The flood of Noah's

[Enoch07]

Anyway, the Isle of the Gentiles most likely came from the same magical pocket dimension where Cain's wife came from.

Cain's wife did not come from Eden. She was an ordinary human like you and I.

 

[2ndpillar]

Hey look, Genesis chapter 10 Verse 5 said--
" By these, meaning the sons of Noah's.
The isles of the Gentiles were divided.
Meaning the isles of the Gentiles were already there.
I would like for you to show just one Verse as to where it is written that Noah as being a Gentile as you say.

Get real. You now have Gentiles and Jews. In the day of Noah, there were no Jews, everyone was a Gentile, a non Jew. Apparently, "the isles of the" previous "Gentiles" had been swept clean of Gentiles. If a nation of Gentiles still occupied the isles, they certainly wouldn't have just let a couple of Noah's sons divide their nation. Once the waters receded, you are left with dry land and isles. You read the bible and this is what you got out of it.

 

[shunyadragon]

No it only confirms the use of the KJV 1611, by using the Bullinger Companion bible and the Strong's Concordance of the Hebrew and Greek

You have not addressed the errors and translation problems with the original KJV. How do the new translations cause confusion when all they do is correct these, and give comparisons and footnotes on different ancient texts?

All Genesis 10:5 describes is these isles or coast lands were occupied before the flood by gentiles.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You have not addressed the errors and translation problems with the original KJV. How do the new translations cause confusion when all they do is correct these, and give comparisons and footnotes on different ancient texts?

All Genesis 10:5 describes is these isles or coast lands were occupied before the flood by gentiles.

Ok, if the isles of the Gentiles were there before the flood, As you have stated, That means that the flood of Noah's had no effect on the isles of the Gentiles, for the isles of the Gentiles are still there after the flood of Noah's.

For Verse 1 clearly states, that sons were born unto Shem, Han, and Japheth, after the flood and in Verse 5 states, by these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands.

Therefore, the isles of the Gentiles were there before the flood and are still there after the flood, That means, That the flood had no effect on the isles of the Gentiles.for them to still be there after the flood of Noah's.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, if the isles of the Gentiles were there before the flood, As you have stated, That means that the flood of Noah's had no effect on the isles of the Gentiles, for the isles of the Gentiles are still there after the flood of Noah's.

For Verse 1 clearly states, that sons were born unto Shem, Han, and Japheth, after the flood and in Verse 5 states, by these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands.

Therefore, the isles of the Gentiles were there before the flood and are still there after the flood, That means, That the flood had no effect on the isles of the Gentiles.for them to still be there after the flood of Noah's.

The citation describes the repopulation of the isles/coast land by the survivors from the Arc, and not that they were found to be inhabited by gentiles after the flood.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why was Shem and Ham mentioned later?

 

[Faithofchristian]

The citation describes the repopulation of the isles/coast land by the survivors from the Arc, and not that they were found to be inhabited by gentiles after the flood.

We find, Shem, Ham, Japheth, all had sons after the flood, in Genesis 10:1

Now we find in Verse 5, that the sons of,
Shem, Ham, Japheth, By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands.

Now the question is, As to how do you divide something that's not there, to divide?
You did say, "and not that they were found to be inhabited by Gentiles after the flood"

But yet according to Verse 5 the Gentiles were already there, to divide the land of the Gentiles.

So the question comes again, As to how do you divide something if it's not there to divide ?

What your trying to say does not make any sense at all.

To divide the land of the Gentiles, means, the Gentiles were there to divide the land of the Gentiles.

You can not divide the land of the Gentiles. If the Gentiles are not there to divide ?

That's like saying, you have this pie to divide, but yet you don't have any pie to divide.
So how can the Gentiles be divided, if the Gentiles are not there to divide ?

As Verse 5 clearly states, the land of the Gentiles were divided.
Therefore the Gentiles were already there to divide the land of the Gentiles.

I see what your trying to do, Your trying to reinforce that the flood of Noah's covered the whole earth.
But Genesis 10:5 rebukes the idea that the flood of Noah's did not cover the whole earth.

As Verse 5 clearly states, that the sons of Shem, Ham, Japheth cross over into the land of the Gentiles and divided the land of the Gentiles.
Why bring the Gentiles into the picture, if the Gentiles are not there ?

Why not just say, the land was divided, Why bring the Gentiles into the picture, if the Gentiles are not there ?

My next question would, since the sons of Shem, Ham, Japheth, went into the land of the Gentiles, but as you say, The citation describes the repopulation of the isles.
Ok, so where did the sons of Shem, Ham, Japheth get their wives to repopulate the isles ?

Because as far as I know only Noah and his wife and sons and their wives came off the ark.

And Verse 5 clearly states, that the sons of Shem, Han, Japheth went into the isles of the Gentiles.
So where did the sons of Shem, Ham, Japheth get their wives from to repopulate the isles of the Gentiles ?

So this means, that the sons of Shem, Ham, Japheth got their wives from the Gentiles.

 

[shunyadragon]

We find, Shem, Ham, Japheth, all had sons after the flood, in Genesis 10:1

Now we find in Verse 5, that the sons of,
Shem, Ham, Japheth, By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands.

Now the question is, As to how do you divide something that's not there, to divide?
You did say, "and not that they were found to be inhabited by Gentiles after the flood"

But yet according to Verse 5 the Gentiles were already there, to divide the land of the Gentiles.

So the question comes again, As to how do you divide something if it's not there to divide ?

What your trying to say does not make any sense at all.

To divide the land of the Gentiles, means, the Gentiles were there to divide the land of the Gentiles.

You can not divide the land of the Gentiles. If the Gentiles are not there to divide ?

That's like saying, you have this pie to divide, but yet you don't have any pie to divide.
So how can the Gentiles be divided, if the Gentiles are not there to divide ?

As Verse 5 clearly states, the land of the Gentiles were divided.
Therefore the Gentiles were already there to divide the land of the Gentiles.

I see what your trying to do, Your trying to reinforce that the flood of Noah's covered the whole earth.
But Genesis 10:5 rebukes the idea that the flood of Noah's did not cover the whole earth.

As Verse 5 clearly states, that the sons of Shem, Ham, Japheth cross over into the land of the Gentiles and divided the land of the Gentiles.
Why bring the Gentiles into the picture, if the Gentiles are not there ?

Why not just say, the land was divided, Why bring the Gentiles into the picture, if the Gentiles are not there ?

My next question would, since the sons of Shem, Ham, Japheth, went into the land of the Gentiles, but as you say, The citation describes the repopulation of the isles.
Ok, so where did the sons of Shem, Ham, Japheth get their wives to repopulate the isles ?

Because as far as I know only Noah and his wife and sons and their wives came off the ark.

And Verse 5 clearly states, that the sons of Shem, Han, Japheth went into the isles of the Gentiles.
So where did the sons of Shem, Ham, Japheth get their wives from to repopulate the isles of the Gentiles ?


So this means, that the sons of Shem, Ham, Japheth got their wives from the Gentiles.

The region was named and divided by the previous residents and this would be known prior to the flood..

There is nothing in Genesis 10:5 that indicates that people were there when the Japheth and his families arrived. No indication whatsoever that they married survivors of the flood in the isles or coast land.

 

[Faithofchristian]

There is nothing in Genesis 10:5 that indicates that people were there when the Japheth and his families arrived. No indication whatsoever that they married survivors of the flood in the isles or coast land.

Japheth and his family did not go into the isles of the Gentiles.
It was the sons of Japheth, Ham and Shem, that went into the isles of the Gentiles.

Now where did exactly the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth get their wives from to repopulate the isles of the Gentiles ?

 

[shunyadragon]

Now where did exactly the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth get their wives from to repopulate the isles of the Gentiles ?

They brought them with them.

 

[Faithofchristian]

They brought them with them.

Maybe you can give the verse in Genesis Chapter 10 as to where the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth had any wives, and to where did their wives come from.

Because Shem, Ham and Japheth only had sons, so where did their sons get their wives from ?
When there is nothing Written about their sons as having wives.

The only logical answer is, that the sons of Shem, Han and Japheth got their wives from the Gentiles, when their sons went into the isles of the Gentiles.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe you can give the verse in Genesis Chapter 10 as to where the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth had any wives, and to where did their wives come from.

Because Shem, Ham and Japheth only had sons, so where did the sons get their wives from ?

Before the spread out Noah's family had many descendants before they disbursed.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Before the spread out Noah's family had many descendants before they disbursed.

Maybe you can give where that is Written at. To where Noah's Family had many descendants.
Because all that is written, is that Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japheth only had sons, that went into the isles of the Gentiles.
As to where you get that Noah's family had many descendants is anyone's guess.

Because there is nothing Written that Noah had any other children other than, Shem, Han and Japheth.
And that Shem, Ham and Japheth only had sons, so where do you suppose their sons got their wives from ?
If not from the Gentiles when they went into the isles of the Gentiles ?

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe you can give where that is Written at. To where Noah's Family had many descendants.
Because all that is written, is that Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japheth only had sons, that went into the isles of the Gentiles.
As to where you get that Noah's family had many descendants is anyone's guess.

Because there is nothing Written that Noah had any other children other than, Shem, Han and Japheth.
And that Shem, Ham and Japheth only had sons, so where do you suppose their sons got their wives from ?
If not from the Gentiles when they went into the isles of the Gentiles ?

It is common Biblically to only list sons in genealogy to only list sons and not daughters.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It is common Biblically to only list sons in genealogy to only list sons and not daughters.

So maybe you can explain as to how Noah's daughters in-laws were mention

So it's Ok to mention daughters in-laws but not the actual daughters.

When Noah entered the ark, there were Noah and his wife and his sons and their wives, As being listed and mentioned, of entering the ark.

And when Noah left the ark, There were Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives. As being listed and mentioned, of leaving the ark.

So why isn't the daughters in-laws of Shem, Ham and Japheth being mentioned as was the daughters in-laws of Noah were mentioned ?

It seems ok to mention daughters in-laws in one instance, but not ok to mention daughters in-laws in another instance.

If Shem, Ham and Japheth sons had wives, they would haved been mentioned.

Otherwise its ok for Noah's daughters
in-laws to be mention, But not Shem, Ham and Japheth daughters in-laws to be mention.

Nope i just can't buy into that.

If Noah's daughters in-laws are mention

Then Shem, Ham and Japheth daughters
in-laws would haved also been mentioned.

That tells me that Shem, Ham and Japheth sons didn't have any wives that went with them into the isles of the Gentiles.

But took wives of the Gentiles, after they got to the isles of the Gentiles.

 

[shunyadragon]

So maybe you can explain as to how Noah's daughters in-laws were mention.

So it's Ok to mention daughters in-laws but not the actual daughters.

The bottom line is genealogies of the Bible DO NOT list daughters. When there are families the women are assumed as wives and actually often not even named.

When Noah entered the ark, there were Noah and his wife and his sons and their wives, As being listed and mentioned, of entering the ark.

And when Noah left the ark, There were Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives. As being listed and mentioned, of leaving the ark.

Yes as I described above but it remains a fact that the genealogies do not list female off spring. It is fact the wives are not named in this case nor described as where they are from.

It is weak to justify your assertion that people lived on the isle/coast land after the flood.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The bottom line is genealogies of the Bible DO NOT list daughters. When there are families the women are assumed as wives and actually often not even named.



Yes as I described above but it remains a fact that the genealogies do not list female off spring. It is fact the wives are not named in this case nor described as where they are from.

But yet, Noah and his wife and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives entered the ark.

But when the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth sons entered into the isles of the Gentiles, they had no wives.

 

[shunyadragon]

But yet, Noah and his wife and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives entered the ark.

That is only descriptive, and not a reference to genaeology

But when the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth sons entered into the isles of the Gentiles, they had no wives.

Arguing from ignorance gets you no where. The text does not say where the vives are from nor even their names.

 

[Faithofchristian]

That is only descriptive, and not a reference to genaeology



Arguing from ignorance gets you no where. The text does not say where the vives are from nor even their names.

That's right, You just proved my case.

Noah only had 3 sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth and they had wives, which are Noah's daughters in-laws.

And the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth had no wives and went into the isles of the Gentiles.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's right, You just proved my case.

No case proved.

Noah only had 3 sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth and they had wives, which are Noah's daughters in-laws.

genaeology of Noah does not include daughters.

And the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth had no wives and went into the isles of the Gentiles.[/QUOTE]

Scripture does not answer this question.