What is loosing ground is any argument based on a Biblical argument that considers scientific evidence as 'assumptions.'
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD
- Thread starter Little Nipper
- Start date
What is loosing ground is any argument based on a Biblical argument that considers scientific evidence as 'assumptions.'
That's only those useless personal interpretations by the writers of the NIV etc which say nothing at all about the flood height, and are not worth the paper they're printed on.
In contrast, anyone who actually understands the English language can see that the KJV & OJB & YLT Hebrew Rabbi Scholars say that the flood height was 15 cubits, as does the Hebrew text.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters rise; and the harim were covered. (OJB)
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (KJV)
Fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered; (YLT)
And do you use a shovel or a pick to loose the ground?
Typos and insults aside the extreme biased agenda is not an effective factual argument.
What is losing ground is any argument based on a Biblical argument only that reject scientific evidence and considers them as 'assumptions.'
You problem, is stonewalling an argument that is not based on the plain text of Genesis confirmed by Hebrew Rabbi scholars.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
This is dishonesty that I would expect FROM EVERY CREATIONISTS.
It does say that it covered the mountains by 15 cubits. Both verses - 19 & 20 - ARE TALKING ABOUT MOUNTAINS!
You cannot just take the mountains out of these verses, it is dishonest selective interpretation.
When you read, you should read them as they are, not pick and choose as to WHAT YOU BELIEVE IT TO MEAN.
This is why I have no respects with creationists like yourself. Like every other creationists, you lack integrity in reading your own scriptures, hence you cannot be trusted.
Even with YLT, KJV & OJB, you are ignoring that verse 19, which also talk of mountains.
When you read a passage, and it is just one sentence, then it should be read as they are. So verse 7:20 is just one sentence, not two, so it should be read that the water covered the mountains by 15 cubits.
But you don't do this. You seemed to be dividing a single sentence as if they were 2 separate sentences.
You keep citing KJV, OJB & YLT, but none of these verses suggest what you are claiming.
None of that, however, changes the fact that the KJV & OJB & YLT clearly say that the flood height was only 15 cubits.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters rise; and the harim were covered. (OJB)
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (KJV)
Fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered; (YLT)
In contrast, other versions such as the NRSV say absolutely nothing at all about the actual flood height except that it was probably over 15,000 cubits.
If you are not familiar with the English language I suggest you ask someone to explain that verse to you and the use and meaning of a semicolon, which says that the flood height was 15 cubits (SEMICOLON), and that the mountains were covered by at least a millimetre of water, and clearly DOES NOT say that the mountains were covered by 15 cubits, and that the actual flood height was therefore unknown.
And FYI the universe is billions of years old and life evolved over millions of years, and why there are six distinct biogeographical zones with their own unique ranges of flora and fauna, which is why kangaroos are not native to the Middle East as claimed by those who say the flood height was over 15,000 cubits.
What do they call it when someone gets obsessed with some unimportant little notion and rattles on and on and on about it?
I'm not interested in the subjective personal opinions of your "Hebrew Rabbi Scholars". I'm only interested in what the Hebrew text actually says and means, which is that the flood was 15 cubits high and that the mountains in the flooded area were covered by at least 1 mm of water. End of Story.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The flood was fictional. You seem to want it to have been real. The writers would have not had any idea how high the tallest of mountains were. In fact that they thought that 15 cubits was a good number demonstrates their ignorance since there is a great variation of the heights of mountains. That verse implies that all of the tallest of mountains were roughly the same height and we know that is not so.
Any idea what "harim" means?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You may be having some problems with reading comprehension because in context it does not appear to support you. Do you think that there really was a flood of Noah and are you trying to make it reasonable? I do not think that can be done.
Presumably it doesn't mean a place to find girls.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yeah, it is where all of the womin are at. Yee Hah!!
Best I can find online is that it is a name.
But the story is obviously still based on river floods which regularly drowned people and animals and not on tidal floods or Tsunamis, in the same way that the fictional story in Gen 19 is based on volcanic eruptions which also kill people and destroy communities.
It's irrelevant to me whether it's purely fictional or whether it's a story based on a specific event which is embellished with magic and fantasies, but I'm intrigued by how some people can't read a simple English sentence correctly, and thus making the story a pure fantasy.
Meteor.
Perhaps the word in the OJB should be spelt he-ha-rim Strong's Hebrew: 2022. הָר (har) -- mountain, hill, hill country
That fits in with the other translations I guess. It would be interesting to find out.
Nope. The fictional story is obviously based on a volcanic eruption such as Santorini about 3500 years ago which destroyed the Minoan settlements there, and is probably also the source of the Atlantis legend.
Volcanic eruptions often eject brimstone (Gen 19:24) and Lot's wife (probably his sister like Abraham's wife) was encased in volcanic ash (Gen 19:26) like the Pompeii victims.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It could be for the flood. But Israel is too far away from the Greek isle that you brought up for it to do any serious damage. There could have been some light ash falls, but that is probably about it. You should compare the distance of that island to Israel and then see how much damage Mt. St. Helens did at that distance.