Pyramids and the flood

[David Lamb]

I did not say this, I am sorry that my words have confuted people

the term sons of someone does not mean literal sons.It can means the descendents of. Everyone who lived post flood would have come from Noah, the father of all post flood.

Israel has been called the sons of abraham.

Thank you for explaining that you meant descendants of Noah. I suppose the Israelites may have built the pyramids when they were slaves in Egypt, but we are not told in the bible that they did, just that they made bricks.

 

[David Lamb]

Many people think the fruit was an apple but this is wrong.
The Hebrew Bible doesn't specify what type of fruit Adam and Eve ate.

Was the 'forbidden fruit' in the Garden of Eden really an apple?

Nobody knows because the Hebrew Bible just says "fruit."

www.livescience.com

-

The first mention of a type of fruit in the Bible.

“And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew
that they were naked; and the sewed fig-leaves together,
and made themselves girdles” (Genesis 3:7).

It’s this biblical mention of fig leaves that has led to a theory
that the forbidden fruit itself may have been a fig—that the
leaves were from one and the same tree.

Adam and Eve’s “fig-clothing”. The Hebrew word used for
“girdles” in Genesis 3:7 is hagora, literally a “belt.” Broad fig
leaves would have been akin to the typical tribal loincloths.

The earliest-discovered cultivated fruit is the fig.

It's labeled the “earliest known cultivated fruit crop,” and “perhaps the first
evidence anywhere of domesticated food production at the dawn of agriculture”

Figs Believed to Be First Cultivated Fruit (Published 2006)

Scientists have found what may be the first evidence of domesticated food production at the dawn of agriculture.

www.nytimes.com

Figs are mentioned in connection to “fallen stars” Isaiah 34:4
a parallel New Testament verse, Revelation 6:13).

The pomegranate is another fruit often associated with
the two trees of the Garden of Eden. This fruit may be a fit
with the tree of life; the tabernacle and temple were heavily
decorated with carvings of pomegranates (Exodus 39; 1 Kings 7).

Whatever the case, it is generally agreed that the forbidden fruit
could not have been an apple.

I understand that this mix-up (thinking the forbidden fruit was an apple) came from the similarity in Latin, not in the original bible languages, of the words for "evil" and "apple".

 

[Doug Brents]

Now you're just making more things up, this time where Moses was nothing more than a translator.

I didn't say he was a translator. I said he was the instrument God used to write His (God's) Word. Moses was not there when God crated the world. Moses did not precede Adam in existence. Moses was not there to see Abraham born. Nor was he there when Joseph was honored by Pharaoh. Yet he wrote all these things through the knowledge given to him by God. It is God's first hand account of what He caused to happen long before Moses was born.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Thank you for explaining that you meant descendants of Noah. I suppose the Israelites may have built the pyramids when they were slaves in Egypt, but we are not told in the bible that they did, just that they made bricks.

All people post Noah would be descendants of Noah. Just just Israelites..

 

[David Lamb]

All people post Noah would be descendants of Noah. Just just Israelites..

Yes, of course. So what did you mean by your earlier post when you said that the pyramids were built by the sons/descendants of Noah? Where you just saying that the pyramids were post-flood constructions?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, of course. So what did you mean by your earlier post when you said that the pyramids were built by the sons/descendants of Noah? Where you just saying that the pyramids were post-flood constructions?

Yes, The flood would have destroyed them.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, The flood would have destroyed them.

Agreed!

 

[BeyondET]

Yes, The flood would have destroyed them.

The Bible points more to not much had changed except the flesh was destroyed. Again a olive tree was it just fine, after the water went down within the last 7 days of the flood.

 

[Doug Brents]

The Bible points more to not much had changed except the flesh was destroyed. Again a olive tree was it just fine, after the water went down within the last 7 days of the flood.

It was an entire year from the beginning of the rain until the door of the Ark was opened. The water began to recede within two months of the beginning of the rain, and the Ark came to rest on the mountain after only 150 days from the beginning of the Flood. That means that the olive tree had 210 days to grow again if it was near the top of the mountain.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Bible points more to not much had changed except the flesh was destroyed. Again a olive tree was it just fine, after the water went down within the last 7 days of the flood.

2 Peter 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

1. We see the earth that was was standing out of water, and in it. The word standing means to be formed, or to come into existence
2. We see that this is perfect tense. It was a complete action. the world changed.
3. We see the world that then existed (preflood) perished - World is Kosmos. the same word translated earth/ world (ie it is not satans system which perished) the word perish literally means to be destroyed, to be ruined, to perish.

The olive tree was not fine. The have found full grown trees completely buried in the sediment left by the flood.. what we see. is like other major catastrophes on this earth. as soon as the catastrophe is over, the earth starts to rebuild itself. that is why Noah just could not leave the ark when the rains stopped. it needed to heal and there needed to be some plant-life before he could let everyone out.

I am actually surprised. I learned about this in Sunday school 50 years ago

 

[Job 33:6]

A olive leaf survived, certainly structures can survive.

The giants/nephilim also survived, such as Goliath in the book of Samuel:

Numbers 13:33 NRSV
[33] There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

As did things like the tigris and Euphrates River.

Genesis 2:10, 14 NRSV
[10] A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches.
[14] The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

 

[River Jordan]

I didn't say he was a translator. I said he was the instrument God used to write His (God's) Word. Moses was not there when God crated the world. Moses did not precede Adam in existence. Moses was not there to see Abraham born. Nor was he there when Joseph was honored by Pharaoh. Yet he wrote all these things through the knowledge given to him by God. It is God's first hand account of what He caused to happen long before Moses was born.

You're trying really hard to force something that's a second-hand account by definition, into being a first-hand account. But it just can't be.

If the person who wrote down the account is relaying what someone else told them, it's second-hand. There's nothing more to it.

 

[Job 33:6]

You're trying really hard to force something that's a second-hand account by definition, into being a first-hand account. But it just can't be.

If the person who wrote down the account is relaying what someone else told them, it's second-hand. There's nothing more to it.

Another interesting thing too is that, even if Moses directly wrote down what God said, he still wouldn't have been able to make sense of it unless it was stated through the cultural context of the ancient Israelites.

Kind of like how the psalmist talks about being guided by his kidneys (translated as heart). It's not as though God gave a divine revelation about the anatomy of kidneys. It's just part of the culture of the ancient Israelites to think of kidneys in the way that we now think of our hearts (figuratively).

Or we could think of an example, if I said that the ravens destroyed the colts last night. Or, the Bengals destroyed the Seahawks, am I talking about American football? Or am I talking about Bengal tigers eating a bunch of birds?

Context is what defines meaning. And if God never assumed or accommodated Moses's ancient Israelite context (and cosmology), then nobody, not Moses, not any of the ancient Israelites, would have had any idea what God was talking about anyway.

Which is weird to think about. Imagine if God gave the Bible to Moses, and Moses had no idea what it said even though he himself wrote it. But that's basically what you get if you think like a YEC.

The Bible, by definition of what it is, revelation, must be in the context of the author and audience in which it originated. Otherwise nobody would have any idea what the Bible is talking about. And what good is revelation if what it reveals is unintelligible?

God may as well have given the Bible to Moses in a language that he couldn't read. It would be no different.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[Doug Brents]

You're trying really hard to force something that's a second-hand account by definition, into being a first-hand account. But it just can't be.

If the person who wrote down the account is relaying what someone else told them, it's second-hand. There's nothing more to it.

God didn't "tell" the Moses (or any of the writers of Scripture) the story for them to put in their own words. The writers are nothing more than "ghost writers" are for authors today. God put the very words they were to use in their mind (how He did it is immaterial), and they wrote EXACTLY what God put in their mind to write. God is the author, the source, the speaker; and He often speaks of Himself in the second or even third person.

 

[Job 33:6]

God didn't "tell" the Moses (or any of the writers of Scripture) the story for them to put in their own words. The writers are nothing more than "ghost writers" are for authors today. God put the very words they were to use in their mind (how He did it is immaterial), and they wrote EXACTLY what God put in their mind to write. God is the author, the source, the speaker; and He often speaks of Himself in the second or even third person.

Do you know why God talks about kidneys guiding people?

Psalms 16:7 NRSV
[7] I bless the Lord who gives me counsel; in the night also my [kidneys] instructs me.

I'll give you a hint, the text is written in an ancient near east context.

 

[River Jordan]

God didn't "tell" the Moses (or any of the writers of Scripture) the story for them to put in their own words. The writers are nothing more than "ghost writers" are for authors today. God put the very words they were to use in their mind (how He did it is immaterial), and they wrote EXACTLY what God put in their mind to write. God is the author, the source, the speaker; and He often speaks of Himself in the second or even third person.

You're certainly free to believe that if you like. But there's nothing in scripture about God authoring things that way.

 

[Job 33:6]

Furthermore studies of the Egyptian mummies illustrate humans with kidney disease that includes renal cysts and stones. There was a recommendation of using ointments made from cooked old papyri books in oil to improve a condition involving fluid retention (dropsy).

They also wrote about red urine, as schistosomiasis‑induced haematuria was common then (as now) because of Schistosoma haematobium eggs implanted in the bladder wall. This disease was (and is) common in Egypt, as exposure to schistosomes is highest in slow-moving water near riverbanks, such as the River Nile.

There is also evidence that ancient Egyptian ‘physicians’ dealt with patients having dysuria, urinary frequency (including nocturnal enuresis), and urinary retention.

Although they had minimal recognition of the function of the kidneys, they concluded that kidneys were important for human beings. For example, kidneys were linked to the heart in the famous Egyptian ‘Book of the Dead’ (1550‑50 BC), which was used to assist the dead in their proposed afterlife.

Important people were mummified and all organs were removed, except the heart and the kidneys. The heart was identified as the centre of human thought (as well as emotion and memory); and in the afterlife, it was weighed on what was called the ‘Scale of Maat’ and compared to the weight of the ‘feature of truth’ by the jackal‑headed Anubis.

The result was recorded by the ibis‑headed Thoth, who was the scribe for the Egyptian Gods, and if the result was good (i.e. the heart weighed the same as the feature of truth), the person was allowed to enter the afterlife in a positive manner.

https://karger.com/ajn/article-abstract/14/4-6/279/327325/The-Biblical-View-of-the-Kidney?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The metaphorical and mythical use of the kidney in antiquity - PubMed

While the Syrians and the Arabs viewed the liver as the center of life, the kidneys, in contrast, held a primary place of importance in Israel. In Hebrew tradition, they were considered to be the most important internal organs along with the heart. In the Old Testament most frequently the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The kidney in ancient Egyptian medicine: where does it stand? - PubMed

Driven by their deep-seated desire for eternal life in a healthy body, ancient Egyptians were one of the first civilizations to begin collecting and recording medical lore and medicinals that were effective for a healthy body. With its religious origins, medical care was initially provided by...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13084171_The_Kidney_in_Ancient_Egyptian_Medicine_Where_Does_It_Stand

What did the ancient people believe about kidneys? - Chronic Kidney Disease Explained

What did the ancient people believe about kidneys? In this article, we will discuss what did the ancient people believe about kidneys. Although renal disease has been present for over 200 millennia of Homo sapiens’ existence, knowledge of the causes and management of these disorders has only...

ckdexplained.co.uk

In Hebrew thought the “kidneys” were thought of as the seat of the emotions and passions, and the “heart” was viewed as the seat of intellect, conscience, and will. The “heart” and the “kidneys” were often used figuratively for the thoughts, emotions, motives, and drives believed to be seated in them.

NETBible: drives

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is another case of context in the Bible.

In Acts 17:28, while speaking to the people of Athens, Paul quotes the philosopher Aratus, saying, "For in him we live and move and have our being." This is a direct reference to a line from Aratus' poem Phainomena, which was a work about the heavenly bodies and the nature of the cosmos. Paul also uses similar ideas from other Greek thinkers, showing that he was familiar with their thought while integrating it into his own teachings.

Acts 17:28 Commentaries: for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

As certain also of your own poets have said.—The quotation has a special interest as being taken from a poet who was a countryman of St. Paul’s. Aratus, probably of Tarsus (circ. B.C. 272), had written a didactic poem under the title of Phenomena, comprising the main facts of astronomical and meteorological science as then known. It opens with an invocation to Zeus, which contains the words that St. Paul quotes. Like words are found in a hymn to Zeus by Cleanthes (B.C. 300). Both passages are worth quoting:—


Is this God breathed if it's a direct quote from a Greek philosopher?

Another example of context:
Paul quoting a Greco-Roman philosopher comes from Titus 1:12, where Paul quotes the philosopher Epimenides of Crete:

"One of Crete's own prophets has said it: 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.'" (Titus 1:12, NIV)

This is a direct reference to Epimenides, a 6th-century BCE Cretan philosopher and poet, who wrote:

"They fashioned a saying, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy bellies.'" (Epimenides, Cretica)

God breathed? Direct translation from God?

 

[Job 33:6]

Or, here is one. Proverbs and Instruction of Amenemope:

(Proverbs 22:20): "Have I not written for you thirty sayings of counsel and knowledge?" (ESV)

(Amenemope, ch. 30, line 539): "Look to these thirty chapters; they inform, they educate."[29]

(Proverbs 22:17–18): "Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, And apply thine heart to my doctrine; For it is pleasant if thou keep them in thy belly, that they may be established together upon thy lips"

(Amenemope, ch. 1): "Give thine ear, and hear what I say, And apply thine heart to apprehend; It is good for thee to place them in thine heart, let them rest in the casket of thy belly; That they may act as a peg upon thy tongue"[50]

Proverbs 23:4–5): "Toil not to become rich, And cease from dishonest gain; For wealth maketh to itself wings, Like an eagle that flieth heavenwards"

(Amenemope, ch. 7): "Toil not after riches; If stolen goods are brought to thee, they remain not over night with thee. They have made themselves wings like geese. And have flown into the heavens."[50


Egyptian texts, centuries older than the oldest manuscripts of the Bible.

YEC response: "oh well, the Egyptians were descendents after the flood and they actually just copied the book of Proverbs and changed it".

Wrong. Proverbs is ascribed to King Solomon, not Adam and Eve.

Dare I go further and ask the question, if Egyptians copied the text directly from Moses, could it be argued that Egyptian texts were divinely inspired too, if they say the same thing?