THE MASSIVE GRAND CANYON—IT'S GENESES

[CrowCross]

So Texas was made up of soft rock (i.e. no AC/DC)....a rock that could be rather easily dissolved and washed away? In other words it was clay, sand and dirt? What about mount Ararat and the other high mountains that existed before the flood? Were they also just piles of clay, sand and dirt or had hard rock appeared in some parts of the globe, but was still under formation in other parts?...Could you show us some of this soft rock today or has all of it hardened by now? .......it just seems a little too convenient and far-fetched to me.

Why would you expect the flood sediment to harden overnight?
The flood left sandstone over North America that covers just about all of the continent and in some cases other continents...several layers of sandstones. You would suggest they harden overnight.

 

[CrowCross]

Yet you agree that God is the source of the Earth's make-up or composition. Again, if that is true, and it is, God is the author/creator of the shaping and fashioning of the entire Planet, including the Grand Canyon's geology.

I would believe that Paul Bunyan created the Grand canyon by pulling his axe behind him before I believe the tiny underfoot Colorado River gouged it out.

 

[JIM]

Yet you agree that God is the source of the Earth's make-up or composition. Again, if that is true, and it is, God is the author/creator of the shaping and fashioning of the entire Planet, including the Grand Canyon's geology.​

Yes, I agree that God is the source of the Earth's make-up or composition. I suspect that the primary difference between you and me is how we see God's actions in being that source. You, I think, see God as a manipulator of that make-up or composition. I see God as establishing the bottom-up system in which that make-up or composition comes about. For example, I think there is reason behind the concept of the big bang. It is the fundamental bottom-up system that God put in place for what exists today as we see it. There is reason why the universe is what it is, why it is huge beyond which our minds can even conceive, so complicatedly intertwined, so majestically organized to operate as designed to do from the big bang without all the minute-by-minute manipulation that so many who believe as you seem to need to impose.

Thus, He didn't need to shape and fashion the entire planet, including the Grand Canyon by some imaginary global flood as you believe. It was actually set in motion by the initiation of the big bang and the associated natural law. Once He set it in motion, all those billions of ears ago, God knew what the outcome would be. God didn't sprinkle flakes of God throughout the earth some six, eight, or ten thousand years ago. It all came about in a totally natural way as set in motion by the initiation of the big bang and the associated natural law billions of years ago.

And perhaps even as marvelous as all of that is, what is also almost beyond comprehension is that God created the human being to be able, in time, to piece together an understanding of that natural law.

You're being overly picky by insisting that certain phrases and terms are not literally alluded to in the Bible in spite of the fact they are indirectly inferred, or generally recognized, as part of God's overall creation.​

My problem with all of that indirectly inferred, or generally recognized, as part of God's overall creation is that it ends up being whatever the one doing the inferring wants it to be with no real support for the direction of inference.

My guess is that in religious matters you are somewhat of a literalist—not able to recognize that many matters throughout the scriptures are inferred or strongly indicated.​

I am a literalist in many ways, but I recognize that much of what is literal is also steeped in metaphor of who and what we are. But I feel no compunction to recognize much of any of those things that you think are inferred or strongly indicated. To do that, I could not limit that to what you see to be inferred or strongly indicated; but would necessarily have to consider what others beside you see to be inferred or strongly indicated. That is true with respect to theological matters but is even more so about the non-theological matters such as the physical make-up of the universe at large.

And let it be said that you are not the "top notch" intelligent one, or the most highly educated professor, on this topic and on this thread.​

Of course not. And I have never, intentionally, suggested otherwise. However, in matters of things like the formation of the Grand Canyon, I have studied enough to reject, nearly out of hand, precisely those things that you consider to be inferred or strongly indicated in scripture.

If ignorance prevails, we can at least debate who possesses the highest level—the one who indicates he knows it all or the one who knows little but is willing to learn more.​

Who decides that winner of that debate?

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, I agree that God is the source of the Earth's make-up or composition. I suspect that the primary difference between you and me is how we see God's actions in being that source. You, I think, see God as a manipulator of that make-up or composition. I see God as establishing the bottom-up system in which that make-up or composition comes about. For example, I think there is reason behind the concept of the big bang. It is the fundamental bottom-up system that God put in place for what exists today as we see it. There is reason why the universe is what it is, why it is huge beyond which our minds can even conceive, so complicatedly intertwined, so majestically organized to operate as designed to do from the big bang without all the minute-by-minute manipulation that so many who believe as you seem to need to impose.

Thus, He didn't need to shape and fashion the entire planet, including the Grand Canyon by some imaginary global flood as you believe. It was actually set in motion by the initiation of the big bang and the associated natural law. Once He set it in motion, all those billions of ears ago, God knew what the outcome would be. God didn't sprinkle flakes of God throughout the earth some six, eight, or ten thousand years ago. It all came about in a totally natural way as set in motion by the initiation of the big bang and the associated natural law billions of years ago.

And perhaps even as marvelous as all of that is, what is also almost beyond comprehension is that God created the human being to be able, in time, to piece together an understanding of that natural law.

My problem with all of that indirectly inferred, or generally recognized, as part of God's overall creation is that it ends up being whatever the one doing the inferring wants it to be with no real support for the direction of inference.

I am a literalist in many ways, but I recognize that much of what is literal is also steeped in metaphor of who and what we are. But I feel no compunction to recognize much of any of those things that you think are inferred or strongly indicated. To do that, I could not limit that to what you see to be inferred or strongly indicated; but would necessarily have to consider what others beside you see to be inferred or strongly indicated. That is true with respect to theological matters but is even more so about the non-theological matters such as the physical make-up of the universe at large.

Of course not. And I have never, intentionally, suggested otherwise. However, in matters of things like the formation of the Grand Canyon, I have studied enough to reject, nearly out of hand, precisely those things that you consider to be inferred or strongly indicated in scripture.

Who decides that winner of that debate?

The next step is telling christians God used evolutionism to form man.

 

[JIM]

The next step is telling christians God used evolutionism to form man.

Okey, I got it; you didn't understand a word I wrote. But I didn't expect that you would. In fact, it wasn't a response to anything you posted.

 

[CrowCross]

Okey, I got it; you didn't understand a word I wrote. But I didn't expect that you would. In fact, it wasn't a response to anything you posted.

Why would you suggest God used evolutionism to form man? That is your view? Yes???

 

[JIM]

Why would you suggest God used evolutionism to form man? That is your view? Yes???

Did I say that?

 

[CrowCross]

Did I say that? Or did you just make it up like most everything else?

It sounds like your saying God used completely natural means of creating...starting with the BB. So, yes, I believe you through extension say God used evolutionism to form man.

Lets clear it up....What is your belief? Special creation of Adam from the dust the Eve from his rib...or descent with modification?

As for me, I'm going with the bible....that is special creation.

 

[Simons]

The next step is telling christians God used evolutionism to form man.

Well, don't you believe that he did? You believe in Noah's flood and that it left but one family of humans alive, right? Were they a multi-racial family or did multiple races develop from that one family? ...isn't that micro-evolution? Isn't it a question of how much evolution has been used/allowed by God?

 

[CrowCross]

Well, don't you believe that he did? You believe in Noah's flood and that it left but one family of humans alive, right? Were they a multi-racial family or did multiple races develop from that one family? ...isn't that micro-evolution? Isn't it a question of how much evolution has been used/allowed by God?

There's a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolutionism.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

I would believe that Paul Bunyan created the Grand canyon by pulling his axe behind him before I believe the tiny underfoot Colorado River gouged it out.

Amen, CrowCross!!

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Yes, I agree that God is the source of the Earth's make-up or composition. I suspect that the primary difference between you and me is how we see God's actions in being that source. You, I think, see God as a manipulator of that make-up or composition. I see God as establishing the bottom-up system in which that make-up or composition comes about. For example, I think there is reason behind the concept of the big bang. It is the fundamental bottom-up system that God put in place for what exists today as we see it. There is reason why the universe is what it is, why it is huge beyond which our minds can even conceive, so complicatedly intertwined, so majestically organized to operate as designed to do from the big bang without all the minute-by-minute manipulation that so many who believe as you seem to need to impose.

Thus, He didn't need to shape and fashion the entire planet, including the Grand Canyon by some imaginary global flood as you believe. It was actually set in motion by the initiation of the big bang and the associated natural law. Once He set it in motion, all those billions of ears ago, God knew what the outcome would be. God didn't sprinkle flakes of God throughout the earth some six, eight, or ten thousand years ago. It all came about in a totally natural way as set in motion by the initiation of the big bang and the associated natural law billions of years ago.

And perhaps even as marvelous as all of that is, what is also almost beyond comprehension is that God created the human being to be able, in time, to piece together an understanding of that natural law.

My problem with all of that indirectly inferred, or generally recognized, as part of God's overall creation is that it ends up being whatever the one doing the inferring wants it to be with no real support for the direction of inference.

I am a literalist in many ways, but I recognize that much of what is literal is also steeped in metaphor of who and what we are. But I feel no compunction to recognize much of any of those things that you think are inferred or strongly indicated. To do that, I could not limit that to what you see to be inferred or strongly indicated; but would necessarily have to consider what others beside you see to be inferred or strongly indicated. That is true with respect to theological matters but is even more so about the non-theological matters such as the physical make-up of the universe at large.

Of course not. And I have never, intentionally, suggested otherwise. However, in matters of things like the formation of the Grand Canyon, I have studied enough to reject, nearly out of hand, precisely those things that you consider to be inferred or strongly indicated in scripture.

Who decides that winner of that debate?

Jim:

This will be my final say on this subject in this particular thread. We both have said enough to convince any average mind how we both stand.

I see, believe, and trust the story of Noah and the flood as being Heaven's Testimony, via Moses, and that Noah existed, that the Flood covered every high mountain on the Earth, North, South, East, and West, that only eight (8) persons survived the Flood, and no part of these historical events chronicled in Geneses, is figurative and imaginative only.

Additionally, with every bit of my spirit, my soul, my heart, and my mind, I believe Adam and Eve were of human flesh, created by God, lived in a Gorgeous Paradise, but was kicked out of that Earthly Paradise when they disobeyed their Maker. I believe Cain killed his brother Able. And that none of these dispatches told by Heaven via Moses are metaphorical/symbolic.

On the other hand, throughout portions of the Old and New Scriptures, I conceive that some vernaculars are figurative/symbolic and therefore not to be understood literally—such as Jesus calling King Herod a fox (Lk. 13:32.)

A large part of the Book Daniel and the Book of Revelation is delivered in symbols. But when it involves the geneses of human life and how they lived and survived and spread over the Earth the first few hundred years, we ought not understand any of those reports figuratively/symbolically. Occasionally, however, there's a mixture of both in the same narrative. Take the Rich man and Lazurus as a sample. But no mixture in the geneses of human life as told by God via Moses.

Jim, I seriously suggest you momentarily lay aside a lot of your humanistic testimony and accept the early history of the human race as narrated by God's massagers. In this particular matter, I truly do see you as being biblically off-center and contradictory—accepting and believing the human side of things.

Literally, you are rejecting a lot of what Heaven's Book of Geneses relates in favor of what mere men teach and advocate. You cannot and do not accept a worldwide Flood because, if you do, you would be surrendering man's philosophy and adopting God's wisdom. Yes, some of your understanding of geology is correct, naturally, for God is its Creator. But when you reject the Flood and other particles associated with the Flood, as initiated by Heaven's messengers, you have embraced a bushel of inconsistencies and, as I see it, contradictions. This is, understandably, a low level of atheism.

And so, I have said what I have said. The best to you as you debate and re-debate this controversy.​

Buff

 

[EarlyActs]

I know there are other big canyons, but they are rather sparse.
It just seems like the whole earth would be cover to cover canyons since the whole earth experienced the same flood.
But again, I know very little about the field of geology.

I definitely believe scripture describes a world wide flood that covered every mountain top.
But I imagine it must have had a supernatural element to it rather than just a scientific one.
It's also hard to imagine where all that water receded to without a supernatural element involved.

It was a lot more than flood water. The whole west North America is a lab sample of tectonic plates crashing into each other.
That affects so many things on the surface.

Where I live in AK you see this all over. But Red Rocks CO is maybe more striking.

I don’t know why the other member thought Grand was that unique. Monterey (off CA , submarine) is 3x larger but nearly same method. Both are part of the explosive tectonics of the Cataclysm.

 

[Tambora]

Not if Mt Ararat was lifted up after the flood. Do you have a problem with mountains being lifted up?

I'm trying to figure out how you picture this happening in your mind.

If mountains were "lifted up" high enough to rise above the flood water level, wouldn't that mean that more land (dirt and rock) had to be added to each mountain so it would rise out of the water?
Are you proposing that God dug out valleys and placed that land (dirt and rock) atop the mountains?
And so the valleys that were dug out became the oceans and the mountains became the land we live on?

 

[JIM]

Literally, you are rejecting a lot of what Heaven's Book of Geneses relates in favor of what mere men teach and advocate. You cannot and do not accept a worldwide Flood because, if you do, you would be surrendering man's philosophy and adopting God's wisdom. Yes, some of your understanding of geology is correct, naturally, for God is its Creator. But when you reject the Flood and other particles associated with the Flood, as initiated by Heaven's messengers, you have embraced a bushel of inconsistencies and, as I see it, contradictions. This is, understandably, a low level of atheism.​

Absolutely not! What I am rejecting is your translation/interpretation of a couple of verses. I do not accept a worldwide flood because, not even the Bible states that it was.

(KJV) Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

The Hebrew word "erets" according to strong's is:

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

There is no rational reason to translate the Hebrew word "erets" to mean the global earth other than a religious bias. And that bias is striking, since there is no physical data to suggest that there was a flood of the entire global earth 4,500 years ago. And in fact, we have tons of physical data on the history of the American continent that denies that there was any such flood ever, let alone 4,500 years ago. You can ignore that in favor of your biased interpretation of a Hebrew word if you like, but under the reality of existing data it is pompous and presumptuous of you to charge atheism to any who do not agree with you.

 

[Mr GLee]

I'm trying to figure out how you picture this happening in your mind.

If mountains were "lifted up" high enough to rise above the flood water level, wouldn't that mean that more land (dirt and rock) had to be added to each mountain so it would rise out of the water?
Are you proposing that God dug out valleys and placed that land (dirt and rock) atop the mountains?
And so the valleys that were dug out became the oceans and the mountains became the land we live on?

I would think as recorded the picture is 22 feet the highest mountain before the flood .

The flood was I believe brought about because the born again sons of God. . lost their privilege's becoming unevenly yoked as sons of God to represent inspired from earth. God no longer shared that glory with them .

Satan the father of lies . . . earthy inspired of the devil took over.

Moving inspiration from earthly to above falling like rain, creating clouds and a rainbow (first)

James 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

Satan the counterfeiter who turns things upside down

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Clouds reserved to the represent God's inspiration from above .

Deuteronomy 32King James Version32 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

A good example in progress. God bringing the daily bread as the will of God . Manna = what is it???

Believers complaining

The Holy Spirit bringing dew to separate it from cursed earthly inspired. . . then brings the pure word the gospel

Numbers 11: 6 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.And the manna was as coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdellium. And the people went about, and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in a mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes of it: and the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil. And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it.

Loosed from heaven as the water of the word It can produce new born again growth

 

[Mr GLee]

Absolutely not! What I am rejecting is your translation/interpretation of a couple of verses. I do not accept a worldwide flood because, not even the Bible states that it was.

(KJV) Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

The Hebrew word "erets" according to strong's is:

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

There is no rational reason to translate the Hebrew word "erets" to mean the global earth other than a religious bias. And that bias is striking, since there is no physical data to suggest that there was a flood of the entire global earth 4,500 years ago. And in fact, we have tons of physical data on the history of the American continent that denies that there was any such flood ever, let alone 4,500 years ago. You can ignore that in favor of your biased interpretation of a Hebrew word if you like, but under the reality of existing data it is pompous and presumptuous of you to charge atheism to any who do not agree with you.

Why not trust his history as a witness who was there performing His will . "Let there be" and "he casts mountains out of the sea" .

Believer walk or understand the invisible things of God as it is written the living word of His faithfulness .

Not after the philosophies of men's oral traditons. The foundation of Paganism, atheists "Out of sight out of mind as in.. . . Who in there right mind would serve a God not seen . Cain murdered his brother buried him under Paganism .

God is Spirit he cant be found under a microscope or a telescope .He loving warns believers of that.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm trying to figure out how you picture this happening in your mind.

If mountains were "lifted up" high enough to rise above the flood water level, wouldn't that mean that more land (dirt and rock) had to be added to each mountain so it would rise out of the water?
Are you proposing that God dug out valleys and placed that land (dirt and rock) atop the mountains?
And so the valleys that were dug out became the oceans and the mountains became the land we live on?

The mountains were formed when the continental plates slammed into to each other....along with volcanos in some situations.

 

[JIM]

Why not trust his history as a witness who was there performing His will . "Let there be" and "he casts mountains out of the sea" .

Believer walk or understand the invisible things of God as it is written the living word of His faithfulness .

Not after the philosophies of men's oral traditons. The foundation of Paganism, atheists "Out of sight out of mind as in.. . . Who in there right mind would serve a God not seen . Cain murdered his brother buried him under Paganism .

God is Spirit he cant be found under a microscope or a telescope .He loving warns believers of that.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

The idea of a global flood is indeed through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men. It is neither biblical or scientific.

 

[CrowCross]

The Hebrew word "erets" according to strong's is:

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

There is no rational reason to translate the Hebrew word "erets" to mean the global earth other than a religious bias.

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

There's no reason to translate the Hebrew words "erets" to mean the global earth other than a religious bias.....Yep, God created a local earth.