[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Neal Adams!
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Yes, he sent me another email that also referenced this posting ..so i sent
this to both him and the forum .........
Allen
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Allen,
Have you forwarded this onto Philip Snow?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 7:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Neal Adams!
Dear JACK - Though you might be innarested in this ee I have just sent to
Neal Adams - do the Geocentrists generally go for his ideas? - I love 'em!
I'm pretty sure they can be applied successfully to Creationism, given we
have such problems with the timing of the ending of the Flood , anyway!
Unfortunately, we have only one scripture I know of that MIGHT describe the
spreading of the oceans - that 'clefting' in Peleg's day, although the psalmist
did talk of the 'ascending mountains & descending valleys', didn't he....
Any ideas on this controversial subject?
AS for Peleg and the flood/ geology timetable.... i would argue the
following...
Psalms104: 4. Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: 5.
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
6. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above
the mountains. 7. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they
hasted away.
Job 38:25. Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a
way for the lightning of thunder;
Now in both of these certain actions are mentioned but the context does not
define WHEN this action took place ..I would argue that these verse can only be
used to validate/prove the actions took place but not pinpoint the point in
time when each of those happened.. ie Psams said "laid the foundations of the
earth" but at the foundations of the earth is not the only time "they would
flee at the voice of thy thundering"?
Revelation 16: 20. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not
found.
Revelation 20:11. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it,
from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no
place for them.
Genesis 10:25. And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg;
for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
Now regardless of if or how you define the word as [clefted] it cannot be
argued that this is referring to Geology exclusively. In fact there is
absolutely no imperative that geology must have anything to do with this verse
at all...it could ?Yes, geology could be involved but geology is not nor can it
be claimed the exclusive imperative of this verse ..why? because as in the case
of most biblical misconceptions, certain assumptions about biblical terminology
is made that may or may not be real?. Often words can be used which have
multiple meanings.. error comes in when one particular meaning is assumed for
terms to the exclusion of other possible meanings? knowing this it is important
to correlate all know passages particularly the context with the verse in
question ..particularly context imediate and broad......various meanings of the
same term can have diametrically different consequences for the meanings/ focus
of verses.. In this case even if geology had anything to
do with this verse?the term "earth" itself does not always refer to soil?it
often times refers to man, just as the term world often does in scripture..
Psalms 82:6. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the
most High. 7. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8.
Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
The context is children of God verse children of men and the nations (people
not soil)?.to argue that the earth to be judged is spicificaly geology & soil,
completely misses the whole focus, context and any intrinsic meaning in the
verse itself........
Matthew 10:34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
send peace, but a sword.35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against
her mother in law. 36. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Even if you argue some analogous use of the term earth the focus of the
"peace on the earth" is not on the geology or soil of the earth at issue but in
men.. so even with the geology in consideration for the fact that men are on
the "earth", it cant be argued to exclusively refer to geology since the
context is the peace with and in man not geology exclusivly, if at all.
Matthew 13:1. The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea
side. 2. And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went
into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore. 3. And he
spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to
sow;4. And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came
and devoured them up:5. Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much
earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: 6.
And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they
withered away. 7. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and
choked them:8. But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some
an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. 9. Who hath ears to hear, let
him hear.???24. Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of
heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed
in his field: 25. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among
the wheat, and went his way. 26. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought
forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27. So the servants of the
householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy
field? from whence then hath it tares? 28. He said unto them, An enemy hath
done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather
them up? 29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up
also the wheat with them. 30. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in
the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the
tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my
barn???..
36. Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his
disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of
the field. 37. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is
the Son of man; 38. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of
the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39. The enemy
that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the
reapers are the angels. 40. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in
the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
In both these parables, that use world and earth, illustrate the fact that
regardless of what ever geology is referenced the focus and consideration is on
what takes place in the hearts of men?..
Simply earth can refer to man or geology context will specify the primary
focus or both if applicable ?however in the genesis statement :.." for in his
days was the earth divided;" there is nothing anywhere in the context that
demands geology and as I just shown the term itself cannot be used to demand
geology and or exclude mankind?.
On the other hand the context immediate and broad is focused on mankind and
the generations of mankind as well as what took place with mankind shortly
after the flood... in fact there is a division of the earth recorded in
scripture verbatim it is the only division of earth recorded in scripture
because as I said before the only way to assert that "for in his days was the
earth divided;" only or specifically refers to geology is to
make an assumption about the defintion/ reference about the terms used in
the first place ie earth and divided
ignore the specific and broad contextual references to man
ignore the fact that even if Geology were under consideration here..it
cannot be denied that this verse is also specifically referring to the division
of men on the geology..
Genesis 11: 1. And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
How is the geology of one language? It does not say there was one language on
the geology ?..again the earth in this context refers to man not geology
however it can and does also reefer to geology???.2. And it came to pass, as
they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar;
and they dwelt there. 3. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make
brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had
they for morter. 4. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower,
whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be
scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5. And the Lord came down to
see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6. And the Lord
said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; The geology as
well as the people are referred to as the earth??. and the People
are and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them,
which they have imagined to do. 7. Go to, let us go down, and there confound
their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8. So the
Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they
left off to build the city. 9. Therefore is the name of it called Babel;
because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: The earth
has a language?.no mater what augment you make the term earth can include, does
not and cannot exclude a meaning that focuses on and is referring to man not
just geology. the and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the
face of all the earth.
Therefore the context in that very verse of Peleg, (chapters are artifical/
man made divisons) can only be shown and demonstrated to refer to men and
mankind,
1. Even if pelgs day is a reference to Geology it cannot be denied to
reference mankind?.thus even if geology is under consideration it cannot
exclude mankind
2. Thus even if geology were under consideration ..there is no logical
argument that can be made for a geologic assertions without assuming that
conclusion as true first and thus evoking circular fallacy by arguing for
geological meaning?
3. Since there is no scriptural imperative for this to refer to geology at
all, and ceratainly not exclusive of mankind and the practical implications of
a expanding earth to account for flood waters would diminish any practical
possibility that the verse is refereeing to geology particularly in light of
the context which is mankind and the one langauge of the EARTH
As for Fossils, pre or post flood ..i would argue the following..
1 We have fossils as a fact, we know we have them, we know how fossils can be
made, but no "date" stamped on them to know exactly when which one were made
when
2. There is no scriptural imperative that fossils are not or could not be a
result of the flood therefore to argue against such or to state that there are
on fossils as a result of the flood or people who lived prior to the flood is a
exercise in logical futility, baseless, pure conjecture and wild speculation,
not found or demanded anywhere in science and certainly not scripture?.
Other related posts:
