T-Bone

ok

That is a good point. I appreciate your patience and timely responses. Something I should have done early on is excuse myself from here…for crimes against brevity. To paraphrase Mark Twain, I never took the time to write a short post, so I wrote a long one instead. This experience has given me an inkling of the time and effort one should put forth to respond in a clear and concise manner. Obviously I have a long way to go but in light of other priorities I don't see myself committing to such hard work.

Yes – good point; re-labeling so that public perception is changed. "Abundant sharing" is another one. Let's be honest. How much of the material abundance PFAL promised, did the average TWI follower "manifest"? At least acknowledge the significance of people's generosity and give folks some recognition for their giving beyond their means. In II Corinthians 8: 2 - 4, Paul acknowledged the sacrifices folks made: (verse 2.) that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality. (verse 3.) For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord, (verse 4.)begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints,…

That incident sounds familiar to me. Was that at Advanced Class 78 ? i'm reminded of another incident - I was at Advanced Class 79 and PFAL 77 - and don't remember which one the following happened: during filming of one of the teaching sessions - vp stood up from the desk rather quickly and somehow he noticed one of the camera men didn't raise the camera fast enough; vp stopped teaching and proceeded to give this guy a royal tongue lashing for missing that. i don't remember the content of what vp said to the camera man but i do remember i felt so bad for the camera man....there's nothing like the love of God in manifestation....and that was nothing like it! />

The article reinforces the "world-wide" references in the text as being from the perspective of the writer. That's not – as you put it - having it both ways, when the article clearly supports an interpretation of the text on the basis of the cultural perspective. Also the text does NOT say the flood carried the ark to Ararat - as I mentioned in post # 86, Genesis 8:4 states that the ark rested on the mountains (plural) of Ararat – that's the entire range of mountains; clearly a reference to a general region and not a specific mountain. Not really. By finagling if you mean trickery then let's review what I've done. In post # 86 I mentioned a few other verses in the Bible that make world-wide references that are clearly understood as according to the author's background. The authors lived in a pre-scientific age. The Bible presents itself as a religious or spiritual book and not as a scientific textbook. Their use of observational or non-technical language was the accepted standard of their day. As I mentioned in post # 107, the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" are from the observer's perspective. However, it would be anachronistic or presumptuous to superimpose modern scientific standards upon an ancient religious text. Interpreting the text according to its cultural background is not trickery – it's common sense! Thanks – I really didn't put that much effort into a summary…I guess some folks are easily entertained. Perhaps you are mistaking Ross' scientific reasoning for something more than what it is; I'll say more on this further down. I guess you missed the part about these observations being made "during human history". Ross is not referring to the fossil record. Ross' statement is clearly framed from the standpoint of scientific studies and not from the fossil record. Could you be more specific on "what evolution predicts"? Are there any details to the predictions that we should be on the lookout for? Are we looking far beyond the current state of scientific knowledge? If it takes a really really long time by way of teeny-tiny-gradual steps of random mutations how would we know over the course of human history if the predictions came true? We might have better luck in the near future going by a modernized take on evolution which is punctuated equilibrium, developed by Niles Eldridge and Stephen J. Gould which views evolution as long intervals of near-stasis punctuated by short periods of rapid change (referred to in the Cambrian explosion link below). My position on all this is not set in stone, of course – it's just that I'd like to see these predictions pan out. The fossil record is intriguing though – it does show speciation especially during one period - the Cambrian explosion. According to Wikipedia - the Cambrian explosion was referred to by Darwin as being one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection. link to cambrian explosion article Ross' point about the lack of observable changes in existing species goes along the lines of the scientific method; I get the idea of microevolution – evolution on a small scale – small changes within a population over a short period of time. That's not the issue here. I have no problem with that. The evolutionist has an assumption that given the gosh-often-long periods of the past these small changes within a species could add up to large changes which explains a common ancestry in other words macroevolution – evolution on a grand scale. However, observing experiments in the present may not give us a firm scientific basis for determining how a unique event happened in the past – like the birth of a species. The creationist could argue along similar lines of reasoning. Darwin's observation of selective breeding in plants and animals was a springboard for the theory of natural selection. Observing the repeated efforts of the breeders could lead one to think intelligent intervention was involved in the original creation of a species. But as I said, observing present day experiments may not provide a conclusive answer for a singular event that happened eons ago. Especially if the experiments cannot duplicate all the conditions of the original event in question. and that may be a lose/lose for the evolutionists and the creationists. The creationist cannot call God into the lab and ask Him to show us how He did it; the evolutionist will have to bet on the odds of making a life form from scratch. The creationists say divine intelligence is the key factor to explain the origin of life. Evolutionists say blind luck (chance, random mutations) as the factor to explain the origin of life. Evolutionists say the appearance of intelligent design is an illusion. Creationists say the appearance of intelligent design is real. In my humble opinion the issue is philosophically driven by both sides. I think technically you could list the evidence/facts in two columns - one for each camp - and neither column would explain the origin of life. There's nothing wrong with scientific reasoning and speculation during research - or even trying to duplicate a singularity in the past. However, without being able to test our hypothesis there's always the possibility folks could arrive at different conclusions. For example, concerning the origin of life an evolutionist could say similar traits and features indicate common ancestry. A creationist could say similar traits and features indicate a common designer. I have more to say on singularities further down. link to Selective Breeding article Observation and experimentation are an integral part of the scientific method; but for what it's worth, when it comes to any work discussing the origin of the universe or the origin of life I don't look at it as ironclad or conclusive – from a technical or scientific point of view. This is simply because a singularity usually defies some parameters of the scientific method. A singularity (which a miracle or something that is supposedly caused by the supernatural would be in that category) is difficult to observe unless you're there or happen to catch it on film or can predict when it will occur. Also it may be impossible to repeat through experiments. However, science does better with studying regularities – events that occur over and over again, or that can be predicted. That's the basis for understanding how the world works. Scientific laws are based on the repetition and predictability of events. I'm not saying science shouldn't make an effort to explore singularities – but I think a valid strategy would be to understand them in terms of similar regularities. I think your analogy of searching for high school graduates is inaccurate. I'm NOT looking for high school graduates among the freshman class. I'm looking for evidence that a select group of high school graduates ever attended a particular high school. One way to determine that would be to search academic records and maybe even look through yearbook pictures. We may come to find out there's no evidence to prove this select group of graduates ever attended that particular high school. Similarly the fossil record lacks transitional fossils showing common traits between an ancestral group and its supposedly derived descendants. Actually I think the order of God's creative acts in Genesis follows the model science gives as to the formation of the universe and of our planet. However, more information is given about earth than about the universe (or the heavens). Text wise - the planet earth comes into the picture AFTER an awfully long series of events prior to earth's beginnings; Genesis 1:1 goes all the way back to time/space zero (or in the voice of Carl Sagan "billions and billions of years ago"). Genesis 1:2 and following, picks up at the early formative period of our planet. In the grand scheme of things Genesis 1: 2 and following is an elaboration of details God worked out as the final prep for our planet to come to life. For anyone interested in some of the details of the forming of our universe and our planet I have left some info at end of my post under general notes. Genesis 1:1: The Bible's opening statement is not in scientific language like how an astrophysicist might state it (as I explained in post # 91) – but it gets the point across. Genesis 1:1 in the NET Bible simply states in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That is the creation of time and space. Some consider verse 1 to be like a chapter heading or summary verse. Verse 2: Genesis 1:2 shifts the focus from the overall picture of the universe to our planet earth; the NET Bible reads "Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep…" Verse 3 - 5: Our solar system, the stars, galaxies, etc. are already in place at this point in time (Genesis 1 verses 14 to 19 speak of the sun, moon and stars as already in existence); light from the heavens had difficulty penetrating the murky layers during the early phases of the earth's atmosphere. By verse 3, God does not have to create light – He just has to say "let there be light" – and for the first time light pierces the layers of gases that are now becoming translucent - that is day one. Verses 6 – 8: The earth's water cycle begins – day two. Verses 9 – 13: Then comes the emergence of land; Plant life appears in verses 11 to 13. Plants would be part of the terraforming engine to remove carbon dioxide and excessive water vapor from the air. This is day three. Verses 14 – 19: For a very long time the light that made it through the shroud of gases above gave this world an overcast stormy look. But as the atmosphere was cleaned up, the sun, moon, and stars were becoming distinctly visible. The narrative is given from earth's perspective; in other words, this is what it looked like when looking up at the sky. This is day four. Verses 20 – 23: The introduction of marine life and birds. This is day five. Verses 24 – 31: The beginning of land creatures and man; This is the sixth day. It might be interesting to hear your criteria to determine a real, unbiased scientist. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = General notes: The scientific consensus seems to be that the universe began some 13.7 billion years ago. The sequence of how the universe developed over time comes from a variety of scientific models; a few websites offer diagrams/text on the evolution of the universe from the big bang, with the stars starting to form some 400 to 500 million years out from the big bang; followed by galaxies, planets, etc. starting to develop around 1 billion years out from the beginning. chronology of universe big bang timeline history of the earth age of the earth earth formation atmosphere of the earth earth's earliest atmosphere edited for typos and clarity

uhm....concerning the poll... I selected the fifth one down as it was the closest to my current beliefs: "I faked it to fit in. I believe it's possible, but not sure if it's real." I would prefer a tweaking of how it's worded; I don't think I intentionally faked it to fit it. It was more like getting caught up in the moment of what everyone else was doing...Anyway, i'm from new york so it's easy to talk fast in a language incomprehensible to others. When it comes to the manifestations of the spirit I kind of subscribe to cessationism (that they ceased with the original apostles) but I am not dogmatic about it; I think they can still happen if God deems it so – and it may very well be happening in the world somewhere now – it's just that I have not seen anything first hand that would cause me to re-think my position on this subject.

/> wow - that is some bizarro freaky serendipity or something....i mean hopefully it was a good experience for you... Oakspear, from what i know of you at Grease Spot i bet you did a wonderful job....i think i would have been too preoccupied with my own thoughts to have focused on officiating the ceremony....it would be interesting to hear what they had to say amongst themselves after the fanfare died down.

Thanks for your input Mark and you reminded of something in "The Genesis Question" that addresses the topic of whales that Raf said evolved from land animals. Before I get to that I wanted to share something I found in The Interlinear Bible One Volume Edition, 2nd Edition, copyright 1986 by Jay Green concerning the fifth day of creation; I will quote the English translation Green offers in the side column of Genesis 1:21 so I can refer to the Hebrew word as classified by James Strong's numbering system. Genesis 1:21, A Literal Translation of the Bible, Jay Green And God created the great sea animals, and all that creeps, having a soul life, which swarmed the waters, according to its kind; and every bird with wing according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. For "Sea animals" in the above translation Green shows "sea monsters" in the Interlinear column with Strong's number 8577 above the Hebrew text. The number 8577 in Strong's numbering system,(or number 9490 in the Goodrick/Kohlenberger numbering system; I've listed both for those who use either resource – I have a mix of both in my library); Strong's number 8577 is the Hebrew word tannin. I've found in the KJV that tannin has been translated differently elsewhere in the Bible; Though it is translated "whales" in Genesis 1:21 of the KJV, it is translated "serpent" in Exodus 7:9, in Ezekiel 29:3 "the great dragon (tannin) that lieth in the midst of his rivers" – Bullinger's Companion Bible notes this as referring to the great crocodile to which Egypt was likened on Roman coins, in Isaiah 27:1 it reads "He shall slay the dragon (tannin) that is in the sea", and in Jeremiah 51:34 it says "he hath swallowed me up like a dragon (tannin)". Keying off what Mark said about the Hebrew vocabulary perhaps the word tannin translated "whale" in Genesis 1:21 KJV is more of a generic or general term, rather than speaking of a specific group. Checking online i found Wikipedia lists it as Tannin (demon), a Hebrew word for leviathan or sea dragon and in modern Hebrew means crocodile: link to Wikipedia def. of Tannin and for further study the NET Bible website shows some interesting variations depending on context: link to NET Bible definition of dragon == == == == Now onto what Ross said about whales and the fifth "day" of creation. For brevity's sake I will mention the main points he makes in "The Genesis Question" on pages 50 thru 52: Ross states that some paleontologists criticize Genesis 1 because it has the introduction of sea mammals on "day" five before the introduction of land mammals. A careful reading of the text, however, removes the basis for their criticism – since it is speaking of sea mammals generically; however the sixth "day" narrows in on only three specialized kinds of land mammals. When the other land mammals are introduced we cannot say from the text. Scientific research will have to give us that information. Recent discoveries reveal that the first sea mammals date much earlier than paleontologists had once thought. Fossils of four extinct species of whales – Pakicetus, Nalacetus, Ambulocetus, and Indocetus have been dated between 48 and 52 million years ago. This dating eliminates any credible challenge to the introduction of the first sea mammals on the fifth creation "day". This dating also challenges a naturalistic explanation for a newly found change in these whales' morphology. Phosphate isotopes in the teeth of these fossilized whales tell of a rapid transition from freshwater ingestion to saltwater ingestion. Geologists and anatomists from the US and India discovered that Pakicetus and Nalacetus drank only freshwater. Ambulocetus drank freshwater at least through its formative years and Indocetus drank only saltwater. In just 2 to 4 million years whales' physiology changed radically. The transition from freshwater ingestion to saltwater ingestion requires completely different internal organs. The number and rapidity of "just right" mutations required to accomplish such a transition defies the limits set by molecular clocks (biomolecules for which mutation rates can be determined relatively easily). Ross goes on to say that if the whale is the evolutionists' "best example" for their theory it is actually the worst considering the following factors that severely limit their capacity for natural-process changes and rather increases the probability for rapid extinction; the six most significant factors are: relatively small population levels, long generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth), low numbers of progeny produced per adult, high complexity of morphology and biochemistry, enormous sizes, and specialized food supplies. These factors limit not only the whales' capacity to change through natural selection and mutations but even their ability to adapt to change. The same conclusions can be drawn for the so-called descent of horses. The same factors affecting whales severely restrict the horses' capacity to survive internal and external changes. Ecologists have observed several extinctions of horse and whale species during human history, but never a measurable change within a species, much less the appearance of a new one. Genesis may offer an explanation – God created the first sea mammals on the fifth creation "day". As the fossil record shows, sea mammals have persisted on Earth from that epoch until now, though not without interruption. Multiple extinctions of sea mammals imply God repeatedly replaced extinct species with new ones. In most cases the new species were different from the previous ones because of the changes God was orchestrating in geology, bio-deposits, and biology in prep for humans. The many "transitional" forms of whales and horses suggest God performed numerous creative acts. edited for typos and clarity

On the contrary, the implication of the NCSE article I quoted in post # 102 indicates that interpreting the biblical account from the cultural perspective of the day would actually agree with the scientific evidence of a regional flood; here is a partial quote of the NCSE article: "…Calculations show that elevations of 455 m high cannot be seen beyond 86 km away, and these places are more than 160 km from the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers. Therefore, none of the high country in Saudi Arabia or Iran would be visible to a tribal chief (or Noah). On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time." (here again is the link to NCSE article As I mentioned in post # 98 interpreting the Bible in light of the cultural background is one of the principles of hermeneutics – which is a legitimate method of interpretation. Granted, it may differ from your method - but it is a valid basis for arguing the accuracy of this biblical record. The phraseology of a culture is interesting though. If someone asks me "when is sunrise and sunset today?" After checking a meteorologist's website I would respond by saying today the sun comes up at 7:20 AM and the sun goes down at 7:20 PM. However are the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" (or "sun up" and "sun down") scientifically accurate? It's actually the earth rotating to a point where I can see the sun on either the east or west horizon. The terms are from our viewpoint on earth. Even in this day and age of powerful telescopes, satellites orbiting earth, people traveling in space and unmanned robotic probes exploring other parts of our solar system – the terms are culturally acceptable. == == == == I disagree with your statements "This is the explicit teaching of Genesis. The language is not in the least bit figurative. It matches the mythology of other religions that developed in the region. Allowing Genesis to speak for itself, it's an actual, integrity-crushing error." ...You're assuming vp's interpretation of Genesis 1 in PFAL is the explicit teaching of Scripture. And to say "allowing Genesis to speak for itself" reminds me of the claim vp makes in PFAL – that the Bible interprets itself. i think that's a matter of opinion. i believe there are a few intellectual hurdles to address first before one can say this is what the Bible means in this section. Due to the difference of time, cultures, languages, etc. between the original recipients and present day students of the Bible I believe an appropriate method of interpretation is called for that tries to honestly address these differences to grasp the original meaning. It is still my contention that interpreting the Genesis accounts using biblical hermeneutics will not contradict scientific evidence that touches upon the same events. == == == == And for what it's worth, Ross does not subscribe to the gap theory; furthermore, I believe Ross and the other authors/books I referenced in post # 84 do NOT use the so-called science of PFAL in their work. The discipline of hermeneutics was foreign to vp. He used speculation and re-defined words of the biblical texts to force the Genesis record into a framework that does NOT harmonize with reality. The first four books by Ross, Schroeder & Levitt that i listed in post # 84 is an interpretation of Genesis from a scientific viewpoint that still reflects a proper use of biblical hermeneutics. I would like to say something about the topic of evolution since you brought it up in your post. For the most part, our discussion has dealt with specific biblical accounts and we have both referred to other sources as to how the text should be interpreted. In my opinion, the topic of evolution is something that would be argued from logic, science and evidence rather than from specific texts of the Bible. To be upfront, I'd have to say philosophically I prefer a theory that includes God in the picture. On a technical level, I think we both will have to resort to the work of those qualified to address the issues (well, i guess that would be more of what we've been doing all along). i did happen to mention a few books by William Dembski and Michael Behe in post #84 that argue against the typical evolutionary model on the basis of intelligent design; it seems to me that the typical evolutionary model depends on chance (or luck); this is speculation at best; scientific explanations invoke causes. And from my perspective the first cause is God the creator. edited for clarity

i remember that too now that you mention it; and vp said the restaurant would have a glass floor so diners could look down at the river while they ate....yeah, he was the great salesman shyster.

Hi Newlife, i was in TWI about the same time frame as yourself - i was in from 1974 to 1986. And i would have to say i experienced pretty much the same culture shock that you mentioned. One of the most shocking experiences after i left was going thru the process of buying a home. i think the mortgage company guy was also shocked having two people (my wife Tonto and I) sitting in front of his desk who have managed to make it this far in their adult life without establishing any credit. Mind you, i also have to relate the stewing and fretting, coffee drinking/cigarette smoking we did that week trying to wrap our minds around the seemingly complex process it took to buy a home. Finally, after much review of the details given to us by the mortgage company - it came like a startling revelation to realize our monthly mortgage payment was similar to paying rent to live somewhere - only we actually stand to gain financially in the future from the appreciation of our investment.Then the "complex process" was reduced to something bite-size we could handle. As far as analyzing goes - i can think of another self-induced shocker, if you will - i remember watching a 1976 movie "Logan's Run" shortly after leaving TWI; IMDB's brief summary of it says: "An idyllic sci-fi future has one major drawback: life must end at 30." now Wikipedia gives a little more info on what's really going on: "It depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expedient of killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, preventing overpopluation." ....so anyway in "Logan's Run" Michael York plays a sandman named Logan - a kind of enforcer of the law - who pursues and terminates anyone who tries to flee the city to "Sanctuary" when they reach 30. York (Logan) poses as a runner to find out where these people are fleeing to.spoiler alert - and to make a long story short - York returns from his journey outside the city to report there is no special sanctuary out there but instead a world left idly to itself - and later brings back proof that life after 30 is possible in the outside world...i saw myself in a similar situation having left TWI - nothing bad was going to happen to me just because i left. Maybe it's a good thing when you can appreciate a work of fiction on a number of levels - especially when it gets you to consider a personal experience from a different perspective. I've had similar thoughts with the movies "The Matrix" and "Oblivion". One of the common themes i see in all three movies is the shock and then perhaps the revulsion one feels after realizing what they were really involved in. edited for clarity

speaking of money-grubbing - i remember the reminder strategically placed in the Way Magazine "Remember the Way in your will." also about owning property - i remember in the late 70s at a meeting in Gunnison - i don't recall if this came from the limb coordinator or vp or whoever - but it was along the lines of homesteading - so a believer could build a log cabin at Camp Gunnsion....i wonder if anyone ever took advantage of that; although i wonder who had the advantage. i can picture someone who had a real nice log cabin built at Camp Gunnison and one day sees a letter from TWI: "Hey Honey, did you see this letter from Headquarters? Yeah, something about our cabin is in an abundant-share program (i think they mean time-share) - anyway - it has a calendar with black-out dates...Loooordy Pete ! mmmmm well - maybe this isn't so bad, our time-share week is in the dead of winter - good thing we have a Subaru Outback!"

Wow! This thread rings so true for me. When I was young I was obsessed with music and art. Then I got involved with TWI – a major obsession for 12 years of my life. Once I left, I became preoccupied with reading stuff on cults, psychology, philosophy, theology – I mean all over the place – just trying to unravel this tangled web in my head. With such an all-consuming passion to fix issues in my life I even had to seek professional help. Then my wife (Tonto) got me interested in something she found – Grease Spot Café. For a while I had an enormous compulsion to read and post. Often it was good therapy; then I stayed away for a while after I realized what it had become – another one of my obsessions. So maybe it's appropriate – and perhaps convenient - that I come clean here and now on this thread. Some of you may think you have an idea of what type of person I am by the content of my rambling rants… You might be thinking "uh oh, did he start his own cult like that Victor dude?" No – nothing like that – although it does involve another woman. You may think it's strange I would be talking about it now – and on a public forum –but the weird thing is - - Tonto first introduced me to her a few years ago – and knows what's going on now. I find that interesting – my wife has introduced me to several of my obsessions. I do feel somewhat shameful over this one though; it's kind of pathetic if you look at both sides of the picture. I mean – here's this young…exciting…vibrant…thing and here I am this old fart (turned 60 last year); I don't wish to offend anyone with any titillating details and really there's not much to reveal on my part. I'm to the point now where it doesn't matter if it's a big production or not – I really just like to watch rather than participate. Oh God – there is something so sick about this though…uhm I should mention…the other woman is psychotic…I mean bona-fide-medication-prescribed psychotic. It was only a few years ago when Tonto brought home the complete series of My So Called Life on DVD. Claire Danes is so cute on that show. Then Tonto turned me on to Freaks and Geeks the complete series on DVD. Another great show – Claire wasn't on that show – but Linda Cardellini and Busy Philipps are pretty. Then there was Boston Legal with Captain Kirk chasing Candice Bergen! After that – Big Love…I love Jeanne Tripplehorn and I swear Chloe Sevigny was in the Corps! Then there was the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica - the complete series on Blu-ray (now I'm coming into my own and leave Tonto behind on this one). I'm probably forgetting some other obsessions – but I think that covers most of the big ones; which brings me up to my latest infatuation – Homeland! Hey it's Claire Danes again ! – but she ditched the red hair and cuteness for a more neurotic slut persona (but she is on medication). Well…shoot…I feel better already. Now sorry I have to go watch an episode of Homeland. Never watched it before – but discovered it tonight – we have U-verse On Demand - and I've already watched episode 1 and 2 of the first season. So just a heads up – if you don't see me around much – I'm probably binge-watching. (edited for typos and big production value)

from the same article at NCSE website – right before the conclusion, it draws the curvature of the earth into the equation of what a "worldwide" flood might look like to those present on the ark. I don't see where you get the idea it refutes a regional flood as described in Genesis. "Effects of the Curvature of the Earth Because of the curvature of the earth, the horizon drops from where the viewer is standing. However, the drop is proportional to the square of the distance between the viewer and an object on the horizon (Young nd). From these relationships, it can be seen that a tribal chief (or Noah) standing on the deck of a large boat (Ark), perhaps 7.8 meters above the water, would not be able to see the tops of any hills as high as 15 m from as little as 24 km away across flood plains covered with water because the curvature of the earth prevents it (See the Appendix for examples of calculations). Most hills in this region that are as much as 15 m high are more than 95 km away from the river levees. Therefore, the survivors of the Flood could see only water in all directions while they were floating down the Tigris River and over the flood plains. Many of these hills would also be partly covered with water which would make their tops project less above the water level, and therefore, the curvature of the earth would make them disappear from the line of sight in even a shorter distance than 24 km. Northeast and southwest of the nearly flat surface that contains the two rivers, the topography rises to more than 455 m in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. Calculations show that elevations of 455 m high cannot be seen beyond 86 km away, and these places are more than 160 km from the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers. Therefore, none of the high country in Saudi Arabia or Iran would be visible to a tribal chief (or Noah). On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time." NCSE article Hey I hear yah on priorities Raf. And maybe I'm starting to realize why debate isn't really my thing. There's a lot of time and effort that goes into clarifying ideas; just the couple of times I burned the midnight oil and stealing a few minutes here and there at work during some down time has shown me that. Between that and getting ready to go on vacation I'm not sure if or when I'll get back to this thought-provoking discussion. you have a good night too!

I believe the Scriptures are inerrant based on its own testimony: Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind… Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever. Proverbs 30: 5…Every word of God is pure… II Sam. 23:2 The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. Isa. 59:21 …My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth… II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God… II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The basic idea I gather from the above verses is that the Scriptures are true on every subject within its pages – whether it touches on history, science, ethics, etc. and of course on spiritual matters. So in other words, true – or accurate - as opposed to false or having errors. Are there accuracy issues in Genesis and other parts of the Bible? Yes. But are they intrinsic to the Scriptures? No. In other words, I believe the source of the problem is from outside the Scriptures. I like the way St. Augustine put it: "The Traditional Understanding of the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy Prior to the Second Vatican Council The traditional understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is perhaps most powerfully and clearly expressed by St. Augustine in one of his letters to St. Jerome: For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS. is faulty or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it . . . I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine.1 The brilliant Augustine did not shirk from exhibiting humility when confronted with potential problems in his reading of Scripture; rather than ascribe deficiencies to the Scriptures, he acknowledged his human limitations when confronted with supernatural revelation." source for St Augustine quote To summarize thus far, contrary to what you've said - it looks to me like the Scriptures do claim to be inerrant – despite any accuracy issues – which of course is one of the challenges faced by biblical scholars and students of the Bible. I have good reason to think that it is inerrant (a few of which I've expressed on this thread). Like I said before, I believe in the Bible because I believe in God; it's not the other way around: I do not believe in God because I believe in the Bible. == == == == Certainly I have not been the one replacing the literal meaning of the words with figurative extrapolations on this thread. I challenged your idea of a "worldwide" flood by saying you're interpretation is based on a present day global perspective. I disagreed, saying the "worldwide" references should be understood in light of the cultural background. That is a simple principle of hermeneutics: From Wikipedia: "…Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines is: textual criticism the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself. The terms exegesis and hermeneutics have been used interchangeably..." Wikipedia source Now if you want to shift the argument from a worldwide flood to regional flood you'll only reinforce what I've been saying all along. You cannot have it both ways – you say the Genesis account is literal but you'll allow for exaggeration. And then imply it's of little consequence anyway because "when we look for the evidence that we would expect to find if the Genesis account were literally true, we don't find it." I beg to differ. I've read a few books by scientific scholars and some articles on the Internet concerning physical evidence for a regional flood – there's an interesting one that presents evidence to show Noah's flood may have happened but not over the whole Earth – the article is from The National Center for Science Education – see link below: source for evidence of regional flood to answer your other question "So I guess my question is, how literally UNTRUE can Genesis be before we feel comfortable declaring it false?" so far you have not proven to me that any portion of the Genesis record we have discussed is literally untrue; if you want to declare it false that's your business. A quick and groundless dismissal of the Genesis accounts seems to be your method in this discussion; your post # 3 is a good example regarding your comment that implies how I express my views leaves a lot to be desired in the realm of debates i will wholeheartedly agree! – so I will be as clear as possible in my following comments. your view is inconsistent; in post #3 you declare Genesis is NOT history. But in post # 90 you argued the genealogies were a complete listing so the amount of time is fixed by the number: I don't follow your reasoning – if it's not history, in other words a myth then how can you say the genealogy lists are complete and fixes the time? And in post # 97 you go back to saying it's history. so is it history or myth? your conclusion on another item – long lifespans in post # 3 "People didn't live that long." Has no weight or substance behind it. On what basis do you make that claim? On the possibility of longer lifespans I offered Ross' scientific reasoning of what determines lifespan as well as historical records of long lifespans in other ancient cultures. You offered zip – I'm guessing because you think it's impossible for people to have ever lived that long. I agree with you on this part – Genesis does not present itself as fable or myth. However, you have failed to demonstrate why it should be treated as a fable or myth. On this thread I have shown specific accounts in Genesis that in the cultural context of the language they can be understood as literally true events and do not contradict science. (edited for typos and clarity)

hmmm...having second thoughts about leaving this discussion....attempts at clarification are always good....i don't know if i can respond back as clearly as both Raf and WordWolf have expressed themselves...but here goes.... perhaps an official definition of the PFAL criteria for establishing the God-breathed Word is in order. i feel satisfied with the alternative interpretation of Genesis from Hugh Ross' book The Genesis Question,his process hits me as being an honest attempt to interpret the text by looking for the original sense.And it that regard, i do not see an accuracy issue with the points i brought up from his book. PFAL on the other hand, touching on some of those same points came up with an interpretation of Genesis that contradicts the science of physics, paleontology, anthropology, geology, astronomy etc. to further reiterate my previous points - i believe the Bible is God-breathed, that the Scriptures are inerrant. Can i prove this? No. Are there accuracy issues in Genesis? Yes. Does that stop me from deriving inspiration and guidance from it? No. In my opinion, the Bible is a religious or spiritual book - not a scientific text. And to put it another way, my concern for "accuracy", for attempting to grasp the original sense of Scripture and what it means to me today is usually focused on doctrinal issues (like the Holy Spirit and manifestations, Jesus Christ/Trinity or no Trinity stuff) and not trying to prove to myself the Bible is perfect. sorry to say I'm already sold on the idea of the God-breathed Word - but that does motivate me to understand the original languages, the cultural setting, historical context, etc. so i can get a better grasp of the original sense of it - what it meant to folks back then and what it means to me now. i don't know - does that clarify anything? or maybe i need someone to interpret what i just spoke in tongues./> ... btw, there's no complaints of hostility from my side of the Internet. (edited for clarity and typos)

Yes, WordWolf - i'd say you have an accurate assessment of my approach and i appreciate your observations of our discussion.

From what I remember of corps nights there was usually an underlying theme that reinforced the effectiveness of the leash; upper corps leadership was highly competitive with any "ties" to the outside world, for those "ties" are considered the devil's means of "restraint" that will keep you from giving your all for TWI. I've heard umpteen rants by LCM on why you shouldn't own a home. I know of one corps couple who left because they wanted to buy a home; I'm sure there were other reasons brewing in their heads – but the fact that they left and bought a home shows it can be done; you can cut the leash!

Granted, I'm not the greatest communicator and can be clear as mud sometimes – but I also think some of the confusion comes from your assumption that PFAL's criteria are the standard for determining the accuracy of the Genesis account. one of PFAL's many weaknesses is the tendency to pull a rabbit out of the hat when you want to sell the scientifically implausible: Need enough water for a global flood? Teach there's water outside the universe. Maybe I should state my position a different way. I look for the original sense of Scripture (historical, cultural, and grammatical) and usually find Its unscientific language harmonious with science – even though the Bible expresses it in non-technical terms. Genesis 1:1 explains how it all began: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. A scientific explanation of how it all began can be found at space.com website: "The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today." The Big Bang Theory One obvious difference between the above two explanations of the origin of the universe is that one is non-technical and the other is scientific. I believe they both describe the same event. Another difference is that the Genesis account attributes the creation of the universe to God. The scientific statement leaves God out of the picture. I'm tempted to think our brief discussion may follow a similar track. Yes "conclusion" may be a good word to use; I do not see the point of any further discussion since no matter how many different ways I say that PFAL sucks and goes against the grain of seeing the natural, original, and general sense of Scripture – you continue to shove me in that box. So you say there was no Adam and Eve. I start further back than that. I believe there's a Creator. I believe He created the universe. Maybe it sounds childish - but i figure if He could create the universe He can do anything. and so it follows from that I believe He inspired people to write His Word. The more I learn about this world the more I see Scripture and science as a good fit. I could be way off base – but I'm ok with that. Maybe the only thing I'm uncomfortable with is the role of an apologist - debate is not really my thing.

oops sorry...i guess that makes two of us />

I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81: even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books And just to verify I was going provide what you expected I said this in post # 83 == == == == initially i was responding to a very specific challenge and criteria you stated in post # 1: to reiterate - my response to your challenge in post # 1 is simple: I do not deny the scientific evidence but I do reject PFAL's criteria for establishing the God-breathed Word. My response to your latest post is also simple: mentioning some of the issues you brought up at the beginning of this thread and briefly covering some things I found in Hugh Ross' book The Genesis Question will have to suffice for now. The idea of a universe in a bubble and no rain before the flood are not supported in Scripture; day 2 of creation Gen. 1:6 & ff is where the water cycle begins – condensation and precipitation – the word "sky" and "expanse" refer to the visible "dome" above us – more specifically the portion of Earth's atmosphere where clouds form and move. Even if it were a watery canopy just around the Earth, there is no science that offers compelling evidence. On page 153, Ross states this concept fails every test of plausibility since the vaporous canopy would dissipate to interplanetary space or come crashing down to Earth due to gravity; even if it was for a short time it would set up such a powerful greenhouse heating effect that no ice or liquid would remain on Earth to sustain life, and the Flood would become unnecessary. == == == == Lightfoot and Ussher were caught up in a race to see who could publish an accurate date when God created Adam & Eve. They assumed that Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 listed complete genealogical records. Jewish scholars view the lists as part of their cultural heritage and consider the genealogies adequate lists not complete lists. Lightfoot and Ussher figured it was simple math to calculate the date – add the ages of the fathers to the ages of their sons and work backward from the fairly well-established date for Abraham. Before long their date spread throughout Christendom and beyond as if it were part of the Bible text. By the 19th century, it had reached the margin notes of most English Bibles. As far as dating done by scientists - by comparing samples of currently living humans with well-dated ancient human DNA and noting the range of DNA differences among individuals of people groups of the world, researchers could then estimate the total time required for the differences to have developed. the biochemical studies so far have been on small population samples and the results are only approximate. == == == Maybe our modern global perspective assumes a worldwide flood. The scale of reference for the Flood should be understood in the context of their culture. "worldwide" references are used elsewhere: the famine of Genesis 41:56 "was over the face of the earth" = devastated all the lands of the ancient Near East in and around Egypt. We do not interpret that to imply that Australian Aborigines and American Indians had to come to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph. Likewise, I Kings 10:24 states "the whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart", we do not assume New Zealand Maoris or the Patagonian natives sent yearly delegations to Jerusalem." Mount Ararat's elevation is 16,946 feet above sea level. Genesis 8:4 says the ark came to rest on the mountains (plural) of Ararat not on Mount Ararat. The entire Ararat range extends from the vicinity north and east of Mount Ararat all the way down to the foothills skirting the Mesopotamian plain, covering more than 100,000 square miles. Noah's ark could have come to rest anywhere within this enormous region. It does not require a global flood interpretation. == == == Stories from the ancient Akkadian and Sumerian cultures tell of extraordinary long life spans. Only rough dates or ages appear in these accounts, but they claim that their most ancient kings lived thousands of years. Genesis 6 simply states that God shortened humans' lifespan to 120 years. Genesis does not say how God did this. A reasonable place to start the inquiry would be to identify what factors limits the human lifespan. Ross lists 13 factors – war and murder, accidents, disease, inadequate nutrition, metabolic rate, inadequate exercise, stress, chemical carcinogens, ultraviolet radiation, solar X-ray radiation, radioisotope decay radiation, cosmic radiation, and apoptosis (biochemically "programmed" cell death). The last one – apoptosis – could easily have been "the how" – to genetically alter a cell to limit its lifespan.

Here is a list of some of the books that I feel offer sound arguments to harmonize science and Scripture. For brevity's sake I've included a link to Amazon that gives more info on each book - but will of course discuss any particular point of the books listed as per the flow of discussion. The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis by Hugh Ross. NavPress Publishing Group, Colorado Springs, CO. 1998. Print Genesis Question at Amazon == == == == Navigating Genesis: A Scientist's Journey through Genesis 1-11 by Hugh Ross. Reasons to Believe. 2014. Kindle Edition Navigating Genesis at Amazon == == == == Genesis One: A Physicist Looks at Creation by Gerald Schroeder with Zola Levitt. Zola Levitt Ministries. 1st edition 2014. Kindle edition Genesis One at Amazon == == == == The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by Gerald Schroeder. Free Press / Simon & Schuster. 2009. Kindle edition. The Science of God at Amazon == == == == Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Technology by William A. Dembski. InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, IL. 1999. Print. Intelligent Design at Amazon == == == == The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design by William Dembski. InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, IL. 2004. Print. Design Revolution at Amazon == == == == Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. Touchstone / Simon & Schuster. New York, NY. 1st Edition 1998. Print. (this is the one I have. the link below is of 2nd edition 2006, Free Press publisher) Darwin's Black Box at Amazon == == == ==

Sure, I can do that. And just for the record, i'm not trying to change anyone's mind in doctrinal. Matter of fact, many things in my belief system have changed since coming to Grease Spot, especially the doctrinal forum; maybe safe to say even some are still in a state of flux. So concerning doctrinal matters I read and post in this forum as a means of checking out my own thought process; somewhat of a virtual acid test of my belief system, if you will. I don't know if that's the technician in me – I often obsess on trying to figure out how things work and usually double and even triple check myself while on a project; "measure 3 times to cut once"; I have this weird notion that a competent technician does not totally trust himself – mistakes will be made, something gets overlooked or forgotten – so have processes in place to check, review, and assess status along the way. I do wish doctrinal/theological/philosophical matters were as easy to work on as a home theater system. You put the cable in here – NOT there; flip this switch when you want to do that; follow the instructions. No guess work. Life isn't like that though – so it's definitely not boring. i am glad this is not a Christian website – not just to nix the group-think factor but to become aware of the holes, contradictions, illogic, and nonsense of my "philosophy" – as painful/awkward/embarrassing as it may be at times, and usually don't admit it…and a big kudos to you Raf on your "Seeing the Dark" thread in Open forum. So needless to say, for me anyway - alternate viewpoints are not always a welcomed challenge but certainly a necessary one on life's journey. So always carry extra water and trail mix so you can share. The only forum where I do intend to change people's minds is on About the Way. My purpose there is to give testimony of my experiences in TWI for the prosecution of VP and all things related to him in the virtual courtroom of Grease Spot – with the hope that someone still in TWI is reading Grease Spot …and more importantly questioning their own involvement with TWI. I am passionate about this – and don't consider myself an "Un-apostle" to the Way Corps (maybe an apostate-L…mmm hard to pronounce, not sure of spelling…) or anyone who is still stuck in TWI mindset; the only gift ministry I ever had was the gift ministry of an idiot; but alas, I lost that gift after I quit drinking their Kool-Aid. Sorry for getting off topic here but I'm actually enjoying this thought provoking thread. Consider this my "Seeing the Dark" post of someone who left the "comfortable confines" of a group that thinks they know it all. /> I will put together a list and maybe some brief notes on what each book covers.we can go from there; my intention was not to debate every point you brought up but to mention there's other books/folks (besides PFAL, VP, TWI) out there that may properly address some of these issues.

I wouldn't consider PFAL as a standard for determining the validity of scripture, doctrine, or tie-ins to science. He was a shyster who plagiarized and cobbled together a patchwork of theology from various sources. However, there's lots of material out there from legitimate/qualified people that address some of the stuff on this thread which I have found satisfactory. It may not be to your satisfaction. I can list them in a PM to anyone who's interested. Before I elaborate I should state up front the grand assumption I've had long before coming to TWI. Maybe it's due to being raised in a Roman Catholic family and having a fascination with how things work – i assumed the Bible and the world around us (which science studies) have a common origin – God. Of course that also reveals a personal bias for the harmony of science and Scripture. When I first took PFAL I came away with the idea VP did a bang up job of tying it all together. After leaving TWI I questioned everything, did a lot of reading, realizing I needed to develop critical thinking skills. I never did abandon my grand assumption (the harmony of science and Scripture). Is that what faith is? I don't know. I think one of the first things that piqued my interest in checking out other theological systems was stumbling across biblical arguments for an old earth. When I said I found things like that satisfactory – I mean it bolstered my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. But like I said earlier an alternate answer that differs from PFAL may not impress you. And so it went that way with my quest on various topics – research driven by a personal bias? yes. But NOT using the criteria of PFAL! I would like to think I'm considering the best evidence for my arguments – but I'm not scientist, theologian, or philosopher – so who knows how off base I am. Who cares? Well, other than me I guess no one. I also think Christianity should champion the inerrancy of Scripture – not just as a matter of being theologically honest but also to be consistent with what the Bible says about itself (more on this in a minute). As far as I can tell this was Jesus' view of Scripture. But you know – this is all my opinion – I wouldn't want a bunch of inerrancy-Nazi's going around badgering other Christians who don't share this view of Scripture. Heck, I'd probably get labeled an apostate for some of the stuff I've posted on Grease Spot. Back to being consistent with what the Bible says about itself: I guess I see a possible issue with Christians wanting to pick and choose what part of Scripture is God-breathed and has authority over their lives. Believe that Jesus got up from the dead but ignore prohibitions of lying or adultery.

some of us have more than one similarity: i am rather chunky and old - turned 60 last year - so relatively old - just not so old i fart dust...not yet anyway. thanks for that 2nd City clip, Waysider - those explosive Farm Boys were one of my favorites!