"SCIENCE VS SCRIPTURE"

[TB2]

In post #10 I quoted...

Genesis 1:5,8,13 NASB95
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. [8] God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. [13] There was evening and there was morning, a third day. Etc.

Are you making the case that evening and morning = one day is different in other cultures?

Yom ("day") in Genesis 1 = a literal, 24 hour day. Not only is this the normal understanding and usage of the word, but the context demands it ("the evening and morning, an X day" formula, as you point out).

Day-Age Theory where "day" = "long period of time" doesn't work. "And there was evening and morning the first 'long period of time.'" Huh??? That doesn't even make sense.

 

[EarlyActs]

Not so sure, but it doesn't matter. It's all wrong and misuse and abuse no matter the source. Better is if you dispute evolution, then to rebut it on scientific, empirical grounds.

I know about the Nephilim. I know about gigantism. And I know about rock formations. But I don't understand what you are claiming, or trying to prove. Are you saying those rock formations are the remnants of the Nephilim? I hope not, because that would be nonsense, and like those who claim "in the days of Peleg the earth was divided" is a reference to plate tectonics.

Give me a link to the specific research, and I'll explain it to you

I don’t have people “explain” it to me.

There were superhuman creatures at work with capabilities we cannot approach today. Peru, offshore Japan, Thailand, Rockwall, on and on. Check Long’s doc on races of giants. It is repeatedly found in frontier newspapers until naturalists came and sanitized our history. That was done at the same time as the suppression of Pelegríni and Bretz. It wouldn’t be the first time the Smithsonian was accused of fraud. See HUMAN ZOOS by West at the Discovery Inst.

The original frontispiece of OS does not need explaining. It was a direct identification of the theory as a positioning of the most suited races’ domination. Look up Haeckel and German monism. The British Friday Club. The Moseley movement.

I don’t know how an entire culture that thinks that way can compare to the 1.5% slave ownership in the Christian US can compare to the above , but give it a go.

The elimination of Nephilim and Nephilim -guided culture was the rationale for the conquering of Cana. It was mopping up after the cataclysm.

I’m referring to masses of rock CONSTRUCTIONS which would be ridiculous to call natural. Some of them are ‘idols’ or temples. That is why Lewis wrote ‘Science and Religion’. The people of Biblical narratives were perfectly aware of natural laws (eg human eggs must be inseminated) and when they were being abridged or circumvented (Mary and Elizabeth’s pregnancies). Natural laws explain all things “provided that nothing or no one has interrupted them.”

 

[EarlyActs]

Yom ("day") in Genesis 1 = a literal, 24 hour day. Not only is this the normal understanding and usage of the word, but the context demands it ("the evening and morning, an X day" formula, as you point out).

Day-Age Theory where "day" = "long period of time" doesn't work. "And there was evening and morning the first 'long period of time.'" Huh??? That doesn't even make sense.

That is why I am a RCW (recent creation week) believer but not a YEC. The reasons for aging though are not naturalistic; they have to do with an angelic rebellion and are not known to naturalistic science.

 

[EarlyActs]

I would say the problem comes in even way before that: we misread God's Word as a modern scientific account when it isn't. What does Genesis 1 tells us about modern science? I would say next to nothing. Genesis 1 is not a modern scientific account but a theological polemic (attack) against ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths. Even the order of events is the same in many cases. Genesis 1 read like a point-by-point refutation of Egyptian pagan cosmology.

None of us can read Scripture 'objectively.' We all read it through a contextual lens. For most people, that is through lens of our own culture and modern understanding. But proper biblical interpretation requires that we interpret in the original, historical context. In the case of Genesis, that means the Ancient Near East (ANE) context. We can't *NOT* read the Bible through some type of context. It's just a question of which context we use. And the original context is always the proper way. The alternative is the error of anachronism (reading-back a later understanding into an earlier one), and results in all sorts of errors. Like how some people read Jeremiah 10 as a prohibition against Christmas trees before there was such a thing as Christmas trees; or read modern science back into Genesis 1 before there was such a thing as modern science.

The contextual lens we read the Bible through leads to drastically different understandings, so it's so important that we get this right by interpreting the Bible in its original historical context as it was originally intended to be understood. Take, for example, Day 3 of Genesis:

Day 3 of Genesis (understood in the context of modern science): The waters are gathered and dry land appears. This 'obviously' is a reference to ocean basin deepening, mountain building, and possibly plate tectonics. But consider this: there is no way that someone in ancient biblical times would think Day 3 is talking about plate tectonics, so that can't possibly be what it is referring to. That would mean Genesis 1 was written for us, but given to 'them' thousands of years before anyone would be able to understand it. It's also a little modern-centric; and makes the Bible only meaningful to us in our time.

Day 3 of Genesis (understood in the proper original, historical ANE context): The lexical, structural/literal, thematic/conceptual evidence shows that there is a direct parallel to Genesis Day 3 with the land/earth appearing, and the 'primeval hillock (hill)' in Egyptian cosmology that rises out of the primeval watery chaos. There were four main competing Egyptian cosmologies. And each has it's own temple and geographic location, like the Memphite Tradition & Hierapolis Tradition. Each of these different temple locations in ancient Egypt claimed that their location was the 'true' original primeval hillock/hill that rose of our the primeval watery chaos, and that therefore their temple god(s) were the superior ones. So, what's the point? Genesis trumps them all. Instead of adding a fifth different geographic location, Yahweh claims the entire earth as His own (not just a hill), that He is the one true Creator over all. There are not other gods at different 'hills.' There is one true God, over all the 'heavens and the earth.'

Different context. Completely different understanding! Which one is more likely to be true? The one that would have been understood at the time that Genesis was first written down. And plate tectonics 'ain't it.' Plus, consider the theological difference. If the modern scientific lens/context is the correct way to read Day 3 of Genesis, then Genesis 1 is reduced to telling us a list of facts about the world that don't really have any theological significance beyond the initial 'God created.' But the original context is rich in theological meaning, and far more powerful as an polemic (attack) by the one true God against false pagan gods of the time, similar to how the plagues of Egypt were not only literal, but also attacks on specific Egyptian pagan gods to demonstrate the superior power of Yahweh.

Ps 104 appears to be as wide as needed to relate to tectonics.

 

[TB2]

There were superhuman creatures at work with capabilities we cannot approach today. Peru, offshore Japan, Thailand, Rockwall, on and on. Check Long’s doc on races of giants. It is repeatedly found in frontier newspapers until naturalists came and sanitized our history. That was done at the same time as the suppression of Pelegríni and Bretz. It wouldn’t be the first time the Smithsonian was accused of fraud. See HUMAN ZOOS by West at the Discovery Inst....

The elimination of Nephilim and Nephilim -guided culture was the rationale for the conquering of Cana. It was mopping up after the cataclysm.

I’m referring to masses of rock CONSTRUCTIONS which would be ridiculous to call natural. Some of them are ‘idols’ or temples. That is why Lewis wrote ‘Science and Religion’. The people of Biblical narratives were perfectly aware of natural laws (eg human eggs must be inseminated) and when they were being abridged or circumvented (Mary and Elizabeth’s pregnancies). Natural laws explain all things “provided that nothing or no one has interrupted them.”

Smh. You are advocating folklore beyond fringe. Even YECs denounce this as fringe. That's saying something! The Rockwall in Texas is a natural formation. It's not a construction. Nor is it ridiculous to call it natural. It's factual to call it natural. And even if for argument sake it's an actual brick wall construction of sorts, that doesn't mean it was built by the Nephilim! And it couldn't because it's in the middle of the geologic column (Did the Nephilim build this in the middle of Noah's Flood???). The problem with fringe theories is that they are a house of cards build on the sands of speculation and conjecture after conjecture after conjecture upon conjecture. None of them are convincing. But together they seem like a substantial mass of evidence to the fringe theorist who has so convined him/herself of their 'obvious' truth, while forgetting that the whole thing consists of speculations. And because the fringe theorists builld these things up so much in their minds, there is usually little to no chance of having a reasoned conversation, whether it's this, or flat earth, or fake moon landings, or that relatively recent video going around that claims that a "burned" mountaintop in Saudi Arabia shows it's the real Mt. Sinai (when it's not burned; it's simply basalt); or the infamous Ron Wyatt who has 'discovered' everything from Pharoah's chariot wheels in the Red Sea to Sodom & Gommorah.

View attachment 340

"But it's so convincing! Look you can see the temples of Sodom!"
View attachment 341
Yeah, and the soft sediment deformation that shows it a geologic formation

These types of fringe theories have no basis in fact, my friend. You don't want to be a part of them.

 

[EarlyActs]

Smh. You are advocating folklore beyond fringe. Even YECs denounce this as fringe. That's saying something! The Rockwall in Texas is a natural formation. It's not a construction. Nor is it ridiculous to call it natural. It's factual to call it natural. And even if for argument sake it's an actual brick wall construction of sorts, that doesn't mean it was built by the Nephilim! And it couldn't because it's in the middle of the geologic column (Did the Nephilim build this in the middle of Noah's Flood???). The problem with fringe theories is that they are a house of cards build on the sands of speculation and conjecture after conjecture after conjecture upon conjecture. None of them are convincing. But together they seem like a substantial mass of evidence to the fringe theorist who has so convined him/herself of their 'obvious' truth, while forgetting that the whole thing consists of speculations. And because the fringe theorists builld these things up so much in their minds, there is usually little to no chance of having a reasoned conversation, whether it's this, or flat earth, or fake moon landings, or that relatively recent video going around that claims that a "burned" mountaintop in Saudi Arabia shows it's the real Mt. Sinai (when it's not burned; it's simply basalt); or the infamous Ron Wyatt who has 'discovered' everything from Pharoah's chariot wheels in the Red Sea to Sodom & Gommorah.

View attachment 340

"But it's so convincing! Look you can see the temples of Sodom!"
View attachment 341
Yeah, and the soft sediment deformation that shows it a geologic formation

These types of fringe theories have no basis in fact, my friend. You don't want to be a part of them.

Sorry you have no idea what you are saying about Rockwall. The fact that you would use a geologic column explanation shows that. The thing is a huge fortress perimeter. It is consistently about 40 ft tall as I recall. There is one major subperimeter. There are lines that are perfectly compassed—nature doesn’t do that. There are seams, jointings etc. not nature.

Nor is it man made in our current sense.

On the 40 ft factor, I doubt very much it had human opponents in mind. Humans were slaves to these entities. 40 ft would keep out other giants, including those riding dinosaurs, as 1/3 of the Nazca, Peru, patinized rock sketches showed.

There are several others in the US landscape as well. In 2 there also appeared to be a human-slave sub-society, one near St Louis, the other Chicago.

It is backfilled by sediment. You do understand massive slurry movement sheeting here and there across and over to other continents, right? That’s the source of backfill. Our 4 Corners type lands scales are the remains after violent movements. Ayer’s rock and Centralia, etc. A Mayan calendar was found in sediment in Melbourne or Sydney during a foundation excavation, etc.

The same also produced the massive opisthotonic stacks of Dino bones, where there are few juvenile samples. Bc adults can outrun them in an emergency. It was.

I’m aware of geologic forms like at Sedona’s temple. That’s not what I mean. Your samples are too few and narrow. The Inca stones, the matching types in Thailand with identical metal stapling, the huge temple sunken offshore of Japan.

Thanks for showing your vilification skills but I will go where and with those people who show brutal common sense about cataclysm. As mentioned before, the utter inconsistency of Ager (pages of cataclysmic indicators but unable to conclude there was a cataclysm) does not sit well. Just arbitrary. To get published, to buy that villa in Mallorca.

 

[EarlyActs]

I’m sure the OPer is feeling a great distrust in science , but I need to remind him that

1, we recently have the utter manipulation of science about covid
2, we have regular manipulation of science about climate
3, we have utter manipulation of science about gender fluidity
4, we have the suppression of Bretz and Pellegrini conveniently timed to overthrow the Christian basis when the racist OS appeared. If you know the effort to undermine Christian faith in English history, you may know that a generation earlier than OS, the skeptics gave up attacking Christ (in the French enlightenment-driven sense) because of the unusual effort of Holford about the predicted destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as an incontrovertible proof of Christ. At YouTube see SANFORD documentary Be Careful What You Wish For.

So it is very difficult to trust these people.

When Montgomery (UW geology) concluded his history of geology talk , 2015, Harvard, on YouTube, he said no one has overturned the conclusions of Whitcomb and Morris, GENESIS FLOOD, and catastrophism has flourished.

 

[TB2]

Sorry you have no idea what you are saying about Rockwall. The fact that you would use a geologic column explanation shows that. The thing is a huge fortress perimeter. It is consistently about 40 ft tall as I recall. There is one major subperimeter. There are lines that are perfectly compassed—nature doesn’t do that. There are seams, jointings etc. not nature.

Nor is it man made in our current sense.

On the 40 ft factor, I doubt very much it had human opponents in mind. Humans were slaves to these entities. 40 ft would keep out other giants, including those riding dinosaurs, as 1/3 of the Nazca, Peru, patinized rock sketches showed.

There are several others in the US landscape as well. In 2 there also appeared to be a human-slave sub-society, one near St Louis, the other Chicago.

It is backfilled by sediment. You do understand massive slurry movement sheeting here and there across and over to other continents, right? That’s the source of backfill. Our 4 Corners type lands scales are the remains after violent movements. Ayer’s rock and Centralia, etc. A Mayan calendar was found in sediment in Melbourne or Sydney during a foundation excavation, etc.

The same also produced the massive opisthotonic stacks of Dino bones, where there are few juvenile samples. Bc adults can outrun them in an emergency. It was.

I’m aware of geologic forms like at Sedona’s temple. That’s not what I mean. Your samples are too few and narrow. The Inca stones, the matching types in Thailand with identical metal stapling, the huge temple sunken offshore of Japan.

Thanks for showing your vilification skills but I will go where and with those people who show brutal common sense about cataclysm. As mentioned before, the utter inconsistency of Ager (pages of cataclysmic indicators but unable to conclude there was a cataclysm) does not sit well. Just arbitrary. To get published, to buy that villa in Mallorca.

The arguments of the video have been addressed in the thread "Why the Fossil Record Can't Be the Result of Noah's Flood," including the six megasequences. Unfortunately, the video is inaccurate scientifically as well as biblically. According to the Bible, the floodwaters rose, "God remembered Noah," and then the floodwaters receded. The Bible doesn't say the waters rose and fell and rose and fell and rose and fell six times. The six megasequences contradict the literal teaching of Scripture.

 

[EarlyActs]

The arguments of the video have been addressed in the thread "Why the Fossil Record Can't Be the Result of Noah's Flood," including the six megasequences. Unfortunately, the video is inaccurate scientifically as well as biblically. According to the Bible, the floodwaters rose, "God remembered Noah," and then the floodwaters receded. The Bible doesn't say the waters rose and fell and rose and fell and rose and fell six times. The six megasequences contradict the literal teaching of Scripture.

Not in a compressed record like Genesis. The two sources as Calvin said are ultimately a unified knowledge. Or as Schaeffer said in No Final Conflict.

As far as that goes, I’ve read papers saying there were 13. I don’t care the count, that is ridiculous. ‘I was in the tsunami in Indonesia in 2000, and what people don’t realize is that there was actually 6 deluges, not 2…’. Does it matter? It’s what surfers would call a ‘set.’

The text says there was a year of hydrologic violence. That can and did go a lot of directions.

 

[TB2]

The text says there was a year of hydrologic violence. That can and did go a lot of directions.

That's all well and good and that's the typical retort, but you can't pick and choose what you're going to accept as literal in the Bible

 

[TB2]

This is not an idle point. The entire Genesis Flood account is organized around the floodwaters rising once and then falling. The key point is found in the center of the story: "GOD REMEMBERED NOAH." After God remembers Noah, He starts reversing the entire sequence of events step-by-step.

In the OP one of the things I pointed out was YEC/literalist inconsistency. Biblical "literalists" pride themselves on being the "only" ones who believe the plain literal teaching of the Bible without compromise, but it's not actually true. They pick and choose what they accept as literal. Thus, the "windows of heaven opening" with rain they don't accept as literal. And in order to force the fossil record to fit they have to say the Flood rose and fell and rose and fell and rose and fell and rose and fell and rose and fell and rose and fell six times even though that contradicts the literal teaching of the Bible.

 

[EarlyActs]

This is not an idle point. The entire Genesis Flood account is organized around the floodwaters rising once and then falling. The key point is found in the center of the story: "GOD REMEMBERED NOAH." After God remembers Noah, He starts reversing the entire sequence of events step-by-step.

In the OP one of the things I pointed out was YEC/literalist inconsistency. Biblical "literalists" pride themselves on being the "only" ones who believe the plain literal teaching of the Bible without compromise, but it's not actually true. They pick and choose what they accept as literal. Thus, the "windows of heaven opening" with rain they don't accept as literal. And in order to force the fossil record to fit they have to say the Flood rose and fell and rose and fell and rose and fell and rose and fell and rose and fell and rose and fell six times even though that contradicts the literal teaching of the Bible.

You might read Ps 104

You have decided that there is going to be a conflict, yet that text as a whole you are reading always speaks of unity. It never has the modern dilemma introduced by Lyell. It says ‘you saw the sea part,’ or you saw the city of Jerusalem get plundered, or Jesus says ‘which is easier?—to declare sins forgiven or to actually declare a disabled man can rise—and then at will does the hard thing. Or he says the city will burn down in this generation. It is always the unity of the narrative and the physical world.

There are certainly literalists but there are far more synthsists—those who see the tectonic violence of an event and see it dovetail with the text and the 500 other world accounts of Cataclysm. The Chinese character for the number 8 is a barge with 8 people onboard.

Pellegrinis work was snowed under Bc they couldn’t let evolution fail—the one big chance to discredit God. You will find, as I wrote in my novel PROOF , that soon after this society in general was entirely cut from the previous common-sense sense of proof. It was so much fun for media controllers to have human zoo exhibits, send thousands on a pointless trip to AK gold, destroy evidence of giantism, addict millions to booze, etc, to get the masses to believe one certain way. ‘Good riddance to the old bugger’—Huxley in the bio pic of Darwin, CREATION. In 10 years fromOS , Harvard law was changing any remnant of God or divinity in law to evolutionary word choices and expressions. The whole thing is a fraud for social control.

Lyell coined the pejorative expression ‘physico-theologians’ to try to vilify theologians into stop knowing nature. That’s about as unscientific as ‘the present processes are the key to the past,’ bc we are in a universe where there is a God who can interrupt any natural process at any time. Waves, animals, human voice, disease, conception, you name it.

 

[TB2]

You have decided that there is going to be a conflict, yet that text as a whole you are reading always speaks of unity.

I haven't actually. And it sounds like you're saying I've "decided" that there is going to be a confict between science and Scripture. If that's what you mean, then let me clarify: I'm not questioning the biblical account of the Flood. I'm questioning the assumption that the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. The Bible doesn't actually teach that. I'm not challenging the Bible. I'm challenging the non-biblical assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. There are scientific and biblical problems with such a view. The above example is one of the biblical problems. The Bible says the Flood rose and fell. Sea level rises and falls six major times in the fossil record. So at best, only one of those rise-falls could be the Flood based on what Scripture teaches. Hope that makes sense and clarifies what I mean. Apologies if I was unclear.

 

[EarlyActs]

I listed several suppressions by modern science. A more confined but devastating one was at U Toronto and featured in Malone’s doc, THE MOSES CONTROVERSY. A professor who Ph.D was earned there was listening to his mentor some 15 years later , unaware, as the mentor joked he knew the scholarship of Cassuto supporting Genesis text decades earlier and never told anyone. He delighted in burying it! Here was a Ph.D trained there finding out his mentor was happy to support the destruction of scholarship that might support Genesis.

That’s why we have huge doubts about people who tell us ‘ I will explain it to you.’

 

[TB2]

I listed several suppressions by modern science. A more confined but devastating one was at U Toronto and featured in Malone’s doc, THE MOSES CONTROVERSY. A professor who Ph.D was earned there was listening to his mentor some 15 years later , unaware, as the mentor joked he knew the scholarship of Cassuto supporting Genesis text decades earlier and never told anyone. He delighted in burying it! Here was a Ph.D trained there finding out his mentor was happy to support the destruction of scholarship that might support Genesis.

That’s why we have huge doubts about people who tell us ‘ I will explain it to you.’

Got it. You're a conspiracy theorist.

 

[TB2]

I've watched some of Mahoney's work before such as the Exodus prequel to this video. It is unreliable, sensationalistic hype that unfortunately is not credible. For example, he points to a "charred/burnt" top of what he says is the "real" Mt Sinai claiming that's where God burned Mt Sinai. And yet he was simply pointing to an ancient weather resistant igneous basalt lava flow. Nothing unusual and like the hundreds of square miles of basalt lava flows we see lining the mountain tops in the Columbia River Valley Gorge of Washington. Same type of extrusive igneous rock. It's an iron rich mafic igneous rock black in color due to the unoxidized iron. It's not "charred/burnt."

 

[EarlyActs]

I've watched some of Mahoney's work before such as the Exodus prequel to this video. It is unreliable, sensationalistic hype that unfortunately is not credible. For example, he points to a "charred/burnt" top of what he says is the "real" Mt Sinai claiming that's where God burned Mt Sinai. And yet he was simply pointing to an ancient weather resistant igneous basalt lava flow. Nothing unusual and like the hundreds of square miles of basalt lava flows we see lining the mountain tops in the Columbia River Valley Gorge of Washington. Same type of extrusive igneous rock. It's an iron rich mafic igneous rock black in color due to the unoxidized iron. It's not "charred/burnt."

MOSES CONTROVERSYis not about geology. You seem to truly pick the offbeat points. It is many interviews of main text scholars , even if they are wildly off target.

Meanwhile, I’d like to hear: What hydrologic conditions and events would it take to make the AK state museum line AND the fountains of the great deep true at the same time? The museum said that ‘mega-flora was suddennly encased in Mile-deep ice.’

 

[TB2]

MOSES CONTROVERSYis not about geology. You seem to truly pick the offbeat points. It is many interviews of main text scholars , even if they are wildly off target.

Meanwhile, I’d like to hear: What hydrologic conditions and events would it take to make the AK state museum line AND the fountains of the great deep true at the same time? The museum said that ‘mega-flora was suddennly encased in Mile-deep ice.’

It is by the same guy who did the video I saw on Mt Sinai that had flawed geology. His videos are not reputable or trustworthy

 

[EarlyActs]

Got it. You're a conspiracy theorist.

That is ridiculous.

Here’s another: at Dinosaur Park,Alberta, part of the vast opisthotonics shown in the Noah-Pangea doc, the signage says one tripped getting water, then another, then another. IOW, Laurel and Hardy is science.

There is even worse in a NOVA special from Peru or Argentinian sure. More later.

 

[TB2]

That is ridiculous.

Here’s another: at Dinosaur Park,Alberta, part of the vast opisthotonics shown in the Noah-Pangea doc, the signage says one tripped getting water, then another, then another. IOW, Laurel and Hardy is science.

There is even worse in a NOVA special from Peru or Argentinian sure. More later.

There are a lot of hoaxes out there. In academia there is a professional peer review process to establish claims and verify fact from fiction. Are there any professional peer reviewed research publications that you can direct me to or point to that help establish these claims as legit?