The great flood

[Depleted]

It does not matter where he was. If the mountains where you live were completely covered by water, how do you suppose this could happen unless the water of the rest of the world was the same level?

I watched Waterworld, a Kevin Costner dystopian movie, where all the world, but one spot, was ocean. The one spot was treated like an urban myth until they found it at the end. (By that time, it was more than Costner's character.) Now, that you know the premise of the movie, scroll to roughly 4:20 into it, (and, unless you speak Russian, don't even bother with the sound.)
[video=youtube;zn36aqAAoE8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn36aqAAoE8[/video]

Up there with the original movie Planet of the Apes ending. (Or down there, depending on how you like your dystopian.)

AND, since I was just willing to admit I liked both movies, I might as well come clean. I also like disco, Neil Diamond, and Barry Manilow. lol

(By now, it's already been established I agree with you, but at least I got my visual from a movie.)

 

[oldhermit]

I watched Waterworld, a Kevin Costner dystopian movie, where all the world, but one spot, was ocean. The one spot was treated like an urban myth until they found it at the end. (By that time, it was more than Costner's character.) Now, that you know the premise of the movie, scroll to roughly 4:20 into it, (and, unless you speak Russian, don't even bother with the sound.)
[video=youtube;zn36aqAAoE8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn36aqAAoE8[/video]

Up there with the original movie Planet of the Apes ending. (Or down there, depending on how you like your dystopian.)

AND, since I was just willing to admit I liked both movies, I might as well come clean. I also like disco, Neil Diamond, and Barry Manilow. lol

(By now, it's already been established I agree with you, but at least I got my visual from a movie.)

LOL. Yea, I have the movie too.

 

[Depleted]

Good point. I must point out one thing regarding my own statement that scripture never sees things from the human perspective. This is not altogether true because we know that when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still in the sky this is explained from the human perspective. The only thing that would have caused the sun to appear to stand still in the sky would have been for the earth to cease its rotation. It was not the sun that stood still but the earth.

I wouldn't put it past God to think there were no solar flares and the flames on the sun did stay still also. Not sure how that would work, but equally not sure how the earth can stand still without affecting gravity, and making us all fly off it either.

 

[trofimus]

Ummm, huh?
[FONT="]He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters;[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]he makes the clouds his chariot;[/FONT]
[FONT="] he rides on the wings of the wind;[/FONT]

When was the last time you rode your cloud chariot or used the wings of the wind?

And, if you can, the next time you go for a ride with the clouds of your chariot, want to take me with you?

Its David, talking about God. For David, the waters were above. For astronauts on ISS, the waters are below.

Everything is about perspective. The Bible is written by men (even though inspired by God) and for men.

Its from the perspective of men, when it describes "down, up, whole land, below skies, all mountains under heavens, waters above, whole world" etc.
It is not from some kind of planetary orbital perspective.

 

[oldhermit]

I wouldn't put it past God to think there were no solar flares and the flames on the sun did stay still also. Not sure how that would work, but equally not sure how the earth can stand still without affecting gravity, and making us all fly off it either.

You have to remember that this was necessarily a divine act and under divine control. The fact that gravitational forces remained in tact makes the event all the more extraordinary. What this tells us is that gravity, like all the other so-called "laws" of nature, only exists as a set of determined relations that can be overturned or suspended by the will of God. It is not the rotation of the earth that controls gravity, this is just a mechanic. God alone is the source and the causative agent.

 

[hornetguy]

There is no gravity inside the earth.. there is outside of the earth... have a nice day tatyy buyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

and, this proves my first statement....

The concept of gravity escapes you, I think...

 

[valiant]

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

Yes really. Otherwise Shem would be alive in the time of Isaac and would be mentioned as the father of the clan,

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant

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.

It appears to me, you got a big problem... A recommendation from an old man.

Go find a place where there are no others, no noise, no distractions.....Get on your knees and talk to GOD with all the seriousness and humbleness you can muster.!

look sonny, I have no problem. My problem is with those who don't take Scripture seriously enough to REALLY study it and find out what it ACTUALLY says instead of reading it as though it had been written today.

 

[valiant]

No, scripture was not revealed THROUGH the mind of man but TO the mind of man. Both Paul and Peter was very clear about Paul confirms that, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Peter tells us that,"no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Both of these facts removes man completely from the equation.

Rubbish. Paraphrases again, Pity you don't read what Scripture actually SAYS.

 

[valiant]

Then we do not agree at all. Man is not a contributor to revelation.

wow, you'd better tell Paul that and Isaiah.

 

[valiant]

Then we do not agree at all. Man is not a contributor to revelation.

yes its a waste of time my talking to someone who doesn't think. However what I have written is for those who DO think.

 

[oldhermit]

Valiant, I think you an I are done here. There is simply no point is beating a dead horse.

 

[valiant]

Gen 7:20 "The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered."

but it doesn't say which mountains or how high they were then

 

[valiant]

Valiant, I think you an I are done here. There is simply no point is beating a dead horse.

true, but you might come alive again lol actually i'm writing for those who THINK.

 

[valiant]

It does not matter where he was. If the mountains where you live were completely covered by water, how do you suppose this could happen unless the water of the rest of the world was the same level?

If the mountains were say 2000 metres high they could easily be covered, just as the mountains in the Black Sea were, without requiring a worldwide flood. You just assume what you need to prove..

 

[oldhermit]

Valiant, since you claim to be proficient in Greek, translate this.
Αυτό είναι το τέλος της συνομιλίας ἡμῶν

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by oldhermit

Do you not know the difference between the text and an interpretation of a text? The text says, "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." There is no interpretation here. This is just what the text says. Anything else would be an interpretation in an attempt to minimize and discredit the language of the text.

'the rain fell upon the land for forty days and forty nights. -- the water prevailed more and more on the land so that all the high mountains under the heavens (as seen by Noah and his sons) were covered.

THIS is the text. We have then to interpret it.

 

[valiant]

If God says the waters were "above", how does this immediately assume this is written from the perspective of man? Thinlk about that for a moment.

man has always known there was water above. And of course man wrote of it, in these examples under inspiration.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by oldhermit

Do you not know the difference between the text and an interpretation of a text? The text says, "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." There is no interpretation here. This is just what the text says. Anything else would be an interpretation in an attempt to minimize and discredit the language of the text.

THIS is the text. We have then to interpret it, not to discredit the text but to find out what it is saying. 'All the world' came to hear the wisdom of Solomon. What does that mean?

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by oldhermit

Good point. I must point out one thing regarding my own statement that scripture never sees things from the human perspective. This is not altogether true because we know that when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still in the sky this is explained from the human perspective. The only thing that would have caused the sun to appear to stand still in the sky would have been for the earth to cease its rotation. It was not the sun that stood still but the earth

LOL admitting you are wrong again.................. actually it literally SAYS it was silent.