Originally posted by sonship
Did you reply to my question yet RJHinds?

This passage - [b]" ... the gospel, which you heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, of which I Paul became a minister." (See Colossians 1:23)

Did the Holy Spirit mean every termite and cockroach under heaven in, say, the Amazon Jungle, had the gospel announced to them when Paul wro ...[text shortened]... y as the entire planet.

So is "all creation under heaven" to be taken the same way?[/b]

Yes, I believe it means what it says.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I believe it means what it says.

So for the sake of maintaining a YEC, global flood putting the entire planet under Noah's water, you are willing to believe that "all creation under heaven" hearing the gospel announced ... includes insects under heaven in South America in the first century ?

If that is your position, I think that is making an idol out of conservatism. "The OLD understanding is best. Any NEW consideration cannot be trusted because new things are not the OLD way."

I think what you are really doing is making the preservation of OLD ways an idol.

You have heard of the dangers of "New Age" Philosophy and how it could damage the truth of the Gospel. Do not think that the "Old Time Religion" could not do so also in the other extreme.

I don't think Paul meant that "all creation under heaven" had heard the Gospel he preached, in that hyper literal sense.

Originally posted by sonship
So for the sake of maintaining a YEC, global flood putting the entire planet under Noah's water, you are willing to believe that [b]"all creation under heaven" hearing the gospel announced ... includes insects under heaven in South America in the first century ?

If that is your position, I think that is making an idol out of conservatism. "The OLD ...[text shortened]... ]"all creation under heaven" [/b] had heard the Gospel he preached, in that hyper literal sense.[/b]

I might have misunderstood what you were asking. The Genesis account is a "literal" account, because it tells how many cubits the water rose above the mountains.

Now the apostle Paul used a lot of "figurative speech" and said nothing about the insects needing to hear the gospel. The gospel message was to cover the sin of man and bring "all creation under heaven" back to the way it should be.

The command by Jesus was to preach to all nations. So that was actually what the apostle Paul was talking about with his figure of speech language.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I might have misunderstood what you were asking. The Genesis account is a "literal" account, because it tells how many cubits the water rose above the mountains.

Now the apostle Paul used a lot of "figurative speech" and said nothing about the insects needing to hear the gospel. The gospel message was to cover the sin of man and bring "all creation unde ...[text shortened]... So that was actually what the apostle Paul was talking about with his figure of speech language.

Cubits are not mentioned in the Colossian passage. With that I agree. However you have the matter of things being under heaven in both places:

Genesis 7:19 - "The waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, all the high mountains that were under the entire heaven were covered."

Colossians 1:23 - " ... the gospel, which you heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, ..."

Putting aside the matter of cubit measurements for the moment.
How can you insist that "all the high mountains that were under the entire heaven were covered " is not a "figure of speech" in Genesis but "proclaimed in all creation under heaven" in Colossians is just a figure of speech?

As Paul was mainly referring to "all creation under heaven" in a way relevant to the world local to his traveling missionary work, how can you insist that Moses writing "all the high mountains that were under the entire heaven were covered " was not relevant to the local world of early human beings?

I don't think you can insist that a figure of speech could not be intended in the flood account. Maybe the planet as we know it was covered. But maybe the planet as we know it was not entirely flooded.

Judgment is still judgment.

Originally posted by sonship
Cubits are not mentioned in the Colossian passage. With that I agree. However you have the matter of things being under heaven in both places:

[b]Genesis 7:19 - "The waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, all the high mountains that were under the entire heaven were covered."

Colossians 1:23 - " ... the gospel, which you heard, which w ...[text shortened]... . But maybe the planet as we know it was not entirely flooded.

Judgment is still judgment.

I believe the information about the flood was told directly to Moses by God and certainly God must have known how much of the world was covered with water.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe the information about the flood was told directly to Moses by God and certainly God must have known how much of the world was covered with water.

I believe the information about the flood was told directly to Moses by God and certainly God must have known how much of the world was covered with water.

I agree. Whether by word passed down or by directly hearing God, it was the word of God. I do not know exactly HOW God communicated this to Moses. I do believe that it is the infallible oracles of God however it was communicated.

Now God TOLD Moses some things. And God did NOT tell Moses some things.

IE. God did NOT tell Moses the circumference of the planet earth, or how the craters on the moon were made. God did not tell Moses about uranium decay or the rate of salt accumulating in the Pacific Ocean.

God didn't tell Moses about the Van Allen Belts or the Ort Cloud or the composition of a Hydrogen molecule. God did not give Genesis to Moses as an exhaustive scientific treatise filled with the pre-occupations and concerns of 21rst century people with their concerns about such scientific themes as you are fond of.

This does not mean:

1.) the account is not true
2.) the account is naive

It means that it is limited to God's priorities - the world then was JUDGED. Eight people were SAVED and started a new beginning.

You get into trouble claiming God TOLD things of which there is SILENCE about. You may assume some things. You really cannot insist upon them. You might also miss the most important points.

I told before perhaps, of the man being interviewed about a hurricane that came through his state. He was a farmer. All his crops were flattened. He lost all his work for that year.

The news interviewer was asking him if the wind was, say, 70 miles an hour or, say, 90 mile per hour. To which the farmer said in essence -

"It doesn't matter to me if the wind was 70 MPH or 80 MPH or whatever. Flat is flat ! I lost everything."

As a Christian I take the Genesis flood in this way. Judged is judged. What was the whole world to them was judged. How many mountains were covered or if any were not covered and under how much of the planet under heaven, doesn't matter. Judged is Judged. Everybody was judged.

That is everybody except those in the Ark which is certainly a type of Christ and His salvation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How did you calculate the years and how do you know there was a Mediterranean that far back in time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis

This seems to be mere speculation to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This seems to be mere speculation to me.

Everything is mere speculation to you unless that science happens not to refute your YEC viewpoint. When another science using exactly the same methods produces results, WHAM, that is a GREAT science. But when science that uses the exact same scientific method happens to refute the YEC POV, NOW that science is bogus.

That is your MO.

So stick with it, you will eventually die off, making one less YEC assshole to deal with.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Everything is mere speculation to you unless that science happens not to refute your YEC viewpoint. When another science using exactly the same methods produces results, WHAM, that is a GREAT science. But when science that uses the exact same scientific method happens to refute the YEC POV, NOW that science is bogus.

That is your MO.

So stick with it, you will eventually die off, making one less YEC assshole to deal with.

I have not seen any science that refutes YEC. I only see speculation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have not seen any science that refutes YEC. I only see speculation.

As befitting a bible sodden self lobotomized tenth century man.

Put head firmly up own ass, stick the whole construct in the sand and flap your fingers around your closed ear going NYA NYA NYA I can't hear you.

Originally posted by sonhouse
As befitting a bible sodden self lobotomized tenth century man.

Put head firmly up own ass, stick the whole construct in the sand and flap your fingers around your closed ear going NYA NYA NYA I can't hear you.

Just more speculation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Just more speculation.

That IS your MO. Sciences that aren't in the way of YEC are perfectly fine sciences. Sciences that use exactly the same methods but refute YEC are now bogus sciences. That's your MO, pure and simple. That is not speculation, that is a fact. You have said it yourself time and time again, troll.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That IS your MO. Sciences that aren't in the way of YEC are perfectly fine sciences. Sciences that use exactly the same methods but refute YEC are now bogus sciences. That's your MO, pure and simple. That is not speculation, that is a fact. You have said it yourself time and time again, troll.

I have nothing against real science, but what you refer to here is science fiction or speculation at best.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have nothing against real science, but what you refer to here is science fiction or speculation at best.

Like I said. In your mind, REAL science is that science that doesn't cross YEC. Pure and simple. Even YOU should see that.

The science behind computers, the science behind stronger metals, the science behind linguistics, the science of mathematics, all fine and good sciences.

Geology, evolution, astronomy, nuclear chemistry, all these sciences are all of a sudden bogus, pure speculation when it comes to refuting YEC.

Your MO in a nutshell.