The great flood

[valiant]

This is pretty simple to test with the behavior of water. Pour a glass of water on the ground and see how it behaves. It does not pile up in a heap and simply stay in one spot. It spreads out until the water level reaches an equilibrium. This is a simple fact of physics.

you are clever lol I don't think

 

[oldhermit]

but it is not an accurate translation, and the sons of Noah wrote from their viewpoint, not yours.

and the word earth also means land.

Scripture in NEVER written from the perspective of man. If you believe it is then you do not understand what the Bible is. Secondly, sons of Noah did not leave a written account. Written language would not develop for about another 1000 years. And why would you question the accuracy of the translation. What do you know of the original languages?

 

[Depleted]

After such a cataclysmic event you propose (world wide flood) the life would not recover, no plants etc, everything would have to evolve from the beginning. But according to the Bible, known plants were growing very quickly after the Flood.

It would be also impossible for a land to "dry out" so quickly. What would animals and Noah eat after the Flood? Each other?

What were they and the herbivores living on for those 13 months in the ark? A storage of plants.

My brother lived without a bathroom for a number of years. He can now tell where he dug his latrines by which kind of berries are growing there. Strawberries meant he used it in spring. Blueberries meant June.

I brought in a plant container to protect it from winter damage. I'm growing an oak tree in it now. (No oak trees on my entire block. lol)

Plant seeds are very stubborn on growing. lol

 

[JIMBO43]

What seems logical to you is not what scripture describes. I find it interesting that you are able entertain such an outlandish notion but are not able to simply accept God's own account of the event. What is so impossible to believe that God covered the entire earth with water to a height of 15 cubits above its highest point. Do you believe such a task is too great for God?

i think its a genuine question not outlandish.. i think its a very reasonable and fair question on the grounds of facts... but dont know why you would just totaly dismiss it... especially when millions cant agree the truth that angels did in fact create montrosities. and the legends and the renown too

 

[valiant]

What seems logical to you is not what scripture describes. I find it interesting that you are able entertain such an outlandish notion but are not able to simply accept God's own account of the event. What is so impossible to believe that God covered the entire earth with water to a height of 15 cubits above its highest point. Do you believe such a task is too great for God?

No but I question whether God did it. He was out to destroy mankind, not the earth. It does NOT say a height of 15 cubits at its highest point. It says all the mountains that he could see were covered. They could have been a mere 2000 metres high.

 

[oldhermit]

No but I question whether God did it. He was out to destroy mankind, not the earth. It does NOT say a height of 15 cubits at its highest point. It says all the mountains that he could see were covered. They could have been a mere 2000 metres high.

Then you basic problem is that you simply do not believe scripture. There is no middle ground here. Scripture is either exclusively the work of man (in which case it would be a completely worthless document) or is is exclusively the words of God.

 

[valiant]

Scripture in NEVER written from the perspective of man. If you believe it is then you do not understand what the Bible is. Secondly, sons of Noah did not leave a written account. Written language would not develop for about another 1000 years. And why would you question the accuracy of the translation. What do you know of the original languages?

I prefer to believe the bible lol. Whose perspective do you think the ancient writings were written from? Of course under inspiration from God they wrote from their own perspective.

It tells us it was the family history of Noah's sons. That is good enough for me, whether written or past on by word of mouth..

I am questioning your translation LOL

 

[oldethennew]

yes we should let [scripture] interpret scripture, and not put our views into it.

==========================================

we think enlightened views are a beautiful thing to our Lord, especially after we have learned the 'hard-way' -
which of course is the 'world's-way' before enlightenment/beginnings of our
calling/beginnings/of/over-coming....

 

[oldhermit]

i think its a genuine question not outlandish.. i think its a very reasonable and fair question on the grounds of facts... but dont know why you would just totaly dismiss it... especially when millions cant agree the truth that angels did in fact create montrosities. and the legends and the renown too

Well, lets look at the possibilities. Which is more credible to believe, that God pulled the mood closer to the earth and flooded the lands via massive tidal waves while he stopped the rotation of the earth or that, "in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." One is mere human theory unsupported by the biblical text. The other is the Word of God. Which one caries the greater weight with you?

 

[valiant]

Then you basic problem is that you simply do not believe scripture. There is no middle ground here. Scripture is either exclusively the work of man (in which case it would be a completely worthless document) or is is exclusively the words of God.

we both agree on that. It is your interpretation of it that I query?

but it is the work of both God and man it is not blind dictation

 

[valiant]

Well, lets look at the possibilities. Which is more credible to believe, that God pulled the mood closer to the earth and flooded the lands via massive tidal waves while he stopped the rotation of the earth or that, "in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." One is mere human theory unsupported by the biblical text. The other is the Word of God. Which one caries the greater weight with you?

but what do those phrases mean, that is the question. It simply means lots of water from sea and air,

 

[JIMBO43]

Well, lets look at the possibilities. Which is more credible to believe, that God pulled the mood closer to the earth and flooded the lands via massive tidal waves while he stopped the rotation of the earth or that, "in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered." One is mere human theory unsupported by the biblical text. The other is the Word of God. Which one caries the greater weight with you?

again i tell you that something that rotates can not find its level... That what you said or implied that the flood found its level

 

[oldhermit]

I prefer to believe the bible lol. Whose perspective do you think the ancient writings were written from? Of course under inspiration from God they wrote from their own perspective.

It tells us it was the family history of Noah's sons. That is good enough for me, whether written or past on by word of mouth..

I am questioning your translation LOL

LOL. I do not have a translation. If you are going to challenge the legitimacy of any translation you need to have some manuscript evidence that you can provide that supports you claim, otherwise it is nothing more than unsupported personal bias. The Bible is not a compilation of ancient accounts. It is a representation of the mind of God completely independent of human contribution to its content. If it was written from the perspective of man then it is not revelation.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by oldhermit

Scripture in NEVER written from the perspective of man. If you believe it is then you do not understand what the Bible is. Secondly, sons of Noah did not leave a written account. Written language would not develop for about another 1000 years. And why would you question the accuracy of the translation. What do you know of the original languages

I know both Greek and Hebrew

 

[valiant]

LOL. I do not have a translation. If you are going to challenge the legitimacy of any translation you need to have some manuscript evidence that you can provide that supports you claim, otherwise it is nothing more than unsupported personal bias. The Bible is not a compilation of ancient accounts. It is a representation of the mind of God completely independent of human contribution to its content. If it was written from the perspective of man then it is not revelation.

you have a funny ideal of revelation. God revealed His word through men's minds. Each wrote from his own perspective. God inspired them He did not dictate to them. Your God is too limited. It is because it was written from the perspective of men that we have the different, though not contradictory, ideas.

lol you quoted a translation. But it was not a literal translation,

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by oldhermit LOL. I do not have a translation. If you are going to challenge the legitimacy of any translation you need to have some manuscript evidence that you can provide that supports you claim, otherwise it is nothing more than unsupported personal bias.

I have the manuscript evidence, goodnight lol

 

[Bladerunner]

The answer is very simple:

You cant get the age of the Earth (and timing of other events like Flood) by just counting the life spans of genealogies in the massoretic text of Genesis.
These are not complete.

Incomplete,,,,,,NO not really.....

 

[oldhermit]

I know both Greek and Hebrew

Then by all means, produce your evidence.

 

[Bladerunner]

What were they and the herbivores living on for those 13 months in the ark? A storage of plants.

My brother lived without a bathroom for a number of years. He can now tell where he dug his latrines by which kind of berries are growing there. Strawberries meant he used it in spring. Blueberries meant June.

I brought in a plant container to protect it from winter damage. I'm growing an oak tree in it now. (No oak trees on my entire block. lol)

Plant seeds are very stubborn on growing. lol

Depleted: Rem, the exodus in the desert where God gave the entire Hebrew population enough Water and food to survive.

Also, God was within the Ark with them,,,He is the one who shut the door

 

[Enow]

No but I question whether God did it. He was out to destroy mankind, not the earth. It does NOT say a height of 15 cubits at its highest point. It says all the mountains that he could see were covered. They could have been a mere 2000 metres high.

There are water marks on mountaintops all over the world. You can find marine fossils up there. On the Andes Mountaintops,mass graves of fossilized whale bones with other fossilized marine life were found together WITH fossilized land animal bones; all the fossil hunters have to do is pick them up; no digging necessary.

But of course, the scientists & the media presented it in regards to the evolution theory; not for the obviousness of it being evidence of the world wide Biblical flood. Even though they said....

Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils

Talk about duh. They theorized that it rose from the sea and then refer to a fact that should have disproved that theory.

And to find fossilizeed land animal bones there....right beside these marine fossils... and they REFUSE to see the Biblical flood.

Nearly all of the fossils were embedded in surface rock and easy to pick up, he said. ''That was another great piece of luck, since we couldn't have brought in excavating equipment on horseback,'' he said. ''Best of all, despite weathering, many of the smallest fossils were remarkably intact and will be relatively easy to study.'' The collection represents both sea and land animals, and through the 1,000-foot thickness of the main butte the group explored, the transition from oceanic to terrestrial environments was preserved in a smooth gradient.........


''For example,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we found the oyster beds and sand dollars just beneath the lowest sediments containing land animals...................

Take those evolutionary time table glasses off, and science will see evidence for that world wide Biblical flood.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA - NYTimes.com