Summations Only

Hi ICANT,How do you exclude this interpretation:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place,...

---

The waters gathered together on the Earth's surface covering the entire globe.

quote:

---

...and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

---

Then dry land rose above the water's surface in various places around the globe.

quote:

---

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas...

---

God called the "gathering together of the water" seas. That's seas, not sea, as in more than one sea.--Percy

Hi ICANT,Your interpretation ignores this passage:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:6 And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." ⁷So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.

---

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 dome that divided the waters above the dome from those below. Next he gathered the waters beneath the dome 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.How do you avoid this interpretation?--Percy

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

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?

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? 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?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar, typo.

Does that mean there were no inland seas, lakes or ponds? There does appear to be an inland sea in your avatar.You still have the same problems. In the beginning the waters were apparently everywhere. God created a firmament separating the water above from the water below. 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. When God said to let the waters gather to one place he meant the earth instead of all over the place around the earth.The other problem is that there is still one global ocean on the earth. It is separated into different regions. These oceanic regions all meet across broad areas and their waters flow freely between one another.Or at least this is one interpretation. How do you exclude this interpretation?--Percy

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: Moving on: 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. 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

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but that's okay.Your most fundamental problem is that gathering the waters together into one place has more than one interpretation. "One place" could mean that the water filling the entire region beneath the firmament was placed on the earth, or it could mean this water was placed in a single continuous region on the earth. Obviously the former makes more sense.But let's say we accept your interpretation that "one place" means all water was gathered together into a single ocean. A single continuous body of water surrounding a single continent such as you imagine is consistent with this interpretation, but so is a single continuous body of water surrounding two continents, or three continents, or four continents, or even seven continents like we have today. It's also consistent with a single continuous body of water with thousands of tiny islands.You're not really just accepting what the text says. 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.--Percy

Wow! Unbelievable. No further comment.You've wasted the first half of the thread arguing about Genesis 1 and have only about half the thread left to tell us what the KJV Bible says about Noah's flood, better get to it.--Percy

Hi ICANT,I know this point gets raised from time to time in discussions with you, but it's time to raise it again. How are you deciding when God uses supernatural means and when he relies upon natural methods? For example, God creates the entire universe ex nihilo via supernatural means, including humans, but when he scatters the people around the globe they aren't supernaturally transported but apparently have to travel by their own means.There are many possible interpretations of the Bible. Its why so many different religious sects are based upon this single book. Your own personal interpretation isn't of any particular interest, but given the number of people throughout history who believed they had arrived at the one, right and true interpretation of the Bible, why you think you're unique in this regard would be fascinating to expore. That were having this discussion has much more to do with your psychology than it does with the Bible.I'm not proposing a change in focus, we should move on to discuss the flood, but your ideas about the flood will suffer from the same problems as your ideas about creation.--Percy

Your problem is a lack of faith in your God's power and majesty. A God who can create an entire universe in six days can do anything. God's most wonderful miracles should not be denied. The God of the universe could do everything you say even if the continents were scattered throughout the cosmos.--Percy

I think you must be this year's leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award.--Percy

It could as easily be called the EvC Forum Tilting with Windmills award.Don Quixote is the symbol of those who embark upon hopeless quests out of honor and hope and a sense of duty. Congratulations for actually having read the book, but most people are familiar with the character through stage and screen. Man of La Mancha was a famous Broadway musical in the late 1960's. It has been revived many times since then, and has had many film adaptations. You might be familiar with its signature song, The Impossible Dream. Note windmills in the background of this Picasso: Anyway, congratulations, I think. --Percy

I'm glad that ICANT and IamJoseph finally took advantage of an opportunity to examine their differing Biblical interpretations. I hope they continue this examination in a series of as many threads as it takes, and once they've reached agreement on what the Bible really says then they can present their conclusions to a thankful world.Of course, if they never reach agreement then they might want to consider the possibility that the Bible is ambiguous, inconclusive on many points, and open to many interpretations, not to mention written by bronze-age desert goat herders who were trying to communicate a spiritual message, not science.--Percy