betsy

No one's editing out anything. Genesis does not say it was a global flooding. This article, which also supports Davis Young's claim explains: Furthermore to support localized flood, how can rain for merely 40 days and 40 nights covered up the whole earth? The existence of the olive branch is another strong support that the Biblical deluge was not global! Life existed elsewhere. He was quite explicit indeed, more explicit than your quote above. He wrote: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm Clearly, he was referring to a global flood! That statement does not negate localized flooding. Furthermore, generally speaking, just because something has not been found does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist. How many parts of the Middle East and Africa remain unexplored? He's simply making his own conjecture, giving his own opinion.

But that's the thing. It may have contradicted how some folks interpreted Genesis....but your article did not contradict Genesis. FACT: No archaeological discovery has contradicted a Biblical reference And yes, that still comes with no caveat! BIBLICAL REFERENCE. NOT interpretation! BIG difference! You know what? You're like the evangelical preachers that Davis A. Young was criticising in that article - being stubborn to fit everything in your own interpretation, even when evidence is showing otherwise. You're trying so hard to fit me in your little box to suit your argument.

I believe it is localized, not global. But then you have to consider that what they must mean "global" in those times is not exactly the way we understand global today! Do they even know how big earth is? The existence of the olive branch is a clear indication that there was life elsewhere. I believe very strongly that Genesis is only a summary - not a very detailed account. I base that on the fact that other graphic details - which are not in Genesis - are in other parts of the Bible, written by different authors, in different times. I also somehow see that as some sort of a "pattern" in how and when information is being revealed to mankind, all the way from Biblical times to the present. It seems that God wants us to know certain things at certain times. We are more fortunate since we have God-given science and technology to somehow help us understand - depending on how we use them, of course.

Actually, let me get to that again. I am a literalist in a way that I adhere to what Jesus said, not to change the words or message of the Bible. That's why translations/interpretations must be as close to the Bible, if not dead-on! Regarding that localized flood, there was nothing literally changed in Genesis.

Well, that means you haven't been paying attention to the discussion. It's not only you who have wrongly formed a description/opinion of me and insisted on putting me in a box - to neatly suit their argument(s), mind you. You can read back to understand where I'm coming from.

Never let it be said that good ol Betsy doesn't lend a helping hand! Well I hope this should help you find your way. See that very first part of this clip? That quote was taken from this posted excerpt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=210 Boy, you're like your preacher Dawkins.....full of excuses! You said previously: So I gave you this part in big, bold font. Alas, you still didn't get that. Sorry, there's no more larger font than this. Maybe if you put in a request to Mapleleaf....they might oblige you. Anyway, you really do not need to even read that clip above. You should understand this big bold statement....that is, if you understand science at all. But of course, you don't understand. You confirmed it by repeating the same mistake. Psssst. Let me give you a hint. Natural and Social are both in the same category. Both are empirical sciences - meaning, you need observable evidences!

You cited the article by Davis A. Young to show that there is a contradiction to a Biblical reference. You made this claim (along with three other claims): http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=660And I'm telling you, that article does not show a contradiction to a Biblical reference. http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood

I thought the reason you posted that article was to show an archeological contradiction to a Biblical reference. That article however, only supported my own previous assertion! Furthermore, it also supported another posted FACT! Are you on my side?

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

Yoo-hoo, Oh Bambino.....where are yooouuuu? I'm still waiting for your annnsweeeerr. Where's the contradiction? Kindly explain it to me, hon.

so far... 36 FACTS ... and counting.....

deleted.

FACT: ARCHEOLOGY UNEARTHED THE EBLA TABLETS Excerpts from The Ebla Tablets and Abraham Traditions by: David Noel Freedman This discovery has been chronicled by one of the late William F. Albright’s students, David Noel Freedman. In the pages of the Biblical Archeologist, of which he is editor, are the first glimpses of the story of nearly fifteen thousand clay tablets discovered in upper Syria at Tell Mardikhhttp://rsc.byu.edu/archived/reflections-mormonism-judaeo-christian-parallels/5-ebla-tablets-and-abraham-tradition

I already did! The problem is....you don't know when your query's been answered. That's no longer my problem.

Come again?

That makes two.

For one thing you're the one who keeps on responding! No one's twisting your arms! If I'm thaaaaat irresistible, tell you what....use that ignore button. That way you won't get irresistibly drawn to my siren call...or my siren "yoo-hoo." So you say I'm spamming? Boy, when you get reduced to that kind of pathetic rebuttal....that must mean you surely know you're losing!

Correction. There are also such things as formal sciences, you know. Let me post this again for your benefit, in case you accidentally overlooked it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScienceMathematics is absolutely certain. Irrefutable. Furthermore, how do you form your hypotheses, theories and laws without logic? Where do your empirical evidences stand without formal science? Since the natural is restricted to only the material, therefore you limit yourself to the narrower sense of science.

So?

FACT: CIRCUMCISION IS BEST DONE ON THE 8th DAY! http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1118 Genesis 17:12 12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. Philippians 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Luke 1:59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

FACT: THE REGENERATING RIBS http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/amazing-regenerating-rib Genesis 2:20b22 But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. God surely knows the human body so well!

RIBS! Thanks for reminding me!

And quite interestingly and an absolute "furthermore".... So we see evolutionists locked in their biased belief. Refusing to consider another alternative - the theory of Intelligent Design. "Conclusions" that are half-baked are not conclusive at all, unless you change the meaning of the word to suit it the way we want to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science That's why the so-called peer review has gotten so many criticisms. That's why the so-called peer review is not credible at all!

Furthermore... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science It's not all about empirical evidences! Basing everything in that alone should not necessarily make it truth!