Genesis 2

[outhouse]

The bible says that the world was flooded. Read Genesis 7 again, and tell me where you see the world "global" anywhere.

Your in such denial, your not even debateable.

So world is not global

Your going for the gold in mental gymnastics

Genesis 7:19–22 specifically says that “all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered” as “the waters prevailed 15 cubits [26 feet, or 8 m] upward.” All air-breathing land animals and people that were outside the Ark also died (Genesis 7:22–23).


How can you say this is not a global flood?

 

[outhouse]

Yes, I did. The day of the lord is 7 years. The day when God created heavens and the earth is at least 6 days. Adam doesn't die on day the "day" when God created the heavens and the earth. These are biblical proofs that days are not specifically 24 hours. Keep up!

The world was not created in 6 days or 7 years for each day.

That is a FACT

 

[nazz]

Your in such denial, your not even debateable.

So world is not global

Your going for the gold in mental gymnastics

Genesis 7:19–22 specifically says that “all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered” as “the waters prevailed 15 cubits [26 feet, or 8 m] upward.” All air-breathing land animals and people that were outside the Ark also died (Genesis 7:22–23).


How can you say this is not a global flood?

It's apologetic desperation at its worst

 

[outhouse]

It's apologetic desperation at its worst

Its embarrassing.


It is so sad, its way past the point of being comical

 

[outhouse]

And he did NOT post a date for when this flood took place.

WHEN DID THE FLOOD TAKE PLACE?

 

[captainbryce]

No it factually does not come down to opinion.

No they don't. I have presented NOTHING that you can prove to be nonfactual. But I did demonstrate some of your alleged facts to be erroneous.

You post biased uncredible apologetics ONLY!

Your OPINION is noted. But you have yet to justify this opinion with any biblical facts.

and then claim it stands up to modern FACTS of archeology.

First of all I don't recall making such a claim on this thread. My claim is that it stands up to modern facts of astronomy (a claim yet to be disproved). Archeology is a field that is based on inference. Astronomy is a field that is based on direct observation. Until you can disprove anything the bible says with an astronomical fact, you haven't disproved anything. You've only posited a theory that contradicts YOUR interpretation of scripture (but not necessarily anyone elses). Atheists HATE the fact that some people can reconcile the bible with science, while fundamentalists Christians hate the fact that science can be incorporated into the bible. The fact that both atheists and fundamentalists Christians consider "apologetics" to be a derogatory term makes me even more proud to be one!

:yes:

Your in such denial, your not even debateable.

I think the fact that you don't have the capacity to rationally debate someone without becoming frustrated is what makes me not "debatable" to you. If I was actually in "denial", you'd be able to explain what I am in fact "denying".

So world is not global

No it isn't. Would you like me to now show you among the many places in the bible where world is used to denote a scope OTHER than global? Go on, just ask! I'll be happy to show you WHY world does not mean global in this sense or in many others.

Your going for the gold in mental gymnastics

Insults are illogical as well as irrelevant. Only substance can win a debate.

]Genesis 7:19–22 specifically says that “all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered” as “the waters prevailed 15 cubits [26 feet, or 8 m] upward.” All air-breathing land animals and people that were outside the Ark also died

All true. But the thing you are ignoring is frame of reference. From what perspective did the waters cover the hills under the heaven? The bible always establishes the point of view of a character as the frame of reference. In this case, the point of view is NOAH's (just like the point of view for the creation in Genesis 1 was God on the surface of the earth). From Noah's perspective, all the hills under the heaven WAS covered with water, and all of the animals and people in the world did die. But how far did Noah's perspective extend to? Could Noah ever actually see the entire planet simultaneously? No, he couldn't because that's impossible. The terms "the world", and "worldwide" do not mean "global" in Hebrew. They often mean "the world" associated with a particular person or group of people, or from the perspective of a particular person or group of people. It takes genuine ignorance of the language and how it's applied throughout scripture not to realize this.

How can you say this is not a global flood?

Because the bible doesn't say it's a global flood. The intent of the flood was to wipe out all mankind, and all the animals associated with mankind. But the entire world of man existed in Mesopotamia (the cradle of civilization) at that time. Man had not yet spread around the entire globe! So what would have been the point of flooding the entire planet? That doesn't make any sense.

The world was not created in 6 days or 7 years for each day.

That is a FACT

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, this fact not only isn't in dispute, but it is a red-herring. A clever way ignoring the fact the contradictions associated with your argument. But since you didn't actually answer this challenge, I'm going to post it again. It is your claim that biblical days are always 24 hours. I've just provided at least three biblical examples where the word day does NOT refer to 24 hours. What is your explanation?

It's apologetic desperation at its worst

By the way, I LOVE the fact that the two of (you and outhouse) have to team up with a fake indulgence of camaraderie that is based on insulting the one whom you just happen to disagree with. Since neither of you can actually justify your biblical claims, you MUST resort to the shared delusion of winning debate that is inherently un-winnable. If EITHER of you could have back up your claim that days always mean 24 hours, you would have done it by now. But since neither of you can, the only thing you can do is accuse me of being delusional (when I provide scriptural evidence that contradicts your assumptions). So please, carry on! opcorn:

And he did NOT post a date for when this flood took place.

WHEN DID THE FLOOD TAKE PLACE?

The bible doesn't say when the flood took place. However, Archeology (you know that thing all of your beliefs seems to depend on) seems to suggest it happened at around 5,000 BC.

Four hundred feet below the surface, they unearthed an ancient shoreline, proof to Ballard that a catastrophic event did happen in the Black Sea. By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred.
New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood of Noah's Time Happened, Archaeologist Says - ABC News

Of course archaeology suggests that MANY such floods have happened throughout history and prehistory. So there is no way to know exactly WHICH flood event was Noah's flood, let alone pinpoint the exact date.

Relevance?

 

[nazz]

But the entire world of man existed in Mesopotamia (the cradle of civilization) at that time.

What time would that be? I thought you were trying to harmonize the Bible with science?

If EITHER of you could have back up your claim that days always mean 24 hours, you would have done it by now.

This pretty much discourages me from further engaging with you. Knock down those straw men by yourself.

 

[outhouse]

The bible doesn't say when the flood took place. However, Archeology (you know that thing all of your beliefs seems to depend on) seems to suggest it happened at around 5,000 BC.

Your funny. Does the bible say the balck sea flooded, or that the whole world flooded killing everyone

yes or no.

Ballard is a quack, who has not passed peer review.


From your link

According to a controversial theory proposed by two Columbia University scientists, there really was one in the Black Sea region

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A new study based on process length variation of the dinoflagellate cyst Lingulodinium machaerophorum shows no evidence for catastrophic flooding

If the flood occurred at all, the sea level increase and the flooded area during the reconnection were significantly smaller than previously proposed. It also occurred earlier than initially surmised, ca. 7400 BC,

That is 9400 years ago, and it was a slow filling not a flood.

It factually was not the flood described in the Bible.

Ill ask you again, when did this world wide flood happened that killed all of humanity?

 

[outhouse]

But the entire world of man existed in Mesopotamia (the cradle of civilization) at that time

This is factually incorrect.

This is either a blatant LIE or your being intellectual dishonest! :slap:


You must provide sources for this nonsense

 

[captainbryce]

What time would that be?

The specific time is not recorded in the bible. But science tells us that this was sometime between 5 and 10k bc.

I thought you were trying to harmonize the Bible with science?

It doesn't require any "trying".

This pretty much discourages me from further engaging with you.

Convenient, but ultimately predictable. Barring personal attacks, the debtor who lacks substance is generally the debater who cuts and runs.

Knock down those straw men by yourself.

There is no strawman. The fact that days MUST mean 24 hours in order to demonstrate the biblical account of creation as being "false" in accordance with science is DOCUMENTED on this thread alone. This is a claim that outhouse (you know, your ally in this discussion) has in fact made. Do you now claim to disagree with him on this point? And if so, then you are invalidating your partner's argument. So which one is it?

 

[outhouse]

But science tells us that this was sometime between 5 and 10k bc.

SOURCES

You cant just come on in here and post any poor idea you feel is fit to justify your beleif, back it with sources.

 

[outhouse]

Man had not yet spread around the entire globe!

This is factually incorrect.

This is either a blatant LIE or your being intellectual dishonest! :slap:


You must provide sources for this nonsense

 

[gnostic]

Because the bible doesn't say it's a global flood. The intent of the flood was to wipe out all mankind, and all the animals associated with mankind. But the entire world of man existed in Mesopotamia (the cradle of civilization) at that time. Man had not yet spread around the entire globe! So what would have been the point of flooding the entire planet? That doesn't make any sense.

Except that civilisation didn't start at Mesopotamia only.

Some towns or cities of the Levant predated that of Mesopotamia: Damascus, Bylos, Tyre, Jericho. There also cities east of Mesopotamia, in Elam (Iran), and there were cultures even further east of Elam, in what later became known as China. But according to Genesis 10, Elam was one of the sons of Shem, another contradiction to history and to archaeology. And the Elamite language has been around, at the very least, 2800 BCE.

Then there were people living in Egypt, whose culture were unbroken from 4000 BCE to through the entire Bronze Age and through Iron Age. That is known archaeological fact...and yet the Genesis contradict fact by saying that Egypt didn't exist until after the Flood, that Egypt was a son of Ham:

The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan.

The Egyptian language predated any supposed Flood or Tower of Babel.

Another contradiction even exist in Mesopotamia itself.

According again, to Genesis 10, Nimrod, grandson of Ham, founded the city of Erech, which is known as Uruk, the city of the semi-historical figure - Gilgamesh. But archaeologically, predate the Bronze Age, founded around 4000 BCE, hence late Neolithic period, one of the oldest cities in Mesopotamia. 4000 to 3100 was a pre-Sumerian period.

People didn't all live in Mesopotamia. I don't know where you got this nonsense from, but clearly you don't have a clue in either historical or archaeological evidences that existed inside and outside of the Mesopotamia.

Again, I would ask you when did the Genesis flood occurred?

 

[nazz]

The specific time is not recorded in the bible. But science tells us that this was sometime between 5 and 10k bc.

Really? Care to share a link for that?

It doesn't require any "trying".

I guess not if gymnastics come natural for one.

Convenient, but ultimately predictable. Barring personal attacks, the debtor who lacks substance is generally the debater who cuts and runs.

I just have no interest in debating people who distort my views.

There is no strawman. The fact that days MUST mean 24 hours in order to demonstrate the biblical account of creation as being "false" in accordance with science is DOCUMENTED on this thread alone. This is a claim that outhouse (you know, your ally in this discussion) has in fact made. Do you now claim to disagree with him on this point? And if so, then you are invalidating your partner's argument. So which one is it?

I have said repeatedly that yom does not necessary mean 24 hours from the inception of this discussion.

Which as far as I'm concerned is now over between you and me.

 

[gnostic]

To CaptainBryce

Genesis 1 only speak of day - יֹ֔ום - yom, by dividing the day into day (as in the period of daylight, so from dawn to dusk) and night (darkness), and then speak of 1st day, as ONE EVENING and ONE MORNING. (Genesis 1:5)

Clearly, יֹ֔ום or yom "day" is just DAY , and not that of AGE or ERA or EPOCH.

If Genesis 1 wanted to use AGE or ERA or some period of unspecified time, then it would have used תקופה.

Calling יֹ֔ום anything but DAY is taking it out of context, either in Genesis 1 or in Genesis 2:17.

No where does either Genesis 1:3-5 or Genesis 2:17 speak of years and years, or any of period of years. If you want year or years, then try שנה or שנים, respectively.

 

[greentwiga]

There are a variety of indications that Adam and Eve lived as early as 10,000 BC. For example, During the Younger Dryas, at times there were no towns. Right after it ended, towns started popping up all over. Another is that sheep were domesticated about 8,000 - 9,000 BC. Abel herded them. Cattle were not domesticated for another 2,000 years. Jabal, a descendent of Cain herded cattle. Wheat, to make bread was domesticated about 8-9,000 BC. It was harvested before the Younger Dryas, but that didn't require cultivation. Domestic wheat does. Harvesting wild wheat causes no problems with thorns and thistles, but cultivation does. Also, the Younger Dryas was a time of extreme drought in the Middle East. The rains returned as soon as it ended. The event only fits this time.

 

[gnostic]

There are a variety of indications that Adam and Eve lived as early as 10,000 BC.

Based on what?

On Peter's nonsensical verse - 2 Peter 3:8?

Adam is said to lived 930 years. That would mean more than 339,450 days (more because I didn't leap years in my calculation. Wouldn't that mean Adam's true age was roughly about 339450000 years?

Peter's verse only mean that God is not to time. This doesn't mean that Adam and Eve lived in 10,000 BCE.

And beside that. If each creative day was 1000 years, then that would only mean Adam was created about somewhere in the 5th millennium BCE, since he was created in the 6th day, not on the 1st creative day.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by greentwiga
There are a variety of indications that Adam and Eve lived as early as 10,000 BC.

Based on what?

On Peter's nonsensical verse - 2 Peter 3:8?

Adam is said to lived 930 years. That would mean more than 339,450 days (more because I didn't leap years in my calculation. Wouldn't that mean Adam's true age was roughly about 339450000 years?

Peter's verse only mean that God is not to time. This doesn't mean that Adam and Eve lived in 10,000 BCE.

And beside that. If each creative day was 1000 years, then that would only mean Adam was created about somewhere in the 5th millennium BCE, since he was created in the 6th day, not on the 1st creative day.

Hi gnostic, Greentwiga, with neither of your assessment's, do I agree.
2 Peter 3:1-8, is not "nonsensical". The truth it is giving is just as the Scriptures indicate.
"This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

The point Peter is stressing is that the Creator GOD of all things is not bound by earth's timing. A time system GOD devised for earthlings. Gen.1:14, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"
A day is one revolution of the earth on its axis.

Gnostic, re-think your math concerning which "millennium BCE" Adam was created in,----according to you.

 

[outhouse]

2 Peter 3:1-8, is not "nonsensical". The truth it is giving is just as the Scriptures indicate.
.

Im not sure you know what your talking about here.

What makes the unknown author of 2 peter credible ????????????????????????????


He would probably be a Greek speaking proselyte not even a real Jew


Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.

Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between c 100–150AD[6] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
2 Peter 3:1-8, is not "nonsensical". The truth it is giving is just as the Scriptures indicate.

Im not sure you know what your talking about here.

What makes the unknown author of 2 peter credible ????????????????????????????


He would probably be a Greek speaking proselyte not even a real Jew


Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi outhouse, what is "nonsensical" is Using a non-credible work of human beings as proof against the Word of GOD.

Peter identified himself as the writer of both his writings.

Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.

Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between c 100–150AD[6] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical

Almost all of the antedulivians failed to get aboard the Ark and the Scriptures state they died. Those had adequate knowledge of the Creator GOD, but failed to accept HIM---instead they scoffed, mocked, and ridiculed Noah.

Still---your choice to make---are those Scriptures true---are just a myth.