Видео

I’ll add, too, that 1:1 says it’s to his servants. A word study on “servants” always shows that as Israel. To them belonged the service of God (Rom 9:4). In contrast, the body of Christ is composed of sons, not servants (Gal 4:6-7).

Well, your comment kind of illustrates the problem. The goal of the conversation was to stress that human beings communicate in a specific way, according to the normal rules of language. Dispensationalism is an attempt to mirror that in our Bible reading. Obviously we believe that is the correct approach to reading Scripture, otherwise we wouldn’t advocate it. But what you “heard” was not according to our authorial intent, which might illustrate a problem in your hermeneutic. I would even advocate non dispensationalists like Walt Kaiser and Moises Silva or Hays and Duvall who make similar claims for why we must read the Bible that way. You can agree with the defining mark of dispensationalism and not be a dispensationalist, but you can’t be a dispensationalist without agreeing.

@@thebiblesojourner brother please understand I have no problem with you thinking you are correct in your hermeneutics I hope that is true for everyone. The problem I see is that the distinction you mark for Dispensational beliefs is not much of a distinction. A distinction should be something the other side would generally agree with as a distinction. The other side doesn’t believe they are changing the meaning of words without any connection between the words. My proposal would be defining a distinction by, 2 naming distinct theological perspectives like Israel and the church being distinctly separate in God’s overall plan. Or 2 closer to what you are saying in the video Dispensational hermeneutics does not include the apostles changing or “deepening” words or concepts in the Old Testament. If that is wrong please correct me. Most of the other side justifies the concept changes like the modern church being spiritual Israel in the apostles writings. I also said deepening because I think the other side wouldn’t say change but would say something like deepening.

Glad it was helpful! Praise God!

“A blank check scripture never wrote” - I’ll have to remember that one!

@@thebiblesojourner I have been having long discussions on infant baptism with some friends of mine who are Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox some of these issues are different as compared to say a Presbyterian on the topic, but cross over exists over course .

Praise God for your testimony of his grace in Slovakia! So happy to meet a fellow believer from that part of the world. So glad to hear about your passionate desire to learn theology and keep growing. May God bless you and those like you my friend!

Welcome! Glad you found the channel! Yes my estimates are using “worst case” scenario. I do think Israel was probably in Egypt longer than 400 years, but if you’re right, that would definitely be a crazy population increase! Excellent observation!

@@thebiblesojourner well, let me know what you think about this: Abraham was 75 when he left Haran. This was The Promise, and the start of 430 years to the Exodus. 25 years later, Abraham is 100 years old and Isaac is born. We are now 25 years from The Promise 5 years later, Isaac is weaned. Ishmael mocks Isaac, Ishmael and Hagar are exiled. This is the start of the 400 years of being "mistreated/afflicted" and then later "enslaved". We are now 30 years from The Promise 55 years later, Isaac is 60 years old when Jacob is born. Now we're 85 years from The Promise 130 years later, Jacob is 130 years old and they enter Egypt. We're now 215 years from The Promise, and 215 years away from the Exodus Concerning the 215 years in Egypt, we know that Kohath was listed with those entering Egypt (Gen. 46:8,11), and his son Amram was listed among those that left Egypt (Num. 3:14,19). Kohath lived to be 133 years old his son Amram lived to be 137 years old So we now know the Israelites could be in Egypt no longer than their combined ages of 270 years. They were in Egypt 215 years. The fourth generation prophecy refers to: Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses.

We had the privilege of going last year, and would definitely go again! It is quite the experience.

So glad to hear that, brother! May God grant us all increase in our pursuit of self-discipline.

Good insights--especially on Paul endeavoring to keep the feasts. I had not put two and two together on that. Thank you! I was challenged on Acts 20:16 since it seems he is trying to be there for Pentecost.

@@thebiblesojourner Yes, that’s another one! If interested, I did 5 episodes on Saul/Paul to explain this in greater detail. They’re short lessons. ;)

I think there is room to engage with such a viewpoint. But whatever viewpoint we use, it must engage in a consistent framework.

That’s a good thought, but I also don’t think those are mutually exclusive. It can certainly include both.

@@thebiblesojourner - I guess maybe my perspective should be explained. Sovereign control to me implies 100% and perfection. Control over every thing and yet we have freewill? Since the Lord has 'already spoken' - does He need to say more? Aren't the scriptures complete and not to be added to? This means that or answers and even our 'God' is 'inside' them. Most everyone I know sees prophecy as a prediction of the future. I say if that is the case then we have control over 'when' a prophecy is fulfilled... and Jesus put it appropriately when He said, "ANYTIME will do." Prophecy is fulfilled in either of two ways. It is fulfilled by waiting on the Lord, or through repentance and thus 'works'. Was Jonah a false prophet? Was Nineveh overturned? Yes they were... but their 'turning' was by their own choice, well, the KINGS choice. What would have happened if they hadn't repented? Or was the 'scare tactic' the whole plan anyways? So the Book of Revelation is prophecy, and if you know how to read it, you will see that it is a plan, a map, a guide of things that should be done, and done 'quickly'. When I use the word 'know' - it takes an uncommon context for me. To 'know' is to produce fruit... even children. So then, to 'know' the PLAN is to... 'do' the plan. To take initiative to manifest it. Sadly very few give any focus to what Jesus taught, and is the reason why even fewer knew what He was 'really' teaching, the intention of it.

Great question! There are variety of chronological markers within the gospels, such as variety of censuses and various rulers that are mentioned. We can cross reference that with what we know about her the great and his death, since that would give us a rough birthdate for Jesus. We also roughly know the date of the crucifixion in either 30 A.D. or 33 A.D. so, although I don’t think we can stay with 100% certainty, give or take a year we can date Jesus is birth and death. And the years would total in his 30s. That also would fit with Luke’s own testimony where he says that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry.

What if He saw him AFTER He resurrected and He actually lived here? 🤔

There are definitely big question marks on many of these guys, that is for sure.

True. Perhaps morphed is not the best word.

Appreciate your thoughts on this. Obviously I disagree with that, but always enjoy friendly debate on the issue!

@@thebiblesojourner Thanks, I go over this on my channel, where I scrutinize the late date evidence. BTW, in Irenaeus writing "Against Heresies", he was actually referring to Titan seen during the end of the reign of Domitian, not the book of revelation itself, nor John. I go over this on my channel too. Thank you.

Glad you found it helpful! Praise God!

I’d be curious to read his dating on 1 Timothy. He puts that much earlier too. Curious as to his arguments on that. Gotta find a copy again.

@@thebiblesojourner J.A.T. ROBINSON’S REDATED NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY LISTED BY DATE -0047-48: James 0050,E: 1 Thessalonians 0050-51: 2 Thessalonians 0055,E: 1 Corinthians 0055,L: 1 Timothy 0056,E: 2 Corinthians 0056,L: Galatians 0057,E: Romans 0057,E: Titus 0058,E: Philippians 0058,M: Philemon 0058,M: Colossians 0058.M: Ephesians 0058,L: 2 Timothy 0040-60: The Didache 0045-60: Mark 0040-60+: Matthew -0057-60+: Luke 0061-62: Jude 0061-62: 2 Peter 0057-62+: Acts 0060-65: 1 John 0060-65: 2 John 0060-65: 3 John 0065,E: 1 Peter -0040-65+: John 0067: Hebrews 0068,L(-70): Revelation 0070,E: 1 Clement 0075: Barnabas -0085: The Shepherd of Hermas LISTED BY TITLE Acts: 57-62+ Barnabas: 75 1 Clement: Early 70 Colossians: Summer 58 Corinthians 1: Early 55 Corinthians 2: Early 56 The Didache: 40-60 Ephesians: Late Summer 58 Galatians: Later 56 Hebrews: 67 James: -47-48 John c. -40-65+ 1 John: 60-65 2 John: 60-65 3 John: 60-65 Jude: 61-2 Luke: -57-60+ Mark: 45-60 Matthew: 40-60+ 1 Peter: Spring 65 2 Peter: 61-2 Philemon: Summer 58 Philippians: Spring 58 Revelation: Late 68 (-70) Romans: Early 57 The Shepherd of Hermas: -85 Thessalonians 1: Early 50 Thessalonians 2: 50-51 Timothy 1: Autumn 55 Timothy 2: Autumn 58 Titus: Late Spring 57

@@thebiblesojourner Timothy 1: Autumn 55

Well, it is attractive because of the false certainty it creates. But I agree... it is concerning that one can adopt a loose hermeneutic to fit certain events into the prophecies.

"By influx of Gentiles all Israel will be saved." ??? Only a remnant of Israel will be saved. That remnant will be "all of Israel" when all is said and done. What has that got to do with the Gentiles?

​​@@bugsocsollie1694 the influx of Gentiles into the Church has nothing to do with all Israel being saved. That is my point. All Israel will be Jews. All Israel will be Israel..

​@@bugsocsollie1694 But faithfulness to Romans 11:25 demands that we recognize that the mystery reveals the relative time of the ending of the remnant only basis of the salvation of Israel. The verse 26 all Israel shows that the remnant has swallowed the whole. No longer will only a remnant be saved into the Church. But God has returned to His program with the Jews, no longer only a remnant coming into the Church.

​@@bugsocsollie1694 the fullness of the Gentiles coming into the Church is the time marker for the end of the Church. The Church is one new man composed of Gentiles and Jews together UNDISTINGUISHED. This is God's program and God's rules, not ours. But when GOD changes how He works, this marks a dispensational change, by definition.

Thanks for watching brother! I doubt preterism is an doctrine intended to deflect criticism from the Catholic Church, but I haven't looked into that possibility too much. I appreciate your thoughts on the little horn--I'm hopeful that one day I can do an examination of that theme. That would be a great episode to do.

I appreciate your perspective and the points you’ve raised. I would offer a couple points of rebuttle. In the modern world, with technologies like global banking, it's indeed possible for someone to retain wealth despite losing their home. However, in the ancient world, wealth was more localized and tangible, often measured in material possessions and production rather than in bank accounts. Earthquakes were often completely devastating (as records show), and recovery was typically slower and more challenging. Some cities never recovered at all, remaining unbuilt (for example, Beth Shean in Israel in 749-devestated and never recovered even though it was an impressive city). A good example of the devestation would be the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan. Despite modern technology, national and international aid, and advanced machinery, their rebuilding process was prolonged. By 2000, they had scarcely reached 50% of their original production capacities, and homes and buildings were still unbuilt. Similarly, Hurricane Katrina's impact on New Orleans showed how even with modern aid and technology, recovery can take many years. To suggest that ancient Laodicea could have rebuilt faster than modern cities would certainly be overestimating the capabilities of the time. The idea that Laodicea retained untouched wealth despite economic and structural collapse, and was still seen as an opulent city without needs, is hard to reconcile with historical realities. Many preterists do see this as an issue, which is why there's a range of views on the matter. Some suggest rapid reconstruction or the possibility that the church itself wasn't as affected. I think one needs some way of dealing with the evidence. I don’t think it is correct to assume that their wealth was the modern kind of wealth that sits in Swiss Bank accounts. I think the more one studies natural disasters in the ancient world, the more one appreciates the singificance of this evidence.

​@@thebiblesojourner Laodicea was a commercial and financial centre, being the equivalent to a state capital, and in a busy trade route. Indeed, they were able to mint their own coins. It's citizens comprised many of the rich and famous of the day, and they did indeed keep great quantities of wealth stored in various ways and places outside of the city. Even back then they knew about diversification. So this to me is why them declining imperial funding for the rebuilding is contributory evidence that they very much were still fabulously wealthy as a city, even immediately after the earthquake. And that as the OP here says, fits perfectly with them saying they have need of nothing. Of course there were severe consequences and losses, but clearly they were still wealthy. So it seems to me that whether or not they were completely rebuilt by the time of the writing of the Apocalypse is not really relevant? It also seems to me that neither rapid rebuilding, nor the extent of the local church being affected, are necessary, in order to confirm Laodicea being rich. This in my opinion would make the historical evidence here very favourable to early dating, though being charitable it could simply be neutral. Thanks for the great discussions!

@@andrewmiles2370, Those are very good points. I also am persuaded by them. Having classical training in history and law, It's really not because I have an axe to grind for orthodox preterism. But simply because arguments like "Laodicea could not have still been rich in AD65 after an earthquake five years before" are built on a lot of historical presumption. And when we look at the details and don't assume "construction equals poverty" and "their wealth must have only be local and not diversified" (never mind counter examples and the imperial nature of wealth at the time), the argument tends to fall apart. One need not prove "rapid re-construction." The fact that Roman historians, long after the fact, note the wealth of the city and its ability to rebuild on its own proves the point that long term building projects and wealth in the Laodicean case (irrespective of historical counterexamples, ancient or modern) went together. As you say, at the very least it might be considered neutral evidence. But even that raises the very problem that Dr. Goeman raises...people tend to see the historical evidence from the side of "is it possibly compatible with my view." That is understandable, but it affects the futurist on these issues as much as the preterist. It is actually difficult to find historically contradictory and decisive evidence. But it does exist. And like this example, it often ends up, not just being compatible or neutral, but is evidence for preterism. Especially when taken in the abductive or cumulative evidential form of argument. Total respect for people who arn't there yet. Any honest preterist will also acknowledge holes in his own view. But that is the challenge of prophesy, we all see a glass darkly.

@@jrhemmerich quite agree! I've found it a rich source of joy studying history and seeing how wonderfully accurate our scriptures are - I was an atheist till three years ago and thought it was all mythology. I've just remembered RE. Laodicea: Revelation 3 [18] "I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. " This speaks to three ways Laodicea became rich and famous: They sold gold! And commodities generally. Here, Jesus is mocking their gold. They famously produced black wool! Jesus directly rebukes this as beneath His standards for His saints. They were a centre of medicine and learning for the time! But Jesus points out the ineffectual nature of their remedies. What a mighty Redeemer we have!

@@andrewmiles2370, that is so very encouraging to hear your story. My faith also has been greatly strengthened to understand that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23-24 helps to unveil the prophesies in Daniel (we are told to understand what Daniel was told he would not, for the time was far off, but “at hand” for the Apostles). Understanding that “cloud coming” is an OT picture of God’s judgment through historical events on the earth (Isa. 19:1) which Jesus appropriates to himself, really solidified my view that Jesus really meant that all the things spoken about the fall of the temple were to happen in that generation. It is quite distinct from the physical descent/return of Jesus (Acts 1:11, 3:18-20, 1Thess. 4:13-18, Rev. 20:9-14, 21:4). Amazingly, the cloud coming in judgment happened right on time. The fall of the temple and the old order of worship in AD 70 is a historical confirmation of the new covenant order set up by Christ’s substitutionary death for us (Heb. 9:8-10; 12:26-27). Revelation speaks of the fall of the great city, Jerusalem, which is the city where the Lord was crucified (Rev. 11:8). The time period for the war against Israel by the Romans is 42 months of the city, when the Romans declare war about April/May of 67 and send Vespasian into Galilee and Judea until the fall of the temple in August/September of 70 (3.5 years). The siege of Jerusalem is also described as five month (Rev. 9:3) and Josephus says that the siege of the Romans began in April/May (Ilyar) and ended in August/September (Av 10th, was the burning of the Temple). So the siege (where people were harmed by the siege engines “scorpions” whose power was in their tail, but where the city was not subject to mass slaughter was 5 months. All of the details and many others are what convince me. Though one has to be cautious to not go over board on the details, but to accept them where they can be found. Often a lack of reliable history is the problem. Not scripture. But I will say that this has been a later confirmatory evidences for me. I was already a Christian and had been convinced by other history and philosophy about the meaning of Jesus and the cross much prior to my views on Revelation (though I was introduced to a historical interpretation Mathew 24 in my early teens. I’m curious, was eschatology a minor piece in your recent conversion or more significant? I do think Revelation important, but I would still rank it as secondary to the primary issues (a capstone to scripture and the new covenant understanding). Though I do think it very helpful not to be so confused by such things as I once was. But maybe that is maturity and the battle now is holding on to a bit of humility in the midst of my developing confidence. Not to burden you with my questions or curiosity. Blessings.

It seems Nero’s persecution was fairly limited to Rome and Domitian persecution was less organized but more extensive.

@@thebiblesojourner ....and thus more notes that neither support the criteria of the identity portrayed in Revelation 13. They simply do not tick the boxes of the CV requirements. There will be many anti-Christs but only one Anti-Christ and that person/identity is yet to be revealed. Pretersim is such a failure.

...ah, you do get there in this video 😊​@@thebiblesojourner

Hey Mike, I do plan on doing a video in the next month or so which covers the rest of the internal arguments put forward by preterists. Lord willing I will be able to argue at least with the main claims that gentry puts forward. Gentry's new work is not worth it for me to spend $90. It is unlikely he will be putting forward anything new. Given the length of the volumes, it is likely going to be a quantity over quality approach. But I'm definitely willing to look at his new book if he wants to send me a copy :)

@@thebiblesojourner LOL! Yeah, I've heard this book was 10 years in the making. And I thought Thomas' 2-volume tome was plenty. I guess Gentry really is a convinced PP! Looking forward to your future podcasts bro!

I appreciate the encouragement, my friend! May the Lord make these videos useful. I agree with your concern and assessment. I think the pathway from partial preterism to full preterism is quite greasy!

Out of curiosity, what's your pastoral concern with partial and full preterism?

@@andrewmiles2370well, my concern is the slippery slope that partial preterism leaves itself open to to fall into full preterism. And the concern with full preterism is that it is heresy. It denies the future coming bodily resurrection, so my concern with PP is how easily one could fall into FP and thus fall outside of the faith once for all handed down to the saints. Look at someone like Gary DeMar who was a leading proponent of PP who has since fallen into FP, although he had been warned by other leading PP proponents. That is my primary concern.

​@@andrewmiles2370 My concern is that Full preterism denies the bodily resurrection of the saints and the bodily return of Christ--both of which have been crucial parts of Scripture and Christian belief. Partial preterism is a pathway to full preterism via a subjective hermeneutic that takes 2nd coming passages and tries to apply them to AD 70. As a result, some well meaning partial preterists have taught that Jesus will not return for thousands of years still. This conflicts with Jesus' plain teaching to be reading for His appearing.

It is certainly possible, though it is also possible to interpret that verse different ways. I would say it is definitely an intriguing argument, though not conclusive (at least to me--maybe I'm wrong!).

@thebiblesojourner it's conclusive. I've spent a lot of time on that verse. Compare the wording in Rev 1:1-2 and Rev 20:15-19. John 5:31 is also dire tly relevant. I'm on my phone but I can explain in more detail when I have access to my PC TONIGHT

Look forward to it

⁠​⁠@@asherjacobson597, it just strikes me as odd that you turn action that is focused on Jesus into John dying and going to Jesus. The phrase is repeated at the end of the book and the events of the book are “at hand.” I don’t see any context that points to John’s death as being the coming of Jesus. On the contrary, it seems to have meaning for a wide number of the readers of the book. But, I’d be curious to see what you have to say.

Fascinating.

Really appreciate the encouragement. Praise the Lord that it can be useful!

Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith- to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen. Rom 16:23-25

Seems like sound logic to me!

It is widely accepted that James and John (whom Christ called the "Sons of Thunder") were the youngest of The Twelve. John would have been around 22 at the time of the Crucifixion, making him about 87 in AD 95.

My understanding is that Epiphanius believed that John was exiled under emperor Claudius who reigned from A.D. 41-54. But I am aware of no current scholars who would regard that as accurate. Do you think Revelation was written between 41-54 AD? It would indeed be difficult to fit that with the external evidence. Theophylact, who served as the bishop of Ohrid in the 11th century A.D., mentions in the preface to his commentary on the Gospel of John that John's exile occurred during Nero's reign. However, in his commentary on Matthew 20:22-23, Theophylact refers to John's banishment under Emperor Trajan. Either way, he is a 12th century source, so certainly less valuable than the early church witnesses presented in this video. Also, the video on internal evidence is coming out today! Don't miss it!

Great question! There are probably multiple reasons, but the ones that Scripture seems to make very clear is: (1) to show power over Satan, (2) to show power over sin, (3) to succeed where Adam failed. That time period brings a unique perspective on those aspects.

🤴🇮🇱

What evidence would convince you the flood happened? What are you looking for?

Great question! I think the answer has to do with the promise God had already made earlier in the story (Gen 3:15). God promised he would send a champion who would come and fix the world. To destroy everyone and start over would nullify his promise. One of the great themes of the Bible is that if God promises something, you can bet your bottom dollar he will fulfill his word.

Thank you, I was beginning to wonder why only skeptics were commenting 🤷‍♂️

I’m sure I’ve heard similar things. I was actually kind of surprised when I thought about it and just ran through the calculations of the preflood world.

@@thebiblesojourner Remember there were Nephilim on the earth and they were 100ft tall or more. The resources on the earth were not enough to support them. I believe they ate people too. Your calculations are correct as far as the possibility of that many people. However that doesn’t mean the environment was conducive for a population explosion like that.

Thanks for the heads up on Chris Pinto-I’ll try to remember to check him out.

I also have a PhD in OT studies, and the biblical flood narrative shows no evidence of being based on any other existing flood legends that we know of. Don't believe everything you read online :)

🤣

But if the story is true, how could it have been different? If God is holy, the consequences of sin is death. That’s why God sending Jesus into the world is the greatest display of love so that those who repent from their sin and believe in Christ receive Gods mercy as Jesus receives their just punishment. It really does all go together.

@@thebiblesojourner Why are the consequences of sin death?

@@thebiblesojourner I would have been a follower of Jesus if he would have said: I won’t be back for thousands of years so this form of government will give you the best outcome, here is a draft of a constitution that will help you maintain that government and avoid internal and external conflicts; Those people that you think are possessed by demons are only experiencing a brain malfunction, don’t kill them; Slavery is bad, stop all forms of it; there are tiny organisms that cause all king of sickness, here are some guidance to deal with them; the color of people skin is cause by pigmentation due to…don’t discriminate based on it; the narrative for the creation of the universe is wrong, here is how it happened; etc., etc., etc. Imagined if Jesus would have helped humanity avoid all those wars, famines, injustices, pandemics, etc.

So, you would follow Jesus if he were how you want him to be? I would, as kindly as I can, challenge you to reconsider the ramifications of what makes you the authority on what Jesus should have done. Perhaps if you read the gospels for yourself you might see there are answers for why Jesus does and says the things he does. Couldn’t really hurt to read it through from start to finish?

@@thebiblesojourner I graduated from a Baptist college, I read it. Bart Ehrman is well qualify to talk about Jesus, if you listen to his videos or read his books you might change your mind about Jesus. Thanks for your answers, I am out.

Good point.

What two stories? I only read one story.

@thebiblesojourner Are you really unaware of what are commonly referred to as doublets? This has been recognized for well over a century. There are two stories or traditions that have been woven together. There is repetition in the narrative with distinct differences. I highly recommend learning about the serious modern scholarship that has done on this topic.

@@nonprogrediestregredi1711oh it’s been recognized for over a century? I’m sold. 🙄

@@Captc5766 That's the part you are focused on?? Well, if critical thinking is not your thing, that's your prerogative.

@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 you sprinkled it in there to assure us that it wasn’t some “recent” enlightenment.

I’m curious actually…. What are some of your arguments against a global flood? I want to make sure there is nothing new I have not seen before. Are you also aware of the best arguments for a global flood? If not, you should study it a bit from the science perspective.

@@thebiblesojourner ive studied this intensely. The truth is there is no evidence of a global flood. Lots of theists just make things up that are not scientific facts. 1) the ark was unseaworthy. It wouldve snapped in half due to pressure and wavelength. Large wooden ships require metal frames. 2) if the ark did not snap in half then it wouldve filled with water and sunk. All wooden ships require pumps. 3) the ark wasnt large enough to hold all the animals even if you do your "kind" thing. Sorry but do the math, its a fact. 4) noah would need a couple of arks for food and water to keep an ark of animals alive. 5) eight people is insufficient to take care of an ark of animals. Ask any zookeeper. 6) the ark wouldve had toxic levels of ammonia from all the waste. 7) if anything lived then many species wouldve died from genetic diseases from inbreeding. 8) there would be evidence of inbreeding in our DNA if all humans today came from a small set if they would've survived. They may not have survived. 9) much of the aquatic life would've perished. Many species in the oceans require certain levels of salt. It doesn't rain salt water. Also many freshwater species would perish because of the salt. The water would have less salt than some sea creatures need and too much salt for some freshwater creatures. 10) even if everything on the ark survived then everything would die because there would be nothing to eat. 11) if there was a global flood there would be evidence of global salt deposits. There is none. Theres other reasons as well. This is just what i could pull off the top of my head from my intensive research. Theists cant accept the fact that their fairy tale isnt true so they lie, make things up and claim psuedo science that isnt true. Ive heard tons of incorrect crazy things from people because they just cant accept something they thought was true is plain old fiction. They put Galileo under house arrest because they didn't want to admit the earth revolves around the sun counter to what Joshua claimed.

@@thebiblesojourner i have never seen a valid argument for the flood. Ive seen many fallacies, pseudoscience and things people just make up. I have studied this in depth and i can only provide some off the top of my head. 1) the ark was unseaworthy. It wouldve snapped in half due to pressure and wavelength. Large wooden ships require metal frames. 2) if the ark did not snap in half then it wouldve filled with water and sunk. All wooden ships require pumps. 3) the ark wasnt large enough to hold all the animals even if you do your "kind" thing. Sorry but do the math, its a fact. 4) noah would need a couple of arks for food and water to keep an ark of animals alive. 5) eight people is insufficient to take care of an ark of animals. Ask any zookeeper. 6) the ark wouldve had toxic levels of ammonia from all the waste. 7) if anything lived then many species wouldve died from genetic diseases from inbreeding. 8) there would be evidence of inbreeding in our DNA if all humans today came from a small set if they would've survived. They may not have survived. 9) much of the aquatic life would've perished. Many species in the oceans require certain levels of salt. It doesn't rain salt water. Also many freshwater species would perish because of the salt. The water would have less salt than some sea creatures need and too much salt for some freshwater creatures. 10) even if everything on the ark survived then everything would die because there would be nothing to eat. 11) if there was a global flood there would be evidence of global salt deposits. There is none. Theres other reasons as well. This is just what i could pull off the top of my head from my intensive research. Theists cant accept the fact that their fairy tale isnt true so they lie, make things up and claim psuedo science that isnt true. Ive heard tons of incorrect crazy things from people because they just cant accept something they thought was true is plain old fiction. They put Galileo under house arrest because they didn't want to admit the earth revolves around the sun counter to what Joshua claimed.

​@@thebiblesojournerso did you get a chance to investigate any of my claims? I know it can be hard for people to accept something they thought was true is in fact a myth. I can help you if you need some support. I can also help with the math if that part is giving you trouble.

@@marveloussoftware1417 Sorry I missed the previous comment. I didn't see anything you raised that hasn't been answered before. I would look at answersingenesis(dot)org. They've written brief analyses of most of those questions. You should also visit the Ark Exhibit in Kentucky (I went last year for the first time). They built a life-size replica and showed how it could be built and sustain life on it with only 8 zookeepers, etc. Really well done. Lots of evidence out there!