|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi CS,
We been down that rabbit hole and if you want to discuss it again take your post and start a thread and we will discuss 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes: and if you want to discuss it again take your post and start a thread and we will discuss it. Seems to be the exact topic here... but I understand you wanting to avoid the refutations of your story. 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.
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?
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?
Catholic Scientist writes: Are you claiming there was no inland water on Pangea? 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,"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: 1.7 |
Hi Panda,
Panda writes: Wrong. I don't need to know when someone was murdered to find evidence of it happening - so why would a global flood be any different? 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?
Panda writes: Have you decided on when it happened yet?4500 years ago? 250 million years ago? 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,"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: 1.7 |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes: Does that mean there were no inland seas, lakes or ponds? There does appear to be an inland sea in your avatar. 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: 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?
Percy writes: When God said to let the waters gather to one place he meant the earth instead of all over the place around the earth. 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.
Percy writes: Or at least this is one interpretation. How do you exclude this interpretation? 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,"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: 1.7 |
Hi jar,
jar writes: Of course. There are human habitation sites dating hundreds of thousands of years old that have not been flooded. Great evidence found Here .
quote: A mega tsunami washout. Sounds like they were flooded at sometime. 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: 1.7 |
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes: So, there was enough water to (a) float the Ark (b) cover the mountains. 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.
Dr Adequate writes: Genesis 7:20 says that "the mountains were covered". 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,"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: 1.7 |
Hi jar,
jar writes: 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. 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: The 20 m of sediments is over 65 feet.
jar writes: 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. 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.
jar writes: Oetzi is clear evidence that at least since the time of Adam the area where he lived was not flooded. 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, "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: 1.7 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
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: 1.7 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Percy,
PercyYou're not really just accepting what the text says. Then show me the verses say something other than I say they say.
Percy writes: What you're really doing is combining what you'd like the text to say with our scientific evidence for a single continent 250 million years ago that we refer to as Pangaea. No I am saying the Bible says the same thing about the Earth that Scientist have said. The land was in one place. PangeaThe water was in one place Pangea. 1 super ocean. quote: Water gathered together in one place.Dry land called earth protruding out of the water. Another verse supporting one land mass.
quote: The same Hebrew word ארץ is translated Earth in Genesis 1:10 and 11:8. So the dry land in 1:10 is the same piece of dry land the people were scattered abroad over the face of all the earth. The people were scattered all over the Earth. If all the land mass was not connected they would need boats to go to any other island. How would they know the island was there? Why would any of those folks build a boat and set out in the ocean looking for another piece of dry land just because they could not understand what a lot of the people were saying. There was plenty of land to go around. So they just moved to a different location. Just like the animals did after the flood. But I reckon we could insert a little magic and God could have picked them up and put them on all the different land masses everyone here is telling me existed. The problem is the text does not say that. 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: 1.7 |
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes: But one island would be called land, two islands would be called lands. That's retarded. I lived in the Cayman Islands for 15 years I did not live in the Cayman Island. I lived on Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands. To get to Little Cayman I had to fly, go by boat or swim the 75 miles. From Little Cayman to Cayman Brac was a little easier they were only a little over 3 miles apart with the water over 2000 feet deep between them. They are all part of the Cayman ridge. But they are 3 separate pieces of dry land and any one is refered to as Island but all 3 are refered to as the Cayman Islands. Plural more than one.
Catholic Scientist writes: I thought that's where you put it... that the Flood is how the earth go to the state that it was in during Gen 1:2. But if not, then I was wrong. Its not as if your story makes any sense, or is easy to follow. It jumps all over the place. If you had bothered to read Message 98 which you responded to by in Message 102 saying:
quote: You then left that and ask an unrelated question about Genesis 4:25. Here is what you asked for and apparantly did not read but thanked me for producing it.
quote:1. In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. Genesis 1:1. 2. The history of Genesis 1:1 is given in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:25. 3. The seven days of Moses is recorded in Genesis 1:2 throuth Genesis 2:3. 4. About 1700 years pass and man is wicked and God decides to remove them from among the living, but Noah found grace in the eyes of God. Genesis 6:8 5. At this time all the water is still gathered into one place as it was in Genesis 1:9, 10 with the dry land protruding out of the water. 6. The people as they move eastward decide to build a tower to heaven so they will not be scattered abroad over the face of the Earth. Genesis 11:4. 7. At this time the people all spoke one language. Genesis 11:6. 8. God scattered the people over the face of the Earth (dry land of Genesis 1:9). Genesis 11:8. 9. Peleg was born about 100 years after the flood and lived for 239 years, during which time the Earth was divided. Genesis 10:25. Pay close attention to #4, whiich follows # 3.
Catholic Scientist writes: Yeah, its inconsistant. All the shapes of the lanlocked water are there, but they're just colored yellow instead of blue, once you start the animation, though, they are blue. But when the animation starts the land has divided the moment you move the bar.
Catholic Scientist writes: Yeah, well, you know what: Its showing Lake Victoria, and that didn't form until about 400,000 years ago, so there's no way that it could have been on pangea... My point is that cartoons of pangea cannot be used to show that there was no landlocked water in it. This is ridiculous. Why not use a cartoon of pangea all the rest are the imagination of some man as nobody was there to record it. Just as there was no one there in Genesis 1:9, 10. 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: 1.7 |
Hi Trixie,
Trixie writes: Al it says is that God gathered the water dry land appeared and that he called said dry land Earth Did He say the water was to gather to one place?
quote: Does the underlined/bold say waters gathered together unto one place? Yes/No Does the underlined/bold say let the dry land appear? Yes/No Does that mean the water gathered to one place causing dry land to appear which God called Earth?
quote: Does that say God confounded their language? Yes/No
quote: You already said God scattered them. But does the verse say upon the face of all the Earth? Yes/No If no, how many faces did it have? Does the verse say THEY LEFT OFF TO BUILD THE CITY? Yes/No If God had taken them by magic and place them in different places on the face of the Earth, How did they leave of the building of the city?
Trixie writes: I thought the point of this thread was to examine what the texts actually say, not what they might mean. If you answer no to any of the questions above you are in disagreement with me. Present what the text 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."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024