Summations Only

No. The water being in one place does not require that the land be in one place.BUT... that also has NOTHING to do with the Biblical Flood myths.

Again, what you say is simply false.The text says that all the water was gathered together. There could be an unlimited number of islands or land masses.And again, Genesis 1 has nothing to do with the Flood myths, it is a whole different story written at a whole different time by a whole different culture to serve entirely different purposes and has NOTHING to do with the flood myths.

Again, that has nothing to do with whether all the land was connected or not.In addition, Genesis 1 has NOTHING to do with the flood myths, was written hundreds of years after the flood myths and by an entirely different milleu, era, people and tradition.

Again, as I have pointed out to you several times now, that has NOTHING to do with the land being one continuous mass.It really is that simple.AbE:And just in case you also could not read what I wrote:Genesis 1 has NOTHING to do with the Biblical Flood Myths, was written hundreds of years later and by a different culture and tradition.Edited by jar, : Repeat information

Again, as I have pointed out to you several times now, that has NOTHING to do with the land being one continuous mass.It really is that simple.AbE:And just in case you also could not read what I wrote:Genesis 1 has NOTHING to do with the Biblical Flood Myths, was written hundreds of years later and by a different culture and tradition.

Stop misrepresenting what I say.As I have pointed out to you several times now, that has NOTHING to do with the land being one continuous mass.It really is that simple.Genesis 1 has NOTHING to do with the Biblical Flood Myths, was written hundreds of years later and by a different culture and tradition.And I am not Alice; I do not go down Rabbit Holes no matter how attractive.

Of course, but it is also irrelevant to this topic.

Of course that is NOT relevant and Israel was never significant enough for any of the Great Powers to go to war with it. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Another totally irrelevant crap statement.So what?There could still be a brazillion separate land masses just with no land locked seas.Sorry but there is no support for one land mass in Genesis 1.Have you ever read the Bible, particularly the King James Authorized Version?Here is what it says:

quote:

---

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

​

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

​

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

​

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

​

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

---

The topic, in case you missed it, happens to be "What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood " and that passage has NOTHING to do with either of the Biblical Flood Myths and offers NO support for your Attractive Rabbit Hole bullshit of one single land mass.

Pangea is but one of the super continents that included Gondwana Laurasia Pangaea Pannotia Rodinia Columbia Kenorland Nena Ur Vaalbara and even then it does not mean that ALL land is in one place. There is nothing in any of those periods that precludes smaller non continental land masses at those times.

Of course. There are human habitation sites dating hundreds of thousands of years old that have not been flooded. One example are the Klasies River Caves. In fact they might even date from before modern humans.

Ah, no.A Tsumani is not a flood as described in the Biblical Flood myths and the remains were NOT washed out. The remains were still in the caves.But wait, there's more.There are sites found all over the world from different periods dating back as I said to even pre-modern human periods that have not been flooded.A great example is Oetzi who would have been a contemporary of Adam as described in Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found.Oetzi is clear evidence that at least since the time of Adam the area where he lived was not flooded.BUT wait, there's still more.What the King James Authorized Version of the Bible says is that there were many myths about a Biblical Flood and at least two mutually exclusive and contradictory tales where simply mushed together into one story with no attempt to remove or massage the contradictions. That clearly shows that there was never any belief that it was some factual event and the the facts of some flood were simply unimportant to the redactors.It is not a historical tale but rather an epic morality tale.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

I'll repeat yet again for you.The caves where the remains were found do not show signs of flooding as described in the Biblical Myths.And on to Oetzi.You heard wrong about both the axe and the so called medical treatment. Both existed (the 'medical treatment' may not even have been medical treatment) and the evidence that they existed at the time Oetzi lived is that they were found with him. Had you read the thread I provided the link for you would have found a discussion of the many different separate and conclusive means of dating items were used.And no, I have a very, very high degree of confidence that the scientists did not get the dates of his death wrong.But the location where he was found is great evidence that the Biblical Flood simply did not happen.Oetzi died and was covered fairly quickly and remained covered until his discovery.Glaciers do not float in water and we also have very strong evidence that he was found pretty close to where he lived all his life.Science is kinda neat that way, conclusions are based on evidence not simply fantasy and conjecture.But the topic is what the King James Authorized Version of the Bible says.What the King James Authorized Version of the Bible says is that there were many myths about a Biblical Flood and at least two mutually exclusive and contradictory tales where simply mushed together into one story with no attempt to remove or massage the contradictions. That clearly shows that there was never any belief that it was some factual event and the the facts of some flood were simply unimportant to the redactors.It is not a historical tale but rather an epic morality tale.

There is another fable that comes later in Genesis 10.In that story there is mention of Peleg, one of the supposed descendents of Noah. ICANT is grabbing on to the phrase "for in his days was the earth divided" to imply that it means a physical separation of one land mass into many; but that is simply another example of taking one quote mined verse out of context.If someone reads the KJV Genesis 10 in context it is obvious that it is not talking about any physical separation of land but rather a political fable about the establishment of tribes and nations.That the division was not some physical continental breakup is made clear throughout the story.

Actually, he is asserting far more than just that.He is taking one verse from Genesis 1 and one verse from Genesis 10 and asserting that those two verses show that from the beginning there was just one land mass.Of course that is simply quote mining and if you look at the two unrelated tales in context it is obvious that Genesis 1 and Genesis 10 are totally separate, unrelated tales and that Genesis 10 is not talking about a continent splitting apart but rather the origin of the various peoples and tribes in the Fertile Crescent.