Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

Once again, you are simply misrepresenting what the Bible story says.There is no mention of Continental plates or that any continental plates were divided.

Hi jar jar point out to me where I said the Bible said anything about the continental plates.The Bible does say there was a body of water in one place.The Bible does say the dry land was called earth.The Bible does say the earth was divided in the days of Peleg. Genesis 10:25.The Earth's outer rigid crust called the lithosphere is composed of seven or eight major plates which many call continental plates, which ride on the fluid like asthenosphere.Science tells us how the division of the land mass was accomplished by the plates moving on the asthenosphere.The Bible just says it was divided in the days of peleg.God Bless,

I don't see why the verse is talking about continental drift rather than political/social borders.You are talking about a process - splitting the one land mass into continents - that would trigger earthquakes and volcanoes which don't seem to be mentioned in the one brief verse or elsewhere.Meanwhile the Bible uses sunrise and sunset instead of describing the face of the earth rotating toward or away from the sun.I think that dividing the earth is more shorthand description than literal scientific language.

Utter nonsense and the Bible tells us nothing of use and you simply pervert the Bible and Christianity when you make such utterly stupid claims or try to make the Bible sound like it contains science or knowledge of reality.In the Creation Fable where the God Character calls the dry land earth we see only the ignorance of the author. While primitive man may well have considered dry land earth we know today that that is a simplistic, incomplete and inaccurate description.When the fable says the earth was divided during the days of Peleg it again tells us nothing that is factual.Today we know that Earth is a planet and earth is a word that has no particular meaning and that the continents were not divided at any time humans lived and that the various plates are far more under water and even under other plates than dry land.Trying to use dogma, myth and mythos in a Science forum is just a total waste of time and your nonsense about Peleg is also totally irrelevant to the topic as well as useless in a science discussion.Why must you always try to insert your personal fantasies into every thread?

Hi jar,You can rant and rave all you want too. You can also say anything your hearts or mind desires to say.You can believe the Bible or not believe the Bible.But you can't change what it says by all your obfuscation.God Bless,

Hi dm The Hebrew word פרד means separate. Genesis 10:32This is the Hebrew word translated divided in Genesis 10:32. But it does not mean divided. It means separate, or separated.The Hebrew word פלג means divided or split. Genesis 10:25This Hebrew word is used 4 times in the Bible. Here in Genesis 10:25 and 1 Ch 1:19 both referring to Peleg and the earth being divided in his days.
It is also used in Job 38:25 and Psa 55:9 And you know that because...... The Bible uses evening the close of a light period and morning the close of a dark period. Who said anything about scientific language.Genesis 10:25 predates the modern knowledge of tectronic plates by over 3,000 years.Genesis 10:25 makes a statement of fact.If I remember correctly my science book had an article on Pangea and other super continents where the land mass was one. Then divided into separate pieces.But no one here wants to believe that over 3,000 years ago Moses wrote about water in one place making dry land sticking up through the water. Then that land mass being divided in the days of Peleg.Oh and I don't believe it took more than a nano second to divide to where it is now and it has not quite come to a full stop.God Bless,

And the Bible still tells us nothing related to geological plates.But geological plates are irrelevant to this topic anyway.

As has been pointed out several times, any of these words are perfectly appropriate to describe folks who are dispersed into separate tribes/nations after Babel. You are wasting time when you talk about translations from Hebrew without addressing this point.And given the way we can see you misread science texts in English, nobody is going to rely on your personal interpretation of Hebrew. Can you point to a reference that adopts and explains your position. There might be some quibbles about the timing, but at least some folks accept the part about the water being in one place without accepting that such a description necessarily means a single continent. After all, currently all of the world's oceans are a contiguous body of water, and are in one place in exactly the way described in the Bible.And of course this explanation has been offered to you. I understand that you reject it, but why lie and say that people don't believe the Bible when they simply don't interpret what they read in the way you do? Such tactics border on being dishonest if they do not, in fact, cross that border.

Hi NoNukes

quote:

---

The Hebrew word פלג means divided or split. Genesis 10:25

---

This word is used 4 times in the Hebrew text. It is never used concerning people, or nations. The definitions of words are not translations. Sure, the Hebrew text or the KJV Bible. Why would there be some quibbles about the timing of when Moses wrote Genesis 10:25? All water today is not gathered into one place. Neither is it a contiguous body of water.Here is a list of land locked bodies of water.
💡Names of Landlocked Seas.
🔅Aral Sea
🔅Lake Balkhash
🔅Caspian Sea
🔅Lake Chad
🔅Lake Chilwa
🔅Chott Melrhir
🔅Dead Sea
🔅Lake Eyre
🔅Issyk Kul
🔅Namtso
🔅Sea of Galilee
🔅Great Salt Lake
🔅Qinghai Lake
🔅Salton Sea
🔅Lake Torrens
🔅Lake Turkana
🔅Lake VanBack up and punt. Coming from an educated fellow that just told me that all the water in the world was one contiguous body of water your statement just made my day.And yes I did notice you said the oceans were a contiguous body of waer.But you had just said that was just like what he :Bible said.Your interpretation is lacking.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

---

That says all the water under heaven was in one place. Not some of the water.God Bless,

Whoa. It appears that the word was used at least once in such a way. How about showing us the other three. Maybe then you'll have some kind of argument. And yet you present only the translations of the words to English (divide vs split and separated) as your argument. Perhaps you should make a better argument. As has been pointed out, the KJV text is easily read as applying to the division of people. I'm looking for your best argument that such a meaning is wrong. If you've already made it, then I think your position is not very strong. I referred to the oceans, ICANT which are a contiguous. The point is that a topography with multiple continents, does not prevent the water from being gathered in one place. Only landlocked water does that.Again as a rebuttal to the multiple continent argument, it appears that you have no response. To make the argument inescapably clear, if we remove the land locked water from today's geography, the result meets the description in the Bible. Beyond that, even Pangea likely included some land locked water. 1) It is not even clear that Moses wrote Genesis.
2) The date at which whoever wrote the text is different from the date at which the events in the text occurred. Quite clearly nobody wrote the text of much of Genesis on the date that the described events occurred.
3) The details of the events described are a subject of our current discussion. Yes I am educated to one extent or another, and my education tells me that you have just misstated by position; most likely deliberately. I said that currently the oceans were a contiguous body of water. I'll note here that you quoted my statement which was quite specific. The point of my statement is something that has been explained to you many times over the years; namely that gathering the waters into one place does not necessarily result in a single continent. The result could easily be multiple continents without landlocked bodies of water. If you have an argument that such a thing could not occur, then please make it.We are not all that close to the topic, so feel free to make your best reply. I've made my points and I'm satisfied that the record shows the holes in your own arguments. But my guess is that you really don't have anything except bluster.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Think like a YEC. The existence of landlocked ponds and lakes or whatever today doesn't prove their existence back then. Maybe streams and rivers would be allowable as long as the water eventually gets to the ocean.Presto! All of them gathered in one place!

Not to mention the Carson Sink and the Humbolt Sink.

There is no reason to make the argument. Asking ICANT to consider the topology of the oceans was an attempt to illustrate the point that gathering the water in one place need not result in only one continent. ICANT's response regarding land locked bodies of water is just his typical evasive tactic.I'm well used to ICANT's methods by now.

\\\Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

OK ICANT, I'll bite. I challenge you to find a remotely scientific document that states all the land mass was in one place at one time and that all the water was in one place at one time.