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.
In 17 years of dedicated study then I am sure you know how a concordance works, try searching "Noah."
Maybe you should read into the next chapter alittle. Because as it is written, what was recorded in 6:19 was somewhat a rough draft of what was to actually happen as layed out in Chapter 7... So yes God did select what went into the ark.
What I am saying this their "guesses" are not to supersede the written word of God. that their commentary should be viewed as commentary and taken with a grain of salt next to what is written. How does that relate? Well as I pointed out their was not a date given for the flood. Because of this it is only a guess to name a year. Their best guess along with anyone else's are just that, a guess no matter who makes it..
Outside of what is recorded in scripture we know nothing of the flood.
They aren't the one that is cherry picking definitions. I could take any word you've said and apply an alternate definition to it. Besides, as I was the original poster for that topic, by default, the picking of the definition would go to me. Of course Christians have been interpreting the Bible their own way for thousands of years so I don't know why I expected anything different here. But that's another topic.Guilty, but apparently so are the folks at Merriam Webster according to your assessment. I appear to be in good company.
What you do not seem to be able to comprehend is the the "theory" that the earth was flat was also a "factual theory." Or so say the reference material I quoted. Again that would mean that a "fact" is not a kin to an absolute truth.
But you left PARTIAL definitions. I'm not going to argue this point with you any more. I have better things to do.Apparently the folks at Merriam Webster also recognized the relationship "Fact" has with "theory" and so they defined and limited how these words compliment one another. The definitions I left are their words, and not mine...
Sadly many modern bible teachers transpose modern understandings of phrases such as
"the whole earth" and "under heaven" to the bible and get the wrong conclusion.
For example, thousands of years later, in Solomon's time, The Queen of Sheba was said
to have come "from the uttermost parts of the earth" (Matt. 12:42).
Gen 6:19 "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures." What the heck does that mean then?
What differences? Can you prove any of this or is it all conjecture?
I'm just going by what the Bible says. God told Noah that he would make the ark, and that he would gather the animals, and that he would gather the food. Gen 6:15-21. All in the span of 100 years.
Because I have better things to do besides study a book I no longer care about. Why don't you get off your lazy butt (figuratively speaking) and throw some references here.
Wow, I didn't know that perfect beings required rough drafts. Hum... Just looked at Gen 7
Just proving a point. In that you are not who you have represented yourself to be. A simple bible school student understands how the animals came to be on the ark. Something you after you exhaustive studies seem to have "forgotten" in your opening volley.Because I have better things to do besides study a book I no longer care about. Why don't you get off your lazy butt (figuratively speaking) and throw some references here.
Apparently you do not understand the nature of the passage you quoted, or the God who inspired it, Hebrew tradition that it is recorded in, Nor what the preceding chapter had to say.Wow, I didn't know that perfect beings required rough drafts. Hum...
Which supports my original assertion. In that God decided who or what was to be on the Ark. To that end it was up to God to make room for, and care for all that He placed on the Ark.Just looked at Gen 7 and I see nothing where God rewrites his flood plan. Wait, just the fact that now some animals are coming in groups of 14... thereby taking up more room on an already cramped ark.
How long ago was that by your best estimation?OK, that still doesn't explain that there is no gap in between ANY civilization from the beginning of recorded history.
Is that really the best you can do?Perhaps because it didn't happen...
Only if you did not take into consideration the context in which Fact and theory are being used..They aren't the one that is cherry picking definitions. I could take any word you've said and apply an alternate definition to it.
Besides, as I was the original poster for that topic, by default, the picking of the definition would go to me.
Fallacy of a sweeping generalization.Of course Christians have been interpreting the Bible their own way for thousands of years so I don't know why I expected anything different here. But that's another topic.
Actually no, this was due to the fact that the earth does not have a noticeable curve. Those who do not even know God or the bible thought the earth to be flat.Man used to believe that the earth was flat. This was do to suggestive nature of various Bible verses.
One based on Facts. Incorrect facts but facts just the same.They believed it to be fact at the time, but because of advancements in science we know now that theory to be false. BUT IT IS STILL A THEORY.
Actually no, this is a scientific truth. The facts that support this truth can be verified and are not dependent on speculation or specialized interpretation of available data.Just as the earth being round is a theory, the only difference is that the earth being round is a proven theory and therefore a fact. See, theory and fact AT THE SAME TIME.
I left the definitions that directly applied to the conversation as per the examples written in conjunction with the definition.But you left PARTIAL definitions. I'm not going to argue this point with you any more. I have better things to do.
I can only speak for the KJV and no, if you cross-reference to the other scriptures instead of just bringing in the modern understanding of "the whole earth" you will see there is a clear consistent message.So, modern translations are inaccurate?
As far as all the prople God was talking to (through Noah) were concerned, all flesh, their "world" was destroyed... The only question I now have is this: How could God killed everything that 'breathed the breath of life' if the flood were local? Gen 7:21-22
First you need to understand that only animals of their "World" were taken on board (see my posts above for details). Then you need to appreciate that a feature of the Mesopotamian region concerned is that there are few trees - so they built using sun-dried mud, not even oven-baked, this is why little remains of Babylon today, unlike certain other ancient cities & structures. It may well be that termites were not involved, they carried on as before in Africa & other places.What I want to know is how Noah coped with termites on the Ark. Wouldn't they have eaten holes into it? Also, who carried the head lice? I presume God wanted to save them too.
See the words in brackets []? That means there is NO word in Hebrew to correspond to that english word, and it was merely added to try to make it a little more readable. Therefore for you to say it means "every species" is utterly ridiculous. It could mean as little as 2 birds, it could mean 2 birds of every type Noah knew about, but most likely it means exactly what it says, that God would cause "two of every ___" to come to Noah, and those are the ones he should keep alive.
I am taking it at face value. I'm not reading into it at all. And this multiple versions of the Bible junk has always confused me. If God says that he would preserve his word, what is the need for multiple versions? And why are there glaring contradictions between the different versions? But that is a completely different topicThere are words for what you are doing here, which is imposing your own ideas onto the text. There are also words for taking the text at face value, which would be the place for you to start, if you wish to come to any understanding of what is being said. Oh and don't rely on a single version and go concocting grand conclusions from it, like you have done here.
Conjecture isn't the word i would use for a first-hand account, no.
And where exactly did you get this 100 year time span from?
First you need to understand that only animals of their "World" were taken on board (see my posts above for details). Then you need to appreciate that a feature of the Mesopotamian region concerned is that there are few trees - so they built using sun-dried mud, not even oven-baked, this is why little remains of Babylon today, unlike certain other ancient cities & structures. It may well be that termites were not involved, they carried on as before in Africa & other places.
Animals can carry head lice
You just threw your "17 years of Bible study" into disrepute and contempt. It appears that in that time you learned nothing, while these things under discussion are quite simple, and since they're near the beginning one might even expect that you covered them, sometime, in 17 yearsbut, nooo
Apparently you do not understand the nature of the passage you quoted, or the God who inspired it, Hebrew tradition that it is recorded in, Nor what the preceding chapter had to say.
Which supports my original assertion. In that God decided who or what was to be on the Ark. To that end it was up to God to make room for, and care for all that He placed on the Ark.
How long ago was that by your best estimation?
..And now, answer when was the flood???
Now tell me how your numbers are not guesses.
doh:are you a freshman in high school? The definitions we have to use are dictated by the usage of the words in the conversation we are having. The definitions I "selected" are the ones that apply to the usage of the words in your original conversation. As per the definitions and examples set forth by the reference material.
Generalization yes, fallacy no.Fallacy of a sweeping generalization.
That's because earth is big! The earth actually has like five places on it where you can see the curve. The Bible says things like "four corners of the earth" and junk like that. That's where they got the idea for a flat earth. Not to mention that was the popular idea at the time.Actually no, this was due to the fact that the earth does not have a noticeable curve. Those who do not even know God or the bible thought the earth to be flat.
Maybe, but I do understand English. And if God knew that this book would wind up in the hand of non Hebrews, then why didn't he make things more clear for us gentiles?
Grumpy Old Man;58690505]Firstly, the Bible describes the Flood as covering the whole earth. It wasn't a local flood. Secondly, there is still no archaeological or geological evidence for such a flood. It's a myth. There are Christians in this very thread who say the same.
The flood story has been debated ad nauseum on a few other forums I go to and, in every case, the Christian argument for a literal Flood has been defeated easily. One of the best arguments against it was the sheer speed at which the rain must have fallen to fill the earth in the time described; one person on the thread I was reading worked it out as 15ft of rain an hour or something like that - which would easily have sunk the ark.
Another argument against it is the huge number of species on the planet and how they all fit on the ark without killing each other. I've heard the "kinds" argument, and that fails too. If all animals were wiped out on earth, except a few "kinds" that got saved on the ark, then you are basically acknowledging some kind of evolution in which these flood survivor "kinds" evolved into the millions of species we know today. If you can believe in this "micro-evolution" (as Christians call it), then you cannot argue against evolution in its entirety without being a hypocrite.
Firstly, the Bible describes the Flood as covering the whole earth. It wasn't a local flood.
One of the best arguments against it was the sheer speed at which the rain must have fallen
Another argument against it is the huge number of species on the planet and how they all fit on the ark
If you can believe in this "micro-evolution" (as Christians call it), then you cannot argue against evolution in its entirety without being a hypocrite.
It is intellectually lazy to come into a thread and to say someone is wrong, and not provide any sort of proof. I ask for Bible references at a minimum. And yes, I know very well that Paul talks about Moses and Noah and a whole bunch of other people. You need to stop the same "flaming" that you reported me for.
Which brings up another question. Why did God murder with world's population? I know the Bible says that everyone was wicked and violent, but I'm 100% sure that not everyone was. My son is 8 months old, and while he may be a handful, he is by no means wicked. Why would an all loving God murder countless babies?
The Bible says things like "four corners of the earth" and junk like that. That's where they got the idea for a flat earth. Not to mention that was the popular idea at the time.
Consider yourself laughed out of the room, due to having no idea what you're talking about! Water also came UP from beneath, and there is actually good physical evidence of this. (Just not on a global scale)
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?