DISCUSSION FORUMS
MAIN MENU
Home
Help
Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
Community
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
Shop
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
Read
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
Connect
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
Graphics
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
Webmasters
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

ChristiansUnite
Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 10:14:16 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
286776 Posts in 27568 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Theology / Bible Study / Some Observations on The Noadic Flood on: June 02, 2005, 02:54:22 PM
Some Observations.

1. If the Noadic flood was confined to a particular region in
Mesopotamia, and was in fact a local flood as physicist Gerhard Schroeder (Jewish) and astronomer Hugh Ross (Christian) state, why is there such emphasis on universal words in the account found in Genesis 6-7?
"For my part I mean to bring a flood, and send the waters over the earth, to destroy all flesh on it, every living creature under heaven; everything on the earth shall perish." Genesis 6:17
"For in seven days I mean to make it rain on the earth for forty days and nights, and I will rid the earth of every living thing that I made." Genesis 7:5
"The waters swelled and rose greatly on the earth and the ark sailed on the waters. The waters rose more and more on the earth so that all the highest mountains under the whole of heaven were submerged. The waters rose fifteen cubits higher, submerging the mountains. And so all things of flesh perished that moved on earth, birds, cattle, wild beasts, everything that swarms on earth, and every man. Everything with the breath of life in its nostrils died, everything on dry land. Yahweh destroyed every living thing on the face of the
earth, man and animals, reptiles and the birds of heaven. He rid the earth of them, so that only Noah was left, and those with him on the ark." Genesis 7:17-24

Since universal words can be used in localized settings (Genesis 41:56, I Kings 10:24) it must be stressed that the context allows the reader to discern. However, the repetition of the universal words found in the Noadic account is a way of emphasizing the desired details. The author's intention is clear.
2. Why was the Ark so big? If the flood was local a much
smaller boat could have been built to accommodate the Mesopotamian animals and Noah's Family?
The boat was 300 cubits in length, 50 in width, and 30 cubits high. That is 450 feet by 75 by 45. The Gilgamesh Epic places the Ark as a perfect cube of 120 cubits (180 feet) in each direction. This Ark would simply slowly spin around and around. Given the Genesis account of the dimension, the
Genesis account is a picture of objectivity and rationality. (More details if requested).
Critics however, have a field day with the Ark.
a. The Global Flood Would Have Destroyed the Ark
Actually this is not the case. It has been noted that the following method would have been used to construct the Ark. As was common among ancient boat-building, one piece of wood would have thick projections that would fit
into sockets drilled into another piece of wood, forming a strong joint. This would have prevented the leaking and bending that some have speculated would have caused such a boat's destruction. Time was the greatest hindrance to such a manner of building and because of this, the method was eventually abandoned, but as Noah may have had up to 120 years to build the Ark (Genesis 6:3) time was not a factor.
Second the greatest hindrance for wooden ships was their masts. The Ark was neither designed for speed or mobility, but simply to float, thus it would have had no need for a mast.
b. Animals
Animals from cold adapted life can (and do) adapt to warm
temperatures when placed in warmer temperatures. (Think Zoos). Animals like the kangaroo, only found today in Australia, would have lived on the same continent where the Ark was built, and would have only traveled to Australia, and would have only been confined to Australia when a
massive land bridge (that we have an abundance of
evidence for) connected Asia to Australia in the earliest part of the post-Flood period.
c. The care of Animals
We are looking at approximately 8000 pairs of land animals. However, it is entirely possible through non miraculous means for eight people to feed, water and remove waste from 16 000 animals and still have plenty of time for other tasks.
Also, other like Dr. Whitcomb suggest that God supernaturally imposed a year long hibernation on the animals, where the animals bodily functions would have been reduced to a minimum. He, and others, defend this by the following points
-God supernaturally controlled the bodily functions of these
animals in order to bring them to the Ark, so why not while they were on the Ark?
-there was no reproduction of the Ark for it was built to
accommodate pairs
-taking food on board does not rule out hibernation for
contrary to popular belief hibernating animals do still need food
occasionally
However, the hibernation question is not one we should be dogmatic about. It is merely proposed by one expert to meet the question of how all the animals were cared for. Yet based on manpower studies, hibernation is not required, for such studies preformed by Dr. Woodmorappe show that the care of all the animals is quite attainable.

3. If the flood was merely a localized one, perhaps even in an
area able to contain a larger than expected degree of water, given that Noah had up to 120 years before the Flood came, why not journey to the other side of a mountain range where the water would have apparently not reached, rather than build an ark?

4. If the Flood was local rather than global, why collect 2 of
every winged animal for this unnecessary Ark, when they could merely have flew out of danger? Why collect 2 of every land animal? The obvious answer is to allow them to avoid extinction but if the flood was local then these types of animals who would not have been confined to a particular Mesopotamian region would not have faced extinction.

In conclusion, I would like to compare this question to that of Old Testament authorship that I have spent a great deal of time studying. When for the longest period of time, one particular belief was held, and then it is suddenly abandoned, we must not simply jump ship, but seek to understand why a change in though has taken place. Philosophical presuppositions that inform us that the miraculous does
not occur is what promoted Higher Critics to propose new authorship theories for Books such as Isaiah and Daniel, whereby a later date is
given to the composition of the Book so as to convert prophetic
claims into simply a recording of current events. Higher Critical
theories dominate academic centers of learning, and while the
presuppositions are facing a backlash, the theories that were
promoted because of them are almost accepted as 'Dogma.' Similarly most believers believe that God is capable of the Flood credited to him in Genesis, but because of certain presuppositions that first caused individuals to deny the global flood, many simply deny the literalness of the story.
We also feel that because Science does not speak of a Global flood, it must be local. It is not always safe to interpret our Bible based on what Science does not have evidence for. Also, many scientists do provide evidence for a Global flood, which we can detail further. 'The Genesis Flood,' written by scientists Herny Morris and John Whitcomb actually established the creation science movement, and forty years later, individuals from Answers and Genesis, or The Institute for Creation Science, all qualified scientists with recognized credentials still defend the Global nature of a Flood that
took place approximately 4500 years ago. (Created in 1997, the Kolbe Center, which claims to 'Defend Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perpsective, also defend the Global nature of the Noadic Flood).
KJN
2  Theology / Bible Study / The Use of Divine Names in the Creation Stories on: April 21, 2005, 10:49:15 PM
Many Biblical scholars believe that the first two Creation stories found in the first two chapters of Genesis were written centuries apart. Many Biblical translations (including my favorites, the Jerusalem and NAB versions) both include such views in the written introductions to the book of Genesis. Yet the belief is not merely stated, but it is often presented as factual.

I would like to deal with one major theological reason why scholars believe that the two Genesis stories were written generations apart. The concept I will address is the issue surrounding the usage of Divine names, and why I believe that the more recent understanding of such terms is mistaken.

When describing the Creator, Genesis 1 refers to Him as Elohim which simply is the word for God. The story found in Genesis 2 uses the name YHWH. All believers accept that both terms refer to the same individual, but some scholars believe that since a single author would have used the same term, then Genesis must have been written by more than one author. To this the great Hebrew scholar Umberto Cassuto responded, “The designation of Elohim was originally a common noun that was applied to the One God of Israel and to the heathen gods.” (Documentary Hypothesis, 18). Describing the meaning of YHWH, Cassuto would reply, “The name YHWH is a proper noun, the specific name of Israel’s God…” (Documentary Hypothesis, 18). Do we recognize the distinction? Elohim simply means God (and has in the past meant ‘god’) while YHWH is one nation’s name for Elohim.

For a long time, the form of criticism that allows for multiple authorship of the Torah relied solely on the difference in the Divine names that are given. But rather than we merely assuming multiple authorship, it must first be asked why different words are used to describe the same supernatural Being? The answer is that YHWH is named when the author intends to present God as a personal character who has relationships with His people. We see the name used specifically where the Hebrew nation is involved, because certain parts of the Bible were written entirely to them. Elohim, the word ‘God’, has a more universal outlook and purpose. Elohim is the Transcendent Being, the All-Powerful One, who rules above the entire universe, rather than just over one particular nation.

If such a description of each term is appropriate then we could almost predict in advance whether a particular book would use Elohim or YHWH. Sure enough, the books of prophecy always use the name YHWH. This is because it is the people of Israel that are being commanded to turn from their sinful ways. The prophecy is connected and intended for Israel so the universal Elohim would be less appropriate than the given name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, YHWH. The only exception is the Book of Jonah, but this need not bother us for Jonah is an exception in several other categories as well, the most obvious being that it is the only Book of prophecy that is a narrative. It should also be mentioned that the latter part of Isaiah has the term `El' being used. Looking to the Law, we find that YHWH is also used through out the entire set of commands. The reason again is that the Law was given to the Israelites rather than another culture such as the Moabites. In the Wisdom literature that includes Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and many of the later Psalms, Elohim is used. This is because these books are not just for the Israelites but have a general outlook that would include all peoples. Hence the general, universal term is being used. Much of the others narratives use both Elohim and YHWH, depending on the particular situation.

Genesis 1 uses Elohim. This is because Elohim is presented as creating all with the mere words, ‘Let there be…’ Power is the obvious attribute of God in this story, for Elohim creates and rules over all. There is nothing wrong with this, for it is true. But it leads us to Chapter 2. Here Elohim, whose name is YHWH, shows a concern about the people. The bulk of this second creation story is concerned primarily with YHWH relationship with the humans that he has created. Genesis 2 shows Elohim not merely as the Powerful One, but also always refers to Him by His name YHWH and shows that he has concern for His people. I believe that the stories compliment each other, but I will submit more on this issue another time.

The primary purpose here is to encourage all who read their Bible, that when they see different names for the same supernatural being used, it is not to be assumed that this is a case of multiple authorship (particularly in the Torah) but rather one should ask what purpose the author had in referring to the same Being by different terms.

KJN
3  Theology / Prophecy - Current Events / Re:Will the Pope go to Heaven? on: April 03, 2005, 10:39:30 PM
Some quotes from John Paul II:

"THE REDEEMER OF MAN, Jesus Christ, is the centre of the universe and of history. To him go my thoughts and my heart in this solemn moment of the world that the Church and the whole family of present-day humanity are now living..." Redemptor Hominis, 1979

"The Resurrection of Jesus is the fundamental event upon which Christian faith rests..." "Dies Domini", 1998

"...the Redemption was accomplished through the Cross of Christ, that is, through his suffering...This is the love of the Redeemer: a love that flows from all the human and divine depths of the Redemption. This love reflects the eternal love of the Father, who "so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." The Son, invested with that love, accepted the mission from the Father in the Holy Spirit and became the Redeemer of the world"Redemptionis Donum", 1984

Though some may disagree with certain teaching the Pope propogated, it is clear that he had a real, living faith in the One who died for him.  John Paul II works only make this faith all the more real and powerful, and show us that we too need to look beyond mere accaptnace of gifts, and attempt to help others with them.  We have two commands: Love God, and Love your neighbor.  John Paul did both.

kjn
4  Theology / Bible Study / Re:Jonah on: April 02, 2005, 12:12:02 AM
You state that "science and faith do not mix well," but that is only becuase the majority of scientists that we hear criticizing that which is found in the Sacred Writings, presuppose that the supernatural either does not occur, or does not exist.  From such a presupposition, there are bound to be problems.

With regards to Yahweh being used as a name for one of the Canannite gods, I think this is mistaken.  Some of the Caananite gods include Baal, Asherah, both of whom we read about in the Book of the Kings.  What you may be thinking of is the Caananite creator-god who was named El.  The God of the Bible, is, on occasion, referred to as El Shaddai.  Perhaps this was what you were thinking of.  While there appears to be very little similarity between Yahweh and Jehovah, this is only because German translators, mispronunced the Hebrew "Yhwh,"  the name for God (the Tetragrammaton).  German translators placed a 'J' instead of a 'Y' and created the word 'Jahveh.' Jehovah is simply another form of the name Yahwheh.

Finally, the Bible that I was quoting from when I wrote the Jonah piece, was the Jerusalem Bible.

kjn
5  Theology / Prophecy - Current Events / Re:Will the Pope go to Heaven? on: April 01, 2005, 10:52:32 PM
Will the Pope Go to heaven?

Two thousand years ago Jesus in dying and rising, allowed for the possibility of any individual to go to heaven.  John Paul II has always maintained the necessity of such an action in order to go to heaven.  While this web-site does not discuss Catholic/Protestant differences, it has allways been the mark of orthodoxy that those willing to identify themselves as Christians acknowledge the necessity of the sacrifice of Jesus.
However, just because Jesus made it possible for all to enter heaven, that does not mean all will.  In fact Christ said that the road to heaven was less travelled.  In the end, if a man relies on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as the Pope claims to, all that is left for observers is to either believe or disbelieve.  We may consider Christ's statements about knowing individuals by the fruits of their labours.  The Pope has done a great many impressive things, and has promoted his version of Christianity all over the world.  He has given hope to the oppressed, and defended the voiceless.  Christ said that whatever we do to the least of his brothers, that we do to him.  I believe this will work strongly in the Pope's favor.
Though many may call into question certain teachings the Pope has promoted, in the end it is grace through faith that saves, and only God can fully know the faith that comes from the heart.  To those familiar with the Pope's life,  the majority would insist on the deep faith of this man.  I would also, and am absolutely convinced that when he dies he will enter heaven.
"This evening or this night, Christ opens the door to the pope," a most faithful servant.

kjn
6  Theology / Bible Study / Re:Jonah on: April 01, 2005, 10:05:08 PM
Actually most amateur critics would at least maintain that the Bible is God's word.  Just because they interpret parts figuratively or allegorically, that does not mean they deny its inspiration.  At issue is interpretation.  We have those who defend the Bible's historicity (as I do) and those who merely believe parts are allegorical.  Science should not be a factor, but often scientific trends to determine how we interpret the Bible.  This is a problem, for as science changes, our interpretations are forced to also, and sometimes this causes an individual to lose faith in the Bible.
Yahweh (YHWH) is the proper name used for God in the Old Testament.  It is most commonly translated into English as 'Lord' or 'Lord God.'  Read the Creation stories.  You will notice that the first one refers to God as 'God' while the second refers to Him as 'Lord,' or 'Lord God.'  Yahweh and Jehovah are the same name, so perhaps you are more familiar with Jehovah.  In any event it is not crucial to the topic, but now you know.
kjn
7  Theology / Bible Study / Jonah on: April 01, 2005, 12:16:24 AM
Upon the emergence of Higher Criticism, many Old Testament Books, previously held to as factual, began to have their history questioned, and shortly after this, rejected. Now because of the literary style, and out of the ordinary events that take place, Jonah was quickly rejected, and critics stated that rather than a being a historical document, the Book of Jonah is a mere story seeking to communicate a particular message.

Higher critics tend to have a distinct bias that rejects all supernatural occurrences. Yet to one who is open to what we may call miracles, the Book of Jonah, and its historicity is not hard to accept.

Jonah is no mere parable. He is spoken of in the historical masterpiece 'Kings.' 2 Kings 14:25 states '...Yahweh, the God of Israel, had spoken through his servant Jonah, son of Amittai...' This is the same Jonah that we read about in the Book bearing his name. Jonah 1:1 begins, 'The word of Yahweh was addressed to Jonah, son of Amittai...' We may not question the historical nature of his prophetic book (Jonah), without also questioning the prophetic account, given in the historical Book (Kings).

The testimony of Jesus also powerfully favors Jonah's historicity. Matthew 12:41-42 states, "Some of the scribes and Pharisees spoke, 'Master, we should like to see a sign from you.' Jesus replied, '...The only sign that you will be given is the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was in the belly of a sea monster for three days and three nights (He is directly quoting Jonah 2:1 here) so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. Yet on judgment day the men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation and condemn it, because when Jonah preached they repented.'"

The Pharisees were asking Jesus for a miracle to prove his authority. He cites Jonah, who for three days was in a sea monsters belly. When Jonah got his act together, he marched into the capital city of Israel's archenemy and preached `Only forty more days and Nineveh will be destroyed. And the people of Nineveh believed in God.' (Jonah 3:4-5). Yet, Jesus would die, be buried and then rise from the dead (a sign that would verify his claims) and these same skeptics still would not accept him. That is why he said that the people of Nineveh would judge them.

We believe that God will one day judge all, but that he is just and yet merciful. If the Book of Jonah is a mere parable, then Jonah did not preach to Nineveh and they did not repent. Besides severely undermining Jesus' authority, if the people of Nineveh would still condemn the Pharisees it would be most unjust and unfair. These are two terms that I do not associate with God. Hence I must conclude, and would encourage you also to promote the belief, that Jonah was
historical.

(Archeological evidence may also favor Jonah. A grave was found in Northern Israel, placed there for the prophet Jonah. Also ancient coins have been found with inscriptions of a man coming out of a fish's mouth. I do not include either as evidence, because I cannot find their source, and they pale in comparison to the Biblical evidence favoring Jonah)

kjn
8  Fellowship / You name it!! / The fate of Ms. Terri Schiavo on: March 28, 2005, 08:32:31 PM
As Ms. Schiavo left no will, I think the issue boils down not
to who has the legal right to make a decision surrounding the status of her life, but who has the moral right. The issue boils down to a question of motives with the parents of Ms. Schiavo, Bob and Mary Schindler pitted against the husband of Ms. Schiavo, Mr. Michael Schiavo.

The parent's motive is relatively simple: They want their
daughter to live, and she would if the feeding tube, not exactly considered an extraordinary method of sustaining life, were reinserted. Dr. William Cheshire of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville states that Ms. Schiavo's face brightens and that she smiles in response to the voices of familiar people like her parents, and because of this and other responses that demonstrate what Dr. Cheshire refers to as a 'minimally conscious state,' the parents have not abandoned hope. Hope can be naively placed but what is at question is individuals motives and not the realistic nature of their desires. Their motive, if rightly identified seems noble, and even those in support of Mr. Schiavo do not question the sincerity of Mr. and Mrs. Schindler's desire to see their daughter live.

Combined with their hope, is the case of Ms. Kate Adamson who has launched a campaign to save Ms. Schiavo. What makes Ms. Adamson special is that when she was younger she suffered a catastrophic brain stem stroke and was dependant on a feeding tube fore nourishment. Eventually she had her feeding tube removed. She knows what it is like to be starved. Ms. Adamson's story has given hope to those close to Ms. Schiavo, and has recently given rise among the common public to the demand that Ms. Schiavo be given a chance to live.

Mr. Schiavo wants the feeding tube of his wife removed. As food is necessary for life, and as the feeding tube facilitates this, its removal will result in her death. His motives are more difficult to discern. Some suggest that he beat or attempted to strangle his wife, which resulted in her state, and that he fears that a fully conscious Ms. Schiavo will confirm such accusations. While the bone scan taken in 1991 is not inconsistent with that which would result from a severe beating, others feel that it is as consistent with bulimia, a fall, and the CPR given by paramedics. That there is uncertainty is worthy to note. Working in Mr. Schiavo's favor is that it seems unlikely that he would cause her to collapse, and then initiate a lawsuit against someone else for her collapse, thereby opening the case up to a serious and detailed inquiry.
Mr. Schiavo won this malpractice suit and recovered
approximately $ 700 000 for the care of Ms. Schiavo and another $ 300 000 for himself. A relatively unreported detail in this well documented story is that Mr. Schiavo has romantically engaged himself to another woman who has conceived by him two children. If Mr. Schiavo were to divorce Ms. Schiavo, then upon her death the money would go to her parents and not to him. It is important to remember that while Ms. Adamson's husband was campaigning to preserve his wife's life, Mr. Schiavo has been unfaithful and produced two children by his 'fiancé' all the while identifying himself as Ms. Schiavo's 'loving' and 'grieving' husband, remaining married to her so as to cash in on a nice inheritance, and insisting on the feeding tube's removal so as to speed up that process. I realize that such an analysis calls into question the goodness of his character, but it seems that the conclusions drawn from these speculations are unavoidable and the examination of his actions speak louder than any analysis.

Other questions persist and add weight to the case against Mr. Schiavo's legitimacy in determining the future of someone else's daughter. After the malpractice award, why, in mid-1993, did he have a 'Do not resuscitate' placed on her medical chart? She was only 30 years old at this point. Why in June of 1993 did he refuse to allow treatment for an ear infection that had developed? Hint: He later said under oath that he expected the infection to progress to a fatal sepsis that would result in death. Why in 1998, eight years after Ms. Schiavo had gone into cardiac arrest, and only after the hiring of right-to-die lawyer Mr. George Felos, did Mr. Schiavo remember that Ms. Schiavo had made some vague comments about not wanting to be sustained on anything artificial? Why, on October 18, 2003 would Mr. Schiavo's lawyers not even allow Msgr. Malanowski to receive a miniscule peace of communion onto her tongue? Finally why has Mr. Schiavo spent a great bulk of the malpractice award on his lawyer Mr. Felos in an effort to end Ms. Schiavo's life rather than spend it on therapy or rehabilitation programs that may improve her quality of life?

It would seem that Ms. Schiavo's parents have more of a moral right to determine their daughter's fate, than does her husband. But while judges deny this possibility, hope is dying, and so is Ms. Schiavo.

Please pray for her.

kjn
9  Theology / Debate / Memories of Dachau on: March 22, 2005, 09:24:45 PM
Post delted by Moderator.

This type of Christian bashing will not be tollerated here.

Moderator.
Pages: [1]



More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs



Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media