The Antediluvian World - question 3 of 3

[ddubois]

This final thread is for those who believe that Genesis 4 and 5 describe real people. I would like to hear what you think we can reasonably infer about what the antediluvian world was like -- addressing the questions of when?, who?, what?, how?, where?, and why?. If you don't have an answer yourself, but are aware of someone or some organization that does, I would appreciate a reference. The main topics I am interested in are as follows:
1. History and chronology generally (see my first thread)
2. Individuals and relationships (see my second thread)
3. Social structures (Ex: Was Enoch a king and/or prophet?)
4. Flora and Fauna (Ex: Did humans really walk with dinosaurs?)
5. Technology (Ex: What about the Great Pyramid?)
6. Geography (Ex: Was there an above ground ocean then?)
7. Religion and existential issues (Ex: Did the ancients look at God and time like we do?)

I had originally thought of using 7 threads, but as only four people responded to the first two, I thought I would combine topics 3. through 7. in one final thread. So to answer the questions what?, how?, where? and why?, I would like to put forth the following hypotheses and questions:
3. Social structures: Some writings indicate that some or all of the patriarchs were kings and/or prophets. The book of Jubilees, for example, indicates Enoch was a high king over 130 lesser kings. In the website Just Genesis, the listed descendants of Seth and Cain are described as two intermarrying dynasties of kings. Any opinions on this? How about cities? Cain supposedly built one. How many others may there have been?
4. Flora and Fauna: Does everyone agree they will have dinosaurs (dragons)? Bigger animals, insects, sea creatures? Trees also? I read there was supposedly a 900 foot long tree fossil seen in Texas in the 1920? credible?
5. Technology: I've read about a bell found in a lump of coal -- credible antediluvian artifact? What about the Great Pyramid? -- some, perhaps not most, think it was created before the flood. One website argues that it originally had electrical wiring and the limestones show evidence of inundation. Thoughts?
6. Geography: Most of what I read indicates there was a single big landmass, Pangea, probably formed by todays continents, subsequently moved during or after the flood by rapid plate tectonics. But was there an above ground ocean at all, or was the ocean a result of Noah's flood? Were there earlier catastrophes that could have substantially changed the geography? How high were the mountains? Were the Tigris and Euphrates in Genesis at least roughly the same rivers as they are now?
7. Religion and Existential Issues: I'm going to postpone this.

 

[SkyWriting]

This final thread is for those who believe that Genesis 4 and 5 describe real people. I would like to hear what you think we can reasonably infer about what the antediluvian world was like -- addressing the questions of when?, who?, what?, how?, where?, and why?. If you don't have an answer yourself, but are aware of someone or some organization that does, I would appreciate a reference. The main topics I am interested in are as follows:
1. History and chronology generally (see my first thread)
2. Individuals and relationships (see my second thread)
3. Social structures (Ex: Was Enoch a king and/or prophet?)
4. Flora and Fauna (Ex: Did humans really walk with dinosaurs?)
5. Technology (Ex: What about the Great Pyramid?)
6. Geography (Ex: Was there an above ground ocean then?)
7. Religion and existential issues (Ex: Did the ancients look at God and time like we do?)

I had originally thought of using 7 threads, but as only four people responded to the first two, I thought I would combine topics 3. through 7. in one final thread. So to answer the questions what?, how?, where? and why?, I would like to put forth the following hypotheses and questions:
3. Social structures: Some writings indicate that some or all of the patriarchs were kings and/or prophets. The book of Jubilees, for example, indicates Enoch was a high king over 130 lesser kings. In the website Just Genesis, the listed descendants of Seth and Cain are described as two intermarrying dynasties of kings. Any opinions on this? How about cities? Cain supposedly built one. How many others may there have been?
4. Flora and Fauna: Does everyone agree they will have dinosaurs (dragons)? Bigger animals, insects, sea creatures? Trees also? I read there was supposedly a 900 foot long tree fossil seen in Texas in the 1920? credible?
5. Technology: I've read about a bell found in a lump of coal -- credible antediluvian artifact? What about the Great Pyramid? -- some, perhaps not most, think it was created before the flood. One website argues that it originally had electrical wiring and the limestones show evidence of inundation. Thoughts?
6. Geography: Most of what I read indicates there was a single big landmass, Pangea, probably formed by todays continents, subsequently moved during or after the flood by rapid plate tectonics. But was there an above ground ocean at all, or was the ocean a result of Noah's flood? Were there earlier catastrophes that could have substantially changed the geography? How high were the mountains? Were the Tigris and Euphrates in Genesis at least roughly the same rivers as they are now?
7. Religion and Existential Issues: I'm going to postpone this.

Historical events recorded were for people to understand that the events were well documented.
No new testament writings dug any deeper than what was written.
Nobody in the early churches attempted to date creation.
They understood that was not why genealogy was recorded.

 

[ddubois]

Historical events recorded were for people to understand that the events were well documented.
No new testament writings dug any deeper than what was written.
Nobody in the early churches attempted to date creation.
They understood that was not why genealogy was recorded.

The early church members had the benefit of the Septuagint Torah, which already gave the dates of creation and flood, so they would have no need to attempt to re-date them. The Book of Enoch and was known and read by the early church, even quoted in the Book of Jude. It had stories of antediluvian times. II Peter refers to antediluvian times as does Jesus himself. So I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The early church members had the benefit of the Septuagint Torah, which already gave the dates of creation and flood, so they would have no need to attempt to re-date them. The Book of Enoch and was known and read by the early church, even quoted in the Book of Jude. It had stories of antediluvian times. II Peter refers to antediluvian times as does Jesus himself. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Yes, why would the early Church try to rewrite Scripture to prove Scripture was true from the beginning?
Skywriting's comment does not make sense, because they did not doubt the Word, and had no need to try to prove the Word was true from the beginning, when their task was to preach the Good News that the promised Messiah had come, had atoned, and our sins are forgiven in Him...

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, why would the early Church try to rewrite Scripture to prove Scripture was true from the beginning? Skywriting's comment does not make sense, because they did not doubt the Word, and had no need to try to prove the Word was true from the beginning, when their task was to preach the Good News that the promised Messiah had come, had atoned, and our sins are forgiven in Him...

The early church had no interest in the dates for creation, the flood, or support for a young earth.
There is no value in such information.

 

[ddubois]

The early church had no interest in the dates for creation, the flood, or support for a young earth.
There is no value in such information.

And how do you know that the early church had no interest in when the creation or flood occurred, and what is the basis for your confidence that there is no value in such information?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

And how do you know that the early church had no interest in when the creation or flood occurred, and what is the basis for your confidence that there is no value in such information?

He's 'projecting" his own beliefs onto the early Church, without foundational reason or support.

 

[SkyWriting]

And how do you know that the early church had no interest in when the creation or flood occurred, and what is the basis for your confidence that there is no value in such information?

The scriptures cover all important aspects of faith and Christianity through
40 authors writing from three continents over nearly two thousand years.
If its not thoroughly covered, then it is incidental. God didn't think it
important enough to tell us when Jesus was born. The year of Creation,
that much less.

 

[SkyWriting]

He's 'projecting" his own beliefs onto the early Church, without foundational reason or support.

It's called "The Berean method."

 

[yeshuasavedme]

It's called "The Berean method."

No it isn't..you missed the study of Scripture to "see if your own projections be so"..

 

[ddubois]

The scriptures cover all important aspects of faith and Christianity through
40 authors writing from three continents over nearly two thousand years.
If its not thoroughly covered, then it is incidental. God didn't think it
important enough to tell us when Jesus was born. The year of Creation,
that much less.

You wisely backed off answering how you knew that the early church had no interest in when the creation or flood occurred, because it has been documented that they did. As to your contention that if a topic is not thoroughly covered in the Bible, it is incidental, I guess you'd then have to say that the books that were sealed until end times were incidental, and that nearly all of modern science is incidental -- that seems like a curious definition of incidental. While I am sympathetic with a focus on the importance of moral behavior and the need for salvation, it is also important to speak the language of those you are trying to save, don't you think? And if salvation is being resisted because the Bible (and Genesis in particular) is getting a reputation for being a collection of myths, don't you think it is good to contest that?

 

[SkyWriting]

No it isn't..you missed the study of Scripture to "see if your own projections be so"..

My studies came from Creation Science literature under the direction of Henry Morris. His directions were clear that one should read scripture as a plain and simple test for accuracy of any teaching, as the Bereans did.

While doing that, I came to different conclusions about the age of the earth.

In this literature, they try to provide "scientific proof" that the earth
is young. But what they are arguing for is that lava was cooling
during creation week.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

But here is what I found. While some of these arguments were sounded reasonable
they are all leading to the conclusion that lava was cooling during the
7 day creation week. They are arguing for a scientifically young earth
on day 8 of creation week. But when I read the scriptures, a "Plain and
simple" reading of the text does not describe cooling lava. The four
arguments above, require that molten lava was cooling on day 8.

The Third Day: Dry Ground
9Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

Fair enough. I believe it in faith.

10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

Ok. I trust this is accurate.

11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

OK. That is exactly what happened.

12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

SCREEEEEEEECH. Wait a minute!

"Proofs" 7 through 11 are arguing that the earth is not old during Creation Week.
They are arguing that scientific analysis tells us that lava is cooling during creation week.

But the scriptures themselves, based on Henry Morris' guidelines of
"Plain and simple" reading of the text, say that the earth was not created
with cooling lava. It says the earth was created fully mature and with
vegetation already growing on day three.

Why is somebody arguing that the earth is scientifically young if there
is vegetation already growing on day three?

Just as Adam was created at a fully functional "age" so was the earth,
says the text.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Skywriting, you admit you are using extrabiblical literature....
I haven't time to address your recent posts, but I intend to, not because you care, but others read and are informed who want to know how to search the Scriptures themselves as true Bereans.
I do not accept the 66 book recent man made myth. The Bible canon is not agreed upon by concensus by all the Curch in all the Church age, and you err when dismissing what the ancients read and believed was true history and true sacred writings/Scripture.
The largest canon is held by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the book of Jubilees itself, which is in it [though it is not true history, but has true facts in it taken from other sources, and it was followed and quoted by early believers, like "Saint Peter"....but Jesus straightened him out on that at the time of the letting down of the sheets from heaven, but I haven't time to go into all that at moment],gives a chronological timeline from the creation to the entry into Canaan, in Jubilee years.

It also believes in the 140 Jubilee time period [7,000 years], for this present creation, because that is what the writings teach.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I haven't time to address anything at all for a while more, all of you.
Life and death going on and much intercession in family from afar.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I should reverse that: death and LIFE going on.

 

[ddubois]

My studies came from Creation Science literature under the direction of Henry Morris. His directions were clear that one should read scripture as a plain and simple test for accuracy of any teaching, as the Bereans did.

While doing that, I came to different conclusions about the age of the earth.

In this literature, they try to provide "scientific proof" that the earth
is young. But what they are arguing for is that lava was cooling
during creation week.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

But here is what I found. While some of these arguments were sounded reasonable
they are all leading to the conclusion that lava was cooling during the
7 day creation week. They are arguing for a scientifically young earth
on day 8 of creation week. But when I read the scriptures, a "Plain and
simple" reading of the text does not describe cooling lava. The four
arguments above, require that molten lava was cooling on day 8.

The Third Day: Dry Ground
9Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

Fair enough. I believe it in faith.

10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

Ok. I trust this is accurate.

11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

OK. That is exactly what happened.

12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

SCREEEEEEEECH. Wait a minute!

"Proofs" 7 through 11 are arguing that the earth is not old during Creation Week.
They are arguing that scientific analysis tells us that lava is cooling during creation week.

But the scriptures themselves, based on Henry Morris' guidelines of
"Plain and simple" reading of the text, say that the earth was not created
with cooling lava. It says the earth was created fully mature and with
vegetation already growing on day three.

Why is somebody arguing that the earth is scientifically young if there
is vegetation already growing on day three?

Just as Adam was created at a fully functional "age" so was the earth,
says the text.

I looked at the internet ICR archives for old Acts and Facts and the one about creation week did not appear to have anything about cooling lava. I believe that ICR meant to apply creationist arguments 7, 9, 10, and 11 not to creation, but to the destruction caused by Noah's flood. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[brotherjerry]

Skywriting, you admit you are using extrabiblical literature....
.....
I do not accept the 66 book recent man made myth.
....
It also believes in the 140 Jubilee time period [7,000 years], for this present creation, because that is what the writings teach.

Ummmm and I have furrowed eyebrow at these statements...you seem to be accusing Skywriting of using extrabiblical literature, as if that is a bad thing....and then mention you do not accept the 66 books that make up the Bible, and cite the book of Jubilee...which is not part of the 66 books of the Bible...is that not by definition extrabiblical literature?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Ummmm and I have furrowed eyebrow at these statements...you seem to be accusing Skywriting of using extrabiblical literature, as if that is a bad thing....and then mention you do not accept the 66 books that make up the Bible, and cite the book of Jubilee...which is not part of the 66 books of the Bible...is that not by definition extrabiblical literature?

I pointed out his hypocrisy in using books outside his ow canon and accusing me of using books outside his own accepted canon.
And yes, i believe 66 books is a recent myth, beginning late 19th century.
Look it up.
The largest "canon" of any Christian Church is that in the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
There is no consensus of agreement in all the "Church age", among all the Church of Christ in all the world on "canon"..
It is, in the west, all about politics and power. The Holy Spirit does not play politics in the Churches and God does not change His mind.
Look up the history of "canon", and see that "66" books is a most modern myth.
I am not talking about Christ denying "churches", but those accepted as "orthodox".

 

[brotherjerry]

I guess that would all depend on what you are calling Christ denying church or standard Orthodox churches.

As to the 19th Century bit...sorry but there are Bibles older than the 19th Century that are just 66 books...KJB for one.

Even the Leningrad Codex dates to the 11th Century. Contains the 39 books of the OT as we have them today. The Jews have maintained a meticulous record of their "Bible" throughout the generations. Most scholars actually conclude that the Jewish Bible was "canonized" during the Hasmonean Dynasty (140-116 BCE).

 

[SkyWriting]

As to your contention that if a topic is not thoroughly covered in the Bible, it is incidental,

Incidental to Christian Truth and Spirituality.
One should still floss regularly.