Genesis Is the understanding the of Ancient Hebrews.It doesn't have to be scientific.

[Subduction Zone]

You have already shown that this isn't true, by forcing questionable traditional interpretations and constructing a straw man argument with them. As an example of this critics continually argue that a 'ship' the size of the ark would not be seaworthy. When anyone points out that the ark was not a 'ship' they refuse to abandon their 'ship' argument, but press it even further.

No, you have not been consistent. You have your own interpretation of the Bible that you call "literal" when it clearly is not. And where did I make a starwman argument? Just because something is not your viewpoint does not meant that it is the viewpoint of other Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you have not been consistent. You have your own interpretation of the Bible that you call "literal" when it clearly is not.

Unless It is talking about the sun and moon standing still.

Then suddenly you Internet scientists here wax ultra-literal, don't you?

Figures of speech can take a hike, can't they?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then you are not taking it literally. And if it was a global flood, but only about fifteen feet over the highest hills in the Tigris and Euphrates valley it still would not be anywhere near deep enough to kill everyone in the world. You can't have it both ways.

Sure I am. I'm just selecting more reasonable terms from the smorgasbord of meanings of key Hebrew words; legitimate changes that can dramatically alter the narrative.

Except all of those "floods" occurred at different times. Please bring up these supposed floods and I will show you that. Five thousand years is a mere blink of an eye in geologic terms and it would be extremely easy to date them.

The main flood occurred at one time and in all regions, and it only lasted one year. However that doesn't mean there would be uniform flood evidence. Since then local and regional weather, and other events, have occurred at different times, obscuring or destroying or altering even local flood evidence. Noah's flood was very recent, the evidence not secured neatly in a single worldwide flood deposit. The flood was not the catastrophic gullywasher depicted by medieval artists, but came in like a tide. Most of the water was rather slow moving, not carrying great amounts of sediment along for the long distances required for uniform evidence over a large area. Also, some floods leave evidence, other remove evidence, still others leave no evidence at all.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, you have not been consistent. You have your own interpretation of the Bible that you call "literal" when it clearly is not. And where did I make a starwman argument? Just because something is not your viewpoint does not meant that it is the viewpoint of other Christians.

If I use the original Hebrew writings would that be literal? The original Hebrew gives the translator several meanings for a single key word. I have just chosen a different meaning than the scholars used.

Of course other Christians might disagree with me.

Which of the many translations of the bible do you think is the 'literal' one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless It is talking about the sun and moon standing still.

Then suddenly you Internet scientists here wax ultra-literal, don't you?

Figures of speech can take a hike, can't they?

You can't seem to make up your mind. The Sun and Moon never stood still either. Those all are figures of speech at best. The problem is with people that try to interpret the Bible literally when it is clearly not meant to be that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure I am. I'm just selecting more reasonable terms from the smorgasbord of meanings of key Hebrew words; legitimate changes that can dramatically alter the narrative.

Even with your more liberal interpretation it never happened.

The main flood occurred at one time and in all regions, and it only lasted one year. However that doesn't mean there would be uniform flood evidence. Since then local and regional weather, and other events, have occurred at different times, obscuring or destroying or altering even local flood evidence. Noah's flood was very recent, the evidence not secured neatly in a single worldwide flood deposit. The flood was not the catastrophic gullywasher depicted by medieval artists, but came in like a tide. Most of the water was rather slow moving, not carrying great amounts of sediment along for the long distances required for uniform evidence over a large area. Also, some floods leave evidence, other remove evidence, still others leave no evidence at all.

And there is no evidence of this. There is only evidence against this. By claiming that it all happened in one year you are claiming that there would be uniform evidence. You are claiming that all of these floods would have to have happened at the same time. Also a flood that rose up would allow people to out climb it in many areas of the world.

 

[-57]

You won't find it on the web but you can find it in Gen 5:1-2 which was AFTER Adam's fall and AFTER Cain killed Abel. Here are the verses with my comments:

Gen 5:1 ¶ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God (Elohim-Trinity) created man, in the likeness of God (God is an invisible Spirit) made He him; Gen 5:2 Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name Adam, (mankind) in the day when they were created.

This verse is speaking of the present 6th Day/Age when God created Adam and Eve Spiritually. Adam was "formed" on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:7 and Eve was built from Adam's RIB on the present 6th Day. Gen 2:22 BOTH were created by the Trinity Spiritually and Eternally on this Day of Salvation, the present 6th Day. ALL Christians are born again Spiritually TODAY, until the entire HOST of Heaven (Christians) is complete. Gen 2:1 Amen?

Gen 5 presents the linage from Adam to Noah. To use that chapter/verse in a linear presentation of time...to show Adam was made in Gods likeness after Cain killed Abel...is bad hermeneutics.

 

[-57]

Our Earth has NEVER suffered a Global Flood. It was Adam's Earth which was destroyed in the Flood. Water CANNOT destroy our Earth since it's a ROCK, with a molten core, and that is WHY it's going to be burned. ll Peter 3:10

Our earth is Adams earth.

 

[-57]

The flood stood 15 cubits above the highest hills that man occupied at that time. How else would they be drowned? No need to cover Mt. Everest, or even the Mts. of Ararat as there was nobody up there.

The account states that the main flood waters came from the seas (the fountains of "the great deep") and returned there; to the deep. Why question that?

Mt Everest wasn't around when the flood started.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mt Everest wasn't around when the flood started.

Indeed.

We could have had mountains much higher back then.

 

[-57]

Indeed.

We could have had mountains much higher back then.

Then the account of the flood of Noah and the water depths would be incorrect. Everest and other mountains were rapidly formed around the time period when the water were receding. Evidence of this can be seen when we look at recumbent folds in the strata. The folds were made when the rock was still somewhat plastic. We know this because hard rock/strata doesn't fold. It snaps, crackles and pops.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then the account of the flood of Noah and the water depths would be incorrect. Everest and other mountains were rapidly formed around the time period when the water were receding. Evidence of this can be seen when we look at recumbent folds in the strata. The folds were made when the rock was still somewhat plastic. We know this because hard rock/strata doesn't fold. It snaps, crackles and pops.

Job 28:9 He putteth forth his hand upon the rock; he overturneth the mountains by the roots.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mt Everest wasn't around when the flood started.

That is because there was no flood. Mt. Everest has been on the Earth much longer than people have. Perhaps this link would be at about your level:

http://www.alanarnette.com/kids/everestfacts.php

 

[Subduction Zone]

Job 28:9 He putteth forth his hand upon the rock; he overturneth the mountains by the roots.

I know that you like the Bible, but since parts of the Bible are being questioned here can you find any reliable sources that support your beliefs? You know, something from the world of science. The system that made the computer you are using possible in the first place.

 

[-57]

Job 28:9 He putteth forth his hand upon the rock; he overturneth the mountains by the roots.

If that is in reference to the flood...then the mountains were "leveled" then reestablished near the end of the flood.

Psalm 104:6You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. 7At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.8The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them. 9You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that is in reference to the flood...then the mountains were "leveled" then reestablished near the end of the flood.

Psalm 104:6You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. 7At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.8The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them. 9You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth

Actually it is a fairly meaningless poetic verse. You do not need to read the Bible literally to be a Christian. In fact literalism tends to lead two different paths if taken to the extremes. One of them is atheism. A person that can reason and has an all or nothing attitude will be forced to drop Christianity. The other extreme is not pretty either.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Also a flood that rose up would allow people to out climb it in many areas of the world.

The people would have no idea that a flood was coming. Those on the lowest ground had no way to communicate a coming flood to anyone else. It was raining, possibly hard; they would have been dealing with that by staying sheltered. Visibility would have been poor. When the flood water arrived they would have had no time to prepare for a trek to high ground. If some did make to 'safety' it would only be temporary as they would have died from starvation and exposure.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Mt Everest wasn't around when the flood started.

I believe the cataclysms that formed the mountains happened millions of years before the flood, possibly with the overthrow of Lucifer. Also see GAP theory.

 

[-57]

Actually it is a fairly meaningless poetic verse. You do not need to read the Bible literally to be a Christian. In fact literalism tends to lead two different paths if taken to the extremes. One of them is atheism. A person that can reason and has an all or nothing attitude will be forced to drop Christianity. The other extreme is not pretty either.

God appears to be a bit bigger than you think.

 

[-57]

I believe the cataclysms that formed the mountains happened millions of years before the flood, possibly with the overthrow of Lucifer. Also see GAP theory.

Lucifer walked in the Garden of Eden.....in an unfallen state. Do you put the date of the Garden of Eden millions of years before the flood?