World flood??

[Open Heart]

Genesis mentions, briefly, a mist that watered the grass in the garden, but the rivers and seas were from water that came up from the ground. It also tells us that the waters that covered the earth at the flood came from underground and from the sky.

Yes, I was just answering another person that brought up that verse about the mist. Amazing the similarity about the mists, eh?

It says that "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth." The great deep is the ocean. I believe this is referring to storm surge. It's like what happened with Hurricane Harvey, where the sea level rises due to the storm and comes inland and it's like you have the ocean half covering the city. The damage caused by Harvey wasn't from the amount of rain that fell -- it was the storm surge.

 

[Open Heart]

He breaks His laws every time their is a miracle. He may not want to, but the fact is He has many times. The flood, whether local or worldwide, is one of those times.

You are mistaken. A miracle is something unfathomably improbable -- but not impossible. It is so rare, that it takes faith to believe it. But when it comes right down to it, there is a one in a gazillion chance that it can happen without breaking natural law.

 

[gadar perets]

You are mistaken. A miracle is something unfathomably improbable -- but not impossible. It is so rare, that it takes faith to believe it. But when it comes right down to it, there is a one in a gazillion chance that it can happen without breaking natural law.

What does it matter how rare they are? The fact of the matter is that miracles break natural law. So if the parting of the Red Sea or the sun standing still or the sundial going backwards or Yeshua being born of a virgin, for examples, broke natural law then, why couldn't the flood have broken natural law as well?

 

[Open Heart]

What does it matter how rare they are? The fact of the matter is that miracles break natural law. So if the parting of the Red Sea or the sun standing still or the sundial going backwards or Yeshua being born of a virgin, for examples, broke natural law then, why couldn't the flood have broken natural law as well?

None of those things broke natural law.

 

[Heber Book List]

Yes, I was just answering another person that brought up that verse about the mist. Amazing the similarity about the mists, eh?

It says that "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth." The great deep is the ocean. I believe this is referring to storm surge. It's like what happened with Hurricane Harvey, where the sea level rises due to the storm and comes inland and it's like you have the ocean half covering the city. The damage caused by Harvey wasn't from the amount of rain that fell -- it was the storm surge.

The key point I was making was about the fish in fresh water and the origins of rivers and oceans, prior to the flood.

 

[Open Heart]

I asked you the question as in a previous post you said that all the fish in the salt water seas would have died at the flood - my comment is that we do not know that it was salt water, so we cannot really say that water-life could not have survived the flood. Also, the bible speaks about all breathing beings on the face of the earth were wiped out, so it excludes water-life; Noah would not need massive fish tanks!

Sorry it took me so long to get to part 2. (sheepish grin)

This is just something that you and I are going to have to view differently. I accept the science that proves the world is 4.5 billion years old. It has literally taken billions of years for the oceans to become this salty. a few thousand years are just a drop in the bucket. The flood, which was a localized disaster of Goliath proportions, took place 5000-4000 years ago. The oceans were pretty much as salty then as they are now -- the difference is negligible.

Remember....
If you want to know how to be saved, you go to the Bible.
If you want to know about Geology, you go to a Science Text.

 

[razzelflabben]

You like to laugh at people when you are the one that is wrong. Let's face it sister, you are ignorant about Hebrew yet, you try and teach those who are not. Just because a lexicon does not show a word does not mean the word is not in the Hebrew text. Here are two Hebrew texts with the word "kal" (whole) in red.

lol you call me ignorant of Hebrew when it wasn't even me that said it, it was the Thayer's Lexicon...isn't that telling of your false accusations...as I told another poster, if all you want to do is act rudely then stop posting to me.

Gen 7:19 והמיםH4325 גברוH1396 מאדH3966 מאדH3966 עלH5921 הארץH776 ויכסוH3680 כלH3605 ההריםH2022 הגבהיםH1364 אשׁרH834 תחתH8478 כלH3605 השׁמים׃H8064 (eSword's Hebrew Old Testament (Tanach) )

Gen 7:19 וְהַמַּיִםH4325 גָּבְרוְֲּH1396 מְאֹדH3966 מְאֹדH3966 עַל־הָאָרֶץH776 וַיְכֻסּוְּ כָּל־הֶהָרִיםH2022 הַגְּבֹהִיםH1364 אֲשֶׁר־תַּחַתH8478 כָּל־הַשָּׁמָיִםH8064 (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)

Gen 7:19 וְהַמַּ֗יִם גָּֽבְר֛וּ מְאֹ֥ד מְאֹ֖ד עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיְכֻסּ֗וּ כָּל־הֶֽהָרִים֙ הַגְּבֹהִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־תַּ֖חַת כָּל־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃ (Westminster Leningrad Codex)​

Notice the second text does not list Strong's number for "kal", but lists it together with shamayim (heavens). The first text gives Strong's Lexicon number.

If you try and refute this post and remain in your ignorance, we are done conversing. If you choose to humble yourself and apologize for your mistake, we can continue.

lol...you have proven nothing except that in some translations it is there and in some it is not, which is what I have been saying from the beginning...so it is you who should apologize for being rude. I won't expect your apology though....either stop being rude or stop quoting and responding to me.

 

[razzelflabben]

BTW, here is Strong's Hebrew Lexicon definition for #3605;

3605 kol kole or (Jer. 33:8) kowl {kole}; from 3634; properly, the whole; hence, all, any or every (in the singular only, but often in a plural sense):--(in) all (manner, (ye)), altogether, any (manner), enough, every (one, place, thing), howsoever, as many as, (no-)thing, ought, whatsoever, (the) whole, whoso(-ever).

the meaning of the word is not in question, whether it is intended to be there or just there by translational tradition is the question on the table. Maybe that is why you are being so rude, you don't even know what is being discussed?!?

 

[razzelflabben]

Because I don't think God wants his laws broken.

Personally I believe that He does both. I take that belief from Moses leading the children of Israel out of Egypt where some of the magicians could mimic God's "miracles" and others they couldn't. It's a belief kind of like the flood where I am open to being wrong but it is my leaning because of what the text says and doesn't say.

 

[razzelflabben]

I asked a general question a few posts back but I'll ask it of you, now, if I may: what makes you think the original water that covered the earth was salt water? It originated from underground and fish could have lived in the water until after the flood and then evolved as the waters covering the earth became more salty by due process of nature, over time.

Your question confuses me, please clarify so I can follow the answer...are you saying evolution is a part of the creation theory in that you talk about evolution here?

 

[Dkh587]

None of those things broke natural law.

How exactly do you define "natural law"? And what are examples of natural law being broken? Some examples from the Tanach & Renewed Covenant would be great

 

[razzelflabben]

It is truly astounding that some here evidence what I am saying but refuse to accept what it tells us about the Bible and the God of the Bible. Astounding...what is equally astounding is that those same people want me to apologize for saying what they then evidenced in their posts...I wonder what it is that I am suppose to apologize for? Challenging them to actually prove their traditional understanding when they can't? Very interesting....very interesting indeed.

 

[Heber Book List]

Your question confuses me, please clarify so I can follow the answer...are you saying evolution is a part of the creation theory in that you talk about evolution here?

It was not addressed to you

 

[razzelflabben]

It was not addressed to you

ah....a acknowledged that and asked for clarification for the purpose of following the conversation only....IOW's duh..nothing like restating what I said in a manner that makes you look like you are trying to flame me....

 

[gadar perets]

None of those things broke natural law.

You are wasting our time by not elaborating. How does a virgin conceive without having relations with a man? How does a sea part by itself?

 

[gadar perets]

lol you call me ignorant of Hebrew when it wasn't even me that said it, it was the Thayer's Lexicon...isn't that telling of your false accusations...as I told another poster, if all you want to do is act rudely then stop posting to me. lol...you have proven nothing except that in some translations it is there and in some it is not, which is what I have been saying from the beginning...so it is you who should apologize for being rude. I won't expect your apology though....either stop being rude or stop quoting and responding to me.

This reply is to everyone except razzelflabben. You are wasting your time dealing with a woman who doesn't even know the difference between a translation and a Hebrew text. Her posts no longer merit my replies.

 

[razzelflabben]

This reply is to everyone except razzelflabben. You are wasting your time dealing with a woman who doesn't even know the difference between a translation and a Hebrew text. Her posts no longer merit my replies.

lol...nice try...obviously you are trying to flame me but it won't work...you failed to evidence your claim while I evidenced mine...end of story...please stop trying to flame me into some flame war, you would loss with me not even trying since I was right about everything I claimed and your posts evidenced me being so.

 

[razzelflabben]

BTW, for anyone interested though I pointed this out before it deserves another post...the Hebrew Bible that I was given as "evidence" says on it that it is a modern translation. IOW's not the original text as some here try to pretend it is. Therefore you have two options...a modern Hebrew "translation" that includes the word "whole" or the Thayer's Lexicon which says that the original text (notice not a modern translation in any lang.) does not include the word "whole"....it's pretty clear.

lol but apparently I am not learned enough to know that a translation no matter what lang. it is written in is a translation and not the original text...lol

 

[Heber Book List]

ah....a acknowledged that and asked for clarification for the purpose of following the conversation only....IOW's duh..nothing like restating what I said in a manner that makes you look like you are trying to flame me....

I told you, we are not conversing, at your request, which I accepted. The post was in a conversation with OH and related only to her earlier post.

I suggest you might take up the discussion with her, not me.

 

[razzelflabben]

I told you, we are not conversing, at your request, which I accepted. The post was in a conversation with OP and related to only to her earlier post.

I suggest you might take up the discussion with her, not me.

she can ask the question since you don't show any evidence of being interested in genuine discussion...that way we all know what you meant.