Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geological timescale and the flood.
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 46 of 51 (431250)
10-30-2007 6:27 AM


A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED.
The text should be better comprehended before quoting it foolishly and on first impression. The preamble verse says it applies only to Noah's household and his possessions; this makes the flood a regional one only, and the animals domestic ones only. Where it says the world was covered with water - becomes an expressionism, and applies only to the 'then known world' - 5,200 years ago, well before egypt existed. Grammar comes from here.
The animals were not brought to the flood; the text says the animals 'came to Noah' of and by themselves: only domestic animals would do this. Your pet dog will follow you - but snakes and lizards will not!
The above is validated also by historical cross-evidence writings: there are manuscipts found in Babylon which speaks of this flood, and evidencing the genesis story - this is an impossibility if the expressionism, grammar and text is read incorrectly, and assumed no life existed the flood.
Its the TEXTS! - not the legends and leaps of imagination which rule here.
If we look at the texts with any reasonable deliberation, it inclines only with a regional flood, as per all its relevent and pivotal verses on this issue:
' Gen 7/8. Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the ground'
The verse relates to 'clean and unclean' in its pointer - of beasts, fowl and creeping things in Noah's 'possessions' only [the text], which includes fowls and all that creepeth, some of which can be clean and some of which are not, including those that creepeth [some insects are kosher, while the kosher laws were not yet handed down]. I note that no life form is specified which would not/could not be of Noah's possessions, such as snakes, tigers and elephants [wild life forms] - these fulcrum requirements are not in the texts, thus the leap to include these appears not logical, and not grammatically allowable.
To examine another relevent verse, it again appears only related to personal stock:
6/19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Here, 'every living thing' cannot refer to all life forms, because it is sufficiently qualified, namely that it is subject and limited to being: of 2 of every kind; only which Noah can bring into the arc; only which Noah can and has been keeping alive; and that they shall be male and female. Note also, the texts elsewhere says the animals 'came to him' - wild animals, aside from the domestic kind, won't do that. Such qualifications, when factored in, surely negates the leap of all life forms upon the earth, which would require Noah to discern male and female of snakes and crocodile, and wasps and ants; which Noah has to locate himself; which he has been or can keep them alive. Grammar rules require the subject to take the coherent path.
Further, it makes the verse relating to Noah's household [possessions] as superflous or not for accounting ["7/1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark"]. Noah had animals in his household, but which did not/could not include wild animals and all life forms. We are told also, the animals came to Noah - which cannot refer to snakes and other wild animals coming to Noah. Granted here, that 'all thy house' can have a different application elsewhere, same as 'wild beasts' in Gen Ch 3., but the Torah is contextual, and there is a transcendent contextual applicability here; its reverse conclusion contradicts many premises.
Grammar & comprehension rules as the first evidence.
The Torah is the highest form of grammar in all recorded history, and perhaps this is among its greatest attributes of viability, and not sufficiently recognised. Its pristine words are the shortest distance between two points, and perfectly equationalised so they cannot be further reduced, enabling the most exacting focus possible. Its construction is also of a sublime nature, deliberated in forums today, and a utiilisation of the greatest writers in recorded history: grammar is the transcendent determining factor here, and the precedent application in all areas of empirical determinations. However, correct grammar also requires that where there is any confusion by the reader, then the only possible and realistic pathway be taken, and concluded therein. Thus I list grammar here as one of the deciding elements in reaching a correct conclusion of the texts.
Re: 7/19. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered.
This is an expressionism which accomodates no other reading of it, and fits only with a regional flood. When we consider it from Noah's point of view, no other meaning is possible - namely it refers to the 'then known' world and terrain, as seen by Noah in his space-time, as opposed today's space-time which would include then non-existant lands such as Tasmania and London. At this time, 5,200 years ago, even ancient Egypt never existed. Thus it can only be concluded that the waters covering the mountains relates only to the surrounds viewable by Noah. In biblical times, most of a town's people never ventured outside their environs to another town all their lives: how could the Torah direct the world's mountains to Noah - it appears a less than satisfactory and inappropriate premise, and contradicts the premise of 'HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES'; 'HE UNDERSTANDETH THE NATURE [SITUATION?] OF MAN'. Just as we would not include the Moon & Mars in our world today, despite that in 500 years from today mankind may conquer those territories, so too we cannot include Tasmania and London in a space-time 5,200 years ago. The texts is correct; today's ubsurd comprehension is incorrect.
The flood appears to also be reported by other writings, but here too, it is limited to the region only: there are no reportings of a flood in Asia, China or South Americas, while the Arc was said to have come to a rest not far from Noah's area, indicating th Arc did not travel around the world.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 10-30-2007 9:10 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 51 (431277)
10-30-2007 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by IamJoseph
10-30-2007 6:27 AM


Re: Identifying Responses
IamJoseph writes:
The text should be better comprehended before quoting it foolishly and on first impression.
IamJoseph, it appears that you are responding to someone. You need to learn to use the reply button in responding so as for the reader who pops in on the thread to follow the discussion. If this is not a reply to a member participating in this thread then you need to explain. Thanks.

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum EvC Forum: Proposed New Topics
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by IamJoseph, posted 10-30-2007 6:27 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by IamJoseph, posted 10-30-2007 9:27 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 48 of 51 (431281)
10-30-2007 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by AdminBuzsaw
10-30-2007 9:10 AM


Re: Identifying Responses
I opted for the general reply facility here, because of the conjecture premise being focused upon by the thread discussions, instead of the contextual one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 10-30-2007 9:10 AM AdminBuzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 10-30-2007 10:41 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 51 (431293)
10-30-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by IamJoseph
10-30-2007 9:27 AM


Re: Identifying Responses
1. Responses to admin action should be taken to http://EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0 -->EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0 as per instructions in my message to you.
2. I don't know how to hide your inappropriate response or to move a message, but please either copy your message to me and take it to the moderation thread above so as to discuss your problem or edit your message so as to provide the information which I have advised since I find your excuse inadequate. Thanks.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE IN THIS THREAD!

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
EvC Forum: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 12.0
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum EvC Forum: Proposed New Topics
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by IamJoseph, posted 10-30-2007 9:27 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 50 of 51 (431459)
10-31-2007 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Zigler
10-10-2007 11:22 AM


Re: oxymoron
quote:
I suggest that “creation science”, a total contradiction of terms,
I see creation science very appropriate, and it remains a scientfic premise with no refutation anywhere. This does not mean that Genesis has to allign with any particular scientific thought of the day, but that it is another view, and it is scientifically based. The very opening of genesis consists of two scientific premises:
1. That the universe is FINITE - namely it had a BEGINNING. One cannot discuss this topic w/o first stating a preamble, and this what genesis correctly does. I believe the finite premise is not negotiable today, and is vindicated from all the indicators at hand [its expanding!]. Here, genesis is alligning FINITE in its absolute context, in the context of the universe origins, namely the verse concludes with the heavens [galaxies] and earth - the later because of the upcoming context again. The contextual exactitude is a definitive mark of a scientific, patterned and sequenced order of description - a logic and coherent view, namely a scientific view - not a mythical one akin to head bashing dieties battling for supremecy.
2. Genesis starts also with the second alphabet, a square with only the forward side open. We can go forth scientifically and advance - but we yet know nothing about the origins of anything contained in the universe, namely the elusive 'A' factor. This is clearly vindicated today.
Returning to Noah, the first factor in determining its meaning, is the textual comprehension. Next up has to be evidencing by science, and here, the first factor is archeology; and here - the names become the most powerful indicator in the Noah story. In Archeology, most of its findings are based on writings 'style' - namely if it is old or a late script; in the hebrew, the square is more ancient than the curvature style, etc. The next important factor is, 'names'; an ancient name of 5000 years, is markedly different from one which is 4,500 years old - this is a wholly scientific premise of datings.
It is of course ubsurd to disregard such factors, which display authenticity - they have to be factored and regarded as indispensible in science; carbon datings, etc only become viable in the absence of writings and descriptions. When one examines the names, we find they are fully authentic, and to an astonishing degree. One sees a striking difference in the pages of names of genertion upto Noah, with the rest of the five books; in the former, none of the names are Hebrew [this people did not yet exist]; nor are the names simuilar to other cultures and nationalities, such as pheonecian, sumerian, amorite, canaanite, babylonian, egyptian, etc - these too did not exist. This is a remarkable feature in the Noah story - but one not regarded generally by the lay, which prefers to focus on special effects.
The other factor is also not carbon, but dates and terrains. Here too, there is astonishing authenticity. These are the factors which have rendered the Noah story as mysterious, and make all science engaged to it. IMHO, the thread becomes deficient of the subject matter when these foremost factors are not dealt with.
The importance of the Noah story is the tracing of the origins of a host of ancient nations. The ancient egyptians came from Ham, one of Noah's 3 sons, while Abraham came from the thread of Shem. The Kurds, who pre-date the sumerians, can also be traced via the 100s of names of generations listed in the OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Zigler, posted 10-10-2007 11:22 AM Zigler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by bluescat48, posted 10-31-2007 3:09 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 51 of 51 (431496)
10-31-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by IamJoseph
10-31-2007 8:09 AM


Re: oxymoron
The importance of the Noah story is the tracing of the origins of a host of ancient nations. The ancient egyptians came from Ham, one of Noah's 3 sons, while Abraham came from the thread of Shem. The Kurds, who pre-date the sumerians, can also be traced via the 100s of names of generations listed in the OT.
Where do you find this information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by IamJoseph, posted 10-31-2007 8:09 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024