If a tsunami tilted the earth what could a global flood do?

Floodnut · #**321** 18th July 2005, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by funyun

Ok.

By the way, Floodnut, have you ever personally counted up the genealogies? How do you know they add up to 6,000? Also, do you realize there are certain sections in the Bible where the amount of passage of time is ambiguous and/or not implied or given in any way? Or that there are some people mentioned in the list of genealogies whose ages are not given to us? Ussher made all kinds of assumptions along the way when he came up with his figure of 6,000. The entire conclusion that the earth is only 6,000 years old is based on a foundation of sand. Not only is it empirically and verifiably false to the point that there's really no discussion on the subject at all anymore, but the actually "literal" text of the Bible doesn't support the theory either-- that is, unless you interpret about 1,000 things along the way. But then again, doing so is completely unavoidable when coming to any conclusion with the Bible and only the Bible. Thus the quatation marks around "literal".

Yes, I have personally done the research on the genealogies and other biblical dating information. It is approximately 6000 years. Moreover, dozens of other scholars who also take the Bible in its simple grammatical sense agree with this assessment. Of course others who don't take it in the strict grammatical sense come up with no particular age, they follow whatever "modern" science declares to be the age of the Earth, rather than following Jesus.

Several of your statements about uncertainy, vagueness, and indefiniteness are simply misinformed, or unbelief. I won't say the statements by you are lies, as is the usual tactic of my opponents when they disagree with me.

The earth is 6000 years according to the Scirptures and Jesus says that the Word of God and obedient belief of it is the foundation of Rock. The earth, according to Scripture is about 6000 years old, take or leave it.

Floodnut · #**322** 18th July 2005, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Peris

circular reasoning at its best

you assume jesus is infallible
how do you know this for sure
how do you know that stories written mostly from orally transferred information are 100% true?
howcome stories written 2000 years ago in urban legend fashion get more credibility from you than well researched and peer reviewed science?

Jesus is sinless, infallible, the eternal logos, God in the Flesh. All that he affirmed is true.

The Sciptures of the Christian Faith are infallible and reliably transmitted to us in the Masoretic and the Majority Text. These "Stories from 2000 years ago" were true then and they are true now. Not only are the ones written 2000 years ago true, but those written 4100 years ago are true as well. "Well researched and peer reviewed science" that is contrary to Scirpture is still contrary to Scripture. Scripture is right in that case and the Science is not true Science, but misinformed interpretation or lies.

Floodnut · #**323** 18th July 2005, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by corvus_corax

Where is the topography change detailed?

It is not detailed, but it is declared in Psalm 104.

Mechanical Bliss · #**324** 18th July 2005, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Floodnut

The earth, according to Scripture is about 6000 years old, take or leave it.

The Sciptures of the Christian Faith are infallible....

These two statements are mutually exclusive.

corvus_corax · #**325** 18th July 2005, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Floodnut

It is not detailed, but it is declared in Psalm 104.

Well, you're right about one thing...
It's not detailed

Pertinent from Ps104-
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.

Its pretty clear here that the mountains were in place before the flood, even according to the bible.

So I ask again, where is this topography (specifically the change in topography) detailed?

Please address my question directly and with actual evidence this time. I really hate wasting my time asking over and over again for evidence and then getting nothing but assertions and inappropriate bible quotes.

Floodnut · #**326** 18th July 2005, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by TheBear

So, it was not 270 different sources from around the globe cooberating the flood. They were just repeating something handed down to them, with modifications here and there.

Thanks.

Glad to have cleared up that simple fact for you.

Floodnut · #**327** 18th July 2005, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by corvus_corax

Just like the Flood Story, the Tower of Babel is based on an earlier Sumerian story (circa 3000 BC)
Seems the Bible is full of Sumerian literature
Are Sumerian Myths also infallible, as some claim the Bible is?

BTW, the Tower of Babel story contradicts earlier statements in the bible.
Note-
Genesis 11:1- "Now the whole world had one language and a common speech."
But earlier scripture says the exact opposite-
Genesis 10:5- "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations"

So it seems that the languages were already diverse before the tower of Babel incident

No, the Biblical account of Babel is not based on the Sumerian account. The Sumerian account is based on the original account recorded by Moses in Genesis, and I might add, recorded under the direction of the Holy Spirit so that the record of Genesis is infallible. Sumerian myths are fallible mythologies. And you are wrong if you think the general description of 10:5 is contradicted by the account of the specifics in the verses that follow. 10:5 was written in 1445 BC well after the facts as they are recorded in 11:1. There was one language at the time of the Bable event.

Floodnut · #**328** 18th July 2005, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by TheBear

Oh this is rich.

Let's follow along, shall we?

How about this.

Instead of jumping in the middle of something and being rude about it in the process, ("duh!"), how about just backing off and letting GodsSamus answer my question directed to him, on a statement he made.

Fair enough?

How about this: Converse with whoever you wish via private e-mail if you wish to exclude the public from the discussion? Fair enough? And things that are for public comment put on the public forum ok? Duh and duh again.

Grengor · #**329** 18th July 2005, 09:42 PM

Does it say in the Bible that the people writing this are guided by the Holy Spirit? I've seen this before, but how come I get the feelings its an assumption?

Floodnut · #**330** 18th July 2005, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Mechanical Bliss

To call the measured age of the earth an assumption is not honest. It is a conclusion from evidence, not an assumption. And to provide no evidence why the explanation is wrong does not make your assertion credible just like essentially every assertion you've made in this thread and others in C&E.

The notion of a global flood was disproved two centuries ago by Christian creationists who were geologists and had the intellectual honesty to admit that they were wrong. The evidence indicates this quite readily, as has been provided for you in the past (and predictably ignored). You are wrong.

Measured? BUNK! The Bible is infallible and inspired by God, and God declares plainly that the Earth is about 6000 years old. 4.7 million years is not only an assumption, it flies directly in the face of the facts. God says it is about 6000 years old, what will you do with the God of the Bible?