How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Subduction Zone]

Hello.

I believe that the Bible accurately records the event of a worldwide flood.

One example is that there are sea life fossils found in many places around the world where there is no way for the location to be under water unless the whole world was covered with water.

Also, I do believe the Bible tells us that both Mary and Joseph were { both } descendants of King David.

Because already, We know that Mat 1:16 tells us that From King David - the line went on through the generations - Naming Eleazar, Matthan then on up to Jacob then Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. So, we know that Mat. Chapter 1 is saying that Joseph is a descendant of King David.

The Subject of the entire Luke 3 genealogy is the continual historical style context in the Bible. The whole Chapter of Luke 3 is How Jesus came to be baptized during a such and such a time - He was 33 years of age - and under the current reigning Roman Governments listed and He was the adopted son of Joseph.

The Main subject is Jesus and John. And John was Jesus’s Cousin. John was giving such a detailed record of everything that was going on at that time. Listing the names of His very own genealogy right in one list, that list - was also the same exact genealogy of Jesus. John, of course, would not list His own father. And, because to keep the tradition, He kept it flowing through the Males in The list -

Making a point, to direct His very Own genealogy and the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, - who Mary had the Same Grandfather { Heli } as Him. John as well.

Mary was directly related to Johns Mother. Heli was the Grand FATHER of both Mary and both Elizabeth and they were cousins and Sisters all at once. Jesus and John were cousins with the same Grandfather, not the same father.
This is why John firstly named their grandfather - Heli who was father of Mary and Elizabeth. However the Luke 3 genealogy is completely, another genealogy. Luke 3 begins with the naming of the first name as Heli,G2242 Then ,G3158 Levi,G3017 Melchi,G3197 Janna,G2388 Joseph,G2501 and on and on, back to King David and on back to Adam

Although the translators incorrectly mistranslated the verse, added The Phrase - " which was the son of _ " which was the son of “ ' over and over and over, over 30 times in this Luke 3 chapter. Luke 3:23 simply says AndG2532 JesusG2424 himselfG846 beganG756 to beG2258 aboutG5616 thirty years of age,G5144 G2094 beingG5607 (asG5613 was supposed)G3543 theG3588 sonG5207 of Joseph,G2501........ Then – what the manuscripts in fact - do Not say next - Is “ { which was the son of. } “

The dishonest Translators are linking Joseph as Son to the List of names by incorrectly adding the line - - " which was the son of _ " And then giving the Names in the genealogy, continuing to add this - " which was the son of _ " Line into the text, when it was never was there anywhere, in the entire Chapter.
.
Then ending the Luke 3 verse 23
Ending verse 23 and on to 24 - in the original manuscripts looks exactly as the following …….Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melchi, Janna, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Naum, Esli, Nagge, Maath, Mattathias, Semei, Joseph, Juda, Joanna, Rhesa, Zorobabel, Salathiel, Neri, Melchi, Addi, Cosam, Elmodam, Er, Jose, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Juda, Joseph, Jonan, Eliakim, Melea, Menan, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Booz, Salmon, Naasson, Aminadab, Aram, Esrom, Phares, Juda, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Thara, Nachor, Saruch, Ragau, Phalec, Heber, Sala, Cainan, Arphaxad, Sem, Noe, Lamech, Mathusala, Enoch, Jared, Maleleel, Cainan, Enos, Seth, Adam, God.

This is from Mary and Elizabeth's father " Heli " back to Adam.

The manuscripts do not say - which was the son of. Between the list of each name given. Also - there is no phrase - which was the son of , at the ending of verse 23, which connects Joseph the Supposed Father Of Jesus, to verse 24's listed genealogy.

This is untruthful and really a lie in the translation. … – Which was the son of _- is what You see in the translation, but it is not in the Original whatsoever.
The Original Authors are immediately jumping right into the List in the manuscripts - To the naming of Mary’s genealogy " Beginning with Mary’s and Elisabeth’s grandfather “ Heli “ We know this because we already have Josephs genealogy. And the authors usually, traditionally, always left out The Women.
Leaving out traditionally - The Person of Mary and - also the original authors left out the Phrases " Which was the son of "...... In Luke Chapter 3 - They are simply mentioning that Joseph was the = { SUPPOSED / THOUGHT OF } Father of Jesus. Here that the Authors are ( wanting The Reader to Know ) That Joseph was the Supposed / ( Thought OF ) Father of Jesus,

Then The Manuscripts immediately, suddenly end the story and { You could correctly say { Out of the Blue } or Unexpectedly } They begin to go right into the new subject of just simply the Listing of the full Genealogy of Mary. and excluded all females from the list - EVEN excluding MARY Herself.

The text jumps, Leaps and dives into listing all the males that brought in the other side of Jesus’s genealogy line - Through no one else possible - but Mary.
Joseph’s Genealogy has already been given. The Readers and Christians know that the only Genealogy Left to be given - Clearly is for the only other Choice possible. Mary. This Only other option, is Mary. The other Line of Jesus Genealogy.

I used to wonder about this until I researched the original Greek manuscripts that are different from the Trinitarian translations in many, many ways.

Okay, now do you want to know why we know that there was no flood. Remember my one assumption, and I do believe that you will agree with it, that if there is a God he cannot or will not lie.

 

[Audie]

Hello.

I believe that the Bible accurately records the event of a worldwide flood.

One example is that there are sea life fossils found in many places around the world where there is no way for the location to be under water unless the whole world was covered with water.

Also, I do believe the Bible tells us that both Mary and Joseph were { both } descendants of King David.

Because already, We know that Mat 1:16 tells us that From King David - the line went on through the generations - Naming Eleazar, Matthan then on up to Jacob then Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. So, we know that Mat. Chapter 1 is saying that Joseph is a descendant of King David.

The Subject of the entire Luke 3 genealogy is the continual historical style context in the Bible. The whole Chapter of Luke 3 is How Jesus came to be baptized during a such and such a time - He was 33 years of age - and under the current reigning Roman Governments listed and He was the adopted son of Joseph.

The Main subject is Jesus and John. And John was Jesus’s Cousin. John was giving such a detailed record of everything that was going on at that time. Listing the names of His very own genealogy right in one list, that list - was also the same exact genealogy of Jesus. John, of course, would not list His own father. And, because to keep the tradition, He kept it flowing through the Males in The list -

Making a point, to direct His very Own genealogy and the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, - who Mary had the Same Grandfather { Heli } as Him. John as well.

Mary was directly related to Johns Mother. Heli was the Grand FATHER of both Mary and both Elizabeth and they were cousins and Sisters all at once. Jesus and John were cousins with the same Grandfather, not the same father.
This is why John firstly named their grandfather - Heli who was father of Mary and Elizabeth. However, the Luke 3 genealogy is totally and completely another genealogy from the Matthew 1 genealogy.

Luke 3 begins with the naming of the first name as Heli,G2242 Then ,G3158 Levi,G3017 Melchi,G3197 Janna,G2388 Joseph,G2501 and on and on, back to King David and on back to Adam....... Although the translators incorrectly mistranslated the verse, added The Phrase - " which was the son of _ " which was the son of “ ' over and over and over, over 30 times in this Luke 3 chapter. Luke 3:23 simply says AndG2532 JesusG2424 himselfG846 beganG756 to beG2258 aboutG5616 thirty years of age,G5144 G2094 beingG5607 (asG5613 was supposed)G3543 theG3588 sonG5207 of Joseph,G2501........ Then – what the manuscripts in fact - do Not say next - Is “ { which was the son of. } “

The dishonest Translators are linking Joseph as Son to the List of names by incorrectly adding the line - - " which was the son of _ " And then giving the Names in the genealogy, continuing to add this - " which was the son of _ " Line into the text, when it was never was there anywhere, in the entire Chapter.
.
Then ending the Luke 3 verse 23
Ending verse 23 and on to 24 - in the original manuscripts looks exactly as the following …….Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melchi, Janna, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Naum, Esli, Nagge, Maath, Mattathias, Semei, Joseph, Juda, Joanna, Rhesa, Zorobabel, Salathiel, Neri, Melchi, Addi, Cosam, Elmodam, Er, Jose, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Juda, Joseph, Jonan, Eliakim, Melea, Menan, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Booz, Salmon, Naasson, Aminadab, Aram, Esrom, Phares, Juda, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Thara, Nachor, Saruch, Ragau, Phalec, Heber, Sala, Cainan, Arphaxad, Sem, Noe, Lamech, Mathusala, Enoch, Jared, Maleleel, Cainan, Enos, Seth, Adam, God.

This is from Mary and Elizabeth's father " Heli " back to Adam.

The manuscripts do not say - which was the son of. Between the list of each name given. Also - there is no phrase - which was the son of , at the ending of verse 23, which connects Joseph the Supposed Father Of Jesus, to verse 24's listed genealogy.

This is untruthful and really a lie in the translation. … – Which was the son of _- is what You see in the translation, but it is not in the Original whatsoever.
The Original Authors are immediately jumping right into the List in the manuscripts - To the naming of Mary’s genealogy " Beginning with Mary’s and Elisabeth’s father “ Heli “ We know this because we already have Josephs genealogy. And the authors usually, traditionally, always left out The Women.
Leaving out traditionally - The Person of Mary and - also the original authors left out the Phrases " Which was the son of "...... In Luke Chapter 3 - They are simply mentioning that Joseph was the = { SUPPOSED / THOUGHT OF } Father of Jesus. Here that the Authors are ( wanting The Reader to Know ) That Joseph was the Supposed / ( Thought OF ) Father of Jesus,

Then The Manuscripts immediately, suddenly end the story and { You could correctly say { Out of the Blue } or Unexpectedly } They begin to go right into the new subject of just simply the Listing of the full Genealogy of Mary. and excluded all females from the list - EVEN excluding MARY Herself.

The text jumps, Leaps and dives into listing all the males that brought in the other side of Jesus’s genealogy line - Through no one else possible - but Mary.
Joseph’s Genealogy has already been given. The Readers and Christians know that the only Genealogy Left to be given - Clearly is for the only other Choice possible. Mary. This Only other option, is Mary. The other Line of Jesus Genealogy.

I used to wonder about this until I researched the original Greek manuscripts that are different from the Trinitarian translations in many, many ways.

This is a discussion forum, not a preachin' pulpit.

The only thing you said of any significance at all
was about inland fossils of marine animals.

What makes you think they could only result
from all places being under at once?

Note plz that in many places land that was recently dry
are now underwatet, and elsewhere, in the lifetime of
people living today, what was under sea water is dry
land today.

Sea level worldwide hss risen about 300 ft in approx 10,000
years.

 

[Skwim]

Hello.

I believe that the Bible accurately records the event of a worldwide flood.

One example is that there are sea life fossils found in many places around the world where there is no way for the location to be under water unless the whole world was covered with water.

Also, I do believe the Bible tells us that both Mary and Joseph were { both } descendants of King David.

Because already, We know that Mat 1:16 tells us that From King David - the line went on through the generations - Naming Eleazar, Matthan then on up to Jacob then Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. So, we know that Mat. Chapter 1 is saying that Joseph is a descendant of King David.

The Subject of the entire Luke 3 genealogy is the continual historical style context in the Bible. The whole Chapter of Luke 3 is How Jesus came to be baptized during a such and such a time - He was 33 years of age - and under the current reigning Roman Governments listed and He was the adopted son of Joseph.

The Main subject is Jesus and John. And John was Jesus’s Cousin. John was giving such a detailed record of everything that was going on at that time. Listing the names of His very own genealogy right in one list, that list - was also the same exact genealogy of Jesus. John, of course, would not list His own father. And, because to keep the tradition, He kept it flowing through the Males in The list -

Making a point, to direct His very Own genealogy and the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, - who Mary had the Same Grandfather { Heli } as Him. John as well.

Mary was directly related to Johns Mother. Heli was the Grand FATHER of both Mary and both Elizabeth and they were cousins and Sisters all at once. Jesus and John were cousins with the same Grandfather, not the same father.
This is why John firstly named their grandfather - Heli who was father of Mary and Elizabeth. However, the Luke 3 genealogy is totally and completely another genealogy from the Matthew 1 genealogy.

Luke 3 begins with the naming of the first name as Heli,G2242 Then ,G3158 Levi,G3017 Melchi,G3197 Janna,G2388 Joseph,G2501 and on and on, back to King David and on back to Adam....... Although the translators incorrectly mistranslated the verse, added The Phrase - " which was the son of _ " which was the son of “ ' over and over and over, over 30 times in this Luke 3 chapter. Luke 3:23 simply says AndG2532 JesusG2424 himselfG846 beganG756 to beG2258 aboutG5616 thirty years of age,G5144 G2094 beingG5607 (asG5613 was supposed)G3543 theG3588 sonG5207 of Joseph,G2501........ Then – what the manuscripts in fact - do Not say next - Is “ { which was the son of. } “

The dishonest Translators are linking Joseph as Son to the List of names by incorrectly adding the line - - " which was the son of _ " And then giving the Names in the genealogy, continuing to add this - " which was the son of _ " Line into the text, when it was never was there anywhere, in the entire Chapter.
.
Then ending the Luke 3 verse 23
Ending verse 23 and on to 24 - in the original manuscripts looks exactly as the following …….Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melchi, Janna, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Naum, Esli, Nagge, Maath, Mattathias, Semei, Joseph, Juda, Joanna, Rhesa, Zorobabel, Salathiel, Neri, Melchi, Addi, Cosam, Elmodam, Er, Jose, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Juda, Joseph, Jonan, Eliakim, Melea, Menan, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Booz, Salmon, Naasson, Aminadab, Aram, Esrom, Phares, Juda, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Thara, Nachor, Saruch, Ragau, Phalec, Heber, Sala, Cainan, Arphaxad, Sem, Noe, Lamech, Mathusala, Enoch, Jared, Maleleel, Cainan, Enos, Seth, Adam, God.

This is from Mary and Elizabeth's father " Heli " back to Adam.

The manuscripts do not say - which was the son of. Between the list of each name given. Also - there is no phrase - which was the son of , at the ending of verse 23, which connects Joseph the Supposed Father Of Jesus, to verse 24's listed genealogy.

This is untruthful and really a lie in the translation. … – Which was the son of _- is what You see in the translation, but it is not in the Original whatsoever.
The Original Authors are immediately jumping right into the List in the manuscripts - To the naming of Mary’s genealogy " Beginning with Mary’s and Elisabeth’s father “ Heli “ We know this because we already have Josephs genealogy. And the authors usually, traditionally, always left out The Women.
Leaving out traditionally - The Person of Mary and - also the original authors left out the Phrases " Which was the son of "...... In Luke Chapter 3 - They are simply mentioning that Joseph was the = { SUPPOSED / THOUGHT OF } Father of Jesus. Here that the Authors are ( wanting The Reader to Know ) That Joseph was the Supposed / ( Thought OF ) Father of Jesus,

Then The Manuscripts immediately, suddenly end the story and { You could correctly say { Out of the Blue } or Unexpectedly } They begin to go right into the new subject of just simply the Listing of the full Genealogy of Mary. and excluded all females from the list - EVEN excluding MARY Herself.

The text jumps, Leaps and dives into listing all the males that brought in the other side of Jesus’s genealogy line - Through no one else possible - but Mary.
Joseph’s Genealogy has already been given. The Readers and Christians know that the only Genealogy Left to be given - Clearly is for the only other Choice possible. Mary. This Only other option, is Mary. The other Line of Jesus Genealogy.

I used to wonder about this until I researched the original Greek manuscripts that are different from the Trinitarian translations in many, many ways.

So why all this blather about Mary? The vast majority of your post has absolutely nothing to do with Noah or the flood. If you want to talk about Mary, Jesus, or whatever else please make your own thread.

 

[starsofirelight]

Thanks for Your reply Audie. this is very interesting.

All of the posts in this forum are important to me. I previously took a few minutes to read through each and every single one of the great posts here, and I really enjoyed the information.

Yes, Someone just a few posts ago was seeming to diligently endeavor to search concerning whether or not if the Bible scriptures indeed did or did not record the genealogy of Mary.

The poster failed to receive any reply whatsoever about the Biblical information and went on to express and describe their determination on the matter. And because there are also a great number of other types of side topics here and because of the fact that I have actually spent studying this subject.

I have concluded that the preacher's explanations have not lead very many people to a solid conclusion and that the preacher's explanations have not even satisfied the question for me personally,. Please do not think that I have disregarded and rejected and abandoned Your personal preacher's explanations and that Your preacher is somehow inadequate or a bad preacher.,

If You have a personal problem with a specific preacher somewhere, I understand, I am not a preacher nor do I wish to preach to anyone - I was simply addressing something that a previous poster had brought up a few posts back. Because someone else or other posters were discussing the subject, I thought it would be acceptable to explain the research that I have personally done in light of the topic that was actually brought up by someone else. ? I hope that You are able to understand that sometimes people like to talk about other Biblical matters while they discuss a certain topic. It helps to bring the entire concept into light of the way and manner that the original authors were attempting to convey their message. This is how research is performed to answer a wide variety of questions.

If You have a problem with a specific preacher or with all preachers, I understand, I am not a preacher nor do I wish to preach. I hope that You are able to resolve it in a manner that does interfere with my great audience. I was only telling what the Original manuscripts say concerning the genealogy of Jesus Christ. There is no need to preach in the manner of an emotional public crier that couches His / Her message in emotional persuasion. I was only attempting to proclaim and publish the information as it recorded and authored in the original manuscripts.

Perhaps You could better serve the forum by helping me to contact the poster that was addressing the side topic and get their great input as well and see if they are willing to communicate further without the assistance of a preacher.

Your question is very important to me. And I can answer it without the assistance of a preacher as well. Based on common sense, that the reason that there is not an abundance of the fossils pertaining to ocean life, such as whales and ocean fishes, is simply because the Bible tells and explains that these type of animals survived and lived through the flood and were not destroyed. This is not an attempt to preach to You - But the whole story is in the Bible. I hope that this is not troublesome for You.

The Bible also clearly explains that the Seashells are the exoskeletons of mollusks such as snails, clams, and oyster type life also did survive, however many, many - meaning trillions upon trillions upon trillions ( an unknown huge amount } of them were not able to move and maneuver quickly and control themselves controllable the flood waters as they receeded. But the majority of or most of the whales, sharks, fish and other ocean life easily survived and simply chose to stay in the safer deeper waters and they are not found in any abundance on the surface land area.

Here are some great informational links online that explain these facts and all of these fossils and artifacts are not discovered just only by preachers - Scientists who are not preachers also, are researching these facts.
. I hope that all answers and further discussions can be continued knowing that just because someone studies a certain topic from the Bible it does not necessarly mean that they are a preacher and always remember it was not just preachers who wrote the Bible. And that today's research, especially for me - It is just looking for the facts based on evidence.

Chile desert whale fossils - creation.com

& Chile desert whale fossils - creation.com

& shorturl.at/boKOX

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for Your reply Audie. this is very interesting.

All of the posts in this forum are important to me. I previously took a few minutes to read through each and every single one of the great posts here, and I really enjoyed the information.

Yes, Someone just a few posts ago was seeming to diligently endeavor to search concerning whether or not if the Bible scriptures indeed did or did not record the genealogy of Mary.

The poster failed to receive any reply whatsoever about the Biblical information and went on to express and describe their determination on the matter. And because there are also a great number of other types of side topics here and because of the fact that I have actually spent studying this subject.

I have concluded that the preacher's explanations have not lead very many people to a solid conclusion and that the preacher's explanations have not even satisfied the question for me personally,. Please do not think that I have disregarded and rejected and abandoned Your personal preacher's explanations and that Your preacher is somehow inadequate or a bad preacher.,

If You have a personal problem with a specific preacher somewhere, I understand, I am not a preacher nor do I wish to preach to anyone - I was simply addressing something that a previous poster had brought up a few posts back.

If You have a problem with a specific preacher or with all preachers, I understand, I am not a preacher nor do I wish to preach. I hope that You are able to resolve it in a manner that does interfere with my great audience. I was only telling what the Original manuscripts say concerning the genealogy of Jesus Christ. There is no need to preach in the manner of an emotional public crier that couches His / Her message in emotional persuasion. I was only attempting to proclaim and publish the information as it recorded and authored in the original manuscripts.

Perhaps You could better serve the forum by helping me to contact the poster that was addressing the side topic and get their great input as well and see if they are willing to communicate further without the assistance of a preacher.

Your question is very important to me. And I can answer it without the assistance of a preacher as well. Based on common sense, that the reason that there is not an abundance of the fossils pertaining to ocean life, such as whales and ocean fishes, is simply because the Bible tells and explains that these type of animals survived and lived through the flood and were not destroyed. This is not an attempt to preach to You - But the whole story is in the Bible. I hope that this is not troublesome for You.

The Bible also clearly explains that the Seashells are the exoskeletons of mollusks such as snails, clams, and oyster type life also did survive, however many, many - meaning trillions upon trillions upon trillions ( an unknown huge amount } of them were not able to move and maneuver quickly and control themselves controllable the flood waters as they receeded. But the majority of or most of the whales, sharks, fish and other ocean life easily survived and simply chose to stay in the safer deeper waters and they are not found in any abundance on the surface land area.

Here are some great informational links online that explain these facts and all of these fossils and artifacts are not discovered just only by preachers - Scientists who are not preachers also, are researching these facts.
. I hope that all answers and further discussions can be continued knowing that just because someone studies a certain topic from the Bible it does not necessarly mean that they are a preacher and always remember it was not just preachers who wrote the Bible. And that today's research, especially for me - It is just looking for the facts based on evidence.

Chile desert whale fossils - creation.com

& Chile desert whale fossils - creation.com

& shorturl.at/boKOX

Links to sites where they require their employees to swear not to use the scientific method are worthless in a debate. They also demonstrate amazing ignorance. We know how mountains form. The people that you linked to probably do to. They are willing to lie for Jesus.

Proselytizing is a no no here. Keep on track. Your errors with the lineage of Jesus should be brought up on another thread.

 

[Audie]

Thanks for Your reply Audie. this is very interesting.

All of the posts in this forum are important to me. I previously took a few minutes to read through each and every single one of the great posts here, and I really enjoyed the information.

Yes, Someone just a few posts ago was seeming to diligently endeavor to search concerning whether or not if the Bible scriptures indeed did or did not record the genealogy of Mary.

The poster failed to receive any reply whatsoever about the Biblical information and went on to express and describe their determination on the matter. And because there are also a great number of other types of side topics here and because of the fact that I have actually spent studying this subject.

I have concluded that the preacher's explanations have not lead very many people to a solid conclusion and that the preacher's explanations have not even satisfied the question for me personally,. Please do not think that I have disregarded and rejected and abandoned Your personal preacher's explanations and that Your preacher is somehow inadequate or a bad preacher.,

If You have a personal problem with a specific preacher somewhere, I understand, I am not a preacher nor do I wish to preach to anyone - I was simply addressing something that a previous poster had brought up a few posts back. Because someone else or other posters were discussing the subject, I thought it would be acceptable to explain the research that I have personally done in light of the topic that was actually brought up by someone else. ? I hope that You are able to understand that sometimes people like to talk about other Biblical matters while they discuss a certain topic. It helps to bring the entire concept into light of the way and manner that the original authors were attempting to convey their message. This is how research is performed to answer a wide variety of questions.

If You have a problem with a specific preacher or with all preachers, I understand, I am not a preacher nor do I wish to preach. I hope that You are able to resolve it in a manner that does interfere with my great audience. I was only telling what the Original manuscripts say concerning the genealogy of Jesus Christ. There is no need to preach in the manner of an emotional public crier that couches His / Her message in emotional persuasion. I was only attempting to proclaim and publish the information as it recorded and authored in the original manuscripts.

Perhaps You could better serve the forum by helping me to contact the poster that was addressing the side topic and get their great input as well and see if they are willing to communicate further without the assistance of a preacher.

Your question is very important to me. And I can answer it without the assistance of a preacher as well. Based on common sense, that the reason that there is not an abundance of the fossils pertaining to ocean life, such as whales and ocean fishes, is simply because the Bible tells and explains that these type of animals survived and lived through the flood and were not destroyed. This is not an attempt to preach to You - But the whole story is in the Bible. I hope that this is not troublesome for You.

The Bible also clearly explains that the Seashells are the exoskeletons of mollusks such as snails, clams, and oyster type life also did survive, however many, many - meaning trillions upon trillions upon trillions ( an unknown huge amount } of them were not able to move and maneuver quickly and control themselves controllable the flood waters as they receeded. But the majority of or most of the whales, sharks, fish and other ocean life easily survived and simply chose to stay in the safer deeper waters and they are not found in any abundance on the surface land area.

Here are some great informational links online that explain these facts and all of these fossils and artifacts are not discovered just only by preachers - Scientists who are not preachers also, are researching these facts.
. I hope that all answers and further discussions can be continued knowing that just because someone studies a certain topic from the Bible it does not necessarly mean that they are a preacher and always remember it was not just preachers who wrote the Bible. And that today's research, especially for me - It is just looking for the facts based on evidence.

Chile desert whale fossils - creation.com

& Chile desert whale fossils - creation.com

& shorturl.at/boKOX

If you preach, you are preaching.
Creation.com is a stale joke.

As for your ideas about marine fossils,
you are dragging up moldy ignorant pratts.

We are not kids here, your audience, if you
get that far, is composed here of people
far too educated and intelligent to he taken
in by the facile nonsense that seems to be
your offering.

I note that in all that verbiage you failed to
address the one thing I pointed out- that your
"only could have been world wide flood" is
an obviously false conclusion, as I demonstrated.

That does not speak well for your ability or intentions.

Go back and deal with your falsehood.

Or I will call Code 3 on you.

(That is for hit n run posters, who run from
their mistakes, rather than admit them)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks for Your reply Audie. this is very interesting.

<yawn>

unlike your nonsense
>>> ignore-list >>>​

</yawn>

 

[starsofirelight]

Hello.

Errors in lineages of Jesus indeed possibility or could or may exist in the Bible -

However, I did in no way post the information that is recorded in the manuscripts in error or inaccurately.

The previous poster was right on track as well - Keeping right on track with the subject of how that there is not an absolute proof that validates that there was a flood - and how that other thing such as was previously mentioned by another poster pertaining to the lineages of Jesus as well are not able to be 100 % provable. Meaning the evidence is there, but it is not evident in concrete form that is easily detectable without some faith applied to the record in the manuscripts of the Torah and Gospels.

Please do not undermine the other posters and me who are desiring and ready to learn - Because of the one-step type theology that many people who trust in preachers have is based on many preachers and individuals who have not really spent much time studying much of anything concerning the Biblical data. It is partly a matter of faith. I have scriptures for my faith.

As I posted, the fully accurate record, recorded in the manuscript - this simply, is my faith.
And the internet provides links other than just the creation science link.
Please do not continue to pervert my message because I did, in fact, provide a link of many, many other sources.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Okay, now do you want to know why we know that there was no flood. Remember my one assumption, and I do believe that you will agree with it, that if there is a God he cannot or will not lie.

FWIW, that strikes me as a strange assumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

FWIW, that strikes me as a strange assumption.

Not my assumption, you would not believe (or perhaps you would) how many times I have heard Christians excitedly say "God Can't LIE!!!"

 

[Audie]

God, if there is a God,
PLEASE
Send us a good creationist
If there is one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello.

Errors in lineages of Jesus indeed possibility or could or may exist in the Bible -

However, I did in no way post the information that is recorded in the manuscripts in error or inaccurately.

The previous poster was right on track as well - Keeping right on track with the subject of how that there is not an absolute proof that validates that there was a flood - and how that other thing such as was previously mentioned by another poster pertaining to the lineages of Jesus as well are not able to be 100 % provable. Meaning the evidence is there, but it is not evident in concrete form that is easily detectable without some faith applied to the record in the manuscripts of the Torah and Gospels.

Please do not undermine the other posters and me who are desiring and ready to learn - Because of the one-step type theology that many people who trust in preachers have is based on many preachers and individuals who have not really spent much time studying much of anything concerning the Biblical data. It is partly a matter of faith. I have scriptures for my faith.

As I posted, the fully accurate record, recorded in the manuscript - this simply, is my faith.
And the internet provides links other than just the creation science link.
Please do not continue to pervert my message because I did, in fact, provide a link of many, many other sources.

You need to learn how to tell the difference between a valid site and one that is not.

How heavily into science do you want to get? We could just use archaeology. During just about any date named for the flood we have civilizations that lived right through it without noticing it. Dendrochronology takes us back almost 14,000 years with no flood.

Ice floats, that takes us back before man was on this planet and still no flood.



If you can get a a bit more serious I can do the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God, if there is a God,
PLEASE
Send us a good creationist
If there is one.

I think that species went extinct in 1963.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not my assumption, you would not believe (or perhaps you would) how many times I have heard Christians excitedly say "God Can't LIE!!!"

I guess I was confused by ...

Remember my one assumption, ... [is] ... that if there is a God he cannot or will not lie.

 

[ecco]

Hello.

I believe that the Bible accurately records the event of a worldwide flood.

Making an entire post in bold is considered shouting. Was it your intention to shout?

One example is that there are sea life fossils found in many places around the world where there is no way for the location to be under water unless the whole world was covered with water.

Perhaps you could post a specific example of a sea life fossil that was found in a place where there is no way for the location to be under water unless the whole world was covered with water.

<snip>
cut and paste preaching
<snip>

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess I was confused by ...

​

Yes, but I made that assumption with my likely audience in mind. If one gets rid of a lying God at the start then believers have to deal with the evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, but I made that assumption with my likely audience in mind. If one gets rid of a lying God at the start then believers have to deal with the evidence.

Perhaps, but I would think that the fact that an assumption is self-serving hardly justifies the assumption.

 

[starsofirelight]

Hi.

I would appreciate this seriousness in all matters and topics pertaining to a great many subjects in this great forum.

However, in respect to Your ideas - Don't You realize that the Dendrochronology topics could be a very unstable and deceptive focus of study.

For example, the tree rings (also called growth rings) are studied and they are implied and believed to the exact or near to the year that they were formed in order to analyze atmospheric conditions during different periods in history.

But this process completely ignores and fails to address the Biblical topics and data that records and details the idea that a completely different environment and lifespan existed for all of life. Adam, for example, would have fewer wrinkles and a different bone structure as He aged because His lifespan was much longer and it was a different environment and condition.

Please, remember that if one reads, the Biblical topics are explaining all of this - how that the rainbow in the sky appeared after the flood as a sign and a new promise - where before, there was never a rainbow, never any clouds in the sky. The lighting, atmosphere, ambiance, radiation and harmful suns rays before the flood and the very seasons were not the same as before the flood.

Please understand that there had never, ever been any RAIN topic or rain topical weather before the flood.
As we see here in - Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
And here in - (Gen. 7:4,12). The original earth and in the topics of The Garden Of Eden we see that the earth was watered by streams, rivers, and mist instead of by rain.

It is a very high possibility that the earth was possibly surrounded by a topical “firmament” or canopy of water, in the topical atmosphere creating a greenhouse effect on the earth’s climate.

The Hebrew word describing the topics of CLOUDS are not even mentioned whatsoever in the manuscripts up until the time after the flood. This Hebrew word is H 6051 עָנָן ‛ânâ - aw-nawn'- Meaning a cloud (as covering the sky), that is, the nimbus or thunder cloud: - or cloud (-y).

The Bible first details this information in Genesis 9:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

Here, after the flood, suddenly we begin to see the maximum life expectancy of humanity dropped. The average age of the average death is a recorded data that suddenly is 120 years in average and Noah was already 600 years old when the floodwaters were on the earth. (Genesis 7:6)

Could You agree that if the Biblical account of all of these other topics, plus many, many more topics are all true and real and factual, that this could explain why that many studies in Dendrochronology are in conflict with a wide range of many other topics relating to the Bible as a topical range topic?

Please understand that I do not consider the subject of Dendrochronology to be a preaching of anything or any sort and that my response is not in any way or manner done with the assistance of a preacher. It is my personal study and inquiry and study based on the Biblical manuscripts. . Please tell me what You think and don't be afraid to speak Your mind and I personally don't mind if You contact a preacher.
Just don't mention it in the forum because it may cause a problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi.

I would appreciate this seriousness in all matters and topics pertaining to a great many subjects in this great forum.

However, in respect to Your ideas - Don't You realize that the Dendrochronology topics could be a very unstable and deceptive focus of study.

For example, the tree rings (also called growth rings) are studied and they are implied and believed to the exact or near to the year that they were formed in order to analyze atmospheric conditions during different periods in history.

But this process completely ignores and fails to address the Biblical topics and data that records and details the idea that a completely different environment and lifespan existed for all of life. Adam, for example, would have fewer wrinkles and a different bone structure as He aged because His lifespan was much longer and it was a different environment and condition.

Actually they don't. Tree ring data is cross checked with other methods of dating. And please, if you want to be serious we need to deal with only one myth at a time. You brought up Adam, what next? Are you going to bring up Thor?

Please, remember that if one reads, the Biblical topics are explaining all of this - how that the rainbow in the sky appeared after the flood as a sign and a new promise - where before, there was never a rainbow, never any clouds in the sky. The lighting, atmosphere, ambiance, radiation and harmful suns rays before the flood and the very seasons were not the same as before the flood.

How deeply into ignorance must we delve?

Please understand that there had never, ever been any RAIN topic or rain topical weather before the flood.
As we see here in - Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
And here in - (Gen. 7:4,12). The original earth and in the topics of The Garden Of Eden we see that the earth was watered by streams, rivers, and mist instead of by rain.

It is a very high possibility that the earth was possibly surrounded by a topical “firmament” or canopy of water, in the topical atmosphere creating a greenhouse effect on the earth’s climate.

The Hebrew word describing the topics of CLOUDS are not even mentioned whatsoever in the manuscripts up until the time after the flood. This Hebrew word is H 6051 עָנָן ‛ânâ - aw-nawn'- Meaning a cloud (as covering the sky), that is, the nimbus or thunder cloud: - or cloud (-y).

The Bible first details this information in Genesis 9:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

Here, after the flood, suddenly we begin to see the maximum life expectancy of humanity dropped. The average age of the average death is a recorded data that suddenly is 120 years in average and Noah was already 600 years old when the floodwaters were on the earth. (Genesis 7:6)

Could You agree that if the Biblical account of all of these other topics, plus many, many more topics are all true and real and factual, that this could explain why that many studies in Dendrochronology are in conflict with a wide range of many other topics relating to the Bible as a topical range topic?

Please understand that I do not consider the subject of Dendrochronology to be a preaching of anything or any sort and that my response is not in any way or manner done with the assistance of a preacher. It is my personal study and inquiry and study based on the Biblical manuscripts. . Please tell me what You think and don't be afraid to speak Your mind and I personally don't mind if You contact a preacher.
Just don't mention it in the forum because it may cause a problem.

Too long, didn't read. If you can't even begin to be serious the mere fact that I've floats negates your claims.

 

[Audie]

Actually they don't. Tree ring data is cross checked with other methods of dating. And please, if you want to be serious we need to deal with only one myth at a time. You brought up Adam, what next? Are you going to bring up Thor?



How deeply into ignorance must we delve?



Too long, didn't read. If you can't even begin to be serious the mere fact that I've floats negates your claims.

Uh subzy, this is a code 3.

Plz honour it