God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Ouroboros]

What about Flood Legends?

Going to the historians, anthropologists, archeologists, and such, the flood legends are based on local, non-global, floods. Besides, they're legends. Is the Noah story a legend just like them? Well, then don't take it literal about "kinds" or any other statement in there. A legend is usually an exaggeration of the true story, like the fisherman story about how big his catch was. It gets bigger each time he tells the story.

 

[outhouse]

What about Flood Legends?

You mean flood mythology.


We see exactly how yours was created. And it factually had nothing to do with a global flood.

 

[outhouse]

Why would we discount these facts?

Because you never provide facts.

If you cannot provide an exact date for a flood, then it factually never happened.

 

[Whiterain]

I'm leaning towards the Neanderthal and another modern race took in the Adams as a new race, but there were already modern races - Gods, for instance.

I believe the Neanderthal bread this new race and introduced their ideal specimens to the Gods. Monotheism didn't even exist in the time period of Adam & Eve, if it even happened, which it could very well have in an alternative view.

If you can see the Neanderthals as Dwarves then Old Norse myth could work for this, but it's an unpopular idea, year to date.

The problem is the modern concept of Adam & Even under monotheism. Bang up job, monotheists.

What you would need to find is older myths that haven't been altered.

I don't believe it was white people though. So there inlays the conflict when the White person is supposed to be the newest race in the gene pool.

I can't sound more preposterous but I believe the Old Norse myth has more foundation in reality than it's given credit.

 

[metis]

What about Flood Legends?

Such a cataclysm as the Deluge, which washed the whole world of that time out of existence, would never be forgotten by the survivors. They would talk about it to their children and their children’s children. For 500 years after the Deluge, Shem lived on to relate the event to many generations. He died only ten years before the birth of Jacob. Moses preserved the true account in Genesis. Sometime after the Flood, when God-defying people built the Tower of Babel, Jehovah confused their language and scattered them “over all the surface of the earth.” (Gen 11:9) It was only natural that these people took with them stories of the Flood and passed them on from father to son. The fact that there are not merely a few but perhaps hundreds of different stories about that great Deluge, and that such stories are found among the traditions of many primitive races the world over, is a strong proof that all these people had a common origin and that their early forefathers shared that Flood experience in common.

These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 319) states: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”

Why would we discount these facts?

Flood legends are roughly found in 2/3 of the cultures worldwide, and it should be of no surprise since floods are pretty much commonplace in most localities worldwide. Also, these legends vary tremendously if taken on a literal basis, and the lessons to be derived also vary a great deal. But the important thing is simply that there not only is no geological evidence for worldwide flood, the evidence that geologists have strongly dictates that there simply wasn't any flood that covered Earth.

And it is completely unimportant whether there was one or not, but if you want to believe it is, then go for it. The importance of the Flood narrative isn't whether it happened but what values and morals are taught within the narrative itself. To insist that the Flood narrative must be taken as literal misses the points of the narrative itself.

 

[JayJayDee]

Flood legends are roughly found in 2/3 of the cultures worldwide, and it should be of no surprise since floods are pretty much commonplace in most localities worldwide. Also, these legends vary tremendously if taken on a literal basis, and the lessons to be derived also vary a great deal.

I believe that was covered in my post Métis. It isn't just the local flood stories or how they were embellished.....it is the similarities on the theme that connect them and point to a common source.

But the important thing is simply that there not only is no geological evidence for worldwide flood, the evidence that geologists have strongly dictates that there simply wasn't any flood that covered Earth.

Perhaps there is something in either the interpretation of the Bible's account (not every detail is recorded) or in the interpretation of the geological evidence that has not been taken into account. As I have always said, there is no definitive answer either way. There is only human interpretation of what we each accept as truth. We each accept our respective positions for different reasons.

And it is completely unimportant whether there was one or not, but if you want to believe it is, then go for it. The importance of the Flood narrative isn't whether it happened but what values and morals are taught within the narrative itself. To insist that the Flood narrative must be taken as literal misses the points of the narrative itself.

Since both Jesus and his apostles used the flood account as a teaching tool, we should not lose that lesson....especially the one taught by Jesus. (Matt 24:36-39) if we can discern the reasons why people failed to respond to Noah's warning, we should see exactly the same attitude in people today.

"The only other place where the same Hebrew word (mab·bulʹ, deluge) occurs outside the Genesis account is in David’s melody where he describes Jehovah as seated “upon the deluge.” (Psalm 29:10) However, other writers make reference to and confirm the Genesis account, as, for example, Isaiah. (Isa 54:9) Ezekiel also endorses the historicity of Noah. (Ezek 14:14, 18, 20) Peter draws heavily upon the Deluge account in his letters. (1Pet 3:20; 2Pet 2:5; 3:5, 6) Paul testifies to the great faith Noah displayed in constructing the ark for the survival of his household. (Heb 11:7) Luke lists Noah in the lineage of Messiah’s forebears.—Luke 3:36."

So the historical accounts in the Bible itself by various writers over time testify to the event. Would a myth be quoted by Jesus Christ? Do you have to believe that Jesus is a myth to discount what he taught, and what his apostles and disciples taught? Was Jesus the promoter of lies?

 

[outhouse]

.....it is the similarities on the theme that connect them and point to a common source.

You have named none with any credibility what so ever.

Nothing you have named connects anything.



If you provide, No date, it never happened.

 

[outhouse]

Would a myth be quoted by Jesus Christ?

It wasn't.

Jesus factually never wrote a word in the NT.


This was ancient times in which all of these people lived mythology daily.


We already know the noah mythology originated from pre existing traditions when the Euphrates overflowed in 2900 BC. YOu refuse this because you refuse all credible education and knowledge on these topics

No date? because it did not happen.

 

[metis]

I believe that was covered in my post Métis. It isn't just the local flood stories or how they were embellished.....it is the similarities on the theme that connect them and point to a common source.

That's really a smokescreen because about the only thing they have in common is that there was a flood. When you get into the morals and values involved, which is where the real importance lies, they've quite different. In the process of looking at the Flood narrative, like I warned you, you're missing the importance of it by harping on why supposedly we must believe it literally. If one looks at it as allegory, which I would suggest makes much more sense, then its value is not lost, plus we don't have to believe in a nonsensical story if it's only to be taken literally.

Perhaps there is something in either the interpretation of the Bible's account (not every detail is recorded) or in the interpretation of the geological evidence that has not been taken into account. As I have always said, there is no definitive answer either way. There is only human interpretation of what we each accept as truth. We each accept our respective positions for different reasons.

There is a "definitive answer": there simply was no worldwide flood, and that is well known by geologists. Refusal to recognize that simple answer doesn't change the reality of what the researchers well know and have known for a long time.

So the historical accounts in the Bible itself by various writers over time testify to the event. Would a myth be quoted by Jesus Christ? Do you have to believe that Jesus is a myth to discount what he taught, and what his apostles and disciples taught? Was Jesus the promoter of lies?

The Flood narrative was almost without a doubt carried orally before being written down, and whether Jesus actually believe it literally or figuratively, we cannot tell. For example, he tells parables as if they're real events, and yet most Biblical scholars do not believe they were literal accounts.

I hate to say this, but it's quite clear that you are actually quite unfamiliar with the traditional Jewish writing style, which often relied on myth, symbolism, allegory, and metaphors. Using a literalistic approach with our scriptures makes not one iota of sense, and what you are doing is looking at them through "modern western eyes", not "traditional Asian eyes". Unless you understand this, you'll just go from one absurdity to another.

Sorry.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Special pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We shouldn't do this. Fondness of one religious mythology over another doesn't grant our preferred mythology any more credibility than flying purple dragons.


You should read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With A Thousand Faces"

And then compare each and every tale of grandeur from your preferred religious text with his model of the Monomyth.

As a piece of advice, to any fundamentalist reading really, you need to let go of the requirement for your stories be literal if you ever expect your faith to grow. As Metis has eloquently expressed, the truth of a religion isn't in the literal reading. The nuances and depth of the story being told hinge not on historical accuracy, but on allegorical lesson.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Would a myth be quoted by Jesus Christ? Do you have to believe that Jesus is a myth to discount what he taught, and what his apostles and disciples taught? Was Jesus the promoter of lies?

Lies? No.
Parables & Allegories? Yes

If you want to base actual events solely on the writing on the New Testament, ask yourself this: Nearly every single time that Jesus was asked a question, how did he answer it? Was he direct in his response, or did he use allegory and parable to teach lessons? Did he make bold new claims, or did he highlight known Old Testament stories and spin them in a new light? Does the fact that he used fable to tell a story make the point or lesson of the story any less important? Would you call him a liar because his teaching method and parables weren't based on literal fact?

Why then, Jesus being who Christians claim him to be, would the whole of the Bible be any different?

Literal and fundamentalist readings, of any religious text, only serve to highlight the ignorance of the believer on the topic of not only reality, but of their own religion. It's like you're completely missing the point of your own faith system... If an ancient parable not being grounded in objective reality is scary, then that's fine! That's the point of myth. The truth lies in the lesson of human experience, not in the acts of the characters.

 

[Looncall]

I believe that was covered in my post Métis. It isn't just the local flood stories or how they were embellished.....it is the similarities on the theme that connect them and point to a common source.



Perhaps there is something in either the interpretation of the Bible's account (not every detail is recorded) or in the interpretation of the geological evidence that has not been taken into account. As I have always said, there is no definitive answer either way. There is only human interpretation of what we each accept as truth. We each accept our respective positions for different reasons.



Since both Jesus and his apostles used the flood account as a teaching tool, we should not lose that lesson....especially the one taught by Jesus. (Matt 24:36-39) if we can discern the reasons why people failed to respond to Noah's warning, we should see exactly the same attitude in people today.

"The only other place where the same Hebrew word (mab·bulʹ, deluge) occurs outside the Genesis account is in David’s melody where he describes Jehovah as seated “upon the deluge.” (Psalm 29:10) However, other writers make reference to and confirm the Genesis account, as, for example, Isaiah. (Isa 54:9) Ezekiel also endorses the historicity of Noah. (Ezek 14:14, 18, 20) Peter draws heavily upon the Deluge account in his letters. (1Pet 3:20; 2Pet 2:5; 3:5, 6) Paul testifies to the great faith Noah displayed in constructing the ark for the survival of his household. (Heb 11:7) Luke lists Noah in the lineage of Messiah’s forebears.—Luke 3:36."

So the historical accounts in the Bible itself by various writers over time testify to the event. Would a myth be quoted by Jesus Christ? Do you have to believe that Jesus is a myth to discount what he taught, and what his apostles and disciples taught? Was Jesus the promoter of lies?

You have still not explained why the physical evidence that would certainly be present if anything at all like Noah's flood had occurred is not present.

So, is the flood story a teaching tool or history? Please make up your mind.

 

[averageJOE]

What about Flood Legends?

Such a cataclysm as the Deluge, which washed the whole world of that time out of existence, would never be forgotten by the survivors. They would talk about it to their children and their children’s children. For 500 years after the Deluge, Shem lived on to relate the event to many generations. He died only ten years before the birth of Jacob. Moses preserved the true account in Genesis. Sometime after the Flood, when God-defying people built the Tower of Babel, Jehovah confused their language and scattered them “over all the surface of the earth.” (Gen 11:9) It was only natural that these people took with them stories of the Flood and passed them on from father to son. The fact that there are not merely a few but perhaps hundreds of different stories about that great Deluge, and that such stories are found among the traditions of many primitive races the world over, is a strong proof that all these people had a common origin and that their early forefathers shared that Flood experience in common.

These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, p. 319) states: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”

Why would we discount these facts?

Refer to post 271.

 

[gnostic]

Because of the uncertainties of time from exodus to David, I had to rely on 2 verses - Genesis 15 and 17 (covenant of Abraham), Exodus 12:40-41 (430 years from exodus out of Egypt (1476 BCE or 2448 AM) and the covenant of Abraham) and 1 Kings 6:1 (foundation of temple, on the 4th year of Solomon's reign (297 BCE or 2927 AM), 480 years after Israelites left Egypt

Made a small error here with Solomon's 4th year, in BCE. It should read be "967 BCE" at 2927 AM).

I should have recheck my reply.

 

[JayJayDee]

Special pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL...I read this and couldn't help applying it to the theory of evolution. There is conclusion "massaged" into all the "evidence" as far as I can see. There are no definites because they cannot be sure that what they have concluded from the "evidence" is true, so how can supposition be classified as fact? It is based on faith in the education of those who make the conclusions. Circumstantial at best. You cannot impose the death penalty on circumstantial evidence, yet evolutionists have sentenced God to death on the veracity of their limited interpretation of his early creation.

We shouldn't do this. Fondness of one religious mythology over another doesn't grant our preferred mythology any more credibility than flying purple dragons.

Who is "we"?

You should read Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With A Thousand Faces"

And then compare each and every tale of grandeur from your preferred religious text with his model of the Monomyth.

The Monomyth is true! The stories of these "heros" all have one source.....one author. Variations on a theme is his stock in trade. He is a mimic who uses nothing new. These tactics works so well, he hasn't changed them for thousands of years. They still work perfectly, so why should he?

But what if only one is the real hero and an enemy has surrounded him with look-alikes? Pick the real hero....pick the real religion.....or dismiss them all as fantasy....which is what he would rather you do anyway.

But since you don't believe in the existence of the Creator, you will not acknowledge the existence of his enemy either.
No worries.....you are free to believe.....or not. No one standing there with a big stick forcing you to go one way or the other. Just understand that in this day and age, there is no excuse for ignorance. You can never say you weren't told about these things.

We all have the same freedom of will.....and that is what it's all about. The knowledge is all there, but the "proof" of any of it is missing. That is why we have to have faith.....or not. Faith doesn't require proof.....and misinterpreted "evidence" does not substitute for proof either. Do the deceived really know that they are being misled? We can both ask that question.

As a piece of advice, to any fundamentalist reading really, you need to let go of the requirement for your stories be literal if you ever expect your faith to grow. As Metis has eloquently expressed, the truth of a religion isn't in the literal reading. The nuances and depth of the story being told hinge not on historical accuracy, but on allegorical lesson.

Advice from whom?

And the truth of any religious teaching is in the wisdom demonstrated in its implementation. If you gague a religious teaching by the kinds of people they produce, one thing becomes apparent. If the teachings themselves do not result in peace both within and in personal conduct, and a way of life that reflects the wisdom of its teachings in practice in everyday life, then it is the wrong religion. It is the teaching of men.

No religion that promotes any kind of violence or that elevates individuals to positions of prominence in some kind of powerful hierarchy is from the Creator. Whatever holy book a religion claims to promote, unless its adherents actually follow those teachings and it results in peaceful relations with others both within the religion and with those outside, what is the point of claiming to follow it? Wars fought over religion have no winners. Wars fought among the godless have no winners either if all they do is regroup, and train to get ready for the next war. Why live to kill?

This world is headed for the greatest tribulation in the history of mankind. (Matt 24:21) We are gearing up for a takeover of mammoth proportions. Unless you haven't noticed, our policing is now done with jack-boots and deadly force by men who are trained to show no mercy. This is just a taste of what is to come. The nice cop on the beat has been replaced with a heartless monster. The Bible has predicted this, and we are seeing it forming as we speak.

Nothing will stop this 'one world government' from taking control of the earth and everything upon it....not you and not me. The "freedom" that most democratic nations imagine they have, is not freedom at all....it is an illusion. You are just slaves to a deceptive master who uses propaganda to great advantage.

The planet itself does not require re-creating....it requires a governmental overhaul of mammoth proportions. The kingdom that Jesus Christ promoted...the one he taught us to pray for, is that government. It will take control, but not before mankind sees for themselves who has been ruling them all along. (Dan 2:44)

According to the Bible, the final war of Armegeddon is just ahead of us. There are no more wars after this one. This is the final showdown between good and evil....between satan and his followers and the king appointed by the Creator himself. God's worshippers will have no part. (2 Thess 1:6-10)

We already know who the winner is going to be....so who wants to be on the loser's side? Not me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All,

1. The Bible does NOT state a Flood date. Anyone who says it does is being somewhat disingenuous.

2. The Bible gives genealogies but the words for "son of" mean "notable descendant of". Before you disagree, recognize that Jesus was called "a son of" David. There are 27 generations between Jesus and David.

3. We can argue (and likely shall debate!) geology. No one here can debate, however, that modern, civilized, agrarian, cave painting man and so on is umpteen millions of years old. A Flood could have happened, say, 50,000 years ago, and you would have to break a lot of chops to "prove" there were cities and written documents and so on that far back or farther.

4. Anyone who, going further, insists on patent nonsense that the pyramids have to be covered in Flood mud and etc. will be responded to with "Please show me chapter and verse in the Bible giving a date/year and not mere Hebrew months and days in a calendar for a Flood".

5. Let's instead start fresh on common ground. There could have been a Flood 50,000 years ago once you get over your geological uniformitarian stumblings. Not YOUR stumblings but the myths promulgated by very circular science.

I believe in Evolution, for example, but seem to keep finding 70-million-year-old Coelacanths when I deep-sea fish... understand that scientists don't want to be the bad guy and question the party line... in a one-party system!

God bless you all.

 

[outhouse]

Fossil date boosts S.Africa claim as cradle of mankind


The new dating of Little Foot, reported in the journal Nature, puts the remains at 3.67 million years old, give or take 160,000 years.

That makes it a rough contemporary of "Lucy," the Ethiopian hominid that has the most prominent claim on being our earliest-known ancestor.

"There is nothing to rule out the idea that (Little Foot) was the forerunner of humanity.

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps there is something in either the interpretation of the Bible's account (not every detail is recorded) or in the interpretation of the geological evidence that has not been taken into account. As I have always said, there is no definitive answer either way. There is only human interpretation of what we each accept as truth. We each accept our respective positions for different reasons.

There are definitive evidences when Flood occurred in the layer of rocks, due to silt or debris, in certain areas, 5 years ago, 50 years ago, 500 years ago or 5000 years ago, especially with considerably large flood. And usually these flood would drain away in couple of days or a week.

But according to Genesis, the whole Earth was covered in water, in some 4000+ years ago, and everything was underwater for nearly a whole year. A whole year!!! Do you understand the significance of that?

The larger and more destructive the flood, the more evidences can be found for such a flood occurring.

If the whole Earth was under water for a whole year, then surely there would be evidences present, everywhere, AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME!!!!

There are no such evidences to a global flood at any time in human history.

Sure there are evidences for large, destructive flood, but none of them of global size, which the Genesis is saying. Without any evidence to support a global flood, then the Genesis is a myth.

A large destructive river flood did hit Shuruppak around 2900 BCE, and evidences are quite clear for archeologists and geologists, which they were able to date to specific time. This is most like source for Noah, but the flood legend with the original ark hero - Ziusudra (in the Eridu Genesis, Death of Gilgames, and the King List of Sumer) also known as Atrahasis during Old and Middle Babylonian periods (Epic of Atrahasis), or as Utnapishtim in Middle and Late Babylonian periods, in the Epic of Gilgamesh).

If the dateable evidences are visible to geologists and archaeologists today, shouldn't Genesis flood be even more visible and apparent 6 centuries after Shurruppak's river flood, in every locations around the world?

There were no break in culture and civilisation in Egypt or in Sumer in the 23rd century BCE.

If such Flood had hit Egypt, then everyone would have died, and it would take awhile to repopulate the land of Egypt. There would be break in their civilization and in their culture.

1. Wouldn't the culture in Egypt AFTER the Flood (like with Egypt son of Ham) be totally different to the culture BEFORE the Flood?
2. Wouldn't there be not enough people to continue building tombs like the pyramids for their kings for some generations or some decades after this so-called Global flood? Instead we have pyramids almost continuously being built by each successors.

A global flood doesn't make sense, because Ham didn't have a son named Egypt and other children, until after the Flood, and they would have to take time to grow up to sire other children (as do children of Shem and Japheth would need to grow up before they each could sire children), and these new generations of children would also need to grow before they have new crops of children. So these periods of growing up would take at the very least a decade-and-a-half before each couple can have children of their own.

And these periods of growing up would mean that you can't build kingdoms or civilisations because there wouldn't be enough people around for rebuilding each civilisations.

And consider that Noaẖ's 3 sons only had one wife each, and supposedly each wife had these children, but nowhere does Genesis mention anything about daughters. You'll at the very least, have 2 people - a man and a woman - to have children. So Shem, Japeth and Ham would have to sire enough daughters for a large number of sons that are mention in Genesis by names. So unless these brothers' wives are having twins or triplets of girls, then their wives would have to be constantly pregnant for some decades, for enough girls for each new generations of men.

And pregnancies would take some nine months, more or less, before a child or children being born for each mother.

What I am getting at is that a global flood, would at least take several hundred years or more to recover before new kingdoms or civilisations could crop up. And industries would also take time to be rebuilt. Everything take time, like farming for instance. Crops can't just immediately be ready for harvest.

But there were no such reduction to population in Egypt and Mesopotamia. And that's not to mention civilisations parallel to the Middle East, such as the Chinese and Indian in the east, during the Bronze Age.

A global flood as referred to in the Genesis, is nothing more than a myth, JayJayDee.

 

[Ouroboros]

All,

1. The Bible does NOT state a Flood date. Anyone who says it does is being somewhat disingenuous.

You call Ussher and other church fathers disingenuous? That's a tall order.

The flood date is based on what the Bible says.

2. The Bible gives genealogies but the words for "son of" mean "notable descendant of". Before you disagree, recognize that Jesus was called "a son of" David. There are 27 generations between Jesus and David.

Then why does the Bible give age on the fathers when they had the son?

Read Gen 5, 9, 11, and many other. Many of these genealogies are stating the age of the person who "begat" a son. Begat, means to have, to give birth, so your argument is contradictory what the Bible is supposed to say if you read it literally.

If you read it figuratively, as you are suggesting above, then Noah and the story is also figurative and not literal, i.e. an allegory.

3. We can argue (and likely shall debate!) geology. No one here can debate, however, that modern, civilized, agrarian, cave painting man and so on is umpteen millions of years old. A Flood could have happened, say, 50,000 years ago, and you would have to break a lot of chops to "prove" there were cities and written documents and so on that far back or farther.

There are no cities that old. Supposedly they started to build cities 1,000 years before Noah, and started again quite quickly after, but there's no archeological evidence for societies beyond 10,000 years ago. Perhaps you want to place the flood 10,000 years ago? But, no, that doesn't work either because there's still no evidence geologically or archeologically for a massive world-wide flood.

4. Anyone who, going further, insists on patent nonsense that the pyramids have to be covered in Flood mud and etc. will be responded to with "Please show me chapter and verse in the Bible giving a date/year and not mere Hebrew months and days in a calendar for a Flood".

5. Let's instead start fresh on common ground. There could have been a Flood 50,000 years ago once you get over your geological uniformitarian stumblings. Not YOUR stumblings but the myths promulgated by very circular science.

So, before the ice age ended (10,000 years ago, and the probable explanation to the birth of civilization) there was a flood and the ice didn't move... As you know (darn science knowing s**t), ice floats on water. A global flood would have disrupted the ice at the caps, but there's no evidence that they were ever moved. And they're older than 50,000 years. The oldest ice core sample is something like 1.5 million years.

I believe in Evolution, for example, but seem to keep finding 70-million-year-old Coelacanths when I deep-sea fish... understand that scientists don't want to be the bad guy and question the party line... in a one-party system!

No. They haven't found a 70 million year old living specimen of anything. They might have found specimen of a species that hasn't changed for millions of years (like sharks for instance).

God bless you all.

God bless you too!

 

[JayJayDee]

There are definitive evidences when Flood occurred in the layer of rocks, due to silt or debris, in certain areas, 5 years ago, 50 years ago, 500 years ago or 5000 years ago, especially with considerably large flood. And usually these flood would drain away in couple of days or a week.

But according to Genesis, the whole Earth was covered in water, in some 4000+ years ago, and everything was underwater for nearly a whole year. A whole year!!! Do you understand the significance of that?

Yes I do.....but this assumes that humans know all there is to know about what the Creator himself did when the flood overwhelmed the inhabited earth at that time.....and what he accomplished after the floodwaters subsided. It leaves no room for God himself to have done things to produce the end result he desired. He does not provide us with a running commentary....all we have is the bare facts. When things have his backing, there are no limits to what he can achieve. A being who can create the universe and all living things is not to be compared to inept humans who have no real power to create life or anything else that is truly beneficial. Man made things always have unwanted side-effects.

When we have faith, we don't need evidence from one who has no limits and who can manipulate nature to his will. He knows its workings intimately, having created it in the first place. Just because we cannot see how or why something was done, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Evolutionists operate on this premise this all the time....they fill in the gaps with imagination, not facts. All we can do is assume....just like evolution does.

Both sides of this issue do the same thing. Both rely on faith in the ones who interpret the "evidence" and the writings of those whom they trust to know what they are talking about.

A global flood as referred to in the Genesis, is nothing more than a myth, JayJayDee.

Believe it or not......I believe in the power of the Creator to accomplish all that he said happened.

If there is no Creator, then our life here is meaningless and man's potential will be stunted by his constant desire for possessing things that do not belong to him. What do we think all the wars in history have been fought for?

What have we accomplished with what we have learned in our history?

I will leave you with the words of George Carlin.....

"The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider Freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often.

We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things.

We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete."