|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'll repeat yet again for you.
The caves where the remains were found do not show signs of flooding as described in the Biblical Myths. And on to Oetzi. You heard wrong about both the axe and the so called medical treatment. Both existed (the 'medical treatment' may not even have been medical treatment) and the evidence that they existed at the time Oetzi lived is that they were found with him. Had you read the thread I provided the link for you would have found a discussion of the many different separate and conclusive means of dating items were used. And no, I have a very, very high degree of confidence that the scientists did not get the dates of his death wrong. But the location where he was found is great evidence that the Biblical Flood simply did not happen. Oetzi died and was covered fairly quickly and remained covered until his discovery. Glaciers do not float in water and we also have very strong evidence that he was found pretty close to where he lived all his life. Science is kinda neat that way, conclusions are based on evidence not simply fantasy and conjecture. But the topic is what the King James Authorized Version of the Bible says. What the King James Authorized Version of the Bible says is that there were many myths about a Biblical Flood and at least two mutually exclusive and contradictory tales where simply mushed together into one story with no attempt to remove or massage the contradictions. That clearly shows that there was never any belief that it was some factual event and the the facts of some flood were simply unimportant to the redactors. It is not a historical tale but rather an epic morality tale.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
ICANT writes: 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?" So let's see if we can obtain from you a clear statement, rather than a vague rhetorical question, about what is included when you say the water was all in one place. Do you mean that all the water was in one continuous body of water, but with the exception of inland seas, lakes, ponds, rivers, rain, clouds, etc? Assuming the answer is yes, the next question concerns what you mean when you say there was only one ocean, not five oceans. The five oceans are all interconnected. The separate oceans are actually just names of convenience to refer to different regions of the one global ocean. If you don't believe this, ask yourself what piece of land separates the Pacific Ocean from the Indian Ocean? Or the Indian from the Atlantic? Or the Atlantic from the Arctic? Or, as Wikipedia tells, us:
Wikipedia writes: Though generally described as several 'separate' oceans, these waters comprise one global, interconnected body of salt water sometimes referred to as the World Ocean or global ocean. Moving on:
ICANT writes: Percy writes: The water below is not yet all on the earth. There's water on the same side of the firmament as the earth, but it is not yet all on the earth. Then where was it? There was water was everywhere below the firmament. Why do you assume that the earth was the only thing beneath the firmament? There could obviously be things in addition to the earth that were below the firmament, including space filled with water. For example, the Bible says the moon is in the firmament, and that's 250,000 miles away. That's a lot of space that could have been filled with water before God gathered all the waters below the firmament into one place on the earth. Your interpretation of gathering the waters into one place has a lot of exceptions, namely the aforementioned inland seas, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, rain, etc. These are exceptions you made up yourself with no Biblical support. My interpretation needs no made up exceptions. If all the water currently on the earth was once distributed throughout the region of space below the firmament, and if the firmament is at least as far away as the moon, then it must have been fairly tenuous. When the waters were gathered together onto the earth's surface this was the first time that any significant portion of it was in liquid form. It covered the earth in liquid water, and then God made dry land appear.
I just read the text and accept what it says. Like all other Biblical apologists, you just read into the text what you want to see, and you're all equally sure you have the right interpretation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
quote:If you read Message 1, ICANT states at the bottom: ICANT writes: I will argue that the geological history of the Earth is not taught in the text to be produced by the flood of Noah. I will argue the text found in the KJV , LXX, and Hebrew Text does not support any of the above arguments. I will argue the text found in the KJV , LXX, and Hebrew Text does support a world wide flood. I will also argue that the texts support an extended period of existence in which all the land mass was covered with water other than the flood of Noah in which all life forms died. Always remember that the title is not the argument. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As I said the genealogy of the man created in the likeness of God has nothing to do with the Flood. Sure it does, you've made it so. You're placing the flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. But doing that messes up the continuity and consistancy of the story, so the premise that your basing the rest of your story on is flawed from the get go.
Catholic Scientist writes: Anyways, I'm still curious about how the other parts fit in:
quote: Where does all the rest of Genesis fit within your story? Where did you get this quote from? Who are you quoting? I'm quoting myself, from Message 102. You replied to it, but you didn't answer the questions.
Catholic Scientist writes: The earth has never been covered in water since humans existed. That's a scientific fact that contradicts the flood story. You care to present the facts that support your assertion? Humans have been around for a couple hundred thousand years. The last time the earth was anywhere near covered in water was millions of years ago. Alo, humans lack the genetic bottleneck that would be present after a global flood during their existence.
Catholic Scientist writes: Are you claiming there was no inland water on Pangea? No I made no such claim. You said this:
quote: And also you've been claiming that for the water to be in one place, there cannot be and landlocked water in the land. For pangea to be both water and land in one place, there cannot be any landlocked water on pangea.
But these people do.
Here Click animation. Um, no. Here's the start of the animation:
Or were you just confused because it was all colored yellow before you start it?
That one gets us to this animation:
Again we can see land-locked water at the beginning.
Here Scroll down to CONTINENTAL DRIFT. Pfft, that one is a hand-drawn cartoon of pangea, but nonetheless, it contains land-locked water. I've added some arrows to help you find them:
Everyone of those show all the water in one place and all the land mass in one place with no landlocked bodies of water. No, its the exact opposite, everone of those shows landlocked water on pangea. By your own evidence, you have been proven wrong. QED.
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. Kinda, but not really. And having all the water in one place does not necessitate all the land being in one place. Two islands in a sea with no landlocked water would have all the water in one place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes: 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? I am not sure according to the text that the mountains of Ararat existed at the time of the flood. The location did. They did exist at the time of the writing of Genesis so Moses would have had knowledge of them as well as all the copyist that copyed the tablets and scrolls. But as I understand it mountains and mountain ranges are caused by subduction of one plate diving under another plate with the result of raising of the upper plate into high elevations of material due to heat and expansion and even volcanic action. That would not have taken place until the land was divided. One of the most amazing things I find about the hypothesis of how Pangea formed and then divided is the ability of all the continents heading toward each other stoping and then reversing their direction. I guess on their journey to form Pangea the plates were not diving under each other. As to separate they would have to remove themselves from under each other. Kinda boggles my mind.
Dr Adequate writes: 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"? No. The translators who translated the KJV Bible translated the Hebrew word הר in Genesis 7:20 as mountains but in Genesis 7:18 they translated the same Hebrew word הר as hills. Translating from Hebrew to English is not an easy task. It is like me trying to understand words that I am accustomed to mean a particular thing and then you or cavediver or someone else tell me well in the scientific community it means an entirely different thing. If a translation of a Hebrew word required one of those meanings how would you choose which word to use? Thus the problem with translation.
Dr Adequate writes: Considered by whom? Can you show me one usage of the word which means that? From the etymology dictionary found Here.
quote: Dr Adequate writes: These are to me new uncharted waters of Biblical literalism. Do you know how high the hills in Genesis 7:18 were?Or the mountains in Genesis 7:20 was? You could say they were as high then as they are today because they are that hight today. Which would be circular reasoning. According to the text being discussed the water was all in one place which would have put the dry land that protruded up out of it in one place.
Here is what scientist envision Pangea looking like. Looks very similar to what I have been puting forth that the Bible teaches, wouldn't you agree?
Dr Adequate writes: 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. I really don't care how high the hills were. I can't prove how high or how low they were. But according to the text the dry land God called Earth in Genesis 1:10 was divided in the lifetime of Peleg after the flood had taken place. Science tells me that mountins are caused by plates diving under other plates. So how high could the hills be if the only subduction was caused by the water being gathered into one place? I referenced this site above that illustrates this pretty good. Here 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
According to the text being discussed the water was all in one place which would have put the dry land that protruded up out of it in one place. No, not necessarily. It could have looked like this:
All the water is in one place but the land is in two places.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Ok, quote me exactly where any of the sources state that there was a single land mass.
Don't quote anything stating the waters were all in one place, that's to do with waters, seas, oceans, whatever. Don't quote anything to do with division of land in the days of Peleg. Both of these are open to interpretation. We're looking at what is said in the text, not what might be inferred from the text. I want a quote from any biblical text saying that the land was all either in or gathered into one place. If you can't supply one, then you have to accept that the texts don't say this. It's possible for all the seas to be in one place, but the land to be in a number of places and this has been pointed out time and again. The fact that you can't see this is neither here nor there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is another fable that comes later in Genesis 10.
In that story there is mention of Peleg, one of the supposed descendents of Noah.
Gen 10 writes: 25And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. ICANT is grabbing on to the phrase "for in his days was the earth divided" to imply that it means a physical separation of one land mass into many; but that is simply another example of taking one quote mined verse out of context. If someone reads the KJV Genesis 10 in context it is obvious that it is not talking about any physical separation of land but rather a political fable about the establishment of tribes and nations. That the division was not some physical continental breakup is made clear throughout the story.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Trixie,
Trixie writes: The topic is what the KJV says, not what the original text says so really we shouldn't be getting embroiled in translation minutiae. From Message 1 quote: Since I wrote the OP I do know what it says. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am not sure according to the text that the mountains of Ararat existed at the time of the flood. The location did. Oh for heaven's sake. It says that the Ark grounded on the mountains of Ararat. Not on the place where they were going to be.
But as I understand it mountains and mountain ranges are caused by subduction of one plate diving under another plate with the result of raising of the upper plate into high elevations of material due to heat and expansion and even volcanic action. Only volcanic mountains are caused by subduction.
The translators who translated the KJV Bible translated the Hebrew word in Genesis 7:20 as mountains but in Genesis 7:18 they translated the same Hebrew word as hills. Nowhere do they translate it as a rise of one foot. You know why? 'Cos it doesn't mean that.
From the etymology dictionary found Here. That's the etymology of the English word "hill". Which does not, incidentally, show that anyone has ever considered that word to include a rise of one foot.
Do you know how high the hills in Genesis 7:18 were? Or the mountains in Genesis 7:20 was? I'm going to guess at higher than one foot. Otherwise they would not be hills or mountains.
Science tells me that mountins are caused by plates diving under other plates. Science tells you that some volcanic mountains are caused that way.
So how high could the hills be if the only subduction was caused by the water being gathered into one place? Science tells you lots of things, such as that the book of Genesis is a bunch of lies written by an ignorant buttmonkey. Yet you're happy enough to ignore that. And yet now you tell us that whatever the Bible says, there can't have been any actual mountains in the mountains of Ararat because there'd be no naturalistic explanation for them. Well, if that's your new criterion for what can and can't be true then I have just one further request for you. Please dispose of your Bible carefully. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes: No, not necessarily. It could have looked like this: You could be right.
Catholic Scientist writes: All the water is in one place but the land is in two places. I only have one problem wih your presentation.
quote: That says He called the dry land Earth. He did not call the dry lands Earths. Now if you can find me a Scripture that says lands and Earths I will reconsider my position. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
That says He called the dry land Earth. He did not call the dry lands Earths. Now if you can find me a Scripture that says lands and Earths I will reconsider my position. We still call the dry land "Earth." Or just "land." Yet the land today is divided into many different sections, while most of the water remains a single contiguous "place." With the exception of some rivers and lakes and such, you could sail in a boat to any of the "separate" oceans - does that mean the water is in "one place?" What's the difference? When water covers 2/3 of the Earth's surface, what defines "one place" vs "many places?" Need it only be all connected?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes: All the water is in one place but the land is in two places. I only have one problem wih your presentation.
quote: That says He called the dry land Earth. He did not call the dry lands Earths. I didn't use the word "lands" either, and yet my sentance made perfect sense. The land (singular) was in two places. Now, onto to Message 124 where your whole story is refuted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes: I'm quoting myself, from Message 102. You replied to it, but you didn't answer the questions. Then why are you saying I put the flood between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? That is your statement not mine.
Catholic Scientist writes: Um, no. Here's the start of the animation: To get the picture you posted you have to move the bar to the right if you leave it where it is without moving it there is no water in the picture.
Catholic Scientist writes: Humans have been around for a couple hundred thousand years. I think you are off by a few trillion years or more.
Catholic Scientist writes: The last time the earth was anywhere near covered in water was millions of years ago. Alo, humans lack the genetic bottleneck that would be present after a global flood during their existence. Genesis 1:2 says it was covered in Genesis 1:2. Why would there be a bottleneck? In Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." God created mankind male and female created He them. It don't say how many he created just that he created mankind male and female. There may have been a thousand. So the 5 women involved in the human race after the flood could have had a wide MtDNA. I thought Mitochondrial Eve was dead when they discovered that not all mtDNA came from the female.
Catholic Scientist writes: Um, no. Here's the start of the animation: No the picture you have is after you have moved the animation bar to start the animation. Before you moved the animation bar to start the breakup there was no water, as anyone can see.
Catholic Scientist writes: That one gets us to this animation: It also gets us to a map of Pangea just above the animation that has no water shown on it.
Catholic Scientist writes: Pfft, that one is a hand-drawn cartoon of pangea, but nonetheless, it contains land-locked water. I've added some arrows to help you find them The one on the left is not land locked. The one on the right is land locked and I can see it after looking with my magnifying glass. I am scheduled for eye surgery Janurary 26 to remove cataracts, so my vision is far from perfect.
Catholic Scientist writes: No, its the exact opposite, everone of those shows landlocked water on pangea. By your own evidence, you have been proven wrong. QED. Well you cheated on the first one.The map of the second one does not show any land locked water. The third one does have one body of land locked water Catholic Scientist writes: Kinda, but not really. And having all the water in one place does not necessitate all the land being in one place. Two islands in a sea with no landlocked water would have all the water in one place. But one island would be called land, two islands would be called lands. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: What's the difference? When water covers 2/3 of the Earth's surface, what defines "one place" vs "many places?" Need it only be all connected? There are 6 bodies of water called seas that are land locked that means there is no outlet to the oceans. Those are 6 individual places that water is and is not connected to any other ocean or sea. 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."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024