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

[Split Rock]

1. No or very little sedimentary rock. No metamorphic rock.

That only leaves igneous rock. However, igneous rock forms from volcanic activity, and there wasn't any, so where does that leave you? Its the same problem as having sedimentary or metamorphic rock. I would suggest, it would either be a type of rock that cannot be formed by natural processes, or a uniform layer of somekind of rock... the type really doesn't matter. On top of that would need to be a good layer of soil.

 

[Targ]

How do you have the earth... but no rock?

At this point, I was about to joke that you could have an earth-sized sphere of water floating in space.

But then I followed AV1611VET's link to discover that he does actually believe that.

 

[AV1611VET]

At this point, I was about to joke that you could have an earth-sized sphere of water floating in space.

But then I followed AV1611VET's link to discover that he does actually believe that.

That's right -- and what you see as a joke, I see as divine cosmology.

And until it ceases becoming a joke, worthy of ridicule or insult, you guys will never understand.

 

[Targ]

Does anyone else agree with you about this 'terra aqua' theory? Or is this just something you made up on the spot?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does anyone else agree with you about this 'terra aqua' theory?

I don't know.

Or is this just something you made up on the spot?

It is an educated guess, based on interpretation of Scripture.

Genesis 1:9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Let's parse this:

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

This is God's doing -- and has nothing to do with the laws of nature whatsoever.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

This water now makes up our oceans.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Essentially, God is telling the waters to "stand aside" -- something is about to be revealed.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

This is the first time in the history of this universe that anyone ever saw what is now called 'land'.

It is a single supercontinent called Eden in the Bible, or Pangaea in other writings.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Nature takes a hike and God works a miracle, as the physical universe -- (consisting of only the earth) -- obeys.

 

[Tomatoman]

AV, I should think very few people on this earth have spent so much time studying one book and understood it so little. What is it about metaphorical stories that you find so unsatisfactory? Isn't god capable of speaking in metaphor?

Nature takes a hike and God works a miracle, as the physical universe -- (consisting of only the earth) -- obeys.

This is the trouble with myths and metaphors, as soon as you start taking them literally it all goes horribly wrong. Why can't you just accept that genesis IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is it about metaphorical stories that you find so unsatisfactory? Isn't god capable of speaking in metaphor?

You have just as much right to treat Genesis 1 metaphorically, as I do to treat it literally; and given that I could end up thinking like you guys do about God and His creation -- I'll pass.

Show me one person -- just one -- who both treats Genesis 1 metaphorically, and has enough respect for God's Word that they are willing to say, "Yes, science says this, but God's Word says that, so I'm going with God's Word".

 

[Targ]

Essentially, God is telling the waters to "stand aside" -- something is about to be revealed.

Let me get this straight: are you saying that you believe that the ball of rock called Earth was completely covered in water and that it wasn't until day 2 that the dry land was pushed upwards above the water by tectonic plate movements? Or do you believe that Earth was a sphere of pure water that then had land added to it? When I read the link you posted, I got the idea from your image of 'terra aqua' that you meant the latter option - that there was no land beneath this global ocean. If you meant the former suggestion rather than the latter, then this may explain the confusion.

It is a single supercontinent called Eden in the Bible, or Pangaea in other writings.

And when exactly do you believe that Pangaea split? Do you agree with Dad's timeline that Pangaea split within the last 6,000 years, shortly after the flood?

 

[Tomatoman]

You have just as much right to treat Genesis 1 metaphorically, as I do to treat it literally; and given that I could end up thinking like you guys do about God and His creation -- I'll pass.

Show me one person -- just one -- who both treats Genesis 1 metaphorically, and has enough respect for God's Word that they are willing to say, "Yes, science says this, but God's Word says that, so I'm going with God's Word".

I've had read your post several times to get the thrust of what you're saying here, AV. Actually, I'm still struggling a bit, but I think you mean that you refuse to treat genesis as anything other than literal because to do so might result in you losing your faith.

So, and correct me if I'm wrong here, for you the choice is either a literal interpretation of the bible or loss of faith.

Am I right? Have I git the gist of what you're saying correct? Because you must be aware that almost every christian who isn't a bible bashing creationist (i.e. almost all of them) has a more sophisticated interpretation of scripture than that.

 

[Split Rock]

That's right -- and what you see as a joke, I see as divine cosmology.

And until it ceases becoming a joke, worthy of ridicule or insult, you guys will never understand.

What you see as divine revelation written by God's own hand, we see as a bunch of books written by men trying to understand what they could not. I wonder who is more likely to be right.....

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me get this straight: are you saying that you believe that the ball of rock called Earth was completely covered in water and that it wasn't until day 2 that the dry land was pushed upwards above the water by tectonic plate movements?

No.

Did you read my post?

Here it is again -- from here: 24

All this was, was a globe of "enriched" seawater -- nothing more.

Later, when God called forth the dry land, elements in the seawater came together to form a single supercontinent called Eden.

Terra Aqua produced Terra Firma.

In the beginning -- all water.

Or do you believe that Earth was a sphere of pure water that then had land added to it?

The land wasn't added to it -- the elements in the sea water combined to make the land; then the water 'stood aside' as the land emerged.

When I read the link you posted, I got the idea from your image of 'terra aqua' that you meant the latter option - that there was no land beneath this global ocean.

That is correct, there was no land until God ordered it to appear.

If you meant the former suggestion rather than the latter, then this may explain the confusion.

I was hoping it was pretty explanatory.

And when exactly do you believe that Pangaea split?

In Genesis 10:

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Do you agree with Dad's timeline that Pangaea split within the last 6,000 years, shortly after the flood?

Yes -- but I prefer Usher's timeline.

 

[Split Rock]

Show me one person -- just one -- who both treats Genesis 1 metaphorically, and has enough respect for God's Word that they are willing to say, "Yes, science says this, but God's Word says that, so I'm going with God's Word".

Science attempts to describe the natural, while Christianity attempts to describe the supernatural. Why you insist on conflicting the two is beyond me.

 

[Split Rock]

In Genesis 10:

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Again with this! Nations were divided, not the earth itself.

GEN 32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Why don't you take your pastor's advice consistantly?

"Context, context, context."

 

[Targ]

The land wasn't added to it -- the elements in the sea water combined to make the land; then the water 'stood aside' as the land emerged.

Why do you assume the earth was originally a ball of sea water? The Bible doesn't even say this. If I told you that a whale had just 'appeared' on shore, would you assume it had just beached there after swimming too close to land, or would you assume it popped into existence magically? Not sure about you, but I'd assume the latter. When Genesis says the land appeared, why don't you just assume it's talking about land appearing above the water via means such as tectonic plate movements and oceanic plates being sub-ducted with the ultimately dry land being pushed upwards, so that "for the first time, land was seen"? It seems to me like you've gone for the less obvious / most unrealistic of the two explanation here.

In Genesis 10:

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

But that's got nothing do with Pangaea separating, that's talking about either the division of languages in Genesis 11 or the dividing of people into nations. Pretty much every commentary I have to hand agrees.

Yes -- but I prefer Usher's timeline.

Mmm, interesting. At this point I would reiterate earlier comments about how difficult the theory is that Pangaea could split so rapidly (the energy release would be so enormous it would melt through 12km of the earth's crust if released at the surface), but yeah ... I know the drill ... science can take a hike, right.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again with this! Nations were divided, not the earth itself.

GEN 32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Why don't you take your pastor's advice consistantly?

"Context, context, context."

Um ... notice anything different here?

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Genesis 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Um ... and if the earth didn't physically divide, I'd say six other continents have showed up since then -- wouldn't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not going to spend an inordinately long period of time with this, Targ, as I suspect you're pulling my chain; but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt before I start ignoring you.

Why do you assume the earth was originally a ball of sea water?

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

It would not say "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the ground", would it?

Remember? there was no "ground" until Day Three.

In addition, and to supplement Genesis 1:2, we have:

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

[Tomatoman]

So it really IS either literalism or loss of faith?

That's stoopid.

 

[Targ]

Um ... notice anything different here?

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Genesis 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Land, territory etc (i.e. the land from a political perspective) is all well within the meaning of the word 'eretz' (earth). It does not refer solely to the land (rock, sediment, soil etc). In fact, for the latter, the word 'adamah' is more commonly used as in Genesis 9:2, rather than 'eretz'.

Um ... and if the earth didn't physically divide, I'd say six other continents have showed up since then -- wouldn't you?

Your problem, not ours.

 

[Targ]

I'm not going to spend an inordinately long period of time with this, Targ, as I suspect you're pulling my chain; but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt before I start ignoring you.

I'm actually thinking exactly the same thing, that you're yanking my chain about this. I've never heard anyone seriously suggest this 'terra aqua' theory of yours. The only other time I've heard of something like this was on Star Trek Voyager. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, before I start ignoring you.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

It would not say "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the ground", would it?

No, it wouldn't and neither would anyone else in a similar situation. If I flew over the Bass Strait, I would say I was flying over water. Nobody would hear me say this and assume that there is no land underneath upon which the waters of the Bass Strait actually rests.

Remember? there was no "ground" until Day Three.

Precisely - not just any old ground - specifically dry ground. If it said that God created land rather than dry land appearing, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

In addition, and to supplement Genesis 1:2, we have:

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Not relevant.

 

[Split Rock]

Um ... notice anything different here?

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Genesis 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

They are both referring to the same event. That is why the second passage says "after their generations." If not, the second passage makes no sense since The Flood didn't divide any nations, it annihilated them. The intent of the authors was that the tribes of man were divided during the time of Peleg. That is what they meant by saying "the earth was divided." Context, context, context.

Um ... and if the earth didn't physically divide, I'd say six other continents have showed up since then -- wouldn't you?

Not at all. The writers knew nothing about Pangea. Pangea is a theory created by SATAN-following, Godless, deceitful, foolish scientists. Why are you encorporating it into scripture?