Flood Conundrum

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

God already brought them to the Ark Himself without them eating each other. Many animals still show a tendency to hibernate in the dark. This may have come from the influence God had on them as they hibernated on the Ark. So they would need little if any food for the journey. Plus the Ark did not hold one of each species. Only one of each Kind of creepy land animal and bird. And we have no list.

If your going to invent theories, (like my hibernation theory) invent ones that match the scriptures. It's way easier and requires much less imagination.

i don't trust the bible, any more. i am just looking at the evidence, and then inventing theories. i think the hibernation theory might be ok.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

... Only one of each Kind of creepy land animal and bird. And we have no list...

Good post, but you probably meant to say one pair of each kind, and that was only of the unclean "kinds" -even before Moses, God had a "list"- and seven pair of the clean kinds.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

i don't trust the bible, any more. i am just looking at the evidence, and then inventing theories. i think the hibernation theory might be ok.

So you, then, are become the judge of God's Word, rather than God's Word judging you.
It's really lonely playing God, and that is reserved for only a few souls who fearlessly venture to tread where Holy Angels do not tread, and to tread where the Word of God warns us not to tread, and gives examples of the fallout, to come.
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction", it is said, and some sooner rather than later, but in the end, pushing against God will bring an equal and absolutely unequal reaction....

 

[SkyWriting]

i don't trust the bible, any more. i am just looking at the evidence, and then inventing theories. i think the hibernation theory might be ok.

I'm not sure why your still looking at the Bible then, because whatever you are using at your base is no longer worth looking at. Just drop the bible and read watchtower pamphlets or something.

There is really no point in half believing something you read.
Comic books are way more entertaining. Switch to comic books.
There's a great new show on TV all about them.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I'm not sure why your still looking at the Bible then, because whatever you are using at your base is no longer worth looking at. Just drop the bible and read watchtower pamphlets or something.

There is really no point in half believing something you read.
Comic books are way more entertaining. Switch to comic books.
There's a great new show on TV all about them.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

...

 

[Calminian]

But there are a multitude of descriptions and a 100's of conversations in scripture about the earth or the world and none of them even hint that the earth or the cosmos is "young". Not the Pope nor his cohorts can add anything of much value to God's word. Even the Garden had no young-ness to it. So Ussher was mistaken. He was too into details to read the big picture.

Never in my life have I had the urge to follow a lineage backwards, guesstimate how long each generation lived, and use my guesses to determine when some event happened. If God wanted us to know how many years ago some event happened, he would have put time-stamps in scripture with alignments of the planets and stars. Even today pundits sweat at finding some bright lights in the sky to pin down the birth of Jesus. Waste of time.

To tell you the truth, I don't go by Ussher or the Pope, I go by scripture. I was formerly a gapper and a day-ager. They just don't work with the text. Moses said, "in six days God created the heavens, earth and sea and all that is in them." That means all the stars in the heavens and all life and vegetation on earth. The entire cosmos as we understand it, was created in those 6 days.

Yes I realize science has a problem with this and frankly it should. For it must assume a natural uniform explanation. But Genesis says what it says. It also supplies chronological genealogies linking Adam to Noah, and Shem to Terah. It also tells us when Shem was born to Noah and when Abram was born to Terah.

I believe scripture. Believe me, if a gap or some other reading was possible I'd be all over it.

 

[Calminian]

They stem, mainly, from Abraham and Keturah. Keturah was a Canaanite woman, as the Book of Jasher states. Canaan was a son of Ham, but a brother of Mitsraim/Egypt. The Mitsraim branch ended up with the really isolated genes for the kinky black hair -as some tribes of Japheth ended up with the genes for really kinky red hair, but the Canaanites intermarried with the Shemites all along. The sons of Jacob took many Canaanite wives, as the book of Jasher notes, and in Egypt, they took Egyptian wives, also, as well as intermarrying when the numbers increased form the original 70 that went into Egypt. Joseph took an Egyptian wife.

Only after the division at Bab-El did the tribes begin to separate and genetic information got more isolated. It was not like that before the Tower affair.

Abraham sent his six sons by Keturah "to the east", and remember, in the Book of Jasher, the Tower of Babel happened when Abraham was 49 years old, and so the tribes began to scatter by tongue, at that time, and also the earth began to be divided -continents from continent- at that time; as Jasher also states in that the sons of Eber, Peleg and Yoktan made note of those facts by their names, and genetic information was more and more isolated, as they divided and scattered...

Anyway, since you mentioned Jasher, thought I'd throw in what it says about Keturah, and the settling of the sons of Abraham "to the east" with them being the ancestors of the Dravidians, and intermixed, there, and then later separating more from the Shemites who were intermarried with the Medes, descended form Japheth, and who came to be called the "Aryans"...they were all related.
But the Tower affair was not so long after the flood, and the scattering of the tribes began after the Tower, and what is now India was not so populated in the time of Abraham's sending his sons "to the east".
Also, sons of Canaan were ancestors of the Sinites/ Chinese, and also intermarried with the other tribes until they were more and more isolated genetically.

Also, FYI, Keturah was Abraham's third wife. The Hebrew is "Ishyah" and Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah were all "ishyahs/wives" to Abraham. I do not know why the translators do not translate that word properly, probably biased. Anyway, Abraham divorced Hagar.
And in the Book of Jasher, Hagar was daughter of Pharaoh, who gave her to Sarah and told her Abraham was a great prophet, and she would have a good life with them. -That is also in Jasher.

I dont know that I can disagree with any of these. I'm assuming you're pulling this from hebrew tradition, and it may indeed all be true. Yes, I do agree Katura was a 3rd wife of Abraham. I can't tell from the text if he took her before or after Sarah's death. It appears after.

I think the book of Jasher can be somewhat valuable to us, being it is a history book mentioned several times in the Bible.

So what do you think of that, yeshuasavedme? I don't have a single word of disagreement for you.

 

[Calminian]

no, it's not just me, there are lots of people who end up doubting various stuff in the bible, but you don't have to chuck everything out. losing your salvation is when you no longer believe in the basics of christianity, like the creed; the resurrection of Jesus, Penticost etc.
over the years, starting off as a fundamentlist, i have thrown out Revelation, Daniel and Genesis 1, so far. i no longer believe these scriptures to be the word of God, but i still accept the creed, except for the resurrection.

Well I would image you'll throw out Paul soon as well.

1Cor. 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

1Cor. 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.​

Now I'm not one to doubt the salvation of those that reject a young earth, but I do believe it sets up the reasoning by which other portions of scripture are then rejected. And once you get to the point where you reject Christ's resurrection, I'm afraid you've stepped outside the faith. Paul tells you directly, your faith is in vain.

I'm still now clear though, why you're rejecting the Genesis account, given all the things you do accept about it. In fact you believe more about Genesis than many theistic evolutionists. I'm also wondering why you doubt the hebrews. Their records are impeccable compared to all other ancient writings.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Survival of the fittest is not taught by Jesus.
He taught survival of the meekest.

I don't think he said anything about intermediate survival. Quite to the contrary, he said that many would have to bear their cross too Luke 14:27. When the meek inherit the Earth he was talking about after the Resurrection, not today.

DNA is designed to correct all mutations and errors.

Not all. There are an average 40 errors per generation in the human genome.

Science theory claims that mutations are good.

A very small fraction only.

So you are wrong again. Mutant theory is not scriptural.

You claim that mutations do not occur?

 

[Fascinated With God]

Now I'm not one to doubt the salvation of those that reject a young earth, but I do believe it sets up the reasoning by which other portions of scripture are then rejected. And once you get to the point where you reject Christ's resurrection, I'm afraid you've stepped outside the faith. Paul tells you directly, your faith is in vain.

I agree. (Something we can agree on!!! ) As much of a hethen as you seem to think I am I still believe in the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrections to come (both of them).

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Well I would image you'll throw out Paul soon as well.

Now I'm not one to doubt the salvation of those that reject a young earth, but I do believe it sets up the reasoning by which other portions of scripture are then rejected. And once you get to the point where you reject Christ's resurrection, I'm afraid you've stepped outside the faith. Paul tells you directly, your faith is in vain.
​

I'm still now clear though, why you're rejecting the Genesis account, given all the things you do accept about it. In fact you believe more about Genesis than many theistic evolutionists. I'm also wondering why you doubt the hebrews. Their records are impeccable compared to all other ancient writings.

i did a lot of research on paul, and yes, i nearly threw out paul, but i changed my mind later. i think that paul is the founder of christianity, more so than Jesus.
i dont know how old the earth is, there is evidence from both sides. i tend to go more with a young earth, but i don't know how star light could have got here.
i reject the first chapter of genesis, because i don't think it is 'the inerrant word of god'. i think it is an adaptation of a sumerian creation myth, and part of the ancient world's cosmology. it is vastly superior to other surrounding cultures, but it is not the truth about how the universe was or is. if it is not the truth then it should be put aside.
i don't reject the flood account in genesis, i just doubt the dates and the list of ancestors, as there are two different records in the septuagint and the masoretic text of the OT regarding the lists of patriarchs/ancestors. and i also cant understand how marsupials are in australia.. it's something i am trying to work out, by looking at the evidence of fossils, coal, etc.
i think once you start denying the list of beliefs in the creed, then you become a non-christian. i don't believe in a future resurrection, i believe that the resurrection and judgement happens at the end of an individual's life. but born-again christians pass by judgement, when they are written in the book of life.
i used to do a lot of eschatology, and spent years going over revelation and daniel. then suddenly, i realised that i had been fooled. it's not something that most would be able to accept, but that is what happened, after gaining a revelation about those two books, and then continuing to do research, things became clear to me. since then, i no longer do eschatology, and i only accept what Jesus is recorded to have said about the matter.
when revelation and daniel were sorted out, then i started to think about what else could be false in the bible, and i have had a very critical mind since then, about many things.
but i maintain a belief in the essentials of christianity.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Yes I realize science has a problem with this and frankly it should. For it must assume a natural uniform explanation.

You keep falsely referring to uniformitarianism as a current principle of science which it has not been for some time. Make a comparison of the Wikipedia entires on Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism. Uniformatarianism is all ancient history, the ending section on the 20th century are all about how Uniformatarianism has fallen out of favor with mainstream science in a number of ways.

By contrast the entry on Catastrophism is about much more recent events. For example, "From around 1850 to 1980, most geologists endorsed uniformitarianism". That bears repeating, in 1980 Uniformitarianism was on the outs. Here is another quote, "Over the past 25 years, a scientifically based catastrophism has gained wide acceptance with regard to certain events in the distant past."

 

[Calminian]

You keep falsely referring to uniformitarianism as a current principle of science which it has not been for some time. Make a comparison of the Wikipedia entires on Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism. Uniformatarianism is all ancient history, the ending section on the 20th century are all about how Uniformatarianism has fallen out of favor with mainstream science in a number of ways.

By contrast the entry on Catastrophism is about much more recent events. For example, "From around 1850 to 1980, most geologists endorsed uniformitarianism". That bears repeating, in 1980 Uniformitarianism was on the outs. Here is another quote, "Over the past 25 years, a scientifically based catastrophism has gained wide acceptance with regard to certain events in the distant past."

I'm using the term in a much broader sense as in the uniformity of natural laws as opposed to non-uniform acts of God.

 

[Calminian]

i did a lot of research on paul, and yes, i nearly threw out paul, but i changed my mind later. i think that paul is the founder of christianity, more so than Jesus.
i dont know how old the earth is, there is evidence from both sides. i tend to go more with a young earth, but i don't know how star light could have got here.
i reject the first chapter of genesis, because i don't think it is 'the inerrant word of god'. i think it is an adaptation of a sumerian creation myth, and part of the ancient world's cosmology. it is vastly superior to other surrounding cultures, but it is not the truth about how the universe was or is. if it is not the truth then it should be put aside.

Well if you throw out the first chapter of Genesis you'll have to also throw out the first four verses of chapter 2, as the the creation toledoth is from 1:1-2:4a. In the middle of the verse we have the end of one toledoth and the beginning of another.

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Marking the end of the entire creation account.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens—

Marking the beginning of Adam's account which covers the creation of the Garden and and man's expulsion, Cain's murdering of Abel, Cain's genealogy and Seth's birth. It ends in chapter 5:1a and Noah's account starts in 5:1b.

I say all that because Genesis follows the ancient subscript practice that is found on thousands of ancient clay tablets. These are summary statements often citing the author or owner of the tablet. You may find it interesting that all the signatures found in Genesis, Adam, Noah, Noah's sons, Shem, Terah, Isaac and Jacob all are found as subscripts on accounts they would have had first-hand information on. There's never a case where one of their signatures is on an account that occurred after their death, for instance.

It's also interesting that the only account a human author couldn't have witnessed was the very account you reject. Wiseman and other tablet theorists believe this one may have been dictated directly from God, and therefore the human instrument didn't want to sign it. But you may very well be reading the very first written account in human history.

If you get a chance, look into the origins of Genesis.

Who Wrote Genesis?
Excerpted from Henry M. Morris, the Genesis Record, pp. 25-30

The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship
Curt Sewell

Who Wrote Genesis? Are the Toledoth Colophons?
Charles V Taylor

Did Moses Write Genesis?
Answers in Genesis
by Dr. Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge AiG–U.S. June 28, 2011

The First Book of Moses and The 'Toledoth' of Genesis
By Damien F. Mackey​

And here is Wiseman's actual book on the subject.

New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis (pdf)
By Air Commodor E P. J. Wiseman, C.B.E.​

i don't reject the flood account in genesis, i just doubt the dates and the list of ancestors, as there are two different records in the septuagint and the masoretic text of the OT regarding the lists of patriarchs/ancestors.

It's possible that the writers of the septuagint had better manuscripts and there was a corruption in the masoretic text. You may find it interesting though, that the book of Jasher confirms the masoretic text dates, and the Bible mentions the book of Jasher several times and even quotes it.

Josh. 10:13....as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

2Sam. 1:18 and ordered that the men of Judah be taught this lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar):​

and i also cant understand how marsupials are in australia.. it's something i am trying to work out, by looking at the evidence of fossils, coal, etc.

When I look at the pyramids built by the egyptians and look back at the ark built by Noah, I have no problem believing men took to the seas early in human history, and built fantastic boats, and took animals with them. If this happened early enough after the flood, kangaroos may have been hunted down everywhere except for those taken onto some boat.

i think once you start denying the list of beliefs in the creed, then you become a non-christian. i don't believe in a future resurrection, i believe that the resurrection and judgement happens at the end of an individual's life. but born-again christians pass by judgement, when they are written in the book of life.
i used to do a lot of eschatology, and spent years going over revelation and daniel. then suddenly, i realised that i had been fooled. it's not something that most would be able to accept, but that is what happened, after gaining a revelation about those two books, and then continuing to do research, things became clear to me. since then, i no longer do eschatology, and i only accept what Jesus is recorded to have said about the matter.
when revelation and daniel were sorted out, then i started to think about what else could be false in the bible, and i have had a very critical mind since then, about many things.
but i maintain a belief in the essentials of christianity.

I wouldn't call these the essentials, though. The important one is the resurrection of Christ, and that's something I hope you haven't trampled on. Faith is not easy, but sometimes you just have to ask God to help you with your unbelief.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I wouldn't call the essentials, though. The important one is the resurrection of Christ, and that's something I hope you haven't trampled on.

i'll have a look at those links later, thanks. i believe in the resurrection of Christ, and Penticost. the outpouring of the Holy Spirit explains the success of christianity, and still maintains christianity today, in my view, as does the truth about the resurrection of Jesus. despite a new batch of outright heretics that have been dominating christianity in america, in these latter days.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I'm using the term in a much broader sense as in the uniformity of natural laws as opposed to non-uniform acts of God.

I don't see natural laws as uniform for a variety of reasons, and I think that calling God's actions "non-uniform" is not exactly a complement. To me it seems to suggest that God lacks consistency in a contemporary sense.

 

[Calminian]

I don't see natural laws as uniform for a variety of reasons,

I know you're into that superduper turbo science thingie.

 

[Calminian]

i'll have a look at those links later, thanks. i believe in the resurrection of Christ, and Penticost. the outpouring of the Holy Spirit explains the success of christianity, and still maintains christianity today, in my view, as does the truth about the resurrection of Jesus. despite a new batch of outright heretics that have been dominating christianity in america, in these latter days.

Alright well that's a relief.

Hopefully, just for your own edification you'll see how the doctrines of the bodily resurrection and all other essentials of the christian faith rest on the foundation of Genesis—a remarkable book, with a remarkable origin itself.

 

[Jig]

The biblical flood account is probably derived from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, or something similar.

I subscribe to the idea that both Mesopotamian and Israelite accounts of the flood came from a common ancient source.

This is because the many significant differences and omissions between the accounts make it unlikely that either the Mesopotamian or biblical authors borrowed from each other.

It seems more likely that both the Mesopotamian and Israelite accounts reflect a universally preserved knowledge of events that occurred during earth's pre-flood history. The variations in these stories were passed down by different Semitic cultures that developed after the division of the nations in the post-flood ancient Near East.