Summations Only

Earlier, Percy said

quote:

---

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.

---

Later you said, in reply to IamJoseph

quote:

---

I also gave the Hebrew word that is translated seas which is a masculine singular verb. Singular is not plural. There was one sea.

---

Forgetting for the moment the gender (which is irrelevant to my point) "seas" can't be considered a singular verb. For starters it's a noun, but, more importantly, its plural. If the original Hebrew uses a singular form, then the translation is inaccurate, if it's accurate it uses a plural form, therefore you can't argue that that it talks about a single sea.

You said

quote:

---

The text is correct the translation is what is wrong.

---

If that's the case, what else in the translation is wrong? Does it really matter what the KJV says if you're going to argue that it's not accurate?

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

Ok, quote me exactly where any of the sources state that there was a single land mass.Don't quote anything stating the waters were all in one place, that's to do with waters, seas, oceans, whatever. Don't quote anything to do with division of land in the days of Peleg. Both of these are open to interpretation.We're looking at what is said in the text, not what might be inferred from the text. I want a quote from any biblical text saying that the land was all either in or gathered into one place. If you can't supply one, then you have to accept that the texts don't say this.It's possible for all the seas to be in one place, but the land to be in a number of places and this has been pointed out time and again. The fact that you can't see this is neither here nor there.

Al it says is that God gathered the water dry land appeared and that he called said dry land Earth. It doesn't say he did anything with the land at all. It also says that God scattered them (the people). It makes no mention of the people scattering themselves.I thought the point of this thread was to examine what the texts actually say, not what they might mean.

You're reply to me is patronising in the extreme and totally ignores the point of my post.The water may have been gathered in one place, but it doesn't say that the land was gathered in one place as well. That's just your pet theory and you are willing to twist and turn to avoid accepting that there is no statement that the land was gathered, either into one place or numerous places. All it says is that the land appeared, and was called Earth. Do you get it yet?As for Genesis 11.7/8, that is completely irrelevant to what the texts say about the flood. Could you please concentrate on that?The texts say nothing about the layout of the land, but they do say something about the layout of the water. Can you accept that the texts make NO statement about the layout of the land? If you can't then provide the quote which describes the layout of the land. I've asked for this before and have yet to receive an answer from you. Remember, I'm asking for what the texts say, not what you think the texts mean, so I expect a direct quote.When can we expect to actually have a post from you about the flood?

I'm going to go back to the opening post and ask if ICANT agrees that the texts support the idea that there were people around at the time of the flood. That way we can start pinning down a time fame. I've said this before, but I've yet to get a response.Edited by Trixie, : No reason given.Edited by Trixie, : No reason given.

Ok, I'll bite. Going by your own statements you obviously agree with the texts that there were people around at the time of the flood.Pangaea is thought to have broken up 175 million years ago and humans are thought to have been around for the last 250,000 years or so. How do you reconcile this discrepancy?

Wow...just wow! The only thing we have, prior to Gen 1:2, in the texts is Gen 1:1 which is a one sentence summary of what is about to happen.Prior to verse 3 there was no light (verse 3), no heaven (verse 6), no dry land (verse 9), no plants (verse 11), no water creaures and birds (verse 20/21), no land creatures (verse 24/25) no man (verse 26/27).Are you claiming that plants, whales, birds, cattle etc aren't life forms? Or are you cherry picking and going by Genesis 2 Even doing that you still have the problem of the plant life forms since it says earlier on So again we have plants before man.Anyway, enough of creation, we're supposed to be discussing the flood and what the texts say about that. Nope! That dating is based on similar geological makeup of the continents prior to that date and differences after that date. It's based on the age of the igneus rock found on either side of the mid Atlantic ridge. A geologist can chime in here and explain it all much better than me. You really need to take on board what scientists mean when they use the phrase "thought to be". I'll give you a hint, it means that the evidence supports it.You say there are many assumptions made about the flood. You began this thread to dispel those assumptions and to tell us all exactly what the texts tell us, yet I've seen more unfounded assumptions from you than any other poster here. For example I'm sure Peleg and pals would have noticed this and the event would have deserved more than a passing nod.You're just making stuff up to fill in the gaps which are being exposed, yet you have NO textual support for what you imagine. You have man wandering around on a supercontinent which didn't even exist by the time man first appeared yet you claim there are no discrepancies. You base all of these pet fantasies on your own personal beliefs and not on what the texts actually say, but all you're doing is addng in even more difficulties for yourself. For example you now seem to have man created before there was even any dry land. Where did God find the dust to make him from?This discussion has moved from science -v- biblical story to become science and biblical story -v- ICANT's pet theory.If your entire belief in the flood scenario rests on these ridiculous mental and textual gymnastics, it says more about belief problems you have with the texts as they stand.

In what fantasy Bible of yours does Genesis 2:4 to 4:26 come BEFORE Genesis 1:2? Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department. What meaning of the word "dating" are you having trouble with? You can't be suggesting that my use of the word "dating" doesn't mean "dating", or can you? I make no assumptions. The EVIDENCE indicates that the single land mass broke up long before man appeared. You are the one asserting that man existed at the same time as a single land mass so it's up to you to provide evidentiary support for this idea or stop using it. Maybe not, but you certainly have a problem with reading for comprehension.You haven't addressed my observations on your belief that man was the first life form.I don't have a problem with your beliefs, which I am well aware of, but I do have a problem when you claim textual support which doesn't exist. For example, where in your list below does the phrase "single land mass" appear? Just as an aside, I believe there is a thread on the translation of "Earth" and a better translation would be "land".

Are you readingover what you write to me befe you post it? Eh? Quite apart from the fact that if it was covered in water it's anything but dry, your use of the word "if" in "So IF dry land existed...." has boggled my mind. Yes, I agree that a worldwide flood would cover all the land, but you'd be hard pushed to describe it as a world wide flood if there was no dry land in the first place. Does this mean that prior to the flood everyone was paddling around knee-deep in water? Halle-bloody-luja!! Finally, you seem to realise that there isn't a single mention in the texts of the land being a single land mass. Has it occurred to you that the division of the "land" in the days of Peleg may refer to political/tribal division? It makes more sense and is in context with the rest of the story that it appears in.The thread you might find interesting is one recently brought back to the top by purpledawn, I can't remember the title of it, but will supply a link tomorrow. Basically it argues that given that Earth is the name of the planet, Moses is unlikely to have used that terminology in his stories. It would be the dry land, the land that you've been using the word "Earth" for.EvC Forum: Not The PlanetEdited by Trixie, : Found link

This is just a quick reply as I'm a bit pushed for time. Did the writer use Earth or did the translators? In the time of Moses would the writer have any concept of Earth? Earth, with a capital "E", is the name of the planet. This is discussed in the thread I gave you the link for.

How do you reconcile that with The text states that everything not on the ark will die in the flood and that those animals on the ark will provide "seed" for after the flood. You may believe that the text is an exaggeration of a local flood, and you may be right, but there is no way that you can claim textual support saying wild animals weren't included.

This thread is about what the text says, not what you take it to mean. Once again, how do you reconcile the quotes I provided with your assertion that the texts say only Noah's domesticated animals went onboard the ark?

You have not addressed what I wrote and saying you have doesn't make it so.