- This topic has 114 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 4 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
T8…….Relax and enjoy yourself, you deserve it, putting up with me HA,HA,.
peace and love to you and yours…………….gene
@t8,
I know we’ll discuss this when you have time, but this is a good verse to start with when your ready.
Gen. 7:21-23 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark
Does your belief in scripture require that the facts as taught in scripture, align with the interpretation of the observations from today’s world?
Wm
Thanks for your posts.
First I would like to say a few things.
I am not against the idea that God flooded the whole planet. It makes sense on many levels such as God will destroy the earth again with fire, and then a new heavens and earth. So why not previously with water. God could have rebooted the whole planet on multiple occasions such as the Jurassic age.
But I ask questions even if in my mind there is a 1% chance it could be something else. It doesn’t mean that I hold the particular view I am looking into, but then you probably already knew that.
Where I stand at the moment is that scripture sometimes uses the term ‘whole earth’ and ‘world’ as the known world at the time. Examples include Babylon and Rome as having trampled the whole earth when in fact they never trampled China, USA, or Australia. Given that, I think it is prudent to check out all doctrines, teachings, and history that uses that term to see what is possible.
As for the Tuatara, the point here was not that it was two species or one, (thanks for that info all the same) but that it is unique to New Zealand which is the exact otherside of the world from Noah, and yet only exists there with no evidence of its movements from the Middle East to New Zealand. Compound that with all the species that are endemic to New Zealand and then add on all countries that have endemic species and you have a body of evidence that doesn’t seem to match the traditional understanding of the flood. My answer is this. That there is so little information given on this judgement that we cannot take the traditional view as certain. It could be that yes God flooded the planet, then brought to Noah all the animals in his region, and then when the waters receded Noah let those animals back on the land to repopulate. Meanwhile God created species again in other parts of the world. We are not told everything, so we should not be so quick to join the dots with our own understanding, but realise that many things are possible when we have not all the information.
Yes my belief can be shaped by such things inasmuch as sometime common sense makes you reread scripture and see that actually such ideas are possible and cannot be ruled out as the text does not rule it out. Two things to note. First that we cannot take the traditional view in its entirety if the text gives us terse data to draw upon and second, that I also cannot formulate a theory and teach it as fact for the very same reason. So yes the text is important, but when the text is short, then common sense can drive you to ask sensible questions outside of the text that can have you search the scriptures for solutions.
IMO, science is not the enemy of scripture, taking things for granted when they are not written is.
T8……I kind of lean toward it was the whole earth also brother, as seekingtruth brought out. I believe if you go three miles oversea level, there is a good chance it did cover the whole earth. Where i live in California there is evedence of very high sea level existing at one time. If God caused the polar ice caps to mealt it would cover the entire earth i believe. Anyway interesting subject brother.
Peace and love to you and yours. ……………gene
@T8,
Fossil evidence seems to show that Tuatara occupied more of the world but that the only remainders of that kind are now located in New Zealand. The fossils are said to be millions of years old.
As with any fossil, it cannot be definitely proved they were ever living creatures but since it appears they were scientist take it on faith that they were.
Yes Kerwin and I read this story this morning.
Tuatara’s cousin survived asteroid impact that killed dinosaurs
“We knew fossils of [tuatara’s] ancestors have been found in other countries around the world, and definitely, they were more widespread at that time than they are today.” The tuatara is commonly referred to as New Zealand’s “only living dinosaur”…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11311825
However, the traditional view of the flood means that all animals originated in the Middle East. Yet scientists have never even hinted at the possibility. Would there not be at least some evidence if this were true?
BTW, here are some pics from my short holiday. I drove 3 hours north to a high volcanic plateau. Also testing out the new upload media function.
T8…….looks like beautiful country, hope you and your family enjoyed yourselfs, it good to get away ounce in a while. There is something about removing yourself from your everyday environment that is refreshing to the mind. The old adage out of site, out of mind, does kick in when we remove ourselves from our everyday hum drum environments.
peace and love to you and yours. …………….gene
@T8,
I believe the traditional view is that Eden was in the Mesopotamia area. It is called the Ancient Near East though may be considered part of the Middle East.
The copper age and the biblical beginning of earth correspond to one another.
@t8,
Given that Adam left the garden when Scripture says then it follows that the evidence has been corrupted in some way. I believe that God and Satan exist and there very existence means 1) one or both of them interfered with any evidence we discover or 2) they chose not to interfere. I find 2 to be unlikely as Satan would interfere for evil purposes and God would allow him to do so in order to test the hearts of men.
I know Satan would not leave evidence of the truth but I cannot say if God would force him to do so anyways.
I believe the traditional view is that Eden was in the Mesopotamia area. It is called the Ancient Near East though may be considered part of the Middle East.
Some hold the view that the area was in Turkey because that is where Satan’s throne is. The theory suggests that once Adam lost his authority and his place in Paradise, Satan then took the authority that man had on the earth and became the god of this age and then placed his throne in the place where the garden was. Of course one could never prove that, even if there is a certain logic to it.
@t8,
Pergamon was the capital of the kingdom of Pergamon in the Hellenistic Age. The Attalid dynasty ruled there.
I found these words in thee Wikipedia article on Pergamon.
The Great Altar of Pergamon is in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin. The base of this altar remains on the upper part of the Acropolis. It was perhaps this altar, believed to be dedicated to Zeus, that John of Patmos referred to as “Satan‘s Throne” in his Book of Revelation (Revelation 2:13).
I doubt Pergamon occupied the spot that Eden was originally.
@t8,
The story of Gilgamesh seems to place it near or on Mount Lebanon. It is a nature preserve today. According to the Wikipedia article on the Agricultural of Lebanon there are 97,820 fruit trees on it as well. I do not know about rivers though.
Pergamos was an ancient Greek city in Aeolis, currently located 26 kilometres (16 mi) from the Aegean Sea on a promontory on the north side of the river Caicus (modern-day Bakırçay). Today, the main sites of ancient Pergamon are to the north and west of the modern city of Bergama in Turkey.
Wikipedia
T8, Kerwin, whats this got to do with the flood in Noah’s day meaning the whole earth or not?
T8, our Grand Canyon is susposed to be the result of a catastrophic flood, i heard ounce it dated to around the time of the bibical flood. I have even seen sharks teeth that came from mountains close to where i live, there found all over that place. The San Joaquin Valley where i live has some very heavy alkali soil in places, that is from ancient sea water, which was caused by the salts in those waters. I tend to believe it was a world wide event T8.
peace and love to you and yours……………gene
Revelation 13:7
It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.Verses like this have made many believe that the Beast to come will rule over the whole planet. But is this really the case?
Let’s look at verses that say “Whole Earth” but didn’t mean the whole planet. These open up a big possibility that the last beast just like the others, will not rule actually rule the whole planet as many think. Does the usage of the phrase, ‘the whole earth’ and ‘every tribe, tongue and nation’ in the Bible mean ‘the entire globe or planet’? It actually doesn’t mean that at all as the following scriptures demonstrate.
Daniel 4:1
King Nebuchadnezzar, To the nations and peoples of every language, who live in all the earth: May you prosper greatly!Did Nebuchadnezzar write to the Chinese too? Obviously no.
Daniel 5:18, 19
All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate himDid Norway or Indonesia serve Nebuchadnezzar? Obviously no.
1 Kings 4:34
And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.Did the people of Peru come to hear King Solomon? Obviously no.
2 Kings 17:29
But every nation still made gods of its own and put them in the houses of the high places which the people of Samaria had made, every nation in their cities in which they lived.Did the Australian Aboriginals make gods and place them in the houses of the high places that the people of Samaria made? Obviously no.
Isaiah 37:18
“It is true, LORD, that the Assyrian kings have laid waste all these peoples and their lands.Did the Assyrian kings lay waste to the Japanese and Japan? Obviously no.
Daniel 8:5
As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground.Did this goat which is widely recognised as Alexander the Great, sweep across the whole planet in his military campaign. Did he cross Australia? Obviously no.
So now, what about these verses?
Zechariah 14:2 “For I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for battle”- Joel 3:2 “I will gather all nations”
- Matthew 25:32 “I will also gather all nations”
Once we realise what some of these terms mean in prophecy, it can change our view of end-time events substantially.
Many say that the Ottoman Empire for example cannot be the seventh king after the sixth which we know is Rome. They cite that it was not a global empire or that it wasn’t significant enough. As to the last point, the Ottoman empire ruled for centuries over the Middle East and great parts of Europe. It wasn’t any less than any Middle Eastern empire (head) before it. in fact it was greater than all of the previous empires that made up the Beast, even the Roman Empire.
So, the belief that the Beast or Antichrist will rule over the whole planet including USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand just doesn’t hold up. Sure this could happen, but not because the Bible says ‘ the whole earth’ or ‘every nation’. In fact we are told that the Beast rises out of ‘The Great Sea’ which we know is the Mediterranean Sea.
So when considering the yet to be fulfilled prophecy of the end times, you need to look to the Middle East.
For further research on this topic, read The Beast Revealed →
Revelation 13:7
It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.Verses like this have made many believe that the Beast to come will rule over the whole planet. But is this really the case?
Let’s look at “Whole Earth” verses that obviously didn’t mean the whole planet. These open up a big possibility that the last Beast just like the others, will not rule actually rule the whole planet as many today think. Does the usage of the phrase, ‘the whole earth’ and ‘every tribe, tongue and nation’ in the Bible mean ‘the entire globe’? It actually doesn’t mean that at all as the following scriptures demonstrate.
Daniel 4:1
King Nebuchadnezzar, To the nations and peoples of every language, who live in all the earth: May you prosper greatly!Did Nebuchadnezzar write to the Chinese too?
Daniel 5:18, 19
All nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his land comes; then many nations and great kings will subjugate himDid Norway or Indonesia serve Nebuchadnezzar?
1 Kings 4:34
And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.Did the people of Peru come to hear King Solomon?
2 Kings 17:29
But every nation still made gods of its own and put them in the houses of the high places which the people of Samaria had made, every nation in their cities in which they lived.Did the Australian Aboriginals make gods and place them in the houses of the high places that the people of Samaria made?
Isaiah 37:18
“It is true, LORD, that the Assyrian kings have laid waste all these peoples and their lands.Did the Assyrian kings lay waste to the Japanese and Japan?
Daniel 8:5
As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground.Did Alexander the Great sweep across the whole planet in his military campaign. Did he cross Australia?
So now, what about these verses?
Zechariah 14:2 “For I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for battle”- Joel 3:2 “I will gather all nations”
- Matthew 25:32 “I will also gather all nations”
Once we realise what some of these terms mean in prophecy, it can change our view of end-time events substantially.
Many say that the Ottoman Empire for example cannot be the seventh king after the sixth which we know is Rome. They cite that it was not a significant empire. How wrong they are. It ruled for centuries over the Middle East and great parts of Europe. It wasn’t any less than any other empire (head) before it.
The belief that the Beast or Antichrist will rule over the whole planet including USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand just doesn’t hold up. Sure this could happen, but not because the Bible says the ‘ the whole earth’ or ‘every nation’. In fact we are told that the Beast rises out of ‘The Great Sea’ which we know is the Mediterranean Sea.
See The Great Sea →
Gene,
I do not remember what brought up the topic of Eden but it is by thought God removed it from the earth when the earth was flooded and placed it in the third heaven. I think that is why Paul called the third heaven paradise.
@T8,
I agree that many references in scripture can refer to the “known world”, but in this case there are scriptures that add more clarity.
1 PETER 3: in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
2 PETER 3: through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
Gen. 7:21-23 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark
Genesis 7:20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains
The truth conflicts with scientific theories, but it is supported by scientific facts.
My opinion – Wm
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
