Continued Discussion Rayskidude On Spong

[bornagainathiest]

First things first, Ray!

 

Geological "anomalies", Ray?

Like this? http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/arizona-grand-canyon-vista.jpg Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood?

Or this? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood... ...ON MARS!!!

So Mars is 6,000 years old too, just like good ole Earth? R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

BAA.

 

Was there a global Flood on Mars that rapidly and catastrophically laid down these nice, neat layered deposits of rock strata? If you compare like-with-like, there seems to have been.

 

BAA.

 

Look Ray, you can avoid replying about the Flood on Mars if you like - it's your call.

 

But, just so that we get things straight, if you start up a new thread in this forum, I'll just put the Mars question to you there and if you reply to any other thread, I'll just do the same. I drop in and check this site out several times a week, so it's not a problem for me to keep tabs on you.

 

So, as I said, it's your call. You either deal with it here, deal with it in another thread or don't deal with it at all - making your Feb 19 message the last one you ever make at Ex.christian.net. That last option will say a lot about you and your 'true' beliefs!

 

I mean, look on the bright side... ...the sooner you face up to it, the sooner it'll be over!

 

Have a better one.

 

BAA.

[rayskidude]

But - this is really a joke, isn't it. Gnosticism and Docetism as Christian - who put you up to this? What is Neon? Or bdp?

 

god, ray, you ARE a dumbass. I barely communicate with anyone here, and I certainly don't goad anyone or coach them about what to post. Independent thought is a lovely thing, you should look into it.

 

bdp, my main man, chill, bro - I'm jus playin wich y'all and havin fun. But it did seem like something u mite say.

 

And Job was a historical figure - most likely a contemporary of Abraham.

 

What is so hard to understand about this. Alot that JEDP stuff & OT source criticism has been abandoned for the past 2 decades, especially with the research of Brevard Childs at Yale and others who are focussing on canonical interpretation.

[rayskidude]

By the way, whatever happened to Ray? I haven't seen him posting in awhile.

 

Sorry - I have been AWOL - lots going on with out-of-town guests and my som getting married soon. And getting lots of error messages - but I think I finally solved that problem.

 

And another strike against Origen; he believed that the death of the Lord Jesus Christ paid Satan for the redemption of lost sinners - that, my friend, is bogus theology.

[rayskidude]

First things first, Ray!

 

Geological "anomalies", Ray?

Like this? http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/arizona-grand-canyon-vista.jpg Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood?

Or this? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood... ...ON MARS!!!

So Mars is 6,000 years old too, just like good ole Earth? R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

BAA.

 

Was there a global Flood on Mars that rapidly and catastrophically laid down these nice, neat layered deposits of rock strata? If you compare like-with-like, there seems to have been.

 

BAA.

 

Look Ray, you can avoid replying about the Flood on Mars if you like - it's your call.

 

But, just so that we get things straight, if you start up a new thread in this forum, I'll just put the Mars question to you there and if you reply to any other thread, I'll just do the same. I drop in and check this site out several times a week, so it's not a problem for me to keep tabs on you.

 

So, as I said, it's your call. You either deal with it here, deal with it in another thread or don't deal with it at all - making your Feb 19 message the last one you ever make at Ex.christian.net. That last option will say a lot about you and your 'true' beliefs!

 

I mean, look on the bright side... ...the sooner you face up to it, the sooner it'll be over!

 

Have a better one.

 

BAA.

I will look at the data you offered - give me a few days. Thnx for your patience,

[bdp]

Job is NOT historical - show me where there's any mention of 'Job' outside of the OT. Are the conversations between 'god' and 'Job' supposed to be historical too? And btw I don't need Brevard Childs - whatever that is - or anyone else, I do have a brain.

[bdp]

that, my friend, is bogus theology.

 

ALL theology is bogus.

[Shyone]

 

And Job was a historical figure - most likely a contemporary of Abraham.

Here's the "Sumerian Job" story: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/1700ludlul.html

 

In about1700 B.C. a Sumeian poem treats of a mysterious affliction which overtook a righteous man of Babylon, and has been compared with the book of Job:

 

35. What in one's heart is contemptible, to one's god is good!

Who can understand the thoughts of the gods in heaven?

The counsel of god is full of destruction; who can understand?

Where may human beings learn the ways of God?

He who lives at evening is dead in the morning;

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

And another strike against Origen; he believed that the death of the Lord Jesus Christ paid Satan for the redemption of lost sinners - that, my friend, is bogus theology.

You're contradicting yourself. You asked for an early church theologian who "spouted New Age thoughts." Whether you like it or not, Origen was an early church father and theologian who "spouted New Age thoughts." You can't turn around and say you want an early church theologian who believed in "New Age thoughts" while not believing in them. That's an impossible oxymoron. It's like asking us to name a square circle. You either want a "New Age" church theologian or not and Origen is one.

[oddbird1963]

 

 

 

And another strike against Origen; he believed that the death of the Lord Jesus Christ paid Satan for the redemption of lost sinners - that, my friend, is bogus theology.

You're contradicting yourself. You asked for an early church theologian who "spouted New Age thoughts." Whether you like it or not, Origen was an early church father and theologian who "spouted New Age thoughts." You can't turn around and say you want an early church theologian who believed in "New Age thoughts" while not believing in them. That's an impossible oxymoron. It's like asking us to name a square circle. You either want a "New Age" church theologian or not and Origen is one.

 

Plus, Rayskidude is claiming some sort of controlling interest in the name 'Christ,' 'Jesus Christ,' or 'Christian.' Like only more or less orthodox people get to say who is Christian or not. Origen obviously felt inspired by and devoted to faith in Christ, although that faith took a different form than modern fundamentalists approve of today.

 

To say that he was not Christian is arrogant and presumptuous.

[bdp]

Sorry I've been posting with such an attitude - I really don't want to be that way, and don't like myself when I am. My apologies, particularly to you Ray.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

To say that he was not Christian is arrogant and presumptuous.

It's also a smack in the face to Origen's impact on the early church as his teachings were a major impact in support of the Trinity during the debate over Arianism. He was accepted by the orthodox church when he was arguing on their side against Arianism but then when he was no longer needed, they kicked him out and branded him a heretic.

[bornagainathiest]

I will look at the data you offered - give me a few days. Thnx for your patience,

 

No problem Ray. You've got all the time in the world. Millennia, aeons and whole geological epochs and eras, in fact.

 

BAA.

[rayskidude]

Sorry I've been posting with such an attitude - I really don't want to be that way, and don't like myself when I am. My apologies, particularly to you Ray.

bdp - apology accepted, but really >> no problem, bro. Or as they say in Armenia - "hartschka, arpel"

 

I take all this as good-natured ribbing, trash-talkin, smack-talkin, locker room banter - and I enjoy it.

 

Sorry for my hiatus; my son's wedding, then out-of-town guests, then just lazy. So - my bad.

 

btw - I got Kentucky going all the way >> lookin good right now!

[rayskidude]

 

 

To say that he was not Christian is arrogant and presumptuous.

It's also a smack in the face to Origen's impact on the early church as his teachings were a major impact in support of the Trinity during the debate over Arianism. He was accepted by the orthodox church when he was arguing on their side against Arianism but then when he was no longer needed, they kicked him out and branded him a heretic.

Neon - keep in mind that oftentimes those who are now "Champions of the Faith" later turn out 2 b "not so much."

And the determination whether someone is in the Faith is not as arrogant & presumtuous, or difficult in certain situations. No one makes a judgment on the spiritual status of another without much prayer, conversation, consideration, and counsel. But judge we must - this as part fo the calling of church leaders.

 

Remember Jesus warned of wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

Look at Paul's admonition to church elders.

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

 

SO church leaders have the duty to protect the sheep from false teachers - which often arise from within its own ranks.

 

Read the Epistle of Jude to see this truth. So, yes, when a man preaches truth his preaching is appreciated and heeded - but when he preaches heresy >> well them, we must treat him as such. But only after seeking to restore him to the Faith.

 

2Th 3:14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

2Th 3:15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

 

2Ti 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

2Ti 2:16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,

2Ti 2:17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,

2Ti 2:18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.

2Ti 2:19 But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."

 

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,

Tit 3:11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

 

So, the teaching of Scripture is clear.

[rayskidude]

Job is NOT historical - show me where there's any mention of 'Job' outside of the OT. Are the conversations between 'god' and 'Job' supposed to be historical too? And btw I don't need Brevard Childs - whatever that is - or anyone else, I do have a brain.

 

Yes - good point, we all have brains and we should use them for critical thought. But that doesn't mean that we should not appreciate and learn from people who have a keen interest and much learning in a particular field. Why else attend the university and sit under professors - just get the textbook, read it oursleves. and give ourselves grades.

 

So, we humbly learn from others - they have acquired fluency in the ancient languages, studied first-hand the ancient cultures, understand well the principles of archeology >> as so we profit from their work. And as we read their writings we are OBLIGATED to apply critical thought to what they say.

 

But what do we do when the experts differ? That's where our own thought process must work through the interpretation of the data. And keep in mind - that some in academia "push the envelope" to new theories, in order to provoke more thought and analysis.

 

In that light - I read a variety of viewpoints - in part to see what they say and in part to solidify (through being challenged & moved to further study) my faith.

 

So now - I'm reading Bishop Spong and Fredrich Nietschze. But I must admit - that Nietschze's Superman is a rip-off of the Christian goal of eschewing the human sinful tendencies to become like Jesus. Nietschze says "loathe the man to become Superman. Just a variation on the Christian theme.

[rayskidude]

First things first, Ray!

 

Geological "anomalies", Ray?

Like this? http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/arizona-grand-canyon-vista.jpg Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood?

Or this? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood... ...ON MARS!!!

So Mars is 6,000 years old too, just like good ole Earth? R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

BAA.

 

Was there a global Flood on Mars that rapidly and catastrophically laid down these nice, neat layered deposits of rock strata? If you compare like-with-like, there seems to have been.

 

BAA.

 

Look Ray, you can avoid replying about the Flood on Mars if you like - it's your call.

 

BAA.

 

SO what's the point - that similar rock formations on differnet planets had the same causation? OK - I can agree to that, in principle. Are you saying that a stream of water slowly cut the formation we see on Mars? Where is this water today? How much water have we detected on Mars?

 

Re: the Grand Canyon - is it rational to say that a river cut this formation over billions of years? Or would cavitation be a more plausable explanation? Look north to Utah and see where a very large ancient body of water was once held back by mountains - and yet aerial views expose a scablands similar to Washington's >> and it seems as though a large volume of water travelling at extremely high speeds could "dig out" the GC in a matter of months.

 

This was shown in AZ, when they released flood waters behind the Hoover Dam years ago, and they soon saw "red water" jetting out of the underground tunnels. Later analysis showed that the water had chewed thru the concrete walls into the surrounding rock by cavitation.

 

So cavitation vs uniformitarianism; I'll go with the cavitation model. Makes more sense and is consistent with what we have actually seen. Has anyone seen a river chisel out a canyon over even thousands of years? Have we seen this phenomenon with the Nile, Mississippi, Ganges, Yellow, Amazon or them big honking rivers in Russia?

 

But we've seen large amounts of rushing water hew out deep gorges on Mt St Helens in a couple of decades.

 

Also, re: age of solar system; from what you know about the Roche Limit, how long do you think the Earth-Moon binary system has existed?

[rayskidude]

that, my friend, is bogus theology.

 

ALL theology is bogus.

 

OK - I can't remember where I left off, but let's pick it up in BS chap 4 - Formation of the Sacred Story. Re: the JEPD theory >> this aspect of "Source Criticism" has been largely abandoned lately by further scholarship, mainly by Dr Brevard Childs of Yale, et al. There's the "Law of the Disappearing Redactor" >> because study has shown that the OT is woven together so well > we can't find any evidence of any redactor. The OT is an amazing whole. Liberal scholarship has lately focussed on "canonical interpretation" of the OT text, because they concluded it's best to take the OT as presented by the Jewish people.

 

So the whole JEPD thing has fallen into disrepute of late. BS should get his tuition back form whatever backwater seminary he attended.

 

BS says the writers of Scripture had nothing beyond the spoken word & memory >> I've addressed the memory issues already - but he's dead wrong. Has BS not heard of the stone pillar of Hammurabi which contained his famous laws? Is BS unaware that much was chiselled into or painted onto palace and temple walls, tablets of stones, etc.

 

Abraham lived about 2000BC - and we have evidence of script and writings from that time. Moses wrote about 1450BC - by which time writing was unbiquitous. I cannot for the life of me figure out how BS can make this statement!

 

Gotta go - I'll b more consistent now.

[Neon Genesis]

Keep in mind that Spong's book was written in the early 90s, so some of his scholarship might not be up-to-date, but the basic theories are still sound as far as I'm aware. It's true there have been challenges to the JEPD theory by secular scholars, but it's not because they've suddenly seen the light and have found proof the OT is historically accurate. As far as I'm aware, the theory being proposed now is that there's actually more than four documents behind the OT, not less as you seem to be arguing. And what evidence has been uncovered that has proven the existence of a historical Moses? I thought archeologists determined from their studies in Egypt that there most likely was no historical Moses and the whole story of Moses leading the people out of Egypt was a myth?

[Mriana]

Keep in mind that Spong's book was written in the early 90s, so some of his scholarship might not be up-to-date, but the basic theories are still sound as far as I'm aware. It's true there have been challenges to the JEPD theory by secular scholars, but it's not because they've suddenly seen the light and have found proof the OT is historically accurate. As far as I'm aware, the theory being proposed now is that there's actually more than four documents behind the OT, not less as you seem to be arguing. And what evidence has been uncovered that has proven the existence of a historical Moses? I thought archeologists determined from their studies in Egypt that there most likely was no historical Moses and the whole story of Moses leading the people out of Egypt was a myth?

 

IMO, when it comes to religion, nothing is necessarily out of date. We do get more information, but I really don't see anything concerning religion out of date, regardless of what some people may say. Unlike science, religion doesn't change. Mythology is still mythology, even if it is the same tune different words.

[bornagainathiest]

First things first, Ray!

 

Geological "anomalies", Ray?

Like this? http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/arizona-grand-canyon-vista.jpg Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood?

Or this? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20091215.html Where the nice, neat layered deposits indicate that these rock strata were rapidly and catastrophically laid down by the waters of the global Genesis Flood... ...ON MARS!!!

So Mars is 6,000 years old too, just like good ole Earth? R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

BAA.

 

Was there a global Flood on Mars that rapidly and catastrophically laid down these nice, neat layered deposits of rock strata? If you compare like-with-like, there seems to have been.

 

BAA.

 

Look Ray, you can avoid replying about the Flood on Mars if you like - it's your call.

 

BAA.

 

SO what's the point - that similar rock formations on differnet planets had the same causation? OK - I can agree to that, in principle. Are you saying that a stream of water slowly cut the formation we see on Mars?

 

No. I'm saying that unless you want to invoke a new reason for similar rock formations on Mars (which would not be scientifically parsimonious) and if you're saying that similar rock formations on Earth were solely due to Noah's Flood, then God must have wished to destroy the wicked Martians that lived there. Remember Genesis 6: 1-7? That was the reason for the Flood on Earth that you say caused the Grand Canyon formations.

 

My point here is that, using your theology, we are comparing like-with-like. If a global Flood made the grand Canyon then a global Flood must have made the Martian canyon. That is your line of argument and it leads to the inevitable conclusion that Mars is no older than the Earth (6,000 years) and was also flooded-to-the-tops-of-the-highest-mountains, just like this planet. Given that the highest Martian mountain, Olympus Mons, is three times higher then Mount Everest, that's a LOT of water.

Yet, if you say, 'that's how Grand canyon was made', then this same mechanism must apply on Mars to account for these similar features. Otherwise you have to invoke new mechanisms - which would be what, Ray?

Where is this water today? How much water have we detected on Mars?

Irrelevant. The onus is on you to account for this Martian canyon using your catastrophic-canyon-creation mechanism. The Grand Canyon forces your hand. If you say, this formation was made by a catastrophic flood and Mars can be no more than 6,000 years old, then what option do you have? The Martian canyon must have been made in the same way. This then prompts the question, why? Wicked Martians destroyed by God, Ray?

Re: the Grand Canyon - is it rational to say that a river cut this formation over billions of years?

Yes. It is rational. Rational, because the time frame of billions of years integrates with other, totally separate but equally valid branches of science. Astronomy. Geology. Oceanography. Physics. Paleontology. Oh and Petrology too!

Anyway, your question carries with a sting in the tail. Even if a river cut that formation within a Genesis timeframe of just a few hundred days, how long did it take to lay down all those layers beforehand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area

To disagree with what's said here, you've now got to dispute the basic methods of formation for all these different kinds of rock. You've got to say that the Schist and Gneiss weren't laid down first as sedimentary rocks, then slowly metamorphosed thru heat and pressure into their currently observable forms. You've got to make them in 6 millennia. You've also got to say that about the diverse range of environments (desert for sandstones, shallow freshwater for limestones, etc., all the way down thru the geologic column, era upon era, ice age after ice age, accounting for everything) that went to make these rock layers. So it's all wrong. Not just the rapid formation mechanism of the canyon itself, but all of it.

 

For Genesis to be factual and real you've got to squish everything down into a 6,000 year time frame, accounting for the following:

* The primary mechanism of rock formation for all the layers, none of which can be achieved within 6,000 years.

* The many different types of environment needed to create the many different types of rocks. Deep ocean, desert, shallow freshwater lake and sea shore have change places with each other to occupy the same land area in just a few thousand years.

* The fossil-containing layers need to have been muds or sands at the time of the animals death, then solidified in hard rocks, before the waters of the so-called Flood carved the Canyon. Simply saying that these creatures died and were swept to their resting places by the Flood is an unworkable mechanism.

* Different layers contain different sized pebbles, sorted by the waters of the ancient environment they were created in and then laid down, to be covered by newer layers. Several different cycles of these processes can be seen in the canyon walls. A single, catastrophic Flood event, lasting only a few hundred days could not neatly sort and grade these pebbles, place them into layers vertically spaced hundreds of feet (and millions of years) apart, solidify the rock around them and then remove billions of tons of rock to from the canyon. That is asking too much of a single, short-lived, catastrophic event.

 

Or would cavitation be a more plausable explanation? Look north to Utah and see where a very large ancient body of water was once held back by mountains - and yet aerial views expose a scablands similar to Washington's >> and it seems as though a large volume of water travelling at extremely high speeds could "dig out" the GC in a matter of months.

This was shown in AZ, when they released flood waters behind the Hoover Dam years ago, and they soon saw "red water" jetting out of the underground tunnels. Later analysis showed that the water had chewed thru the concrete walls into the surrounding rock by cavitation.

So cavitation vs uniformitarianism; I'll go with the cavitation model. Makes more sense and is consistent with what we have actually seen. Has anyone seen a river chisel out a canyon over even thousands of years? Have we seen this phenomenon with the Nile, Mississippi, Ganges, Yellow, Amazon or them big honking rivers in Russia?

But we've seen large amounts of rushing water hew out deep gorges on Mt St Helens in a couple of decades.

 

I'll answer all of the above in two words - punctuated equilibrium.

You're deliberately presenting this as an either-or argument when you know full well that it isn't. You're saying that either catastrophic mechanisms made certain features or gradualistic ones did. Then you point to examples of catastrophically produced features and say, 'There! See! It couldn't have been formed over a long period of time.' But this is not an either-or argument.

 

For example, a volcano is a perfect working example of punctuated equilibrium in action over two complementary time scales - the brief and catastrophic and the long and gradual. The gradual growth of the volcano into a mountain peak thousands of feet high and occupying many square miles takes place over many millions of years. Yet, during that period, there will be many short-lived, violent episodes of volcanic activity. Yes, they will catastrophically alter their immediate environments, just as Mt. St. Helens laid waste huge areas. But that mountain is on the rise again. It will rebuild itself over millions of years until the next catastrophic eruption decapitates it. This has happened many, many times in the past and will happen again many more time in the future. Core samples from surrounding areas show long periods of quiescence, interrupted by brief moments of extreme volcanic violence. Punctuated equilibrium. And not just in Washington, all over the world.

 

Btw, these deep gorges formed over a couple of decades. Guess what they were carved out of? Solid rock that was laid down millions of years ago? Nope. Loosely compacted deposits that were recently erupted from the mountain. In other words, material that could be easily eroded by rushing waters and not resistant rock that couldn't be. Sorry Ray! That's cheating. You are not comparing like-with-like.

The Grand Canyon and it's Martian equivalent have walls made of solid, billion year old rock. The gorges on the flanks of Mt. St. Helens have easily, eroded walls of light, loosely bound volcanic material.

Please use valid examples!

 

Also, re: age of solar system; from what you know about the Roche Limit, how long do you think the Earth-Moon binary system has existed?

Why do we need to debate this? What has this got to do with a Flood on Mars? Please stay focused on topic.

Thanks.

 

BAA.

[rayskidude]

Keep in mind that Spong's book was written in the early 90s, so some of his scholarship might not be up-to-date, but the basic theories are still sound as far as I'm aware. It's true there have been challenges to the JEPD theory by secular scholars, but it's not because they've suddenly seen the light and have found proof the OT is historically accurate. As far as I'm aware, the theory being proposed now is that there's actually more than four documents behind the OT, not less as you seem to be arguing. And what evidence has been uncovered that has proven the existence of a historical Moses? I thought archeologists determined from their studies in Egypt that there most likely was no historical Moses and the whole story of Moses leading the people out of Egypt was a myth?

 

Yes - BS has a 1991 copyright; but the works I cited were referring to data from 1960 - 1993. And yes - many other "authors" have been proposed >> and yet Yale scholar Brevard Childs as early as 1970 stated that scholars should adhere to historical revelation, uniqueness of Israel's religion, and the value of the fixed, authoritative, and revealed Scriptures >> as received by the Jews.

 

And R.K. Harrison in 1969 published a large volume that contained a reasoned critique of the so-called "critical scholarship." And Robert Dick Wilson of the Princeton Seminary published "A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament" in 1959 - which was replete with evidence from Hebrew transcripts, and he showed the likeness of the OT to laws of Hammurabi (200BC) and the Annals of Tahumetes III and the maxims of Ptah-hotep (3000BC). Now the Bible states that Moses was educated in the ways of the Egyptians - so we would expect Mosiac authorship to parallel anciet Egyptian forms. But the writings of later "redactors" would not.

[Shyone]

Now the Bible states that Moses was educated in the ways of the Egyptians - so we would expect Mosiac authorship to parallel anciet Egyptian forms. But the writings of later "redactors" would not.

I'm coming late into this thread, and my point may be a non-sequitur, but I thought that most of the Judeo-Christian theists claim that the laws came from God. If Moses, using his superior education and knowledge of surrounding cultures devised a system of law himself, then what's the deal about "And the Lord Said"?

 

Just a load of crap to justify absolute authority over the Hebrews?

 

It worked for him, and it worked for the Catholic Church.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude says >>> SO what's the point - that similar rock formations on differnet planets had the same causation? OK - I can agree to that, in principle. Are you saying that a stream of water slowly cut the formation we see on Mars?

 

No. I'm saying that unless you want to invoke a new reason for similar rock formations on Mars (which would not be scientifically parsimonious) and if you're saying that similar rock formations on Earth were solely due to Noah's Flood, then... using your theology, we are comparing like-with-like. If a global Flood made the grand Canyon then a global Flood must have made the Martian canyon. That is your line of argument and it leads to the inevitable conclusion that Mars is no older than the Earth (6,000 years) and was also flooded-to-the-tops-of-the-highest-mountains, just like this planet. Given that the highest Martian mountain, Olympus Mons, is three times higher then Mount Everest, that's a LOT of water.

 

But then what are you saying? And the Bible does not say the high mountain ranges existed prior to the Flood - in fact many Creationists would say that the plate tectonics that formed the Rockies, Andes, Himalayas, etc were formed in Gen 10:25, four generations after Noah's return to land. Peleg was named as the land was split in his lifetime - possibly the split of Pangaea (?) into the seven continents.

 

But again, if you say the Martian canyon was made as was the GC - then where is the water? Because I never said they were made in the same manner.

 

Re: the Grand Canyon - is it rational to say that a river cut this formation over billions of years?

 

Yes. It is rational. Rational, because the time frame of billions of years integrates with other, totally separate but equally valid branches of science. Astronomy. Geology. Oceanography. Physics. Paleontology. Oh and Petrology too!

 

But you cannot point to one example that we have witnessed - I named several huge rivers with massive water flow - and yet we see no carving deep into the earth's crust.

 

For Genesis to be factual and real you've got to squish everything down into a 6,000 year time frame, accounting for the following:

 

All the instances you cite are from opinions - nothing proven.

 

Or would cavitation be a more plausable explanation? Look north to Utah and see where a very large ancient body of water was once held back by mountains - and yet aerial views expose a scablands similar to Washington's >> and it seems as though a large volume of water travelling at extremely high speeds could "dig out" the GC in a matter of months.

This was shown in AZ, when they released flood waters behind the Hoover Dam years ago, and they soon saw "red water" jetting out of the underground tunnels. Later analysis showed that the water had chewed thru the concrete walls into the surrounding rock by cavitation.

So cavitation vs uniformitarianism; I'll go with the cavitation model.

 

You did not address this issue of cavitation. But the dam may have been the Roosevelt Dam; regardless, we have empirical data as to how cavitation can dig out tons of crust in mere minutes. You cannot show anything close to this with the uniformitarian model to form the GC.

 

I'll answer all of the above in two words - punctuated equilibrium.

You're deliberately presenting this as an either-or argument when you know full well that it isn't... For example, a volcano is a perfect working example of punctuated equilibrium in action over two complementary time scales - the brief and catastrophic and the long and gradual. The gradual growth of the volcano into a mountain peak thousands of feet high and occupying many square miles takes place over many millions of years.

 

What is the data proving that volcano growth requires millions of years?

 

Also, re: age of solar system; from what you know about the Roche Limit, how long do you think the Earth-Moon binary system has existed?

Why do we need to debate this? What has this got to do with a Flood on Mars? Please stay focused on topic.

 

This question goes to your proposed timescale of billions of years - so please answer this question.

www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

 

Rayskidude

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Yes - BS has a 1991 copyright; but the works I cited were referring to data from 1960 - 1993. And yes - many other "authors" have been proposed >> and yet Yale scholar Brevard Childs as early as 1970 stated that scholars should adhere to historical revelation, uniqueness of Israel's religion, and the value of the fixed, authoritative, and revealed Scriptures >> as received by the Jews.

So you're saying true scholars should start with the presumption they're the only ones right and try to make the evidence fit their conclusions rather than working from the evidence to discover the conclusion? In other words, only fundamentalist scholars with "true" faith are trust worthy and everyone else is a liar?

[rayskidude]

Now the Bible states that Moses was educated in the ways of the Egyptians - so we would expect Mosiac authorship to parallel anciet Egyptian forms. But the writings of later "redactors" would not.

I'm coming late into this thread, and my point may be a non-sequitur, but I thought that most of the Judeo-Christian theists claim that the laws came from God. If Moses, using his superior education and knowledge of surrounding cultures devised a system of law himself, then what's the deal about "And the Lord Said"?

 

Just a load of crap to justify absolute authority over the Hebrews?

 

It worked for him, and it worked for the Catholic Church.

 

We're discuusing the JEPD theory for the OT writings - and some say Moses never existed. God used human authors to record His supernatural revelation - God used their personalities, education, culture, etc >>> everyone acknowledges this fact.