Marsupial in arctic supports that man was on Pangaea.

dad · Feb 22, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
Don't you think people would have noticed that the sun was fluctuating every few weeks instead of following its usual annual course? (Of course, since they were used to the old nature, wouldn't they notice the solar fluctuations going away, leaving us with a boring old normal year?) Don't you think they would have noticed plants growing 10 times faster or slower?

Not only would people on fast drifting continents notice climate changes, in some cases they might abandon cities or habits they once had to survive. As for the sun fluctuating, I guess you made that up.

Your hypothesis requires huge changes in how nature works during recorded history.

What has the sun got to do with inscriptions of dates or kings you allude to on old stones?
You seem to be flailing around here,

dad · Feb 22, 2019

Bungle_Bear said:
Lol. Such shameless dishonesty repeated in every post.

False accusation. No addressing the topic.

essentialsaltes · Feb 22, 2019

dad said:
As for the sun fluctuating, I guess you made that up.

We know why trees have tree rings. It is due to annual growth cycles. Trees grow when the sun is strong; they go dormant when it is cold and there is less light in winter. To make tree rings happen faster, you would need to have heat and light cycle faster. But these things are tied to the earth's orbit. A year is a year.

In Canada and the North United States, the growing season begins in the spring. At first, the cambium produces numerous large cells with thin walls that form the springwood (earlywood). If you look at a cross section of a tree, this is the light-coloured ring.

Then, towards the end of the summer, growth slows down. The cells manufactured at this time of year are small, with thick walls. They form the summerwood (latewood) which appears as a darker ring on the tree cross section.

dad · Feb 22, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
We know why trees have tree rings. It is due to annual growth cycles. Trees grow when the sun is strong; they go dormant when it is cold and there is less light in winter. To make tree rings happen faster, you would need to have heat and light cycle faster. But these things are tied to the earth's orbit. A year is a year

In this nature that is the way it works now. Photosynthesis and etc. You would need this nature and physics to have that work of course. Your mistake is fist proceeding as if there was a same nature without ever proving it. That is religion.

helmut · Feb 22, 2019

dad said:
Doesn't really matter if we understand it. Whether it was a step son, or adopted son, whatever, we'll find out one day. That is no excuse to toss out the bible ir Genesis.

I don't toss the Bible out. I just mention that the question whether it was a son or a grandson makes a difference in how to calculate the time difference between the two.

The Bible shows that you can't use Gen 10 mechanically to calculate a time table. If you don't care about it and build a time table as the one in your graphics, it is you who tosses the Bible out.

dad said:
As for the issue of Gen 10 talking about Babel divided languages, that is no problem.

You made it a problem when I said there is a possible natural explanation of "where did all of these other languages come from?" And despite the fact that I rejected it explicitely, you write as if I adhere to it, or as if I see a problem in Gen 10 before Gen 11.

If you are not able to understand what I write to you, how can you claim to understand Genesis which is culturally far more remote to you than me? Better listen to people that are better in understanding what is written, in this forum, in the Bible and elsewhere.

helmut · Feb 22, 2019

dad said:
God uses it so why would I care what religious nonsense might be floating around that tries to minimize, ignore, or mitigate the fact?

My answer: God uses it so, He takes the round number of 30 instead of real moths length in Daniel, so why would I care what religious nonsense might be floating around that tries to minimize, ignore, or mitigate the fact, as you do?

dad · Feb 22, 2019

helmut said:
I don't toss the Bible out. I just mention that the question whether it was a son or a grandson makes a difference in how to calculate the time difference between the two.

The Bible shows that you can't use Gen 10 mechanically to calculate a time table. If you don't care about it and build a time table as the one in your graphics, it is you who tosses the Bible out.

Your opinion/ Others feel that the record is complete enough for dates. In any case, we know approx when the flood was.

You made it a problem when I said there is a possible natural explanation of "where did all of these other languages come from?" And despite the fact that I rejected it explicitely, you write as if I adhere to it, or as if I see a problem in Gen 10 before Gen 11.

Not sure of your point. I gave a link that shows Gen 10 and 11 were talking of the same event.

dad · Feb 22, 2019

helmut said:
My answer: God uses it so, He takes the round number of 30 instead of real moths length in Daniel, so why would I care what religious nonsense might be floating around that tries to minimize, ignore, or mitigate the fact, as you do?

How about the days given, do we play around with that and the months also? Guess we should just ask you what is real or not? Everything has to be in round numbers you like?

helmut · Feb 22, 2019

dad said:
Ah, so now you claim that there is not a strong bible case for the different nature in the past. Well, I think I tamed that tiger a long time ago.

It seems I was not here in CF when you tamed that tiger. What I have seen is:

You reasoned a 360-day-year out of the fact that Daniel used rounded numbers (30 days a moth) instead of real month length (29.5306 days on average). That these are rounded and not real month length is clear from Dan 8:14, where a tome span which was about 1132 days in reality is given as 1150 days (2300 morns and eves). So this basis for a claim for natural change is in reality a neglection of Dan 8:14.
You reasoned a week for a tree to grow on the fact that a dove found an olive twig a week after it didn't find one. If we omit the possibility it took the twig from a place that it did not visit the first time, this shows us that a twig grew in a week, not a whole tree. A tree can survive a flood, especially if he were placed high enough to be drowned only part of the flood time. Whether this is more probable than a olive seed that survived a flood (in salty water!) and then grew in a soil without any microbiological support from fungi or bacteria, I don't know. So your tree growing a week is just a speculation of your side, not a biblical claim.
You date the Babel tower to about 2400 BC using the genealogies in Genesis, and cling to that even after I showed Lk 3:36 to you. You declared it unimportant whether Shelah was a son or grandson of Arpachshad. It is unimportant for almost every aspect of Christian faith indeed, but this question is crucial to the question whether the genealogical lists in Genesis are complete. If there are gaps in them, they only indicate that Babel tower was about 2400+X BC, X being the time filled by gaps in the respective genealogies. There is no way to get at an exact value of X, but if you take X as 0 (zero), you contradict Luke.

I can't recollect any other facts you used to back up your theory of a nature change at the time of the Babel tower, all I see is a non sequitur at best and partially a blatant contradiction to Scripture. No evidence for a change in nature whatsoever.

There are hints of a change in nature: The creation did not work according to our natural laws, the new regulations after the flood might be accompanied by some change in nature. But your theory is without real scriptural basis (unless, of course, if you bring more scriptural evidence), and it is contrary to what is known.

The reaction you showed to my pointing to biblical problems with your theories let me think that you are an instance of 1.Tim 1:7.

helmut · Feb 22, 2019

dad said:
Your opinion/ Others feel that the record is complete enough for dates. In any case, we know approx when the flood was.

What lets you think their feeling is correct, why is their feeling more important than what Scripture says in Lk 3:36?

helmut · Feb 22, 2019

dad said:
Everything has to be in round numbers you like?

not everything, but when Scripture points out that rounded numbers are used (and there is no hint I know of that Dan 8:14 was an exception), we should accept it.

essentialsaltes · Feb 22, 2019

dad said:
In this nature that is the way it works now. Photosynthesis and etc. You would need this nature and physics to have that work of course. Your mistake is fist proceeding as if there was a same nature without ever proving it. That is religion.

No, we know the Egyptians worked to an annual schedule of the flooding of the Nile for their agriculture. Plant life was the same then as now.

dad · Feb 22, 2019

helmut said:
It seems I was not here in CF when you tamed that tiger.

The tiger in question I think was that no one could support the same nature in the past on earth that science uses for modelling the past. Perhaps you could do that. Ha. I suspect that tiger will remain quite tame.

What I have seen is:

You reasoned a 360-day-year out of the fact that Daniel used rounded numbers (30 days a moth) instead of real month length (29.5306 days on average). That these are rounded and not real month length is clear from Dan 8:14, where a tome span which was about 1132 days in reality is given as 1150 days (2300 morns and eves). So this basis for a claim for natural change is in reality a neglection of Dan 8:14.

Both Genesis and Revelation actually confirm what a year is. In days and months also.

You reasoned a week for a tree to grow on the fact that a dove found an olive twig a week after it didn't find one. If we omit the possibility it took the twig from a place that it did not visit the first time, this shows us that a twig grew in a week, not a whole tree. A tree can survive a flood, especially if he were placed high enough to be drowned only part of the flood time. Whether this is more probable than a olive seed that survived a flood (in salty water!) and then grew in a soil without any microbiological support from fungi or bacteria, I don't know. So your tree growing a week is just a speculation of your side, not a biblical claim.

Click to expand...

Speaking of speculation, a huge ark full of every kind of animal on earth would need plenty of plants to eat when they got off the boat. Your claims about maybe some tree survived the flood that covered the highest mountains and lasted many months seems less than credible. Man and bests and birds etc would need a whole lot more than a tree, even if your laughable claim could have been true.

You forgot to mention that I also listed how a garden was planted in Eden and man ate the fruit of that a week later! If we want to look at the future in the millennium we see also that plants grow fast then also.

You date the Babel tower to about 2400 BC using the genealogies in Genesis, and cling to that even after I showed Lk 3:36 to you. You declared it unimportant whether Shelah was a son or grandson of Arpachshad. It is unimportant for almost every aspect of Christian faith indeed, but this question is crucial to the question whether the genealogical lists in Genesis are complete. If there are gaps in them, they only indicate that Babel tower was about 2400+X BC, X being the time filled by gaps in the respective genealogies. There is no way to get at an exact value of X, but if you take X as 0 (zero), you contradict Luke.

Click to expand...

I do not know why a person who may have been a son or a stepson, or adopted or whatever was included in Luke. There are differences in genealogies in different gospels, I have heard, because one was for Mary and the other was about Joesph. I would not really look to those for dates!

There are hints of a change in nature: The creation did not work according to our natural laws, the new regulations after the flood might be accompanied by some change in nature. But your theory is without real scriptural basis (unless, of course, if you bring more scriptural evidence), and it is contrary to what is known.

What you think is known is contrary to what actually is known! Another difference before Babel and the flood was that sons of god or angels as is commonly interpreted married and live here on earth. After they tried to build up to the spiritual level with the tower, and God stopped them, we do not see any spirits here in this nature marrying anyone! Both the future and past in the bible are very different to the present nature. You have made no case to the contrary.

Do you believe there was a real worldwide flood that killed all but 8 people on earth?

dad · Feb 22, 2019

helmut said:
not everything, but when Scripture points out that rounded numbers are used (and there is no hint I know of that Dan 8:14 was an exception), we should accept it.

Baloney. 1260 days, three and a half years (or times) is rounded?

dad · Feb 22, 2019

helmut said:
What lets you think their feeling is correct, why is their feeling more important than what Scripture says in Lk 3:36?

Well, we know when Abraham lived. He was contemporary with Noah. The flood time at least approximately is not some mystery.

dad · Feb 22, 2019

essentialsaltes said:
No, we know the Egyptians worked to an annual schedule of the flooding of the Nile for their agriculture. Plant life was the same then as now.

Egyptians..when!? Of course after Babel and in this nature things were more or less as they are now.

helmut · Feb 23, 2019

dad said:
The tiger in question I think was that no one could support the same nature in the past on earth that science uses for modelling the past. Perhaps you could do that. Ha. I suspect that tiger will remain quite tame.

Well, what counts as a proof is not the same for everybody, so I have to ask you: What counts as a proof for "same nature in the past" in your eyes? Give a description of it, or some hypothetical examples, and I will see whether there is such a thing or not.

dad said:
Both Genesis and Revelation actually confirm what a year is. In days and months also.

Show me the passages in Genesis or Revelation that says "any month has/had exactly 30 days" and "every year hat exactly 12 months". I showed you that in Daniel the calculating a month as 30 days did not mean it had really 30 days, it was less than that. Why should Genesis or Revelation be different in this respect? Why not take Scripture as key to Scripture?

dad said:
Speaking of speculation, a huge ark full of every kind of animal on earth would need plenty of plants to eat when they got off the boat. Your claims about maybe some tree survived the flood that covered the highest mountains and lasted many months seems less than credible. Man and bests and birds etc would need a whole lot more than a tree, even if your laughable claim could have been true.

Well, they survived a year (about 364 days, if we take the days and month as they were according to science, 370 days according to your claim) in the arc, and obviously had enough food there. So the amount of food they needed immediately was rather limited. And do not forget, this was about 5 months after the ark landed on the Ararat
ridge. Many animals ate grass, as we can see from the commandments in Genesis 9, which had plenty of time to grow to supply this need.

dad said:
You forgot to mention that I also listed how a garden was planted in Eden and man ate the fruit of that a week later!

I did noit forget. I mentioned that creation was not according our natural laws. But this sheds no light of timnes when there was no creation activity.

dad said:
If we want to look at the future in the millennium we see also that plants grow fast then also

Well, give a refrerence to where Scripture says so.

dad said:
I do not know why a person who may have been a son or a stepson, or adopted or whatever was included in Luke. There are differences in genealogies in different gospels, I have heard, because one was for Mary and the other was about Joesph.

It's not about the differences between Matthew and Luke, but between Luke and the OT (as a sort of bachground informaion, I also mentioned differences between Matthew and the OT).

dad said:
I would not really look to those for dates!

You do not look into what contradicts your theory, even it is from Scripture - so what should I think about your theories?

dad said:
Another difference before Babel and the flood was that sons of god or angels as is commonly interpreted married and live here on earth.

on the one hand, there are other interpretations to that passage. But lets cling to yours: This incident is alluded to in Jude 6 and logically linked to Genesis 19, when men tried to have intercourse with an angel (byside remark: There is no hint that homosexuality was an issue when this was punished by God, although there are clear commands against "man with man" sex in OT and NT). so what you interpret as a difference was still there at the times of Abraham.

dad said:
Both the future and past in the bible are very different to the present nature. You have made no case to the contrary.

As to the past, the only firm thing you proved was that creation was not according to our natural laws - I never said anything to the contrary. Your later changes are not proven, and there is not a single instant where Scripture confirms a change that occurred at the time of the Babel tower. Change of languages are not a change of nature or even linguistic laws, but just a supernatural change at some point in time, just as a healing by Jesus was no change in natural laws.

dad said:
Do you believe there was a real worldwide flood that killed all but 8 people on earth?

Bible tells so.

helmut · Feb 23, 2019

dad said:
Baloney. 1260 days, three and a half years (or times) is rounded?

Why not? 1150 days = 3 years and 10 days is rounded, too.
The only difference that is worth to tell is: In your example from Revelation (?) a year is invariably 12 month (leap years with 13 months counted as 12 months), whole in Dan 8:14 leap years are taken as they were, resulting in 38 months (which are rounded to 30 days a month, contrary to the exact timing).

I still wait for an argument why Dan 8:14 is rounded and your example is not.

helmut · Feb 23, 2019

dad said:
Well, we know when Abraham lived. He was contemporary with Noah.

Really?
Your scene implies that Terah and Nahor were merely the younger folks who served other gods while Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber and so on served God. Joshua 24:2 does not sound like that. This is no proof, but a hint that makes it likely that there are indeed many gaps in the genealogy of Genesis 10.

dad said:
The flood time at least approximately is not some mystery.

If we take as maximum the sum of the life-spans in Genesis 10, there could be up to 3000 years between Abraham and the flood. Which brings the span of about 5100 to 2400 BC as the time when the flood occurred. How to get more precise is a mystery, unless you chose to ignore the biblical evidence for gaps in the genealogies.

dad · Feb 23, 2019

helmut said:
Well, what counts as a proof is not the same for everybody, so I have to ask you: What counts as a proof for "same nature in the past" in your eyes? Give a description of it, or some hypothetical examples, and I will see whether there is such a thing or not.

If you had it you wouldn't need to ask. You don't.

Show me the passages in Genesis or Revelation that says "any month has/had exactly 30 days" and "every year hat exactly 12 months". I showed you that in Daniel the calculating a month as 30 days did not mean it had really 30 days, it was less than that. Why should Genesis or Revelation be different in this respect? Why not take Scripture as key to Scripture?

": During the time of the flood Genesis tells us that 150 days started on the 17th day of the second month, and ended on the 17th day of the seventh month or exactly five months later (Genesis 7:11, 24 and 8:3-4). 150 days ÷ 5 months = 30 days per month. 30 days × 12 months = 360 days per year."
The Coming 360 Day Year Predicted in Revelation (1260 Days = 42 months) – Escape All These Things (Luke 21:36)

And in Revelation..

"

1260 days ÷ 3.5 years = 360 days per year
1260 days ÷ 42 months = 30 days per month"

!

Well, they survived a year (about 364 days, if we take the days and month as they were according to science, 370 days according to your claim) in the arc, and obviously had enough food there. So the amount of food they needed immediately was rather limited. And do not forget, this was about 5 months after the ark landed on the Ararat

?? The amount of food elephants or mammoths or hippos or horses or cattle needed was 'rather limited'!!!? Ridiculous.

Many animals ate grass, as we can see from the commandments in Genesis 9, which had plenty of time to grow to supply this need.

It seems to me that squirrels and giraffes and birds of many types, and monkeys and etc etc etc all need trees. It also occurs to me that huge elephants and other animals might find it hard sitting there waiting for grasses to grow. The best answer and simplest explanation is that trees and plants grew fast.

I did noit forget. I mentioned that creation was not according our natural laws. But this sheds no light of timnes when there was no creation activity.

Looking at the future we see life spans will again be close to 1000 years, and spirits again will live with men, and plants will grow fast and abundant again. No creation activity needed, creation was way back in the time of Adam.

Well, give a refrerence to where Scripture says so.

Honestly if you know the bible at all you should not need to ask. Google it. Here is one in the meantime for ya.
Ps 72:16 - There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains; the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon: and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth.

It's not about the differences between Matthew and Luke, but between Luke and the OT (as a sort of bachground informaion, I also mentioned differences between Matthew and the OT).

I don't think Luke was trying to give a record for the purpose of knowing the years!

on the one hand, there are other interpretations to that passage. But lets cling to yours: This incident is alluded to in Jude 6 and logically linked to Genesis 19, when men tried to have intercourse with an angel (byside remark: There is no hint that homosexuality was an issue when this was punished by God, although there are clear commands against "man with man" sex in OT and NT). so what you interpret as a difference was still there at the times of Abraham.

No. Angels did not marry women and live on earth in Abraham's day.

.... there is not a single instant where Scripture confirms a change that occurred at the time of the Babel tower.

To change the way man understands is something that requires more than nature! Both in the new testament where everyone understood the apostle, and in the tower of Babel event, God was involved. Not just the natural. We also see life spans drop in Peleg's day! We also know languages and nations divided. Since man was here from the very beginning, we know that if science is right about Pangaea that man had to have been there!

Change of languages are not a change of nature or even linguistic laws, but just a supernatural change at some point in time, just as a healing by Jesus was no change in natural laws.

The languages affected ALL men. Miracles are generally for one person or a group.

Marsupial in arctic supports that man was on Pangaea.

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Stranger in a Strange Land

Undefeated!

Member

Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Member

Member

Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Member

Member

Member

Undefeated!

Similar threads