|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Was there a worldwide flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: ?
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.
quote: 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: 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: They don't differ. The term 'earth' and all creatures are subject to its spacetime, with no other reading possible.
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Not as bizarre as yours. Would you address 5500 Noah with Tasmania?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I gave contextual back-up to verses which you never factored in. Also, I explained that the names and descriptions in the Noah story are all authentic of its period. So we have here, a genuine report of a spacetime, and a flood which is also reported by other nations. It seems any butchering is a disregard how another nation can report a story if they were destroyed by a world wide flood - except if the flood was a local one. Yes/no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Your factoring is in error. 'Everything w breath' relates to 'all the *THEN* world'. There is no other reading when the text is given reasonable semblance: it relates to Noah's pov, and this must be allocated to the speak to him. There is no question the speaker knows the terrain in question - which is seen authentic as its affirmation. You *WANT* to read it wrongly, and the text exposes a lack of comprehension and inadequate attending to regard of the context.
quote: The text cannot be wrong: Tasmania did not exist - relatively, subjectively and actually. Same as it did not exist a 1000 years ago. The reports of a local flood by others affirms the text - as does all the other factors in the text - again negating any possibility the speak is not aware of the terrains or its spacetime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The planet has a timeplace relativity, and correct speech and grammar says this must be factored in. I am not picking and choosing when any relativity is factored in - instead, I am not picking and choosing what to disregard. The contextual setting is 5,500 years ago: even ancient egypt or pyramids cannot be considered here. The text would be in error only if Tasmania was disregarded *TODAY*; this is not the case. Further, one must look at the other items in the text: does it display an astonishing contemporary evidence of knowing its correct spacetime terrain? I rest my case. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The speaker is God, the subject is Noah; the setting is 5,500 years ago. I use Tasmania to indicate this place did not yet exist in the then known world; Tasmania is less than 300 years old. I posited the authenticity of the textual descriptions as an evidence the speaker knows correctly all the factors of what the then known world - as per the subject's [Noah] and its spacetime. It is a higher insight of the world, when one describes it with catering to the subject spoken to. Today, if we refer to the 'now' known world - we cannot be referring to an underground hemisphere which is outside our radar; and if an advanced alien knows about this hemisphere - and also that alien knows this it is outside our radar - he must address us in our terms. Subsequently, if the whole known world - according to us [the subject] was affected, it will be a correct statement by the aliens. This will be further affirmed that the alien fully understands all the stats and specs relating to the known world from our pov. The text have to be treated seriously - exactly how you would treat a complex physics or maths document. It is obviously multi-dimensional for all generations. If in 500 years we discover a new realm of countries on earth - it will not render the texts incorrect, or that the speaker was not aware: exactly the reverse applies. The observer/reader of the texts today, should thus also factor the relativity of the speaker and the subject: here we see all fits into place, and it becomes a confirmation of the right reading. That 'HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES' - applies, even in its grammatical aspect. One does not speak to a child to include MC2, but in accordance of the child's pov.
quote: Both those views are wrong: this awareness factor is not relative to today's description of the world [sic], but that of Noah's spacetime. The latter spacetime is 100% vindicated as correct.
quote: Such a conclusion is only possible if a description of the world was made *TODAY*. It means, to deliberate the obvious, if you described the world 500 years ago, and did not include Tasmania - and have all your descriptions correct as at 500 years ago: you would NOT be in error. The Genesis text is perfect - from the speaker to subject pov - as seen today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
When one examines their reading of this flood, they have to conclude there is no motive in describing a flood incorrectly, when all their descriptions outside the extent of the flood, is correct. The text is not disregarding other places - they did not exist.
We see from the above, any disputation does not overturn the prima facie aspect of the flood: it did occur, evidenced by cross-nation reporting, and the correct identification of all descriptions. The aspect of the whole world and all creatures, becomes the secondary factor only - and when this is examined correctly - it too becomes vindicated; the secondary factor does not overturn the prima facie in any way. Here, any inuendo of myth becomes non-credible and short sighted - or worse. I find the obvious premise of a text describing a spacetime 5,500 years ago - an astonishing factor never seen elsewhere for such a spacetime and with such advanced descriptions [in fact nothing of such a calibre exists], becoming a negative instead of a positive allocation. Its not like anyone can display a better historical portrait elsewhere - no historical descriptions exist of this spacetime. Mount Arafat is introduced here for the first time, in correct allocation and location of the other stats in the narrative; the cultures, names and characters of this primal humanity is correct; the olive and vine are correct descriptions of diet; the dates match the OT calendar correctly; the generations before and after Noah are authentic - culminating in the origins of the ancient egyptians and of Abraham's ancesters [Ham and Shem, Noah's sons, respectively] are correct. IOW, we have a historical description which is astonishly faultless here, and not seen elsewhere. Not even a less than faultless example is seen elsewhere. The flood report is thus not a myth in any POV, and any allocation of it as such is a greater myth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: It does appear the gist is not followed, despite the use of that word. If the glacial sedimentary factors were relevent to Noah, then indeed the 5,500 year futuristic application of Tasmania becomes onerous. Obviously, I referred to the name of a state called Tasmania did not exist, and this is correct. Captain Cook too did not exist!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Correct, Gd did know better. This is only evidential by knowing what is knowable by Noah, and affirmed by all the surrounding stats and specs in this reporting. The difficiency would be only if Noah and the spacetime was disregarded, eg: if Tasmania or any other state which was known or settled yet by Noah and not mentioned, or that if wild animals such as lions and tigers, were in the text. This is not the case. If Mr. Einstein converses with a 2 year old child, and does not mention MC2 - it is a commendation of Einstein - not a difficiency he never knew about MC2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I don't think so. They will see him discussing MC2 on TV with other Professors, and not conclude as you. That is why I pointed you to numerous wondrous stats in the Noah story which affirms there are no lies or errors here: you have clung to semantics and ignored everything else.
quote: Nothing was incorrect, and no other evidential incorrect statements are contained therein. I dare say this debate is becoming like a theological debate of beliefs: here, all logic is useless. We are stretching the fabric of a secondary issue of the flood, and ignoring 100s of other verifying stats.
quote: Again, this is wrong. I point out to you, that even 400 years ago, the native Americans had no idea there was Europe. And 5,500 years ago, Babylon did not exist; 5,300 years ago, Babylon did not know of Egypt's emergence. Further, there is no reason to tell Noah of areas which had not yet existed, while ratifying the then known world. If you want to find an error in Genesis, then let it be where this can be seen as clear cut and no qualifications apply, not with a singular semantical reading which is grammatically so poor. Are any of the other stats in the Noah story wrong or false, aside from it applying to the then known world of Noah's period - how then can you account for anything being lies or wrong - what motive or benefit do you apply for such lies?
quote: Its not a reasonable or proper pov. Noah cannot be called lacking in smartness if he did know that Tasmania and Canada did not yet exist, nor was Gd as the speaker. I gave you an anology with Einstein and a child, but that seems to have been lost in translation!
quote: Its not even a simplification: Noah's world did not include the same countries today. Tommorow, we may have totally different states - maybe even underground cities in the Pacific ocean - we need not account for this today in normal speech to evidence our smartness.
quote: This is given in the text, and not requiring another pov. Is it related to the point of discussion? Noah is singled out in his region, and told to collect all his household possessions, and to build a sea vessel which dimensions are well alligned to the task. We find here also, this flood was reported by others in the region, affirming the report, but only as a regional flood. I will add that the text says, Noah was found rightious 'IN HIS GENERATION'. This term generation is numerously employed in the OT, eg. Generation of Abraham, Ismael and Jacob - they apply to their own particular descending family tree only - not to the world, again indicative of a regional event. I am certain, but have not attempted it, but if all the genrations of Adam are checked, they will be found to be divergent from the generations listed of Noah. Both these events allign only with the OT calendar - which is a calendar which is beyond reproach in its accuracy and detail, but it becomes corrupted when reading of a world flood: the OT NY is based on the birthdate of Adam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The flood was mentioned in babylonian writings, I believe it was Hamurabi. Noah predated the OT emergence by 2000 years; the OT describes it retrospectively - the astonishing thing for me, and one far more interesting than the debate of the flood size - where its texts can be read differently with different conclusions. While I understand millions see it as a global flood, and this has a major impact on history and geography, its other view can be just as soundly made. The multi references of the whole earth; all life with breath; covering of mountain tops, etc render other contradictions if read as a global flood. The global aspect also contradicts that there were other civilizations in Asia, such as China and India - it fosters a different debate again, and perhaps it is best to evidence these other nations and sectors of the world, as the deciding factor here: while we have reports of Mohenjodaro, for example, being over 5000 years old - some also date this as 2500 years old, and its datings are in dispute; also, the surrounding evidences for India and China being more than 5000 is not iron clad - there are no supporting evidences which satisfy my research here. The Noah story is far more dependable than all the links I've seen for other pre-5000 year reportings of history: it contains dates and names which expound the origins of many nations in the list of Noah's generations: Canaan, the Jebusites and ancient Egypt via Ham , and Put, and Canaan.; Greece [Greece] & Germany [ashkanaz]; Shem-Nahor-Terah-Abraham; Assyria, phoenecia and Babylon [11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah]; the original Philistine [14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim--whence went forth the Philistines--and Caphtorim. {S}]; etc. I am not certain, but Cush and Hodu are also mentioned, and one of these may relate to India. The Noah story ends with the Abraham, which serves as a background to what the OT is narrating, which I have not seen else such a level of historical writ. Here is the first introduction of the Chaldees, Abraham,Sarah and the city of Ur, now in Iraq: 28 And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. 29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. Places and routes are also mentioned:10/19 And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, unto Lasha. The above stats are the measuring roads and vindicated, by archeologists today. There is no question that Genesis is making historical portrains here, of an ancient period which is not seen elsewhere. This makes it a document which describes ancient history, whereby the world would not know of these details without it. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Last time I checked, even a diary is acceptable evidence in a court - even in a murder trial. It is held as established unless opposing evidence is shown. The latter did not iccur, rendering it a scientifically acceptable positation. This is FACT.
There is no need for admin to get rude and use unacceptable terms, or to advise me what is science and what is not!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024