christians, what do you think of Genesis 6:1-8?

[outhouse]

I follow what most scholars do, as they are the proffessionals here.

faith doesnt always mean valid history.

Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to 8th or 7th century BCE in the kingdom of Judah.


Many biblical scholars are prepared to admit that there may be a historical core beneath the Exodus and Sinai traditions, even if the biblical narrative dramatizes by portraying as a single event what was more likely a gradual process of migration and conquest.


the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

 

[outhouse]

OK back on topic, this sums up the mythology

Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arguments from culture and mythology
In Aramaic culture, the later term niyphelah refers to the Constellation of Orion, and thus nephilim to the offspring of Orion in mythology.[11] However Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon notes this as a "dubious etymology" and "all very precarious".[12]


J. C. Greenfield mentions that "it has been proposed that the tale of the Nephilim, alluded to in Genesis 6 is based on some of the negative aspects of the apkallu tradition".[13] The apkallu (sages) were seven in number, legendary culture-heroes from before the Flood, of human descent, but possessing extraordinary wisdom from the gods, and one of the seven apkallu, Adapa, was therefore called "son of Ea", despite his human origin.[14] The tradition of the Seven Sages became widespread in the 2nd and 1st millennia. However the seven apkallu do not fall, nor have offspring, and are not sons of the fallen.


and to address the debate your in now



The fallen angels interpretation
The New American Bible commentary draws a parallel to the Epistle of Jude and the statements set forth in Genesis, suggesting that the Epistle refers implicitly to the paternity of Nephilim as heavenly beings who came to earth and had sexual intercourse with women.[20] The footnotes of the Jerusalem Bible suggest that the Biblical author intended the Nephilim to be an "anecdote of a superhuman race".[21] Genesis 6:4 implies that the Nephilim have inhabited the earth in at least two different time periods—in antediluvian times "and afterward." If the Nephilim were supernatural beings themselves, or at least the progeny of supernatural beings, there is a theory that the "giants of Canaan" in Book of Numbers 13:33 were the direct descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim, or were fathered by the same supernatural parents.[citation needed]
Some Christian commentators have argued against this view,[22] citing Jesus' statement that angels do not marry.[23] Others believe that Jesus was only referring to angels in heaven.[24]

 

[Awoon]

"Nephilim" can be intellectual giants of today, corporate leaders, government leaders, terrorist leaders, movie stars, sport heroes, power brokers, inventers.

We just use different words today to describe the "Nephilim" of today..

 

[Shermana]

thanks for the link showing the material was written about a thousand years after moses was created.

I showed you that link to show you how scholars are divided on when it was written. As you can see, there's no real solid conclusions and nothing but guesses and presumptions, and you don't even know WHY the scholars make the claims they do. As I said, all you know how to do is to appeal to authority that you don't even know why they make their claims. Perhaps one day you may find the merit of actually investigating WHY these so-called "professionals" say what they do instead of taking their word for granted as if there's no controversy or differences of opinion.

Now just to add to the equation, this guy says it may have been written "Contemporaneously" during the time of Jesus, BUT he agrees in the plausibility that it was in fact the same exact one that Jude was familiar with, take it from there. For those who agree that Jude was writing as prophetically inspired, this would mean that this scholar confirms that this is the same Assumption of Moses.

http://books.google.com/books?id=rQ...Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=contemporaneously&f=false

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From the JPS Commentary:

6:2 the divine beings

The definite article points to a familiar and well-understood term. The context in Job 1:6; 2:1, and 38:7 unmistakably proves the reference to be to the angelic host, the celestial entourage of God. This is a poetic image drawn from the analogy of human kings surrounded by their assemblage of courtiers. Occasionally, as in I Kings 22:19, "the host of heaven" is used to the same effect.

6:4

This verse is obscure, probably deliberately so, in order to downgrade the mythic tone. The etymology of Nephilim is uncertain. The obvious association with n-f-l yields the rendering "fallen ones." that is, fallen angels. But it is nor clear from the text that the Nephalim are identical with the "divine beings." Rather, they appear to be the offspring of the misalliances, who continued to generate Nephalim in the course of their married lives. Because Numbers 13:33 implies that these were people of extraordinary physical stature, the term was understood to mean "giants" or "heroes." While it is not certain from the text whether or not the Nephalim themselves procreated, it is contrary to the understanding of the biblical narrative that they should have survived the Flood. Hence, the reference in Numbers is not to the supposedly continued existence of Nephalim into Israelite times; rather it is used simply for oratorical effect, much as "Huns" was used to designate Germans during the two world wars.

Commentary by Sarna.

 

[allright]

Please provide a link to ANYone who says that Job 2:1 is referring to men and not angels. You're up against numerous translations that directly quote it as "Angels". Including the Septuagint. If you throw out the Septuagint, you'll have to explain why it doesn't count.

I basing what I say on what I see in the Bible, not others opinion

2. Enoch was considered scripture by nearly if not all Christian Church Fathers until after the Roman Canon councils. You're basing your view on modernity rather than what the ancients believed they wrote, and Jude himself considered Enoch prophetic. And the Assumption of Moses may in fact exist. There is no reason to throw it out completely. Jesus may have also mentioned the Testament of Solomon. You cannot throw out the Dead Sea Scroll canon just because the modern authorities reject it. It is a common error to believe that because later post 5th century believers threw out certain books that therefore the early believers didn't accept them. What you can say is that post-5th century believers didn't accept them if you want to remain intellectually honest. The Jews threw out the Apocrypha too, yet the Talmud refers to Sirach as scripture and Josephus refers to 1 Esdras as writ. There are numerous discrepencies. Also, Protestants threw out the Apocrypha which Catholics and Orthodox retained for a millenia, why is the Protestant canon correct? Why are the early Canons like the Muratorian fragment that included Gospel of Peter incorrect? Because later councils said so?

Theres no agreement on it, as I said above Im going by what I see in the Bible

3. You failed to demonstrate where Jesus says that "Sons of G-d" always refers to men, there is no such quote. Admit your error.

John 10:34-35 I didnt say Jesus said always. You said that no one referred to them as men until recently, Jesus did and he refers to the term being used that way in scripture (Psalms)

4.Did you skip what I said about Genesis 6:2? Have you even read it? It clearly says that the Bnai Elohim mated with the daughters of man BEFORE it says "there were giants in those days".

Right and Genesis 6:4 says 'There were giants in the earth in those day and also after that (what days ? clearly referring to verse 2) when the sons of God came into the children of men. The giants already existed when the sons of god married. They were not their children, but other humans.


5. Once again you cannot just toss out the unanimous ancient tradition as if its totally bunk and all the Church Fathers and early Jewish Midrashim were wrong because later authorities reject it. Additionally, many modern scholars agree this is the case such as Albright. Can you reference any scholars like I did that debunk this claim?

to quote the Bible "the traditions of the people are false"

6. Nehemiah lived long after the tribe of Israel and the Laws of Moses were formed. Can you provide a link detailing why the "unsaved women" were the reference in "daughters of men"?

sons of God and daughters of men are simply the terms used to seperate between those following God and those not

7. The Septuagint clearly defines the word "Elohim" as "angels". Thus, this concept that "gods" and Bnai Elohim were recognized as angels by the Septuagint translators. Likewise, the Septuagint translates the phrase Bnai Elohim as "Angels of god". If you throw out the Septuagint translation as if it makes no matter, that's your choice, but hopefully you admit that's what the Septuagint translators believed it to mean.

Okay they believed it

In the end, you must admit that the EARLY fathers and scholars who lived around the time nearly all unanimously believed in this interpretation of Genesis 6, and that only LATER traditions tried to write it off as "sons of Seth". Hopefully you'll admit this. If anything, it may have been the Sethite Gnostics who first circulated this idea that it wasn't Angels and daughters of men.[/quote]

They were all probably following the interpretation that was passed on to them

Finally something so dramatic as evil angels taking human form, living on earth and having supernatural babies would get more attention
in Genesis than 2 verses as a statement of fact that it happened. From Genesis 6:5 on its as thou they dont exist (because they never did?) Also wouldnt it say what happened to them and their families during the flood. Angels can fly , wouldnt they have tried to save their families or put off their human bodies and then reappeared with a new human body when the flood receded

 

[waitasec]

OK back on topic, this sums up the mythology

Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arguments from culture and mythology
In Aramaic culture, the later term niyphelah refers to the Constellation of Orion, and thus nephilim to the offspring of Orion in mythology.[11] However Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon notes this as a "dubious etymology" and "all very precarious".[12]


J. C. Greenfield mentions that "it has been proposed that the tale of the Nephilim, alluded to in Genesis 6 is based on some of the negative aspects of the apkallu tradition".[13] The apkallu (sages) were seven in number, legendary culture-heroes from before the Flood, of human descent, but possessing extraordinary wisdom from the gods, and one of the seven apkallu, Adapa, was therefore called "son of Ea", despite his human origin.[14] The tradition of the Seven Sages became widespread in the 2nd and 1st millennia. However the seven apkallu do not fall, nor have offspring, and are not sons of the fallen.


and to address the debate your in now



The fallen angels interpretation
The New American Bible commentary draws a parallel to the Epistle of Jude and the statements set forth in Genesis, suggesting that the Epistle refers implicitly to the paternity of Nephilim as heavenly beings who came to earth and had sexual intercourse with women.[20] The footnotes of the Jerusalem Bible suggest that the Biblical author intended the Nephilim to be an "anecdote of a superhuman race".[21] Genesis 6:4 implies that the Nephilim have inhabited the earth in at least two different time periods—in antediluvian times "and afterward." If the Nephilim were supernatural beings themselves, or at least the progeny of supernatural beings, there is a theory that the "giants of Canaan" in Book of Numbers 13:33 were the direct descendants of the antediluvian Nephilim, or were fathered by the same supernatural parents.[citation needed]
Some Christian commentators have argued against this view,[22] citing Jesus' statement that angels do not marry.[23] Others believe that Jesus was only referring to angels in heaven.[24]

but they were wiped off the face of the planet because of the flood...

 

[Shermana]

I basing what I say on what I see in the Bible, not others opinion

Okay, so you have no scholarly basis for your claim and you fly in the face of numerous translations as well as the Septuagint, and you completely dodge the Septuagint issue without addressing it, does the Septuagint not count as the Bible to you?

2.

Theres no agreement on it, as I said above Im going by what I see in the Bible

Okay, so you're completely avoiding ANY scholarly regard in this issue, as well as ancient writing, as if your own modern individual interpretation trumps anything and everything. I wonder what Outhouse would say about that.

3.

John 10:34-35 I didnt say Jesus said always. You said that no one referred to them as men until recently, Jesus did and he refers to the term being used that way in scripture (Psalms)

Sorry, "ye are gods" is not "sons of G-d". Talk about twisting. Also, if you read Psalm 82:6, it's comparing men to the actual heavenly beings that are called gods in 82:1. Looks like you don't even quote Yashua right. Bringing up the Septuagint again, which you ducked from, Psalm 8:5 has "Elohim" (gods) translated as "angels". And as well, only us Israelites are called "gods" according to Psalm 82:6 and thus Jesus' reiteration in 10:34-35. Do you know what "gods" means?

4.

Right and Genesis 6:4 says 'There were giants in the earth in those day and also after that (what days ? clearly referring to verse 2) when the sons of God came into the children of men. The giants already existed when the sons of god married. They were not their children, but other humans.

As long as you recognize that your interpretation is a POTENTIAL way to see it, unless you know Hebrew grammar, all early Midrashim and Church Fathers are implying that it takes place AFTER, so I'm assuming you know better than them. And I presume you will again refuse to present any scholarly source that even discusses this view. The "After" part implies that it happened later again, this is how the Church Fathers read it. Hopefully you understand that your view is but a modern possibility of how the text reads.

5.

to quote the Bible "the traditions of the people are false"

And that would include yours too by your logic, as well as the traditions that said it wasn't angels. Nice try.

6.

sons of God and daughters of men are simply the terms used to seperate between those following God and those not

Your tradition is false and has no basis and is of a post medieval (possibly Sethian Gnostic) origin.

7.

Okay they believed it

So why do you completely throw out the Septuagint as a worthy tranlsation? It seems you want to skip out on that issue whenever its brought up as if your version of the Bible trumps there's? Do you know Hebrew to be able to say that the Septuagint is in error? Address the issue of the Septuagint and stop avoiding it.

They were all probably following the interpretation that was passed on to them

And how about you? Why is your interpretation correct and there's wasn't? If you'll at least admit your interpretation is debatable, then you won't look as dishonest when you completely avoid the Septuagint question, considering it predates the Masoretic and all that.

Finally something so dramatic as evil angels taking human form, living on earth and having supernatural babies would get more attention
in Genesis than 2 verses as a statement of fact that it happened.

And your point of contention is? More attention? It got plenty of attention, I know you skipped the whole issue of Jude quoting Enoch, but you can't just do that while claiming it got no attention, considering it was a major issue in early Jewish and Church Father writings. It's Dishonesty to skip out the Jude issue like that while making this claim.

From Genesis 6:5 on its as thou they dont exist (because they never did?) Also wouldnt it say what happened to them and their families during the flood. Angels can fly , wouldnt they have tried to save their families or put off their human bodies and then reappeared with a new human body when the flood receded

[/quote]

You serious? Try to save their families? What were they supposed to do? Fly in the face of G-d's will? You doubt G-d's power that you think flying angels can get in the way of his judgment? Maybe they were unable to perhaps? Maybe they were evil and trying to save themselves? That's the best you can do? Trying to save their families? Pull off their human bodies? Maybe they already WERE in "human bodies" and were UNABLE to put on "Spiritual Bodies" as part of the situation? Maybe G-d stopped them from saving their evil offspring who got wiped out? Your rebuttal sounds like you think angels can thwart G-d. This is typical exegesis of a "Christian". As for re-appearing, the general concensus is that the angels simply did it again and mated with women, the traditional Jewish understanding such as in the Chumash (Which you will call a "false Tradition of men as if your own tradition is correct) is that King Og (who was over 12 feet tall) held on to the ark.

Now address the issue of Jude. You skipped out on that one by bringing up the Assumption of Moses as if that somehow cancels out the reference to Enoch.

 

[outhouse]

but they were wiped off the face of the planet because of the flood...

what perfect way to get rid of the evidence

 

[Peace5366]

Well, woman weren't considered equal to men in those days which is why they probaly say daughters of humans instead.

 

[waitasec]

Well, woman weren't considered equal to men in those days which is why they probaly say daughters of humans instead.

i'm leaning towards that understanding myself.

 

[waitasec]

what perfect way to get rid of the evidence

a conspiracy?
:sarcastic

 

[Shermana]

i'm leaning towards that understanding myself.

Well all (or most all) the Midrash and Church Father writings from "those days' are in unanimous agreement that its referring to two separate types of beings, not "class" of humans, angelic and of man.

 

[allright]

Okay, so you have no scholarly basis for your claim and you fly in the face of numerous translations as well as the Septuagint, and you completely dodge the Septuagint issue without addressing it, does the Septuagint not count as the Bible to you?

When they change the orginal wording from sons of god to angels its not a translation its their interpretation


2.

Okay, so you're completely avoiding ANY scholarly regard in this issue, as well as ancient writing, as if your own modern individual interpretation trumps anything and everything. I wonder what Outhouse would say about that.

The Bible isnt understood by being a "scholar" its revealed by the Holy Spirit to "babes"

3.

Sorry, "ye are gods" is not "sons of G-d". Talk about twisting. Also, if you read Psalm 82:6, it's comparing men to the actual heavenly beings that are called gods in 82:1. Looks like you don't even quote Yashua right. Bringing up the Septuagint again, which you ducked from, Psalm 8:5 has "Elohim" (gods) translated as "angels". And as well, only us Israelites are called "gods" according to Psalm 82:6 and thus Jesus' reiteration in 10:34-35. Do you know what "gods" means?

It says 'I have called you gods, sons of the most high " plainly speaking of men
using exactly the same wording used in Genesis 6.

4.
As long as you recognize that your interpretation is a POTENTIAL way to see it, unless you know Hebrew grammar, all early Midrashim and Church Fathers are implying that it takes place AFTER, so I'm assuming you know better than them. And I presume you will again refuse to present any scholarly source that even discusses this view. The "After" part implies that it happened later again, this is how the Church Fathers read it. Hopefully you understand that your view is but a modern possibility of how the text reads.

Of course they say that because they believed "sons of god" meant angels

Even if reads as you say, the way the verse is constucted it does not say the giants were the children of the sons of God, indeed implies quite the opposite


5.
And that would include yours too by your logic, as well as the traditions that said it wasn't angels.

"the traditions of the people are false"


6.
Your tradition is false and has no basis and is of a post medieval (possibly Sethian Gnostic) origin.

What tradition, I quote scripture, your the one relying on tradition,
Be careful Jesus once warned "By your traditions you make void the word of God"



7.
So why do you completely throw out the Septuagint as a worthy tranlsation? It seems you want to skip out on that issue whenever its brought up as if your version of the Bible trumps there's? Do you know Hebrew to be able to say that the Septuagint is in error? Address the issue of the Septuagint and stop avoiding it.
And how about you? Why is your interpretation correct and there's wasn't? If you'll at least admit your interpretation is debatable, then you won't look as dishonest when you completely avoid the Septuagint question, considering it predates the Masoretic and all that.

And your point of contention is? More attention? It got plenty of attention, I know you skipped the whole issue of Jude quoting Enoch, but you can't just do that while claiming it got no attention, considering it was a major issue in early Jewish and Church Father writings. It's Dishonesty to skip out the Jude issue like that while making this claim.

Your trying to change what I said, I said it would have gotten more attention in Genesis. The whole of Gensis 6 is about God dealing with men not angels

Try to save their families? What were they supposed to do? Fly in the face of G-d's will? You doubt G-d's power that you think flying angels can get in the way of his judgment?
An interesting point. When God lists all the living creaturers hes going to destroy in the flood, I dont see angels mentioned

Maybe they were unable to perhaps? Maybe they were evil and trying to save themselves? That's the best you can do? Trying to save their families? Pull off their human bodies? Maybe they already WERE in "human bodies" and were UNABLE to put on "Spiritual Bodies" as part of the situation? Maybe G-d stopped them from saving their evil offspring who got wiped out? Your rebuttal sounds like you think angels can thwart G-d. This is typical exegesis of a "Christian". As for re-appearing, the general concensus is that the angels simply did it again and mated with women, the traditional Jewish understanding such as in the Chumash (Which you will call a "false Tradition of men as if your own tradition is correct) is that King Og (who was over 12 feet tall) held on to the ark.

Are saying evil angel are still appearing as humans and still getting married
How can a woman know if her husband is human or an evil angel. If her first child ends up 12 feet tall?
If your not saying that show me from scipture when and how it stopped


Now address the issue of Jude. You skipped out on that one by bringing up the Assumption of Moses as if that somehow cancels out the reference to Enoch.

It may not cancel it out, but it sure doesnt help it

He quotes Enoch, but not about angels getting married. That makes everthing Enoch wrote inspired? Paul quoted a man from Crete, does that mean he was inspired and everthing he wrote was true and should be included in the Cannon.
Jude also quoted the Assumpion of Moses a book considered so important the scribes didnt bother to preserve even one copy of it.

 

[waitasec]

Well all (or most all) the Midrash and Church Father writings from "those days' are in unanimous agreement that its referring to two separate types of beings, not "class" of humans, angelic and of man.

which sets up a really big hurdle to clear...

 

[Shermana]

When they change the orginal wording from sons of god to angels its not a translation its their interpretation

Oh really? You know the original wording? You realize the Masoretic came AFTER the Septuagint? Looks like you don't.

2.

The Bible isnt understood by being a "scholar" its revealed by the Holy Spirit to "babes"

So are you declaring your interpretation to come from the Spirit? Quite a bold gamble considering it would be unforgivable to say you are guided by it when you are not.

3.

It says 'I have called you gods, sons of the most high " plainly speaking of men
using exactly the same wording used in Genesis 6.

Nope, not the same wording. Nice try. Besides, Psalm 82:1 is clearly referring to Angels. Just because you think the Septuagint is not "the original wording" doesn't mean you know what the original wording is.

4.

Of course they say that because they believed "sons of god" meant angels

Even if reads as you say, the way the verse is constucted it does not say the giants were the children of the sons of God, indeed implies quite the opposite

No, it doesn't imply "just the opposite" at all, you are saying you know Hebrew grammar better than the Midrashists, and I highly doubt that.


5.

And that would include yours too by your logic, as well as the traditions that said it wasn't angels.

"the traditions of the people are false"

So therefore, your traditions are false by your logic. Do you even understand what the point of this was about? Are ALL traditions false?


6.

What tradition, I quote scripture, your the one relying on tradition,
Be careful Jesus once warned "By your traditions you make void the word of God"

Umm, I quoted scripture too, I quoted the Septuagint, which you claim is "not the original wording" as if you know for a fact that the Masoretic is?


7.

Your trying to change what I said, I said it would have gotten more attention in Genesis. The whole of Gensis 6 is about God dealing with men not angels

You think that's something a cogent point against what I said?

Are saying evil angel are still appearing as humans and still getting married

Why not?

How can a woman know if her husband is human or an evil angel. If her first child ends up 12 feet tall?

That's in no way a cogent rebuttal to what I said.
If your not saying that show me from scipture when and how it stopped

What did the Spies say when they went to go report on the land again?


Now address the issue of Jude. You skipped out on that one by bringing up the Assumption of Moses as if that somehow cancels out the reference to Enoch.

He quotes Enoch, but not about angels getting married.

Okay, and nonetheless, he is quoting from a book that MENTIONS the Angels getting married?

That makes everthing Enoch wrote inspired? Paul quoted a man from Crete, does that mean he was inspired and everthing he wrote was true and should be included in the Cannon.

Why not? And it's spelled CAnon, one N, it's not a high-velocity gun. Why shouldn't the prophets of other countries have been considered Canonical? Because Rome made the Canon choice?

Jude also quoted the Assumpion of Moses a book considered so important the scribes didnt bother to preserve even one copy of it.

Except for the fact that as I showed, the scholarly concensus is that Jude was quoting from the same Assumption of Moses that is known, it's just they don't believe it's ancient like Jude thought, but they agree Jude was quoting from the same document we know today.

 

[allright]

I read Enoch 1 a while ago, so over the weekend I read it again. The person who wrote it was familiar with all the books of the Old Testament including Ezekiel and Daniel since he borrows from them. This would mean that Enoch was written say between 400bc and 250bc.
He then adds in all this extra about angels and about stars being punished etc.
I dont see how anyone can believe these add ins are from God although I dont question that many sincere Jews and Christians believe it .
Its a mixture of scripture and fiction
As for Jude while believing he was a faithful Christian I believe he was wrong about Enoch
and wrong about the assumption of Moses.

 

[Raymond Sheen]

In addressing the question of whether or not angels have sex the specific form which they may take must be considered. In spirit form angels are sexless, they have no sex organs. No gender. They are referred to in the masculine but this doesn’t necessitate a literal translation no more than an object like a ship being referred to in the feminine means that it is a female capable of having sex. It is true, however, that whenever they have taken the form of the physical they have always been men. As men they have the capability to have sexual relations, just as in the case of Genesis 6:2, 4.

Jude 6 & 7 points out that these rebellious angels didn’t keep their original position (estate, KJV). They were no longer in spirit form. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 reveals what happened to these angels after the destruction of Noah’s day. They returned to spirit form and in heaven were reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness. Peter uses the Greek word Tartarus, which means "the lowest place," a condition of debasement. Tartarus is sometimes translated hell, but it is actually in heaven and the condition of debasement given to the disobedient angels, not a literal place. At 1 Peter 3:18-20 Peter mentions that upon his death and ascension to heaven Jesus, in spirit form, preached to these angels.

 

[gnostic]

Marine shells on mountains are plenty of evidence. It's the same evidence that Plate Tectonics theory exclusively relies on. Clam shells is apparently all you need to believe in a shaky scientific theory that's being disproven and relies on fudgy data, but it's crazy to think its evidence of a giant flood apparently.

I hoped that you are not referring to the marine fossils found in the Himalayas?

Because if you are then science have already debunk the creationist's hypothesis about the marine fossils related to the bible's flood.

Would you agree that the Himalayas was cause by the uplifts of the seabeds when the tectonic plates of Indian subcontinent with the Eurasian continent?

If you do, then you should realize the collision of the plates millions of year ago. Between 40 and 50 million years ago to be more precise. The Indian plate continued to push into the Eurasian plate. By 10 million years ago, much of the*Himalayas were already formed. In fact, it is still pushing today and the Himalayas is still rising.

Those marine fossils are older than man have been around. Certainly older than 4500 years ago.*And because of that span of time, I find it hardly unlikely that those relate to anything with the Bible's Flood.

 

[outhouse]

I hoped that you are not referring to the marine fossils found in the Himalayas?

Because if you are then science have already debunk the creationist's hypothesis about the marine fossils related to the bible's flood.

Would you agree that the Himalayas was cause by the uplifts of the seabeds when the tectonic plates of Indian subcontinent with the Eurasian continent?

If you do, then you should realize the collision of the plates millions of year ago. Between 40 and 50 million years ago to be more precise. The Indian plate continued to push into the Eurasian plate. By 10 million years ago, much of the*Himalayas were already formed. In fact, it is still pushing today and the Himalayas is still rising.

Those marine fossils are older than man have been around. Certainly older than 4500 years ago.*And because of that span of time, I find it hardly unlikely that those relate to anything with the Bible's Flood.

Shermana doesnt believe in tectonic plates

messes up that hole seashell thing LOL