rhutchin

I am not sure that everyone would agree with Tozer. There is nothing that prevents any person understanding the Bible given that they follow the rules of interpretation. It does take an act of God for someone to believe that which he understands the Bible to say.

rhutchin

We read in Revelation:

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. (Revelation 12:1-2)

This statement is literally true (written in metaphorical language) but not physically true. The language is metaphorical. If you determine what the metaphors represent (e.g., what the "woman" represented, and who the "child" represents), then you could read the verse without the metaphors and it would then be both literally and physically true.

NoMansLand

Yes, I understand that is what the Bible says. Let me rephrase. There is no indication that the world was ever completely covered by water. How's that?

I have spent the past several years debating with Christians in apologetics forums on Christian web sites. The YEC's are very few among modern Christians, as are those who take the Flood account literally. Most have accepted the scienific findings that large regional floods have occurred---both in the Mediteranean area and around the globe---but that no proof of a complete world inundation has ever been found. Many churches now teach that the Flood account is not to be taken literally, that the references to the world be covered by water ("to the top of the highest mountain") was written by those who had no knowledge of how big the world really was.

Consider this...Science Daily

"We found that indeed a flood happened around that time. From core samples, we see that a flood broke through the natural barrier separating the Mediterranean Sea and the freshwater Black Sea, bringing with it seashells that only grow in a marine environment. There was no doubt that it was a fast flood -- one that covered an expanse four times the size of Israel. It might not have been Noah, as it is written in the Bible, but we believe people in that region had to build boats in order to save their animals from drowning. We think that the ones who survived were fishermen -- they already had the boats."

Johnny Skeptic

Upon what evidence do you base your speculative guesswork? You ought to know that personal opinions are not evidence, including your personal opinions and the personal opinions of the Bible writers.

What distinguishes opinion from probably fact?

A good example of a false personal opinion is that the writer of Genesis claims that a global flood occurred. Another good example of a false personal opinion is your claim that the earth is young.

Inerrancy is merely an appeal to emotional needs, not to history, science, common sense, logic, and reason.

Nevertheless, the evidence is there. You briefly discussed some of the evidence in a thread that you started on February 4, 2009 at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259291 at the Evolution/Creation Forum, got into trouble, and conveniently vacated your own thread. In my post #73 in that thread, I quoted some conservative Christian experts who reject the global flood. Your belief that the flood was global is based upon inerrancy, not upon science. You merely use science as a conveneince when it agrees with the Bible.

rhutchin

Some people think there are. I listed four indicators here: How would they know? Maybe it is what they want to believe.

Floods provide answers to a lot of questions. The analyses involve a lot of "...we believe people in that region...We think that the ones..." So, what is wrong with someone reading the Bible and saying, "I believe..."

Citsonga

To be fair, when they do that, they're essentially rebutting the liberal Christians' claims that the creation days aren't literal days. Before the modern era of Christians trying to get those days to mean something other than days, there would not likely have been a whole lot of emphasis on arguing why those days are to be taken literally. Most of them would have simply taken the literal meaning for granted.

Doug Shaver

Giving you the benefit of doubt, I'll assume you misunderstood me.

I didn't mean to suggest that one or more scientists ever went all over the world looking for evidence of a global flood and then published a paper reporting that they didn't find it. What I meant was that the evidence, had it existed, would have been so obvious that, whether or not anyone was looking for it, it couldn't have been missed by the scientific community, and so its existence would now be common knowledge.

andrewcriddle

FWIW there was a good deal of Ancient and Medieval debate about whether the days in Genesis were literal days. (Not usually about the idea that they were actually long periods, but some Christian teachers thought on philosophical grounds that creation must have been instantaneous, and hence took the days non literally. See Aquinas Summa Theologica Whether All These Days are One Day )

I agree that most premodern Protestants would have accepted the days in Genesis as literal days.

Andrew Criddle

Wooster

What leads you to believe that when I say "reality" I actually mean "personal opinion"? Is there something about the word "reality" you don't understand?

So, let me try again, when reality disagree with you, who is right, you or reality?

rhutchin

How did you determine that reality disagrees with me? Do you use the term, "reality," to identify actual truth or as a pseudonym for your personal opinion. If actual truth, what is your basis for saying it.