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.
1. No or very little sedimentary rock. No metamorphic rock.
How do you have the earth... but no rock?
That's right -- and what you see as a joke, I see as divine cosmology.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.
I don't know.Does anyone else agree with you about this 'terra aqua' theory?
It is an educated guess, based on interpretation of Scripture.Or is this just something you made up on the spot?
Nature takes a hike and God works a miracle, as the physical universe -- (consisting of only the earth) -- obeys.
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.What is it about metaphorical stories that you find so unsatisfactory? Isn't god capable of speaking in metaphor?
Essentially, God is telling the waters to "stand aside" -- something is about to be revealed.
It is a single supercontinent called Eden in the Bible, or Pangaea in other writings.
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".
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.
No.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?
In the beginning -- all water.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.
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.Or do you believe that Earth was a sphere of pure water that then had land added to it?
That is correct, there was no land until God ordered it to appear.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.
I was hoping it was pretty explanatory.If you meant the former suggestion rather than the latter, then this may explain the confusion.
In Genesis 10:And when exactly do you believe that Pangaea split?
Yes -- but I prefer Usher's timeline.Do you agree with Dad's timeline that Pangaea split within the last 6,000 years, shortly after the flood?
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".
Again with this! Nations were divided, not the earth itself.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.
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.
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.
Yes -- but I prefer Usher's timeline.
Um ... notice anything different here?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."
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.Why do you assume the earth was originally a ball of sea water?
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?
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.
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:
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 ... 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.
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?Um ... and if the earth didn't physically divide, I'd say six other continents have showed up since then -- wouldn't you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?