Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Early on, "currency" was just small lumps of metal, usually stamped with a seal attesting to purity and weight. Copper, silver, and god had utility in different ways but were useful metals. Only later did they come to represent specific currency.
Then, since smelting of metals was at least known, you agree with me that there were multiple "lands" that were affected by the flood, because there were people in those lands, right?
I don’t think it was globally certainly marine life survived. I can't see a pair of humpbackwhales and a pair of bluewhales on the ark.But for some, the literary evidence is not compelling. So, allow me present some scientific evidence: there could not have been a worldwide flood as described in the Bible because there is simply not enough water in the earth's atmospheric system to produce such a flood.
According to data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the amount of water in the earth's atmosphere could not possibly cover the earth.[11] In fact:
One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth's water volume of about 332,500,000 mi3 (1,385,000,000 km3)
If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the ground to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch.
Additionally, because only 1.7% of the earth's water is stored underground,[12] there is not nearly enough water in groundwater storage beneath the earth's surface to account for the amount of water necessary to flood the entire earth to the extent described in the Bible.
Simply put: there is not enough water in Earth's atmosphere to raise the ocean's levels over an inch, much less to cover Mt. Ararat with water from 40 days of rain. There is simply not that much water in the system.
Thus, in order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many biblical literalists are willing to do. It is hypothetically possible that, say, the polar ice caps melted. This could raise the ocean levels beyond the 2.5 centimeters that all the earth's atmospheric water could were it to all rain down, but even then the thaw would only slightly affect the world's coastlines. Additionally, all scientific evidence points to larger polar ice caps in recent history, not smaller.[13]
Other fantastic scenarios could be offered to explain the flood. For instance, some might suggest that a colossal ice-asteroid could have burst into our orbit and melted, bringing with it an unconscionable amount of water into our atmosphere. But, even this desperate scenario poses a major problem for many biblical literalists who attempt to explain or prove the flood scientifically. The Bible says it "rained" and the "springs of the deep" opened, but mentions nothing about an asteroid. Likewise, were water to enter Earth's system, where did it all go? To where did the water recede? Earth's water cycle results in all water residing somewhere on Earth's surface in the form of oceans, ice, and freshwater lakes, beneath Earth's surface in subterranean reservoirs that produce springs and geysers, or in Earth's atmosphere as moisture. So even if water could enter Earth's closed system, where did it go?
Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it's impossible. There is not enough water in the earth's atmospheric system to even come close to covering all of the earth's landmasses.
Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp
bibleinterp.arizona.edu
Some I would agree but there's always room for rationalization of super natural powers. Leprosy was only healed by the supernatural powers of God, today its not the only sufficient treatment. I don't believe that every account in the bible of the powers of God can't be rationalize or explained, or pondered upon using the natural processes.
Assuming the Flood was an actual event and not allegory. Since there was a region-wide flood in the Middle East about the right time, it's likely to be based in an actual event, and not the mere catastrophic floods that commonly happened in Mesopotamia from time to time.
Since Jesus is a male human, and therefore has a Y chromosome, we couldn't properly classify his conception as parthenogenesis. It's a mystery we can't really understand.
There's a bigger problem for YE regarding whales:
We can make some inferences about the prehistory of money, by terms used. The shekel (a coin) could buy a shekel (specific weight) of wheat.
I would agree with the classification. It wasnt like the natural process of parthenogenesis in the animal kingdom.
Wise's paper is a good read. But in it he suggests that YE creationists 1. would need to spend some more time on the subject to come up with reasonable explanations, which he thinks are possible, and 2. shouldn't spend that time right now, as there are more urgent things to be considering.
"At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon
Right. If it was, Jesus would have been female. Miracles don't conform to natural laws.
Money really has little or nothing to do with the flood story. Whether it's a historical event or an allegory, really doesn't matter. That's not what God is telling us, here.
Because God already gave women all the eggs she will need her whole life from birth. God wouldn't take something from her He had already given. Would you gift someone only to just take back the gift years later?
