Summations Only

Yeah, you ran away from it last time too. Seems to be the exact topic here... but I understand you wanting to avoid the refutations of your story.Anyways, I'm still curious about how the other parts fit in:

quote:

---

So the Noahic flood happened during the seven days of Moses? And that's what caused the state of the earth in Gen 1:2?

​

And then all the rest of Genesis also happened during those seven days? All the way through to Abraham and all that?

---

Where does all the rest of Genesis fit within your story?You could also address these parts:

quote:

---

Scientist and others say Science says there was no global flood.

​

But without knowing the geography of the Earth at the time of the flood no conclusion can be reached.

​

The earth has never been covered in water since humans existed. That's a scientific fact that contradicts the flood story.

​

Pangea existed. Water in one place and dry land in one place.

​

Are you claiming there was no inland water on Pangea?

---

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.

Hi CS, As I said the genealogy of the man created in the likeness of God has nothing to do with the Flood.If you want to discuss it then start a thread and I will participate as time premits. As you can see I am quite busy here. Where did you get this quote from?Who are you quoting? You care to present the facts that support your assertion? No I made no such claim.But these people do. Here Click animation.
Here
Here Scroll down to CONTINENTAL DRIFT.Everyone of those show all the water in one place and all the land mass in one place with no landlocked bodies of water.Kinda matches Genesis 1:9, 10 with all the water in one place with a patch of dry land protuding up out of the water.God Bless,

Hi Panda, I don't remember mentioning that you had to know the time.I did say you needed to know the geography of the Earth at the time of the flood and what happened thereafter to be able to figure out what you would find.IOW if the water was in one place and the dry land was only 1 foot above sea level it would not take much water to cover the highest part of that land would be 15 cubits of water. Using the largest Hebrew cubit that would be 30.6 feet of water + the 1 foot to sea level. So 31.6 feet of water would be required, which would be 8.6 feet below the bottom of the door that was in the side of the ark. The ark wouldn't even have to rise off the land it was sitting on.Now when the water receeded what sedements would there be on the dry land mass.Taking into consideration there was no mountains to wash down into the low places and the water rose from the fountains of the deep all around the land mass until it was covered, with the rain falling at the same time.Now some 300 years later the Earth is divided into what we see today everything would be moved and there would be no evidence of a global worldwide flood.After such an event, what would you expect to find? I am not sure of the date but I will go out on a limb and say I believe the Earth was divided as stated in Genesis 10:25 during the lifetime of Peleg.Do you have evidence that it was divided at a different time?If so present it.God Bless,

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.

Hi Percy, Yes in my avatar that is a body of water I placed in that avatar this so I could ask the question, "Is all the water in my avatar in one place?"In Message 92 I wrote and asked you a question at 9:50 AM this morning. I had just changed the avatar from the one with the Hebrew on it.Had you answered the post rather than acknowledge it the question might have registered.

quote:

---

My avatar is a compacted version of Pangea, with a landlocked body of water in it.

​

In my avatar is all the water in one place?

---

Then where was it? That is weird. When the water collected in one place the dry land appeared.So where was the water?It had to surround the wet Earth. I just read the text and accept what it says.After all I am arguing what the KJV Bible says.I will take care of the avatar and put up my original without the water that I have used for the past 2 years, at different times.God Bless,

Hi jar, Great evidence found Here .

quote:

---

The Klasies River Caves are a series of caves located to the east of the Klasies River mouth on the Tsitsikamma coast in the Humansdorp district of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. The three main caves and two shelters at the base of a high cliff have revealed evidence of middle stone age-associated Humans habitation from approximately 125,000 years ago. The 20 m thick deposits were accumulated from 125,000 years ago. Around 75,000 years ago during cave remodeling the stratigraphic sediments were moved out into external middens. Other scenarios for the discontinuous stratigraphy suggest natural factors like megatsunami washout or inconsistent dating.

---

A mega tsunami washout. Sounds like they were flooded at sometime.God Bless,

Genesis 7:20 says that "the mountains were covered".Genesis 8:4 says: "the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat", and 8:5 says that "in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."Note that we wouldn't be given a date when "the ark rested" if it had not previously been afloat; and that Genesis 7:17 explictly says: "the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth".So, there was enough water to (a) float the Ark (b) cover the mountains.

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

Hi Dr, Who said there was not enough water to float the Ark?For someone with a PhD your reading comphrension is dismal.How did you miss the word after IOW?IF you will notice it is an "IF" making everything that followed an if statement. Yes but there is one problem with the statement.The word mountain did not exist until the 12the century and until the middle of the 18th century it was used to describe the hills around Paris. The highest elevation around Paris I can find is 322 feet. The lowest I can find is 118 feet.So when the Hebrew word הר was used about 3500 years ago it did not mean mountains as we know them.The primary meaning of הר is hill, hill country. Therefore should have been translated hills.The origin of the word 'hill' is unknown. The primary meaning was rising land.So land that rose 1 foot would be considered a hill but I will assume in Genesis the writer was refering to something somewhat higher than that. I just don't know how high.We let our preconceived notions, ideas, and beliefs get in the way of the truth and real knowledge sometimes.God Bless,

And the premise on which the if statement was predicated contradicts the Bible. As I pointed out.Yes, if the Bible was wrong, then the Flood need not have taken place as the Bible describes it. Or at all. I admit that if Genesis was a bunch of retarded gibberish written by an assclown then we could ignore it but in this thread we are asked to consider the implications of the "if statement" that it wasn't. So ... you are trying to derive the Hebrew meaning of the Hebrew word which would subsequently be translated into English as "mountain" by referring to an obsolete meaning of the French word "montaigne"? Considered by whom? Can you show me one usage of the word which means that? These are to me new uncharted waters of Biblical literalism.And so what, according to you, are "the mountains of Ararat"? They cannot, of course, refer to the mountains of Ararat, which are mountains. So perhaps to some molehills which were then to be found in that region? Yes indeed. A word which to the rest of mankind, including, for example, the Jews, means "hills or mountains", can, according to you, be "considered" to mean "land that rose 1 foot", so that you can protect your notions about the Flood.

Hi jar, You didn't like the wikipedia article, neither did I.Maybe you will like this even less from a pdf file you can find Here

quote:

---

Site, Stratigraphy and Dating
Main site has been described in the literature as a series of caves and shelters, 1, 1A-1C and 2. It is a single depository (Figure 4) and the deposits have accumulated against the cliff face, spilling over into the cave openings in the cliff. The base is the 6 m rock bench and on this are piled 20 m of sediments. The pile of sediments, originally anchored between the cliff and a seaward dune, was truncated about 6 000 years ago when rising sea levels undercut the deposit. The slip feature caused by this erosion is clearly visible and it is estimated that two thirds of the deposit was removed by slumping. The trace of the original cone of deposition is marked by remnants cemented to the cliff face.

---

The 20 m of sediments is over 65 feet. As I understand Otzi, had medical treatment that was not available until 1000 years after his proposed death as well as a copper axe that was not available until 1000 years after his death.You think maybe they got their dates of his death wrong?Rather than the other two being wrong. Just a thought. Why is his location evidence the area was not flooded?Are you saying glaciers did not exist at the time of the flood? Being frozen in one and found with part of him out of the glacier which could have been revealed by the melting of the glacier due to the water the glacier was floating in.God Bless,

Geologists know what evidence of flooding looks like.
Geologists know what the Earth's geological history is.
The Earth's geological history does not include a global flood. And if the land was only one foot above sea-level it would be underwater at each high tide.
But, as can be seen below, the bible says that there were mountains. No mountains? "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. " Gen 7:20 KJV ? And when, would you say, was Peleg alive?

I think we're losing sight of the specific topic here. The topic is what the KJV says, not what the original text says so really we shouldn't be getting embroiled in translation minutiae. If you're going to continually argue that there are errors in the translation, then the topic becomes utterly pointless - what does it matter what the KJV says?That being the case, I think we can all agree that it says the seas were gathered in one place, but doesn't say anything about the layout of the land. It says the mountains were covered in the flood. It states that there were people around at the time of the flood (obviously). It states the water for the flood came from the "fountains of the deep" and from rain. It says the rain lasted 40 days and 40 nights, that the ark settled on Ararat eventually. These are the sorts of things the KJV says.If you want to get into discussions of what the original writer meant then I suggest that what the KJV says is irrelevant to that, unless you consider the KJV to be inerrant, as some have argued in the past.I get the feeling that this thread would be more properly titled "What ICANT thinks the KJV is getting at", since that is what is being discussed.Can I suggest that a way to get this discussion moving might be to pick a point that we all agree on and go from there? For example, can we all agree that, according to the KJV, there were people around at the time of the flood? That will give us a broad time frame in which the flood supposedly occurred.

I am unable to reconcile these contrary statements.