.....so he was a substitute. (Galatians 3:13)

Deeje said:

Was Adam created sinful?

Jesus is called "the last Adam" because he was "sinless" like Adam was when God created him. Adam abused his free will and chose disobedience along with his wife, bringing sin into the world and physically passing on defective DNA to their children. (Romans 5:12; Romans 5:19)



Jesus had no sin in his flesh any more that Adam did.



The devil already had two 'scalps' on his belt.....he managed to tempt 2 perfect humans into disobeying their God, knowing full well that the death penalty applied. He tried the same tactic with Jesus. You seem to misunderstand that sin came from abusing free will, not because there was a defect in their physical structure. God did not created defective creatures.

"The tree of life" in the garden would have given mortals the opportunity to live forever. Being mortal doesn't mean you can't live forever, it just means that continued life was conditional. If humans abused their free will, then the death penalty would apply.

Everlasting life is not immortality....."mortal" simply means that you "can" die, not that you "must". Death is not mentioned in Eden except as a penalty for disobedience.

Sin introduced death.....a condition that resulted from sin. Jesus did not have that sinful condition. He chose to remain faithful under temptation....something Adam and his wife failed to do. It showed that they had no excuse for their disobedience and why God cannot forgive perfect beings, even angels for transgressing his laws.



That is true, but they are not the only ones he died for. We have thousands of years where people did not have an opportunity to hear about God or to make choices about worship.God does not penalize people for sins committed in ignorance.

John 5:28-29
"Don’t be surprised by this, because the time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice. Those who did good things will come out into the resurrection of life, and those who did wicked things into the resurrection of judgment. (CEB)

Acts 24:15 where the apostle Paul said.....
"The hope I have in God I also share with my accusers, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (CEB)

It is God's will that "all attain to repentance" so the resurrection is also for the "unrighteous" who died in ignorance, with an opportunity to bring their lives into harmony with God's requirements. At death, one is acquitted of sin.

Romans 5-7....
"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin." (ESV)

Paul is speaking on behalf of those who are chosen to rule with Christ in heaven. These will be 'kings and priests' and they will be 'resurrected first'. (Revelation 20:6) But not all who are Christ's followers will go to heaven. If they are 'kings and priests' then they need subjects to rule....and if they are to act as priests, then they will need sinners for whom to perform their priestly duties. Those who go to heaven leave their sinful flesh behind.
So who are these ones?



All the temporary blood sacrifices in Israel pointed forward to the permanent sacrifice of the blood of Christ.
He died instead of us.....so he was a substitute. (Galatians 3:13)

Click to expand...

Adam sinned. Therefore, Adam had sinful flesh. Besides, Jesus was made in all things like unto his brethren, not simply like Adam when Adam was created.
Man sins by first being tempted. When he is drawn away and enticed by his own desires.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Adam's own sinful flesh was more powerful than God's law. Adam's own lust brought forth the transgression of eating the fruit and the result was death.

Paul says that the law is made weak by the flesh. So God sent His son in that same weakness of the flesh so that the sin in the flesh might be condemned on the cross.

How is sin in the flesh condemned on the cross if there was no sin in the flesh of Jesus? It is impossible