Earth May Have Been A Waterworld
- Thread starter jamesbond007
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Now it appears that you are just trolling. Why do so?
You accuse others of not understanding English, bit it is apparent that you do not. Since you won't do your homework let me help you:
Since you have so much trouble understanding the KJV here is a more modern translation for you:
"17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits."
The tops of the highest mountains were what were under 15 cubits of water, not the Earth as a whole.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 7 - New International Version
Upvote
0
Mitty
Active Member
I'm not interested, since that's just a dishonest fake Yank version, given that the KJV and the Hebrew bible both say the flood height was only 15 cubits. And the only person you are trying to convince is yourself.
Now it appears that you are just trolling. Why do so?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
They don't. The fact that you had to quote out of context supports my claim. If you cannot understand the Bible you cannot refute it. You are making an amateur's mistake.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, but there is no reason that someone cannot claim to be an atheist and troll a thread. Not saying that is the case, but until I see a serious discussion that is what it looks like to me.
Upvote
0
Mitty
Active Member
Have you ever actually read the bible, or are you just trying to point out some of the numerous biblical contradictions and inconsistencies and scientific untruths? Either way, it still doesn't change the fact that the KJV clearly says that the flood height was only 15 cubits. And the context is that the bible says that the flood was obviously only a local event since a nearby olive tree was unaffected, and does not say that Mt Everest or Mt Ararat or even the "mountains of Ararat" were covered by 15 cubits.
And where does the KJV say that the flood height wasn't 15 cubits anyway, or did you just make that up?
And it's your choice if you believe that the KJV writers were just amateurs, but have you ever discussed your personal interpretation of that story with a rabbi and why the Hebrew bible also says that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yttrium
Independent Centrist
- May 19, 2019
- 3,875
- 4,308
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Single
Why are you so obsessed with the KJV? Only certain Protestant Christians care that much about it.
The KJV has an archaic, stilted sentence structure. That's why it isn't as popular any more. People have to try and interpret the KJV in modern terms, while the KJV itself is an interpretation. And no, if you take the whole stilted sentence into account, the passage is clear as mud. So I take the opinions of the actual linguistics experts and Biblical scholars more seriously than some random person like you.
Especially since the traditional interpretation actually fits the context of having a big mountain in the region that even people of the times can look at and realize is much taller than 15 cubits.
Upvote
0
Mitty
Active Member
Because the story in the Hebrew bible and KJV about most of a family and their animals being drowned by a flood on a riverine plain is at least realistic, whereas the other versions of a global flood which covered Mt Everest or even Mt Ararat by 15 cubits is just a silly absurd childish fantasy with not a skerrick of evidence to support it.
Not if the writers of that story lived on a riverine flood plain or a river delta. And where does the bible say that the "mountains of Ararat" were more than 15 cubits higher than the normal river height?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yttrium
Independent Centrist
- May 19, 2019
- 3,875
- 4,308
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Single
Let me get this straight.
You want the 15 cubits part to be accurate, ignoring all other descriptions of the supernatural in the great flood.
I see absolutely no problem with the idea that the great flood in the Bible was very loosely based off a real-life event that covered some hills and no mountains. But Genesis 7:20 does state that the mountains were covered (with or without the extra minimum 15 cubits), and the people of the times would have been able to see at least one big mountain sticking way out of the water if the water was only 15 cubits over sea level.
My strong advice is to not try to read any kind of accuracy from a real-life event into the account. It's simply not going to work out.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Mitty
Active Member
But where does the bible define what a mountain or high hill is, or are you just using our modern definitions of the word "mountain".
And where does the bible say anything about the flood height being 15 cubits above sea level, given that the story obviously describes a river flood which only drowned most of Noah's family and drained away like every other similar flood before and since, and why the flood had no effect on an olive tree since it was growing outside the flooded area?
And why shouldn't that story be based on a real-life event, in the same way that the S&G story in Genesis 19 about a volcanic eruption is probably based on the explosive volcanic eruption of Santorini which destroyed the Minoan civilization and is the source of the legend of Atlantis?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Mitty
Active Member
So why do you believe that the NIV is the best translation, and is that because your first language is Hebrew?
And afterall the NIV was obviously compiled by religious people with preconceived beliefs and not by non-religious professional translators, given that their version of the S&G story falsely says that Lot's sons-in-law were homosexuals who wanted to have sex with the two blokes in Lot's house instead of with their future wives, by dishonestly claiming that the word "know" is a synonym for rape.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Overall, there was no unicell organisms popping into existence. They do not just get created by nature. It doesn't happen today nor did it happen in the past. A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago would've dissolved them if it happened, but didn't. There was no 3.2 B yrs ago. That is just the difference is doing radiometric dating.
Yet, we had at that point in time circa 2458 BC, a whole world that went so evil that innocent people were in danger. This was not acceptable for a loving and just God. God contacted Noah because he was still one of the good people of faith and gave him the dimensions of building an ark. It took Noah and his family 100 years to build the ark. People lived longer back then. Just a little before his global flood, God shortened people's lives to 120 years. Thus, the stage is set. The Ark Encounter explains the details and circumstances and that an ark can be built and be seaworthy of its size. It also explains how God used natural selection and gathered all the animals 2 x 2. Thus, this is what has happened before your question.
Hetr is how the flood waters came to be. They came from 40 days and 40 nights of rain. During this time, there was an earthquake on the seafloor and up rose the fountains of the deep or the ocean waters that were inside the Earth. There are those who think there was a canopy of water in the sky. This was their firmament that separated light and dark on the 2nd day. It may just have been clouds, in which case all we have is the rain storm for 40 days and 40 nights. We see from Bill Nye's video in #118 that mountains were formed from the sea floor. We also think that Pangaea was was broken up during this time into seven continents. There may be some connection of why one was broken into seven as it comes into play during end times. I dunno. Thus, the waters came from above and below and this covered the entire Earth. Flowing water is very powerful and a flood is one of the weather catastrophes that could kill the most people. A global flood would kill everybody who was unprepared. Even then, I think the rapid flooding would capsize their boats.
Afterward, there was a change in Earth's topography due to the catastrophe of the global flood. The mountains such as the Mt. Everest and the Himalayas that already existed rose even higher as the flood waters surged over its peaks and created a deeper valley below. The evidence we have for this is that Mt. Everest and the Himalayas are one of the highest mountain ranges on Earth and it takes skill and courage to climb to the top. We also have the valleys that were formed and the waters flooded in and it is shown by the deepest oceans that we have and its difficult to go that deep to study. We find exotic sea creatures that somehow have adapted to live at those depths. Humans cannot just go dive that deep. They would need special equipment.
As for the waters, where did they go afterward? They formed our seas that we have now. The waters are still here and we have an planet covered with 3/4 ocean water. Thus, the entire topography of the Earth changed with the global flood and it explains the rapid change in our topography to this day. This is how our mountain ranges and depths of our oceans formed. It wasn't glaciers taking millions of years. We find underwater and buried civilizations all over the world. They were advanced civilizations, as well, and not stone age cave dwellers.
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
Upvote
0
- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
There has been a few pages written and I can't address them all, but allow me to summarize my criticism of what I call Darwin's timeline. It's called "Important events in the history of life" on my evolution source from UC Berkeley.
Above is the graph.
Text
Important events in the history of life
My criticism for evolution is that there is no overall detailed nor general explanation for what we observe on Earth with its topography and how everything came to be. One is given life already existing in the form of a simple cell. We also have an Earth that looks like Saturn now. How can it be a waterworld if it was just hit by comets and ice on them? We would have giant craters that show as space object hit and that it contained water. Instead, we have the evidence of oxygen-18 in our surface rocks now. What evolution has is a lot of disjointed stories that do not add up. One can't observe millions of years. It is difficult just to explain 3500 years ago a global flood occurred. The other thing that strikes me as weird is today's scientist won't consider a global flood happened and billions of people of advanced civilization were alive and buried. They won't consider they are wrong in the radioisotope timeline assumptions. Thus, we get the false science today. The solution to this is allow creation scientists to participate in peer reviews again. They we may get a wider range of theories and argument for what is the best one at the scientists level instead of that of mostly layman on forums such as this.
Above is the graph.
Text
Important events in the history of life
My criticism for evolution is that there is no overall detailed nor general explanation for what we observe on Earth with its topography and how everything came to be. One is given life already existing in the form of a simple cell. We also have an Earth that looks like Saturn now. How can it be a waterworld if it was just hit by comets and ice on them? We would have giant craters that show as space object hit and that it contained water. Instead, we have the evidence of oxygen-18 in our surface rocks now. What evolution has is a lot of disjointed stories that do not add up. One can't observe millions of years. It is difficult just to explain 3500 years ago a global flood occurred. The other thing that strikes me as weird is today's scientist won't consider a global flood happened and billions of people of advanced civilization were alive and buried. They won't consider they are wrong in the radioisotope timeline assumptions. Thus, we get the false science today. The solution to this is allow creation scientists to participate in peer reviews again. They we may get a wider range of theories and argument for what is the best one at the scientists level instead of that of mostly layman on forums such as this.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Mitty
Active Member
Nonsense!!!
Do you have any actual evidence to support your hypothesis and fantasies, given that the Himalayas were formed millions of years before Adam's grandmother was a girl and most of Noah's family were drowned in a local flood which was only 15 cubits high and had no effect on a nearby olive tree growing outside the flooded area?
And do you have any evidence that Mrs Noah gave birth to triplets at aged 500 "years" old (Gen 5:32). And obviously a Genesis 5 "year" is a lunar cycle of ~29 days and not a solar cycle of 365 days. Thus Adam and his genetically identical clone also named Adam first became pregnant at aged ~11 years old and not a ridiculous 130 "years" old (Gen 5:1-3) and Methusael was drowned at aged ~80 years old and not an absurd 969 "years" old (Gen 5:27) and Mrs Noah gave birth to triplets at aged ~40 years old and not a preposterous 500 "years" old (Gen 5:32).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
