Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
25 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,534 Year: 18,570/19,786 Month: 990/1,705 Week: 242/518 Day: 6/60 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4186 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 226 of 372 (433439)
11-11-2007 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Repzion
07-18-2007 2:59 PM


Good job
You did a good job with that 'report'. It's amazing to see how Biblical record and geological evidence can go hand-in-hand sometimes. Did you note, however, that if you move the continental shelfs of the Atlantic continents toward eachother, and not the shores of those continents, they fit almost perfectly without any change in their configuration. I think that's pretty amazing.

Having water cover every square-inch of the earth probably would have devestating effects on global climate. All of the water on the poles would probably freeze, and then the land formed around this ice, causing a huge northern glacier decending as far south as Montana, like people think happened in the ice age.

Anyway, good job.

--Aquilegia753


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Repzion, posted 07-18-2007 2:59 PM Repzion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by sidelined, posted 11-12-2007 12:38 AM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 372 (433445)
11-12-2007 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Aquilegia753
11-11-2007 11:51 PM


Re: Good job
Aquilegia

Having water cover every square-inch of the earth probably would have devestating effects on global climate. All of the water on the poles would probably freeze, and then the land formed around this ice, causing a huge northern glacier decending as far south as Montana, like people think happened in the ice age.

Not to mention the devastation to the soil making it incapable of supporting the plant life that noah had taken aboard. But that is such a little detail being as all those animals would not need vegetation on which to survive and build after being cooped up for a year.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-11-2007 11:51 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

Jason777
Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 228 of 372 (433454)
11-12-2007 3:00 AM


Actually the flood would have had many events happen all at once.In the book of Gen. it says "Let us gather the waters into one place".Which to me suggest the earth was mostly land in the beginning.As you know the bible also talks about a canopy of water above the earth.It could have started with a shower of comets,which the earth and moon both show evidence of that.The comets could have fractured the earths crust causing massive plate movements which would be needed to raise the land above sea level.We have evidence of that too from solid rock layers being folded.Which not only suggest they were wet but also copressed from tectonic activity very suddenly.The comets would have also brought down the water canopy causing the flood and also throwing massive amounts of dust into the atmosphere causing an ice age.It would also cause massive volcanic activity raising the land even futher above sea level.If it did happen,which cant be proven,because we werent there.It must have happened cataclysimicaly and very suddenly.

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:02 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 4186 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 229 of 372 (433564)
11-12-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Jason777
11-12-2007 3:00 AM


However, if you look at the oceans today, yes, they're all connected, but in three main bodies: the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Indian. When God says, "Let us gather the waters into one place," it was probably in one huge body with a single continent of low-laying land, or Pangaea.

Then, if one imagined that between the plates and the lower layers of the earth (about five miles deep) was a huge body of water, circling the globe under the ground/water. That water would be very hot and under pressure, allowing it to reach around 250 degrees F. Then, by some activity (earthquake, comet, meteor, etc.), a huge crack appeared in Pangaea. This water would suddenly de-pressurize turning into steam and shooting out into the atmosphere, causing vast clouds to encircle the earth and start raining (for the first time in history).

Soon, the water would come out as water, quickly widening the crack via erosion. The land underneath the thinning water layer would be under lots of pressure, so when the crack widened enough, it would 'jump' out in a large mound, sending the two well-lubricated 'plates' away from each other and run into the same force on the other side of the globe, making the land buckle into mountains and rebound away, making a large gap of water in between.

After a probably short period, the water would run out, and the land would settle onto the earth again, but the now-huge clouds of vapor would still be raining millions of gallons of water on the earth. After another period (40 days?), it might stop, leaving the earth covered in water. It would probably be cold, from the 40 days of no sun through the globe. Maybe causing an ice-age.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Jason777, posted 11-12-2007 3:00 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by The Matt, posted 11-12-2007 3:32 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded
 Message 235 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 2:03 AM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

The Matt
Member (Idle past 3827 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 230 of 372 (433571)
11-12-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 3:02 PM


If you could provide any evidence for this that would be nice. 'If one imagined' doesn't really cut it in scientific circles.

Let's see some evidence to the contrary:
Rain splash marks in Ordovician rocks (subscription required) predating the break-up of Pangaea by a fair bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:02 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

Jason777
Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 231 of 372 (433574)
11-12-2007 3:39 PM


Rocks growing legs and walking away through a well known and proven process is more consistant with the evidence?

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1953 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 232 of 372 (435956)
11-23-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by dwise1
08-29-2007 2:42 AM


OF FLOODING THE TEXT WITH INCONTEXTUAL DEBRI
Its about correct grammar and comprehension: would you include the moon and Mars in the map of earth today, even if in 500 years humans may conquer those parts? If not, why include Tasmania in the world map 5,500 years ago? Grammar was introduced in the OT.

The flood refers to the 'then known world' and the animals were domestic. It would be a debacle to include Tasmania and Mexico in the context 5,500 years ago, and this grammatical anamoly is not suffered in the perfect and exacting texts. This was a period in humanity when Babylon never knew the existence of Egypt, and people hardly ventured outside their villages throughout their lives: there was not only no inter-country news services, but all no roads at this time, no pyramids, no chariots. It requires correct application of texts and period setting.

The OT is 100% correct in its narratives, speaking with the right restrospective and applicable descriptions, from the POV of that spacetime setting, in the language of the peoples, and shows an understanding of the nature of mankind. The texts clearly says, in its preamble, this story referred to NOAH AND HIS HOUSEHOLD [Noah's possessions]; and that 'THE ANIMALS CAME TO NOAH' - meaning those which knew Noah as their carer, when the flood became evident. Here, the critical pointers of tigers, wasps and crocodiles become the operative missing factors from the text, and the imperitive and encumbent requirements for not going upon the wrong conclusions.

It is also clear that the boat is said to be rested when the flood ended, in the close vicinity of the area (Mt Ararat), next door to Mesopotamia - evidencing this was a huge, but regional flood, and the reason we find independent reports in ancient writings confirming this event - but not in writings of Tasmania and Mexico.

Thus, all references to animals are domestic; all references to tops of mountains and the whole earth covered with water - apply only to the substantial parts of the region, and are valid expressionisms in describing a region-wide flood. Significantly, all the other historical factors in this report are scientifically authentic and verifiable, including the names, places and surrounding descriptions - dispensing with any notion this is not a historical accounting.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by dwise1, posted 08-29-2007 2:42 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Vacate, posted 11-25-2007 12:14 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 233 of 372 (436300)
11-25-2007 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by IamJoseph
11-23-2007 10:12 PM


What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
The OT is 100% correct in its narratives

Except all the parts where you say they are incorrect.

The flood refers to the 'then known world' and the animals were domestic.

Genesis 7:1-4 is God speaking. God surely knew about the entire world when He said "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made". So the then known world was the entire world in that passage, because God said so.

Also note this passage:

Genesis 7:23 writes:

Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Though I don't see this as God speaking directly, it does beg the question of the inerrancy of the Bible if you are claiming it was a local flood. The Bible is quite clear that it was global.

Thus, all references to animals are domestic

Genesis 7:14 writes:

They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings.

Thus, all references to animals that are not domestic should be ignored? The livestock would be considered domestic, the "wild animals" are wild animals, why do you say they are domestic?

Here, the critical pointers of tigers, wasps and crocodiles become the operative missing factors from the text, and the imperitive and encumbent requirements for not going upon the wrong conclusions.

Lets not forget that it was God who said "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.". Your conclusions differ from the words God spoke, how do you explain this?

Genesis 9:15,16 writes:

Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.

If the flood was local, why would God make a covenant to never again destroy all living creatures? If the flood was local and he said he would never do it again he lied; each and every time there was a local flood. Why have the rainbow as a reminder that God will never again flood the Earth if in fact he never did flood the Earth but only a local region, and continues to flood local regions in defiance of his own covenant.

Significantly, all the other historical factors in this report are scientifically authentic and verifiable, including the names, places and surrounding descriptions - dispensing with any notion this is not a historical accounting.

So if names, places, and surrounding descriptions are accurate the authenticity of the book is no longer in question (by your definition). So by the same token the Koran, Romeo and Juliet, and Tom Clancies Hunt for Red October are all historical documents? Can't we just dispense with most of the "fiction" category in the bookstore then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 11-23-2007 10:12 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 1:48 AM Vacate has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1953 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 234 of 372 (436313)
11-25-2007 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Vacate
11-25-2007 12:14 AM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:

The OT is 100% correct in its narratives

Except all the parts where you say they are incorrect.


?

quote:

The flood refers to the 'then known world' and the animals were domestic.

Genesis 7:1-4 is God speaking. God surely knew about the entire world when He said "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made". So the then known world was the entire world in that passage, because God said so.


Correct. Here, 'every living creature' and 'the earth' is the subject term addressed to Noah, and refers to the then known world only. It does not and can not include Tasmania, is the point.

quote:

Though I don't see this as God speaking directly, it does beg the question of the inerrancy of the Bible if you are claiming it was a local flood. The Bible is quite clear that it was global.

The term 'global' and 'earth' is relative of its spacetime; Tasmania did not exist here. There is no alternative of this conclusion and depiction.

quote:

Thus, all references to animals are domestic

Genesis 7:14 writes:
They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings.

Thus, all references to animals that are not domestic should be ignored? The livestock would be considered domestic, the "wild animals" are wild animals, why do you say they are domestic?


Yes, at this time [prior to the OT], wild pigs, hogs, dogs, camels, horses were domestic and part of Noah's possessions, qualified as unclean [for consumtion], and clean [kosher or clean for consumtion, namely cattle]; the term clean is later identified when the OT was given.

quote:

Here, the critical pointers of tigers, wasps and crocodiles become the operative missing factors from the text, and the imperitive and encumbent requirements for not going upon the wrong conclusions.

Lets not forget that it was God who said "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.". Your conclusions differ from the words God spoke, how do you explain this?


They don't differ. The term 'earth' and all creatures are subject to its spacetime, with no other reading possible.

quote:

Genesis 9:15,16 writes:
Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.

If the flood was local, why would God make a covenant to never again destroy all living creatures?


This applies to all living creatures in any period's known world. This is vindicated, despite many natural disasters which have occured since then.

quote:

Why have the rainbow as a reminder that God will never again flood the Earth if in fact he never did flood the Earth but only a local region, and continues to flood local regions in defiance of his own covenant.

The rainbow is a most appropriate symbol here, and represents a mark observable by all sectors of humanity in all spacetimes and regions. Again, the selection of such a mark makes for a premise of great credibility here, which anticipates the future - as with your post.

quote:

Significantly, all the other historical factors in this report are scientifically authentic and verifiable, including the names, places and surrounding descriptions - dispensing with any notion this is not a historical accounting.

So if names, places, and surrounding descriptions are accurate the authenticity of the book is no longer in question (by your definition). So by the same token the Koran, Romeo and Juliet, and Tom Clancies Hunt for Red October are all historical documents? Can't we just dispense with most of the "fiction" category in the bookstore then?


The differential is, unlike any other document [to my knowledge], and also irrespectively, Genesis is speaking 'retrospectively', namely of names and historical factors which are over 2000 years from its own contemporary spacetime. That the details of such narratives are acknowledged as authentic by archeologists, is a remarkable feat. The names in Noah's generation are not Hebrew [this peoples never existed then], and are not seen outside of Noah's spacetime; countries and nations which did not yet exist are not mentioned here; those that are mentioned are historically authentic and correct. IMHO, this is perhaps one the strongest indicators of the text's credibility, and which I have not encountered any place else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Vacate, posted 11-25-2007 12:14 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Vacate, posted 11-25-2007 2:23 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 237 by reiverix, posted 11-25-2007 3:24 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1953 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 235 of 372 (436316)
11-25-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 3:02 PM


I see the 'SEPARATION' factor as pivotal, and relevent for all the elements, and an irreplacable process for the anticipation and catering of life. That this factor is not addressed in ToE is an anomoly; ToE also does not factor the 'seed' application, and fails to differentiate humans as a species of its own by virtue of the most unique trait of all life forms, namely 'speech'. With the latter, Genesis appears to be saying that speech is a factor which requires special attention - the reason it is included in the creation chapter, along with the chronological introduction of all life forms; namely it should not be regarded as just another common trait, but one which is an eposhial one. Of note, humans are thus declared as the life form which is to have dominion of all other life forms and of all the worlds - as a consequence of speech.

The details of the above, and its explanatory process, is what we call 'science', whereas they are given as constants and statutes in Genesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:02 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 236 of 372 (436388)
11-25-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by IamJoseph
11-25-2007 1:48 AM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
IamJoseph writes:

quote:
Genesis 7:1-4 is God speaking. God surely knew about the entire world when He said "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made".
Correct. Here, 'every living creature' and 'the earth' is the subject term addressed to Noah, and refers to the then known world only. It does not and can not include Tasmania, is the point.

So God really was unaware of the entire Earth even though he created it. What a bizarre interpretation.

The term 'global' and 'earth' is relative of its spacetime; Tasmania did not exist here.

Sure it did. God created it, and then you assert that He forgot about it when He said He would flood the whole Earth.

Yes, at this time [prior to the OT], wild pigs, hogs, dogs, camels, horses were domestic and part of Noah's possessions

And snakes, worms, mosquitoes, mice, rats, bacteria, virus, scorpions, beetles, ravens, doves, foxes, hyena, ibex, jackal, lizard, locust, hares, porcupines, vultures, etc

That man had quite the flock of domesticated animals. Where does it say in the Bible that everything that draws breath in the region of Noah was called "livestock".

They don't differ. The term 'earth' and all creatures are subject to its spacetime, with no other reading possible.

Sure, If you are trying to claim that God has a limited memory and forgets about the rest of the world that He created.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:
If the flood was local, why would God make a covenant to never again destroy all living creatures?

This applies to all living creatures in any period's known world. This is vindicated, despite many natural disasters which have occured since then.

So Gods covenant is actually meaningless drivel. Your interpretations leave something to be desired.

The rainbow is a most appropriate symbol here, and represents a mark observable by all sectors of humanity in all spacetimes and regions. Again, the selection of such a mark makes for a premise of great credibility here

Explain why a covenant to not flood the entire Earth has any meaning when God didn't flood the Earth in the first place. It was a tiny flood that He made the covenant for, when in fact tiny floods happen all the time. The covenant is meaninless and shows no credibility regarding what God says and what He does afterwards.

The differential is, unlike any other document [to my knowledge], and also irrespectively, Genesis is speaking 'retrospectively', namely of names and historical factors which are over 2000 years from its own contemporary spacetime.

So what? Names, places, and surrounding descriptions are the important factor and the Koran, Romeo and Juliet, and Tom Clancies Hunt for Red October are of equal historical relevance. Most books are written retrospectively, so as long as the names , places and surrounding descriptions are correct the work of fiction is now elevated to a historical document.

That the details of such narratives are acknowledged as authentic by archeologists, is a remarkable feat.

Not all of them. Don't get to hasty vindicating your OT, your own post denies a global flood so don't be too sure that archeologists acknowledge all events of the OT as authentic.

countries and nations which did not yet exist are not mentioned here; those that are mentioned are historically authentic and correct. IMHO, this is perhaps one the strongest indicators of the text's credibility, and which I have not encountered any place else.

Try reading. I encounter this in virtually any book with history involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 1:48 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 8:22 PM Vacate has responded

reiverix
Member (Idle past 4104 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 237 of 372 (436399)
11-25-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by IamJoseph
11-25-2007 1:48 AM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
Genesis 9:11 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

In your reasoning, the above makes no sense. So god is saying there will be no more local floods? What?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 1:48 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 8:17 PM reiverix has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1953 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 238 of 372 (436447)
11-25-2007 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by reiverix
11-25-2007 3:24 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:
So god is saying there will be no more local floods? What?

Do you not see any dif between destroy the world by water - and a flood - the text? What's the matter with you guys - a comprehension problem - or worse?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by reiverix, posted 11-25-2007 3:24 PM reiverix has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by reiverix, posted 11-26-2007 9:37 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1953 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 239 of 372 (436449)
11-25-2007 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Vacate
11-25-2007 2:23 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
quote:
Correct. Here, 'every living creature' and 'the earth' is the subject term addressed to Noah, and refers to the then known world only. It does not and can not include Tasmania, is the point.

So God really was unaware of the entire Earth even though he created it. What a bizarre interpretation.


Not as bizarre as yours. Would you address 5500 Noah with Tasmania?

quote:
The term 'global' and 'earth' is relative of its spacetime; Tasmania did not exist here.

Sure it did. God created it, and then you assert that He forgot about it when He said He would flood the whole Earth.


Tasmania surely did not exist then. And I never forgot your bizarre semantics concerning speech either. So I'll drop this nonesense: you have genesis-creation-phobia big time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Vacate, posted 11-25-2007 2:23 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Vacate, posted 11-26-2007 3:36 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 240 of 372 (436508)
11-26-2007 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by IamJoseph
11-25-2007 8:22 PM


Re: What does the bible say? What does IamJoseph make up?
Not as bizarre as yours.

I am just reading the words for what they say.

Would you address 5500 Noah with Tasmania?

If "all the Earth" is actually all the Earth like God says, then yes. If "all the Earth" is merely Noahs farmyard, then no.

Tasmania surely did not exist then.

Did God create it afterwards? What does this have to do with what I have written anyways? Address my point instead of avioding it.

And I never forgot your bizarre semantics concerning speech either.

Great. Then reading comprehension is your only failing thus far in this thread.

So I'll drop this nonesense: you have genesis-creation-phobia big time.

No, not really. I take great pleasure in watching you butcher the bible while attempting to defend it.

Now will you address my post or should I created another one that shows you butchering Gods words?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2007 8:22 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2007 4:43 AM Vacate has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019