Noah's Ark Found??

[EarlyActs]

From the New Testament. You appear shocked that Catholics read the Bible. I have also taken courses on the NT History and Literature.

Perhaps you did not read what I wrote regarding the difference between Neo-orthodoxy and Catholicism: Here it is again:

Catholicism is a traditional branch of Christianity with its roots in the early Church, while Neo-Orthodoxy is a relatively modern theological movement that arose as a reaction against certain trends in liberal theology. They have different theological emphases and historical origins. They are not the same.​

​

If you don't understand it, I will be happy to elaborate so you don't have to make things up. And, Once again: Catholics are not confined to a literal interpretation of the OT. Some Catholics read it literally others do not. Catholics understand that it does not matter which way
they interpret the OT.

I read the the OT as teaching stories, some of which could contain bits and pieces of history and/or science. I read both the OT and NT for spiritual inspiration.

Miracles are not science. The Scientific Method is unable to set up testable hypotheses to investigate miracles. In case you are unaware, Catholics believe in miracles.

Do you have a reference to what "proper proof" is?

I don't, and would not watch, CNN to learn about my faith in Christ.

No I have not read them nor have I not come across any references to them in the religious books that I do read,

re the GA video on CPT, it was a link here.
re Schaeffer's F v F, it was pasted here.
re neo-orthodoxy. I don't take definitions from people on the internet. I was referring to Dr. Schaeffer in ESCAPE FROM REASON, THE GOD WHO IS THERE, HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT, HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE?

You may not watch CNN for theology, but I was pointing out that Robertson said the same thing you did about faith in relation to proof; that 'faith has nothing to do with proof.'

Many people who read the Bible may not be reading truly. It is a very easy thing to turn something into a sound-byte that it does not mean such as 'you must be born again.'

Here is a great conference coming up: https://www.discovery.org/e/dallas2024/

re Mk 2, I was showing that an item was proven, at will. Science or not, I was showing what proof is. He wanted people to believe he had the divine authority to forgive sins, so at will, he healed. As you can see, the incident has '4-dimensional reality': if it did not happen, the lie (not the miracle) would have been the subject of every interaction from that point on because he was a fraud. This is true over and over in the narratives. Instead, the temple authorities were plotting to kill him. It is called internal proof. It seems like that would be a question a scientist would have. If he does not have this same question, I don't think I'll bother listening to him.

Today I spoke with an Alaska mine owner who told me that every drill they do shows numerous soil/layer anomalies to conventional science. 'We go to mining conferences, and all they talk about are exception after exception that they have find, and what it might mean for the industry.'

 

[Frank Robert]

re the GA video on CPT, it was a link here.
re Schaeffer's F v F, it was pasted here.
re neo-orthodoxy. I don't take definitions from people on the internet. I was referring to Dr. Schaeffer in ESCAPE FROM REASON, THE GOD WHO IS THERE, HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT, HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE?

I don't need Schaeffer's advice on how I should live when it is exceedingly clear in the Bible. We should live our faith in Christ.

You may not watch CNN for theology, but I was pointing out that Robertson said the same thing you did about faith in relation to proof; that 'faith has nothing to do with proof.'

What is the value of faith?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: I had a very amusing experience, which might be well worth telling. I was in the New York Athletic Club swimming pool, and you know, you don’t wear your collar this way or that way when you’re in a swimming pool. And I was introduced to a priest, “This is Father So-and-so, this is Joseph Campbell.” I’m a professor, he’s a professor at one of our Catholic universities. So after I’d had my swim, I came and sat down beside, in what we call, you know, the horizontal athlete situation, and the priest is beside me. And he said, “Mr. Campbell, are you a priest?” I said, “No, Father.” He said, “Are you a Catholic?” I said, “I was, Father.” He said, and now he had the sense to ask it this way, “Do you believe in a personal God?” I said, “No, Father.” And he said, “Well, I suppose there is no way to prove by logic the existence of a personal God.” And I said, “If there were, Father, what would be the value of faith?” “Well, Mr. Campbell, it’s nice to have met you.” And he was off. I really felt I had done a jujitsu trick there.​

​

Note: Joseph Campbell was a leading scholar in the fields of mythology and comparative religion​

Many people who read the Bible may not be reading truly. It is a very easy thing to turn something into a sound-byte that it does not mean such as 'you must be born again.'

Fundamentalist interpret the Bible differently than Catholics. It does not matter as long as you live your faith in Christ.

re Mk 2, I was showing that an item was proven, at will. Science or not, I was showing what proof is. He wanted people to believe he had the divine authority to forgive sins, so at will, he healed. As you can see, the incident has '4-dimensional reality': if it did not happen, the lie (not the miracle) would have been the subject of every interaction from that point on because he was a fraud. This is true over and over in the narratives. Instead, the temple authorities were plotting to kill him. It is called internal proof. It seems like that would be a question a scientist would have. If he does not have this same question, I don't think I'll bother listening to him.

We both accept ID but not in the same way. Fundamentalists believe God is the proximate cause. I believe that God is the ultimate cause. Catholics are free to believe either way.

FYI:

Proximate cause refers to the immediate or direct reason that leads to a particular event or outcome. It focuses on the most immediate or immediate trigger for an event.​

​

Ultimate cause, on the other hand, looks at the deeper, underlying, or fundamental reasons that explain why something occurs. It deals with the broader and more fundamental factors or explanations for an event.​

​

Today I spoke with an Alaska mine owner who told me that every drill they do shows numerous soil/layer anomalies to conventional science. 'We go to mining conferences, and all they talk about are exception after exception that they have find, and what it might mean for the industry.'

A quick google search could put your mind to ease. Here are 3 results, there are many others.

Natural Events and Catastrophes: Natural events like landslides, floods, volcanic eruptions, and meteorite impacts can disrupt and alter soil layers in ways that might not align with typical soil profiles.​

​

Weathering and Erosion: Prolonged weathering or erosion processes can result in soil anomalies by removing or depositing materials in certain areas. Wind, water, and ice can shape and transport soil particles, creating irregularities.​

​

Climate Variability: Long-term changes in climate patterns can influence soil properties. For example, extended periods of drought or excessive rainfall can alter the distribution and composition of soil layers.​

​

​

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't need Schaeffer's advice on how I should live when it is exceedingly clear in the Bible. We should live our faith in Christ.

What is the value of faith?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: I had a very amusing experience, which might be well worth telling. I was in the New York Athletic Club swimming pool, and you know, you don’t wear your collar this way or that way when you’re in a swimming pool. And I was introduced to a priest, “This is Father So-and-so, this is Joseph Campbell.” I’m a professor, he’s a professor at one of our Catholic universities. So after I’d had my swim, I came and sat down beside, in what we call, you know, the horizontal athlete situation, and the priest is beside me. And he said, “Mr. Campbell, are you a priest?” I said, “No, Father.” He said, “Are you a Catholic?” I said, “I was, Father.” He said, and now he had the sense to ask it this way, “Do you believe in a personal God?” I said, “No, Father.” And he said, “Well, I suppose there is no way to prove by logic the existence of a personal God.” And I said, “If there were, Father, what would be the value of faith?” “Well, Mr. Campbell, it’s nice to have met you.” And he was off. I really felt I had done a jujitsu trick there.​

​

Note: Joseph Campbell was a leading scholar in the fields of mythology and comparative religion​

Fundamentalist interpret the Bible differently than Catholics. It does not matter as long as you live your faith in Christ.

We both accept ID but not in the same way. Fundamentalists believe God is the proximate cause. I believe that God is the ultimate cause. Catholics are free to believe either way.

FYI:

Proximate cause refers to the immediate or direct reason that leads to a particular event or outcome. It focuses on the most immediate or immediate trigger for an event.​

​

Ultimate cause, on the other hand, looks at the deeper, underlying, or fundamental reasons that explain why something occurs. It deals with the broader and more fundamental factors or explanations for an event.​

​

A quick google search could put your mind to ease. Here are 3 results, there are many others.

Natural Events and Catastrophes: Natural events like landslides, floods, volcanic eruptions, and meteorite impacts can disrupt and alter soil layers in ways that might not align with typical soil profiles.​

​

Weathering and Erosion: Prolonged weathering or erosion processes can result in soil anomalies by removing or depositing materials in certain areas. Wind, water, and ice can shape and transport soil particles, creating irregularities.​

​

Climate Variability: Long-term changes in climate patterns can influence soil properties. For example, extended periods of drought or excessive rainfall can alter the distribution and composition of soil layers.​

​

​

re: mind to ease. It doesn't need it. It is at ease because there is proof of the cataclysm, which is the kind of proof I'm talking about. No final conflict.

re ID. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Here's an obvious passage on proof: This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. Heb. 2.
These things were done at will. The coming of the Spirit (the miracle of many languages heard from one speaker) was explained in advance--for those 'seeking a sign'. I don't know how you could possibly connect with a Campbell when you have these things consciously claimed about the NT era.

Schaeffer's books. There is a misunderstanding. They are not about how to live as much as how we think in modern times after the crush of the fraud of uniformitarianism and naturalism. The book about how to live is just a phrase from Ezekiel, but is a history of western culture.

 

[Frank Robert]

re: mind to ease. It doesn't need it. It is at ease because there is proof of the cataclysm, which is the kind of proof I'm talking about. No final conflict.

The Old Testament is ahistorical, i.e. lacking historical perspective and context, if it suits your needs to read it literally then that is the way you should read it.

While I don't think that the Catholic Church forbids Catholics from a literal reading of the OT, they do discourage it. Catholics believe that scripture is richer, deeper, and subtler than literalism allows.

re ID. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry, ID = Intelligent Design

Here's an obvious passage on proof: This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. Heb. 2.
These things were done at will. The coming of the Spirit (the miracle of many languages heard from one speaker) was explained in advance--for those 'seeking a sign'.

I don't disagree. Catholics have a long history of miracles.

I don't know how you could possibly connect with a Campbell when you have these things consciously claimed about the NT era.

The passage shows that even atheists know and understand the value of faith.

Schaeffer's books. There is a misunderstanding. They are not about how to live as much as how we think in modern times after the crush of the fraud of uniformitarianism and naturalism. The book about how to live is just a phrase from Ezekiel, but is a history of western culture.

Schaeffer is an evangelical theologian and philosopher, as such he would not be in my sights of someone I would be interested in reading. I am not saying that his writing has no merit only that he is not an author that I would be interested in reading.

 

[EarlyActs]

The Old Testament is ahistorical, i.e. lacking historical perspective and context, if it suits your needs to read it literally then that is the way you should read it.

While I don't think that the Catholic Church forbids Catholics from a literal reading of the OT, they do discourage it. Catholics believe that scripture is richer, deeper, and subtler than literalism allows.

Sorry, ID = Intelligent Design

I don't disagree. Catholics have a long history of miracles.

The passage shows that even atheists know and understand the value of faith.

Schaeffer is an evangelical theologian and philosopher, as such he would not be in my sights of someone I would be interested in reading. I am not saying that his writing has no merit only that he is not an author that I would be interested in reading.

I don't know what train track you are on. An atheist does not know the value of faith as a Christian believer does. He said what he die because he also thinks faith is irrational. You think faith is an irrational guess. I do wish we could talk about Faith v 'Faith' (see next) because it is exactly what you are thinking about. (How can we not be interested in that which is exactly what we are thinking about?). Faith is not 'faith in faith'; it is faith in an objective things.

I don't think that God created by speaking "by faith." It is rational. He is infinitely powerful. There are no forces out there that can assemble the universe and man on their own. That is ridiculous, far past the doctrine of Farellian odds. There is no reason why he could not create by speaking.

It might help if a person, like Lewis said, appreciated the world of fantasy a little bit. Not all fantasy is worth it, but it does take a logical step sometimes when imagining its world, and the various powers of its characters.

If it helps, there is recent science that the most fundamental particle of the universe is actually the phonon, rather than atom. A phonon is a vibrating wave. That is exactly what we would expect from the Bible's descriptions of God creating by speaking. The whole thing is a vibrating wave.

 

[EarlyActs]

“Faith” v. Faith

Francis Schaeffer, 1972, in HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT





Francis Schaeffer used this analogy to show how we know that there are reasons for the rational meaning of Christian truth.





Suppose we are climbing in the Alps and are very high on the bare rock and suddenly the fog shuts down. The guide turns to us and says that the ice is forming and there is no hope; before morning we will all freeze to death here on the shoulder of the mountain. Simply to keep warm, the guide keeps us moving in the dense fog further out on the shoulder until none of us have any idea where we are. After an hour or so, someone says to the guide: "Suppose I dropped and hit a ledge ten feet down in the fog. What would happen then?" The guide would say that you might make it till the morning and thus live. So, with absolutely no knowledge or any reason to support his action, one of the group hangs and drops into the fog. This would be one kind of faith, a leap of faith.

Suppose, however, that after we have worked out on the shoulder in the midst of the fog and the growing ice on the rock, we had stopped and we heard a voice which said: "you cannot see me, but I know exactly where you are from your voices. I am on another ridge. I have lived in these mountains, man and boy for over sixty years and I know every foot of them. I assure you that ten feet below you there is a ledge. If you hang and drop, you can make it through the night and I will get you in the morning."

I would not hang and drop at once, but would ask questions to try to ascertain if the man knew what he was talking about and if he was not my enemy. In the Alps, for example, I would ask him his name. If the name he gave me was the family of that part of the mountains, it would count a great

deal to me. In the Swiss Alps there are certain family names that indicate mountain families of that area. For example, in the area of the Alps where I live, Avanthey would be such a name. In my desperate situation, even though time would be running out, I would ask him what to me would be the sufficient questions, and when I became convinced by his answers, then I would hang and drop.

This is faith, but obviously it has no relationship to the first instance. As a matter of fact, if one of these is called faith, the other should not be designated by the same word symbol.

The historic Christian faith is not a leap of faith in the post-Kierkegaardian sense because "he is not silent," and I am invited to ask the sufficient questions in regard to details but also in regard to the existence of the universe and its complexity and in regard to the existence of man. I am invited to ask the sufficient questions and then believe him and bow before him metaphysically in knowing that I exist because he made man, and bow before him morally as needing his provision for me in the substitutionary death of Christ.

To pursue this further, contact me at Interplans.net Studio, short txt is OK.

--Marcus Sanford

 

[Frank Robert]

I don't know what train track you are on. An atheist does not know the value of faith as a Christian believer does. He said what he die because he also thinks faith is irrational. You think faith is an irrational guess. I do wish we could talk about Faith v 'Faith' (see next) because it is exactly what you are thinking about. (How can we not be interested in that which is exactly what we are thinking about?). Faith is not 'faith in faith'; it is faith in an objective things.

I don't think that God created by speaking "by faith." It is rational. He is infinitely powerful. There are no forces out there that can assemble the universe and man on their own. That is ridiculous, far past the doctrine of Farellian odds. There is no reason why he could not create by speaking.

It might help if a person, like Lewis said, appreciated the world of fantasy a little bit. Not all fantasy is worth it, but it does take a logical step sometimes when imagining its world, and the various powers of its characters.

If it helps, there is recent science that the most fundamental particle of the universe is actually the phonon, rather than atom. A phonon is a vibrating wave. That is exactly what we would expect from the Bible's descriptions of God creating by speaking. The whole thing is a vibrating wave.

FYI: Faith is a personal belief in something that is greater than oneself. It can be based on religion, but it can also be based on other things, such as humanity, progress, love, oneself, science, reason, democracy, or art.

It is rude to question the faith of people that you do not know anything about.

 

[Frank Robert]

Francis Schaeffer used this analogy to show how we know that there are reasons for the rational meaning of Christian truth.

Which is something that apologists do. I find that apologists mean well but do not have a tradition of relying on critical thinking skills.

Apologetics has nothing to do with living one's faith in Christ.

 

[EarlyActs]

FYI: Faith is a personal belief in something that is greater than oneself. It can be based on religion, but it can also be based on other things, such as humanity, progress, love, oneself, science, reason, democracy, or art.

It is rude to question the faith of people that you do not know anything about.

Sorry to sound rude. But if you read the analogy you will find that it is another question than that.

 

[EarlyActs]

Which is something that apologists do. I find that apologists mean well but do not have a tradition of relying on critical thinking skills.

Apologetics has nothing to do with living one's faith in Christ.

Your conclusion doesn't rely on critical thinking skills. See the mountain hike analogy "Faith v 'Faith'". He is clearly addressing an irrationality.

 

[Frank Robert]

Your conclusion doesn't rely on critical thinking skills. See the mountain hike analogy "Faith v 'Faith'". He is clearly addressing an irrationality.

Francis Schaeffer is an Apologist. I did look him up he appears to be well respected but I did not find a reason to read his writing.

My consistent theme on here has been that "it does not matter" if we interpret the Bible literally or use the critical-historical method or a different method. I can only tell you how I interpret it and a little about why I don't interpret the Bible literally. We can talk about the way we interpret the Bible but I have no interest in changing anyone's mind on how to interpret the Bible or converting them to a different denomination.

 

[EarlyActs]

Because that is not how it happened.


You have not said how the Nephilim survived the flood.


I believe in living my faith in Christ which has nothing to do with the way I interpret the OT.

What if sin is not a historic reality either?

 

[Mr GLee]

Which is something that apologists do. I find that apologists mean well but do not have a tradition of relying on critical thinking skills.

Apologetics has nothing to do with living one's faith in Christ.

apologetics = defending the faith.

How would you defend the faith of Christ without apologetics ?

 

[EarlyActs]

I don’t recall Franks previous name here at this forum but he does not know what neo-orthodoxy is or refuses to.

That is why his “faith in Jesus “ has nothing to do with defending the faith.

It would be great if he made the connection.

Up above is F Schaeffers hiking rescue analogy that illuminates the issues. #66. It will immediately show that there must be proof in a rational way.

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't need Schaeffer's advice on how I should live when it is exceedingly clear in the Bible. We should live our faith in Christ.

What is the value of faith?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: I had a very amusing experience, which might be well worth telling. I was in the New York Athletic Club swimming pool, and you know, you don’t wear your collar this way or that way when you’re in a swimming pool. And I was introduced to a priest, “This is Father So-and-so, this is Joseph Campbell.” I’m a professor, he’s a professor at one of our Catholic universities. So after I’d had my swim, I came and sat down beside, in what we call, you know, the horizontal athlete situation, and the priest is beside me. And he said, “Mr. Campbell, are you a priest?” I said, “No, Father.” He said, “Are you a Catholic?” I said, “I was, Father.” He said, and now he had the sense to ask it this way, “Do you believe in a personal God?” I said, “No, Father.” And he said, “Well, I suppose there is no way to prove by logic the existence of a personal God.” And I said, “If there were, Father, what would be the value of faith?” “Well, Mr. Campbell, it’s nice to have met you.” And he was off. I really felt I had done a jujitsu trick there.​

​

Note: Joseph Campbell was a leading scholar in the fields of mythology and comparative religion​

Fundamentalist interpret the Bible differently than Catholics. It does not matter as long as you live your faith in Christ.

We both accept ID but not in the same way. Fundamentalists believe God is the proximate cause. I believe that God is the ultimate cause. Catholics are free to believe either way.

FYI:

Proximate cause refers to the immediate or direct reason that leads to a particular event or outcome. It focuses on the most immediate or immediate trigger for an event.​

​

Ultimate cause, on the other hand, looks at the deeper, underlying, or fundamental reasons that explain why something occurs. It deals with the broader and more fundamental factors or explanations for an event.​

​

A quick google search could put your mind to ease. Here are 3 results, there are many others.

Natural Events and Catastrophes: Natural events like landslides, floods, volcanic eruptions, and meteorite impacts can disrupt and alter soil layers in ways that might not align with typical soil profiles.​

​

Weathering and Erosion: Prolonged weathering or erosion processes can result in soil anomalies by removing or depositing materials in certain areas. Wind, water, and ice can shape and transport soil particles, creating irregularities.​

​

Climate Variability: Long-term changes in climate patterns can influence soil properties. For example, extended periods of drought or excessive rainfall can alter the distribution and composition of soil layers.​

​

​

The cataclysm was a total change of the inhabitable surface beyond recognition.

 

[EarlyActs]

D F Strauss (19th cent German NT critic) believed the "faith" of Christians stayed intact even if he removed the supernatural from Jesus. See p4 of his 'life of Jesus' https://www.amazon.com/Life-Jesus-C...&asin=B0CFCPWLNV&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
(The 'preview' of the book will let you read it).

That's how neo-orthodoxy was started. Strauss was neither supernaturalist nor naturalist; he simply believed the supernatural element was myth. (In his mind, a 'naturalist' would say an unsupernatural Jesus never existed; he believes He did, but anything supernatural is a mythical add-on).

It is very simple to undo this, and I would suggest Mark 1-3. As a script writer, continuity or 'mechanical errors' are constantly watched-out for. If you had a person providing such healings, you would expect him to be stormed by 'customers.' The real story of the narrative, if Strauss' mythical add-on were true, would be that such healings were not true. Instead we find a unique verb employed by Mark (and others) to show what things were like: he was pressed upon everywhere he went.

In Mk 2's first scene, we have this addressed by an 'at-will' miracle: the paralytic lowered into the room who is healed on a 'which is easier?' basis because Jesus wishes to confirm he is the Son of God who can forgive. It is obviously easier to say you can forgive; there are no external realities to 'test.'

The press became so heavy that he tries to get to places no one can find him, only to find out they have!

Then in Mk 3:6 we read of plot to kill him, stop him, shut him down. What's that doing there--didn't Strauss say all the miracles were hooey that were added later as mythical writing? If he wasn't healing and successful, why stop him? Notice how early this is in the full narrative; some time compression has taken place perhaps, but the point stands.

It is precisely this division into, and acceptance of, mythical writing that is neo-orthodox. It is not at all the way the followers of Christ operate. G. Eliot, the backfire of all backfires of evangelical faith, was compelled to translate Strauss to solve centuries of perceived issues. She was in her mid-twenties with no technical Biblical training at the time--a really sad practice for the science of theology. Imagine a person attempting ventrical valve replacements after taking first aid.

 

[jeremiah1five]

If it was found give it back to its owners: Israel.