Taking Question on the Creation and/or the Flood

[AV1611VET]

@ basket:

Thanks for the link. But the problem still remains. It is not a repetition. Nor a repeat. It is a completely different date. There is a month and 16 days missing. Both 8:13 and 8:14 cannot be right.


Metherion

Metherion, let's assume that it is January 1st, and that there are 360 days in a year.

Here's the 411 on the Flood, from a perspective of Noah's diary:

February 17 --- It starts raining.

[bible]Genesis 7:11[/bible]

March 27 --- It stopped raining.

[bible]Genesis 7:12[/bible]

July 17 --- The water stopped rising.

[bible]Genesis 7:24[/bible]

October 1 --- The tops of the mountains appear.

[bible]Genesis 8:5[/bible]

November 10 --- Released a dove and a raven.

[bible]Genesis 8:7[/bible]

November 17 --- Released dove again.

[bible]Genesis 8:10[/bible]

November 24 --- Released dove a third time.

[bible]Genesis 8:12[/bible]

January 1 --- Earth is dry.

[bible]Genesis 8:13[/bible]

February 27 --- Disembarked.

[bible]Genesis 8:14[/bible]

 

[lemmings]

Why did it need to say that the Earth was dried twice? Also, why isn’t the rate of evaporation constant; it takes roughly 6 months for the water to lower about 10 meters, then in less than 5 months it drains nearly 10,000 meters.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

No bottlenecking found in the genetics of species (or kinds) = no 2-7 of everything, which is genetically preposterous to begin with.

No global flood layer = no global flood, for which there is insufficient water on the earth.

There, this whole story has a level of plausibility that shouldnt surpass the 6th grade. It is infact when one looks at it scientifically that it looks even more ridiculous.. unless it was a local flood with a boat full of livestock animals.

 

[metherion]

But it doesn't say that he disembarked in 8:14 or 8:13. It merely says that those dates are the dates that the earth was dry.

Also, the Hebrew calendar is not 360 days long. it has the following months with the following lengths (assuming it isn't a leap year)
1. Nissan 30 days
2. Iyar 29
3 Sivan 30
4 Tammuz 29
5 Av 30
6 Elul 29
7 Tishrei 30
8 Marheshvan 29/30
9 Kislev 30/29
10 Tevet 29
11 Shevat 30
12 Adar 30

So, assuming that all the months which can have 29 or 30 days had 30, it's still only 356 days. And it also means that from Iyar 17 to Tishrei 17 is not 150 days. Whoops.

And I still have a few questions.
1. Wasn't the earth dry in 8:11, when Noah knew the waters were abated from the earth? Doesn't that mean that it was dry? After all, if the water is gone it can't be wet.
So now we have 3 dry dates, each more than a month apart!

(Funny note. I just got the image in my head of Jack Sparrow on a beached boat going "But why is the water gone?")

2. Noah doesn't disembark until 8:18, which is at the direct behest of God from the prevous few verses, and no date was mentioned in the disembarking description. So how do we know which one it was?

3. Noah knows it is dry, but doesn't poke his head out of the Ark for more than a month afterwards?

4. How long was the raven in the air? After all, it specifically says the raven was in the air until the earth was dry. So, how long was it?

5. Where did the olive tree come from? After all, it specifically says in Gen 7:23 that all that lived on dry land died.

23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

emphasis mine

So, where did the olive branch come from?

6. Is the 40 days of rain in the 150 or not? I never really understood that. It doesn't seem like it should be. Why else would they numerate the days it rained separately?

7. How do 7:24 and 8:3 not indicate that the Flood was ended?
For 7:24, if the waters prevailed upon the earth for 150 days, doesn't that mean that after 150 days the waters weren't prevailing on it anymore? And for 8:3, aren't the waters gone if it specifically says that after 150 days they were abated?

Metherion

 

[Basket]

Metherion, I'm not going to answer all your questions, because I do not know how to accurately defend that point of view. But I will point out something that I am sure about.

http://www.crivoice.org/calendar.html

This talks about the older Hebrew calendar. You see, the Hebrew calendar has changed over time. The one they use today was officially set down in 359 A.D., long after the Old Testament had been written.

In my other post, I noted that 150 days had passed since the flood started and it had gone from the 17th day of the 2nd month to the 17th day of the 7th month. Distributing the 150 days throughout that time period, that's precisely 5 months of 30 days each. What I wasn't sure of was whether 150 days was rounded from some other number (like 147) or if they really had used a 30-day-a-month calendar to document the flood. I tend to lean towards the latter idea.


To AV1611VET, I don't think you know me. At least I don't know you besides from this forum.

 

[ReverendDG]

Why did it need to say that the Earth was dried twice? Also, why isn’t the rate of evaporation constant; it takes roughly 6 months for the water to lower about 10 meters, then in less than 5 months it drains nearly 10,000 meters.

i believe because its two stories weaved together

after all if it was one, why have one line say 2 animals and other say 7?

 

[lemmings]

i believe because its two stories weaved together

after all if it was one, why have one line say 2 animals and other say 7?

That explains many of the contractions in the Bible, especially Genesis, however people like AV claim that the Bible is scientific and literal.

 

[ReverendDG]

That explains many of the contractions in the Bible, especially Genesis, however people like AV claim that the Bible is scientific and literal.

well the bible isn't scientific, but it is literal, just wrong.
the idea that its scientific is just plain stupid, it was never written to be scientific and i'm sorry to say for those who want to think it is, they are making themselves out to be fools

i think many, many church fathers and even the writers of the NT would think they are a bit over the top.

the OT is just piece-meal slapped together, if you look at the more "historic" parts, they don't follow each other the way the bible was compiled, i mean kings and judges, all the events are out of order and mixed up

not to mention the anachronisms in the OT, or did people magically have camels long before we found evidence of them. or the fact that priests existed before god appointed any?
or the fact that the philistines migrated before there has ever been any evidence for them?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't want to loose track of this exchange which is now several pages back.

From Post 182

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch
How did God's supposedly perfect creation contain the evil monsters that His sons turned out to be?

AV: The "sons of God" are angels.

Job 38:6-7
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

In [complimentary] Hebrew poetry, a fact is stated, then restated, using different words.

Originally Posted by AV1611VET (189)
I'll pick up here tomorrow --- but I'll address this point you're making in the short time I have left.

I quoted Job in describing these sons of God. Job is Hebrew poetry --- as I indicated.

Specifically, Job 38:7 is called [complimentary] Hebrew poetry.

A fact is stated --- then restated using different terminology.

There is also what is called [contrasting] Hebrew poetry, and, if my memory serves me correctly, [constructive] Hebrew poetry.

Either way --- it is poetry.

Frumious Bandersnatch (190)
Genesis also states and restates things because it is also Hebrew poetry and has nothing to do with the actual formation of the earth or the prehistory of the human race.

AV (196) I strongly disagree.

From (195)

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch
If they were the sons of God, God fathered them right?

AV - Wrong --- "son" doesn't always carry the connotation of "offspring".

The Bible says we will be made sons of God, through adoption.

Galatians 4:4-6
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.


In the case of the angels, I suspect they are referred poetically as sons of God due to the fact that they were directly created by God.

Adam too, has that poetic connotation:

Luke 3:38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

FB(new text): So let me restate my main point

Genesis also states and restates things because it is also Hebrew poetry and has nothing to do with the actual formation of the earth or the prehistory of the human race.

You will also note that AV has not answered this question
How did God's supposedly perfect creation contain the evil monsters that His sons turned out to be?

Even if the verse in Genesis is not literally true and the reference to sons of God in only poetic AV has claimed that the God created the Angels so they were part of God's original supposedly perfect creation. So how did their mating with humans produce such wickedness that God was forced (AV's word) to repent of His creation and drown everything with a global flood?

Added in Edit: I hope the colored text will make it clear who originally posted what. I am in blue and the Bible verses are italics and were all posted by AV. The numbers in quotes refer to the original post numbers
FB

I am in Thailand right now and only able to post occasionally but I would like to remind AV of the exchanges above and add another.

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch
A literal interpretation of this verse would be that the stars were singing and that the sons of God shouted.
AV Yes --- and therefore it's not a literal interpretation.

Now let me restate some questions and add one.
How did God's supposedly perfect creation contain the evil monsters that His sons turned out to be?

How could an omnipotent and omniscient God end up being "forced" to repent of His creation?

If God created Lucifer as part of His "perfect" creation how could Lucifer have had "iniquity" to be found within.

Ezekiel 28:15
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

You have admitted that certain verses are not literal and a characteristic of Hebrew poetry is restating things. Since Genesis 1-8 restates things, and if taken literally conflicts with nearly all of science and creates the enormous apologetic problems that you have not really addressed on this thread, what makes you think that Genesis 1-8 is not Hebrew poetry that should not be taken literally?

 

[mpok1519]

some people read the Bible literally.
Some people read Alice in Wonderland literally.

Others do not AV.

And the longer young folks like you point the fingrs towards 'untrue christians', Christianity will always be separated by simple childish dogmatic individualistic perceptions.

If Christians don't start to agree on something theyre going to only DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY!

AV>> Jesus didn't drive folks away. But people like you are.

What gives? why you driving people away from Christianity?

 

[AV1611VET]

I am in Thailand right now and only able to post occasionally but I would like to remind AV of the exchanges above and add another.

FB, for the most part, I am ignoring you, as I'm on a limited time budget, and don't have the time to repeat myself over and over - especially to the same person.

But, for the record --- once again:

How did God's supposedly perfect creation contain the evil monsters that His sons turned out to be?

There were no "evil monsters" in Genesis 1.

How could an omnipotent and omniscient God end up being "forced" to repent of His creation?

Again, you're confusing "perfect" with "omnipotent".

If God created Lucifer as part of His "perfect" creation how could Lucifer have had "iniquity" to be found within.

See above answer.

You have admitted that certain verses are not literal and a characteristic of Hebrew poetry is restating things. Since Genesis 1-8 restates things, and if taken literally conflicts with nearly all of science and creates the enormous apologetic problems that you have not really addressed on this thread, what makes you think that Genesis 1-8 is not Hebrew poetry that should not be taken literally?

Because God, Who is not the author of confusion, would not start His Word out with allegory. In addition, the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced to the world in Alexandria, and conflicts with the literal interpretation method.

The allegorical method establishes the mind of the reader as the sole authority for interpretation, whereas the literal method allows for independent third-party confirmation.

The conflict with science that you talked about is nothing more than a conflict with your interpretation of science (uniformitarianism), and Christians' interpretation of science (catastrophism).

I've said this many times before.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV>> Jesus didn't drive folks away. But people like you are.

What gives? why you driving people away from Christianity?

Check my profile and take a gander at my friends.

Christianity is not gray --- it is black-and-white; therefore, you either like it, or you don't.

There's no middle ground.

Therefore, you either attract someone, or you drive them away.

 

[JamesDaJust]

some people read the Bible literally.
Some people read Alice in Wonderland literally.

Others do not AV.

And the longer young folks like you point the fingrs towards 'untrue christians', Christianity will always be separated by simple childish dogmatic individualistic perceptions.

If Christians don't start to agree on something theyre going to only DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY!

AV>> Jesus didn't drive folks away. But people like you are.

What gives? why you driving people away from Christianity?

I am interested in everything AV has posted.
I feel he has given very much to all.
He doesn't drive me away.
Lots of people didn't like what Jesus had to say to them.
I can't help but think AV in all the honest posts is on the verge of casting pearls before swine.
Ha.
Just kiddin.
You keep it up AV.
You are blazing.
</IMG>

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

FB, for the most part, I am ignoring you, as I'm on a limited time budget, and don't have the time to repeat myself over and over - especially to the same person.

I think is obvious to nearly everyone the you are ignoring questions that you can't even begin to answer.

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch
How did God's supposedly perfect creation contain the evil monsters that His sons turned out to be?

But, for the record --- once again:


There were no "evil monsters" in Genesis 1.

So God didn't create those sons of God that weren't really sons of God in Genesis 1? Where did they come from then?

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch
How could an omnipotent and omniscient God end up being "forced" to repent of His creation?

Again, you're confusing "perfect" with "omnipotent".

No you are confusing something that is soon to be totally messed with something that is perfect. How you can have this confusion is beyond me. Or are you now saying that the creator of this supposedly perfect creation was not omnipotent after all? I suppose that would explain why it got so messed up so fast.

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch
If God created Lucifer as part of His "perfect" creation how could Lucifer have had "iniquity" to be found within.

See above answer.

So you are saying that God is not omnipotent. After all He sure blew it when he created the supposedly perfect Lucifer because there was iniquity to be found within that supposedly perfect creation.

Because God, Who is not the author of confusion, would not start His Word out with allegory.

If God is not the author of confusion why did he create a world that appears so different from what could possibly exist if the first 9 chapters of Genesis are to be taken literally? Why did he not only "clean up" all evidence of global flood but also create masses of evidence that it could not possibly have occured?

In addition, the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced to the world in Alexandria, and conflicts with the literal interpretation method.

The allegorical method establishes the mind of the reader as the sole authority for interpretation, whereas the literal method allows for independent third-party confirmation.

So if an indepdant third party decides that Genesis 1-8 is not literal in the way you interpret it does that mean it is not literal.

The conflict with science that you talked about is nothing more than a conflict with your interpretation of science (uniformitarianism), and Christians' interpretation of science (catastrophism).

I've said this many times before.

You have said it many times before but it merely shows your ignorance of science. There is no scientific way to account for a young earth and global flood by introducing some magical "catastrophism". Scientists understand very well that there have been many major catastrophies in the history of the earth from massive supervolcanoes and massive lava flows to enormous earth impacts. In fact there have been so many of these catastrophies that they can't possibly be accounted for in a young earth. But all relevant scientific studies show that one catastrophy that has never occured was a global flood that was only survived by a single family and a boat load of animals.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I am interested in everything AV has posted.
I feel he has given very much to all.
He doesn't drive me away.
Lots of people didn't like what Jesus had to say to them.
I can't help but think AV in all the honest posts is on the verge of casting pearls before swine.
Ha.
Just kiddin.
You keep it up AV.
You are blazing.
</IMG>

So do you think that God created a 4.5 billion year old earth 6,000 years ago?

 

[metherion]

Back in post # 284, I posted a list of 7 questions. I would like them answered if possible.

I will repost the list here.

1. Wasn't the earth dry in 8:11, when Noah knew the waters were abated from the earth? Doesn't that mean that it was dry? After all, if the water is gone it can't be wet.
So now we have 3 dry dates, each more than a month apart!

2. Noah doesn't disembark until 8:18, which is at the direct behest of God from the prevous few verses, and no date was mentioned in the disembarking description. So how do we know which one it was?

3. Noah knows it is dry, but doesn't poke his head out of the Ark for more than a month afterwards?

4. How long was the raven in the air? After all, it specifically says the raven was in the air until the earth was dry. So, how long was it?

5. Where did the olive tree come from? After all, it specifically says in Gen 7:23 that all that lived on dry land died.

23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

emphasis mine

So, where did the olive branch come from?

6. Is the 40 days of rain in the 150 or not? I never really understood that. It doesn't seem like it should be. Why else would they numerate the days it rained separately?

7. How do 7:24 and 8:3 not indicate that the Flood was ended?
For 7:24, if the waters prevailed upon the earth for 150 days, doesn't that mean that after 150 days the waters weren't prevailing on it anymore? And for 8:3, aren't the waters gone if it specifically says that after 150 days they were abated?

Metherion

edit: Furthermore, why is it confusion to start something with an allegory?

 

[FishFace]

Because God, Who is not the author of confusion, would not start His Word out with allegory.

Hang on a minute, let's take a look at that right there:

"God [...] is not the author of [something]"

According to Christianity, you are wrong.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Because God, Who is not the author of confusion, would not start His Word out with allegory.

Hang on a minute, let's take a look at that right there:

"God [...] is not the author of [something]"

According to Christianity, you are wrong.

Yes and didn't God supposedly "author" a lot of confusion when He got afraid of what people might accomplish if they built too big a tower and got to heaven? It's a good thing the version of God wasn't still around when we went to the moon!

It would seem that AV has stopped taking questions now that it has been clearly revealed that he doesn't actually have any answers.

F.B.

 

[Armistead]

Even as a Christian, I could form a better argument than the OP did. I admit, I didn't read all the pages, but after two, was there any need. To confess that you're an expert, then not able to answer any questions with at least some reasonable biblical knowledge or general logic makes the rest of us appear...well uninformed.
Not as much as the OP, but still nonetheless.

 

[TheOutsider]

To confess that you're an expert, then not able to answer any questions with at least some reasonable biblical knowledge or general logic makes the rest of us appear...well uninformed.

That is AV in a nutshell.