Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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 76 of 306 (638513)
10-22-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Coyote
10-22-2011 10:46 PM


Re: life spans
You can see from here, time is reliant on space bodies such as galaxies [cosmic time] and stars [solar time]. The space bodies are subject to universal space increments [expansion] - the stars existing are dependent on the expansion. In other words, if our earth was closer to the sun, the day would be longer!
quote:
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The page cannot be found
Any discussion requires a shared language or concept. It is in that spirit that I present a Readers Digest version of the history of the universe in order to define the context of this paper as well as some terminology.
The chronology of the universe is depicted schematically in Fig. 1. While some remarkable events occurred in the earliest phases of the evolution of the universe, the intervals of time that are relevant to our discussion are those indicated by the symbols and . The first of these is the interval of time since the Big Bang until the epic of galaxy formation (we are actually interested only in the time when our galaxy was formed, but we will use a number that is representative of many galaxies). The second interval marks the passage of time from the formation of the galaxy until the solar system was formed. The third interval corresponds to the age of the solar system. A value of 1.00.4 billion years will be taken here for the interval
Fig. 1.
These intervals are relevant to two approaches to establishing the age of the universe, both involving ways to estimate the age of the galaxy. One way is to estimate the age of the oldest star(s) in the galaxy and associate that with the age of the galaxy. The other way has to do with the age of the elements, the majority of which were created by stellar processes in the galaxy.
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 78 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2011 12:00 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 77 of 306 (638514)
10-22-2011 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by IamJoseph
10-22-2011 11:46 PM


Re: life spans
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!
Those "names" don't prove what you suggest they prove. You've been wrong on this on several threads now.
Where is your proof of 200,000 year modern [whatever that means!] man?
Evidence is best kept to another thread. For details, google "Omo."
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?
Most of your comment has no relevance to anything. The sun has provided an approximately 24-hour day for as long as humans have been around, and that's good enough.
But you still have not provided any scientific evidence, as you claimed you could, for significantly longer life spans in the past.
No more rabbit holes. Please either provide scientific evidence for extended life spans or withdraw your claim.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 11:46 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 10-23-2011 12:02 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 78 of 306 (638515)
10-23-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by IamJoseph
10-22-2011 11:55 PM


Re: life spans
Your extended quote doesn't support your claims.
We are discussing life spans of humans in historic times. You are claiming humans had vastly extended life spans and I am suggesting that there is no scientific evidence for that claim.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by IamJoseph, posted 10-22-2011 11:55 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by IamJoseph, posted 10-23-2011 12:11 AM Coyote has replied

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


Message 79 of 306 (638516)
10-23-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Coyote
10-22-2011 11:57 PM


Re: life spans
quote:
Those "names" don't prove what you suggest they prove. You've been wrong on this on several threads now.
That is not a response. Please tell us the significance of the Egytpian stelle discovery, dated 3,500 years and mentioning a war with Israel. All I said here was, it is proof there was an entity called Israel at that date, and this is derived only by a name imprint. Yes/no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2011 11:57 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 80 of 306 (638517)
10-23-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Coyote
10-23-2011 12:00 AM


Re: life spans
I already admitted this appears to contradict today's understanding. Equally, I cannot see any coherent reason for a writings saying this when there is no apparent benefit of it, other than to look ridiculous, and that it is, mysteriously, in alignment with other historical names & events being attached. I see no reason why, for example, we have no NAME pre-Adam for the 196,000 years you propose for modern man: names popped up only by some freak accident to align only with Genesis? It does not tickle your curious funny bone at all as ironic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2011 12:00 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2011 12:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 81 of 306 (638518)
10-23-2011 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by IamJoseph
10-23-2011 12:11 AM


Re: life spans
I see no reason why, for example, we have no NAME pre-Adam for the 196,000 years you propose for modern man: names popped up only by some freak accident to align only with Genesis? It does not tickle your curious funny bone at all as ironic?
No names before writing was developed? Gee, I wonder why not...
Actually, cartouches (names) were developed in Egypt during Dynasty IV, which lasted from ca. 2613 to 2494 BC.
A quick google suggests the bible "is a collection of writings, and the earliest ones were set down nearly 3500 years ago."
But none of this reflects on the extended life spans you are claiming for early humans. Please provide the scientific evidence you said you had to support this claim.
No more off-topic rabbit holes, please.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by IamJoseph, posted 10-23-2011 12:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by IamJoseph, posted 10-23-2011 2:17 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 83 by IamJoseph, posted 10-23-2011 2:21 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 82 of 306 (638521)
10-23-2011 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Coyote
10-23-2011 12:23 AM


Re: life spans
If you make claims modern humans are 200,000 years old, replying to it is off topic? - one should let it pass as if it was a fact? That is very hard to do. You are cherry picking what is off topic: because I asked you if you found the alignment of a name aligning so exactingly with Genesis as mysterious. That's why!
With regard to time being impacted by the growth of the universe, I have been giving you proofs. I also gave a premise where vegetation can precede sunlight, whereby the vegetation was not caused by the sunlight, which acts as the sustainence factor [food], not the causative one. We have sunlight on all planets - but no life. Why is that? I do see logic here which is not satisfied by the premise you hold: if vegetation is caused by sunlight - every planet should harbour vegetation. If you say this is due to critical conditions, then we have a host of similar critical conditions on this planet also; if critical conditions is the only factor, then its back to Genesis, which is telling us the same thing. Where is the anomaly?
Texts are complicated with such heady issues, and pivotal words cannot be ignored. The Noah story is textually resting on Noah's household - where was it factored into the equation?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2011 12:23 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 83 of 306 (638522)
10-23-2011 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Coyote
10-23-2011 12:23 AM


Re: life spans
quote:
No names before writing was developed? Gee, I wonder why not...
When was writings developed in the alledged 200,000 years of modern man? Give us a rough time frame to test your thesis, backed by reasonable evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2011 12:23 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Larni, posted 10-23-2011 5:15 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 84 of 306 (638525)
10-23-2011 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by IamJoseph
10-23-2011 2:21 AM


Re: life spans
wiki writes:
It is generally agreed that true writing of language was invented independently in at least two places: Mesopotamia (specifically, ancient Sumer) 3200 BC and Mesoamerica 600 BC. Twelve Mesoamerican scripts are known of, the oldest from Zapotec Mexico.
early writing - Google Search
Pretty clear cut answer to your question.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by IamJoseph, posted 10-23-2011 2:21 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by IamJoseph, posted 10-23-2011 7:05 AM Larni has not replied

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


Message 85 of 306 (638527)
10-23-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Larni
10-23-2011 5:15 AM


Re: life spans
quote:
It is generally agreed that true writing of language was invented independently in at least two places: Mesopotamia (specifically, ancient Sumer) 3200 BC and Mesoamerica 600 BC. Twelve Mesoamerican scripts are known of, the oldest from Zapotec Mexico.
Fine. Now examine the period between 200,000 years ago and 5,500 years ago. This is a period of 195,000 years. We know that writings cannot occur without speech. We have indicators and evidences that writings developed a few centuries after speech; while we have no evidences of speech before 5,500 years - all those indicators and evidences are absent, to the extent of absolute zero proof for the entire 195,000 year period. This says there is no evidence of speech for the entire period of 195,000.
I base the above figures with no provision given to items such as mass burials, cave markings datings without on the ground continuing and graduated surrounding backup, or of skeletal remains. These are not acceptable proofs of speech and only serve as an unsatisfactory circular debate.
Conclusion of the evidences:
1. Speech endowed humans were not around a few centuries before writings appeared, namely before 5,500 to 6000 years ago. Zero evidences for the 195,000 period; which many also claim as 300,000 years of modern speech humans existing.
2. However one sides with the above, there appears a mysterious alignment with the 6000 year figure of the Genesis version of modern human history, at least to the extent a quickening of the pace began at this point, the like of which has never happened before - and has no equivalence to present as its justification. In fact its not just speech which is absent outside the Genesis version - we have no history per se before this dating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Larni, posted 10-23-2011 5:15 AM Larni has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 86 of 306 (638528)
10-23-2011 7:20 AM


TOPIC PLEASE!
This is not a science thread. Stop asking for scientific evidence.
It doesn't matter what claims are made. Off topic claims are not open for debate.
This thread is about what the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood.
Please reread the OP to understand the nature of this thread.
Please stick to the on topic issues and not the off topic issues.
Please do not respond to this message. Direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread.
Thank you
AdminPD Purple
Edited by AdminPD, : Removed closure statement.

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


Message 87 of 306 (638609)
10-24-2011 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by NoNukes
10-22-2011 7:18 PM


Re: Single land mass
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
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.
You can imagine anything you like. That does not change the fact that they are bodies of water that is not connected to any other ocean or sea.
Therefore they would not be considered a part of the water in one place of Genesis 1:9.
NoNukes writes:
Surely you can see that having the water in one place still allows multiple continents.
The land mass could be in any configuration as long as there was not any water landlocked within the land mass.
The problem is that Science tells us the land mass was all in one place at one time, as the Bible tells us there was one land mass at one time.
NoNukes writes:
The major oceans are all connected into one large super-ocean.
But all the water is not in one place, at the present.
NoNukes writes:
I'm not arguing that current geography matches the Biblical description.
Then what was the geography in the description given in Genesis 1:9, 10?
NoNukes writes:
I'm saying that current geography shows how we can have one ocean and multiple continents.
But you don't have all the water in one place with the current geography.
NoNukes writes:
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.
No you would have to empty them of water and put the water in one place to satisfy Genesis 1:9.
Take a good look at my present avatar and tell me is the dark blue which represents water all in one place.
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 63 by NoNukes, posted 10-22-2011 7:18 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 9:06 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 10-24-2011 9:10 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 91 by NoNukes, posted 10-24-2011 9:39 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 88 of 306 (638610)
10-24-2011 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
10-22-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Peleg
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
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?
I don't think I said there was 7 times the volume of water in the oceans at the time of Peleg.
I did say there was 7 times the amount of water in the mantle as there is in the oceans.
As to what the surface would look like before that event took place, I believe it would have looked like my avatar minus the body of landlocked water.
I know there was a lot more water in that body of water that was in one place than there is in the oceans today.
Maybe I didn't think it through with your mind but I did the best I could with my little uneducated mind.
But I have been told that if the Earth was divided in an instant into the continents we have today there would have been an awful lot of heat generated that would have to have been cooled. The rocks would have gotten very hot and since they would have been in the water the water would have done a lot of changing.
Now as to why we don't have any record of that event written down for us to read that would explain how we do not know whether those people knew what happened or not. Since they were scattered all over the face of the Earth they may have thought a big earthquake had taken place.
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 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2011 7:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 89 of 306 (638611)
10-24-2011 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
10-24-2011 8:50 AM


Re: Single land mass
ICANT writes:
The problem is that Science tells us the land mass was all in one place at one time, as the Bible tells us there was one land mass at one time.
This is not a science thread.
What science says about a global flood is off-topic.
So, what does the KJV Bible say?
ICANT writes:
The land mass could be in any configuration as long as there was not any water landlocked within the land mass.
So - the KJV does NOT state that there was a Pangaea-like land mass.
It could have been any kind of shape, as long as there was no land-locked water.

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 87 by ICANT, posted 10-24-2011 8:50 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 10-24-2011 11:42 AM Panda has replied

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


Message 90 of 306 (638613)
10-24-2011 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
10-24-2011 8:50 AM


Re: Single land mass
ICANT writes:
NoNukes writes:
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.
You can imagine anything you like. That does not change the fact that they are bodies of water that is not connected to any other ocean or sea.
If I'm interpreting you correctly, you're saying two things,
  • That after the six days of creation there were no inland seas. Is this just nomenclature? The Great Lakes could as easily have been called the Small Seas, and the Caspean Sea called The Great Asian Lake.
  • That after the six days of creation what we today consider the world's oceans were all connected to each other, but today they are not Are you really saying this?
The land mass could be in any configuration as long as there was not any water landlocked within the land mass.
Now you're saying something different. Earlier you were saying there were no inland seas. Now you're saying there were no landlocked bodies of water? Really? No lakes or ponds?
But all the water is not in one place, at the present.
All the world's oceans are interconnected. They are not isolated bodies of water. The Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Aral Sea, these are all isolated bodies of water. The world's oceans? No.
The "all in one place" in Genesis refers to the waters beneath the firmament, these waters evidently being spread everywhere beneath the firmament, being gathered together onto the Earth's surface.
When are you going to get to the flood?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar, typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 10-24-2011 8:50 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 10-24-2011 11:07 AM Percy 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