Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
90 online now:
CosmicChimp, Dm14174, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Tangle (5 members, 1 guest login, 84 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,250 Year: 4,362/6,534 Month: 576/900 Week: 100/182 Day: 7/27 Hour: 3/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What the KJV Bible says about the Noah Flood
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 241 of 306 (639803)
11-04-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by ICANT
11-03-2011 11:08 PM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
quote:
It also means the term earth, in this instance, refers to solid earth as opposed water.

I agree as in Genesis 1:1 there was no ocean.


In 1.1 there was no ocean, but there was the components which make an ocean, and all things now contained in the universe, icluding stars, oceans, pineapples and the songs someone writes today. IOW, the base materials were already a given with the creation of the heavens [galaxies] and the earth - as per v1. There is nowhere else for these to come from.

In V2, we are told that everything was unformed [nothing was seperated from each other]; all was one unformed mush. Science and scientific laws yet never emerged. There were no stars, water, darkness, light, energy or any forces. Then we are told the unformed void was turned to formed; things appeared as seperate entities from the mush of the void. We can conjure up an alignment here with the big bang, namely an action or command which initiated laws which enabled the mush to form identifiable components. This is also the introduction of science, from a point when there was no science or laws in the universe.

The act of emerging identifiable products were caused by the act of 'seperations', subsequent to laws and commands in a directed program from a universe maker source [how else!?]. Here, the first products seperated were darkness and light, these were the first things seperated from the mush [void], as in the text [V3]: LET THERE BE LIGHT; AND HE SEPERATED THE LIGHT FROM THE DARKNESS - namely from the mush of unseperated stuff, but from which void these components already existed, but without the laws which allowed them to become seperate products with specific attributes of water, light, darkness, etc. Analogy: base metal in the earth; when seperated a car can be formed based in scientific laws discovered by humans - all the required components were already given.

The above scenario is a scientific premise, allowing no other scenario possible in a finite universe. Genesis is based on a finite universe [V1]. This is scientific, namely cause and effect, while the infinite [totally wrong] and random emegence of a universe based on scientific laws is unscientific and never experienced in any exampe of science. This is the difference between Darwinism and Creationism; only one is scientific at its foundational base.

To return to your statement, there were no oceans, is better stated as, there was no water on earth prior to the seperation phase; then, after the seperation action, there was water which covered up all the earth; then the water was seperated from the earth

quote:

The solid matter [earth] on this planet, was covered with water.

Not in Genesis 1:1. It was not covered with water until some time later as it is found covered with water in Genesis 1:2.


The water was seperated from land before the emergence of life forms, along with other seperations such as with light and darkness; day and night [chapter 1]. Clearly, a scientifically correct and indispensible premise, and one which is not seen in Darwinism. Evolution cannot explain the emergence of life without Genesis' proceedial seperation manual.

quote:
You say how do you know there was no water in Genesis 1:1?
Simple, all you have to do is read the history of the day the Lord God created the Earth and the heavens. Genesis 2:4

Genesis 2:5 there was no plants, and no rain.

Genesis 2:6 there was a mist that watered the whole face of the Earth.


Incorrect reading of the text! Genesis says all life forms were created in chapter 1, but they yet were not alive. These needed a further trigger action to become animated, such as the rain cycle, which is again related to the cycle of adjusted day and night, heat temps, etc, etc. The life cycle ignited the life; the ability to interact with these ignition factors was applied in the creation of the life forms.

quote:

Genesis 2:7 God formed man from the dust of the ground.


Absolutely, with no alternatives available. Life forms are made of the earth's elements, such as iodone, iron, phosperous, water, zinc, atoms, quarks, etc. This is translated as the dust of the earth - an excellent term open to all generation's understanding. Crazies like Attenborough ridicule this verse - they have no better alternatives!

quote:
Genesis 2:8 God planted a Garden in Eden.

Genesis 2:9 God caused trees to grow out of the ground.

Genesis 2:10 A river went out of Eden and watered the Garden.

Genesis 2:19 God formed animals and fowl out of the ground.

Genesis 2:22 God made a woman out of a rib he took from the man.

There is no sea or seas mentioned neither is there any fish mentioned.


They are mentioned in chapter 1. Hello? Chapter 2 refers to after the life cycle began, when the already completed life forms became animated [living]. Analogy: a completed car does not move unless further triggered by a key.

quote:
There was yet no light focused on this planet as today;

You base that upon what?


The text! Note that when the light was seperated from the darkness [v3/4], the earth yet did not have the critical light focus allowing life. This occured in V14:

quote:
14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness

Now, the light of the sun [luminosity] was critically focused on earth, whereas there was already sunlight before, but not critically directed to life. Note that V14 refers only to light variances, not light itself, not the stars. Note that the previous verse [9/13] gives the criteria how the seperation of water from land was to cause life in the oceans:

Thus we know from the texts the light was critically directed to give life: vegetation, fish, etc. This is what I referred to by the focusing of light on earth for the precise purpose of fostering life. How else!? The light ratio on earth is very varied from every other space body in the known universe; some planets have 5 year days and no water - not suitable for life or so-called evolution.

quote:
there was no seperation of day and night,

I agree there was no separation of light and darkness as darkness did not exist in Genesis 1:1.

Darkness did not exist until it is found in Genesis 1:2.


The components for darkness, light and all things contained now in the universe were already supplied in V1. They became seperated only after laws were impacted and the mush divided in identifiable products. There is nothing new in the universe since V1 and v2 which created these things from nothing but a command - no tools, elements or materials yet existed. While this may appear extraordinary, it becomes not so by virtue there is no alternative to it from a finite, created universe view.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
1.9. 'The dry was called earth': this aligns with V1, namely all dry land [not submerged in water, and solid] is called earth.

How can verse 9 align with verse 1? There was no water in verse 1.


There was water in the follow up verse. V1 is about the entire universe and all its unformed components being already created. The water and the light were seperated - seperated from the unformed mush in V2.

quote:
Also, this marks the first thresold of seperations on the earth [this planet] of water from land;

The text does not say anything about the water and land being separated.

It simply says the dry land appeared when the water gathered to one place.


It does:

quote:
3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

quote:

Now you have gone to chapter 7 - another time, another specific sector zoomed into. This is well after all life forms and many lands and regions existed and seperated, and the focus is on one small region, not all the earth, namely of one region of Noah. It does not concern Adam, Cain, Tasmania, Egypt, Mount Everest, etc. The text is only referring to Noah's region. Note the opening verse in this chapter 7 which you disregarded:

Are you saying chapter 6 and chapter 7 are talking about two arks and two floods that Noah went through?


I am saying chapter 1 refers to creation; chapter 7 refers to a localised story of a human community.

quote:

7/1: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation'

It refers to Noah in this [his] generation. COME THOU; ALL THY HOUSE; THIS [NOAH'S] GENERATION; NOAH'S ENVIRONMENT.

Are you saying this means something other than what this says?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We got Noah and we got Noah's sons that equals 2 generations.

Noah and his wife went into the ark.
Shem Ham and Japheth and their wives went into the ark.

House in Genesis 7:1 should have been translated family which is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word bayith.


Noah's household [family] entered the ark.

quote:

IamJosephIndeed and most impacting, it does NOT say that Noah was rightious, because this is limited to Noah's generation, his community. Indeed, Noah may not have been found rightious in another generation of town or community. The verse is also saying that Noah's rightiousness was 'limited'; that most people around him were abolsutely corrupted beyond the point of saving, unless they change their ways.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noah was righteous because he believed and obeyed God.

If you think Abrahan or Moses or you are more righteous than Noah was you are in deep trouble.

Abrahan comitted adultry and bare a son by Sarah's handmaid.
Moses failed to obey God and speak to the rock and did not enter the promised land because of that disobedience.

You will have to examine your own life.


The meaningn of rightious is not whether one sins. It refers only to how one acts 'AFTER' one sins: "WHERE A REPENTANT SINNER STANDS - THE MOST RIGHTIOUS CANNOT." This says a decent person is better than an innocent person. Only the sinner can pass the test of rightiousness - the reason temptation is factored in. Abraham did not commit adultry - there was no law of adultry then; both God and Abraam's wife asked him to get a child; the law to reproduce was already given from Adam terms ['GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY'/ the first law in the Hebrew bible]. Also, 'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT'; thus we know a female prophetess can see further and beyond a male prohet of God's words. The female is the final and highest life form.

quote:

But I will let you in on a little secret. I am not worthy now nor will I ever be for the grace of God that has been poured out to me. I do not deserve to go to heaven for any reason other than I have been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ who is the only way to heaven.

Its not a secret; everyone harbours inferiority when related to higher paradigsms, increasing in inetinsity as we elevate.
Indeed Noah turned out to be a drunk; as soon as the flood was over he planted 'vine' [booze!] not grains.

Indeed all roads lead to heaven or wherever there is out there, which none know. The Nasa moon mission had no right to place a plaque on the moon with the date 1968 AD and apply this to all humanity and this planet - its pretty damn assumptious. Probably, this is why we have no visitations from ET's - they must think we are all so primitive. The Hebrew bible records 5702 years of history alone, and has no condition of any group being special. All are subject to their deeds and actions - none to names. See, there is chosen to be a light unto the nations [meaning by example only?], and there is chosen by the rake, sword and each group's most preferred names. Choose your own chosen preference, but do not do so for everyone - it is the cause of millions of innocent lives being destroyed.

quote:

Do you know how long it would take the grape vine to grow and produce fruit.

But then if his squezed grape juice had never fermented before why would he expect it to ferment after the flood?


The vine is the quickest producing plant of all. Noah wanted wine; he should have planted grain for food.

quote:
YOU NOAH JUST BARELY WAS FOUND RIGHTIOUS.

What do you back that assertion up with?

IamJoseph writes:
Noah: "BLANK!" [Gee, thanks for saving me, my family, my possessions - I don't care for others].



Its qualified by IN HIS GENERATION; unlike with Abraham and Moses.

quote:

After being a wittness for 120 years to everyone that came by and asked what he was doing building that monstrosity and him telling them God was going to flood the earth what would you expect him to say?


He was made a witness, but he failed bceaiuse he did not implore anyone; he never argued the case with God as did Abraham and Moses.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. All the high hills that were under the whole heaven was covered with 15 cubits of water.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is again referring to Noah and his generation, not the opening V1 which refers to the point before water and land were seperated globally. Here, V7/1 applies, its not connected with Chapter 1; its about one particular region here - not the whole planet; its talking to and about Noah and Noah's [this/your] generation only. The animals and humans in Europe or Egypt are not referred to here, else V7/1 becomes compromised to the extent of being superfluous, even incoherent. Wrong way - go back.

What part of ALL do you not understand?


Chapter 1 and 7 are of different scenarios. V7/1 applies to the Noah story.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by ICANT, posted 11-03-2011 11:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2011 4:23 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 242 of 306 (639868)
11-04-2011 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by IamJoseph
11-03-2011 10:03 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
Hi Joseph,

IamJoseph writes:

Its not about every living thing changes.

How and where does it change.

quote:
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

This text says EVERY living thing of ALL flesh.

It preceeds Genesis 7:1 and would not be limited by that verse.

So for your wild idea to be true it would have to read.

And of some living thing of some flesh.....

OR

It would have to read: And of every living thing of all flesh in Noah's household, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark.

Well Noah and his wife would qualify or one of his sons and his wife would qualify.

All of them could not get on the ark as there was 8 of them.

It doesn't say what you say it does.

It does not infer what you say it says.

Therefore you have your head stuck in the sand with ear plugs in your ears and do not have the understanding of a fifth grader. I checked with one last night.

Then we come to th following verse.

quote:
Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

Two of ALL flesh that had the breath of life went into the ark unto Noah.

To satisfy your assertions it would have to say:

Two of SOME flesh that had the breath of life went into the ark unto Noah.

OR

Two of ALL flesh that had the breath of life IN NOAH'S HOUSEHOLD went into the ark unto Noah.

The text does not say nor imply what you say it says.

Just keep your head stuck in the sand with the ear plugs in and your logical thinking in your hip pocket and you will be able to convince yourself that you are correct or whoever it is that you are following is correct.

But be assured the text says EVERY and ALL and those two words does not leave out anything that had the breath of life in it.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

15 cubits is a small amount; it has no relevency with covering the earth. There is a diminishing series of rejections, but it won't result in a backdown for sure.

15 cubits of water on the highest hill under the heaven does not leave any dry land.


Yes it is! It can only apply to Noah's small region. How or why else would a boat rise, be saved and all the world be submerged?

If the land mass of the world was as it is today with the peak of Mt Everest being the tallest point of dry land above sea level covered with 15 cubits of water, what point on earth would be sticking above the water.

The text says:

quote:
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Now if ALL the high hills was covered that existed under the whole heaven there would be nothing protuding above the water that covered Mt Everest.

The text does not say some of the high hills but ALL.

The text does not say the high hills in Noah's region but ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE WHOLE (ENTIRE) HEAVEN.

IamJoseph writes:

How or why else would a boat rise, be saved and all the world be submerged?

One day maybe you will understand the difference in a boat and an ark. But I am beginning to have my doubts.

A boat is a vessel that is designed to travel through the water. Most have a v bottom with a pointed bow and a narrower stern than the beam.

Noah's ark was built with the same dimensions of width from the front to the back. The length is the same from side to side. The height was the same from end to end and side to side.

In other words it was a rectangle cube.

Now the ark was sitting on dry land when it was built. The water rose and the ark floated. It does not make any difference whether the water rose just enough to float the ark or whether the water rose 50 miles deep on all the earth. If the water then receeded somehow to the point there was dry land below the ark when it settled it would be on dry land.

So what is the problem you are trying to allude to with your statement?

There would be no problem for the ark floating and keeping those on board safe whether it was a local flood or a world wide flood.

IamJoseph writes:

15 cubits is a small amount of water which can only apply to a regional flood. If the entire planet was covered with water, as in before the water and land was seperated in Chapter 1, there would be no mountains!

Is your understanding that clouded?

The mountains would exist whether they were covered with water or not.

The tallest mountain in the world from base to top is Mount Lamlam with an elevation of 1334 feet above sea level. but from the base to the top it is 37,820 feet tall.

Drop Mt Everest in the trench beside Lamlam and it would be covered by over a mile of water.

There are mountains and mountain ranges that are competely covered with water with only a few peaks sticking out of the water. Those peaks are called Islands.

So what problem do you see with the ark floating if all the mountains of the earth was covered with water?

Why would the mountains not exist if the were covered with 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2011 10:03 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2011 8:53 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 243 of 306 (639893)
11-04-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by IamJoseph
11-04-2011 1:40 AM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
Hi Joseph,

IamJoseph writes:

I am saying chapter 1 refers to creation; chapter 7 refers to a localised story of a human community.

That is not what I asked you.

I asked the question:

quote:
Are you saying chapter 6 and chapter 7 are talking about two arks and two floods that Noah went through?

Please answer the question.

IamJoseph writes:

'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT'

Is this a quote? If so from who and where.

OR is it just an assertion of IamJoseph?

One thing for sure that statement is not in the Bible.

IamJoseph writes:

The vine is the quickest producing plant of all. Noah wanted wine; he should have planted grain for food.

A tomato plant will produce fruit in 55 to 90 days from planting.

A grape vine will produce fruit in 2 years from planting.

IamJoseph writes:

Its qualified by IN HIS GENERATION;

All of the animals alive on all the dry land existed in his generation.

But nothing you said refuts the fact the text says all, every, whole. You can't get rid of those words by simply saying they were not in his generation.

IamJoseph writes:

He was made a witness, but he failed bceaiuse he did not implore anyone; he never argued the case with God as did Abraham and Moses.

I don't find where God told Noah to witness to anyone.

God told Noah to build an ark and to gather food for himself and his family along with the animals that would make the journey with him. God told him there was to be 7 clean animals and a male and female of all unclean animals.

He wasn't told to do anything else. So get off his back.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:
What part of ALL do you not understand?

Chapter 1 and 7 are of different scenarios. V7/1 applies to the Noah story.

I will ask the question again.

What part of ALL do you not understand?

What is your definition of ALL?

Take the parts of this post that I did not reply to and make a thread if you desire to pursue a discussion about them. We only have just over 50 posts in this thread to discuss the flood.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2011 1:40 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2011 9:27 PM ICANT has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 244 of 306 (639920)
11-04-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ICANT
11-04-2011 2:01 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:

This text says EVERY living thing of ALL flesh.

It preceeds Genesis 7:1 and would not be limited by that verse.

So for your wild idea to be true it would have to read.

And of some living thing of some flesh.....

OR

It would have to read: And of every living thing of all flesh in Noah's household, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark.


There is no grammatical reading of it except that it applies to Noah's entire household and all his possessions - with all that was required for sustainence of all the souls and living life forms. I have already tended maybe 20 examples why this is the only reading, including why this flood appeared as covering the mountain tops and all the earth, with actual examples in the same book of a much later period in Abraham's time. The world was not destroyed in the destruction of Sodom either - yet some thought so. This authentic description of the period is correctly highlighted, in equal measure of the authenticity of the ancient names listed in the book of this period and region, as well as the listing of factual geographical items like Mount Ararat in its exact location - down the road from Noah's household. When it says Noah planted a vine, it means either the vine seeds were also taken into the arc - or there was still planting possible when they emerged out of the arc; either way it makes my reading the only path available. However, you maybe imprisoned by your inculcation of this story, which is listed as a mythical fable, ignoring all the wondrous factors impossible to find in a fable of any kind. Its not Walt Disney stuff!

There is no writing possessed by humanity more pristine than this writings - it is perfect and error free, most coherent, and solely responsible for influencing the works of Isaiah, Shakespeare and almost every great writer, including those who wrote the Gospels and Quran, and there is no precedence of this writings - it emerged suddenly and in an already advanced state of grammar and alphabetical mode. There are no such Phoenecian or other earlier alphabetical books, no matter what you read in today's encyclopedia and anti-creational descriptions. Ask them all to put up instead of quoting opions 1000's of years later, from sources who never studied this writings via observation and input!

A first verse is also a header - its next verses and passages becoming extentions of qualifications and magnifications: its about going forth on the same platform of thought and direction. If an opening verse says the heavens and earth were created, followed by 'there was darkness' - it means the earth was created with darkness as an underlying property potential, because there is nowhere else to come from and no other reading possible. Its like a mathematical sequence; the term 'create' is included and must be understood fully and without confusion. Similarly, if the Noah story is directed to Noah and his household, it can only read as the life forms which entered the arc were of Noah's household. There is no other reading. Your objections are about low level grammar only, not any error in any factual geographical or historical factors; everything else in the descriptions of such things are irrefutable, to the extent they could not even come from another earlier source - there are no other such sources.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two of ALL flesh that had the breath of life went into the ark unto Noah.

To satisfy your assertions it would have to say:

Two of SOME flesh that had the breath of life went into the ark unto Noah.


No, your grammar is faulty. Read: 'Two of ALL flesh - [of Noah's household]'. You cannot render verses in the same text as superfluous; its like a math equation. One has to retain and infuse all factors of the text in making a conclusion. Otherwise your baking a cake without sugar, an ingredient listed in its reciepe up top. And thus your complaint is your cake is not sweet!

quote:

The text does not say nor imply what you say it says.

The text does not imply - it says it pointedly and blatantly.

quote:

But be assured the text says EVERY and ALL and those two words does not leave out anything that had the breath of life in it.

IF - you omit pivotal verses!

quote:
The text says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now if ALL the high hills was covered that existed under the whole heaven there would be nothing protuding above the water that covered Mt Everest.


All the earth under the heavens - [of Noah's region only!]. Perfect grammar with nowhere else to go. The water covered 'ONLY' the hills and peaks in Noah's immediate surrounds; the boat stopped down the road. It appeared the whole earth was drenched. There was no description reported in Egypt or Lebanon; none in Tasmania; none reported a global flood destroying their towns of the 100's of nations surrounding Noah's town; no lies or mis-reportings occur when the text is correctly understood.

quote:

The text does not say some of the high hills but ALL.

The text does not say the high hills in Noah's region but ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE WHOLE (ENTIRE) HEAVEN.


ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE WHOLE (ENTIRE) HEAVEN - [in Noah's town]. Yes it says that!

quote:

One day maybe you will understand the difference in a boat and an ark. But I am beginning to have my doubts.

A boat is a vessel that is designed to travel through the water. Most have a v bottom with a pointed bow and a narrower stern than the beam.

Noah's ark was built with the same dimensions of width from the front to the back. The length is the same from side to side. The height was the same from end to end and side to side.

In other words it was a rectangle cube.

Now the ark was sitting on dry land when it was built. The water rose and the ark floated. It does not make any difference whether the water rose just enough to float the ark or whether the water rose 50 miles deep on all the earth. If the water then receeded somehow to the point there was dry land below the ark when it settled it would be on dry land.

So what is the problem you are trying to allude to with your statement?

There would be no problem for the ark floating and keeping those on board safe whether it was a local flood or a world wide flood.


I was not alluding, nor making an issue of arc or boat; your descriptions only favor my position: the arc or boat, whatever, was designed only to float, stable and safe; apparently given with a clear knowledge of engineering equations of force and bouyancy. The text is advanced in its knowledge: it even understands what dimensions to give for how many people and animals, with super PC mathematical ability, even able to easure how many days before Noah's vicinity would remain submerged. I doubt whether 40 days of rain would submerge the whole earth and heavens - some countries have non-stop monsoon rains for like six months and still pop up unscathed. What's your point?

quote:

The mountains would exist whether they were covered with water or not.

The tallest mountain in the world from base to top is Mount Lamlam with an elevation of 1334 feet above sea level. but from the base to the top it is 37,820 feet tall.

Drop Mt Everest in the trench beside Lamlam and it would be covered by over a mile of water.

There are mountains and mountain ranges that are competely covered with water with only a few peaks sticking out of the water. Those peaks are called Islands.

So what problem do you see with the ark floating if all the mountains of the earth was covered with water?

Why would the mountains not exist if the were covered with water?


The mountains would not exist if the water and land was not seperated as per Ch. 1. If the world was again covered wth water - as in ch. 1 - the mountains would not be seen. But the mountain tops after the flood were seen! Your error of the text reading!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2011 2:01 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by ICANT, posted 11-07-2011 2:34 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 245 of 306 (639923)
11-04-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by ICANT
11-04-2011 4:23 PM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
quote:

I am saying chapter 1 refers to creation; chapter 7 refers to a localised story of a human community.

That is not what I asked you.

I asked the question:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying chapter 6 and chapter 7 are talking about two arks and two floods that Noah went through?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please answer the question.


Its a ridiculous question. What brought up such a question?

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT'

Is this a quote? If so from who and where.

OR is it just an assertion of IamJoseph?

One thing for sure that statement is not in the Bible.


It shows again you are making statements which indicate you have not studied this writings in any measure of merit, which would not allow you to understand what you are describing. Here you are:

quote:
21/11. 'Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice;

Sarah knew and saw more than Abraham. This was also the case with Isaac's wife Rebecca concerning Esau and Jacob. Both were vindicated as above the male prophets' spiritual vision or insights if you will - agreed ultimately by the male prophets themselves. But for these prophetess' directives there would be no Judaism, Christianity or Islam today, nor any nation or people called Hebrew or Israel. This was also seen with Esther later. Life and its sustainence is kept in the palms and sub-consciousness of the woman, never in the man alone.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
The vine is the quickest producing plant of all. Noah wanted wine; he should have planted grain for food.

A tomato plant will produce fruit in 55 to 90 days from planting.


Your error again. Tomatoes are a recent discovery as a consumable food. In ancient times only foods which did not corrupt had any value.

quote:

A grape vine will produce fruit in 2 years from planting.


The vine gives wine in a very short time, unlike grains and olives. Noah was drunk the first thing he consumed.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
Its qualified by IN HIS GENERATION;

All of the animals alive on all the dry land existed in his generation.


Yes, including snakes, tigers, elephants, bears. But these are not included in the list of animals. Guess why!

quote:

But nothing you said refuts the fact the text says all, every, whole. You can't get rid of those words by simply saying they were not in his generation.


Everything I said, does.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
He was made a witness, but he failed bceaiuse he did not implore anyone; he never argued the case with God as did Abraham and Moses.

I don't find where God told Noah to witness to anyone.


Correct. But Abraham acted differently when told an entire city would be destroyed. Noah did not emulate this act. Noah did not argue to save the children, or to ask if the town will be saved if he finds 10 good men. Abraham did - relentlessly. If someone tells you it is a blessing to kill one from a different belief or that they are born of a devil - it becomes a test how you respond: Abrahamically - or Noahically. Therein is the difference between a rightious and a rightious only within his own mindset and self interest; the dfference between the Godly and UnGodly. The rest is history, not theology.

quote:

God told Noah to build an ark and to gather food for himself and his family along with the animals that would make the journey with him. God told him there was to be 7 clean animals and a male and female of all unclean animals.

He wasn't told to do anything else. So get off his back.


No sir. Getting off his back is a bad lesson. Its a test for all mankind how to behave. It causes holocausts and chants of VE VERE NOT AVARE. You are not understanding what you are reading.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What part of ALL do you not understand?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 1 and 7 are of different scenarios. V7/1 applies to the Noah story.

I will ask the question again.

What part of ALL do you not understand?

What is your definition of ALL?

Take the parts of this post that I did not reply to and make a thread if you desire to pursue a discussion about them. We only have just over 50 posts in this thread to discuss the flood.


Why repeat the same. ALL in this writing refers to NOAH AND HIS HOUSEHOLD. I did not invent that verse - its in the text.

MOSTLY OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Address only topic related comments.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2011 4:23 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by ICANT, posted 11-05-2011 1:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 246 of 306 (639939)
11-05-2011 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by IamJoseph
11-04-2011 9:27 PM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
Hi Joseph,

IamJoseph writes:

It shows again you are making statements which indicate you have not studied this writings in any measure of merit,

Well if you had said what Sarah said I could have found it with no problem.

quote:
Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

IamJoseph writes:

Sarah knew and saw more than Abraham.

Where do you get that hair brained idea from?

Do you have any idea how to read and understand the Bible?

You need to know the answer to 5 questions and the proper application rule before you can understand any text or report a story.

The 5 point question rule I learned in a journalism class and then restudied it in college in Understanding the Bible class.

You need to know:
Who is speaking or writing.
To whom or about whom is he/she/it speaking or writing.
What subject is he/she/it speaking or writing about.
Why or what is the occasion he/she/it is speaking or writing.
When are they speaking or writing.

God was speaking to Abraham about listening to Sarah.

What was the reason God made this statement?

quote:
21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

21:10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

21:11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son.


So the reason God was speaking to Abraham was that Sarah had saw Ishmael mocking, and because of that Sarah told Abraham to cast out the bondwoman and her son.

Abraham was grieved because Ishmael was his son.

And because of that God told Abraham to listen to Sarah and cast out the bondwoman and his son.

So your conclusions are as phoney as a three dollar bill.

So the text you are using to make Sarah into some great spiritual visionary mind is taken competely out of context.

She was simply letting her jealously show and demanding that Abraham send Haggar and Ishmael away.

IamJoseph writes:

Tomatoes are a recent discovery as a consumable food. In ancient times only foods which did not corrupt had any value.

Then I guess you have never eaten any wild tomatos.
The aztecs in South America used them in their cooking in 500 BC.

IamJoseph writes:

The vine gives wine in a very short time

The vine don't give wine. The grapes are crushed getting the juice out of them and then the juice is fermented turning it into wine.

I can plant corn in the middle of March and harvest it in late October and make 180 proof white lightening out of it by Christmas.

So grain is a lot faster than grapes from planting to producing wine.

You are talking to a farm boy that was used to having a 5 gallon jug behind the seat of the old Model A in case the gas tank got empty. In other words we provided our own ethanol.

IamJoseph writes:

No sir. Getting off his back is a bad lesson. Its a test for all mankind how to behave. It causes holocausts and chants of VE VERE NOT AVARE. You are not understanding what you are reading.

I understand exactly what I am reading but I have no idea what you are even talking about must less understand what you are reading or who you are reading behind.

You ain't reading the Bible.

IamJoseph writes:

Why repeat the same. ALL in this writing refers to NOAH AND HIS HOUSEHOLD. I did not invent that verse - its in the text.

When I have a question I always ask it and usually ask until I get an answer but I am going to make an exception for you.

What is your definition of ALL?
What is your definition of ALL FLESH?

quote:
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

What does every living thing of all flesh mean in this verse?

This is the last time I will ask.

God Bless,

MOSTLY OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Address only topic related comments.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2011 9:27 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2011 5:11 AM ICANT has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 247 of 306 (639948)
11-05-2011 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by ICANT
11-05-2011 1:02 AM


Re: ONCE MORE WITH FEELINGS.
quote:

So the reason God was speaking to Abraham was that Sarah had saw Ishmael mocking, and because of that Sarah told Abraham to cast out the bondwoman and her son.

Abraham was grieved because Ishmael was his son.

And because of that God told Abraham to listen to Sarah and cast out the bondwoman and his son.


No sir. It is inappropriate to conclude Sarah's extraordinary decison would rest on a mere mocking, and worse that you conclude such was sanctioned by God. A journalist must know how to see an underlying cadence here, judge by the harsh decision taken by Sarah, and look deeper at what is occuring. Mocking by children is not a great crime! But this is beyond the topic and your journalism rules.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by ICANT, posted 11-05-2011 1:02 AM ICANT has taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 248 of 306 (640135)
11-07-2011 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by IamJoseph
11-04-2011 8:53 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
Hi Joseph,

I had over looked this message and since you can't reply to my last message I will reply to this one.

IamJoseph writes:

A first verse is also a header

So when was the flood story divided into chapter's and verses?

In other words who decided Genesis 7:1 would be the first verse of Chapter 7?

IamJoseph writes:

One has to retain and infuse all factors of the text in making a conclusion.

So explain why does this verse not include the word household?

quote:
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

This verse lists who is supposed to be in the ark.
It mentions nothing about Noah's tame animals.
This verse mentions who is in the household (family) of Noah.

quote:
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

This verse tells Noah what animals are to be on the ark.

ומכל־החי translation, and from all the life
מכל־בשר from all flesh
שנים two
מכל from all
תביא will come
אל־התבה־־להחית to the vessel to exist
אתד at you
זכר male
ונקבה and female
יהיו they exist

Reading:
And from all the life from all flesh two from all will come to the vessel to exist at you male and female they exist.

Please explain from that verse what creature on planet Earth would not come to the vessel to be able to exist?

That is the reason I asked you for your definition's of 'all', and 'every'.

I find no life form left out in either word.

Now you claim Genesis 7:1 is a header for what follows.

Where is the header for the description of who and what is to get on the ark in Genesis 6:18, 19?

Those verses preceed your assertion of 7:1.

Your famous word household in English means:

quote:
1.
a. A domestic unit consisting of the members of a family who live together along with nonrelatives such as servants.
b. The living spaces and possessions belonging to such a unit.
2. A person or group of people occupying a single dwelling:

Source

The Hebrew word ביתד translated as house means:
1) house
2) place
3) receptacle
4) home, house as containing a family
5) household, family

The KJV translates ביתד as house.

The LXX translates ביתד to the Greek word οικος which is translated family.

A family is what is covered in Genesis 6:18.

IamJoseph writes:

No, your grammar is faulty. Read: 'Two of ALL flesh - [of Noah's household]'

The problem is that Genesis 7:17 has no Hebrew word indicating household in it.

It does have the Hebrew words מכל־בשר meaning all flesh.

There is no mention of region or household in the verse.

IamJoseph writes:

ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE WHOLE (ENTIRE) HEAVEN - [in Noah's town]. Yes it says that!

Where does the text say: "in Noah's town"?

I would still like to know what your definition of 'all' is.

IamJoseph writes:

I was not alluding, nor making an issue of arc or boat; your descriptions only favor my position: the arc or boat, whatever, was designed only to float, stable and safe; apparently given with a clear knowledge of engineering equations of force and bouyancy.

The point I am trying to make is that the ark was not a boat.

It was a rectangular cube built for volume and to keep the occupants safe.

To construct the ark as a boat would reduce the load capacity by over one third thus reducing the number of humans and other living creaturers that has the breath of life in them.

But I don't see where that favors your position.

Your position is that it was small and could not hold two of all the critters on Earth therefore it had to be a local flood.

IamJoseph writes:

If the world was again covered wth water - as in ch. 1 - the mountains would not be seen.

Yes the mountains (high hills) would not be seen if they were covered with water.

IamJoseph writes:

But the mountain tops after the flood were seen!

But dry land was not seen until:

quote:
8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

So Noah saw the face of the ground was dry when he removed the covering of the ark.

It says Noah saw the face of the ground nothing is mentioned of him seeing the high hills or mountains.

Prior to this event Noah sent out a dove to see if the land was dry.

quote:
8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

But the Dove found no dry land as the face of the whole earth was covered with water.

What is your definition of whole?

IamJoseph writes:

Your error of the text reading!

I will agree that we are reading the text different.

That only means either one of us is wrong or both of us is wrong.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by IamJoseph, posted 11-04-2011 8:53 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2011 1:17 AM ICANT has taken no action
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2011 11:37 PM ICANT has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 249 of 306 (640252)
11-08-2011 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by ICANT
11-07-2011 2:34 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
I had over looked this message and since you can't reply to my last message I will reply to this one.

The Monitor is totally out of line, but shame on those who were silent of it.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by ICANT, posted 11-07-2011 2:34 PM ICANT has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 250 of 306 (640362)
11-08-2011 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by ICANT
11-07-2011 2:34 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:

So when was the flood story divided into chapter's and verses?

In other words who decided Genesis 7:1 would be the first verse of Chapter 7?


The text order was always the same; the Greeks merely gave them numbers for verses and sub-chapters, an intelliginet input, but also subject to a detraction from the original process of deliberations. Originally, there were no spaces between verses and passages, yet all was in context; this is why most interpret EYE FOR AN EYE as revenge as opposed just compensation for accidental damages. The eye for an eye is embedded in a long list of accidental damages and compensation only. Revenge and deep held grudges are forbidden.

quote:

So explain why does this verse not include the word household?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This verse lists who is supposed to be in the ark.
It mentions nothing about Noah's tame animals.
This verse mentions who is in the household (family) of Noah.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This verse tells Noah what animals are to be on the ark.


Very simple explanation. After nominating who will enter the arc [Noah and his entire household], the text now enumerates them as confirmation. Note how all refer only to Noah's household and possessions for sustainence and re-growth of a small family - not all life forms of the earth.

quote:

Reading:
And from all the life from all flesh two from all will come to the vessel to exist at you male and female they exist.

Please explain from that verse what creature on planet Earth would not come to the vessel to be able to exist?

That is the reason I asked you for your definition's of 'all', and 'every'.

I find no life form left out in either word.


Only domestic animals and household owned animals are listed. Not a single wild animal makes the list - no snakes or elephants. This is no typo.

quote:

Now you claim Genesis 7:1 is a header for what follows.

Where is the header for the description of who and what is to get on the ark in Genesis 6:18, 19?

Those verses preceed your assertion of 7:1.

Your famous word household in English means:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
a. A domestic unit consisting of the members of a family who live together along with nonrelatives such as servants.
b. The living spaces and possessions belonging to such a unit.
2. A person or group of people occupying a single dwelling:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source
The Hebrew word ביתד translated as house means:
1) house
2) place
3) receptacle
4) home, house as containing a family
5) household, family

The KJV translates ביתד as house.

The LXX translates ביתד to the Greek word οικος which is translated family.

A family is what is covered in Genesis 6:18.


Everything points only to Noah's household and possessions. You are reading what you like to read and not reading what you don't like. Header also refers to definitive; pivotal; can appear where it is best in the context; it cannot be rendered superfluous.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
No, your grammar is faulty. Read: 'Two of ALL flesh - [of Noah's household]'

The problem is that Genesis 7:17 has no Hebrew word indicating household in it.

It does have the Hebrew words מכל־בשר meaning all flesh.

There is no mention of region or household in the verse.


However your version translates "'Come thou and all thy house into the ark" - the defining factors are what actually went into the arc, the size of the arc, what is not listed and what is the most correct path. 'HOUSE' [as in 'House of Jacob' - which went to Egypt] refers to the entire family; dynasty; tribe; clan; 71 souls; etc. The 'house of Jacob' became 'Nation of Israel' numbering 3 million in 400 years went they left Egypt in the exodus cencus. No such accounting occurs in the Noah story.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE WHOLE (ENTIRE) HEAVEN - [in Noah's town]. Yes it says that!

Where does the text say: "in Noah's town"?

I would still like to know what your definition of 'all' is.


This is the only reading by precedence and resultant text. Namely, it refers to Noah's region, town, village, etc. Its a localized sector; a household cannt be read as whole earth.

quote:

The point I am trying to make is that the ark was not a boat.


Whatever. It does not impact.

quote:

Your position is that it was small and could not hold two of all the critters on Earth therefore it had to be a local flood.


My position is it was not a boat/ship/arc for all the life forms on the planet but for one large group of families, including their wives, children and each group's vital possessions.

quote:

But the mountain tops after the flood were seen!

But dry land was not seen until:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Noah saw the face of the ground was dry when he removed the covering of the ark.

It says Noah saw the face of the ground nothing is mentioned of him seeing the high hills or mountains.

Prior to this event Noah sent out a dove to see if the land was dry.


Noah could only see the dry ground in his immediate region; he could not see the ground in Tasmania! This is also true of a dove sent to check the region - it could not possible fly all over the planet and report back - it could only fly a small distance in the region and report back; this was all Noah would have required to know.

quote:

What is your definition of whole?


It is subject to its extenuating qualifications. Whole of the universe, or whole of a small cup of wine?

quote:

I will agree that we are reading the text different.

That only means either one of us is wrong or both of us is wrong.


Yes, I was not having a go at you - many hold your position sincerely. However, only one reading is plausible and coherent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by ICANT, posted 11-07-2011 2:34 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by ICANT, posted 11-09-2011 12:38 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 251 of 306 (640428)
11-09-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by IamJoseph
11-08-2011 11:37 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
Hi Joseph,

IamJoseph writes:

The text order was always the same;

What is your evidence for that assertion?

I don't know who you believe wrote the Torah but I believe Moses wrote the Torah.

I believe that Moses wrote the Torah during the 40 years of wandering around in the wilderness from the information God gave him on the mount during the 40 days he spent with God.

The children of Israel has just spent 400 years making bricks for the Egyptians so they knew how to make tablets out of clay.

Moses would have had access to plenty of material to record the texts on.

The problem is the tablets would not have been very durable which would account for us not having any of the originals.

IamJoseph writes:

the Greeks merely gave them numbers for verses and sub-chapters, an intelliginet input,

Around 586 BC the 5 books of Moses was put into 154 sections for reading purposes.

Around 536 BC the 5 books was put into 54 sections and 669 sub-divisions for reading.

The NT was divided into paragraphs around 325 AD.

The Bible was divided into chapters and verses in the 13th century AD. And was further revised in the 16th century AD.

So verses and chapters have not been around very long.

The original texts was written without division of the words much less chapters and verses.

So it would have been no problem for a copyist to get things mixed up.

IamJoseph writes:

Very simple explanation. After nominating who will enter the arc [Noah and his entire household], the text now enumerates them as confirmation. Note how all refer only to Noah's household and possessions for sustainence and re-growth of a small family - not all life forms of the earth.

Yes, I know that is what you assert as it fits your worldview.

But that is not what the text says.

quote:
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Who was to be in the ark?

Thou shalt come into the ark.
Thy sons shalt come into the ark.
Thy wife shalt come into the ark.
Thy son's wives shalt come into the ark.

I can't find where it says, thy domesticated animals shalt come into the ark.
I can't find where it says, Wild animals shalt come into the ark.

I do find where the text says:

quote:
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

There is no mention of domesticated or wild living thing of all flesh.

That text says EVERY living thing of ALL FLESH.

It does not say some living thing's of some flesh.

That is the reason I asked what your meaning of 'every' and 'all' was.

quote:
7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


Genesis 7:7 agrees with Genesis 6:18. Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth and their wives were to go into the ark, and they did.

Genesis 7:8 agrees with Genesis 6:19. Of everything that moved upon the Earth was to be in the ark.

Genesis 7:9 says male and female of all listed in Genesis 7:8 went into the ark. Noah had nothing to do with the critters that came to the ark. God provided the critters.

IamJoseph writes:

Only domestic animals and household owned animals are listed. Not a single wild animal makes the list - no snakes or elephants. This is no typo.

I read no place in Genesis chapter 6 or 7 the word domestic animals.
In fact the word does not exist in the KJV Bible, or Hebrew text.

Snakes and elephants are unclean animals so there were male and female of each on the ark.

IamJoseph writes:

However your version translates "'Come thou and all thy house into the ark" - the defining factors are what actually went into the arc

Genesis 6:18 tells us what humans are to be in the ark.
Genesis 6:19 tells us what animals are to be in the ark.

Genesis 7:7 tells us what humans entered the ark.
Genesis 7:8 tells us what animals entered the ark, clean and unclean.
Genesis 7:9 tells us how many of each entered the ark.

So if the critters that actually went into the ark is the defining factors your interpertation of domestic animals is false.

But you are welcome to your opinion. It just happens to be wrong.

IamJoseph writes:

This is the only reading by precedence and resultant text. Namely, it refers to Noah's region, town, village, etc. Its a localized sector; a household cannt be read as whole earth.

You are right a household can not be read as whole earth.

But the whole earth can not be read as a household which is what you are doing.

The text says:

quote:
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

That says that all the high hills were covered with water.

It does not say in the region Noah lived in. If it did it would have been a lot easier for Noah to take his family and his animals and move to a different location. He had 120 years before the flood so traveling 20 miles a day he and all of his could have traveled 876,000 miles in the 120 years or he could have traveled 7,300 miles in 1 year.

So why build an ark? As it was a waste of time if there was only a local flood, as you claim.

But if all the high hills under heaven was covered with water there was no dry land.

Since you disagree name the hill that would still be dry.

IamJoseph writes:

Whatever. It does not impact.

What do you mean it would not impact?

If the ark was built like a boat is built to travel through the water there would have been over 1,500,000 cubit feet less storage space on the ark. That would be over 10 acres of storage space with rooms 3 feet high for the animals.

So it would make a big impact.

IamJoseph writes:

My position is it was not a boat/ship/arc for all the life forms on the planet but for one large group of families, including their wives, children and each group's vital possessions.

I agree it was not for all life forms on the Earth. If that was the case why flood the Earth as nothing would perish if it all was on the ark.

There was not one large group of families. There was 8 people on the ark.

Where do you get children from the text? There is none mentioned.

Where is each group's vital posession mentioned?

You assume a lot of things that there is no evidence for.

IamJoseph writes:

Noah could only see the dry ground in his immediate region; he could not see the ground in Tasmania!

Where does the text say Tasmania existed at that time? The Earth had not been divided when the flood took place.

quote:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


All the water was in one place. But with Tasmania existing there is several land locked lakes meaning all the water is not in one place.

So it would actually depend on where Tasmania was at when the flood took place.

IamJoseph writes:

This is also true of a dove sent to check the region - it could not possible fly all over the planet and report back it could only fly a small distance in the region and report back;

No but the dove could have flown 500 miles in any direction and then returned without stoping to eat.

IamJoseph writes:

It is subject to its extenuating qualifications. Whole of the universe, or whole of a small cup of wine?

Well it is not talking about the universe.
It is not talking about a small cup of wine.

It is talking about the whole Earth under the heavens.

So what is your definition of whole without the Obfuscation?

If I say I am holding a whole apple in my hand, does that mean I am holding only a tablespoon full of an apple in my hand?

That is exactly how you are defining whole.

IamJoseph writes:

Yes, I was not having a go at you, many hold your position sincerely. However, only one reading is plausible and coherent.

You sure fooled me then.

But you are correct there is only one true interpertation of what the text says.

In Message 248 I gave you the Hebrew for Genesis 6:19.

I then asked you to, "Please explain from that verse what creature on planet Earth would not come to the vessel to be able to exist?"

The actual text of the Bible does matter. Not what you or I think it says.

You should have the idea by now that I am a literalist when it comes to what the Bible says.

But you are wrong as to how man readings are plausible and coherent as all the different Bible versions will testify too.

So what is your definition for:

Whole = __________________.
All = _____________________.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2011 11:37 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by IamJoseph, posted 11-10-2011 12:37 AM ICANT has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 252 of 306 (640472)
11-10-2011 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by ICANT
11-09-2011 12:38 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
The NT was divided into paragraphs around 325 AD.

Despite all the hooplah, the Hebrew bible has no evidences of changes, and it is most impossible that it could have been authored by more than one source on one particular time. One would need a super dooper PC to manage this; it is not like changing Shakespear or Einstein - this has transcending math, science, history, geography, laws, dates, names, genealogies and prose all combined. Aside from normal embellishments of indexing and divisions of the text, there is no variances and no proof another wrote it. In fact, none of the nations spoke Hebrew, the reason the then advanced Greeks asked Jews to create its first translation. I hardly know of a single alphabetical book even near the datings of the Hebrew writings. If I am incorrect then pls enlighten me with some hard proof.

quote:

I can't find where it says, thy domesticated animals shalt come into the ark.
I can't find where it says, Wild animals shalt come into the ark.


While the word 'domestic' is new, it does actually say that word in paraphrase. Household, sometimes translated as possessions, means all your families and livestock - aka, domestic stuff.

quote:

I do find where the text says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no mention of domesticated or wild living thing of all flesh.


We've covered this. It does mean domestic, all life forms "as per your household" [the text]. Excluding virus, bacteria and snakes.

quote:

That text says EVERY living thing of ALL FLESH.

It is limited by the qualifications in the text. 'ALL FLESH IN THY HOUSEHOLD'.

YET YOU INSIST THE COMMAND WAS SO UBSURD IT EXPECTED NOAH TO LOCATE EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET: CAN ANYONE DO SO TODAY - WOULD SUCH A COMMAND EVER BE PLAUSIBLE?

quote:
It does not say some living thing's of some flesh.

But it does!

quote:

Snakes and elephants are unclean animals so there were male and female of each on the ark.


Negative. The verse relates only to unclean animals in Noah's possession. This corresponds to the ark size, what is plausibe, and what Noah required to prevail a regional flood. This is not a Walt Disney writings or Alice in Wonderland; it is the most serious and credible work of all writings.

It is nigh impossible to prove an inculcated belief wrong even by reasoning or hard proof: a cherished lie transcends a disdained truth. If you doubt this then tell us who is right - the Gospels or the Quran, both touting the same message of exclusive gate keys, both being mutually exclusive of history, geography, science, math, dates, names and places. It is manifest both cannot be right, which in turn is proof 'belief' does not impact here, because belief can be wrong, bad and false when standing on one simple premise as its proof! And no, this is not the same for all other beliefs, but exclusive to two only!

To conclude this from my end, everything makes sense when this report is seen as a regional flood. It becomes ubsurd when the text is read otherwise. And there is no possibility the writings are conducive to ridicule.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by ICANT, posted 11-09-2011 12:38 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2011 11:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 253 of 306 (640528)
11-10-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by IamJoseph
11-10-2011 12:37 AM


Re: look at what the God characters say
Hi Joseph,

IamJoseph writes:

Despite all the hooplah, the Hebrew bible has no evidences of changes, and it is most impossible that it could have been authored by more than one source on one particular time.

Are you saying the entire OT was written by one man?

Or, that one man wrote the Torah?

I agree Moses wrote the Torah.

But there has been many copies since Moses wrote the original writings.

IamJoseph writes:

While the word 'domestic' is new, it does actually say that word in paraphrase. Household, sometimes translated as possessions, means all your families and livestock - aka, domestic stuff.

quote:
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.


These verses specify who and what was to be in the ark.

quote:
7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


These verses specify exactly what entered the ark.

There is nothing in those verses that specify Noah's domestic animals.

Verse 8 does specify two of everything that creepeth upon the Earth.

What does that verse leave out?

What does the word כל translated every thing mean?

Hint: All

What is your definition of 'all'?

IamJoseph writes:

We've covered this. It does mean domestic, all life forms "as per your household" [the text]. Excluding virus, bacteria and snakes.

Where does the text limit or say "as per your household"?
Where does the text exclude viruses, bacteria and snakes?

quote:
7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

There are two classifications of critters. Clean and Unclean. There is no division into domestic or wild. There is no division of Included and Excluded.

There is 1 division "ALL".

IamJoseph writes:

It is limited by the qualifications in the text. 'ALL FLESH IN THY HOUSEHOLD'.

What verse says 'ALL FLESH IN THY HOUSEHOLD'?

quote:
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Fowls after their kind.
Cattle after their kind.
Every creeping thing of the Earth after his kind.
Two of every sort shall come unto thee to keep them alive.

What critter got left out of that verse?

The Hebrew word רמש translated creeping thing means creeping things, moving things, all things moving on all fours or upon their belly.

IamJoseph writes:

YET YOU INSIST THE COMMAND WAS SO UBSURD IT EXPECTED NOAH TO LOCATE EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET: CAN ANYONE DO SO TODAY - WOULD SUCH A COMMAND EVER BE PLAUSIBLE?

Where have I insisted that Noah had to locate every living thing on planet Earth?

The text plainly says:

quote:
7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


Verse 7 says Noah and his sons and his wife and their wives went into the ark.

Verse 8 describes the critters to be on the ark.

Verse 9 tells us how the critters got in the ark. They came to the ark after Noah and his family was in the ark and went in unto Noah.

Noah had nothing to do with who or what critters came to the ark.

Noah was responsible for building the ark.

Noah was responsible for Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, his wife and the wives of his sons, being on the ark.

Noah was also responsible for food being on the ark for his family and for the animals.

Noah was not responsible for anything else.

More confirmation:

quote:
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Two of every sort shall come unto thee.

Noah did not have to go look for them.

Your assertion is baseless.

Unless you believe God could not deliver the animals to the ark.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:
It does not say some living thing's of some flesh.

But it does!

Which verse states some living thing's of some flesh?

IamJoseph writes:

Negative. The verse relates only to unclean animals in Noah's possession.

You keep asserting that but you can't produce the verse that says animals in Noah's posession.

That is your interpertation of בית which means house or family.

You interpret it to mean Noah's family, domestic animals, and his region.

The Hebrew word חבל translates territory or region.

The Hebrew word כלי translates article, vessel, implement, utensil.

The Hebrew word חי is translated clean or unclean beast and means living, or alive.

Now if the writer had wanted to limit the area to Noah's territory or region he could have used חבל but he did not.

If he had wanted to refer to Noah's stuff he would have used כלי. But he did not.

IamJoseph writes:

This corresponds to the ark size, what is plausibe, and what Noah required to prevail a regional flood.

You never did tell me how many cubic feet of storage space would be required to house 2 of all the 10 to 15 thousand species alive today on Earth.

Just as soon as you get me that number which you assert could not fit on the ark I will tell you whether they will fit or not.

If it was just his goats, sheep, cattle dogs, cats, 7 pair of doves and a pair of ravens he spent too many years building the ark because he did not need an ark 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits to house his family and those.

IamJoseph writes:

To conclude this from my end, everything makes sense when this report is seen as a regional flood.

So what makes sense to you superceeds what the text says.

I am sorry but that is why we have so many false beliefs and false religions in the world.

What you believe and judge makes sense does not superceed what the text says.

The text says:

quote:
Genesis 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.


The Hebrew word ארץ translated dry land in Genesis 1:10 is translated earth in 7:19 above.

The high hills that were covered was on that dry land and were dry themselves until covered with water.

The Hebrew words כל־השמים translated whole heaven is the noun כל meaning all and the noun השמים meaning heavens.

Now you can try any way you desire to get that to mean the region in which Noah lived all you want but you can not get the text to support your assertion.

It plainly says all the dry land and the hills on it under the heavens was covered with water.

For any dry land or hill not to be covered with water it had to be above heavens.

That is the reason I have asked you numerous times what the word 'ALL' means.

It seems you have no idea what 'ALL' means.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by IamJoseph, posted 11-10-2011 12:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 11-10-2011 6:10 PM ICANT has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 254 of 306 (640573)
11-10-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by ICANT
11-10-2011 11:37 AM


Re: look at what the God characters say
quote:
Are you saying the entire OT was written by one man?

Or, that one man wrote the Torah?

I agree Moses wrote the Torah.

But there has been many copies since Moses wrote the original writings.


The point is that there is no evidence more than one person wrote the five books attributed to Moses, and that if one man wrote these five books, around the time given, IMHO it is a greater feat than any God writing it. I see no motive to nominate these books written by one person because it becomes more credible if more than one wrote it, namely it gives it proof of credibility as a witnessing, while one person makes it less credible. The Noah story, like the Creation chapter in Genesis, is enigmatic writings which are not conclusive to its rejection and/or acceptance, as in other fable stories - this is why it is so open to rage and anxst. It is not discardable completely - as history has proven. Too many vindicated and new premises apply here, intermixed with what seems not credible. We cannot identify our ancestry today as effectively as in the geneologies of these writings, even with the aid of recorded data and computers. Try to date the name and dod and dob of your great grand father's fifth son - give it the correct name and spelling of its time?!

Its not about what one thinks or concludes - one does not have to be a rocket scientiist to propose more than one would probably had to write it. The point remains we have no proof how these were devised or how one could do so; the evidences given for why it was made by different people at different times is nothing short of hogwash, as with the notion these are copied from previous works and beliefs. This issue is enigmatic and mysterious, while threatening to contradict everything our emperical reasoning depends on. The writing contradicts everything ancient Egypt stood for; it aligns with everything Abraham similarly contradicted everything his generation stood for. The fact is that Monotheism was a greater thought than Einstein's MC2 - for its time. It overturned every divine king nation and belief on its head, earning their wrath and an ongoing series of existential wars - today seen in the numerous religions battling for its ownership.

What is not realised is that the prevailing belief systems prior to monotheism were very serious belief systems, exactly as we see serious and genuine belief today: a father would sacrifice his most cherished child for such beliefs. Monotheism was thus a great kick in the soul to these belief systems, while it also inspired scientific thought and the universe origins, regardless of whether we accept or reject creationism: it KO'd the mighty Greek and Roman religions of Zeus and Jupiter and caused other paths to be considered. No human thought other than Monotheism and Creationism has upset humanity the same way.

quote:

These verses specify who and what was to be in the ark.


Instead of cherry picking, you should list all the texts which contradict your conclusion, acknowledging why these are enigmatic writings. My interpretation that household is the same as 'domestic' will be seen as standing. Further, are you saying the writer of Noah was in sincere error - or intentionally creating a good story? What are the motives for either - would this beget wealth, power or fame - or was the writer just insane to spend decades writing and accumulating such stuff - was the author a masochist and unafraid of causing his death in going against the system? Why extend a regional flood to a global one - is it to show an almighty, boasting or cruel God - why embed terms such as 'rightiousness' in the story? Why add negative stuff of the hero Noah here - who is the good guy [protagonist] in this story?

What is not realized is that the five books of Moses is a greater feat than building the pyramids or any monument standing today - in terms of time and mental prowess. It has impacted humanity more and outlasted all other factors. The great, older, more advanced nations did NOT create such books - how come?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2011 11:37 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2011 8:53 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 255 of 306 (640591)
11-10-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by IamJoseph
11-10-2011 6:10 PM


Re: look at what the God characters say
Hi Joseph,

IamJoseph writes:

The point is that there is no evidence more than one person wrote the five books attributed to Moses,

I believe Moses wrote the book that was divided into the first 5 books of the Bible.

He had nothing to do with the chapters, verses, or book division.

There is not a single tablet available that Moses wrote in any museum as of this date.

He would have wrote on clay tablets which were made in the wilderness. The materials might not have been perfect and that is the reason none of them have been found.

But we do have what has been copied over years.

The Hebrew I use and we have in the Torah is not what Moses writings looked like. Moses would have written in Paleo-Hebrew which is what was used prior to 585 BC. I think I have an avatar with Paleo on it. I will change it to that one. I would love to use it but I can't find html codes for it.

How many times do you think the text was copied from Moses time until today?

If you were one of those copyist there would be no question about the text supporting a local flood. Do you think there was not others who had some wild ideas and copyed to suit their biases.

IamJoseph writes:

Instead of cherry picking, you should list all the texts which contradict your conclusion,

If you want to refute the texts you say I am quote mining please present the texts you believe does so. It is not my job to refute myself.

IamJoseph writes:

The great, older, more advanced nations did NOT create such books - how come?

But they did create such books. They just poluted the stories that had been handed down to them from their ancestors who was divided into the land after the tower of Babel. And was then divided into the different continents after the flood in Peleg's day.

Moses probably even had the privilege of reading some of them in Pharaohs house. Remember he lived in Pharaohs house for the first 40 years of his life and was educated in the best knowledge in Egypt as he was Pharaohs daughters son by adoption.

BTW there are some of those tablets available in museums today.

Where do you think the stories that is constantly trotted out here and claimed to be older stories which the Torah came from?

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 11-10-2011 6:10 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by IamJoseph, posted 11-10-2011 10:17 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022