Genesis Flood: Forgotten, Disproved, or Under a New Alias?

The only problem with this statement is that the sun could not go down as it is not visible until day 4. Genesis 2:4 says: "in the day that the Lord God created the earth and the heavens,"Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:26 are the generations of that day.There was no sun in the day the Lord God created the heavens and the earth, as I stated above it was not visible until day four. So how is that so incredibly out of order?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

that's actually irrelevent, my statement was a generalized one. the days begin with darkness for the first half of the day in modern jewish practice. this is because of genesis 1's "evening and morning." darkness came before light. you should really try to understand the concept of an idiomatic expression. it is, because you're re-writing genesis to go like this:

1. genesis 1:1
2. genesis 2:4-4:26
3. genesis 1:2-2:4.

that's out of order. you don't see a problem with that? it's distorting the grammar of genesis 1:1-3 all to hell, misunderstanding a pretty common hebrew idiomatic expression, and then demanding that there be two creations. and the story of the first one comes second.you are horribly mangling the text. please stop.

---

Does Genesis 2:4 claim to be the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created?Does it claim in the day the Lord God made the earth and the heavens?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

those two are the same statements.

---

I got no problem if you want to answer them as one statement.Here is the scripture: Does this verse say: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens?" YES or NO

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

actually, no. it should say,

quote:

---

these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

​

when yahweh god made earth and heaven...

---

and it should continue from there. you'll find that sufficiently modern translations, like the nJPS, break there, because the first half of that verse is the end of genesis 1, and the second half begins genesis 2. yes, it is semantics, but it is important.Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle, paragraph parsing.

---

This is your opinion that is fine.But the verse I quoted did say: You can say all you want that the KJV is wrong and put in your opinion.But you cannot say the KJV does not say what it says, and make it go away.I take that back you can say it does not say what it says, because you did.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I still don't see what any of this has to do with either Genesis Flood accounts.The myth found in Genesis 1:1 through the first half of Genesis 2:4 describes water as an initial state. That of course was a common idiom at the time, but is also factually false.The later flood found in Genesis 6-9 is also factually wrong.But Genesis 2:4 has nothing to do with either fable that I can see.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

this is not simply my opinion. this is the educated opinion of modern hebraicists and translators. the KJV, overall, is a very good translation. but it is neither perfect, nor divinely inspired. the KJV is simply man's opinion on what the text would say in english.why take the opinions of people in 1611 over the people in 1962? especially when those people didn't speak hebrew, and the people in 1962 do, and cite people like rashi who also spoke hebrew?did you, or did you not claim to have studied hebrew? if you have, and you're not just putting me over, you should know that the originals were neither punctuated nor had niqqud nor were divided by by chapter and verse. the masoretic added some of that: some punctuation and cantillation, the niqqud, and section divisions -- chapter divisions are a somewhat modern christian invention, and as such, not really a part of the text.modern textual analysis tells us that the chapter should break here. we can tell because it's where the writing style shifts, and where the author starts using the proper name of god and not just his title. we can tell because genesis 1:1-2:4a makes a complete story, and genesis 2:4b-4:26 makes a complete story. i'm sorry, your question was not about the KJV. it's about the torah. the KJV is one translation that contains the torah. it is not the only translation, nor the best. and for those that can read hebrew it shouldn't even be an issue.

---

jar, i suspect that ICANT is trying to insert the genesis 2:4b-4:26 story between genesis 1:1 and 1:2, as the creation that occured in this supposed gap and was destroyed by the "flood."and, well, HE CANT.

---

He tried and failed miserably before and even though he was proven completely wrong, he just kept restating the same thing.You might as well consider him trolling and just ignore him.But I do have a a question for you:Its obvious that the story in Gen 1 ends in Gen 2:4, but why does the second chapter start at Gen 2:1? and not 2:5 (or 4b)? I mean, why was that particular place chosen to end chapter 1? (in the translated versions)Thanks in advance.

in that respect, we might as well consider all creationists trolls. has anyone thought of a new argument since 1850? not just a fancy-rephrasing, like behe, but a new argument? damned if i know.

---