Pyramids and the flood

[Eternally Grateful]

Exactly! I don't think some people realize how many of these structures there are around the world.

from before the flood?

I would say non.
Ever see what a minor sunami does to structures and land masses? Not multiply that maybe a hundred fold. and what would be left?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Roger that, even in the U.S. has ancient mega structures

yes they do. from the people who came here after the tower of babel.

 

[River Jordan]

so can you show me where I made an error in claiming that the descendants of Noah made the pyramids. or are you going to just sit there and mock me?

All you did was make an empty claim. Can you support it beyond merely saying so?

It would take me hours to look up all the evidence I showed. (it took me a few years in studying different things to come up with those views) and then take alot of posting.

again, To try to share that with people I know would never agree.. seems like a waste of my time.

so do you want to discuss the pyramids. or keep attacking me?

Again all you've done is make claims. You've not provided any evidence to back them up, and so far you've run away from every attempt to get you to back up those claims. It's a matter of written record.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Lets share the translation:


1.When God began to create heaven and earth—

2.the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—

3.God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Do you see the difference between this translation and others?

the only difference I see is the word when.

when the heavens and earth were created, it was unformed

then God started to put his creation together (let there be light)

But it does not change from my view, only that the word when would come after the first verse.

My view is God created the heavens and earth, When it was created, it was first unformed, and darkness shown

then God started to mold his creation into shape

so the two views are prety much in agreement as to when things happened.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The christian forums website defaults to the KJV translation. You'd have to lookup the jewish publication society translation, or the JPS.
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.1-3?lang=en&with=Translations&lang2=en - you can see it here.

I see it now. thank you, this explains it.

My last post shows we would prety much be in agreement.. just worded differently

 

[River Jordan]

I don't either, I think it is God giving us a first hand account of what happened.

It can't be. If it was first hand, it would say "In the beginning I created". Since it says "God created" it is by definition a second hand account.

Science is just a tool mankind uses to try to figure out how the things happened.. But we also must remember, Creation is a miracle. So some things which God did may go contrary to science.

a good example is the stars. God said

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

God said these lights would be for signs and seasons, for days and years, To be used by mankind

Science says it would take millions of years for a stars light to the earth So the earth must be this age

Miracles say God created these for a purpose. so He has the power and might to create them in a way their light appears on the earth the DAY he created them, since he created them for this purpose.

That would mean God created light depicting cosmic events that never actually happened, such as supernovae. I don't believe God is deceptive like that.

if we can't trust genesis, I am certain that it would be hard for me to trust the rest of the book.

This is a common mistake fundamentalists make. You assume that since I read Genesis differently than you I must not trust it and think it's in error.

The reality is I just read it differently than you while still trusting it as a beautiful way to convey that God created everything, and that mankind falls short and is in need of salvation.

Understand? Reading it differently is not the same as not trusting it.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Are you familiar with Ancient near east tradition around the solid heavenly raqia?

No I am not. I am interested though. can you share

 

[Doug Brents]

Science says it would take millions of years for a stars light to the earth So the earth must be this age

Miracles say God created these for a purpose. so He has the power and might to create them in a way their light appears on the earth the DAY he created them, since he created them for this purpose.

I agree with this line of thinking, and would propose this idea to push it even further.

If the stars are millions of light-years away, and the Earth is only 5924 years old (as I have calculated it based on Scripture), then God would not have needed to actually create the stars, but only the light between where we are and where they would be. This is just a speculation on my part, because we will never be able to test it this side of Heaven (and once we get there we probably won't care), but it is something to consider.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

All you did was make an empty claim. Can you support it beyond merely saying so?

empty claim?

I said it was built after the flood. by the descendants of Noah, after they were dispersed from the tower of babel.

I also said the the destruction of the worldwide flood would have destroyed these structures if they were there pre flood.

I think this would fit what the scripture said.

can you prove me wrong?

or are you just going to sit there and continue to attack and say I have not given and reason to believe the way i do?

Again all you've done is make claims. You've not provided any evidence to back them up, and so far you've run away from every attempt to get you to back up those claims. It's a matter of written record.

I can see I am wasting my time..

You have a chip on your shoulder. go find some humility. then come back. maybe we can talk. until then, I see no reason to confinue this discussion

 

[Job 33:6]

No I am not. I am interested though. can you share

There is a large body of literature that dates back to the ancient near east, in which ancient civilizations viewed the raqia, or the firmament. As something of a solid nature that restrained or held back, waters of chaos. And most old testament Bible scholars today, would say that this is a concept that is backgrounding the book of Genesis.

 

[River Jordan]

I agree with this line of thinking, and would propose this idea to push it even further.

If the stars are millions of light-years away, and the Earth is only 5924 years old (as I have calculated it based on Scripture), then God would not have needed to actually create the stars, but only the light between where we are and where they would be. This is just a speculation on my part, because we will never be able to test it this side of Heaven (and once we get there we probably won't care), but it is something to consider.

None of that is in scripture and is just as you said, speculation. Plus, it would mean the things and events the starlight shows aren't real, which is very deceptive.

I see zero reason for God to do that.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It can't be. If it was first hand, it would say "In the beginning I created". Since it says "God created" it is by definition a second hand account.

God gave Moses a first hand account of creation. And moses wrote down what God told him.

That would mean God created light depicting cosmic events that never actually happened, such as supernovae. I don't believe God is deceptive like that.

thanks for your opinion. But I think God is capable of doing whatever he wants..\

Whether you or I agree with the way God did thinks makes no difference to him

This is a common mistake fundamentalists make. You assume that since I read Genesis differently than you I must not trust it and think it's in error

I did not assume anything..

The reality is I just read it differently than you while still trusting it as a beautiful way to convey that God created everything, and that mankind falls short and is in need of salvation.

Understand? Reading it differently is not the same as not trusting it.

so you do not take it as an actual account of creation. you just think it is a beautiful story?

 

[Doug Brents]

It can't be. If it was first hand, it would say "In the beginning I created". Since it says "God created" it is by definition a second hand account.

God, speaking through His chosen instrument (Moses), writing about what only He (God) could have seen or experienced. Yes, God is speaking in the second person, but that doesn't make it any less a first hand account.

That would mean God created light depicting cosmic events that never actually happened, such as supernovae. I don't believe God is deceptive like that.

What is deceptive about that? He could also have created fossils, oil fields, coal beds, fully formed diamonds, etc. already in the Earth for us to find. And we think they had to have been formed after the world was made. That is the same as an author writing about a fictitious world (Tolkien for example), and his story focuses on certain events, but he gives the world a history, and a living environment from which his story grows. This is not deceptive, but good (I dare say, exemplary) work.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I agree with this line of thinking, and would propose this idea to push it even further.

If the stars are millions of light-years away, and the Earth is only 5924 years old (as I have calculated it based on Scripture), then God would not have needed to actually create the stars, but only the light between where we are and where they would be. This is just a speculation on my part, because we will never be able to test it this side of Heaven (and once we get there we probably won't care), but it is something to consider.

I would not agree with this..

God knew there would be a time where we could actually see his creation. if he just created the light. then that would be hard to explain.

 

[Doug Brents]

None of that is in scripture and is just as you said, speculation. Plus, it would mean the things and events the starlight shows aren't real, which is very deceptive.

I see zero reason for God to do that.

Granted, He has unlimited power, and very well could have created the stars at the end of the light that He created between them and us. But why waste that power if the world He created were only going to be around for a mere 10,000 years? Why create anything more than 10,000 light-years worth of light history? But then again, why create the stars at all, since they do not really impact life on Earth for anything other than navigation and a very minor amount of light.

 

[Job 33:6]

I see it now. thank you, this explains it.

My last post shows we would prety much be in agreement.. just worded differently

Well, um, the difference is that "When God began to create" is denied by YECs, because it implies that "the beginning" is actually the beginning of God's creative actions. Not necessarily the beginning of material existence of heaven and earth.

Like if I said "in the beginning, when George baked some cookies, the cookies were formless and empty"

You see?

 

[River Jordan]

empty claim?

I said it was built after the flood. by the descendants of Noah, after they were dispersed from the tower of babel.

I also said the the destruction of the worldwide flood would have destroyed these structures if they were there pre flood.

Yes, that's exactly what an empty claim is! All you did was say it.

can you prove me wrong?

or are you just going to sit there and continue to attack and say I have not given and reason to believe the way i do?

That's the opposite of how debates work. The person making the claim is expected to support the claim. If they don't, then the claim is by definition an unsupported claim and can be dismissed.

I can see I am wasting my time..

You have a chip on your shoulder. go find some humility. then come back. maybe we can talk. until then, I see no reason to confinue this discussion

You're just repeating the same pattern. You made a claim, refused to back it up, and now you're pretending to be offended as an excuse to leave.

I humbly suggest you try and not repeat that. Be aware that if you make a claim in a debate forum the expectation will be for you to back it up and defend it. And when you don't and make up excuses to flee, you give the impression that you couldn't back up your claim but are too full of pride to admit it.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

There is a large body of literature that dates back to the ancient near east, in which ancient civilizations viewed the raqia, or the firmament. As something of a solid nature that restrained or held back, waters of chaos. And most old testament Bible scholars today, would say that this is a concept that is backgrounding the book of Genesis.

I believe there are alot of accounts in different cultures which lead back.

I to believe the firmament is a solid thing, only in this, I believe it is the iron crust of the earth that separates the water from the waters below from the waters above, it is these waters which Moses describes in Gen 7:
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

which showed the waters of the flood came from two sources. the sky, and the deep.

it also shows these fountains did not stop until Gen 8: 2 which it sounds like 152 days they continually burst through (that's alot of water) which shows this was not just a heavy rain storm. this was something much more powerful. And that is why, As Peter said, the world that existed before the event perished. Nothing could have survived..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, that's exactly what an empty claim is! All you did was say it.


That's the opposite of how debates work. The person making the claim is expected to support the claim. If they don't, then the claim is by definition an unsupported claim and can be dismissed.


You're just repeating the same pattern. You made a claim, refused to back it up, and now you're pretending to be offended as an excuse to leave.

I humbly suggest you try and not repeat that. Be aware that if you make a claim in a debate forum the expectation will be for you to back it up and defend it. And when you don't and make up excuses to flee, you give the impression that you couldn't back up your claim but are too full of pride to admit it.

yawn.

I am done with this, Good day sir.

when your ready to discuss something like an adult. come talk to me. you should take a lesson from Job there. he is not mocking or attacking, he just states his view. like I do.

and I am sure even if we do not agree in the end,, It will still be more civil

 

[River Jordan]

God gave Moses a first hand account of creation. And moses wrote down what God told him.

Which makes it a second hand account,

thanks for your opinion. But I think God is capable of doing whatever he wants.

Why would God be deceptive like that?

so you do not take it as an actual account of creation. you just think it is a beautiful story?

I don't take it as a scientific explanation or report on creation. That doesn't seem to be the point of it at all. It has some very obvious poetry or song in it.

So God created mankind in his own image,​

in the image of God he created them;​

male and female he created them.​

That tells me that there's a bigger message. Then when I add in what I've learned by studying God's creation, it's pretty clear to me.