100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: NOAH'S ARK - WTF?? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Which one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the one above where you said that was nice of me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 global/regional/a little bit/ a lot
can't remember why it is supposed to matter now 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
had to go back and read the original post
all these topics and I'm not a multi tasker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is everyone
 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm gellin, or you gellin 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
((( Feral )))
Krim I'd hug you but didn't know if I could take you in a fair fight if you didn't like it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm gellin, or you gellin
I'll have to remember to ask easier questions on here |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm gellin, or you gellin
I'll have to remember to ask easier questions on here |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm gellin, or you gellin
I'll have to remember to ask easier questions on here
some might think that to always be the case
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Tue 08/26/08 02:43 PM
|
|
I'm gellin, or you gellin
I'll have to remember to ask easier questions on here is there an echo chamber here?? hello--> hello  ((((((((((((((((((((( olleh, olleh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm gellin, or you gellin
I'll have to remember to ask easier questions on here is there an echo chamber here?? hello--> hello ((((((((((((((((((((( olleh, olleh Holy beer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 08/26/08 02:46 PM
|
|
The quote about the flood itself? But Deb I have never made the argument or took the position that the Bible didn’t assert that there was a global flood. That’s quite evident to me. My issue is I do not believe that was in fact the case. Beach and I used the Egyptians as an example simply because they were a vastly civilized and sophisticated people who commanded great wealth and power for a substantial period of time with NO break in their culture. We could bring up any number of peoples and civilizations but chose the Egyptians specifically for their recognizability.
Now, floods both large and small have occurred throughout history and in many regions of the globe. This is reasonable and any geologist could point out to you even today the results of major floods such as sedimentary strata, fossilization, fossil fuels, submarine canyons, and salt domes. So in my mind, it would make perfect sense that there might have been a large flood, just not a planet submerging deluge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm gellin, or you gellin
I'll have to remember to ask easier questions on here
some might think that to always be the case
Your brain is on a different track right now, and it has to do with someone who talks with Debbie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I would agree with Eljay here (I guess it just snowed in hell today). I felt that the passage he just quoted left NOTHING to the imagination. At least from the perspective addressed there, they felt that the flood was worldwide. That leaves you with the option of taking the position that the bible is wrong and actually it was only a centralized location (a plausible scenario). I just saw a herd of pigs fly past my window.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so your assertion then is that the bible is wrong in its account of the flood being worldwide? I would agree with that. It’s possible that to these people, it was in fact their entire world so they might have expressed it that way in the bible. Mistakes like that are forgivable. The bible was written by men so has the propensity to be erroneous. I guess that’s a given. It also seems that if god has created everything like the Creationists seem to buy into; couldn’t he have just gotten rid of the earth and started over? Why bother with floods and dragging it out in such a manor. So if we accept your theory which seems plausible that this was only one of many floods in a centralized local, then that sort of dispels all the crazy mysticism and god really had nothing to do with it. It was a natural disaster. Genesis 7:18-20 "The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than 20 feet." So - could you explain how this could happen and not be world wide? It does not say "under heaven at Long 42 and Lat 12" it says "the entire heavens" wonder how the fishing was 
I would assume the fishing was fabulous - else how else did Noah eat? While I will agree that "worldwide" won't be found in a concordance - so your statement isn't false - but it's implications are incorrect. If "under all the heavens isn't world wide - what is it? well there's many heavens eljay which one do you think? maybe it flooded in another of the heavens and just a small portion down on earth.like mainly the area around where the garden of eden and other close areas - how far could one see back then any farther than now? how was one to know how much had flooded? Can you look upon some of the large lakes and see land on the other side? even from sears tower? NOT!! no one will ever know for sure. but i'll defend your right to be wrong forever. wrongs not a bad thing - it's just not right - 
Heavens - all of them. If I'm not mistaken - the text says "the flood kept coming on the earth." If it were not all of the earth - wouldn't the text say "the flood kept coming on some of the earth"? It further says that "everything living thing that moved on the earth perished." Later it says the waters flooded >the earth< for a hundred and fifty days. Do you think I could be convinced that Noah could not have "sailed" around the circumfrance of the earth in 150 days? He could have drifted around it in that time. Like I said - you don't have to believe the account - but it says what it say. It is not possible to determine that a biblical concept is a "partial flood that creatures could have escaped". The text proves this idea wrong. I'm not arguing whether the text is provable - just how it is being interpreted. Your hypothesis is concerning what the account could be interpreted as - is it not? That's what the OP assumed - which you are attempting to defend with conclusions that don't relate. Get back under that bridge you - we'll wake you when we need you. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SharpShooter10
on
Tue 08/26/08 03:19 PM
|
|
This is a friendly reminder please stay on topic, no attacking others. And do not bring debates from another thread and post them on someone elses threads. There has been some post deleted here due to these reasons. Please go back to the topic in hand. Always keep the topics at a debate and do attack others on a personal note. Thank You Site Mod Kristi I know that's an innocent typo darlin, but the last sentence,"and do attack others on a personal note" is funny, don't care who you are, thats funny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Tue 08/26/08 03:50 PM
|
|
Mt arrarat, where the ark was to have rested is aprrox 30,000 ft high
30,000 div. by - 40 days = 750 ft of water upon the >>entire<< earths surface per day!! 750 ft div. by - 24 hrs = 31.25 ft an hour upon the "entire surface of the planet! now someone tell me logically where all this water went to in 150 days after it stopped raining? the seas were already full before the flood right? so it couldn't just "run" off! are you saying that it just all evaporated? and just how many trillions of gallons would that be? it would have created clouds so dense that it would have no choice but to just re-release the water into rain again correct? hmmm?? any answers eljay, deb, god? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One good thing about all this debate is that it (should) get people to crack a book and delve deeper into their studies of scripture or whatever their beliefs system is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and i had to really search for one good, positive, beneficial thing to come out of any of these religion and politic topics
|
|
|
|
|
