4 Questions Answered

[Vance]

But Arkguy, rock does not fold because it is "soft" after water inundation. Also, what scientific evidence did you present for your proposal? Does your proposal explain all the data we have?

Chi is mimicking the tone of most of your own posts very well. While I do not like the style whether you do or he does it, it is a bit ironic that the pot is calling the kettle black.

 

[Sinai]

Christiangamer asked this question in another thread.

I thought I'd re-present it here.
I have a couple questions. Where did Cains wife come from?

This is one of those topics we can probably discuss and debate as long as we wish without ever coming up with an authoritative and satisfying answer. Since Cain was outside the line of promise, the Bible apparently did not consider this issue important enough to tell us the answer. We are therefore left to our speculations.


The responses generally given tend to fall into two groups: (1) those that think Cain married a relative (i.e., a sister, niece, or other descendent of Adam and/or Eve), and (2) those that think he married a non-relative (i.e., someone not related to Adam and Eve. Sure, that’s an oversimplification, it’s patently obvious, and it pretty well takes in the entire realm of possibilities of Biblical choices.



At first glance, it would appear that only the first of those possibilities could be consistent with what the Bible says. After all, doesn’t the Bible say that Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth? Therefore, they and their children would comprise all of mankind, wouldn’t they?



Although we would be justified in reaching that conclusion from a literal reading of our English versions of the Bible, that is not necessarily what the Bible says. The original Hebrew text and passages from the Talmud (the collection of writings constituting the Jewish civil and religious law) and from ancient Jewish commentators indicate that the Bible does not close the door on the possibility that there were other people—including men before Adam—but that Adam was the first human being to be created with an eternal soul.



Hebrew has two words for soul--nefesh and neshama--and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis. When Genesis 1:21 tells us that “God created…every animal,” it signifies that all animals (humans included) are infused with the nefesh or soul of animal life. When humans are mentioned a few verses later (Genesis 1:27 and 2:7), the text tells of a further creation, which distinguishes humans from lower animals: The third “creation” mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is of our eternal and immortal soul, our neshama (the first two “creations” were of the universe and of life).



The closing of Genesis 2:7 has a subtlety lost in the English. It is usually translated as: “…and [God] breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life and the adam became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). The Hebrew text actually states: “…and the adam became to a living soul.” Over 700 years ago, Nahmanides wrote that the “to” (the Hebrew letter lamed prefixed to the word “soul” in the verse) is superfluous from a grammatical stance and so must be there to teach something. Lamed, he noted, indicates a change in form and may have been placed there to describe mankind as progressing through stages of mineral, plant, fish, and animal. Finally, upon receiving the neshama, that creature which had already been formed became a human. He concludes his extensive commentary on the implications of this lamed as “it may be that the verse is stating that [prior to receiving the neshama] it was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was transformed into another man.”

Thus, according to Nahmanides--who is the major kabalistic commentator on the Bible--the biblical text has told us that before the neshama there may have been something like a man that was not quite a human.



Note that Nahmanides’ writings preceded discoveries of modern paleontology by hundreds of years---and the Bible text used by Nahmaides said it three thousand years before discoveries of modern science.

 

[Sinai]

Christiangamer asked this question in another thread.

I thought I'd re-present it here....
Two, God created light before the sun. So can we say we can see light, (and not from a light bulb you dolt) without the sun? Cuz there was light before that?

According to the big bang theory’s Standard Model of the universe, after the initial big bang and inflation occurred, the universe expanded and temperatures and photon energies fell in proportion with the universe’s expansion. When the temperature fell below 3000 degrees Kelvin, electrons were able to be drawn into stable orbits around the hydrogen and helium nuclei by the electromagnetic charges of these nuclei—and light separated from matter and emerged from the darkness of the universe.



Although it may be argued that “light” existed prior to that point in the form of gamma rays, that is an energy form that is in excess of what would be visible to the eye. But as the thermal energy of the photons fell to 3000 degrees Kelvin (thus allowing electrons to bind in stable orbits around hydrogen and helium nuclei), not only did the photons break free from the matter of the universe, but they became visible as well. Now compare the process described in the BBT Standard Model with the wording of Genesis 1: 3-4.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

If mountain building occured at that rate the amount of heat generated would melt them. At

 

[Ark Guy]

But Arkguy, rock does not fold because it is "soft" after water inundation. Also, what scientific evidence did you present for your proposal? Does your proposal explain all the data we have?

Thats not what the theory says.
The strata were not present prior to the flood. The strata...on its way to becoming rocks were still soft which allowed them to fold and not snap as your uniformatarion belief would call for.

 

[Ark Guy]

The strata at or near the tops of mountains have not always been there.

Soooo, you're claiming that they bent way underground in the heat and pressure..then rose straight up?

...did you check your old earth text book?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Soooo, you're claiming that they bent way underground in the heat and pressure..then rose straight up?

...did you check your old earth text book?

The strata currently on tops of mountains have indeed formerly been overlaid with other strata. For example, the rocks making up the English Lake District, especially in the Skiddaw area, are Silurian - very old. They would have been overlaid by Mesozoic and probably Cenozoic strata at some time. They have uplifted and the higher layers have eroded.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Thats not what the theory says.
The strata were not present prior to the flood. The strata...on its way to becoming rocks were still soft which allowed them to fold and not snap as your uniformatarion belief would call for.

But the Bible says that Eden (pre-flood) was situated in a place drained by amongst other rivers the Tigris and Euphrates. These rivers run over and indeed erode into strata.

Are you suggesting that the current Tigris and Euphrates just happen to be in the same place as pre-flood rivers whose original course is thousands of feet underground below the lowest sedimentary rock strata? Indeed, how could any recognisable geography (such as rivers) survive a massive global flood?

 

[Ark Guy]

KLBS, and rivers prior to the flood would have been distroyed.
The Tigris and Euphrates are new post flood rivers.

We have no way of knowing where the pre-flood Noah lived.

 

[Ark Guy]

The strata currently on tops of mountains have indeed formerly been overlaid with other strata. For example, the rocks making up the English Lake District, especially in the Skiddaw area, are Silurian - very old. They would have been overlaid by Mesozoic and probably Cenozoic strata at some time. They have uplifted and the higher layers have eroded.

Thgere is no doubt that some areas up-lifted and aided in draining the water off of the earth and into the oceans.

Your question is how rocks folded way down under the ground, then lifted straight up to form the mountains. That is what was originally suggested prior to the goal post being moved by the evos.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Thgere is no doubt that some areas up-lifted and aided in draining the water off of the earth and into the oceans.

Your question is how rocks folded way down under the ground, then lifted straight up to form the mountains. That is what was originally suggested prior to the goal post being moved by the evos.

Nope. No such thing was suggested.

Strata a laid down. More strata are deposited on them.

They are deformed under heat and pressure

Uplifts lift these strata and those overlying them.

Overlying strata are eroded away.

This is the mainstream model. It's accepted because it works.