Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 61 of 306 (638487)
10-22-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Theodoric
10-22-2011 6:14 PM


Re: Single land mass
Hi Theo,
Theodoric writes:
Do you consider the Pacific, Atlantic, Arctic and Indian oceans, as well as the Mediterranean, Caribbean and Arabian Seas as one body of water or multiple?
If the waters are connected they would be one body of water regardless of what we call a particular section.
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 58 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2011 6:14 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 62 of 306 (638488)
10-22-2011 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ICANT
10-22-2011 6:18 PM


It burns!!
IWONT writes:
NoNukes writes:
I do not think the single land mass interpretation is required by the text.
So are you saying the water was not in one place as the text says?
Why do you think the first statement affirms the second? All the water can be in one place(connected) and there still be multiple large land masses.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 6:18 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 9:26 PM Theodoric has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 306 (638491)
10-22-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ICANT
10-22-2011 6:18 PM


Re: Single land mass
ICANT writes:
So how do you connect these seas to one body of water?
Aral Sea, Caspian Sea, Dead Sea, Sea of Galilee, Great Salt Lake, and the Salton Sea.
I don't.
Those things aren't seas in the same way that the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, etc. are seas. For the purposes of my argument we can image them to be filled in with dirt. Those bodies of water don't serve as boundaries for continents.
Surely you can see that having the water in one place still allows multiple continents.
Yes we have continents today but we do not have one body of water.
The major oceans are all connected into one large super-ocean. I'm not arguing that current geography matches the Biblical description. I'm saying that current geography shows how we can have one ocean and multiple continents.
You would have to rule out any of the continents that contain the 6 landlocked seas mentioned above.
Wrong, I could just rule out the land locked seas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 6:18 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 10-24-2011 8:50 AM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 64 of 306 (638493)
10-22-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ICANT
10-22-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Peleg
Are you saying there is not enough water in the mantel to fill the oceans 7 times?
No, I'm saying that there wouldn't have been enough room in the oceans, or enough sediment, for the origin of the mantle water to be the oceans and for it to have been transferred to the mantle by subduction.
You just haven't thought this through. If in the days of Peleg, seven times the volume of the oceans was transferred from the surface to the mantle, what did the surface look like just before this event took place?
P.S: It's "mantle", not "mantel". A mantel is the ornamental facing round a fireplace.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 4:12 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 10-24-2011 9:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(2)
Message 65 of 306 (638495)
10-22-2011 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by IamJoseph
10-22-2011 8:04 AM


Re: Peleg
I see the seperation of water from land as one of the anticipatory actions for forthcoming life, in all their numerous forms, requiring different habitats. It is also the first introduction of the earth's age: this action would have taken millions of years, as would the seperation of light from darkness in a critical mode and varied from the light/darkness ratio of other planets.
A true scientific view must accept that life could not have evolved without such actions, and that the emergence of life is no random accident! Thus I see real science here, as opposed to many aspects of anti-creationists who nshout MYTH as their only response.
Please do not address any further posts to me, as I lack both the ability to translate them into English and the patience to address them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 8:04 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 9:09 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 66 of 306 (638497)
10-22-2011 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ICANT
10-22-2011 5:04 PM


Re: Single land mass
ICANT writes:
You did not question this passage or quote it.
quote:
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Debating would be a little easier if the Bibles in the OP was used to quote from.
We can use any translation you like, it changes nothing. Here's the argument again, this time using the KGV:
quote:
Genesis 1:6 And 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.
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 firmament that divided the waters above the firmament from those below. Next he gathered the waters beneath the firmament 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.
You additionally have the problem that has been mentioned to you a number of times: All the oceans of the world are connected. The Atlantic/Pacific junction is at least 600 miles wide. The Pacific and Indian oceans have no junction, they just blend into each other. As Wikipedia describes it, "A continuous body of water encircling the Earth, the world (global) ocean is divided into a number of principal areas."
How do you avoid this interpretation? Well, by now it's pretty easy to tell how. You just declare yourself correct despite the complete lack of evidence or ability to convince anyone.
And what does any of this have to do with Noah's flood? At your current rate of progress you're not going to get around to discussing Noah's flood until at least post 1000, but I've got news for you: discussion ends at post 300. Better hurry it up.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2011 5:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 10-24-2011 9:50 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 67 of 306 (638499)
10-22-2011 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate
10-22-2011 8:08 PM


Re: Peleg
Please don't say life as we know it could occur without the seperation of water and land in an open forum. The asylum is full.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2011 8:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 68 of 306 (638500)
10-22-2011 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Coragyps
10-22-2011 3:13 PM


Re: life spans
Your own example best describes it. How is the fact the expanding universe has no effect on time a non sequitur - is the universe expanding only because Hubble discovered this - or since day #1!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Coragyps, posted 10-22-2011 3:13 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2011 9:32 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 69 of 306 (638501)
10-22-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Theodoric
10-22-2011 6:34 PM


Re: It burns!!
quote:
Why do you think the first statement affirms the second? All the water can be in one place(connected) and there still be multiple large land masses.
My reading of Genesis is that once no land would have been discernible; the earth was fully covered with water; the land was submerged. The seperation action caused portions of land to rise up, resulting in mountains and fords. The drift factor here is secondary to the first action, and the emergence of life would be a subsequent event - no life was present before the primal seperation action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2011 6:34 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2011 9:30 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 70 of 306 (638503)
10-22-2011 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by IamJoseph
10-22-2011 9:26 PM


Re: It burns!!
Why are you answering this post? It was a direct question to ICANT.
In the words of Dr. Adequate
quote:
Please do not address any further posts to me, as I lack both the ability to translate them into English and the patience to address them.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 9:26 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 10:01 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 71 of 306 (638504)
10-22-2011 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by IamJoseph
10-22-2011 9:19 PM


Re: life spans
In message 51 you stated in regard to lengthened life spans: "It is based on the accepted premise of the universe's acceleration and de-acceleration."
Now in message 68 you state that "How is the fact the expanding universe has no effect on time a non sequitur...?"
I would still like some scientific explanation as to how the average life span of modern humans (the last 10,000 years or so) has changed drastically.
Archaeological evidence suggests shorter average life spans in the past.
(This question is on topic as it pertains directly to the time Noah's flood occurred, based on either scientific or biblical evidence. In this case it was claimed that scientific evidence showed significantly longer life spans in the past, and that is what I am questioning.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 9:19 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 9:57 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 72 of 306 (638506)
10-22-2011 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Coyote
10-22-2011 9:32 PM


Re: life spans
quote:
Archaeological evidence suggests shorter average life spans in the past.
And chess champs make poor war generals. One must apply mind over matter here, not repeat everything they read as non-negotiable COMMANDMENTS. The issue of shorter life spans is also seen today - in countries where poor survival conditions are present. This has no bearing on the earliest periods where the earth was less impacted by such conditions as deseases, population and war displacements: the premise you apply is about history, not physics. It is again transcended by the physics of the universe expansion and its impacts.This factor gives scientific plausibility humans would have had greater life spans in the first 500 years, in diminishing ratios as conditions became impacted by negative factors. It also says a 24 hour day was relatively recent in the big universal picture.If one accepts the expansion premise - they must accept its reverse as we go backwards. Science 101.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2011 9:32 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2011 10:46 PM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 73 of 306 (638507)
10-22-2011 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Theodoric
10-22-2011 9:30 PM


Re: It burns!!
Fine, but actually I was reply to a statement, not a person. This one:
"All the water can be in one place(connected) and there still be multiple large land masses."
The land masses were originally submerged, was my point.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2011 9:30 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 74 of 306 (638510)
10-22-2011 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by IamJoseph
10-22-2011 9:57 PM


Re: life spans
And chess champs make poor war generals. One must apply mind over matter here, not repeat everything they read as non-negotiable COMMANDMENTS.
I do archaeology for a living, with human skeletal analysis as one of my specialties.
Don't equate this as "repeating everything I read" as you would be entirely wrong. Again.
The issue of shorter life spans is also seen today - in countries where poor survival conditions are present.
This is what has been seen around the world for most of our 200,000 years as modern humans. No surprises there.
This has no bearing on the earliest periods where the earth was less impacted by such conditions as deseases, population and war displacements: the premise you apply is about history, not physics.
Sorry, no. That is not supported by the facts.
It is again transcended by the physics of the universe expansion and its impacts.This factor gives scientific plausibility humans would have had greater life spans in the first 500 years, in diminishing ratios as conditions became impacted by negative factors. It also says a 24 hour day was relatively recent in the big universal picture.If one accepts the expansion premise - they must accept its reverse as we go backwards. Science 101.
Nonsense 101. There is no scientific evidence for any of this.
Stick to making biblical claims, but don't try to drag science down with you.
Then you're only wrong in one field of study.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 9:57 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 11:46 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 76 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 11:55 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 75 of 306 (638512)
10-22-2011 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Coyote
10-22-2011 10:46 PM


Re: life spans
quote:
I do archaeology for a living, with human skeletal analysis as one of my specialties.
That is fine. Lets hope its not agenda preferred. Yet you disputed the primal relevance of 'names' in archeology, and you failed to respond to a host of links of prominent architects in that regard. We have proof today of 3,500 and 2,800 year ago that Israel and King David, for example, were historical entities solely from stone monument discoveries - only because of names embossed upon them - quoted by prominent archeologists as stunning proof. There was no way these factors would come about from C14 - in fact most archeoligists deemed these are mythical before!
Where is your proof of 200,000 year modern [whatever that means!] man?
If there is no scientific evidence for time factor variances in the expansion of the universe, then pray tell what does impact here? What do we measure earthly and cosmic time by? Was there a 24-hour day when our sun was 1 day old?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2011 10:46 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2011 11:57 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024