Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 182 of 460 (6185)
03-06-2002 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by wmscott
03-04-2002 7:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
As for your belief that the word earth in the bible only refers to a portion there of, ... you have not supplied any reasonable reasons ...


I successfully rebutted your so-called biblical evidences. Furthermore, I referred you to the initial, and only, definition of earth which appears in the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill
Earth appears in the sea and is defined as "dry land." (Gen. 1:10).


I then pointed out a contradiction in your premises. I wrote:
quote:
doctrbill
You cannot, on the one hand, claim that Earth refers to dry land only [excluding sea (so whales stay out of the ark)] and on the other hand say it means the entire planet [including sea], so that your global flood is justified.


It is strange that you reject the YEC implications inherent in the Bible, and at the same time cling to its so-called historical record of the flood. I can understand why you might wish to avoid confronting your crisis of faith. But the Bible cannot support, and at the same time deny, your "theory."
------------
db
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by wmscott, posted 03-04-2002 7:52 PM wmscott has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 183 of 460 (6215)
03-06-2002 9:48 PM


edge
On former existence of large sub glacial lakes beneath the Laurentide ice sheet you stated. "don't you see that this is no evidence at all? You make up a story about something that has never been observed, then make up a mechanism and call it evidence! This is absolute silliness." This absolute silliness as you call it, happens to be main stream orthodox geology. The former existence of large sub glacial lakes beneath the Laurentide ice sheet and others, is an accepted fact in geology. I know that if I said the sky was blue you wouldn't believe me, so here are some links with references to the former sub glacial lakes..
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/...cts/Munro-StasiukDynamicsIt.html
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/.../ShoemakerSubglacialThe1999.html
This link also mentions sub glacial water flow and a possible impact crater on lake bottom of lake Ontario. Perhaps one of the impacters left a mark after all.
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/...0/jan00/noaa00r301.html
The sub glacial lakes, like the ones in Antarctica don't need to be above sea level to drain into the ocean. If the glacial ice above it is above the level it would float at in the ocean, the water below the ice is under enough pressure to force it out. It is believed the lakes become connected through under ice channels which if one becomes open to the sea, the whole inter connected water system can drain. Under my theory, I am saying that this was about to happen when a comet impact trigged a pressure wave in the trapped water that caused the retaining ice dam to burst. Resulting in a very abrupt and very large draining event from multiple points all broken open at once. The heat beneath the ice sheet is uniform, aside from the increase with depth due to the center of the sheet being thicker and is more deeply pressed into the earth, which results in the center being much warmer than the thinner edges which are not as deeply depressed. The thinner edges are also colder on the bottom and remain frozen at the base due to the cold temperatures above the ice sheet, which is less of a factor in areas where the ice is thicker and acts as more of an insulator. The sudden release of these former trapped lakes is witnessed by the land forms they created. Here is the link on this I posted last time.
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/KorEvidenceThe1998.html
doctrbill
This really is a silly debate. I am surprised that someone that considers themselves a bible scholar would even argue it at all. Your point on Genesis 1:10 is a no brainer, "The earth was 'formed out of the water' (2Pe 3:5) and 'founded . . . upon the seas' (Ps 24:2)" footnote on Genesis 1:10, The NIV Study Bible, and as one bible translates this verse "And God began calling the dry land Earth" What I disagree with is that this some how locks all other usages of the word earth to mean just the land areas. I mean this is ridiculous, to think this word now has only one meaning regardless of the context it is found in. For example, what 'earth' is being referred to in Genesis 1:2 before the creation of land? Then at Genesis 26:15 "As for all the wells that the servants of his father had dug in the days of Abraham his father, these the Philis'tines stopped up and they would fill them with dry earth." obviously 'earth' here refers to a small quantity of dirt. As the bible reference that I quoted earlier stated. "In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used for earth as a planet is e'rets. E'rets refers to (1) earth, as opposed to heaven, or sky (Ge 1:2); (2) land, country, territory (Ge 10:10); (3) ground, surface of the ground (Ge 1:26); (4) people of all the globe (Ge 18:25)." The word has more than one meaning, and that meaning is determined by the context of the usage. It can mean the planet, the land or the soil, etc. When confronted by the fact that your restriction on the meaning of this word is in conflict with bible references and Hebrew dictionaries, you claim that they are biased and wrong. Yet you fail to cite a single reference that supports your unusual interpretation. Frankly, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Like I said before, you are free to believe what every you want to, but if you want to convince me, you are going to have to come up with some facts, and so far I haven't seen one that supports your argument. Despite what you may think, you failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted, you made some cute one liners and that was it. You didn't do any reasoning or supply any information on why they could only be interpreted in the restricted manner you suggest. You have even failed to explain why you feel that "earth" applies to only a limited land area, when in Genesis 1:10 it is referring to all the land. In short, you have failed to even explain the basic reasoning behind your idea, let alone support it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by edge, posted 03-06-2002 11:27 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 185 by doctrbill, posted 03-07-2002 1:51 PM wmscott has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 184 of 460 (6223)
03-06-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by wmscott
03-06-2002 9:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
This absolute silliness as you call it, happens to be main stream orthodox geology. The former existence of large sub glacial lakes beneath the Laurentide ice sheet and others, is an accepted fact in geology. I know that if I said the sky was blue you wouldn't believe me, so here are some links with references to the former sub glacial lakes..

I believe the operative word here is "lakes." You, on the other hand referred to subglacial oceans. I notice that none of your references suggested that these lakes contributed significantly to the oceans.
quote:
This link also mentions sub glacial water flow and a possible impact crater on lake bottom of lake Ontario. Perhaps one of the impacters left a mark after all.
I think you mean the appearance of an impact crater. What information do you have that the authors do not have to be able to say that it is an impact crater. Also, how do you know the age of this crater and how do you know it relates to other impacts?
quote:
The sub glacial lakes, like the ones in Antarctica don't need to be above sea level to drain into the ocean. If the glacial ice above it is above the level it would float at in the ocean, the water below the ice is under enough pressure to force it out. It is believed the lakes become connected through under ice channels which if one becomes open to the sea, the whole inter connected water system can drain. Under my theory, I am saying that this was about to happen when a comet impact trigged a pressure wave in the trapped water that caused the retaining ice dam to burst.
Oh, that's convenient. Do you have any evidence to support this timing? Also how do you move water from one place below sea level to another place below sea level and raise sea level?
quote:
Resulting in a very abrupt and very large draining event from multiple points all broken open at once. The heat beneath the ice sheet is uniform, aside from the increase with depth due to the center of the sheet being thicker and is more deeply pressed into the earth, which results in the center being much warmer than the thinner edges which are not as deeply depressed. The thinner edges are also colder on the bottom and remain frozen at the base due to the cold temperatures above the ice sheet, which is less of a factor in areas where the ice is thicker and acts as more of an insulator. The sudden release of these former trapped lakes is witnessed by the land forms they created.
Yes, local landforms. Wmscott, this is still a just-so story. You write it as though it has actually happened because you simply wish it to be so. Your model is like a crossword puzzle where the words never cross. Find something to verify your model.
[This message has been edited by edge, 03-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by wmscott, posted 03-06-2002 9:48 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 185 of 460 (6245)
03-07-2002 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by wmscott
03-06-2002 9:48 PM


quote:
originally posted by wmscott
This really is a silly debate ...
I mean this is ridiculous ...
you fail to cite a single reference ...
I don't think you have a leg to stand on ...
you are going to have to come up with some facts ...
I haven't seen one that supports your argument ...
you failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted ...
You didn't do any reasoning or supply any information ...
In short, you have failed to even explain the basic reasoning behind your idea, let alone support it.

This tirade is untrue, but I will, for the audience, provide a brief review of salient points.
quote:
Originally posted by wmscott
Exodus 19:5 "the whole earth belongs to me"
Daniel 2:35 "And as for the stone that struck the image, it became a large mountain and filled the whole earth."
Considering ... the context of the above verses, it is very obvious that the bible makes references to the entire earth.


The scope of these verses is no more global than that in the following:
Isaiah 51:25 - The king of Babylon destroys, all the earth.
Ezekiel 32:4 - The beasts of the whole earth eat the king of Egypt, and are filled.
quote:
wmscott
... one of my reference books stated. "In the Hebrew ... the word used for earth as a planet is e'rets."

Just because "so and so says," doesn’t make it true. Besides, you don't seem entirely convinced of this yourself.
quote:
From message 128 by wmscott
You misunderstand the word 'earth' in the scripture, the earth that is being referred to is ... not the entire planet. Which is why no mention of fish or other marine life is made, they don't live on the 'earth'.

Come now William. Does "earth" include "sea" or not?
quote:
wmscott
There is plenty of evidence that the Hebrew word 'erets' can be used to refer to the entire earth.

To an entire region, yes. To all the known lands, probably. But you want it to mean planet, don't you?
The Hebrews had several words which we translate as earth, and yet none of them imply, or are ever employed to suggest, that it is shaped like a ball. In fact erets, as you have pointed out, has evolved from a word meanting "firm," which could hardly be applied to water. The Bible never calls Earth a planet, never mentions that it rotates and never discusses the continental land masses on the "other side" of it. They had perfectly good words with which to describe all of these attributes, had they known of them. But they did not know of them and they did not use those words in any combinatin with erets. They describe earth and sea as separate entities. (We apparently agree on this one). What we call planets, they called stars, and earth was never imagined to be a star.
quote:
wmscott
I see no restriction in the use of the Hebrew language


How you use it is one thing. How the Hebrews used it is another. More important still, for the purposes of this discussion is - how they did not use it.)
Seems to me you are excluding sea from the definition of earth in order to save the whales. Then you must reintegrate earth and sea in order for the flood to be global.
Do you truly think you can have it both ways?
Or am I entirely missing your point?
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by wmscott, posted 03-06-2002 9:48 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by wmscott, posted 03-08-2002 5:03 PM doctrbill has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 186 of 460 (6331)
03-08-2002 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by doctrbill
03-07-2002 1:51 PM


edge
I used the word 'ocean' in reference to the sub glacial lakes in referring to their great size, that they were 'ocean' like in the large volume of water they contained. As I posted before, I was not stating that they were literal oceans. You imply that these lakes where small or only had small releases. "Recent work at the margins of the former North American ice sheets (Baker and Bunker, 1985; Kehow and Teller, 1994) has documented pervasive evidence of Pleistocene cataclysmic outburst floods (jokulhlaups). Such floods, which are a direct consequence of deglaiation, may have exerted major short-term influences on global fluxes of water and sediment (Baker, 1994). Shaw (1989) proposed that subglacial meltwater may be a major contributor to proglacial cataclysmic flooding. Although the details of flood causation are subject of considerable current debate, the evidence of megaflood/ice-sheet association is extensive and can guide our inferences about ancient glacial sediments." Late Glacial and Postglacial environmental Changes; Quaternary, carboniferous-Permian, and Proterozoic, I. Peter Martini, P98. While I have only been able to find links on the Internet to pages with information on a few examples of mega flooding, the known examples are wide spread and indicate very large releases of water. On the effect the sudden release of water from sub glacial lakes had on global sea levels, the same book went on to state. "the hypothesized subglacial megaflooding would also have had immense consequences for oceanic response" P103. In the case of the release of sub glacial water rasing sea level, or as you put it, "how do you move water from one place below sea level to another place below sea level and raise sea level?" It is really very simple, as the water exits from beneath the ice sheet, it drops in elevation, more ice that was formerly above the water is lowered down into the water and displaces more of the flood waters. The ice sheet isn't floating, the release of the trapped water from beneath the ice sheet allows the sheet settle down. The ice sheet drops down like a cylinder, displacing the water that was once under it, which adds to the volume of the flood waters. The ice sheet is higher than the level of the water, so the water can not move back in above it as the ice settles. I hope I have explained this clearly enough.
On the possible impact crater on lake bottom of lake Ontario. It is just that, a possibility, it may not even be a crater. But if it is, it would have to be more recent than the glacial action that created the lake bed, yet it would have to have occurred long ago enough to explain the lack of historical references. That alone would put it in about the right time frame. But for now, we will have to wait and see what future research reveals about this interesting possibility.
doctrbill
"am I entirely missing your point?" Yes you are! As I and the references I cited have been saying, the Hebrew word for earth has MORE THAN ONE MEANING! It can mean the dirt, the land or the planet. Even if you disagree with the planet definition, referring to all the land would in effect mean the same as the whole planet when referring to a global flood. For if you flood all the 'earth' or land areas you have a global flood. I should also point out that using the definition of 'all land' would harmonize with both usage's you cited where you claim I contradict myself. (you also misquoted me by failing to mention that my statement was made in regard to the use of the word earth in specific verses and not usage in the whole bible in general.) I want to keep this from getting too far off track, so I am not going to argue about the bible writers knowledge of the size or shape of the earth.
You have still failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted. Your line of reasoning that because you believe that some verses only refer to part of the earth, therefor no other verse can refer to all the earth, is childish. The context clearly contradicts your line of reasoning at Exodus 19:5 and Daniel 2:35 among many others. You also haven't addressed the basic questions I raised in my last post.
Failure to cite a single reference that supports your unusual interpretation.
Failure to explain why you feel that "earth" applies to only a limited land area, when in Genesis 1:10 it is referring to all the land.
Failure to explain what 'earth' is being referred to in Genesis 1:2 before the creation of land.
Failure to explain at Genesis 26:15 "As for all the wells that the servants of his father had dug in the days of Abraham his father, these the Philis'tines stopped up and they would fill them with dry earth." how 'earth' here that obviously refers to a small quantity of dirt, really has the same meaning as the one definition you allow the word to have.
I stand by my earlier "tirade," in fact since you have still failed to support your interpation, I could repeat every word again since it still applies, but to save space and time.
<<< Insert Earlier Tirade Here >>>

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by doctrbill, posted 03-07-2002 1:51 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by edge, posted 03-08-2002 6:08 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 188 by doctrbill, posted 03-08-2002 11:06 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 190 by doctrbill, posted 03-10-2002 12:21 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 03-10-2002 1:27 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 187 of 460 (6333)
03-08-2002 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by wmscott
03-08-2002 5:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
I used the word 'ocean' in reference to the sub glacial lakes in referring to their great size, that they were 'ocean' like in the large volume of water they contained. As I posted before, I was not stating that they were literal oceans.

In that case, don't call them oceans.
quote:
You imply that these lakes where small or only had small releases. "Recent work at the margins of the former North American ice sheets (Baker and Bunker, 1985; Kehow and Teller, 1994) has documented pervasive evidence of Pleistocene cataclysmic outburst floods (jokulhlaups).
Okay, show us a jokulhlaup that has raised the global sea level even an inch. As I remember these cataclysmic outbursts were confined to individual valleys.
quote:
Such floods, which are a direct consequence of deglaiation, may have exerted major short-term influences on global fluxes of water and sediment (Baker, 1994).
And so does the Amazon River. Are we in flood yet? Does Baker give you evidence of a global flood?
quote:
Shaw (1989) proposed that subglacial meltwater may be a major contributor to proglacial cataclysmic flooding. Although the details of flood causation are subject of considerable current debate, the evidence of megaflood/ice-sheet association is extensive and can guide our inferences about ancient glacial sediments."
Sure, "proglacial," meaning in the vicinity of the toe of the glacier. And just what is the extensive evidence of a mega-flood/ice-sheet association? And what is a megaflood? Is it a global flood?
Shaw also says that subglacial lakes are a contributor? Doesn't sound like the source of a global flood to me. Kind of equivocal information here. You need to make a cogent argument.
quote:
Late Glacial and Postglacial environmental Changes; Quaternary, carboniferous-Permian, and Proterozoic, I. Peter Martini, P98. While I have only been able to find links on the Internet to pages with information on a few examples of mega flooding, the known examples are wide spread and indicate very large releases of water. On the effect the sudden release of water from sub glacial lakes had on global sea levels, the same book went on to state. "the hypothesized subglacial megaflooding would also have had immense consequences for oceanic response" P103.
Which are? Wmscott, perhaps I can explain to you. When you make an assertion that you believe to be true you should back it up with some kind of logical argument from a solid foundation, or independent evidence that support your assertion. You fail to do this. You make and assertion that there was a global flood that covered the continents and support it with a comment that there are modern oceanic diatoms found at elevations below 1000'. This is not evidence to support your thesis. You then go on to say that subglacial lakes drained into the ocean. This is not evidence of a global flood. Oh, but there are meteorite impacts of the right age. Sorry, not evidence again. THis is getting tedious, wmscott. Sure you can write a story, but it is more speculative than the most popularized, watered-down Discovery Channel show that creationists are so fond of criticizing.
quote:
In the case of the release of sub glacial water rasing sea level, or as you put it, "how do you move water from one place below sea level to another place below sea level and raise sea level?" It is really very simple, as the water exits from beneath the ice sheet, it drops in elevation, more ice that was formerly above the water is lowered down into the water and displaces more of the flood waters. The ice sheet isn't floating, the release of the trapped water from beneath the ice sheet allows the sheet settle down. The ice sheet drops down like a cylinder, displacing the water that was once under it, which adds to the volume of the flood waters. The ice sheet is higher than the level of the water, so the water can not move back in above it as the ice settles. I hope I have explained this clearly enough.
I will ignore for the time being that you have previously asserted that the ice sheets moved into the oceans and destabilized the climate. In the meantime, I don't need an explanation. I need evidence. You are still giving us just-so stories that seem contradictory.
quote:
On the possible impact crater on lake bottom of lake Ontario. It is just that, a possibility, it may not even be a crater. But if it is, it would have to be more recent than the glacial action that created the lake bed, yet it would have to have occurred long ago enough to explain the lack of historical references. That alone would put it in about the right time frame. But for now, we will have to wait and see what future research reveals about this interesting possibility.
At last you admit that something is only a possibility. Perhaps we are making progress. But why is this proposed impact younger than the ice sheets? I thought that you wanted it to impact on the ice sheets and cause ejection of water into the stratosphere. Or are you saying that this particular (potential) impact is unrelated? If so, why bring it up?
You have also not addressed the discrepancy between impact and injection of flood waters into the atmosphere when much of that water would fall during the "impact winter" where it would simply be redeposited on the ice sheets. It seems to me that this would not be the end of the ice age but that beginning of an ice age. At any rate, your "quick" flood is not in the cards.
I would also ask you to amplify on the 40 days of rain. Just how much water actually precipitated? Was it all over the world? Do you know that the atmosphere can only hold so much water and when it has completely condensed you have to replace it in order to keep raining? This is critical information that might support your theory. You really should look into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by wmscott, posted 03-08-2002 5:03 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 188 of 460 (6344)
03-08-2002 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by wmscott
03-08-2002 5:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
As I and the references I cited have been saying, the Hebrew word for earth has MORE THAN ONE MEANING!


It is never translated - planet, because it never meant planet.
Our local library has access to nearly one hundred Bible commentaries, each by a different "authority". Imagine how hare-brained it would be of me to base my opinions on a single one of these!
quote:
wmscott
... referring to all the land would in effect mean the same as the whole planet when referring to a global flood.


This might be true if it said, "all the land on the planet".
quote:
wmscott
The context clearly contradicts your line of reasoning at Exodus 19:5 and Daniel 2:35 among many others.


Exodus 19:5. The speaker here is Jehovah, war-god of the Hebrews. The speech is directed to Jews only. For the purpose of argument I will insert the word land where so many wish to retain the old word "earth" and we will see how well it works. [first line is from the Revised Standard Version, last line is from the Living Bible. Just reads easier that way.]
You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to myself. Now if you will obey me and keep your part of my contract with you, you shall be my own little flock from among all the nations of the land; for all the land is mine.
The "land" in question is the land promised to Abraham. Do you imagine that the speaker here is creator of the universe? Do you think that the audience is all the people who have ever lived? Do you believe that the land in question is all the land on the planet? If so, your conclusion lacks evidence, defies logic, and ignores both the stated and implied parameters of the context. Your interpretation would be a theological view, not a contextual analysis.
Daniel 2:35 This is a dream sequence where a rock turns into a mountain so big that it fills the whole earth. And you want this to say that whole earth means the Planet?
I am only interested in seeing evidence that erets means "planet." I may analyze a few more texts but would prefer that you pre-digest this stuff before offering it to me.
quote:
wmscott
I stand by my earlier "tirade," in fact since you have still failed to support your interpation, I could repeat every word again since it still applies, but to save space and time.
<<< Insert Earlier Tirade Here >>>


While you are lacing up your gloves, consider this. Early translators of the Bible did not believe that Earth is a Planet. Martin Luther did not believe it. The King James translation committee did not believe it. The Roman Catholic Church did not believe it. Do you think you are a better scholar than were those men whose words you read with such reverence?
OK now: Hit me with your best shot!
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by wmscott, posted 03-08-2002 5:03 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 189 of 460 (6468)
03-10-2002 11:54 AM


This thread is featured this week on the site's Home Page, check it out.
--Percy

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 190 of 460 (6469)
03-10-2002 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by wmscott
03-08-2002 5:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
There is plenty of evidence that the Hebrew word 'erets' can be used to refer to the entire earth.

I’m not saying that ‘erets’ can not be used that way.
I am saying that it was not used that way.
quote:
wmscott:
you failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted


I have dealt with a significant number of your quotes, and received little in return but complaints about my attitude. My attitude is skeptical. Deal with it.
quote:
wmscott:
We do a number of verses throughout the bible where the entire earth is obviously being referred to, it is very obvious that the bible makes references to the entire earth. It can mean the planet, ...

You have offered poems, dreams, theisms, and appeals to faith. But so far no real evidence that any biblical author ever stated, alluded to, or imagined that earth might be a globe, rotate on its axis, orbit the sun, or wander among the stars. Evidences to the contrary abound.
I am still waiting to see scriptural evidence in support of your belief.
Has anyone out there discovered this evidence?
Anyone?
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by wmscott, posted 03-08-2002 5:03 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 191 of 460 (6474)
03-10-2002 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by wmscott
03-08-2002 5:03 PM


I'm not able to verify any of your contentions about dropstones in the driftless area of Wisconsin, including that they cover marine diatoms. The only evidence of submergence of Wisconsin comes from the Cambrian Period and the Ordovician Period. This evidence of submergence from 500 million years ago can still be identified, but evidence of a world-wide flood occurring a mere 10,000 years ago is absent. See this brief summary of Wisconsin geology.
I think you are misunderstanding the objections to your proposal for sub-glacial lakes as a source of water for a world-wide flood. It isn't the existence of such lakes that is being challenged, but rather your proposal that they:
  1. Contained sufficient water to flood the entire earth, including the glaciers from under which they flowed (now there's a trick);
  2. Released that water suddenly so that sea levels could rise rapidly;
  3. The ocean basins depressed world-wide and the land popped up world-wide relatively rapidly in order to follow the Biblical timetable, but leaving no evidence;
  4. A world wide flood would have left little to no silt, nor evidence of other kinds, either.
Your cometary factor is not necessary from an evidentiary standpoint. You need glaciers around the world to simultaneously release their sub-glacial water in order to provide a sudden and catastrophic rise in sea level in order to match the events described in Genesis. But there is no evidence Genesis is an accurate account, and so there is no requirement that all glaciers released their water at the same time. The release of sub-glacial water would have occurred naturally over time during glacial retreat.
What you need is evidence that the world was submerged by water 10,000 years ago, and that the amount of sub-glacial water was sufficient to do this.
It has been said that old scientists do not become convinced of new views but rather just gradually die out. This is true not only of scientists but of humans in general. Our views are held firmly in place by many correlating connections with all our knowledge. To give up a view which feels consistent with many other things that we know would not make sense to most people, because if that view isn't true then perhaps many of the other views that we thought it consistent with may also not be true.
Fundamental to your world view is that the flood was an actual event, and this causes you to interpret evidence you find in terms of that event. Stones you find in Wisconsin become dropstones from the flood. Diatoms you find beneath those stones become marine diatoms from the inundation by the sea. You tie in geologic mysteries because you require cataclysmic events. It all makes sense to you, it seems impossible to you that it couldn't be so.
Evolutionists do somewhat the same thing, but with a significant difference: a firm evidentiary foundation. We look at the fossil record in the geologic column and conclude that it is rock solid () evidence that evolution has taken place, and so we interpret other evidence we find within an evolutionary framework. That many discoveries have been predicted by applying this framework makes clear the efficacy of having a firm evidentiary foundation.
Your approach diverges significantly from the scientific because of this lack of a firm evidentiary foundation. There is no evidence of a world-wide flood 10,000 years ago. The foundation of your theory is not evidence but a religious book. Without evidence of a world-wide flood your theory drifts upon the wind.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by wmscott, posted 03-08-2002 5:03 PM wmscott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Joe Meert, posted 03-10-2002 7:35 PM Percy has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 192 of 460 (6489)
03-10-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Percy
03-10-2002 1:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Fundamental to your world view is that the flood was an actual event, and this causes you to interpret evidence you find in terms of that event. Stones you find in Wisconsin become dropstones from the flood. Diatoms you find beneath those stones become marine diatoms from the inundation by the sea. You tie in geologic mysteries because you require cataclysmic events. It all makes sense to you, it seems impossible to you that it couldn't be so.
Evolutionists do somewhat the same thing, but with a significant difference: a firm evidentiary foundation. We look at the fossil record in the geologic column and conclude that it is rock solid () evidence that evolution has taken place, and so we interpret other evidence we find within an evolutionary framework. That many discoveries have been predicted by applying this framework makes clear the efficacy of having a firm evidentiary foundation.
Your approach diverges significantly from the scientific because of this lack of a firm evidentiary foundation. There is no evidence of a world-wide flood 10,000 years ago. The foundation of your theory is not evidence but a religious book. Without evidence of a world-wide flood your theory drifts upon the wind.
--Percy[/B]

JM: Actually, I'll quibble with you a bit on these comments. I think you are forgetting that geologists once viewed the world as wmscott did. The flood and catastrophism held sway until they decided to actually start cataloguing and examining the rock and fossil record. It quickly became apparent to them that the global flood model just did not fit any of the data in the rock record and so it was abandonded. For some reason, creationists never bother to read the history of the subject and therefore are doomed to make all the same mistakes as their predecessors 200+ years ago. The only difference between the old naturalists and the creationists of today is that the old naturalists were willing to adapt to new ideas when the evidence compelled them to do so. Creationists are not REALLY compelled to look for evidence since the conclusion is foregone (although incorrect). Thus, wmscott sees all these things as he wants them to be instead of as they really are.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 03-10-2002 1:27 PM Percy has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 193 of 460 (6612)
03-11-2002 5:17 PM


edge
Point taken, I will try to be more carefully in using figures of speech if you find such confusing.
"Okay, show us a jokulhlaup that has raised the global sea level even an inch." As cited in last post. "the hypothesized subglacial megaflooding would also have had immense consequences for oceanic response" P103. What they mean by oceanic response is a rise in sea level, and the word immense means very large. So what they are saying is that the theory of subglacial megaflooding would cause an 'immense' increase in sea level. In post 142 one of the references I cited gave evidence of a 15m sudden rise in sea level from what is believed to have been a possible subglacial megaflood with secondary glacial surging caused by the rising sea level. 15 meters is equal to a bit over 590 inches, so this is 590 times as much evidence as you wanted.
Global ice volumes at the Last Glacial Maximum and early Lateglacial, lambeck, Yokoyama, Johnston, Purcell, Earth and Plantary Science Letters 181 (2000) 513-527.
On proglacial cataclysmic flooding caused by large influxes of water into the oceans, you asked. "And so does the Amazon River. Are we in flood yet? Does Baker give you evidence of a global flood?" The water that exits from the Amazon river is from rain fall which is from evaporation from the sea. This rain cycle of water operates continuously for the most part, so there is no large sudden releases or removals of water on a scale in comparison with the release of meltwater from the great ice age ice sheets. Since the oceans are the source of the returning Amazon river, the river discharge does not cause a global rise in sea level, the water is basically moving in a circle. The water from the melting ice sheets had been removed from the oceans for a long enough time and in large enough amounts that the ocean basins had isostatically rebounded, and a sudden return of large amounts of the removed water before the basin floors could adjust, would have resulted in global flooding. Baker was apparently cited for work on sudden influxes of ocean sediments, I haven't read his work so I state his position on global flooding events.
"what is the extensive evidence of a mega-flood/ice-sheet association? And what is a megaflood? Is it a global flood?" The evidence they are apparently referring to is evidence of super floods of glacial melt waters such as in this Mississippi river valley, the streamlined drumlins, giant ripple patterns found in some glacial sediments, plowing of sediments by icebergs suddenly surging into the sea, wide spread drop stones and evidence of sudden rises in sea level. A mega flood is a super sized flood, a flood much larger than normal flood events. A megaflood is not a global flood by itself, however a large megaflood could be large enough to rise global sea level by a fair amount all by itself. What I am looking at in my flood theory is a number of megafloods caused by a comet impact or impacts all occurring at the same time which in turn caused wide spread glacial surging.
"Shaw also says that subglacial lakes are a contributor? Doesn't sound like the source of a global flood to me." The amount of water contained in the subglacial lakes is unknown, hence the percentage of flood water that came from them is unknown. The sudden release of this water or may have occurred at the same time as the release of other glacial water and ice into the sea and would have acted as a trigger for glacial surging.
"You have also not addressed the discrepancy between impact and injection of flood waters into the atmosphere when much of that water would fall during the "impact winter" where it would simply be redeposited on the ice sheets." The effects or fall out of an impact winter are global and would not be limited to a local area. Larger impact events are powerful enough to blast surface material into sub orbital flights that would rain back down all over the earth. The amount of water blasted into the atmosphere and near space although large, was not that much compared to the total amount of water involved. The atmosphere can only hold a very limited amount of water, and even allowing for the reentry of sub orbital ice over time, I would expect the rain water contribution to the depth of the global flood waters to be a matter of a few inches. Since only water from the ice sheets would contribute to raising the sea level, water lifted from the oceans by the weather conditions such as impact caused hypercanes would not raise sea levels at all, since the water they dropped had come the sea in the first place.
doctrbill;
"Our local library has access to nearly one hundred Bible commentaries, each by a different "authority". Imagine how harebrained it would be of me to base my opinions on a single one of these!" When I read this I had quite a laugh. So it is apparently less harebrained for you to base your opinion on nothing at all. I will take from this response that none of those nearly 100 bible commentaries support your position, or else you would have quoted them. I take it as quite revealing that out of so many conflicting opinions, none of them apparently supports your theory.
Exodus 19:5 Even using the most favorable translation you could find towards your theory, it still stated "all the land is mine." Another bible translation renders this phrase as "the whole earth belongs to me." The wording is clear on referring to all of earth, or everything. Jehovah is here stating he has the right to give the promised land to the Israelites because as the creator, the whole earth belongs to him. I am surprised that as a claimed bible scholar you didn't know that in this verse Jehovah is using his ownership of the earth as the creator as evidence for his right to give his people the promised land. I was also surprised you made the statement, "Do you imagine that the speaker here is creator of the universe?" and you claim to be a bible scholar. It is a very very basic fact that the Israelites worshipped Jehovah god as the creator. Moses wrote the book of Genesis as well. In reading this verse it is not a question of what you or I believe, it is a question of what the writer believed. And Moses the writer of Exodus most clearly believed that Jehovah was the creator of heaven and earth. On the 'contextual analysis' of this verse, I noticed on "ignores both the stated and implied parameters of the context" that you didn't consider the next verse which states " And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Which of course refers to the promise made to Abraham by Jehovah that "by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves." Genesis 22:18 Even in dealing with the Israelites Jehovah always had the future of all of mankind in mind, for in Exodus 19:6 we see a reference to future events that would find fulfillment in connection with Christianity which is not limited to a single people or land. So restricting the meaning of the word earth here to a limited area based on a mistaken idea that there is no thought of other people in these verses is clearly wrong.
Daniel 2:35 In the dream here, the entire earth is referred to, which you would be able to see for yourself, if you only could understand what the dream is about. As this is apparently too deep for you to understand, in interests of trying to keep this discussion focused on the flood, it may be best to skip trying to teach you about the prophetic meaning of Daniel's dreams for now.
You referred to the "Early translators of the Bible", "Martin Luther" and "The Roman Catholic Church" and asked "Do you think you are a better scholar than were those men whose words you read with such reverence?" With all the many very good bible reference books available, that you write off biased, it isn't very hard to surpass what was known in earlier days. It is sometimes referred to as 'standing on the shoulders of giants' for by using the vast resources we have today, it is possible to built on what is already known. So to answer your question, I would have to answer yes, at least in a limited way. Since as you yourself pointed out, we know many things they didn't know. With today's computer technology it is possible to do word searches and comparisons in a matter of minutes that in the days before bible reference books would have taken months. We stand on the shoulders of the great scholars in the past when we avail ourselves of their findings, or at least I do, since you seem to write off their work as biased and of little value. Maybe that is why you seem to have such trouble understanding even minor bible points.
As for Hitting you with my 'best shot', there doesn't seem to be any point in rolling out the nukes when you can't handle a few well tossed stones. You have still failed to answer the basic questions I raised earlier.
You have still failed to successfully rebut any of the scriptures I posted. Your line of reasoning that because you believe that some verses only refer to part of the earth, therefor no other verse can refer to all the earth, is childish. The context clearly contradicts your line of reasoning at Exodus 19:5 and Daniel 2:35 among many others.
Failure to cite a single reference that supports your unusual interpretation.
Failure to explain why you feel that "earth" applies to only a limited land area, when in Genesis 1:10 it is referring to all the land.
Failure to explain what 'earth' is being referred to in Genesis 1:2 before the creation of land.
Failure to explain at Genesis 26:15 "As for all the wells that the servants of his father had dug in the days of Abraham his father, these the Philis'tines stopped up and they would fill them with dry earth." how 'earth' here that obviously refers to a small quantity of dirt, really has the same meaning as the one definition you allow the word to have.
I can also add to the list Hebrews 11:7 "By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; and through this [faith] he condemned the world" Here this verse being in the Greek scriptures uses the Greek word for world. I suppose you are going to tell me the Romans and Greeks had no concept of the earth ether.
"no real evidence that any biblical author ever stated, alluded to, or imagined that earth might be a globe, rotate on its axis, orbit the sun, or wander among the stars." As stated earlier I am not trying to, since that is outside of trying to support a global flood theory. I am restricting my efforts to proving that the bible refers to the entire earth at times, not that they knew the size or shape of the earth. My point is that when the bible refers to flooding the earth, it means a global event rather than a limited one. That regardless of whether or not the flood was really earth wide, the bible writers believed it was.
Percipient;
Wow, top billing. Thanks. Love the picture of the Carolina Bays, really shows the impact pattern.
Let's take a look at your objections to a global flood and water from sub-glacial lakes.
"1. Contained sufficient water to flood the entire earth, including the glaciers from under which they flowed (now there's a trick);" Incorrect assumption on two points, the sub-glaical lakes were not the only source of flood water and the glaciers floated in the flood waters if they were deep enough.
"2. Released that water suddenly so that sea levels could rise rapidly;" That is what is currently believed by scientists who support the subglacial mega flood theory, and sudden rises in sea level of up to 15m are shown to have occurred.
"2. The ocean basins depressed world-wide and the land popped up world-wide relatively rapidly in order to follow the Biblical timetable, but leaving no evidence;" Actually it did leave evidence, what do you think is in my book, blank pages? I put forward a theory called ice age flexing on the deep flexing of the earth which took place at this time caused by the sudden large shifts in pressure by water/ice on the earth's crust.
"3. A world wide flood would have left little to no silt, nor evidence of other kinds," A gradual flood caused by a tide like rise and recession of global sea level would leave next to no evidence compared to the standard YEC flood theories. Which I take as one of the most believable parts of my flood theory and the most unreasonable of the YEC theories. And as I have been posting over and over again, the rate of sedimentation in the ocean is very minor compared to river water. Taking into account that the length of submergence was probably a matter of months, very little sediment would expected to be found. And I might add that I have found evidence of that sedimentation. I also notice that you fail to provide an alternative explanation for finding marine diatoms beneath glacial stones which are still sitting on the original post glacial surface, or for the whale bones found in the state of Michigan. Information on the glacial boulders in the Driftless area can be found in the two geology books I have cited in earlier postings on this. To keep this short I have a whole book of information on evidence for the flood and how it happened and how all the pieces fit together. I appreciate what you said about changing world views, I had to do that a number of times before I arrived at a theory that worked and agreed with the evidence. I would also like to say in response, that my theory is a work in progress. That I wish people would at least consider it as a possibility, that yes this may of happened. For what new theory every had all the answers when first published? I am hoping that my book will spark research that will find all the evidence any one could ask for. But for now, it is just one person battling the world, and rather successfully too I might say. The mere fact that I have been able to so, should be an indication that I may be on to something.
Joe Meert
Actually Joe, I spend a whole chapter on the history of the flood debate and how and why it was abandoned by geology. The whole idea behind my flood theory was to come up with one that agrees with the geologic evidence, so considering the evidence has been very important and has been the key means of finding out how a global flood could have occurred. The posting on this board is much more extensive than what I have done on other boards, so I would suggest you read it over and I believe you will find may of your potential objections have already been addressed. You will also need to break free of habit of confusing this new flood theory with YEC silly flood theories as the others who have posted here have had to do over time. It will also help prevent you from constantly reinventing the wheel.

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 6:41 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 195 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 7:32 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 196 by doctrbill, posted 03-11-2002 10:24 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 197 by edge, posted 03-12-2002 12:02 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 03-12-2002 2:20 AM wmscott has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 194 of 460 (6622)
03-11-2002 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by wmscott
03-11-2002 5:17 PM


I'm going to pick just one quibble as your post was lengthy. Most of your argument is siimilarly vulnerable and selective in its treatment of possible intepretations and translations.
quote:
I can also add to the list Hebrews 11:7 "By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; and through this [faith] he condemned the world" Here this verse being in the Greek scriptures uses the Greek word for world. I suppose you are going to tell me the Romans and Greeks had no concept of the earth ether.
The Greek word you refer to is, of course, kosmos. But kosmos is used mostly in the sense of the inhabited, ordered, governed world. See Greek Dictionary Headword Search Results
Indeed it is used in several nuances of this sense in the New Testament, most of which are similar to the traditional Greek meaning:
Romans 11:12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, Here it refers to the community of believers.
John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! Of course this doens't refer to the geological planet, which cannot sin, but as an anagogue for its inhabitants.
1 Peter 3:3 where the word kosmos is used to refer to "worldy adornment" And guess what? This passage mentions Noah's ark too! Strange how the Greek word you wish to use to support your interpretation is used with a completely different meaning in a passage which refers to the very subject of your interpretation!
Of course there is another Greek word for world - oikoumene. The author of Hebrews (the letter you quote) uses it several times. And in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) you find it here in 2 Samuel 22:16 "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered."
So one has to wonder why the author of Hebrews chose "kosmos" - quite possibly because he was thinking of the flood as a moral event which affected exactly the kind of people the Lamb of God came to save, the opposite of the Gentiles. Such an interpretation sits more comfortable than your ham-fisted attempted to lever into supporting your literalist theories.
To paraphrase yourself "and you claim to be a bible scholar?"
Maybe I should dig out my Biblica Hebraica and get stuck into the rest of your post! Shame I'm too busy.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by wmscott, posted 03-11-2002 5:17 PM wmscott has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 195 of 460 (6623)
03-11-2002 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by wmscott
03-11-2002 5:17 PM


So if the author of the Noah story uses 'erets to mean the whole earth, when we read in Genesis 8:7 or 8:13 that the waters were dried up from the earth, we are to take this to mean from the entire globe. But this would mean no sea and this is surely not the intended meaning, as in Genesis 9:2 the sea is clearly still there. Looks to me like the writer of the Noah story uses 'erets in at least a couple of different senses and one of them clearly figurative.
And soon after in Genesis 12:1 we read that the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew where the words "country" and "land" translate 'erets into two different English glosses. The passage makes no sense at all if 'erets is taken to mean "the whole earth."
Now let's skip to Genesis 19:23, the story of Lot. Well, whadyaknow?
The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.The sun risen on 'erets? Shining on the whole earth - that's quite a light-bending feat, don't you think? Certainly not a mistake that could be made by someone who thought that (a) the planet is round and (b) 'erets means the whole planet.
Of course they could just mean that the sun was shining on the known world - we couldn't expect them to know it was dark in Australia, could we? And by the same they may have quite easily use the same word to desribe the extent of the flood - and we need not interpret them as assuming the deluge extended to the antipodes either.
It simply doesn't make sense to rule out a figurative use of 'erets in the flood story or at the very least a use roughly similarly to "known world."
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by wmscott, posted 03-11-2002 5:17 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 196 of 460 (6630)
03-11-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by wmscott
03-11-2002 5:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott
I will take from this response that none of those nearly 100 bible commentaries support your position, or else you would have quoted them. I take it as quite revealing that out of so many conflicting opinions, none of them apparently supports your theory.


I find it revealing that you are unaware of those which corroborate my opinion. I came to see it this way before discovering that certain commentators agree.
If my theory were on trial here then I would trot out my evidence.
Your annoying repetition of my so-called failure does not make it so. You are beginning to sound like a broken record!
Please desist from your satanic chant regarding my scholarship.
quote:
wmscott
... the bible refers to the entire earth at times, not that they knew the size or shape of the earth. My point is that when the bible refers to flooding the earth, it means a global event rather than a limited one.


I have not been impressed with your "evidence," and you have pretty much ignored my rebuttals.
quote:
wmscot
... regardless of whether or not the flood was really earth wide, the bible writers believed it was.


This sounds like equivocation. I am convinced that you believe the flood was planet-wide. I am not convinced that Bible writers believed it.
By the way. Bible is a proper noun, and should always be capitalized.
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by wmscott, posted 03-11-2002 5:17 PM wmscott has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024