Harrie,

Quote: › Thanks, I have no questions about this verse for now.

Why?

Quote: › What does this one mean?

Let's look at the passage.

Isaiah 40

Comfort for God's People

1 Comfort, comfort my people,
says your God.

2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
and proclaim to her
that her hard service has been completed,
that her sin has been paid for,
that she has received from the LORD's hand
double for all her sins.

3 A voice of one calling:
"In the desert prepare
the way for the LORD;
make straight in the wilderness
a highway for our God.

4 Every valley shall be raised up,
every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
the rugged places a plain.

5 And the glory of the LORD will be revealed,
and all mankind together will see it.
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

6 A voice says, "Cry out."
And I said, "What shall I cry?"
"All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.

7 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
because the breath of the LORD blows on them.
Surely the people are grass.

8 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God stands forever."

9 You who bring good tidings to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem,
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
"Here is your God!"

10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power,
and his arm rules for him.
See, his reward is with him,
and his recompense accompanies him.

11 He tends his flock like a shepherd:
He gathers the lambs in his arms
and carries them close to his heart;
he gently leads those that have young.

12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
or weighed the mountains on the scales
and the hills in a balance?

13 Who has understood the mind of the LORD,
or instructed him as his counselor?

14 Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge
or showed him the path of understanding?

15 Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket;
they are regarded as dust on the scales;
he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.

16 Lebanon is not sufficient for altar fires,
nor its animals enough for burnt offerings.

17 Before him all the nations are as nothing;
they are regarded by him as worthless
and less than nothing.

18 To whom, then, will you compare God?
What image will you compare him to?

19 As for an idol, a craftsman casts it,
and a goldsmith overlays it with gold
and fashions silver chains for it.

20 A man too poor to present such an offering
selects wood that will not rot.
He looks for a skilled craftsman
to set up an idol that will not topple.

21 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

23 He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

24 No sooner are they planted,
no sooner are they sown,
no sooner do they take root in the ground,
than he blows on them and they wither,
and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.

25 "To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One.

26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one,
and calls them each by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.

27 Why do you say, O Jacob,
and complain, O Israel,
"My way is hidden from the LORD;
my cause is disregarded by my God"?

28 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom.

29 He gives strength to the weary
and increases the power of the weak.

30 Even youths grow tired and weary,
and young men stumble and fall;

31 but those who hope in the LORD
will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
they will run and not grow weary,
they will walk and not be faint.

This passage is demonstrating the awesomeness of God. His power, His majesty, His immensity, His knowledge. All of His attributes.

This is not a geological or cosmological statement.

It is not directed toward the earth concerning the earth.

This is a declaration of the LORD.

Let go of the metaphors. Harrie. They are a part of the bible just as they are a part of your everyday speech.

This SHOULD show you that the bible was written FOR mankind USING the words of mankind.

No lofty presumptuousness needed. God speaking to man on man's level.

Quote: › “Why?”

Why I have no questions about that verse you mean? I don’t expect new insights.


You have copied the whole Isaiah 40 I noticed, and told me that in general it is about God’s power and greatness.

Quote: › “This is not a geological or cosmological statement.”

Probably not, but how would you interpret this verse, and this verse alone?

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

That ‘enthroned’ is indeed about God’s greatness, fitting to the rest of the passage.
A circle is indeed round but still seems pretty flat to me, or it would be a globe.
And heaven is like a canopy, like a tent. That sounds like a peculiar metaphor to me that does not seem to describe at all how the universe really is. It does describe how it looks like for a human being looking up at the sky at night. Without science we have no idea how far the stars are and that they all are at different distances. This would have been a great chance to tell some scientific facts so people today would understand God’s greatness as well. And would it not be beyond the people of those days to understand something like:
“God’s tremendous power placing the stars so far away it would take travelers countless generations to reach them.”

Quote: › “Let go of the metaphors. Harrie. They are a part of the bible just as they are a part of your everyday speech. This SHOULD show you that the bible was written FOR mankind USING the words of mankind. No lofty presumptuousness needed. God speaking to man on man's level.”

I do belief that you can turn every verse into a metaphor, but am not convinced that this was the intention of the author.
God uses language that is fitting for people that lived thousandths of years ago in a completely different situation as people today. Exactly that I find strange, as a deity should have the power to inspire to writings that are culture less and timeless? They are even addressed at one small tribe in particular?
To me that shows that God originally was one of the countless small gods of those days, when each tribe and even families had their own gods.


Talking about metaphors; is Genesis and the flood a metaphor as well? And if so, a metaphor for what?

Harrie,

Quote: › This would have been a great chance to tell some scientific facts so people today would understand God’s greatness as well. And would it not be beyond the people of those days to understand something like: “God’s tremendous power placing the stars so far away it would take travelers countless generations to reach them.”

The doctrine of inspiration says that God spoke through the writers of the bible.

However, God didn't take away their understanding or their perceptions of reality.

God allowed the writers to express His truth in their own words.

So if the world seemed flat to them, then that is the way they wrote about it.

The bible was never intended to be a science book. However, where it does touch on science it is not wrong.

Ask Nator about evolutionary theory. Ask him if he thinks Darwin was wrong, at the time, for his theories.

He will probably say no. But he may add that, while science has found some of his theories to be inaccurate, science built upon these as a foundation for future research.

Quote: › Talking about metaphors; is Genesis and the flood a metaphor as well? And if so, a metaphor for what?

Genesis and the flood are not metaphors. Though they may employ metaphors in the language.

You are thinking of allegory. They are not allegory either.

There is some allegory in the bible. But it is always interpreted by other writers. We are not to interpret scripture on our own.

Quote: › God uses language that is fitting for people that lived thousandths of years ago in a completely different situation as people today.

You're right.

Quote: › Exactly that I find strange, as a deity should have the power to inspire to writings that are culture less and timeless?

That is why Paul told the Philipian Jailer, when asked how to be saved, Paul replied:

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

While much of the bible deals with history, the Gospel is timeless.

It transcends time, culture, language, race, creed, age, intellect and more.

The gospel of Christ is easy to accept, difficult to endure, and hard to escape.

Quote: › To me that shows that God originally was one of the countless small gods of those days,

The genealogies tell us that God addressed all of mankind through the Jews.

Quote: › “The doctrine of inspiration says that God spoke through the writers of the bible.”

I agree. Most religious clam similar things and today Donald Walsh claims the same.

Quote: › “However, God didn't take away their understanding or their perceptions of reality.”

Then why does God inspire them to write about that correctly or shut up about it?

Quote: › “God allowed the writers to express His truth in their own words. So if the world seemed flat to them, then that is the way they wrote about it.”

God takes the effort to inspire people to write down His message.
The people who do so want to write down that message correctly.
So there should not need to be anything wrong in the Bible at all.

Quote: › “The bible was never intended to be a science book. However, where it does touch on science it is not wrong.”

Science does not agree with the flood, Genesis, a flat earth and a celestial dome that rests on the edge of the earth, etc.

Quote: › “Ask Nator about evolutionary theory. Ask him if he thinks Darwin was wrong, at the time, for his theories.”

Darwin was not right about everything, but the core of his ideas was correct. And Darwin wasn’t an all knowing God and never claimed he was.

Quote: › “But he may add that, while science has found some of his theories to be inaccurate, science built upon these as a foundation for future research.”

Science adjusts itself to new information all the time, improving scientific theories all the time. Nothing is sacred to science, not even Darwin's writings if they do not fit with the reality of new data.
Religion is frozen as the dogma is divine and not to be doubted.

Quote: › “Genesis and the flood are not metaphors. Though they may employ metaphors in the language. You are thinking of allegory. They are not allegory either.”

So you are convinced that God really literally created a man and created the woman from his rib?
And that there really was a true flood at the same time in the whole world, and one family took aboard seven pairs of all animals on a ship smaller than the Titanic, and fed them for a year?
Is that correct?

Quote: › “We are not to interpret scripture on our own.”

The first authors of the Bible were inspired by God and wrote down what God wanted us to know, is that correct?
This happened quite some time after the events.
After that, others that were not inspired by God read those divine words and tried to interpret them I imagine?
Who helped those first readers to interpret the scripture?

Quote: › “While much of the bible deals with history, the Gospel is timeless. It transcends time, culture, language, race, creed, age, intellect and more.”

The OT is filled with many laws too, that have been valid for a long time and are not valid today except for the Jews and part of it for Muslims.
The NT seems to be a newer version of the laws, so the laws have been changed: you do not need to stone people any longer.

Quote: › “The gospel of Christ is easy to accept, difficult to endure, and hard to escape.”

The problem is: is it true? Isn’t it like all those other countless books with deities created by people in the same manner as Donald Walsh is creating his ‘conversations with God?”

Quote: › “The genealogies tell us that God addressed all of mankind through the Jews..”

But science tells us that the races parted long before, and not at the time of the OT.

Harrie,

Quote: › Then why does God inspire them to write about that correctly or shut up about it?

I'm not following. Is this the way you wanted to ask this question? Is it phrased correctly?

Quote: › So there should not need to be anything wrong in the Bible at all.

There isn't.

Quote: › Science does not agree with the flood,

Are you certain there is nothing faster than the speed of light? How can you be so sure?

So what if science doesn't agree with a flood. Doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Maybe, just maybe, we don't understand, correctly, how certain rock formation came about.

Quote: › Genesis,

Science has yet to disprove the creation of man.

Quote: › a flat earth

You're really hung up on this aren't you. Does the bible say the word "flat" when talking about the earth?

Quote: › a celestial dome that rests on the edge of the earth

If that is the way the ancient described the earth, then why fault them?

Quote: › Darwin was not right about everything, but the core of his ideas was correct.

And I'll bet Darwin didn't use very many metaphors when he was articulating his theories either.

And here is the difference.

Quote: › Religion is frozen as the dogma is divine and not to be doubted.

Malachi 3:6

"I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed

Quote: › So you are convinced that God really literally created a man and created the woman from his rib?

Show me otherwise and I may change my mind.

Quote: › And that there really was a true flood at the same time in the whole world, and one family took aboard seven pairs of all animals on a ship smaller than the Titanic, and fed them for a year? Is that correct?

Get the amounts correct. One pair of unclean and seven pair of clean.

Show me otherwise and I may change my mind.

Quote: › This happened quite some time after the events.

Sometimes. Sometimes it happened way before the events.

Quote: › Who helped those first readers to interpret the scripture?

The Holy Spirit helps Christians interpret scripture.

Quote: › The problem is: is it true?

Why couldn't it be true?

Quote: › But science tells us that the races parted long before, and not at the time of the OT.

Maybe. Like I said, the bible is not a science book. There are many literary device you have to consider. There is not just a simple answer to an ancient language.

F.F. Bruce is an author you may want to check out on the interpretation of the bible. He is very learned.

Quote: › Get the amounts correct. One pair of unclean and seven pair of clean.

Genesis 7:2
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

Quote: › Are you certain there is nothing faster than the speed of light? How can you be so sure?

Umm Harrie, Rerun may have a point here ,the universe can expand faster,entangled quarks, ordinary particles can travel faster than light "in theory" as long as they always have and never started at a lower speed than c.

I think its a bit of a fallacy that the ancients thought the world was flat.You only need to look at a ship going over the horizon to know that or hold a straight edge up to the horizon.The moon also appears to be a globe from the waxing and waining that occures with it.The ancients also knew the sun was a long way away from the moon due to the way it's phases look

Quote: › Malachi 3:6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed

Quote: › “I'm not following.”

If God takes the effort to inspire people to write down His message, it should be no problem to inspire them to write things that go beyond the knowledge of the writers, that was the point anyway, why not go all the way?

I said that science does not agree with the flood.

Quote: › “Are you certain there is nothing faster than the speed of light? How can you be so sure?”

That isn’t important at all. You are comparing probabilities with possibilities. Science shows the most probable manner in which reality works, using several different methods and disciplines. That way we know that there was never a world wide flood. And if there was, there had to be very peculiar circumstances to make it possible, but there is nothing in nature that indicates that, except for theist feeling the need for a world wide flood.

Quote: › “So what if science doesn't agree with a flood. Doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.”

Well, there might be three Magical Garden Gnomes that created the universe? Science will not agree with it, but can't prove me wrong, so what? The number of possible, but flawed concepts seems to be limitless.

Quote: › “Maybe, just maybe, we don't understand, correctly, how certain rock formation came about.”

To make God probable we need to have a wrong understanding of a myriad of things. It is indeed possible, but very unlikely that all the evidence shows one way while it still is a totally different way we have no evidence at all for.

Quote: › “Science has yet to disprove the creation of man.”

You can’t disprove my Three Magical Garden Gnomes, that does not mean at all that they really exist.
At one side there is evidence in behavior, DNA, artifacts in the human body, fossils, dating, geology, that all points to evolution, and at the other side we have an old book written by tribesmen several thousandths of years ago that claims a man was magically created from clay and a woman from the man’s rib.

Quote: › “You're really hung up on this (a flat earth) aren't you.”

Not really, but it is the topic of this thread, and was not even started by me.

I said: “a celestial dome that rests on the edge of the earth.”

Quote: › “If that is the way the ancient described the earth, then why fault them?”

Well, for one reason the earth does not seem to be flat, while they were writing down words inspired by God?
If this is not correct and reflects their point of view at the time, how about all the rest?

Quote: › “And I'll bet Darwin didn't use very many metaphors when he was articulating his theories either. And here is the difference.”

His work does not strike me as rich in metaphors, but I do not know what you mean?


I said: “So you are convinced that God really literally created a man and created the woman from his rib?”

Quote: › “Show me otherwise and I may change my mind.”

I think you will know by now what that evidence is and where you could read up about it, but you will discard it as misleading or false as it does not correspond with the Bible, isn’t that so?

Quote: › “Get the amounts correct. One pair of unclean and seven pair of clean.”

It is a bit unclear indeed:

7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Genesis 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female.

Let’s take the easiest version with the one pair. Scientists estimate there are at least about two million species, so Noah had to take about at least 4 million animals, but no more than 200 million had to be taken. For a young earth theory you should take all the dinosaurs as well on board of a ship smaller than the Titanic, with food for a year and provided that the water is sweet. I would rather not discuss the amount of dung this will generate.

I asked: “Who helped those first readers to interpret the scripture?”

Quote: › “The Holy Spirit helps Christians interpret scripture.”

So why would you need others to help you interpreting? And what went wrong with the interpretation during the crusades and the witch hunts?

I said: “The problem is: is it true?”

Quote: › “Why couldn't it be true?”

It could only be true if science is completely, utterly off, concerning just about everything. In that case it is a true miracle that they were able to put a man on the moon.

Harrie,

Your denial of the sinfulness of man is the reason this cannot go on anymore.

Man is sinful. All of his thoughts all of the time are sinful. You, Harrie, exchanged the glory of God for created things, and you now worship the creation rather than the created.

Don't say you don't either. Your entire lifestyle is worshiping the created.

How? you will ask.

Any denial of the true God is by default, worshiping creation.

Quote: › To make God probable we need to have a wrong understanding of a myriad of things.

This you have.

Because science says so it must be. How are you so certain science is right and God doesn't exist?

You lost your Catholic guilt and have peace now. So what? If Catholicism was the true church, you wouldn't have those feelings of guilt anyway.

And guilt is not doubt.

Quote: › You can’t disprove my Three Magical Garden Gnomes, that does not mean at all that they really exist.

Atheist mumble jumble. If atheism is the intelligent way to have an understanding of life, then atheism needs to stop sounding so foolish. Teapots, microscopic unicorns, magical garden gnomes. You don't have anything better?

Quote: › At one side there is evidence in behavior, DNA, artifacts in the human body, fossils, dating, geology, that all points to evolution,

Sinful misinterpretations.

Quote: › Not really, but it is the topic of this thread, and was not even started by me.

You've seem to taken up the cause. Where is thomasortega?

Quote: › Well, for one reason the earth does not seem to be flat,

To them it did.

Quote: › If this is not correct and reflects their point of view at the time, how about all the rest?

Does the sun rise and set?

Quote: › but you will discard it as misleading or false as it does not correspond with the Bible, isn’t that so?

Yes.

Quote: › Scientists estimate there are at least about two million species,

There you go again. Using science as your foundation. Why did there have to be all of these different animals on the ark?

How many different dog breeds are there? How many different breeds showed up in the last two hundred years.

You say I don't listen to the atheist arguments, you should listen to the theist arguments once in a while too.

Quote: › And what went wrong with the interpretation during the crusades and the witch hunts?

Sinful man.

Quote: › It could only be true if science is completely, utterly off, concerning just about everything.

Science has given us many wonderful things. Why does it have to be utterly off for this to work? Man may be utterly off, but not science.

And why can't miracles happen?

Quote: › “Any denial of the true God is by default, worshiping creation.”

I don’t see it that way. I enjoy life and everything around me, but worship nothing at all.

Quote: › “Because science says so it must be. How are you so certain science is right and God doesn't exist?”

Science has proven its merit, even when it will never find the truth for 100%. What has religion to show for? Only promises nobody alive can ever check.

I said: “You can’t disprove my Three Magical Garden Gnomes, that does not mean at all that they really exist.”

Quote: › “Atheist mumble jumble. If atheism is the intelligent way to have an understanding of life, then atheism needs to stop sounding so foolish. Teapots, microscopic unicorns, magical garden gnomes. You don't have anything better?”

It indeed does sound foolish, I agree. That is why I don’t belief such things.

I said: “At one side there is evidence in behavior, DNA, artifacts in the human body, fossils, dating, geology, that all points to evolution,”

Quote: › “Sinful misinterpretations.”

Isn’t it peculiar that scientists from different disciplines reach the same conclusion? Misinterpretations usually end up in chaos only when you start to combine all that information.

Quote: › “You've seem to taken up the cause. Where is thomasortega?”

No idea, ask thomasortega...

I said: “Well, for one reason the earth does not seem to be flat,”

Quote: › “To them it did.”

I agree, it very probably did.

I said: “If this is not correct and reflects their point of view at the time, how about all the rest?”

Quote: › “Does the sun rise and set?”

We still say such funny things as we once thought the sun traveled around the earth. But how about moral issues like slavery? How did they end up in the Bible? That is much worse than a flat earth, in my opinion.

I said: “but you will discard it as misleading or false as it does not correspond with the Bible, isn’t that so?”

Quote: › “Yes.”

So, if Christianity isn’t the truth, you will never ever find out?

Quote: › “There you go again. Using science as your foundation. Why did there have to be all of these different animals on the ark?”

Well, I suppose fish didn’t need to be taken aboard, but that will still leave quite a few I would think? The earth was supposed to be flooded for about a year, I don't think most animals can swim that long.

Quote: › “How many different dog breeds are there? How many different breeds showed up in the last two hundred years.”

Dogs are only one species, as they can all interbreed, Noah only needed to take one, or seven, depending on the verse. How many species became extinct during the last two hundred years. And would it all matter much on a number of 2 million species?

Quote: › “You say I don't listen to the atheist arguments, you should listen to the theist arguments once in a while too.”

I am listening to theists arguments, I am having a discussion on a Christian forum with a Christian. We do not share the same view on reality and that makes a discussion interesting.

I said: “And what went wrong with the interpretation during the crusades and the witch hunts?”

Quote: › “Sinful man.”

Sinful man with the Bible in the hand. Didn’t the holy spirit help them interpreting? And you said everybody is sinful anyway, so nobody will be able to interpret the Bible right if that is true?

Quote: › “Science has given us many wonderful things. Why does it have to be utterly off for this to work? Man may be utterly off, but not science.”

If man is utterly off they can’t make use of science in an effective manner.

Quote: › “And why can't miracles happen?”

I didn’t say they can’t happen. I do think they disappear when science takes a close look. Anyone who can prove that miracles or paranormal things happen can collect over a million dollars from James Randi. That million is still there.

Harrie,

Quote: › I don’t see it that way.

But God does see it that way.

Quote: › What has religion to show for? Only promises nobody alive can ever check.

Most disciplines of science were started or elaborated by Christians.

Quote: › It indeed does sound foolish, I agree. That is why I don’t belief such things.

Then why use them?

Quote: › Isn’t it peculiar that scientists from different disciplines reach the same conclusion?

Using geological strata to determine the age of fossils and then using fossils to determine the age of the geological strata? The game is rigged from the start.

Quote: › Dogs are only one species, as they can all interbreed,

Whoa there fella!!!

Not according to most of the skeptics. They want all of the then known dog species to be on that ark. Explain that one.

How many ruminant species are there? Check it out and get back to me.

Quote: › Didn’t the holy spirit help them interpreting?

No.

Quote: › If man is utterly off they can’t make use of science in an effective manner.

I said man MAY be utterly off. I didn't say he is.

I asked: “What has religion to show for? Only promises nobody alive can ever check.”

Quote: › “Most disciplines of science were started or elaborated by Christians.”

Were there many non Christians around at the dawn of science?
What happened to that top of the scientists, are they still Christians?

Quote: › “Then why use them? (Teapots, microscopic unicorns, magical garden gnomes.)”

It is an attempt to prove a point. Something that is indeed frequently lost on theists.

Quote: › “Using geological strata to determine the age of fossils and then using fossils to determine the age of the geological strata? The game is rigged from the start.”

You know that evolution is based on much more than fossils and geological strata. Google Retro Virus and genetics.

Quote: › “Whoa there fella!!! Not according to most of the skeptics. They want all of the then known dog species to be on that ark. Explain that one.”

As long as it can interbreed and produce you may take one pair, or seven.
I don’t speak for all skeptics in the world as skeptics don’t even have a holy book to share.

Talking about breeding, what happens when you cross a horse and a donkey?

Quote: › “How many ruminant species are there? Check it out and get back to me.”

Did Noah only take ruminant species? Otherwise I don’t see the use of that question?
How about the dinosaurs, should they go on board? In the young earth theory they should.

I asked if the holy spirit didn’t help them (Christians of the crusades and witch hunts) interpreting?

Quote: › “No.”

I hope you will agree that those Christians did consider themselves to be Christians, even if you don't? How do you know that the holy spirit is helping you?

I said: “If man is utterly off they can’t make use of science in an effective manner.”

Quote: › “I said man MAY be utterly off. I didn't say he is.”

Well, if scientists are correct than there was never a world wide flood, and there never was an Adam and Eve, and therefore there was never a sin to cause us to inherit a sinful nature, and that would make Jesus coming to earth a bit strange as there would not be much to do for him. That are quite a few things to be utterly off about, don’t you think?

Harrie,

Quote: › Were there many non Christians around at the dawn of science?

What do you consider the "dawn of science"?

Quote: › What happened to that top of the scientists, are they still Christians?

2 Peter 3:3-6

3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

Quote: › It is an attempt to prove a point. Something that is indeed frequently lost on theists.

And when the bible uses a metaphor to prove a point you bash it as ignorant and unintelligent.

Use your standards on yourself.

Quote: › You know that evolution is based on much more than fossils and geological strata. Google Retro Virus and genetics.

I didn't mention evolution.

Quote: › As long as it can interbreed and produce you may take one pair, or seven. I don’t speak for all skeptics in the world as skeptics don’t even have a holy book to share.

Well that greatly dimishes the amount of animals required to make the journey doesn't it?

Quote: › Talking about breeding, what happens when you cross a horse and a donkey?

I'm picking up your sarcasm, Harrie.

Quote: › Did Noah only take ruminant species? Otherwise I don’t see the use of that question?

There are only a couple of ruminants that would have to go on the ark to get the array we have now.

Quote: › I hope you will agree that those Christians did consider themselves to be Christians, even if you don't?

So.

By their fruit you will recognize them.

Quote: › How do you know that the holy spirit is helping you?

One reason is that I am not relying on my self-effort.

There are a few more as well, but that will do.

Quote: › That are quite a few things to be utterly off about, don’t you think?

Yes there is.

Quote: › There are only a couple of ruminants that would have to go on the ark to get the array we have now.

But wouldn't these ruminants have the same problem as the horse and donkey;only producing infertile offspring.

Mole,

Quote: › But wouldn't these ruminants have the same problem as the horse and donkey;only producing infertile offspring.

No. They are not hybridizing. They are adapting into different ruminants. Mule deer and whitetail deer. Two different species of deer. But both are still deer.

From the wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer

Quote: › Evolution The earliest fossil deer including Heteroprox date from the Oligocene of Europe, and resembled the modern muntjacs. Later species were often larger, with more impressive antlers. They rapidly spread to the other continents, even for a time occupying much of northern Africa, where they are now almost wholly absent. Some extinct deer had huge antlers, larger than those of any living species. Examples include Eucladoceros, and the giant deer Megaloceros, whose antlers stretched to 3.5 metres across.

This could be a reason that the ark had all of those animals on it. Creationists allow for adaptation and what they call "microevolution". Adaptation into new species.

Creationists don't allow for one "kind" of an animal to evolve into another, what an evolutionist would perhaps call a family or even order or suborder.

Rerun:

Quote: › “What do you consider the "dawn of science"?”

I’m still talking about the subject you brought up, that the first scientists were Christians. But most people were Christians in the Western world. And many non-Christians were scientists too, think of Greeks, Mayas, Arab, Chinese, etc.


I asked: “What happened to that top of the scientists, are they still Christians?”
You answered by quoting

Quote: › “2 Peter 3:3-6 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.”

I don’t know what you mean by that. Do you mean that the scientists of today are scoffers?


You said that skeptics talked about silly things like invisible unicorns and teapots.
I answered: “It is an attempt to prove a point. Something that is indeed frequently lost on theists.”

Quote: › “And when the bible uses a metaphor to prove a point you bash it as ignorant and unintelligent.”

Please show me where I said something like ‘ignorant’ or ‘unintelligent?’
What I did say is that you create your own metaphors by replacing words in verses.
I would describe that as an inability to accept an unpleasant truth, and a normal human trade, but not as ‘ignorant’ or ‘unintelligent.’

Theists often claim that science can not disprove the existence of a God. In response skeptics try to make theist understand that this does not mean that therefore there really must be a God. So they come up with indeed silly things like a microscopic teapot, or an invisible unicorn, or even three Magical Garden Gnomes.
Of all of that, nobody can ever prove they do not exist, but their silliness might make you realize that not everything that can’t be disproved needs to be true.


I said that Noah only needed to take one pair of dogs, or seven, depending on the verse.

Quote: › “Well that greatly diminishes the amount of animals required to make the journey doesn't it?”

Well, it diminishes the amount of animals to about 2 million species or at least 4 million animals minus the dogs except one race (the wolf,) but in your case adding the dinosaurs with animals as tall as 140 feet, weighing about 200 tons for the biggest guys.
The Titanic, by the way, a ship much bigger than the ark and made of steel, could hold a maximum of 3547 humans.
And many scientists estimate there must be much more species than 2 million.
According to the verse you choose, the clean animals need to be taken in pairs of seven, that’s fourteen of each. I hope dinosaurs are unclean animals to avoid taking fourteen of those 200 tons guys along, plus all variations of slightly lighter dinosaurs there were. That would be 2800 tons for just one species alone! And they should not walk about too much of-course.
Then the majority of all animals and people in the world were drowned by God, and Noah with his family and 4 million animals drifted about for a year, with food for 4 million animals for a year, and the dung of 4 million animals that needs to be removed for a year. And after that year they have to get off the ship and step on a world that has been flooded for a year to find food. What happened to all the plants in that year?

I said: “Talking about breeding, what happens when you cross a horse and a donkey?”

Quote: › “I'm picking up your sarcasm, Harrie.”

It wasn’t meant as sarcasm at all. Like Mole indicated, a horse and a donkey can produce offspring, but that offspring is sterile.
I would explain that as evidence that we are witnessing a branching off of two species from one. They are close enough to produce off spring, but differ too much to produce more generations that might bring them back together when mixed. So I would consider these to be two different species although they can produce one generation offspring.
Why would God create animals like that? For what purpose?

Quote: › “There are only a couple of ruminants that would have to go on the ark to get the array we have now.”

That is correct, but you would need evolution to do that, and that takes a bit more time than 6000 years, or you could speed things up a bit with genetic manipulation, or indeed breeding and again lots of time to be able to create the difference between a cow and a horse, as they don’t interbreed and are different species. Most ruminants today can’t interbreed anymore.

In fact if Noah would have taken the very first small lifeforms he perhaps only would have needed to take a box in a rowing boat, but than he would have needed a tremendous amount of time again and some serious genetic engineering, and Noah would not live to begin with of course.
But if you need to go through all that trouble, God better could have started all over and simply created version 2.0 of the animals and plants? And then put Noah and his family in that newly populated earth?
Come to think about it, why did God needed Noah anyway? First God manages to create a whole universe on His own, and than He needs a simple human being and his family to save animals from each species from His own disaster?


I asked: “How do you know that the holy spirit is helping you?”

Quote: › “One reason is that I am not relying on my self-effort.”

Could you please explain? Perhaps an example would do?