|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I see the seperation of water from land as one of the anticipatory actions for forthcoming life, in all their numerous forms, requiring different habitats. It is also the first introduction of the earth's age: this action would have taken millions of years, as would the seperation of light from darkness in a critical mode and varied from the light/darkness ratio of other planets.
A true scientific view must accept that life could not have evolved without such actions, and that the emergence of life is no random accident! Thus I see real science here, as opposed to many aspects of anti-creationists who nshout MYTH as their only response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course that is NOT relevant and Israel was never significant enough for any of the Great Powers to go to war with it.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : WarningAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: Does the following text say the water was gathered into one place?
quote: I do not think the single land mass interpretation is required by the text. When I look at the earth as it exists today, the bodies of water we call seas are all connected together into a single global sea. Yet the land is separated into continents. So saying that the water is gathered in one place does not mean that there are not multiple seas, and it does not even require that there is only a single land mass, because we are not told anything about the shape formed by the gathered water. In fact even if we were told that the land was gathered in one place, that would not rule out having multiple continents like North and South America, although it would rule out Australia and Anarctica. But we are not told that the earth was a single land mass. Further, I don't see anything in Genesis that requires that the configuration of land at the time of creation lasted until the Flood. You rely on Genesis 10:25, but the division spoken of in that verse is not necessarily a geological division of the land. Even if the division is geological, the division in question need not be the only such division. I'm also a bit dubious that gathering of the waters in one place is intended to imply that there were no lakes or rivers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The complexities of the text.
The life spans and time periods of ordinary events in the Noah story are enormous and unrealistic. From our POV. This is seen as mythical from the start, as with the days listed in the first creation chapter. However this is a poor view and one obviosly not contemplated. Consider this. The universe is not expanding; its excelerating. This says if the universe is expandng at 10 KPH today, its expansion is 15 KPH tomorrow and 25 day after. Equally, the further back one looks, there is an equivalent decelleration. Yesterday the expansion was 5KPH, day before 2 KPH, and so on. The further back we see, the longer the time ratio variance; the slower everything moves. This would be the case in the early thresholds of the universe's early stages. The sun rays would take longer to reach us, the revolutions and rotations of the earth would be slower, our 24 our day of this period would be as millions of years in the very early phases. This is the reason the days in ch.1 are not listed as 24-hour days. If they were they would be listed in some form - after all the writings introduced the day and week, so there is no issue about hours of a day. The texts does not display lack of wisdom about time. Ch 1 is discussing the very first embryotic phases of the universe, from the point when stars never yet existed. It is scientifically positive that the earlier human's life spans would be greater than ours, yet their performance levels would also be much smaller than ours. It must be so. But its not this simple either, and it goes much deeper. One can ask, how can vegetation precede the sun? Read again, the vegetation was completed but yet not alive - nothing moved or grew [the texts]. The vegetation's initial, first appearance, when it was not alive and only completed - did not yet need sunlight [photntisis]. Further, read v14 again - it does not refer to the stars here, only the 'light' emitted from the stars. It is thus plausible after the vegetation apeared, the sun's light was critically refocused, in a manner different from other planets. It had to be so - it is manifest the light ratio in other planets do not suport life! The ratio is so unique and different, the earth has life compared to the entire known universe not having life - a ratio of 1: trillions. Further, the rate of expansion and decelleration is not small or insignificant. Such a view is only seen from our minute point of view, because we are so insignifcantly small. If the universe could be put on a table and observed objectively and seperately, we would see it moving like the speed of light. Raw energy which has no match in power of velosity. If we see galaxies moving at say 10 KPH, think what this means to a quark in one of the planets: at least the speed of light! The days in ch. 1, with the absence of hours, pointedly say these are not 24 hour days but epochs of time. Here, a day could be a millions of years. Consider how long it would take for the waters to be seperated from the land here on earth: the drift factor is miniscule. This says all the actions listed in ch.1 are epochs of time, not 24 hour days. IOW, they can be classified as days - but they cannot be read as 24 hour days. This is precisely how it is listed. A very complex construct is being stated in a simple mode, for the benefit of all generations of humanity - a feat on its own! This is the world's most pristine writings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
It is scientifically positive that the earlier human's life spans would be greater than ours, yet their performance levels would also be much smaller than ours. Please present some scientific evidence to support this claim.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I did. It is based on the accepted premise of the universe's acceleration and de-acceleration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Joe, are you familiar with the term non sequitur?
I thought not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes: But the amount of water involved would not be seven times the volume of the ocean. Are you saying there is not enough water in the mantel to fill the oceans 7 times? How and when did it get there? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Trixie,
Trixie writes: Forgetting for the moment the gender (which is irrelevant to my point) "seas" can't be considered a singular verb. For starters it's a noun, Do you mean verbs can't be used as nouns? In Biblical Hebrew they can and are used as nouns. But either way whether the noun ים is used or the verb ימים is used they are both masculine singular. BTW ימים is the one used in the Hebrew text.
Trixie writes: If the original Hebrew uses a singular form, then the translation is inaccurate, Yes the translators only knew about seas so they used seas as they could not envision all the water in one sea.
Trixie writes: if it's accurate it uses a plural form, The text is correct the translation is what is wrong.
Trixie writes: therefore you can't argue that that it talks about a single sea. So yes I can argue the text says sea as that is what the word that is used in the Hebrew text means. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3736 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
You said
quote: If that's the case, what else in the translation is wrong? Does it really matter what the KJV says if you're going to argue that it's not accurate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes: Your interpretation ignores this passage: You did not question this passage or quote it.
quote: Debating would be a little easier if the Bibles in the OP was used to quote from. I suppose you are convinced that רקיע is a hammered out dome instead of a firmament or expanse. If so could you please explain how the water that was separated by the expanse we call our atmosphere from the water that surounded the land mass we call planet Earth, could be hammered out into something solid as your dome would be?
Percy writes: How do you avoid this interpretation? Easy you just read the text and use the word it uses. You don't try to make the text say anything. רקיע is the Hebrew word used in the text and it is singular and therefore means sea. Therefore He called the body of water that was gathered together in one place a sea. One place could not have any of the 6 landlocked seas we have today as the water would not have been in one place. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: One place could not have any of the 6 landlocked seas we have today as the water would not have been in one place. Another totally irrelevant crap statement. So what? There could still be a brazillion separate land masses just with no land locked seas. Sorry but there is no support for one land mass in Genesis 1. Have you ever read the Bible, particularly the King James Authorized Version? Here is what it says:
quote: The topic, in case you missed it, happens to be "What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood " and that passage has NOTHING to do with either of the Biblical Flood Myths and offers NO support for your Attractive Rabbit Hole bullshit of one single land mass.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
One place could not have any of the 6 landlocked seas we have today as the water would not have been in one place. Do you consider the Pacific, Atlantic, Arctic and Indian oceans, as well as the Mediterranean, Caribbean and Arabian Seas as one body of water or multiple?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: I do not think the single land mass interpretation is required by the text. So are you saying the water was not in one place as the text says?
NoNukes writes: When I look at the earth as it exists today, the bodies of water we call seas are all connected together into a single global sea. So how do you connect these seas to one body of water?Aral Sea, Caspian Sea, Dead Sea, Sea of Galilee, Great Salt Lake, and the Salton Sea. NoNukes writes: Yet the land is separated into continents. Yes we have continents today but we do not have one body of water.
NoNukes writes:
So saying that the water is gathered in one place does not mean that there are not multiple seas, One body of water would be one sea. We might call different parts of that one sea by other names but that would not separate the water into different bodies of water.
NoNukes writes: In fact even if we were told that the land was gathered in one place, that would not rule out having multiple continents like North and South America, although it would rule out Australia and Anarctica. You would have to rule out any of the continents that contain the 6 landlocked seas mentioned above.
NoNukes writes: Further, I don't see anything in Genesis that requires that the configuration of land at the time of creation lasted until the Flood. The flood occured about 1800 years after Genesis 1:9, 10. What could have happened that God did not tell Moses about in that period of time. He did tell him in the days of Peleg it was divided.
NoNukes writes: You rely on Genesis 10:25, but the division spoken of in that verse is not necessarily a geological division of the land. Even if the division is geological, the division in question need not be the only such division. Well no that is not all I use to support the view that all the land mass was in one place and was divided at a later date. There was one language on the Earth.
quote: The people who were trying to build a tower to heaven had their language confounded and was scattered over the face of the Earth.
quote: They were scattered upon the face of ALL the Earth. In Genesis 1:10 the dry land there was called Earth. So if that dry land was one continious piece of dry land there would be no problem with scattering the people or the animals that had survived the flood on the ark over ALL the face of the Earth. If the dry land was then divided into the positions it is at today that would explain why there was people in different parts of the world. It would also explain why all of them had a flood story and worshiped some kind of a god. It would explain why it has been agreed that there was a mother tongue all languages came from.
NoNukes writes: I'm also a bit dubious that gathering of the waters in one place is intended to imply that there were no lakes or rivers. Well until the water was gathered into one place there was no dry land. To have rivers you have to have rain and I don't find any. Rain is mentioned in the 2nd chapter of Genesis that God had not caused it to rain. But rain was not needed as the Earth was watered by a mist that rose from the ground. The only time I find it raining was when the windows of heaven were opened after Noah had entered the ark. So why would there be rivers or lakes? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Trixie,
Trixie writes: If that's the case, what else in the translation is wrong? Does it really matter what the KJV says if you're going to argue that it's not accurate? I never said the KJV was perfect. I did say it is the best English version we have today. But I included the LXX and the Hebrew text also so the study could use the proper words and meanings of those words. That is what Bible Study is. I did not spend all those years in language class to just accept what someone else says that the Bible text says. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024