|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: The text teaches that the land mass whatever shape it was in in Genesis 1:10 when He called it Earth was covered by water that fell in the form of rain and water that came from the fountains of the deep. That water covered the highest land mass by 15 meters. Show where the text says what you say in the quote above? Edited by jar, : appalin spallinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi jar,
jar writes: Show where the text says what you say in the quote above? If you could read and not cherry pick what you want to fuss about you would have understood that I was talking about the land mass at the time of Noah's flood as that land mass was in the same configuration as it was in Genesis 1:10. Here is the entire quote you quote mined to get your statement you could refute.
quote: 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 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Wow...just wow!
ICANT writes: I even believe there was people on Earth prior to Genesis 1:2. In fact according to the text man was the first lifeform on planet Earth The only thing we have, prior to Gen 1:2, in the texts is Gen 1:1
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth which is a one sentence summary of what is about to happen. Prior to verse 3 there was no light (verse 3), no heaven (verse 6), no dry land (verse 9), no plants (verse 11), no water creaures and birds (verse 20/21), no land creatures (verse 24/25) no man (verse 26/27). Are you claiming that plants, whales, birds, cattle etc aren't life forms? Or are you cherry picking and going by Genesis 2
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Even doing that you still have the problem of the plant life forms since it says earlier on
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. So again we have plants before man. Anyway, enough of creation, we're supposed to be discussing the flood and what the texts say about that.
ICANT writes: Magic words thought to have broken up 175 million years ago. There are a lot of things that are thought to be. Lets see that number is arrived at by assuming that the rate the continents are moving at today has always been the rate of movement. Nope! That dating is based on similar geological makeup of the continents prior to that date and differences after that date. It's based on the age of the igneus rock found on either side of the mid Atlantic ridge. A geologist can chime in here and explain it all much better than me. You really need to take on board what scientists mean when they use the phrase "thought to be". I'll give you a hint, it means that the evidence supports it. You say there are many assumptions made about the flood. You began this thread to dispel those assumptions and to tell us all exactly what the texts tell us, yet I've seen more unfounded assumptions from you than any other poster here. For example
ICANT writes: I'm sure Peleg and pals would have noticed this and the event would have deserved more than a passing nod. Then again it could have been moved instantly and just has not competely stopped yet. You're just making stuff up to fill in the gaps which are being exposed, yet you have NO textual support for what you imagine. You have man wandering around on a supercontinent which didn't even exist by the time man first appeared yet you claim there are no discrepancies. You base all of these pet fantasies on your own personal beliefs and not on what the texts actually say, but all you're doing is addng in even more difficulties for yourself. For example you now seem to have man created before there was even any dry land. Where did God find the dust to make him from? This discussion has moved from science -v- biblical story to become science and biblical story -v- ICANT's pet theory. If your entire belief in the flood scenario rests on these ridiculous mental and textual gymnastics, it says more about belief problems you have with the texts as they stand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Where does the text teach " that the land mass whatever shape it was in in Genesis 1:10 when He called it Earth was covered by water that fell in the form of rain and water that came from the fountains of the deep. That water covered the highest land mass by 15 meters."
I'm sorry but so far it just seems that you are making shit up to avoid admitting that Genesis 1 does not say that the land was one mass and that none of this has anything to do with what the KJV says about the flood.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi jar,
jar writes: Where does the text teach " that the land mass whatever shape it was in in Genesis 1:10 when He called it Earth was covered by water that fell in the form of rain and water that came from the fountains of the deep. That water covered the highest land mass by 15 meters." Actually it does not as for some reason I used meters rather than cubits in Message 162 I did a strikethrough and added cubits for meters.
quote: But if the land mass in Genesis 1:9, 10 was all in one place at the time of the flood, the highest point was covered by 15 cubits of water. If the land mass in Genesis 1:9, 10 was in the configuration it is today the highest point was covered by 15 cubits of water.
jar writes: I'm sorry but so far it just seems that you are making shit up to avoid admitting that Genesis 1 does not say that the land was one mass and that none of this has anything to do with what the KJV says about the flood. Genesis 1:9 says the water was gathered to one place and dry land appeared. Logic says if the water is in one place the land would be in one place. But since you disagree lets move further. A verse you quoted as evidence the land mass was not in one place.
quote: The Hebrew word אי translated isles should have been translated region, but I know you will disagree with that also.
quote: The Hebrew word ארץ translated countries is the same word in Genesis 1:10 translated Earth which was the dry land that appeared in Genesis 1:9. But again you will probably disagree.
quote: The same Hebrew word ארץ tranlsted Earth here is the same word translated Earth in Genesis 1:10 that the dry land that appeared in Genesis 1:9 was called. You will probably disagree with that also.
quote: The same Hebrew word ארץ tranlsted lands here is the same word translated Earth in Genesis 1:10 that the dry land that appeared in Genesis 1:9 was called. You will probably disagree with that also. The Hebrew word גוי translated nations means people as well as nations. Due to the fact it is talking about the people, not location.
quote: The same Hebrew word ארץ tranlsted Earth here is the same word translated Earth in Genesis 1:10 that the dry land that appeared in Genesis 1:9 was called. You will probably disagree with that also.
quote: The same Hebrew word ארץ tranlsted Earth here is the same word translated Earth in Genesis 1:10 that the dry land that appeared in Genesis 1:9 was called. You will probably disagree with that also.
quote: The same Hebrew word ארץ tranlsted Earth here is the same word translated Earth in Genesis 1:10 that the dry land that appeared in Genesis 1:9 was called. You will probably disagree with that also. After the flood the people were scattered abroad over the face of the Earth. Did God just take them up and place them on different continents? If so how did they leave off from building the city? They were already gone if God snatched them up and placed them elsewhere. But if they could not understand each other and simply migrated to places where there was people they could understand then God scattered them by confusing the language. Now back to the flood. The shape of the land mass in Genesis 1:9, 10 has directly to do with the flood as it was in the same configeration when the flood occured. If the land mass was in one place we would not know the elevation of that land mass. The only way we could know the elevation of the land mass in Genesis 1:9, 10 is if it was the same as it is today. This is the assumption that is made in the treads where the flood has been debated. But the text of Genesis 10:25 says the ארץ (Earth) was פלג (split, divided) in the days of Peleg, which was after the flood. Knowing the elevation of the land mass would determine the amount of water required to cover the land mass. If the land mass was all in one place the problem of how did the animals get to the ark from all over the Earth is solved. If the Earth was divided after the flood as the text says: How humans were found on many different lands would be solved. How the animals got scattered over all the now known Earth would be solved. Fossils of animals is one of the proofs presented for Pangea so it would be proofs of the land being in one place at one time. 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: |
Just more of your usual quote mining, taking verses out of context, inserting material that is not there and misrepresenting what is there.
No where in the Bible does it say that the geography and configuration of the world was the same at the moment represented by Gen 1:10 and at the time described by the flood myths. The Generations stories (Genesis 10) are also a separate and independent set of stories and no where do they talk about any physical changes in the geography or configuration of the world. They are talking about areas of political, tribal and nation-state control. BUT WAIT... THERE'S MORE: When we look at Genesis 11 we find that it is mutually exclusive with Genesis 10; if one is true then the other is false. AND WAIT... THERE'S MORE: Genesis 1, Genesis 10 & Genesis 11 still say nothing about the Flood Myths.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Trixie,
Trixie writes: The only thing we have, prior to Gen 1:2, in the texts is Gen 1:1 Along with the history of that day God created the heavens and the Earth recorded in Genesis 2:4 - 4:26.
Trixie writes: which is a one sentence summary of what is about to happen. Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement with a subject, verb of completed action and the results of that action being the heavens and the Earth existed.
Trixie writes: Nope! That dating is based on similar geological makeup of the continents prior to that date and differences after that date. Which simply is proof that the land mass was all in one place. It has nothing to do with dating when it was all in one place.
Trixie writes: I'm sure Peleg and pals would have noticed this and the event would have deserved more than a passing nod. Sure they would have noticed. They would have believed a great earthquake took place. Why would they think anything else took place?
Trixie writes: You have man wandering around on a supercontinent which didn't even exist by the time man first appeared yet you claim there are no discrepancies. You are assuming mankind was not around when the land mass was all in one place. Do you have any proof? Yes I have man wandering around on a single land mass that had been flooded between 100 and 300 years prior, building cities, speaking one language whose language was confused and they could not understand each other and thus scattered over the face of that land mass.
Trixie writes: If your entire belief in the flood scenario rests on these ridiculous mental and textual gymnastics, it says more about belief problems you have with the texts as they stand. I don't have a problem with what I believe. I believe Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the Earth.I believe Genesis 1:9, water gathered to one place leaving dry land. I believe Genesis 1:10, God called the dry land Earth. I believe Genesis 6:14, God told Noah to build an ark of gopher wood. I believe Genesis, 7:5, Noah did all that God comanded. I believe Genesis 7:7, Noah entered the ark. I believe Genesis 7:8, 9, living critters came in unto Noah in the ark. I believe Genesis 7:16, God shut Noah in the ark. I believe Genesis 7:19, that all the land mass under heaven was covered with water. I believe Genesis 8:16, they went forth out of the ark after the flood waters subscided. I believe Genesis 10:25, that the Earth was split/divided in the days of Peleg. So I don't see where I have a problem with my belief. You and others may have a problem with what I believe but I don't. If you are interested in what I believe you can check out my threads on this site. 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: 1.6 |
Hi jar,
jar writes: No where in the Bible does it say that the geography and configuration of the world was the same at the moment represented by Gen 1:10 and at the time described by the flood myths. Where does it say it was different prior to Genesis 10:25 when it says in the days of Peleg was the Earth split/divided?
jar writes: The Generations stories (Genesis 10) are also a separate and independent set of stories and no where do they talk about any physical changes in the geography or configuration of the world. They are talking about areas of political, tribal and nation-state control. Are you saying the Hebrew word ארץ which means Earth in Genesis 1:1, does not mean Earth in the stories in Genesis chapters 10, and 11? What do you base that upon? Present your evidence.
jar writes: When we look at Genesis 11 we find that it is mutually exclusive with Genesis 10; if one is true then the other is false. Then start a thread and present your evidence and we will discuss it.
jar writes: Genesis 1, Genesis 10 & Genesis 11 still say nothing about the Flood Myths. That is your warped assumption. Genesis 1:9, 10, tells us the condition of the Earth prior to the flood. Genesis 10:25 tells us what happened to the Earth between 200 and 300 years after the flood. Genesis chapter 11 tells us what the people did after the flood with them being scattered over the face of the Earth and the Earth then was split/divided as was stated in Genesis 10:25 during the lifetime of Peleg. Why do you continue to argue the Bible in Bible threads when you believe it is just one great big bunch of myths? 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: |
Again, you seem to be simply misrepresenting what is actually written.
Here is Genesis 1
quote: Sorry but there is nothing there about all the dry land being in one place. And now let's look at Genesis 10
quote: Again, nothing about all the land being in one place and it is quite clear that it is talking about the establishment of areas of influence, political "lands" not physical lands. And when we look a Genes 11, what do we find?
quote: Once again, it is talking about political divisions, not physical divisions. It also is in direct contradiction to Genesis 10 right from the very first verse. In Genesis 10 we read "5By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. " So different languages existed. Yet in Genesis 11 we read "1And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. " One or the other is simply a false statement. This should be a clue that the stories are not a continuing saga but rather separate, independent tales from different cultures written by different peoples to reach different audiences and for different purposes. And NONE of it tells us anything about the Flood Myths.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
ICANT writes: Trixie writes:The only thing we have, prior to Gen 1:2, in the texts is Gen 1:1 Along with the history of that day God created the heavens and the Earth recorded in Genesis 2:4 - 4:26. In what fantasy Bible of yours does Genesis 2:4 to 4:26 come BEFORE Genesis 1:2?
ICANT writes: Trixie writes:which is a one sentence summary of what is about to happen. Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement with a subject, verb of completed action and the results of that action being the heavens and the Earth existed. Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department.
ICANT writes: Trixie writes:Nope! That dating is based on similar geological makeup of the continents prior to that date and differences after that date. Which simply is proof that the land mass was all in one place. It has nothing to do with dating when it was all in one place. What meaning of the word "dating" are you having trouble with? You can't be suggesting that my use of the word "dating" doesn't mean "dating", or can you?
ICANT writes: Trixie writes:You have man wandering around on a supercontinent which didn't even exist by the time man first appeared yet you claim there are no discrepancies. You are assuming mankind was not around when the land mass was all in one place. Do you have any proof? Yes I have man wandering around on a single land mass that had been flooded between 100 and 300 years prior, building cities, speaking one language whose language was confused and they could not understand each other and thus scattered over the face of that land mass. I make no assumptions. The EVIDENCE indicates that the single land mass broke up long before man appeared. You are the one asserting that man existed at the same time as a single land mass so it's up to you to provide evidentiary support for this idea or stop using it.
ICANT writes: Trixie writes:If your entire belief in the flood scenario rests on these ridiculous mental and textual gymnastics, it says more about belief problems you have with the texts as they stand. I don't have a problem with what I believe. Maybe not, but you certainly have a problem with reading for comprehension. You haven't addressed my observations on your belief that man was the first life form. I don't have a problem with your beliefs, which I am well aware of, but I do have a problem when you claim textual support which doesn't exist. For example, where in your list below does the phrase "single land mass" appear?
ICANT writes:
I believe Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the Earth.I believe Genesis 1:9, water gathered to one place leaving dry land. I believe Genesis 1:10, God called the dry land Earth. I believe Genesis 6:14, God told Noah to build an ark of gopher wood. I believe Genesis, 7:5, Noah did all that God comanded. I believe Genesis 7:7, Noah entered the ark. I believe Genesis 7:8, 9, living critters came in unto Noah in the ark. I believe Genesis 7:16, God shut Noah in the ark. I believe Genesis 7:19, that all the land mass under heaven was covered with water. I believe Genesis 8:16, they went forth out of the ark after the flood waters subscided. I believe Genesis 10:25, that the Earth was split/divided in the days of Peleg Just as an aside, I believe there is a thread on the translation of "Earth" and a better translation would be "land".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Trixie,
Trixie writes: Just as an aside, I believe there is a thread on the translation of "Earth" and a better translation would be "land". I can't find that thread, would you give a little more information? Would that be the wet land or the dry land? Or would it be the wet land and the dry land that compose the crust and mantel along with the core of the Earth? All the wet land was covered before the flood and during the flood all the dry land was also covered with water.
quote: So if dry land existed on the planet Earth it was covered by water. You may be right that all the land mass was not in one place at the time of the flood. Which would make it a little more difficult to cover with water especially if the geography was as it is today, as it would take a lot more water. But for God it would be no problem. But the text says the Earth, the same thing the dry land in Genesis 1:10 was called פלג was split/divided in the days of Peleg. Explain how it could be split/divided if it was already split/divided."John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
So if dry land existed on the planet Earth it was covered by water. Then it wouldn't be all that dry, now would it? It would, in fact, be wet, no? Or had they invented Saran Wrap back then? Is this a Monty Python skit? Was Noah pining for the fjords?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Are you readingover what you write to me befe you post it?
ICANT writes: So if dry land existed on the planet Earth it was covered by water. Eh? Quite apart from the fact that if it was covered in water it's anything but dry, your use of the word "if" in "So IF dry land existed...." has boggled my mind. Yes, I agree that a worldwide flood would cover all the land, but you'd be hard pushed to describe it as a world wide flood if there was no dry land in the first place. Does this mean that prior to the flood everyone was paddling around knee-deep in water?
ICANT writes: You may be right that all the land mass was not in one place at the time of the flood Halle-bloody-luja!! Finally, you seem to realise that there isn't a single mention in the texts of the land being a single land mass. Has it occurred to you that the division of the "land" in the days of Peleg may refer to political/tribal division? It makes more sense and is in context with the rest of the story that it appears in. The thread you might find interesting is one recently brought back to the top by purpledawn, I can't remember the title of it, but will supply a link tomorrow. Basically it argues that given that Earth is the name of the planet, Moses is unlikely to have used that terminology in his stories. It would be the dry land, the land that you've been using the word "Earth" for. EvC Forum: Not The Planet Edited by Trixie, : Found link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Trixie,
Trixie writes: IF dry land existed...." has boggled my mind. It wouldn't have had you read it in context rather than cherry picking what you wanted to question.
quote: Dry land did exist in Genesis 1:10 so it was covered with the water in Genesis 7:19, 20.
Trixie writes: Has it occurred to you that the division of the "land" in the days of Peleg may refer to political/tribal division? It hasn't crossed my mind since 1968 when we argued for 3 months in Hebrew class with several scholars as to what was recorded. Had the writer wanted to refer to political/tribal division he would have used the same words he used elsewhere.
quote: Note: It says the nations were divided in the Earth after the flood. That took place in Genesis 11:9. The Hebrew word גוי translated nations also means people. The Hebrew word משפחה translated families also means tribe and clan. Since the statement in Genesis 10:25 which is only 7 verses away from verse 32 it means what it says. Genesis 10:25 says the ארץ was split/divided. It does not say the גוי, nations were split/divided. It does not say the משפחה, tribes or clans was split/divided. So what makes you think it was a national (political) or tribal split/division?
Trixie writes: It makes more sense and is in context with the rest of the story that it appears in. So it makes more sense to you that the writer used Earth in Genesis 10:25 to mean tribal or national split/division rather than the words he used in 10:5, 20, 31, and 32. The author used גוי nations, and משפחה, tribes in all of those verses. It is totaly illogical that the author would use ארץ Earth, if he wanted to convey the thought of a tribal or national split/division. Can you give me one logical reason an author would do that? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
What Genesis says about the Noah flood. The opening preamble in the text:
quote: And that is why no wild animals are listed. The flood was a regional one relating only to Noah's household possessions, also backed up by the dimensions of the boat. Whatever is read thereafter MUST align with the preamble - otherwise you get a fine for driving the wrong way. This is the most intelligent writings humanity possesses, the only one which can stand up to state of art contemporary science today. Non-intelligent writings do not list Mount Ararat for the first time, with aerial view photographical accuracy of its exact location. Non contemporary writings cannot list a whole geneology of names for the first time and have every one of them authenticated by archeology. Nor is there a writings which gives the first 'NAME' of a human and of a King. A true intelligent view considers these factors.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024