Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 31 of 306 (638403)
10-22-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coyote
10-21-2011 11:23 PM


Re: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED.
quote:
Sorry to disagree, but that is not true.
What's in a name? These finds were determined by Archeologists via 'NAMES' found on relics - more powerful than C14 which are subject to errors in small margin datings:
=============================
http://www.bibleprobe.com/archeology.htm:
First Temple Seal
A stone seal bearing the name of one of the families who acted as servants in the First Temple and then returned to Jerusalem after being exiled to Babylonia has been uncovered in an archeological excavation in Jerusalem's City of David, a prominent Israeli archeologist said on January 16, 2008.
The 2,500-year-old black stone seal, which has the name "Temech" engraved on it, was found in January 2008 amid stratified debris in the excavation under way just outside the Old City walls near the Dung Gate, said archeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar, who is leading the dig.
According to the Book of Nehemiah, the Temech family were servants of the First Temple and were sent into exile to Babylon following its destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.
The family was among those who later returned to Jerusalem, the Bible recounts
================================
 Patriarchal Age Biblical archeology  (Archaeology ) Truthnet:
There is a significant body of evidence on which to base an understanding of the patriarchal environment. There are four areas that evidence is found to support this period.
1. Names: There are numerous examples of names used in Genesis that are found outside of the Bible in extra-biblical texts.
=================================
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | NOVA | PBS:
The Merneptah Stele, dated to about 1206 B.C.E. and now housed at the Cairo Museum, offers the earliest historical evidence of a people called Israel. Enlarge
Photo credit: WGBH Educational Foundation
Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.
So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlandsa loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you willcalled "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.
====================================
The City of David:
The House of Ahi’el, on the northeastern slope, is a typical four-roomed Israelite dwelling of this time. The name derives from the Hebrew inscription on a pottery fragment found in the house, which includes this personal name. The house had an external stone staircase leading to a second story. In a small storage room over fifty restorable jars were found and in another small room a limestone toilet seat was embedded in the plaster floor, with a cesspit beneath it.
The Bullae House, east of the House of Ahi’el, is so named for a collection of almost 50 clay sealings (bullae) with Hebrew lettering found there.
http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 10-21-2011 11:23 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 32 of 306 (638407)
10-22-2011 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by kbertsche
10-21-2011 10:15 PM


Re: Single land mass
Hi kbertsche,
kbertsche writes:
I'd say that your interpretation is plausible, but I think it may press the text a bit too far.
How does it press the text?
In Message 10 I broke down Genesis 1:9 in the Hebrew with the meaning of each word.
I also gave the Hebrew word that is translated seas which is a masculine singular verb. Singular is not plural. There was one sea.
How could there be one sea if the Earth was as it is today. Today there is the Aral Sea, Caspian Sea, Dead Sea, Sea of Galilee, Great Salt Lake, and the Salton Sea and all of them are landlocked. That makes at least 7 places.
kbertsche writes:
Yes, the text says that God gathered the waters together in one place (maqom echad).
So you agree that the text says the water was gathered to one place and the dry land appeared.
You just disagree as to what one place is.
kbertsche writes:
Yes, the text says that the land was divided in the days of Peleg.
So you agree that the Earth was divided in the days of Peleg.
You just disagree as to what the Earth is.
Could you clear up those two problems for me?
In Genesis 1:1 ארץ is translated Earth.
In Genesis 1:10 ארץ was translated Earth, which was the dry land that appeared when the water was collected in one place.
In Genesis 10:25 ארץ was translated Earth.
I really think the text was talking about the ארץ.
kbertsche writes:
It could just as well be a large earthquake.
Then why didn't Moses say the Earth was divided by an earthquake?
It wasn't the people because they had already been scattered over the face of the Earth. Genesis 11:8
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by kbertsche, posted 10-21-2011 10:15 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Trixie, posted 10-22-2011 4:49 AM ICANT has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 33 of 306 (638408)
10-22-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2011 11:58 PM


Re: Peleg
So there seems to be an obvious intepretation of what it means to say that "the earth was divided", i.e. that "the nations were separated on the earth after the flood", which should be preferred because it is obvious. Why would anyone think of anything else --- and why would anyone write like that unless they meant it to be interpreted that way?
Good point. This seems to be a more natural interpretation than continental drift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2011 11:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 34 of 306 (638413)
10-22-2011 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by IamJoseph
10-21-2011 10:15 PM


Words mean everything
Hi Joseph,
IamJoseph writes:
Absolutely. Note that this is a pristine, technical writings - every word is important and impacting; nothing is superfluous; nothing is negatble.
I can agree that every word is important and the meaning of those words are specific.
IamJoseph writes:
The address was not to the world.
Noah was the only one that found grace in the eyes of God.
IamJoseph writes:
Note, no non-domestic animals are included
Clean beast were eatable.
Unclean beast were non-eatable.
I think you could fit all beasts in that verse, as there was only two kinds, clean and unclean.
IamJoseph writes:
Noah did NOT collect ALL the animals of the earth. That the animals
Noah did not collect any animals. God sent them at the time for them to load on the ark. They had 120 years to get there.
IamJoseph writes:
Lions and snakes do not do such; they would have to be rounded up for eons if this was meant.
So they could not have traveled to the ark if God told them to go get on the ark. Is that what you are saying?
IamJoseph writes:
Only Noah, his family and the animals referred to previously [no wild animals; domesticated owned animals are only listed]. Obviously, all the earth's animals could not fit into the dimensions of the boat - the reason the dimensions were specified.
Where does the text say there was no wild animals?
God gave the dimensions of the ark which was not a boat and He knew the animals He was going to send to get on the ark.
Why wouldn't they fit.
How big do you think the ark was?
It could hold more than 500 railroad cars. My last drawing I drew had over 18 acres of floor space and I think I could get another 10 or more acres in it by designing rooms for the small critters.
IamJoseph writes:
Do the math. Seven days is only supportive of a regional flood, listed here as 'THE EARTH'; read, earth here does not refer to the whole world!
You do understand that it started to rain seven days later and then rained for 40 days and the fountains of the deep open up and water gushed forth out of them until the hightest point on the land mass was covered with 15 cubits of water. That water stayed there for 150 days total from the day it began to rain. Then it took another 150 days for the water to receed.
IamJoseph writes:
Here, WINDOWS OF HEAVEN refers to rain,
Yep it rained on the Earth and it don't say part of the Earth.
IamJoseph writes:
Much confusion comes from terms such as "and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind "
The confusion comes when IamJoseph or someone else decides 'every' means some.
IamJoseph writes:
Clearly, 'ALL FLESH' refers to only those that could fit in the ark; and then 'shut in'.
More confusion as 'all' means some, according to IamJoseph.
IamJoseph writes:
This refers only to Noah's region, proven by its previous verses:
An assertion not supported by the text as it says the Earth, not Noah's part of the Earth.
IamJoseph writes:
The waters did not bear up the boat till 'after' forty days; meaning this was not a global flood!
How does when the ark floated have anything to do with whether the flood was global or local?
IamJoseph writes:
A cubit is a foot [elbow to fingers].
Since when is a cubit a foot?
The Hebrew short cubit was 17.5 inches.
The Hebrew long cubit was 20.4 inches.
The Egyptians and Bablonians had different length cubits.
You can check them out Here
IamJoseph writes:
It must also be understood the writings describe how it appeared to the people of Noah's region,
Why?
Moses was the one doing the writing hundreds of years later.
IamJoseph writes:
The term 'SWARMETH' refers to those animals not of Noah's possessions,
The word swarmeth refers to critters that swarm.
IamJoseph writes:
The term 'UPON THE EARTH'
Refers to anything upon the earth.
IamJoseph writes:
Note now 'ON THE GROUND' is used to describe 'EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE',
On the ground refers to on the ground.
Every living substance refers to every thing that had the breath of life.
IamJoseph writes:
Note that the fish were uneffected - namely this was NOT about ALL LIVING CREATURES ON THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH.
Gee I thought the fish were in the water that was on the whole face of the Earth. I did not know they were on the face of the dry land, where everything that had the breath of life died.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by IamJoseph, posted 10-21-2011 10:15 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 3:58 AM ICANT has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 35 of 306 (638418)
10-22-2011 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
10-22-2011 2:40 AM


Re: Words mean everything
quote:
I can agree that every word is important and the meaning of those words are specific.
Yet you omitted the opening verse, which is the preamble to the story: this is limited to Noah's household - not the entire planet's livestock? Hereafter, everything must align with the preamble.
quote:
Noah was the only one that found grace in the eyes of God.
'In this [Noah's] generation'. A generation refers to a particular society and also a 60 year life lifespan. In this context it applies to the former, which must align with the aforesaid household of Noah.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
Note, no non-domestic animals are included
Clean beast were eatable.
Unclean beast were non-eatable.
I think you could fit all beasts in that verse, as there was only two kinds, clean and unclean.
No sir. Some domestic animals are not clean [kosher]. For certain it excludes wild carnerveous animals. This says 'NOT ALL THE ANIMALS OF THE EARTH.' Also, it dispells the premise Tigers and Snakes were destroyed in a global flood.
quote:
Noah did not collect any animals. God sent them at the time for them to load on the ark. They had 120 years to get there.
This appears to mean something else than how you frame it. The animals came to him is better seen as domestic animals: Tigers did not come, negating the view wild animals would also follow, same as would domestic ones. The 120 year period does not justify all animals of the earth; it just represents that things moved slower in ancient times and more time was needed. A mansion or a large scroll, for example, took decades and centuries to complete. The writings is highly authentic, which calls for reading in the period of its descriptions.
quote:
Lions and snakes do not do such; they would have to be rounded up for eons if this was meant.
So they could not have traveled to the ark if God told them to go get on the ark. Is that what you are saying?
No. I'm reading the texts correctly. Your view must be reflected in the texts, not that God can do anything. Such a view is generic.
quote:
Where does the text say there was no wild animals?
None are listed; domestic ones are listed.
quote:
How big do you think the ark was?
Not big enough.
quote:
Do the math. Seven days is only supportive of a regional flood, listed here as 'THE EARTH'; read, earth here does not refer to the whole world!
You do understand that it started to rain seven days later and then rained for 40 days and the fountains of the deep open up and water gushed forth out of them until the hightest point on the land mass was covered with 15 cubits of water. That water stayed there for 150 days total from the day it began to rain. Then it took another 150 days for the water to receed.
Yes, I read it carefully. The boat did not float initially; the 150 days is not a long time for a land to settle after such a large flood - the water laden mud alone [wet earth] would require more than a year to dry out.
quote:
The confusion comes when IamJoseph or someone else decides 'every' means some.
Yes, certainly the word 'every' can apply to a small designated group. As in every member of some groups.
quote:
Clearly, 'ALL FLESH' refers to only those that could fit in the ark; and then 'shut in'.
More confusion as 'all' means some, according to IamJoseph.
All does not mean all flesh on the planet, but all flesh of those not taken into the boat. The regional limitations are not negated here.
quote:
This refers only to Noah's region, proven by its previous verses:
An assertion not supported by the text as it says the Earth, not Noah's part of the Earth.
Think thusly: all the earth of John Doe's land. The previous verses do limit the reference to earth being a portion of earth, as described in my post.
quote:
The waters did not bear up the boat till 'after' forty days; meaning this was not a global flood!
How does when the ark floated have anything to do with whether the flood was global or local?
In a global scenario, it would be instantanious. Here, the boat rising after 40 days can only refer to one large village or town. We saw a tsunami some years ago which stretched across continents - it was instantanious.
quote:
Since when is a cubit a foot?
The Hebrew short cubit was 17.5 inches.
The Hebrew long cubit was 20.4 inches.
The Egyptians and Bablonians had different length cubits.
You can check them out Here
The walls of the Jerusalem temple were 110 feet, which was the highest monument in the world at that time. A cubit is roughly a foot; at least in the Hebrew descriptions.
quote:
It must also be understood the writings describe how it appeared to the people of Noah's region,
Why?
Its the only view possible. E.g. a 30 storey building today would be seen as medium; 4000 years ago it would be seen as reaching the heavens. The writings are thus not relative but specifically and only applicable to the period of its setting. A whole town being submerged would thus be seen as if the world was being destroyed. This was the town peoples' world.
quote:
Moses was the one doing the writing hundreds of years later.
Admittedly, this retrospective writing is an explicable factor. Yet its also mysterious: even if one takes the view it was done by numerous writers, it still defies plausibility some ancients would be capable of compiling such a volume of works and descriptions, containing millions of stats in its verses, of numbers, dates, places and names, many introduced for the first time. IMHO, this is the most mysterious writings humanity possesses; nothing like it exists elsewhere for centuries; nothing is positively refuttable today - despite the multitude of peoples trying to do so obsessively.
quote:
Note now 'ON THE GROUND' is used to describe 'EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE',
On the ground refers to on the ground.
It does not refer to the world or the whole earth, was my point; its a localized indicator.
quote:
Every living substance refers to every thing that had the breath of life.
Not necessarilly. Consider, every living substance in a designated and specified area.
quote:
Note that the fish were uneffected - namely this was NOT about ALL LIVING CREATURES ON THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH.
Gee I thought the fish were in the water that was on the whole face of the Earth. I did not know they were on the face of the dry land, where everything that had the breath of life died.
You miss the point. It is conclusive proof not ALL life/flesh was destroyed!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 2:40 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 5:18 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 36 of 306 (638421)
10-22-2011 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2011 11:58 PM


Re: Peleg
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
I can't agree with your interpretation of the text about Peleg:
Why would you agree with me you don't believe the Bible anyway.
Dr Adequate writes:
There then immediately follows the story of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9) which I take to be the explanation of the separation in Gen. 10:32 and of the different languages in Gen. 10:31, because otherwise the whole thing wouldn't make any sense.
Yes a few hundred years after the flood the people had multiplyed and was moving eastward.
They decided to build a tower to heaven so they could not be scattered all over the face of the Earth.
The people all spoke one language at that time.
quote:
Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
קוג translated scatter means scatter or disperse.
קלג translated divided means divide, split, cleave. Genesis 10:25
ארץ translated Earth that the dry land in Genesis 1:10 was called.
ארץ was translated Earth in Genesis 10:25 that was divided.
עם translated people in Genesis 11:6 means people or nation. They were scattered not divided.
Dr Adequate writes:
So there seems to be an obvious intepretation of what it means to say that "the earth was divided",
Sure ther is, it says what it means and means what it says.
The dry land mass that was called Earth in Genesis 1:10 was divided.
The people in Genesis 11:6 who was building the tower was scatter upon the face of the Earth.
Dr Adequate writes:
And Noah got his name because in his time there was much rain"
You were doing real good until you decided to become a wise guy.
Noah's name does not mean rain. It means rest. I really don't know why because he had a lot of work to do and I don't know when he got any rest.
Dr Adequate writes:
"Adam was so called because of the incident with the tree"
The Hebrew word אדם does not mean ate the forbiden fruit or anyother thing you can think of concerning the tree.
The Hebrew word אדם meaning man or mankind is transliterated adm and is not the name of a specific man.
The Hebrew word אדם is not a proper name although it has been adopted as one.
Dr Adequate writes:
how Peleg got his name.
Peleg's name is קלג which means divide, split, cleave. So there is no comparison of your Noah and Adam to Peleg.
Dr Adequate writes:
Consider also that according to your interpretation what is being referred to would be one of the most momentous, dramatic, and most cataclysmic events in the whole history of the world --- and yet is mentioned only in passing as an explanation of how Peleg got his name.
I translate when I give the Hebrew word and the definition.
I interpet when I decide which definition to apply to the Hebrew word in question. Which is controled by many factors.
Now as to the dividing of the Earth I agree that it would be a cataclysmic event. Almost as much so as the Earth beginning to exist.
For the Earth to be divided instantly would cause a lot of problems in our way of thinking as a lot of heat would be created by the moving of the plates.
But that would explain how the water that is in the mantel got there. That water being enough to fill our oceans 7 times.
It would also explain how the different animals got on the different continents, as well as the people.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2011 11:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2011 5:00 AM ICANT has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 37 of 306 (638425)
10-22-2011 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
10-22-2011 1:07 AM


Re: Single land mass
Earlier, Percy said
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God called the "gathering together of the water" seas. That's seas, not sea, as in more than one sea.
Later you said, in reply to IamJoseph
quote:
I also gave the Hebrew word that is translated seas which is a masculine singular verb. Singular is not plural. There was one sea.
Forgetting for the moment the gender (which is irrelevant to my point) "seas" can't be considered a singular verb. For starters it's a noun, but, more importantly, its plural. If the original Hebrew uses a singular form, then the translation is inaccurate, if it's accurate it uses a plural form, therefore you can't argue that that it talks about a single sea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 1:07 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Panda, posted 10-22-2011 7:29 AM Trixie has not replied
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 4:33 PM Trixie has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 306 (638426)
10-22-2011 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
10-22-2011 4:08 AM


Re: Peleg
Why would you agree with me you don't believe the Bible anyway.
No, but I can understand it.
Sure ther is, it says what it means and means what it says.
The dry land mass that was called Earth in Genesis 1:10 was divided.
I think you are grasping at straws. Yes, it is possible to choose interpretations of the words so that it means "The dry land mass was physically split asunder", but given that we have already been told that there was a completely different sense in which the earth was divided in the days of Peleg, then that is the interpretation that it naturally bears.
If you read: "Sherlock Holmes habitually dressed in an Inverness cape in cold weather", then if you read a few sentences later: "Because it was cold, Sherlock Holmes was wearing an Inverness cape", you could intepret that second sentence as meaning: "Because a Scottish headland was cold, Sherlock Holmes was eroding it", but only by ignoring a context with which the author has already been careful to supply you.
You were doing real good until you decided to become a wise guy.
Noah's name does not mean rain. It means rest. I really don't know why because he had a lot of work to do and I don't know when he got any rest.
The Hebrew word does not mean ate the forbiden fruit or anyother thing you can think of concerning the tree.
I said it was as if the Bible said that --- as if it only hinted at these momentous events by a passing etymological gloss.
But that would explain how the water that is in the mantel got there.
Perhaps you could expand on that. Real geologists, after all, do not hold that continental drift would draw that much water into the mantle, nor that it was elsewhere until the breakup of Pangea occurred.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 4:08 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 5:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 39 of 306 (638428)
10-22-2011 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by IamJoseph
10-22-2011 3:58 AM


Re: Words mean everything
Hi Joseph,
IamJoseph writes:
This says 'NOT ALL THE ANIMALS OF THE EARTH.'
What verse in the Bible says that about the animals on the Earth at the time of the flood?
IamJoseph writes:
Yet you omitted the opening verse, which is the preamble to the story: this is limited to Noah's household - not the entire planet's livestock? Hereafter, everything must align with the preamble.
Please point out in the following verses any verse that leaves out any animal, especially how did this verse leave out any animal?
"6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Does 'every' mean some or does it mean all?
quote:
Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
IamJoseph writes:
Tigers did not come,
Are you saying God is a liar when He said "EVERY LIVING THING" ?
IamJoseph writes:
the water laden mud alone [wet earth] would require more than a year to dry out.
Where did all this mud come from?
IamJoseph writes:
Yes, certainly the word 'every' can apply to a small designated group. As in every member of some groups.
6:19 says "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."
That says every living thing of all flesh.
That does not leave any out.
Two of every sort.
That covers anything you might think got left out.
IamJoseph writes:
All does not mean all flesh on the planet, but all flesh of those not taken into the boat. The regional limitations are not negated here.
What dictionary do you find "ALL" means "SOME" in?
IamJoseph writes:
Think thusly: all the earth of John Doe's land. The previous verses do limit the reference to earth being a portion of earth, as described in my post.
Did God lie when He said: "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die"?
All flesh, wherein is the breath of life under heaven would cover any creature that lived on the dry land on planet Earth.
IamJoseph writes:
In a global scenario, it would be instantanious. Here, the boat rising after 40 days can only refer to one large village or town. We saw a tsunami some years ago which stretched across continents - it was instantanious.
What kind of weed is that you are smoking?
A global scenario would take a lot more water than a local scenario although I don't think it took much as all the dry land was in one place as put forth in Genesis 1:9, 10.
But the flood was not a tsunami. The flood was caused by rain coming down from the sky and the water coming up from the fountains of the deep. It would be something like filling your bathtub with part of the water coming out of a water hose you had put in the tub and water coming out of the shower.
If the dry land was in one place as the water was in one place and the dry land was pretty close to sea level the water could rise at a slow rate and the rain could fall at a moderate rate and there would be no erosion of the dry land as it was covered with water and the ark began to rise after the water had risen close to 30 feet because of its size and load displacement.
IamJoseph writes:
Its the only view possible. E.g. a 30 storey building today would be seen as medium; 4000 years ago it would be seen as reaching the heavens.
But it was not written 4,000 year ago, but 3271 to 3321 years ago. That was about a 1,000 years after the flood.
IamJoseph writes:
Not necessarilly. Consider, every living substance in a designated and specified area.
But the text has no qualifier. Only IamJoseph has the qualifiers.
IamJoseph writes:
You miss the point. It is conclusive proof not ALL life/flesh was destroyed!
You went to all that trouble trying to convince me of something I have always believed.
I know all living life forms did not perish in the flood. There are too many living organisms in the world today.
I do know that everything other that water creatures that was not in the ark perished as that is what God said He was going to do.
God said:
quote:
6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Now either everything died or God lied.
I tend to believe everything under the heaven that was not in the water or the ark died.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 3:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 7:46 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 40 of 306 (638429)
10-22-2011 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
10-22-2011 5:00 AM


Re: Peleg
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
Perhaps you could expand on that. Real geologists, after all, do not hold that continental drift would draw that much water into the mantel,
But we were not talking abut continental drift was we?
We were talking about very rapid movement of the plates which would cause immense heat that would make a lot of water very hot.
Water gets in the mantel by subduction.
So if there was a lot of rapid movement and heat would not a lot of water be subducted into the mantel to cool it?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2011 5:00 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2011 6:10 AM ICANT has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 306 (638432)
10-22-2011 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
10-22-2011 5:26 AM


Re: Peleg
But we were not talking abut continental drift was we?
We were talking about very rapid movement of the plates ...
Which would cause rapid continental drift. Thus dividing the land.
Water gets in the mantel by subduction.
So if there was a lot of rapid movement and heat would not a lot of water be subducted into the mantel to cool it?
"A lot" is a vague term. What happens in subduction is that the sediment and sedimentary rocks on the sea floor get dragged into the mantle, and since they contain water it is dragged down with them.
But the amount of water involved would not be seven times the volume of the ocean. It would be a lot, but seven times the volume of the ocean would be a lot more. You'd have to start with so much sediment on the sea bed that the sea bed was in fact the land and the continental plates were under water ... and the the sediment wouldn't get subducted under the continental plates but scraped off onto their edges ... the Pacific Rim would be marked not by volcanos but by a giant wall of mud ... and unless there should be some reason why the center of the Pacific should have been a depression comparatively free of sediment, the Pacific "Ocean" would still be the only landmass, with the Atlantic stretching from California to Japan ... no, there's no way this would work.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 5:26 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 8:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 4:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 42 of 306 (638438)
10-22-2011 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Trixie
10-22-2011 4:49 AM


Re: Single land mass
Trixie writes:
Earlier, Percy said
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God called the "gathering together of the water" seas. That's seas, not sea, as in more than one sea.
Later you said, in reply to IamJoseph kbertsche
quote:
I also gave the Hebrew word that is translated seas which is a masculine singular verb. Singular is not plural. There was one sea.
Forgetting for the moment the gender (which is irrelevant to my point) "seas" can't be considered a singular verb. For starters it's a noun, but, more importantly, its plural. If the original Hebrew uses a singular form, then the translation is inaccurate, if it's accurate it uses a plural form, therefore you can't argue that that it talks about a single sea.
I am wondering how far this discussion can proceed when the OP can't even agree with himself on the translation of a single word.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Trixie, posted 10-22-2011 4:49 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 43 of 306 (638439)
10-22-2011 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by ICANT
10-21-2011 8:00 PM


Re: Single land mass
Hi ICANT,
Your interpretation ignores this passage:
quote:
Genesis 1:6 And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.
So when God's spirit was moving across the face of the waters they were everywhere, not just on the earth. He then created a dome that divided the waters above the dome from those below. Next he gathered the waters beneath the dome into one place, namely the earth.
Even if the word "seas" is actually the singular word "sea" you still have the same problem, as in, "He decided to go to sea" does not mean a single sea, it means a type of body of water. In some modern translations the word is rendered as "ocean", and when one asks, "Have you ever seen the ocean?" it doesn't mean one ocean, it means a type of body of water.
How do you avoid this interpretation?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ICANT, posted 10-21-2011 8:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 7:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 5:04 PM Percy has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 44 of 306 (638442)
10-22-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICANT
10-22-2011 5:18 AM


Re: Words mean everything
quote:
"6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Does 'every' mean some or does it mean all?
The term 'every' is hardly vested in a vacuum, as you have framed it The fish, the absence of a single wild animal, the directive in the opening preamble this pertains to Noah and his household - are the fulcrum pillars of this story.
The terms such as "a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die" - do not negate this was a regional flood; those words at all times and in every interpretation can and do align with a regional flood. Look:
In Cambodia, there was a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 5:18 AM ICANT has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 45 of 306 (638444)
10-22-2011 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
10-22-2011 7:31 AM


Re: Single land mass
To affirm the text is heady and complicated, please say how you interpret this simple sounding opening verse:
'IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH'
Particularly, what does 'heaven' refer to: is this a spiritual realm and earth is all material physicality; or does Heaven refer to the rest of the universe aside from the earth?
'IN THE BEGINNING' can also refer to time; namely in the beginning times. Does this mean time existed at the onset, before anything was yet created?
'IN THE BEGINNG GOD' - does this mean once only God existed and nothing else whatsoever - is it an answer what existed before this finite universe existed?
What tools and elements were used to create the universe - seeing nothing else existed at one time, including any laws?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 10-22-2011 7:31 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024