• 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

Monty

Active Member
who said Eve was cloned?
And what is impossible with God.

what was the first offspring of the first creature?
The writer of the Gen 2 creation story says that Adam's rib tissue was cloned, which is why Gen 5:1-3 says that they were both named Adam and presumably why it took them 130 years to first become pregnant - or so the story goes.

The writer of the Gen 1 creation story, however, says that a group of gods and goddesses held a meeting and discussed making a male person in the image and likeness of the male creator god, and creating a female person in the image and likeness of a goddess.

Genesis 1:26-27 KJV -
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
The writer of the Gen 2 creation story says that Adam's rib tissue was cloned, which is why Gen 5:1-3 says that they were both named Adam and presumably why it took them 130 years to first become pregnant - or so the story goes.

The writer of the Gen 1 creation story, however, says that a group of gods and goddesses held a meeting and discussed making a male person in the image and likeness of the male creator god, and creating a female person in the image and likeness of a goddess.

Genesis 1:26-27 KJV -
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The word clone is not there try again.
God is Almighty, time is not .
 

Monty

Active Member
The word clone is not there try again.
God is Almighty, time is not .
So why did the writer of the Gen 2 story say that the god made another genetically identical person also named Adam from his rib tissue.
Genesis 2:23 KJV -
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

And is that why it took them 130 years to first become pregnant (Gen 5:1-3)?
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
Multiple versions of THE Bible, THE word of God amen no sense. What versionS do you use?
So it is yet another in a long list of bold empty claims you can not support.
No big surprise.
That is more or less your M.O.

I already answered which versions I use.

What version of the Bible do you use?

And I am STILL waiting for you to support your bold empty claim that God Commands the use of only one version.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
So it is yet another in a long list of bold empty claims you can not support.
No big surprise.
That is more or less your M.O.

I already answered which versions I use.

What version of the Bible do you use?

And I am STILL waiting for you to support your bold empty claim that God Commands the use of only one version.
answered..
Multiple versions of THE Bible, THE word of God, make no sense, but it was predicted in the Bible.
God bought down the western Roman Empire, is almost done with bringing down the British Empire, and is in the process of bringing down the USA for changing the Bible
And of course all this is predicted in the Bible with exact detail and timing about 2000 years ago.

How did red blood cells evolve?
 

McBell

Unbound
answered..
Nope.
You claim there is only one Word of God, but you do not know which version of it you use.
So you can not know that you are using the one and only Word of God.

Multiple versions of THE Bible, THE word of God, make no sense, but it was predicted in the Bible.
God bought down the western Roman Empire, is almost done with bringing down the British Empire, and is in the process of bringing down the USA for changing the Bible
And of course all this is predicted in the Bible with exact detail and timing about 2000 years ago.
More bold empty claims.
You must have a record on RF for the most bold empty claims...

How did red blood cells evolve?

At what age should you tell a green plant it is adopted?
How old should the green plant be?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So it is yet another in a long list of bold empty claims you can not support.
No big surprise.
That is more or less your M.O.

I already answered which versions I use.

What version of the Bible do you use?

And I am STILL waiting for you to support your bold empty claim that God Commands the use of only one version.

answered..
Multiple versions of THE Bible, THE word of God, make no sense, but it was predicted in the Bible.
God bought down the western Roman Empire, is almost done with bringing down the British Empire, and is in the process of bringing down the USA for changing the Bible
And of course all this is predicted in the Bible with exact detail and timing about 2000 years ago.

How did red blood cells evolve?
Yeah! See? Multiple versions of the Bible are the one version . . . that God commands us to use . . . WTF? Hmmm , maybe that answer was not the slam dunk that he thought that it was.
 

Monty

Active Member
answered..
Multiple versions of THE Bible, THE word of God, make no sense, but it was predicted in the Bible.
God bought down the western Roman Empire, is almost done with bringing down the British Empire, and is in the process of bringing down the USA for changing the Bible
And of course all this is predicted in the Bible with exact detail and timing about 2000 years ago.

How did red blood cells evolve?
Why did they change the bible, given that the Hebrew bible says that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high?
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Why did they change the bible, given that the Hebrew bible says that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high?
Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their 3 daughter in laws all made it.
They did not have any other children, nor any grand children.
Noah’s father, grandfather had already died.
So who and what are you talking about?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I think they're mistaken. But why are we changing the subject?
Yeah, I know you’d like to think they are mistaken. But people like Sgt Pepper and George Ananda present too many details regarding their experiences, to have just made it up.
It seems to me that you & others here just want to ignore their experiences, so it won’t alter your worldview. Because if you found it to be true, you know it would change your POV.

And it is not changing the subject. It has much to do with it! These invisible entities that are pretending to be spirits of dead humans, are also “misleading the entire inhabited earth.” — Revelation 12:9,12.

Religion, politics, just about every other human endeavor…. Their goals include, among other things, hiding the truth about Jehovah, and stirring up dissension between humans. And they’ve obviously been pretty good at it!

For example:
It seems that most humans want peace, many actively working toward it…. Then how come they can’t achieve it? It’s always out of reach; especially since 1914.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
And I glanced at the link and found not real rebuttal there, just bad reasoning
Maybe you should actualy read with a bit of attention instead of just glancing.
Because it blows the creationist nonsense out of the water in just 3 simple points, primarily by exposing that the "soft" tissue first isn't as "soft" as creationists like to claim it is and secondly that the tissue in question isn't the DNA that creationists like to claim it is.

But oh well... you have already demonstrated that you aren't interested in learning. And this reply of yours, which includes the acknowledgement that you didn't even properly read it, only demonstrates once again just how much you aren't interested in learning.

I'll just inform you at this point that no only are you making yourself look very bad and closed minded... you are making your religion look just as bad - if not worse.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
And it's hard to believe both kingdoms emerged by evolution at just the right time.

Another ignorant statement based in ignorance of how evolution works.
"just the right time" exposed your ill-understanding.

Instead, it's simultanously, where they both push one another towards symbioses.


In fact, it's unbelievable but that's what evolutionists say about two kingdoms coming by natural growth at just the right time.

No, that's not at all what the theory says.
That's just a strawman argument from ignorant creationists pretending to have knowledge about the subject

Like I said, the chances are um .. disproportionate. Thanks for your response per the educated fellows.
The chances of your strawman are irrelevant to the actual mechanism.
 

Monty

Active Member
Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their 3 daughter in laws all made it.
They did not have any other children, nor any grand children.
So what evidence do you have that Noah didn't have any other children born before and after his sister Naamah gave birth to their triplets at aged 500 years old and who all drowned with the rest of Noah's family? Or are you claiming that Noah and his sister only ever had sex once to celebrate his 500th birthday (Gen 5:32), and that they never had sex while Noah was building his boat or herding the millions of animals onto his boat?
Noah’s father, grandfather had already died.
So who and what are you talking about?
The bible, however, says that Noah's paternal grandfather and grandmother were obviously drowned in the flood since he died in the same year as the flood aged 969 (Gen 5:27), along with Noah's widowed mother (Gen 5:31) and Noah's aunts & uncles & cousins (Gen 5:26) and Noah's brothers and sisters (Gen 5:30): Except for Noah's brothers, Jabal & Jubal and their families, since they were obviously living outside the flooded area given they are the fathers of all tent dwellers and herders and musical instrument makers, and therefore weren't drowned with the rest of Noah's family (Gen 4:20-21).
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
So what evidence do you have that Noah didn't have any other children born before and after his sister Naamah gave birth to their triplets at aged 500 years old and who all drowned with the rest of Noah's family? Or are you claiming that Noah and his sister only ever had sex once to celebrate his 500th birthday (Gen 5:32)?

The bible, however, says that Noah's paternal grandfather and grandmother was drowned in the flood (Gen 5:27), along with Noah's widowed mother (Gen 5:31) and Noah's aunts & uncles & cousins (Gen 5:26) and Noah's brothers and sisters (Gen 5:30) apart from Noah's brothers, Jabal & Jubal and their families, since they were obviously living outside the flooded area.
I suspect you will cause them to have an overload with all the references in your post...
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why did they change the bible, given that the Hebrew bible says that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high?
Eh? I can't read biblical Hebrew, but none of my expert translators agree with you. Instead they say (Genesis 7, RSV)

18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.​

So it's the tops of the highest mountains on earth that are under 15 cubits of water ─ something between ~18" and ~23" maybe per cubit.

Given the present height of Mt Everest, and even deducting a percentage because the Himalayas have continued to rise since ─ let's be generous and call it ─ 10,000 BCE, you're still going to need more than a billion cubic miles of extra water over and above the water presently on the earth; and how you could actually get that much water to remain on the Babylonian concept of a flat earth, used throughout the bible, escapes me.

But then, I don't know how Superman can fly, let alone accelerate or slow, let alone hold his place in space with nothing to hang on to, so maybe we should refer all these questions to DC Comics.
 

Monty

Active Member
Eh? I can't read biblical Hebrew, but none of my expert translators agree with you. Instead they say (Genesis 7, RSV)

18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.​

So it's the tops of the highest mountains on earth that are under 15 cubits of water ─ something between ~18" and ~23" maybe per cubit.

Given the present height of Mt Everest, and even deducting a percentage because the Himalayas have continued to rise since ─ let's be generous and call it ─ 10,000 BCE, you're still going to need more than a billion cubic miles of extra water over and above the water presently on the earth; and how you could actually get that much water to remain on the Babylonian concept of a flat earth, used throughout the bible, escapes me.

But then, I don't know how Superman can fly, let alone accelerate or slow, let alone hold his place in space with nothing to hang on to, so maybe we should refer all these questions to DC Comics.
The Jewish bible and Young's literal translation of the Hebrew text, however, clearly say that the flood height was only 15 cubits, along with the KJV and many other versions. Any other interpretation of that verse is just pure fantasy with zero credibility. Perhaps a chat with a rabbi would tell us what the Hebrew text actually says and means.
 
Last edited:
Top