No reason to believe X is true, other then my interpetation of Y must be true.

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Try the Garden of Eden.

You really don't have a good answer, do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You really don't have a good answer, do you?

To what?

He gave me the geographic area of the Garden of Eden, and expects me to agree that the entire supercontinent is located there?

Here's his exact quote:

Now, Eden is located at the headwaters of 4 rivers.

He's incorrect -- his quote should say:

Now, the Garden of Eden is located at the headwaters of 4 rivers.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

To what?

He gave me the geographic area of the Garden of Eden, and expects me to agree that the entire supercontinent is located there?

Here's his exact quote:
He's incorrect -- his quote should say:

It's called splitting hairs, you know as well as I do that in the context of this thread, Eden = Garden of Eden. You deliberately trying to detract from the fact that you have painted yourself into a corner, and as lucaspa pointed out, you have resorted to pulling things out of your behind and semantics.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's called splitting hairs, you know as well as I do that in the context of this thread, Eden = Garden of Eden. You deliberately trying to detract from the fact that you have painted yourself into a corner, and as lucaspa pointed out, you have resorted to pulling things out of your behind and semantics.

I don't know what you're talking about now, LTTF, but for the record, he said this:

NO! Eden is a land, but it is not the only land.

... and I disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's called splitting hairs, you know as well as I do that in the context of this thread, Eden = Garden of Eden. You deliberately trying to detract from the fact that you have painted yourself into a corner, and as lucaspa pointed out, you have resorted to pulling things out of your behind and semantics.

Here you go:

The bible mentions nothing of pangea, and also, the earth is only 4000 years old according to god.

Indeed, according to James Ussher the Earth was made in 4004 BC (at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23), so the Earth is only 6012 years old! Surely medieval clerymen and people living before the classical age know these things better than modern-age scientists!

No sorry, I think they don't. Actually it's supposed to be 6000 years, and furthermore the Bible does not really make claims about the age of the Earth, that's someone's interpretation.In reference to what the Bible says, it makes no statements on the status of any of the land masses. It mentions Eden in Genesis 2 but gives no size. Eden could be Pangea. The garden that Adam and Eve inhabited was not all of Eden but a small part of it. The garden is surrounded by 4 rivers that rise in Eden.

After the fall of man and the expulsion from the garden, there is still no details concerning the status of the land masses. However, in the time of Noah, there is a flood that covers the whole earth. Such a flood may have had enough power to cause the land mass to break apart and drift, thus creating the present order of the continents, which are still drifting apart.

The conclusion is that the Bible neither prove or disproves Pangea, but if one wants to believe, Pangea can be evidence for Eden.

SOURCE

 

[Targ]

It's amazing, AV. You tell us "science can take a hike", but you want the Bible to correspond to science. Science has told us that there used to be a supercontinent and it's been named "Pangea". Instead of telling science "to take a hike", you want the Bible to say there was a supercontinent. You even try to make "Eden" = "Pangea". But all that does is call scripture further into disrepute because it's clear from scripture that Eden cannot possibly be a supercontinent. Not without violating the scripture you supposedly want to defend for accuracy.

The location of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2 is very clearly located in a modern landscape. It talks about rivers like the Euphrates and Tigris, which still exist today. If the flood was global, with rapid continental separation, then these rivers should not still exist. Yet these 4 rivers described in Genesis 2 (before the flood) still exist today (one no longer flows but is still identifiable), all flowing through the area of southern Iraq (Mesopotamia) commonly identified as the location of Eden.

This all confirms for me that the flood was a localised event, not a global phenomena (no, this is not a cue for the usual debates about the passages that talk about all life being killed upon the whole earth etc).

See here for more details. Be sure to read that first before saying "ah, but you haven't explained x, y or z in your post!"

 

[Targ]

Umm, AV, I hardly class a Wikipedia talk page as being a reliable source.

After the fall of man and the expulsion from the garden, there is still no details concerning the status of the land masses. However, in the time of Noah, there is a flood that covers the whole earth. Such a flood may have had enough power to cause the land mass to break apart and drift, thus creating the present order of the continents, which are still drifting apart.

Yeah, and the same power that supposedly split continents would also be enough to boil off all water on earth, meaning that there would no longer be a flood. Tectonic plate movements cause earthquakes. Move them at a rate of a couple of thousand kilometres per year and you'll have some serious heat generation going on. This guy appears to have missed a few 'minor' details from their flood model, but then that is often the way with these kinds of creationist hypotheses - talk about why you think your hypothesis works, but ignore all the devastating consequences of what would happen if your hypothesis was true and reasons why it wouldn't work.

It's like when people say that a vapour canopy explains why people lived to 969 years old (according to Genesis 5), because such a canopy would block out UV rays. Yeah, that's not the only thing it would block out - it would also block out all light, leaving plants unable to photosynthesise, which would result in the death of all life on earth. And that's just for starters.

 

[AV1611VET]

The location of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2 is very clearly located in a modern landscape.

No, it isn't.

The Garden of Eden today is in Heaven.

It talks about rivers like the Euphrates and Tigris, which still exist today.

No, it doesn't.

It mentions four rivers by name: Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel and Euphrates -- no Tigris.

The point of being pedantic about this, is that some think that the Garden of Eden was much further east at the time.

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

If the flood was global, with rapid continental separation, then these rivers should not still exist.

There was no continental separation during the Flood, the separation happened in Peleg's time -- Genesis 10; the Flood is Genesis 6-9.

Yet these 4 rivers described in Genesis 2 (before the flood) still exist today (one no longer flows but is still identifiable), all flowing through the area of southern Iraq (Mesopotamia) commonly identified as the location of Eden.

You see four rivers today, and assume they were the same rivers as those mentioned by name in Genesis 2; when only two of the four rivers carry the Biblical name.

Lay a fork down on the table, so that the handle is pointing to the right (east). Let the handle of the fork represent this unnamed river mentioned in Genesis 2, and let the tines of the fork represent four smaller rivers: the Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel and Euphrates.

Now take that fork and turn it so that the handle is pointing downward (south).

Twist it and stretch it and mutilate it until it looks like only two long tines with a short handle.

This would represent the topography as it looks today -- nothing like the original fork.

In fact, break off the right tine and add another long tine and call it the Tigris.

The short handle, now is no longer this unnamed river in Genesis 2, but is now called the al-Arab.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's like when people say that a vapour canopy explains why people lived to 969 years old (according to Genesis 5), because such a canopy would block out UV rays. Yeah, that's not the only thing it would block out - it would also block out all light, leaving plants unable to photosynthesise, which would result in the death of all life on earth. And that's just for starters.

You're forgetting that God orchestrated the Flood.

I'm sure He handled any science that would attempt to get in His way.

Excessive heat here, water pressure there, etc. and so-forth would all have to stand aside (or take a hike) until God's will was performed to the letter.

Just like at the Rapture.

You can argue it can't happen because gravity says otherwise, rapid propulsion would kill the person, they would burn up in the atmosphere, yada-yada -- and all it will do is confuse you.

 

[Targ]

You're forgetting that God orchestrated the Flood.

I'm sure He handled any science that would attempt to get in His way.

Excessive heat here, water pressure there, etc. and so-forth would all have to stand aside (or take a hike) until God's will was performed to the letter.

Just like at the Rapture.

You can argue it can't happen because gravity says otherwise, rapid propulsion would kill the person, they would burn up in the atmosphere, yada-yada -- and all it will do is confuse you.

When you call upon miracles to explain everything in the face of perfectly feasible alternative naturalistic explanations, and despite the fact the Bible claims no such miracles, this is when you know that you have lost the debate.

 

[Targ]

No, it isn't.

The Garden of Eden today is in Heaven.

The Garden of Eden was a place on earth that has long since disappeared. It is still possible to take out a map and pinpoint where it probably once was.

No, it doesn't.

It mentions four rivers by name: Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel and Euphrates -- no Tigris.

Hiddekel is the Hebrew name for the Tigris river:

BDB Definition: Hiddekel 1) one of the rivers of Eden which coursed east toward Assyria; better known as the Tigris (the LXX equivalent)

The point of being pedantic about this, is that some think that the Garden of Eden was much further east at the time.

Like east of Israel?

There was no continental separation during the Flood, the separation happened in Peleg's time -- Genesis 10; the Flood is Genesis 6-9.

See previous discussion - the Peleg incident is referring to either political or language divisions mentioned a few verses later in that chapter. Continental separation after the flood would have generated enough energy to kill all life on earth, and that's just for starters. There's also no rational explanation for why God would suddenly decide one day "I know, let's randomly split the continents!"

You see four rivers today, and assume they were the same rivers as those mentioned by name in Genesis 2; when only two of the four rivers carry the Biblical name.

Of course they were the same rivers as are still in existence today. If they weren't, then the description in Genesis 2 would be utterly irrelevant. It'd be like me telling you that my house is located 5,000km north west of Atlantis (not a cue for AoS to chime in here! lol), turn right, travel for 100km past the lost civilisations of the Ungo bongo people, travel north east for a few more hundred km and then turn right into my driveway. If you were told that, you'd be like "what on earth? how is that going to help me know where you live?" Likewise, it would be utterly pointless telling people the location of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2 (complete with descriptions of what is found along each river) if the landscape to which these places belonged no longer existed. As the study I linked to shows, the descriptions given in Genesis 2 still match the landscape in existence today.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you call upon miracles to explain everything in the face of perfectly feasible alternative naturalistic explanations, and despite the fact the Bible claims no such miracles, this is when you know that you have lost the debate.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, Targ.

You think the Flood could not have happened because nature would get in the way, and the Bible says otherwise.

Consider Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego -- why didn't they die in the fiery furnace?

 

[Targ]

You think the Flood could not have happened because nature would get in the way, and the Bible says otherwise.

Impossible for a global flood maybe (barring an insane number of miracles that are not even mentioned in the text), but that's not the only reason I reject it: Biblical reasons also contribute to my viewing the flood as being local to Mesopotamia.

 

[AV1611VET]

Impossible for a global flood maybe (barring an insane number of miracles that are not even mentioned in the text), but that's not the only reason I reject it: Biblical reasons also contribute to my viewing the flood as being local to Mesopotamia.

Really?

Why then was Noah aboard the Ark for a year and ten days, if the Flood was just a local one?

 

[Split Rock]

Really?

Why then was Noah aboard the Ark for a year and ten days, if the Flood was just a local one?

You repeat this over and over like it means something. Tell us... how long should the Flood have lasted if it was regional, rather than local?

 

[AV1611VET]

You repeat this over and over like it means something. Tell us... how long should the Flood have lasted if it was regional, rather than local?

8 days.

 

[Split Rock]

8 days.

And now you can tell us how you arrived at "8 days."