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.
Please, AV, you know better than that. If that was the case we could not use the information to find oil. To make predictions about virus evolution. In fact we find all sorts of minerals because we understand the history of the Earth. Your beliefs do not yield such finds.Your world is nothing more than a crystal ball.
Ask your crystal ball how we got our moon.
Easter eggs that God put in the earth for later discovery are another matter altogether.If that was the case we could not use the information to find oil.
Let's hear it.Subduction Zone said:We know how we got our moon.
Easter eggs that God put in the earth for later discovery are another matter altogether.
Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Let's hear it.
A mark that shows massive amounts of flowing water. We have evidence of smaller older floods. A worldwide flood would have "overwritten" the record.
Only if you get to define how the flood acted. If all flood conditions were viewed in the light of the fact that the ark survived the flood it would paint a much different picture than is generally supposed.
Really? What would that picture be?
Forty days of rain preceding the flood would have quieted the atmosphere by equalizing pressure and temperature, therefore there would have been little or no wind driven waves. Large currents would have been changed as well to unidirectional as the seawater gently flowed over the land. This eliminates any risk of the ark breaking up, as is proposed by skeptics.
Uhm, no, it would be a cataclysmical event. For starters, the heaviest continuous rain recorded on Earth - 1.144 meters in 12 hours, Foc-Foc, La Reunion Island, during the storm of 7-8 Jan 1966.
So the rain would need to be even heavier, much heavier which would lead to catastrophical conditions.
Also, not enough water (as I have previously presented).
Really, a gobal flood is not compatible with physical reality.
Why was a heavy rain needed? The rain didn't cause the flood.
Really? Then why rain at all?
It stabilized the atmosphere against wind and waves.
Provided fresh water for the ark.
Maybe it was also a metaphorical baptism using clean water before mankind was drowned in it's own filthiness (the "waters below" represent that which is polluted).
In other words, you dont know.
And, as I have shown you earlier, there simply isnt enough water on earth for the flood (aside from all the other problems). It is, quite frankly, a disproven concept.
The is plenty of water to accomplish that flood. Remember that the flood didn't have to cover Mt. Everest. An overzealous translation of "hills" into "mountains" is responsible for that erroneous belief. There was no need for five miles of water as there was no one up there to drown.
Once again, what was previously described with the ocean floor rising as much would be required withing the time span of the flood, the amount of energy needed to do that would put the Earth in a molten state which would still be in existence today and thousands of years to come.Just out of curiosity, when God did this:
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
... did He leave blood stains around? and did Adam walk around with a scar?
In your opinion.
But all at the same time - which is not what we see in the geological evidence, nor do we see any singular interruption in the signs of human and animal life that might correspond - and we do see such interruptions in pre-human great catastrophes (the great extinctions), so we know the characteristics to look for.This also accounts for the lack of evidence for a global flood. The flood would only have left evidence of local or regional floods, each with it's own unique characteristics.
Only if you get to define how the flood acted. If all flood conditions were viewed in the light of the fact that the ark survived the flood it would paint a much different picture than is generally supposed.
Does that mean you are now suggesting the flood was not global? If so, I don't understand the need for tectonic forces that would generate enough energy to melt the earth.Works great. Read the account. It doesn't say Mt. Everest was covered, only the "high hills".
So now you want to change the interpretation of the Bible. It appears that even you know that 5 miles of water would be impossible to miss. But even 1 mile of water would be far too much to miss and that would not do the job.The is plenty of water to accomplish that flood. Remember that the flood didn't have to cover Mt. Everest. An overzealous translation of "hills" into "mountains" is responsible for that erroneous belief. There was no need for five miles of water as there was no one up there to drown.
This also accounts for the lack of evidence for a global flood. The flood would only have left evidence of local or regional floods, each with it's own unique characteristics.
Once again, what was previously described with the ocean floor rising as much would be required withing the time span of the flood, the amount of energy needed to do that would put the Earth in a molten state which would still be in existence today and thousands of years to come.
Does that mean you are now suggesting the flood was not global? If so, I don't understand the need for tectonic forces that would generate enough energy to melt the earth.
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?