Of the earth or land, not of the universe which you try you read into it, and as we have seen from both the context and the words used, it refers to the land being divided among the different languages and nations, not to continents splitting apart.
Says you, for no apparent reason. yet some bible expositors and commentaries have included the separation of the land. The evidence however shows so many sudden changes, and drastic ones, that mere land movement, or languages, could never begin to account for it. I try and work with the whole bible, and science, and evidences of history.
We have looked at your supposed changes, they don't hold up.
Nonsense. We have looked at them too. They hold up like solid gold.
You read things into passage that simply aren't there like your super fast plant growth,
False. If a garden was planted in creation week, and man and beast ate the fruits of trees, that is fast. If noah sent a bird, and it found no green life, and a week later, a fresh twig, that is fast. I got it nailed.
or superfast light speed, you assume the things you read into the passages were the normal state of the universe back then, and you assume these all changed as a result of this split you cannot show anywhere in scripture.
It was not fast present light! It was fast former light in a former state. Science has squat to say about it. There is no other way starlight could get here in a week.
I don't see why the first century book of Revelation should be expected to deny a wild idea you only thought up a few years ago.
Me either, but since you just invented the idea that it should, who really cares?
What Revelation does is contrast the new heaven and earth, where there is no more death and the dwelling place of God is with man, with what it calls the first things, and the first earth and heaven.
In other words, the heavens in place at the time. The new replaces the old. The first give way to the second. But there is no reason to assume this also didn't happen in the far past. It is just that man was never aware, directly.
Why call this heaven and earth 'the first things' if as you claim the real first things were more like the new heaven and earth? If the new heaven and earth are recreating the pre fall (according standard creationist ideas) or pre Peleg (your baby) world, why call this one 'the first things? You ideas simply don't fit, you are confusing the first creation with the new one.
Well, remember on important clue. The sun and moon, and stars, and earth will still be here! They are forever. So, the changes do not involve zapping the sun and earth into oblivion! The end result most closely resembles the original creation, and very much is unlike this present state. Go figure.
Which is simply evidence the account in Genesis is as allegorical as as the book of Revelation, especially when we find the same snake in Revelation as we read of in Genesis and find it wasn't a literal animal it was an angel, Satan.
No. The moniker, the reputation, the deed of possessing the serpent to beguile man, means that the old boy is sometimes callled the serpent. He was the serpent for a bit. A very important bit. But he also was Judas, and many others!
Except you are the one calling Jesus as your witness, and trying to back up your ideas by claiming it is what Jesus believed too.
Jesus and the prophets, and the apostles all believed in the flood, and creation as in Genesis. That is clear.
Why has your tired and discredited argument got to do with calling Jesus as your witness?
All that is tired and discredited is same state science. And your lame attempts to try and portray my rock solid case as something less. What Jesus said regarding creation and the flood is gospel. It is elevated to absolute surety.
He never even said the earth was only four thousand years old or that the flood was global,
The global nature of the flood is it's very nature. That is why Jesus spoke of it coming, and taking 'them all away'!!!! No way round it. Ask Paul.
Heb 11:7 -By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he
condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
and you certainly don't have any basis for thinking Jesus must have believed in your split to explain the contradictions between your young earth interpretation and 21st century science.
Of course I do. I never claimed He mentioned it in the gospels.
He did speak of heaven and creation though.
Your argument the split must have happened because other wise the creation and flood would have been impossible for God flies in the face of what we read Jesus saying again and again that "all things are possible with God" (Matt 17:20, 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:37 (that one was Gabriel) and Luke 18:27).
Nonsense. The issue is not what God coulda done. It is what He did, and how the evidence and rest of the bible bears that out!
I doubt your insistence the creation account should be interpreted literally when Genesis 2 give a completely different orders of creation and describes creation happening in a day.
False. By chapter 2, it was already finished. Therefore the order in in chapter 1.
I do not buy the distinction you try to make between finding out the literal interpretation of Genesis was wrong and the church finding out the literal interpretation of the geocentric passages was wrong when Copernicus came along.
The lieteral was right. Copernicus was merely one of the first to undertstand it waqs noo longer like that! Why? Because we are in this state. The evidence mounts!
We should learn from past mistakes. I don;t buy the way you read much more into passages than even a literal reading of the text says, such the flood being global,
The bible as a whole cements that fact many times. No way round it.
the olive tree growing superfast. The usual creationist reading of the Peleg passage as continents dividing goes way beyond what the context tells us, the land being divided among different nations and languages, but you go way beyond even the creationist overreading thinking it means not just the continents but the whole state of the universe spiritual and material was split apart.
The usual creationist thinking is defeated. That isn't my model. The full extent of the changes involved in the great split of Peleg's day were not known before. There is a time for everything. Treasures new and old.
You have shown no evidence spirits 'openly and directly mixed in the world of men' and didn't after Peleg, while the claim angels had sex with women contradicts what Jesus tells us about angels not marrying.
I disagree. The Egyptians claimed god kings, if I recall, in the early periods. The people of Babel also were building up to heaven, or the spiritual level. It was there at the time. The context of what Jesus referred to in heaven was that the angels are not like men, in the way we marry. How do we do it? We marry one woman. The wedding of Christ has many that are the bride. So, if the angels have sex, they simply do not do so within the confines of a one man one woman marriage. So? Neither will we then. We will be like the angels. Now, we are like we are. No?
Even if you do insist on this bizarre interpretation, other literalists claim the antichrist will be born the same way, as were the Jews who Jesus described as being like their father the devil. Should we accept one bizarre interpretation while rejecting other similar and equally bizarre readings? Picking and choosing which bizarre interpretation to accept is hardly evidence for your split. I also doubt your explanation of how your misinterpretations took place, and your insistence that God could not possible do these things unless they happened naturally in the different state you made up. Your whole split is built on one unsupported conjecture after another and you have never given a single scriptural passage describing your split.
It is, but that is completely irrelevant as we are discussing the earth.
The split is a supported as the myriad of fantastic changes we see in the present, and the future and far past! As for the antichrist, that is off topic. How he is born we don't know, and I don't much care. The fact that he will end up in the lake of fire is really all I need to know about the punk.
