• 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.

The integrity of Moses & Jesus on the flood

Calypsis4

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2009
564
22
Midwest USA
✟1,142.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
At stake in this debate is the integrity of both Moses (the author of Genesis) and the Son of God Himself. Moses taught a six day creation (Genesis 1:1-31 & Exodus 20:11) and universal flood that destroyed the whole world (Genesis 7:11-21). The Lord Jesus Christ confirmed both the creation account (Mark 10:6) and the universal flood (Matthew 24:37-39).

There is no hint anywhere in scripture that the creation was anything other than six natural, 24 hr days nor is there any scriptural or scientific reason to doubt that the flood mentioned in Genesis 6-8 was anything less than universal/world-wide in nature.

But it is to the second contention that I give the evidence that this is so:

Much of my argument hinges upon rapid burial/instantaneous fossilzation of organic life; human, animal, and plant. Let's take a look at some examples of what we know for certain is the result of rapid burial:

Aug07138.jpg


This human was instantly fossilzed by the hot ash from Mt. Vesuvius in Italy. His bones did not lay for millions of yrs and slowly become fossilized over a great length of time. Here is another:

20070206155209990010-1.jpg


Again, instantaneous burial. This couple apparently died in their sleep after being covered by hot volcanic ash. Instantaneous burial like this are the best conditions for the formation of fossils. Time is not the key factor; pressure is.

But we find similar examples of this kind of fossilization from all over the world:

VelociraptorvsProtoceratops.jpg


Dinosaurs discovered in the Gobi desert region died instantly in the middle of a fight. Below is the top view of the same two creatures:

dinofight.jpg


Below is a pterodactyl that was smashed back into the ground of which it was attempting to take flight from.

Oct22205.jpg


Note: this is taken from National Geographic. I do not believe that creature is 230 million yrs old. It almost certainly died during the catastrophe of the flood...just like the creatures seen below:

100_2417.jpg


There are the many fossil graveyards sprinkled around the world, like the one depicted above from Agate Springs, Nebraska. I personally visited this site in May, 2009. The one below is from the Green River Formation in Wyoming:

fossilgraveyar2.jpg


Are we to assume that all those tens of thousands of animals migrated to high elevation at the same time only to die together and become slowly fossilized over many yrs(?) or is it more reasonable that they were creatures seeking higher ground to escape the prevailing waters of Noah's flood and they were instantaneously destroyed (fossilized) by hot ash from volcanoes? Interesting to note about this is that the Agate Springs, Nebraska museum host told me personally that the area was covered with volcanic ash.

Here is yet another 'fossil graveyard':

fossilgraveyard3MorrisonFormation.jpg


These places, like the Morrison Formation, as so wide and vast in scope and there are so many of them in the world that no local flood and/or catastrophe could account for all of them.

Below is another fossil fish, obviously destroyed in the act of giving birth;

Ichthy_birth.jpg


Here is another one:

ichthyoBirth2.jpg


The fact that these organisms are fossilzed in the act of giving birth speaks of instantaneous burial. And the fact that such examples are found all over the world in abundance bespeaks of a universal catastrophe that destroyed the entire world.

Below is a human skull found in Pennsylvania that is embedded in Cretaceous rock. The discoverer also found a large femur in the same location. He took his discovery to National Geographic for examination and after they briefly examined the evidence they ignored it. How typical.

skullb.jpg


What, pray tell, is a human skull doing in Cretaceous rock?

The specimen reveals what was obviously a very large human being. Perhaps the prejudice of the scientists at National Geographic against the biblical teaching of 'giants in the earth' (Genesis 6) led them to ignore what Ed Conrad discovered. Below is the femur:

femurshale.jpg


Verification of these discoveries by lab analysis can be found here...

Ed Conrad Right All Along
 
Last edited:

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Much of my argument hinges upon rapid burial/instantaneous fossilzation of organic life; human, animal, and plant. Let's take a look at some examples of what we know for certain is the result of rapid burial:

Rapid burial is not an indication of instantaneous fossilization. Rapid burial is a staple of fossilization because it protects the body so that it is preserved long enough to fossilize slowly.
 
Upvote 0

Calypsis4

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2009
564
22
Midwest USA
✟1,142.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The rock strata do not conform to a global flood.

Oh, but it does. Just keep reading. I'll get to that.

Isolated cases of "instantaneous fossilization" (assuming that's what actually happened) are explainable in other ways. The evidence points in the opposite direction.

We aren't talking about isolated cases. I've already posted several other examples like I did above, but you dismissed them also. How brave.

The evidence points to the truthfulness of scripture as written by Moses.
 
Upvote 0

Calypsis4

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2009
564
22
Midwest USA
✟1,142.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Moses and Jesus had a far better handle on symbolism and allegory than today's anti-evolution creationists, that's for sure.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

"But as it was in the days of Noe (allegory, not real) so shall also the coming of the Son of man (allegory? Not real?). Matthew 24:37.

Ha, ha, ha, ha!
 
Upvote 0

Calypsis4

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2009
564
22
Midwest USA
✟1,142.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Rapid burial is not an indication of instantaneous fossilization. Rapid burial is a staple of fossilization because it protects the body so that it is preserved long enough to fossilize slowly.

That is incorrect.

First, you got it backwards. Instantaneous fossilzation is AN indication of rapid burial. It doesn't take millions of yrs to make fossils.

Below is a fossil of a man's hat found about 60 yrs ago:

p52_fossilHat.jpg


The style of hat dates it at about the 1930's to 1940's but not much earlier than that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Calypsis4

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2009
564
22
Midwest USA
✟1,142.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
To stress that my evidence in the OP are not isolated examples:

p6190366.jpg


From the Green River Formation in Wyoming. Thousands of slabs like this one have been finely cut a piece at a time from the strata revealing tens of millions of fossils of organisms of all kinds that were instantly buried and fossilized by some great cataclysmic event.

p6190384.jpg


It is estimated that the great fossil bed in Spain alone has billions yet uncovered where, in places the scene is just like the Agate Springs disaster or the Green River Formation. No, these are not isolated examples at all.

The creature below was absolutely squashed and obviously met instant death by a very powerful force it could not get away from.

p4190045.jpg


Then we consider Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park:

Entire forests that were fossilized in layer after layer of sediment and rock. Problem, many of the trees have no bark and the organic layers, so necessary for plant growth is missing or in a very small quantity in many places.

Quote: "What is interesting about these places (ie: Yellowstone National Park were up to 65 different layers can be found with trees in the vertical position)13 is that the trees are still oriented in their positions with each other. Their “soil” is also found to be water sorted (course to fine), and often is found half way up a tree instead of at its



base.
specimen_ridge1.gif


This organic material also averages only 3 cm in thickness and, for many of the "forest" layers it is missing altogether. In some areas, such as Mt. Hornaday, as many as 43% of the forest layers have no organic layer at all. The lower layers of Specimen Creek generally do have organic layers (96%), but the upper layers of Specimen Creek have far fewer organic layers. It turns out that the average "forest" without an organic layer to is about 24%. It seems rather strange for a forest to grow into full bloom without forming an organic layer. How is this explained?
Another strange finding of the organic layers is the fact that they are sorted in various ways. Take for instance the fact that pine needles and leaves are not mixed together, but are found in separate organic layers despite the fact that there are both pine and hardwood trees "growing" from the same organic layer(s). Also, the are proportionately less pine needles than there are leaves even in areas that are dominated by conifers. In a real forest, conifers drop a much higher mass of needles than deciduous trees drop leaves. And yet, in the fossil forests of Yellowstone, needles are relatively sparse even at the bases of large fossilized conifers. This interesting fact has been recognized as far back as 1899 when Knowlton remarked about the absence of needles in the organic levels associated with the large fenced petrified tree near Roosevelt Lodge in Yellowstone National Park. 15 One would expect to find great numbers of sequoia needles and some cones, since most of the upright trees are sequoia (70%). However, large numbers of broad leaves and only a few pine needles are seen in the organic levels. Sequoia needles were rare or absent. Although petrified sycamore stumps are not common, leaves of sycamore are the most abundant broad-leaf fossils. It is also interesting to note that, despite a heavy predominance of sequoia trees, fossilized sequoia cones are very rare in the fossil forests of Yellowstone National Park. This taxonomic sorting seems quite strange indeed unless one uses a catastrophic model involving flood such as occurred during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. In water, pine needles become saturated and sink before leaves sink." The Fossil Record

So the barkless trees did not stand for millions of years becoming slowly covered with sediment, inch-by-inch and eventually becoming fossilized. No plant on earth would ever stand upright for millions of years awaiting burial and fossilization. Even the greatest trees on earth will deteriotate in a few years and fall to the earth.
SpecimenRidge.jpg

The entire forest was laid down rapidly during the receding waters of Noah's flood during the last few months of that cataclysm as recorded in Genesis 6-8.
SpecimenRidge3.jpg

Again, the integrity of Moses as it regards the universal flood that he told us about in Genesis 7:

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 ¶ And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man.
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died...

THAT, my fellow readers, was a world-wide flood. The whole human race except Noah and his family were destroyed. The available scientific evidence speaks of it very loudly.

More coming. Best wishes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
At stake in this debate is the integrity of both Moses (the author of Genesis) and the Son of God Himself.
No, the only thing in question here is the literal interpretation of Genesis and the idea of a global flood. No one is questioning the integrity of Moses or Jesus.

Mose taught a six day creation (Genesis 1:1-31 & Exodus 20:11)
No you interpret Genesis as a literal six day creation. That is very different from claiming Moses taught it. And in Exodus Moses used the six day creation to teach Sabbath observance, not to teach a literal six day creation. Not unless you want to claim Moses also taught God used a literal arm and hand to free the Israelites. Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. You should try to understand how Moses is using the examples of both God's mighty hand and outstretched arm, and the six day creation, don't simply read you literal interpretation of Genesis into what Moses is teaching.

and universal flood that destroyed the whole world (Genesis 7:11-21).
Moses never taught a universal flood. I have shown you what the wording means and how it is used. You simply ignore it and go on claiming the flood was global. Claiming it doesn't make it so.

The Lord Jesus Christ confirmed both the creation account (Mark 10:6) and the universal flood (Matthew 24:37-39).
Do you even care what Jesus said? I have pointed out that Jesus never said the flood was global and that you reason for thinking what Jesus said meant a global flood is baseless. He used the destruction of Sodom in the very same way he used the flood as a warning of coming judgement. It doesn't say Sodom was global because Sodom simply wasn't global. And while Jesus confirmed the inspiration and authority of the creation account, he did not confirm its literal interpreation.

There is no hint anywhere in scripture that the creation was anything other than six natural, 24 hr days
There is no hint anywhere in scripture we should interpret it literally.

Any hints that the creation account is not literal?
(1) Having the word day used in three or four different ways in the first two chapter of Genesis
(2) Creation being described as taking place in a day in Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
(3) Being given a completely different order of creation in Genesis 2
(4) Moses speaking about the creation in Psalm 90 and telling us God's days are not like ours.
(5) Moses giving an allegorical interpretation of the imagery in Genesis, Adam being turned back to dust, the flood, even evening and morning are used metaphorically.
(6) The writer of Hebrew interpreting God's rest on the seventh day as as an ongoing rest we are commanded to enter into Today.

nor is there any scriptural or scientific reason to doubt that the flood mentioned in Genesis 6-8 was anything less than universal/world-wide in nature.
Apart from the fact that nowhere in scripture does it say the flood was universal or worldwide.
 
Upvote 0

Calypsis4

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2009
564
22
Midwest USA
✟1,142.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
How long does it take to carve a canyon? Millions of yrs?

100_2697.jpg


Well, go ask the Army Corps of Engineers who measured the canyons cut out by the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980.

Aug09270.jpg


This canyon, 100 ft high on one side and 125 ft in places on the other side was made in a single day. It was one of several canyons the eruption created on May 18, 1980. One evolutionist I debated on the issue referred to them as 'arroyos'. I laughed at that attempt to escape the truth. Here is an arroyo:

320px-Las_Cruces_Arroyo.jpg


But one of the canyons the Army Corps of Engineers investigated they named, "Engineers canyon". I rest my case on that point.

Here is another view of the results of the explosion of 1980:

MtStHelensgorge.jpg


This gives us a suggestion as to how long it takes for massive amounts of sediment to be moved. There is much more than that. Notice the large boulders moved by a seriously damaging flood at high elevation in California several decades ago:

May28224.jpg


A raging flood can cut through sediment and rock very quickly.

From this...
key_floodwaters.jpg


to this...
key_bedrock.jpg


in only a few days. This revealed features in the land not previously seen.

But take what we have seen on a small scale with that of a much larger scale and certain things become very obvious:

MonumentValley1.jpg


then this:

MonumentValley6.jpg


The erosion that has taken place over the last few thousand years can be observed at the base of each of these plateaus. The question arises: where is all the rest of the sediment that was once as high as the plateaus themselves? We are talking about multiplied billions of cubic feet sediment and rock in places as far removed as Arizona to Texas to the Dakotas, to Montana and Utah. But more than that the same question must be asked about North Africa, central Asia, and the Autralian outback:

NorthAfricaterrain.jpg


Gobidesert.jpg


Australian_Outback2.jpg


What force on earth was powerful enough to move such massive amounts of land sediment and rock to distant places? If it was not Noah's flood as mentioned in Genesis 6-8 then what? The usual trivial answer is 'erosion'. But everyone agrees about the erosion that is visible at the base of each plateau. But the amount of erosion we see there is scant compared to the much larger land masses that were moved to distant locations in the world.

The only logical explanation for this is the flood catastrophe mentioned in Genesis and it makes great sense in light of Moses statement, "And all the fountains of the great deep broke up". Such an occurrence would move mountains...yea, continents. The truly important 'plate tectonics' occurred during the great flood. All other land movements since then have been, by comparison, trivial.
 
Upvote 0

Calypsis4

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2009
564
22
Midwest USA
✟1,142.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Here is a scripture I found on the flood.All life ( that means the whole earth,) global flood)


That is the reason that Noah took animals with him on the ark. Because all others , everywhere on the earth would be lost! The flood was global.

You said it! Amen.:thumbsup:

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 ¶ And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And 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. Genesis 7:17-23.

The Word of God is plain enough and is accepted by faith by those who trust that He means what He says.
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
You are being given proof, both scriptural and scientific evidence but you are deliberately rejecting it.

You've shown a lot of pictures and made a lot of claims about dates, but haven't cited any sources.
 
Upvote 0

Calypsis4

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2009
564
22
Midwest USA
✟1,142.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You've shown a lot of pictures and made a lot of claims about dates, but haven't cited any sources.

Like the typical skeptic you aren't paying attention to the details, especially the detailed description of the Noahic flood of Genesis 7:11-23. The difference is in the details.
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Like the typical skeptic you aren't paying attention to the details, especially the detailed description of the Noahic flood of Genesis 7:11-23. The difference is in the details.

Anytime you want to verify your claims, feel free.
 
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Well the bible is a source. It is reliable.
Science is a reliable source, but the scientists are not.

Not according to the Scientific Method. :doh:


Science confirms the creation accounts but scientists don't.


Really? Cite please.

The bible was correct with science over 2000 years ago, but scientists have not figured that out yet.

You do realize your contradicting yourself, right? And making claims without sourcing them?


Scientists can not support with any evidence that the start to life and evolution even happens.

Its called Abiogenesis.


So where does that leave us. The most reliable source is the bible, backed up with science.

Citation please. :doh:
 
Upvote 0