Earth of Genesis 1:9

First of all ICANT, many thanks for pursuing this in a dedicated thread. Aargh. Straight in with the equivocation huh? You know full well that there are different meanings for the word "theory". You do not have a theory in the sense of "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." {Answers.com}. You have a theory in the sense of "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." {Answers again}. Let's take a look at your conjecture. Yes, we are all agreed on which words appear on the pages. No it doesn't. It says that all the water (under the firmament) was in one place. It says the land appeared, but it doe not say that the land was all in one place.Now I wouldn't be surprised if the authors did think that all the land was a single mass. It would fit with their rather limited picture of the cosmos. The known world of the era was pretty much connected. They did not know about Australia, Antarctica or the Americas. The point is that there is nothing in this verse about the land being a single land mass. There is nothing about it all being in one place. You are reaching. I've no argument with that. Yes, divided into nations. There is no reason to suppose that it was physically torn apart.Of course, you are not only suggesting that the Bible makes this claim, but you think that it actually happened, isn't that right? If this is true, then you must have a shit-load of evidence right? Right?Remember, the evidence not only has to explain why your hypothesis is correct, it also has to deal with the evidence for plate tectonics and an old Earth, etc. I have a funny feeling that the Earth would explode if the continents were moved that quickly. Yup. As far as I know. We shall see...Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

Please explain how all the water under heaven can be in one place and the land mass in more than one place.

---

Imagine a primal ocean. Now imagine two islands. The waters are still one contiguous mass of water, with two separate land masses in amongst them.Anyway, it doesn't say that the waters were in one place after the land was created. The waters couldn't have been in one place anyway, unless you want us to believe that Pangea had no lakes or inland seas.

quote:

---

Actually the nations (mankind) was scattered over the face of the entire land mass as recorded in Genesis 11:8.

---

Yes, they were divided into separate nations, with separate languages, across the face of the Earth. It still isn't talking about the absurd catastrophe you are describing. Do you not think that the spectacle of the continents being torn from their foundations and scattered about the world deserves more than just one cryptic sentence? This is a miracle on such a magnitude that it makes the Flud look like a day out on a boating lake. It would not be given such scant treatment.Seriously, this is an argument so dodgy that even Kent Hovind thinks it's suspect. If it's too stupid for a man who claimed that a single drop of water can cover the entire Earth (if you spread it thin enough), it's too stupid even for you. Drop it already. Even the other fundamentalists are embarrassed by this nonsense.

quote:

---

Sure I believe it happened.

​

Why do I need any evidence?

---

Oh well, that makes it easy then. Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Oh dear... It's a damn hypothetical example. It's meant to illustrate a point, a point which you have clearly missed. No-one is suggesting that there were two Pangeas.Look, perhaps you could provide us with an explanation of exactly what you mean by "gathered in one place". What do you understand this to mean? Please be aware that if you reply "It means that they where gathered in one place." I will come for you in the small hours and shove a bat down your pyjamas. You have made it quite clear that you are not interested in evidence, so I don't really see why I should bother. Do your own homwork. We are? Clearly it couldn't. That's not really my problem is it though? I'm not the one claiming that any of this actually happened. So far as I am concerned, the whole thing is a ridiculous fable, whichever way you choose to interpret it.Besides, you're content to invoke a miracle of spectacular proportions for your version, so why the reticence for the mainstream version? How did they get scattered? I dunno. Maybe God teleported them. Maybe he flew them around the globe in a magic helicopter. Who cares? It was a miracle.Either that or just a very silly story that never actually happened. If you are going to take that attitude, why include the Flud? I think that the uprooting of most of the Earth's continents would be a pretty convincing bit of evidence of God's worth. The Bible is fond of holding up God's various achievements as evidence of his glory. Why miss this one out? It makes no sense. Please stop saying this. You are making yourself look a fool and wasting everyone's time. We all agree on what the Bible says, in terms of its text. If that were all that you were alleging, there would be no disagreement. The bone of contention here is your interpretation of what the text says. That is what people are disagreeing with.You seem to be saying that you want to confine the discussion to whether or not your interpretation is an accurate assessment of the meaning of the text. You also seem to be saying that you are not interested in any discussion of whether these events really occurred or not. Is that fair?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

I think my avatar would demonstrate the water being in one place.

---

When I first read that statement, your avatar was a picture of horses. I was hoping that the horse was going to explain what you mean. It would probably do no worse a job.Tell me this; if a body of water with one land mass in it is "in one place", why is a body of water with two land masses in it not "in one place"? Please explain in detail.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not and it makes no difference whether I believe it or not.

​

I ask the questions in the OP did the KJV Bible say the things I put forth.

​

You keep wanting to argue if it is true or a fable.

---

You asked! You asked; Don't get the hump because I answer your questions. You asked how it could be achieved. I told you that it couldn't be achieved without a miracle. This is the same as your interpretation, which also could not be achieved without a miracle.If you don't want to talk about the feasibility of either idea, don't ask me about it.

quote:

---

I did not mention anything about a Flud or flood in the OP.

---

I am merely using that as an example. If one Earth-shattering miracle is given such an extensive treatment, I see no reason why another even more impressive and literally Earth-shattering miracle should be mentioned in such an off-hand and cryptic fashion.

quote:

---

The scriptures say God confounded the language so they naturally got off into places where they could understand the people around them.

---

Which only serves to underline the fact that these verses are talking about separating languages and nations, not the continents.

quote:

---

And Peleg had about 73,000 days (200 years) left that the earth could be divided in.

---

I've no idea what you're talking about. Don't quote mine me ICANT. Also, if you are going to quote mine someone, it's best not to do it back to the person you quote mined. They are going to notice.As I made clear before, we agree on what the Bible says in terms of the words used in the text. What we disagree on is what those words mean.I agree that Genesis says that all the water was in one place. I do not agree that it says that the land was in one place, because it does not say this. That is your assertion.

quote:

---

You also say the earth was not divided. Genesis 10:25.

​

You said in Message 3 "Yes, divided into nations."

​

Genesis 10:25 does not infer or state nations.

---

So you're going to quote mine the Bible as well? Nice.The implication (not inference, please note the difference) is clearly that Genesis is referring to division of nations, since it is followed by this; You are over-reaching. You're theory is at odds with reality and it is even at odds with the Bible. Quit torturing the poor damn Bible already. It's suffered enough.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

I asked for a detailed explanation;

quote:

---

The water has two holes in it.

---

That was all I got.I don't get it. Why is two holes the magic number where the water is suddenly no longer "in one place"? What is it about a contiguous mass of water with one hole in it that makes it "in one place", whilst a contiguous mass of water with with two holes in it is not "in one place"? And if you were a little more generous with the detail this time, I'd appreciate it.

quote:

---

Are you saying your answer was and is "I told you that it couldn't be achieved without a miracle."

---

Pretty much yes. If we are talking about the real world, it could not be achieved without divine intervention of some kind. There is no way that the people could have been scattered to the Americas for example.Of course, as you already know, I do not believe that the Bible authors had a modern view of the Earth; they did not know that it was spherical for example. Something else that they did not know of was the existence of distant continents. To them, the known world was the entire world and, as far as they knew, it was one contiguous land mass. From their perspective there would have been no problem envisaging a mass migration over land. That would have seemed, to them, like spreading over the entire Earth. The "America problem" would not have existed for them.So in summary, a mass migration over the entire Earth would, from our perspective, clearly be impossible. It would require a miracle. From the perspective of the authors however, it would probably not have seemed problematic.I hope that's clear enough.

quote:

---

I have no problem with Genesis 10:32 saying the families of Noah's sons was divided in the earth.

---

You very much do have a problem. The problem is the the division, upon which you are hanging your case (Gen 10:25) is directly referenced at the end of the chapter and it explicitely describes it as being related to nationhood. You are attempting to hand wave this away and it won't wash.

quote:

---

I do have a problem with a man's name meaning the nations were scattered over the face of the earth.

​

The definition of Peleg is channel, canal or division. He was named that because in his days the earth was divided.

---

But there is nothing to suggest that the division was physical. The name is clearly symbolic, but there is no reason to suppose that it symbolises a physical division of the land. There is a clear and pressing reason to believe that it symbolises a division between nations, as it explicitely says at the end of the chapter.

quote:

---

After the language was confounded at Babel Peleg lived another 200 years. That means the people had plenty of time to disperse all over the face of the earth before it was divided.

---

I see what you mean. this does not support your theory. For people to migrate to the ends of the known Earth (as per the knowledge of the times) would have taken a long time, but it could have been accomplished in well under two hundred years.If God simply moved the continents, he could have done it in an instant. No time needed.

quote:

---

Has there ever been a time that the land mass was all in one place? Yes/No

---

I thought you weren't interested in evidence. I would certainly not advise you to try and involve the real world in this discussion. The evidence for humans on Pangea is, shall we say, sparse. Humans were a bit thin on the ground during the Paleozoic.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Fine, if that's what you want...Yes there indeed was a time when the Earth's land was in one single mass. That time was 250 million years ago. That's about 249.9 million years before humans existed.Congratulations, you just disproved your own theory. You can stop torturing that poor Bible now.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

What is this assertion bassed upon?

---

I got it out of a Christmas cracker. I found it written in a toilet cubicle. The voices in my head told me.What do you care? You have already made it plain that you are not interested in evidence. If you aren't willing to provide evidence for your own idea, I need provide no evidence in return. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", remember?I'm not going to hand-walk you through the evidence for the last century of geology when you can't be bothered to provide a shred of extra-Biblical evidence for your own claim. Go read a book or something.

---

quote:

---

So we agree that at one time the land mass was in one single mass.

​

Me because my Bible tells me in Genesis 1:9 that God had the water to assemble together in one place. Leaving something dry which could only have been land.

---

Except that it doesn't. You keep dodging the central question in your own argument. Why is the water no longer in one place with two islands? If you cannot explain this, your strained interpretation falls apart, regardless of any other evidence.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

You said that in response to my request that you provide evidence for your absurd claim. You used that comment to weasel out of doing so.You can't have it both ways. If you expect others to provide evidence, you must provide evidence. Waving a Bible around does not count as evidence of a damn thing, as you well know.

quote:

---

So I have my evidence you just won't accept it.

---

Damn right I won't. The Bible only provides evidence of what the Bible says. Nothing more (certainly nothing in this case).The truly appalling thing is that you aren't even willing to defend your lunatic interpretation of the Bible. I keep asking you; And, since you are now keen on evidence once more; Where is your evidence of human habitation of Pangea? This is your theory. It is up to you to provide evidence for it. If you have none, you must be dismissed offhand as just another crank.It's your theory. Provide evidence or shut up.

quote:

---

In the OP I concluded Genesis 1:9, 10 to say all the water was in one place and the land in one place.

---

And you have repeatedly ignored other people's refutations of that claim. Or are you finally going to answer this; Well?

quote:

---

So I will state what the 250 million years is based upon and you can correct me if I m wrong.

​

According to the theory of plate tectonics the continents are shifting x distance each year. Extrapolating backward using this distance we can conclude that 250 million years ago there was one land mass.

---

You say that as though plate tectonics were that simple. In actual fact, there are multiple converging lines of evidence that place Pangea in the far distant past. Here is one. Take a look at that picture. Those fossil distributions confirm that dinosaur species such as lystrosaurus ranged over Pangea. There is no other explanation for the distribution of their fossils. Lystrosaurus lived in the Triassic ICANT. Humans were rare then.Now, unless you think that lystrosaurus is any less than millions of years old, this puts Pangea quite out of reach of human contact. It also leaves your silly theory totally out of step with all of geology, palaeontology, stratigraphy, archaeology and radiometric dating, as well as being contrary to the damn Bible.By the way, the final break-up of Pangea was about 185 mya. That's where you need to be looking.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Right, I'm done with you.I have no interest in engaging in a conversation with you if you are going to play fuck-witted games like this. You are a pathetic child. Grow up.If anyone else feels that they might be able to crowbar some sense into the dormant organ that is ICANT's brain, feel free to try. I have had enough.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade