• 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.

Jerusalem pre flood remains

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The geology of Jersualem area is interesting. My opinion so far, of when the flood was, is somewhere around the KT level. That would mean, if I was correct, that the ark landed at that time.

There is a legend that the skull of Adam was on the ark.



Legends of Old Testament characters ... - Google Books


He was supposedly led to the area by an angel, or maybe Melchizedek, who of course is Jesus.


The geology of the area is as follows

"On the high hills overlooking Jerusalem on the East, Southeast and Southwest there still remain strata of considerable thickness of those chalky limestones of the post-Tertiary period which crown so many hilltops of Palestine, and once covered the whole land. On the "Mount of Olives," for example, occurs a layer of conglomerate limestone known as Nari, or "firestone," and another thicker deposit, known as Ka`kuli, of which two distinct strata can be distinguished. In these layers, especially the latter, occur pockets containing marl or haur, and in both there are bands of flint."

JERUSALEM, 1 - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Flint is formed in deep water, if I recall..

So we have the first Adam, if this is true, buried where the second Adam (Jesus) was sacrificed. That would mean that a pre flood human skull was there as well. And that the flood was very deep in the geologic column. Since it fits with other things I have come to accept, I think it may possibly be true. Any takers?


Also of interest, is that they claim Eve was buried in the cave of Macpela, where Abraham (that tithed to Melchizedek, by the way) somehow wanted to bury his wife in!
 

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Adam's skull? You mean he didn't return to dust?
Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Most people that die take some time to have their bodies get down to dust. That is why they find a lot of bones, and skulls.

If Adam lived 930 years, if the flood was something like 15, or 16 hundred years after creation, his remains would only be several hundred years old. (at time of the flood) Do you seriously think that is any concern?

Now, the mountains of ararat, were not where they are today, if the continental separation happened after the flood either. In fact, when I run Pangea animations, it looks like it may have been closer to Israel at the time. If the mountain building also came after the flood (pushed up land mass mountains, as opposed to smaller original ones) then those ark hunters are way off the scent!

All that is needed to make it possible, is a different universe fabric at the time. That way, the moving land masses would not produce deadly heat all over earth.

If we look at creation week, we also see a big water and land movement, that likewise did not produce the killing heat.


We also need to look at where the Tigris and Euprates rivers, etc were at the time. Not where they now run.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are assuming it was a literal week, yet you don't take Genesis literally when it says Adam would return to the ground and turn to dust instead of having his dead carted around in the ark. If Adam had not returned to the ground, was his skull's brow still sweating as it worked to make bread?

As for your idea the universe had a different fabric, that is pure fantasy without any support in either science or scripture, it is simply something you made up to try to reconcile your interpretation of Genesis with the fact that the scientific evidence contradicts it. Just because it suits you to explain the discrepancy between your interpretation of scripture and the real world, doesn't mean it is what actually happened. Pointing out problems in Creationism like the tendency for creationist geological explanations to boil the planet, is not evidence supporting your idea, it is simply a problem with creationism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, I do not assume that Adam was supposed to return to the ground creation weeek. Get serious.




No. Actually. No more than the new heavens cannot be this temporary universe that shall pass away. You heard of that? You believe it? You have any science to tell us the future universe state? No. What do you have?

Just because it suits you to explain the discrepancy between your interpretation of scripture and the real world, doesn't mean it is what actually happened.

Pointing out that this present is different from the new heavens coming means it is exactly that. Care to dispute it? Go ahead..make my day.


Pointing out problems in Creationism like the tendency for creationist geological explanations to boil the planet, is not evidence supporting your idea, it is simply a problem with creationism.
There are no problems with a new heavens coming, or with the creation state past. None. harping on a te,poral state present as if it must be the measure of the unknown future and past is insane.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sadly there isn't a relevant point in the whole post.
No, I do not assume that Adam was supposed to return to the ground creation weeek. Get serious.
Never said you do.

No. Actually. No more than the new heavens cannot be this temporary universe that shall pass away. You heard of that? You believe it? You have any science to tell us the future universe state? No. What do you have?
You know, I have heard about it. It is mentioned in the bible quite a few times. Unlike your complete change in the laws of physics at the time of Peleg. Even science tells us this present universe is not going to last for ever, though if God were to bring the universe to an end before then, it hasn't happened yet, so there is no evidence for science to study. There is no reason for science to see any earlier change in the universe in the future. However there is plenty science can study that would have undergone your change in the laws of physics if they ever happened, from the geology, the radioactive isotopes in the rocks, astronomy, even our very genes should show evidence for the laws of physics changing a few thousand years ago.

So with the future change, we have evidence in the bible, evidence in science the universe will not last forever and no reason to predict and earlier change which hasn't happened yet, while your change in the laws of physics has no support in scripture and no evidence in science which should have plenty of evidence indicating a massive change you claim has already happened.

Pointing out that this present is different from the new heavens coming means it is exactly that. Care to dispute it? Go ahead..make my day.
No, I don't dispute the new heavens and earth, just that their relevance to your claim the original heavens and earth changed at the time of Peleg.

There are no problems with a new heavens coming, or with the creation state past. None. harping on a te,poral state present as if it must be the measure of the unknown future and past is insane.
So basically you don't have any evidence whatsoever supporting these wild claims.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Best I can tell, the change was complete about the time of Peleg, in the days when the earth was split.
What has Peleg got to do with it anything There is no mention of the laws of physics changing when he lived, however Peleg did live at the time of Babel when the earth, (or land it is the same word erets), being divided into different languages and nations. David even uses the same word divide, palag, to refer to languages being confused Psalm 55:9 Destroy, O Lord, divide their tongues; for I see violence and strife in the city. This is how the word was used, it fits the context of Genesis, there is no suggestion in the text of a breakup of Pangaea or a change in the laws of physics.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You know, I have heard about it. It is mentioned in the bible quite a few times. Unlike your complete change in the laws of physics at the time of Peleg.
False. No change in our laws. No more than the new heaven state will be a change in our laws! There will be new ones. And, if the biblle is to be believed, there had to have also been a change in the created state.


Even science tells us this present universe is not going to last for ever, though if God were to bring the universe to an end before then, it hasn't happened yet, so there is no evidence for science to study.

False, that gets into so called science. The redshift and CMB that they use for an expanding universe is interpreted only within this state. Therefore it is religion, unless you prove this state always existed.

There is no reason for science to see any earlier change in the universe in the future.

I agree, no reason at all, it is too small and limited, and utterly unable.


Nonsense! Noo change IN this state happened. We, along with the present decay and light, etc are the change! You miss the whole thing.

No, science has squat. They have no clue, no possible clue, being a creature solely of this temporary state. The bible tells many things about the creation week, and early times of earth, that require a different state! In order, of course to be true.

No, I don't dispute the new heavens and earth, just that their relevance to your claim the original heavens and earth changed at the time of Peleg.

The lifespans evidence that. The impossibility of waters being above the earth in this present state, the slow growth rate and evolution we see here, and light, etc. If the bible is true, the past and future are not the same as this present universe state.

But, forget what state the earth was in, science doesn't know! It assumes. So you sure don't. FACT is that the continents moved. So the ark that landed in the mounts of Ararat, need not have landed in the present location of Armenia.

 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, and we could use it to divide pancakes, or beef. So? The fact that there was a major division on earth in that time merely sets the time. The details of what separated, are gathered from the bible and science as a whole. For example the changed life spans, and changed relationship to spirits on earth, and plant growth, and languages, etc etc etc.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
False. No change in our laws. No more than the new heaven state will be a change in our laws! There will be new ones. And, if the biblle is to be believed, there had to have also been a change in the created state.
You have yet to point to any reference in the bible to this supposed change in the created state.

False, that gets into so called science. The redshift and CMB that they use for an expanding universe is interpreted only within this state. Therefore it is religion, unless you prove this state always existed.
No it is up to you to provide some evidence for your wild claims. If the state of the universe changed as you believe, then there should be some indication in the observable universe. If redshift and CMB we see in distant parts of the universe happened before your 'split'. Why do we not see the universe obeying different laws back then? Clearly you think the split has a massive effect on our observations, throwing all our attempts to study the universe into confusion, but at the same time you don't think the changes in the universe are detectable. That makes no sense.

I agree, no reason at all, it is too small and limited, and utterly unable.
Yet you believe science is able to observe stars from before your split as well as after, that it can study geological formations and tectonic movement that occurred before, during and after the split, what about radioactive decay do you believe they occurred at different rates or released different energies before and after the split? These are all things science can study and yet has found none of the supposed changes you think happened. On the other hand, there is plenty of reason for science not to detect the new heavens and earth, because they simply haven't happened yet.

Nonsense! Noo change IN this state happened. We, along with the present decay and light, etc are the change! You miss the whole thing.
Either the universe underwent a change in state and science should be able to detect the difference between events that happened before and after, or the universe has always been following the same laws and the age of the earth and universe calculated through constant rates of radioactive decay and the speed of light is accurate. Either the supernovas in distant galaxies occurred before the split and we are observing events before the split with light travelling through the split, and the differences of pre and post split physics should be glaringly obvious, or they happened after the split and measurement of how long ago it happened are right.

No as I said before, the problems with creationism are not evidence for your explanation, they are simply evidence creationism is wrong. You need to present actual evidence for your split, yet you have neither biblical references nor scientific evidence for an even that should be glaringly obvious in geology and astronomy.

The lifespans evidence that.
No they are not. I am not sure they are supposed to be taken literally when Moses who is supposed to have lived to 120, tells us in Psalm 90 that man's lifespan is only 70 or 80. Even if you do take them literally, they are only evidence that God shortened man's lifespan, Gen 6:3 his days shall be 120 years, not that the state of the universe changed.

The impossibility of waters being above the earth in this present state
I live in Wales we have water above the earth most of the time, usually dripping down too.

the slow growth rate and evolution we see here, and light, etc.
The bible doesn't say plants grew faster, light moved faster, or evolution happened faster before the flood. Some people claim plants grew faster to explain coal deposits, but the bible does not say that. And of course creationists interpret Gen 1 to say when God created plants and trees they grew up in a single day. But a) that is simply their interpretation of the passage, and b) even if it were true, we are looking at God creating the plants. There isn't the slightest hint the supposed rapid growth was due to a different state of the universe that changed after the universe split in Gen 10.

If the bible is true, the past and future are not the same as this present universe state.
No, the bible say nothing of the sort.

But, forget what state the earth was in, science doesn't know! It assumes. So you sure don't. FACT is that the continents moved. So the ark that landed in the mounts of Ararat, need not have landed in the present location of Armenia.

What has plate tectonic got to do with it? Oh I get it you are taking a passage describing how God divided the land among the different nations ignoring the context and word use, and following the modern creationist reinterpretation of the passage as God splitting the continent apart. Then you take the creationist reinterpretation and run with it, so that not only was the 'earth' physically split apart the entire universe divided too. Reading plate tectonics into Genesis was bad eisegesis in the first place, your split between physical and spiritual is simply groundless speculation.

Is there any evidence in scripture of science for your split?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, and we could use it to divide pancakes, or beef. So?
So? so you are making up wild meanings to a phrase and ignoring how the bible uses the word. palag is in fact a very rare word, the fact that David uses it in his Psalm to describe people's language being confused shows that is how he understood the Peleg reference. I would much prefer to rely on David's understanding of the Hebrew than wild speculation.

Languages I could understand, though we are not told how God confused the tongues. There is a relationship between nations and languages, having different languages set the nations apart. But what has God setting national boundaries got to do with changes in life spans, and changed relationship to spirits on earth, or plant growth? Where does the bible talk about change in relationship to spirits on earth or change in plant growth? The bible says God imprisoned some angels who were disobedient before the flood but what has that to do with changing the state of the universe? That is stuff you just make up yourself. The change in lifespan, if you want to take it literally, was the result of God's command before the flood, there is no suggestion it is the result of the nations being divided up generations later.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You have yet to point to any reference in the bible to this supposed change in the created state.

The fall was a change in the created state, at least the ground, or surface of the earth. The changes from pre flood to post babel are so great, that only a universe state change could explain it.

There was the 120 year warning from God as well.


I am not sure we don't to start with. Although I assume the universe is all the same as here..for now. If the change left light affected out there as redshifted, then the redshift IS an indication. You just read it wrong. Same with CMB!


Clearly you think the split has a massive effect on our observations, throwing all our attempts to study the universe into confusion, but at the same time you don't think the changes in the universe are detectable. That makes no sense.
You have no grasped HOW massive!!! ALL we see is the effect!

Yet you believe science is able to observe stars from before your split as well as after,


Woah!!! No! They would only see this state. Assuming the universe is this state. But what we see, such as light did not get here in this state only. The only bits that got here in this state, are the bits since this state existed.




that it can study geological formations and tectonic movement that occurred before, during and after the split,
Yes, but not have any clue as to that the state was when they were laid down!



what about radioactive decay do you believe they occurred at different rates or released different energies before and after the split?

NO. I don't see that it existed. Nor will exist in the forever state.


These are all things science can study and yet has found none of the supposed changes you think happened.
False. It can only study HERE. It has merely superimpose the rules and laws of HERE, on THERE.


On the other hand, there is plenty of reason for science not to detect the new heavens and earth, because they simply haven't happened yet.
I agree. And by the same token, the now GONE different state already happened! So it can't be detected by PRESENT science either.


No. This universe NEVER underwent a change, so the sciience OF this universe state can't know. This universe we know IS the change. That takes it out of their depth.



Not necessarily. If, for example they were an in split event, then the light we know was not here, or space, etc. So how it got here is neither post split, present state, or pre split former state, but a combination. There are other possibilities as well. But unless you can fix this state through all past and future, you have no case whatsoever.

No as I said before, the problems with creationism are not evidence for your explanation, they are simply evidence creationism is wrong. You need to present actual evidence for your split, yet you have neither biblical references nor scientific evidence for an even that should be glaringly obvious in geology and astronomy.

No they are not. I am not sure they are supposed to be taken literally when Moses who is supposed to have lived to 120, tells us in Psalm 90 that man's lifespan is only 70 or 80. Even if you do take them literally, they are only evidence that God shortened man's lifespan, Gen 6:3 his days shall be 120 years, not that the state of the universe changed.

I live in Wales we have water above the earth most of the time, usually dripping down too.

Since it is this state, and rain water, it doesn't apply.

The bible doesn't say plants grew faster, light moved faster, or evolution happened faster before the flood.

The story it tells rquire it. For example, God planted a garden, in creation week. Man and beast ate the fruits of the trees days later. No way round it.


Some people claim plants grew faster to explain coal deposits, but the bible does not say that.
I disagree. Noah also saw the olive twig in a week after the flood. The tree of life also grows fruit every month! It was in Eden too.


And of course creationists interpret Gen 1 to say when God created plants and trees they grew up in a single day. But a) that is simply their interpretation of the passage, and b) even if it were true, we are looking at God creating the plants. [/quote]

No. Not in a single day. It was two or three days. The garden, clearly, was a garden, and PLANTED!

There isn't the slightest hint the supposed rapid growth was due to a different state of the universe that changed after the universe split in Gen 10.
Yes. There is, many clues.



No. Some experts include the continents as part of what divided. I balance that with science. WE KNOW it divided. The question is when. It can't be at the flood, as I see it. The animals needed to migrate. A lot easier in a Pangea type land mass, than over seas.

Then you take the creationist reinterpretation and run with it, so that not only was the 'earth' physically split apart the entire universe divided too.

It had to be changed, because so many laws are different. Living 1000 years is impossible here. Fast growing plants...light that gets here from far stars..etc etc etc And the BIG thing is that the spiritual is now separate. No longer can man build up to heaven! Or marry angels!

Reading plate tectonics into Genesis was bad eisegesis in the first place, your split between physical and spiritual is simply groundless speculation.

Is there any evidence in scripture of science for your split?


There is no evidence against it. Any more than against heaven. ALL history and bible point to major differences. The future of the bible is also different, yet similar. I got it all.
 
Upvote 0

marktheblake

Member
Aug 20, 2008
1,039
26
The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
Visit site
✟23,859.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Dad, it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if the ancient unknown landmarks are in the very same place today like Jerusalem and so on.

Gdd has a way of making dates and places recurr!

Recently I have uncovered that the date they left the ark matches the date of the passover, and therefore the crucification (or resurrection more likely) - but only after reconciling with the change in calendars - amazing stuff.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Wow!
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The fall was a change in the created state, at least the ground, or surface of the earth.
The red earth, adamah, that Adam was formed from and he returned to farm after he was kicked out of Eden was better at producing thorns and thistles and grain does not require a change in state, just a few vigorous seeds being dropped by passing birds or blowing in on the wind and taking root. The thorns and thistle could have been growing there already, remember this was new ground Adam was trying to till, not the garden he had been in. Assuming the account is even literal of course.

The changes from pre flood to post babel are so great, that only a universe state change could explain it.
You seem to have this very strange attitude to the miraculous. Throughout church history Christians have recognised that God operate both through the supernatural miracles and through using natural processes, so for example some or all of the plagues of Egypt have been seen as God using natural events to free the Israelites, the same with the quail the Israelites ate, while the resurrection, healing, multiplication of oil flour, bread, fish are God's direct supernatural intervention. People may argue about which acts of God are supernatural and miraculous and which he used natural processes, but the church has recognised Go used both.

You approach is very different. Instead of seeing events in Genesis as having a natural explanation or as a miraculous intervention, you think even the miraculous has to have a perfectly natural explanation and invent a completely new nature for the universe to have back then. It strikes me as similar to the lack of faith deists have when they empty every act of God of the miraculous, yet I presume you believe God acted supernaturally in all the miracle we read of after the Peleg, yet in the miracles you read of before Peleg, whether you misinterpret the text or not, you seem to assume God could not have performed these work unless the nature of the universe was different

There was the 120 year warning from God as well.
Don't know what that has to do with anything other than showing if the longevity of the Patriarchs was literal it was probably ended by a decree of God rather than being the result of your split.

I am not sure we don't to start with. Although I assume the universe is all the same as here..for now. If the change left light affected out there as redshifted, then the redshift IS an indication. You just read it wrong. Same with CMB!
There should be evidence we read it wrong. everything should be different. Yet we look at supernovae in distant redshifted galaxies and all the physical processes and rates of decay of radioisotopes are exactly what we know from our present universe.

You have no grasped HOW massive!!! ALL we see is the effect!
All we see are physical process operating the same way they do now. Completely change the universe and everything will be different, nothing will fit together the way it does now.

That was pretty garbled. You seem to be using the term 'this state' to refer to pre and post Peleg.

Star existed before the time of Peleg, they have been giving out their light since before mankind was made and light from stars and supernovae have been travelling toward earth from before the time of Peleg and has reached us since, and is still reaching us. We see stars from a time that according to you was pre split. We should be able to see the difference between presplit stars and nearer more recent ones. Yet there is no difference.

Yes, but not have any clue as to that the state was when they were laid down!
The geology is the same, all the chemical make up of the rocks is the same, the evidence from radioactive decay is the same. You would have to claim they were formed very differently in a very different form of universe, underwent a massive change as the universe split apart, and by sheer coincidence happened to end up exactly the way it would have if had all been formed if the universe had been exactly the same as it is now. And yet you do not have the slightest shred of evidence for the massive change in the universe that leaves no evidence. Of course science has a clue the universe was in the same state, they can measure the same processes and laws that operate in rock and stars from before man walked on the earth.

You see there is your problem, because scientists can study the rates of decay that occured in precambrian rock, or in supernovae millions of light years away, long before your split. If you think these supernovae happened after the split then your split must have been millions of years ago, because the light has been travelling at what you would consider the post split universe at its post split speed for millions of years.

False. It can only study HERE. It has merely superimpose the rules and laws of HERE, on THERE.
No it measures the rates of processes and the operation of the laws the universe obeyed in ancient stars and ancient rocks. In fact scientists go out of their way to see if the same laws applied. I really don't know how they would not see a change if the universe had undergone the massive upheaval you claim happened. Instead you cannot provide the slightest shred of evidence for your split.

Not gone. Most of the star and galaxies we see shone the light we are looking at now before Peleg was born, yet they look exactly like the ones we see nearer to us, most of the rock on earth were formed before Peleg or even before Pangaea broke apart, yet the rock formed before Pangaea broke apart look exactly like the ones formed in what you claim has been a very different universe since.

No. This universe NEVER underwent a change, so the sciience OF this universe state can't know. This universe we know IS the change. That takes it out of their depth.
If the universe never changed then we can study it using the science we learned in this universe because it follows the laws of this universe unchangingly since the change happened 14.7 billion years ago.

The fact you cannot provide a coherent description of what happened to the light of stars galaxies and supernovae from before your split is not a problem for science but is other problem for you split. Science provides a coherent explanation of the data, you cannot. But that pales into insignificance alongside the problem that you can provide no evidence whatsoever either scientific or biblical to back up you idea.

Remember you were trying to provide evidence the 'pre split' state of the universe was different from now. The fact that we have water above the earth today shows your claim doesn't hold water.

I disagree. Noah also saw the olive twig in a week after the flood.
But where is the slightest hint this is the result of a the universe being different before Peleg? There are plenty of other explanations much more in line with scripture than a change in the universe that is never mentioned or even hinted at.
The whole passage could be figurative, the timescale could be figurative, the passage could be literal, but you miss read a description of a local flood for a global one, the olive tree could have been flooded and God preserved it miraculously, God could have raised it from the dead, he could have made a dormant branch bud like he did with Aaron's rod. How long does an olive tree take to bud anyway? It is only the creationist claim the flood scoured the surface of the earth to provide the sediment forming most of our geological strata that say any olive trees before the flood would have been uprooted or buried under kilometers of sediment. The bible says nothing of the sort.

The tree of life also grows fruit every month! It was in Eden too.
The fact you are quoting the book of Revelation to describe the Tree of Life tells us it is symbolic not that it is rapid growing.

The garden is in Genesis 2 not Genesis 1 where creationist interpret their single day trees. But you have made no effort to deal with my two points, the literal interpretation is a mistake to start with as the differences between the two account shows, but even if you take it literally the text says this is God's work, why do you think God is bound by the whatever state of the universe exists? Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

You have yet to point any out.

All you have are interpretations of the text, usually misinterpretations, that you explain with your split, you have provided no evidence that your so called split is in fact the explanation.

Again animal migration is evidence the global flood is a misinterpretation of the text, not that Pangaea broke up a few thousand years ago. Even if creationist claims about Pangaea were right it would simply mean the continents broke apart, not that the state of the universe was split apart. Creationist misinterpret the Peleg passage but at least it is based on the text, which says that the earth was divided, not the whole universe.

It had to be changed, because so many laws are different. Living 1000 years is impossible here. Fast growing plants...light that gets here from far stars..etc etc etc
Where does the bible say the speed of light changed? Where does the bible say plants naturally grew faster before Peleg? You brought up long lives before but did not address my reply. The distance of stars and the time it takes light to get here is a problem for creationism, not evidence for your split. You may like your split idea because it gives you a way to try to explain the problems in Creationism, but without actual evidence for the split, this is simply wishful thinking.

And the BIG thing is that the spiritual is now separate.
That must be why there are never any miracles recorded in the bible after Peleg. Where does the bible say the spiritual is separate from the natural in a way that it wasn't before Peleg? You are making this all up.

No longer can man build up to heaven!
Ever hear of a skyscraper? Deut 11:11
But the land which you are entering to possess it is a land of hills and valleys, drinking water from the rain of the heavens. In biblical language, the heavens start where the clouds are. That would make for a pretty impressive ziggurat, but hardly an impossible one. And remember God's answer was to disperse the builders, not to split the universe part.

Or marry angels!
One of many interpretations of an obscure passage, and an interpretation that seems to contradict Jesus' statement that the angels of heaven don't marry. I would go with Jesus understanding of angels.

There is no evidence against it. Any more than against heaven. ALL history and bible point to major differences. The future of the bible is also different, yet similar. I got it all.
You need a bit more than 'no evidence against it' to support a wild idea, any loopy idea worth it's salt will make itself unfalsifiable. What ideas need to be given any credibility is some evidence that actually supports them. You have none. And your comparison with heaven or the new heavens and earth simply does not hold, the bible does mention heaven, and a new heavens and earth, but there is no mention whatsoever of your split.

 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private


Returned to the farm? The new universe state was not at the fall. Noah needed a different state too.



The thorns and thistle could have been growing there already, remember this was new ground Adam was trying to till, not the garden he had been in. Assuming the account is even literal of course.

Man was to multiply, so the eternal creature was to spread out. There could be no cursed area to spread to, that is foolish.

Yes, but that does not even address what was the nature of Eden, or Noah, or the new heavens coming!


No, it is sillly to imagine sextillions of fairies were needed for constant miracles. A simpler explanation, and one that fits with the future, is that the nature was not as now.


Post too long...try to look at the last bits another time..
 
Upvote 0