The ground is cursed

[poptart]

Think of all the things you use or consume.
Most all of it, save for animal products, comes from the ground.


After Adam left God's Word and came under the dominion of satan, God explained the repercussions.
Genesis 3:16-19.

Genesis 3:17
cursed is the ground for thy sake


This is man's reality.
It is a reality where there is no hope to succeed.
If we look, this reality is all around us.
Look carefully at the people around you today.

Comprehensively, people are oppressed, anxious, hurting, sick, defeated.
Many try to hide it.
We keep struggling, but are within the curse -- and our fate is certain failure.
Absolutely so.

There is a sharp contrast between Genesis 3:16-19 -- and the original fully blessed, happy, and peaceful existence man had when he was with God. Genesis 1:26-31.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv ... &byte=1477


Beginning at Genesis 3:15 ---> and continuing throughout the Old Testament, God promised (and prepared the way for) the One who would come and restore us.

It's very simple.
No cost, obligation, or burden for you to receive it.

Man is a creation.
Life is very simple and free when man stops futile struggling and allows himself to operate from within the grace of God.

[Jay in Phoenix]

I have to say poptart, most of the folks I know are pretty happy. There might be a few that have the occasional bad time of it, but it doesn't have anything to do with cursed dirt. On to of that, there's plenty of good that comes from the earth, like fruits and vegetables and all plant life that creates and sustains oxygen.

Interesting metaphor though. Not terribly accurate.

[poptart]

Famine has been a constant through human history.
It is so extreme that the WHO lists hunger as the single greatest threat to world public health.

Biblically, famine is introduced in Genesis 12 and is seen repeatedly going forward from there.
The Bible also predicts famine to increase moving toward the end. Matthew 24:7.

And of course all ground was covered by water -- and all life perished with Noah's flood, beginning in Genesis 6.


In man's original state, he was completely blessed, peaceful, and content.
And God pronounced it "very good," which in the original Hebrew comes through as... very happy.

Genesis 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.


But that train left the station in Genesis 3.
Immediately when man left God, he became anxious -- trying to hide from God.
He tried to manage and cover himself.
He blamed others (Eve), and even blamed God Himself.

And of course the first offspring of these two people was a murderer.


And so it goes to this very day...

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...Genesis...

Before or after Peter Gabriel?

[Jay in Phoenix]

Before or after Peter Gabriel?

I'm thinking after. Gabriel would have blown his trumpet and stuff otherwise.

Or shocked his monkey.

[Dinsdale]

And of course all ground was covered by water -- and all life perished with Noah's flood

No, it very certainly wasn't and didn't.

Sin,
Science


But the Tigris Valley did flood severely... odd that an "all-knowing" deity couldn't see beyond one region... hmmmmmmm.

[poptart]

I'm not going to debate science in here, but you should know from your global warming discussions that majority scientific opinion does not necessarily = truth.

There are those in the scientific community who believe evidence points to the worldwide flood.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

There are also people in the intelligence community who believe evidence points to the government having caused 9/11. They're called "nutjobs."

[Dinsdale]

There are those in the scientific community who believe evidence points to the worldwide flood.

I tend to listen more to those in the scientific community that are capable of performing basic high school math.

Unless they have some awesome theory about where all the extra water (that doesn't exist) came from.

Sorry Pop - epic fail. Unfortunately, there isn't enough water on earth to flood Kansas City or Seoul if it was all loose in the oceans, much less the globe.

The world is neither flat nor square nor able to be anywhere near completely covered with water. These aren't "theories," they are "facts."

[poptart]

2 Peter 3:3-7
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Okay Pops, I'll bite. Exactly how is this passage from Peter, "evidence" of anything? In fact, if anything, it's contradictory. If the world had perished, as the author claims, then his quote would not itself exist, as all humanity was wiped away with hefty flush from Mother Gaia.

Expecting predictable Noah fantasy in 3, 2, 1...

[Dinsdale]

There's not enough water on earth to cause the flood described. There's no plausible way that massive volume of water could have been converted to other matter without some obvious evidence.

Really basic science, which is the undoing of the "literal interpretation."

But again -- there's very strong evidence that

[poptart]

I'm not in this forum to provide scientific evidence, Jay.
I'm pointing out what the Bible says.

"The world" was flushed away by Noah's flood.
All living creatures on dry land perished -- save for those who entered the Ark, which is a representation of Christ.

[Dinsdale]

All living creatures on dry land perished -- save for those who entered the Ark, which is a representation of Christ.

Ohhhhh, it's now a "representation," and didn't actually happen (despite your earlier attempts to pass off the lore of a scientific impossibility).

I'm proud of you, Pop. I feel we've made some baby steps here in establishing that your Operator's Manual is a crock of BS.

[poptart]

I never said there wasn't a real Ark.
I believe there was.
Some Christians don't believe in Noah's flood.
That's their own call.

I was just noting that the Ark is a representation of Jesus Christ.
It was a "shadow" of the Christ to come.

The blood spilled (animals slain) so that Adam & Eve could be covered after their sin --> is a representation of Christ.
The blood painted on the door posts -- to bring the Israelites out of bondage Egypt, is a representation of Christ.
The ram God provided as an offering so that Isaac would not be slain by Abraham, is a representation of Christ.

On and on.

[Jay in Phoenix]

I'm not in this forum to provide scientific evidence, Jay.
I'm pointing out what the Bible says.

I would not expect or even ask you to provide scientific proof about this topic, especially in this forum. There is a certain degree of logic to be considered though, even when discussing matters of a theological bent. It's mixed in with the line between faith and blind faith. You can be of faith and still keep an open mind, even embracing the twining of faith with science. Science is all about theory, or faith, until such time as the theory becomes proven fact. Science doesn't always nail a concept the first time around, nor even the second or third. That's where trials and tests come into play, a running theme in the Bible. Yet, even the Bible acknowledges that a lot of the material it contains is to be taken only as a parable or lesson, and not as cold, hard truth.

"The world" was flushed away by Noah's flood.
All living creatures on dry land perished -- save for those who entered the Ark, which is a representation of Christ.

In this case, "the flood" is a representation of the cleansing of sin, as the Ark is a representation of coming into Christ. Your words.

It doesn't mean the event actually happened. It's just another story.

[poptart]

Yet, even the Bible acknowledges that a lot of the material it contains is to be taken only as a parable or lesson, and not as cold, hard truth.

With the Bible, in most cases it's quite easy to tell what is written as allegory, parable, or lesson.
Just read the Book naturally.

The Flood is clearly written about as a real event -- as are the 6 days of creation, etc.


There are MANY resources out there for one to look at if they want to see how a flood believer thinks it might have happened.

[Jay in Phoenix]

With the Bible, in most cases it's quite easy to tell what is written as allegory, parable, or lesson. Just read the Book naturally.

The Flood is clearly written about as a real event -- as are the 6 days of creation, etc.

I have read the Bible, several times. The thing is poptart, while it is written in the Book as a real event, this does not substantiate it as having happened in reality. This is not proof, not in a real world sense. To the 6 days of creation...utter nonsense. That's like trying to say the Earth is only a few thousand years old, which a lot of Christians and their fellow thumpers really believe. Hello...try millions, if not billions of years old. Fossils out front should have told you.

There are MANY resources out there for one to look at if they want to see how a flood believer thinks it might have happened.

Aside from the Bible, or any other religious text, show me which resources you're speaking of. I would love to see which books or articles show how the flood, did in fact, happen. Not how someone "believed" it could happen, but actual fact.

I'll wait.

[poptart]

There is a book called The Genesis Flood - by Henry M. Morris.

It's on Amazon.
It might also be at the library, if they haven't banned it. :wink:


If you care to watch something...



Kent Hovind on the flood.

Will probably make you very angry. :)


Or not.
You can think whatever you want.

[Jay in Phoenix]

First and foremost pops, there is no chance of me sitting through two plus hours of the video you posted. I did listen to it for about 30 minutes, just to give it and you a fair shot. It didn't make me even remotely angry, but by the time I stopped listening, I was laughing my ass off. Really poptart? Really? This is what you're going with to support your point of view? Sorry bro, Hovind is a kook of the highest order. Plus, the so-called "Hovind Theory" is even criticized and ridiculed by other 'young Earth' creationists. The fact that the guy has served prison time doesn't exactly give him any credibility either. His offer of $25,000 to anyone who can disprove evolution is hysterically ridiculous, as is the fact that he pulled it off of his website with no explanation.

Critics argue that the offer is merely a publicity stunt designed to be impossible to win because it requires the claimant to disprove all possible theories for the origin of species, no matter how ridiculous: his FAQ states that claimants must "prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence."

Hovind has been criticized by other creationists, including young Earth creationists and old Earth creationists, who believe that many of his arguments are invalid and, consequently, undermine their causes. Disagreements over how to respond to Hovind's claims have themselves contributed to acrimony between creationist organizations. The Australian and U.S. arms of Answers in Genesis (AiG) were critical of Hovind after he had criticized a position document from Creation Ministries International, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use". In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently using discredited or false arguments" and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".

Sorry poptart, huge swing and a miss here. If this is all you've got, I feel very sorry for you. Weak sauce all the way around.

Care to try again?

[poptart]

Predictable reply.

You'll be going out to find Henry Morris' book, right?


1) I'm not in this forum to talk about science, and as I said, you can do your own research on the matter if you want to. There is a lot of information out there for you to easily find.

2) You listened to less than 1/4 of Hovind's talk -- and offered no take at all on any of his content. Just... "He's an idiot and a fraud."


I don't believe you want flood theories.

[poptart]

For anyone who wants to open their mind, Ken Ham.

[Dinsdale]

Just so you know...

Your faith-based scientists are hilarious

It's barely even "science" that makes it so laughable -- it's much closer to "basic math."

If you want to believe that there was divine intervention that caused the whole world to flood, the more power to ya, Brother.

If you want to try and introduce some pseudo-scientific "theories," I'll laugh, and hard.

And BTW -- the global flood never happened. For the same reason that the Jeredites didn't move from Israel to New York.

[poptart]

Did you watch the Ham video?

[Jay in Phoenix]

Predictable reply.

You'll be going out to find Henry Morris' book, right?

Predictable reply? Well, if it was, it was because you set up such a nice softball right over the plate with that guy. Seriously pops, I offered no take on what Hovind had to say, because what he espoused was utter nonsense. As I pointed out, even his fellow "new Earth creationists" find his theories to be laughable. I noticed you avoided the fact that he is a convict. Not that that plays into his faith or beliefs, but it helps to discredit his authenticity. On top of that, you're putting words into my mouth by saying I said, "He's an idiot and a fraud." I never used the word idiot. I never used the word fraud. I said he was a kook, and he is. His theories are whack and ridiculous. He is by no means stupid, and I imagine he's sincere. He's also just plain wrong. You're defensiveness is showing here pops.

Now then, you say I don't want flood theories. I didn't say that either. I asked you to offer some to back up your take. All you give is Hovind, and as I said, I listened to a full thirty minutes of the guy ramble, no need to hear the rest, as his faulty points are already made and discredited by his own peers.

Poptart, we've been down this road in the past. You know I'm a man of faith. I just don't adhere to any specific religion. Plus, I am not afraid to ask questions and seek proof to back up my faith. The Bible is a great book, but it has holes in it and it was authored by a boatload of different people and edited repeatedly. Politics plays a huge part in some of those edits. A great book to take lessons from, but to accept the whole thing as verbatim, word for word, absolute truth?

Nope, especially with something as misunderstood and wrong as Revelations is.

[poptart]

You're defensiveness is showing here pops.

Now then, you say I don't want flood theories. I didn't say that either. I asked you to offer some to back up your take. All you give is Hovind, and as I said, I listened to a full thirty minutes of the guy ramble, no need to hear the rest, as his faulty points are already made and discredited by his own peers.

I'm defensive?

Did you get the Morris book?
You didn't watch more than 1/4 of the Hovind video?
Did you watch the Ham video?

All of these talk about the flood -- and other creation/evolution issues.


I don't understand asking for something and then brushing it off as nonsense (without considering it) when it's given.


Truth is not based on majority rule.

[poptart]

Btw, aspects of Hovind's flood "model" are not agreed with by others in the creation community, however overwhelmingly, his views on things (creation/evolution, age, flood, etc.) are very much in line with others in the community.

The fact that he sits in prison has nothing at all to do with anything he's lectured on, written about, or debated about.

Separate issue.

Hell, Dinsdale probably should be sitting in prison -- and he's like, a REALLY smart man. :)

[poptart]

The Bible is a great book, but it has holes in it and it was authored by a boatload of different people and edited repeatedly.

Who have you determined Jesus to be?

[Goober McTuber]

Btw, aspects of Hovind's flood "model" are not agreed with by others in the creation community, however overwhelmingly, his views on things (creation/evolution, age, flood, etc.) are very much in line with others in the community.

He believes humans evolved from bananas.

[poptart]

I think you're thinking of Ray Comfort.

[Jay in Phoenix]

I'm defensive?

No offense pops, but yes you are. At least to a degree. To answer your questions, no I haven't had a chance to find the Morris book yet, but I will. Same for the Ham video. I have already seen enough of the Hovind video to make a decision that there is no need to see the rest.

I don't understand asking for something and then brushing it off as nonsense (without considering it) when it's given.

Truth is not based on majority rule.

I've only brushed off Hovind as nonsense, as his views to the point that I've listened come off as such. I'm not brushing off the rest, or even the concept of the flood, I'm just questioning it and asking for proof. There's a difference. The fact that he sits in prison is not a separate issue in that him committing crimes of tax fraud and evasion makes his authenticity questionable. Your choosing to ignore this is part of the problem with your narrow point of view.

As to Jesus as authority, I do take Christ at His Words, but what His exact words are remain, in part, a mystery. The Council of Nicaea and their interpretation and editing of the Bible is a gargantuan part of the problem. Nobody knows what the original text said, or what it meant. It's been filtered to death. Why did this political council choose to include, omit or change what they did, and on who's authority? It wasn't Christ, as he wasn't around at that point. Do you not acknowledge this piece of history and its' impact as being hugely significant on interpretations? On meaning and intent?

How can you trust a document and it's origins if it has been misunderstood, mistranslated and worse, edited.

It wasn't God that did that.

[poptart]

The fact that he sits in prison is not a separate issue in that him committing crimes of tax fraud and evasion makes his authenticity questionable. Your choosing to ignore this is part of the problem with your narrow point of view.

What should I say about him being in prison?
I don't know the facts of the case.

His creation teachings were not what he was charged and jailed for.
Separate things.

What does it mean that his "authenticity is questionable??"

Most of what Hovind taught and debated about is backed up by others who take the "6 days of creation" view.
I don't think you should just turn his video off (if you have an open mind), but hey, it's up to you.



What Words of Christ do you take as real, and how do you determine what part of the Bible to accept or not accept?

The Council of Nicaea and their interpretation and editing of the Bible is a gargantuan part of the problem. Nobody knows what the original text said, or what it meant. It's been filtered to death. Why did this political council choose to include, omit or change what they did, and on who's authority? It wasn't Christ, as he wasn't around at that point. Do you not acknowledge this piece of history and its' impact as being hugely significant on interpretations? On meaning and intent?

Regarding these points and questions, guess what?
Two more videos.

I posted these previously for Van.
Daniel Wallace presents and summarizes things real well here.
And btw, he speaks of the Council of Nicaea starting at about 16:00 of the 2nd video.

Is what we have now what they wrote then?

It wasn't God that did that.

Assume that God Almighty prepared (going back thousands of years) for the Christ and Savior to come to the world and die on the cross.
The preparation alone (for thousands of years) which went on with the people of Israel (and other parts of the world) so that the Messiah would come forth was... elaborate.
Not to mention what the man Jesus went through.

God prepared all of this -- only to then allow for the record of it (which would be used to lead people out of darkness) to be obliterated and rendered meaningless?


Why would He do that?

[Goober McTuber]

God works in mysterious ways. Or so I've heard.

[Jay in Phoenix]

What should I say about him being in prison? I don't know the facts of the case.

His creation teachings were not what he was charged and jailed for.
Separate things.

What does it mean that his "authenticity is questionable??"

If you don't know the facts, then in the spirit of enlightenment, you should learn. When I say his authenticity is questionable, it is because he has committed fraud. More than once. This makes his motives and actions questionable at the very least, very doubtful more than likely. He has shown that his credibility is shattered by his need and lust for money. You've talked about money often enough to know of its power to corrupt. This man is morally corrupt, so why should anyone listen to him?

Most of what Hovind taught and debated about is backed up by others who take the "6 days of creation" view. I don't think you should just turn his video off (if you have an open mind), but hey, it's up to you.

This is where you're wrong. Most of what Hovind teaches is criticized by his peers, especially his creationist views. Turning his video off saved me a headache induced by nonsensical theory, and theory is all that it is. Not proof. Show me something with more substance that doesn't rely solely on the Bible as evidence. At that point I'll listen.

What Words of Christ do you take as real, and how do you determine what part of the Bible to accept or not accept?

That's not an easy question to answer, but I'll put it like this. What is directly attributed as the Word as spoken by Christ, I accept. What is related as either allegory, parable or as just simply unbelievable, I have to dissect for the hidden truth. What seems preposterous, I dismiss. There is plenty to be dismissed. On the other hand, there is plenty to embrace. Pick the part of the Bible you want to discuss, I'll tell you what I think.

Assume that God Almighty prepared (going back thousands of years) for the Christ and Savior to come to the world and die on the cross.
The preparation alone (for thousands of years) which went on with the people of Israel (and other parts of the world) so that the Messiah would come forth was... elaborate. Not to mention what the man Jesus went through.

God prepared all of this -- only to then allow for the record of it (which would be used to lead people out of darkness) to be obliterated and rendered meaningless?

Why would He do that?

That's the million dollar question. Why would He do that? The simple and most honest answer is he didn't...man did. Through misinterpretation, mistranslation, misunderstanding and of course, omission. Remember free will? Gift and curse. Man over the years has corrupted the meaning of the original work, a work we will never have true knowledge of. Thank religious politics for that. In fact, thank religion in general, as religion is the biggest problem regarding faith. When you separate those two things, you begin to see the bigger picture.

You can either live life with an open mind, or choose the path of blind faith, which is belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination.

I'll take the open road. The view is nicer.

[poptart]

Pick the part of the Bible you want to discuss, I'll tell you what I think.

Do you believe the Gospel accounts?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.