Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth of Genesis 1:9
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1 of 112 (502961)
03-14-2009 1:48 PM


In message 75 of Not Influenced by Surrounding Nations found Here
Granny Magda said:
Granny Magda writes:
If you want to talk about your silly little theory, go post a thread. You know how it works, or at least should do by now.
I have been told here many times that I do not have a theory.
This was brought about by my asking Granny several questions about what the Bible says.
Granny had previously stated that I was the only one that believed what I was presenting.
Maybe I am as no Bible scholar or creationist posted agreement or disagreement.
So I would like to present 3 verses of scripture from the King James Version Bible and find out if I am the only one that believes them.
In other words:
Does Genesis 1:9, 10 say:
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.
Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Does Genesis 11:9 say:
Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Does Genesis 10:25 say:
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
Conclusion:
Genesis 1:9, 10 says all the water was in one place = all the land in one place. Dry land = Earth.
Genesis 11:9 says all the people were scattered over the entire face of the earth, (land mass).
Genesis 10:25 says the earth, (land mass) was divided in the days of Peleg.
Does the text of the KJV Bible say what I quoted above?
Did I draw the wrong conclusion from what the verses say?
Am I the only Bible believer that believes what the text says?
Faith and Belief please,
God Bless,

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Granny Magda, posted 03-14-2009 6:42 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 4 by lyx2no, posted 03-14-2009 7:05 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2009 9:09 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 26 by Michamus, posted 03-18-2009 12:59 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 31 by Peg, posted 03-20-2009 8:55 AM ICANT has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 112 (502972)
03-14-2009 4:37 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 3 of 112 (502976)
03-14-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
03-14-2009 1:48 PM


First of all ICANT, many thanks for pursuing this in a dedicated thread.
I have been told here many times that I do not have a theory.
Aargh. Straight in with the equivocation huh? You know full well that there are different meanings for the word "theory". You do not have a theory in the sense of "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." {Answers.com}. You have a theory in the sense of "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." {Answers again}. Let's take a look at your conjecture.
Does Genesis ... say...
Yes, we are all agreed on which words appear on the pages.
Genesis 1:9, 10 says all the water was in one place = all the land in one place. Dry land = Earth.
No it doesn't. It says that all the water (under the firmament) was in one place. It says the land appeared, but it doe not say that the land was all in one place.
Now I wouldn't be surprised if the authors did think that all the land was a single mass. It would fit with their rather limited picture of the cosmos. The known world of the era was pretty much connected. They did not know about Australia, Antarctica or the Americas. The point is that there is nothing in this verse about the land being a single land mass. There is nothing about it all being in one place. You are reaching.
Genesis 11:9 says all the people were scattered over the entire face of the earth, (land mass).
I've no argument with that.
Genesis 10:25 says the earth, (land mass) was divided in the days of Peleg.
Yes, divided into nations. There is no reason to suppose that it was physically torn apart.
Of course, you are not only suggesting that the Bible makes this claim, but you think that it actually happened, isn't that right? If this is true, then you must have a shit-load of evidence right? Right?
Remember, the evidence not only has to explain why your hypothesis is correct, it also has to deal with the evidence for plate tectonics and an old Earth, etc. I have a funny feeling that the Earth would explode if the continents were moved that quickly.
Did I draw the wrong conclusion from what the verses say?
Yup.
Am I the only Bible believer that believes what the text says?
As far as I know. We shall see...
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2009 1:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2009 2:52 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 4 of 112 (502978)
03-14-2009 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
03-14-2009 1:48 PM


Why Hide Your Light Under a Bushel Basket?
You don't do your "theory" justice with your set-up.
Genesis 1:9, 10 says all the water was in one place = all the land in one place. Dry land = Earth = Pangaea was contiguous in historical times.
Genesis 10:25 says the earth, (land mass) was divided in the days of Peleg = Pangaea broke up while men walked the Earth.
A theory, something you've not presented here, is a well evidenced explanation of phenomena based on independent general principles, not a non-evidenced, ad hoc collection of interpretations of traditional stories.
Does the text of the KJV Bible say what I quoted above?
I fail to understand why you would ask this question. Do you believe that if you can get people to grant part of your synthesis that the rest will follow?

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2009 1:48 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 112 (503009)
03-15-2009 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
03-14-2009 1:48 PM


Genesis 10:25 says the earth, (land mass) was divided in the days of Peleg.
IF that is what 10:25 says, then a few sentences later the author claims that the earth (land mass) could speak.
Genesis 11:1, KJV writes:
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
And for further context we should also add that the Peleg verse is part of a section that begins: "Now these [are] the generations of the sons of Noah" and ends:
Genesis 10:32, KJV writes:
These [are] the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
It would seem your interpretation ignores this context.
Am I the only Bible believer that believes what the text says?
No. You are also not the first person to try and force this reading into the text. It is so common that several creationist ministries have added this to their lists of "Arguments we think Creationists should not use":
quote:
‘Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.’ Commentators both before and after Lyell and Darwin (including Calvin, Keil and Delitzsch, and Leupold) are almost unanimous that this passage refers to linguistic division at Babel and subsequent territorial division. We should always interpret Scripture with Scripture, and there’s nothing else in Scripture to indicate that this referred to continental division. But only eight verses on (note that chapter and verse divisions were not inspired), the Bible states, ‘Now the whole earth had one language and one speech’ (Gen. 11:1), and as a result of their disobedience, ‘the LORD confused the language of all the earth’ (Gen. 11:9). This conclusively proves that the ‘Earth’ that was divided was the same Earth that spoke only one language, i.e. ‘Earth’ refers in this context to the people of the Earth, not Planet Earth.
Another major problem is the scientific consequences of such splittinganother global flood! This gives us the clue as to when the continents did move apart during Noah’s Flood
You know an argument is truly catestrophically doomed when, even though it could be used to support YEC, Kent Hovind {almost} disowns it!
Hovind writes:
There are at least four theories about the meaning of this verse. 1. The languages and nations were divided at the tower of Babel. 2. The continents moved and split. [this is unlikely due to the devastating effect even small plate movements have, but it has not been proven wrong] 3. The water came up and divided the high spots into islands and continents. 4. The land was surveyed divided to avoid disputes due to population increase. I cover this in more detail in The Hovind Theory.
(emphasis mine)_
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2009 1:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2009 2:25 PM Modulous has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 6 of 112 (503027)
03-15-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
03-15-2009 9:09 AM


Re Language
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
IF that is what 10:25 says, then a few sentences later the author claims that the earth (land mass) could speak.
Actually Genesis 11:1 says there was one spoken language.
Modulous writes:
Genesis 10:32, KJV writes:
These [are] the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
It would seem your interpretation ignores this context.
Actually no it is not ignored.
In fact I pointed out that all mankind (nations) was scattered abroad over the face of the land mass.
Genesis 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Peleg was still alive at the time of the scattering. If the land mass was then divided it solves the problem of how the animals got to the different places they are as well as humans.
Modulous writes:
No. You are also not the first person to try and force this reading into the text.
Actually I am not trying to force anything.
I believe the Bible says what it says. Therefore I believes it says what I put forth in the OP.
It says all the water was in one place therefore land mass was in one place. Gen. 1:9
It says the earth (land mass) was divided during the lifetime of Peleg. Genesis 10:25
It says man was scattered over the face of the earth (land mass) Genesis ll:8
Modulous writes:
You know an argument is truly catestrophically doomed when, even though it could be used to support YEC, Kent Hovind {almost} disowns it!
If the people was sacttered over the face of the earth and the land mass was divided in the days of Peleg it blows Kent Hovind's flood theory out the window.
You can not have the catastrophic explosions and uplifting that Kent says occurred during the flood and then the land mass divided 300 years after the flood.
The two can not coexist. So why would he believe it.
I like the part of Hovind's quote you highlighted.
Hovind writes:
There are at least four theories about the meaning of this verse. 1. The languages and nations were divided at the tower of Babel. 2. The continents moved and split. [this is unlikely due to the devastating effect even small plate movements have, but it has not been proven wrong] 3. The water came up and divided the high spots into islands and continents. 4. The land was surveyed "divided" to avoid disputes due to population increase. I cover this in more detail in The Hovind Theory.
He said the dividing of the continents would be devastating.
I would tend to agree, except the one who controls everything should have no problem. If He can speak everything into existence as He did in Genesis 1:1.
In a thread a while back we discussed the amount of water that has been found in the mantel. The way the water gets there is by subduction. A lot of quick movement would heat up an awful lot of water as it tried to cool the plates. Just a passing thought but irrelevant to what the Bible says.
I am not saying what the Bible says is fact.
I am saying the Bible says what I put forth in the OP.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2009 9:09 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2009 2:42 PM ICANT has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 112 (503028)
03-15-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ICANT
03-15-2009 2:25 PM


Do the Splits
Actually Genesis 11:1 says there was one spoken language.
Yes it does. But if we use your interpretation of 'earth' it doesn't say that. This is therefore a problem with your interpretation. It says, "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." - either this means that the land mass had one language or it means that the inhabitants of the land mass had one language. Which is it?
Actually no it is not ignored.
In fact I pointed out that all mankind (nations) was scattered abroad over the face of the land mass.
That doesn't change the fact that you ignore the context. The context is clear: the section we are looking at is describing the splitting of the nations via the descendants of Noah. It would be completely random and massively out of context for the authors to start talking about continental drift in the middle of talking about the division of nations.
I am saying the Bible says what I put forth in the OP.
And I'm telling you that you aren't the first person to come to this understanding - but that even many Young Earth Creationists strongly disagree with you...because they think (as do almost all people that have ever read that section ever) that the context of Genesis 10-11 means that this clearly refers to the splitting apart of the nations and the lingual splitting etc and is nothing to do with continental splitting.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2009 2:25 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2009 4:13 PM Modulous has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 8 of 112 (503029)
03-15-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Granny Magda
03-14-2009 6:42 PM


Re Water
Hi GM,
Granny Magda writes:
No it doesn't. It says that all the water (under the firmament) was in one place. It says the land appeared, but it doe not say that the land was all in one place.
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.
Please explain how all the water under heaven can be in one place and the land mass in more than one place.
Granny Magda writes:
Yes, divided into nations. There is no reason to suppose that it was physically torn apart.
Actually the nations (mankind) was scattered over the face of the entire land mass as recorded in Genesis 11:8.
Granny Magda writes:
Of course, you are not only suggesting that the Bible makes this claim, but you think that it actually happened, isn't that right? If this is true, then you must have a shit-load of evidence right? Right?
Sure I believe it happened.
Why do I need any evidence?
I believe Genesis 1:1. An entity that could accomplish creating the heaven and the earth should have no problem with separating the land mass.
We can agree that all land mass was in one place at one time.
We can agree that land mass divided to where we see it today.
We can also agree that it is still moving.
We could probably agree that the rate of movement today brought about the assumptions that tell us it happened 250 million years ago.
Granny Magda writes:
Yup.
Then what should my conclusions be?
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Granny Magda, posted 03-14-2009 6:42 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Phage0070, posted 03-15-2009 4:23 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 12 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2009 4:48 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 15 by Granny Magda, posted 03-15-2009 9:35 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 9 of 112 (503033)
03-15-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
03-15-2009 2:42 PM


Re: Do the Splits
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
Yes it does. But if we use your interpretation of 'earth' it doesn't say that. This is therefore a problem with your interpretation. It says, "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." - either this means that the land mass had one language or it means that the inhabitants of the land mass had one language. Which is it?
It does not say the earth spoke one language.
It says the earth was of one language. Meaning there was only one language spoken regardless of who did the speaking.
Modulous writes:
That doesn't change the fact that you ignore the context. The context is clear: the section we are looking at is describing the splitting of the nations via the descendants of Noah. It would be completely random and massively out of context for the authors to start talking about continental drift in the middle of talking about the division of nations.
The division of the land mass in Peleg's day was a statement because of his name.
The Hebrew word  translated Peleg means channel, canal or division. 
The earth (land mass) was divided.
It has nothing to do with the people (nations) being scattered.
Channels and canals have to do with putting water between land masses.
Genesis 10:30, 31 talks about the nations and different tongues.
Which does not happen until after Genesis 11:8 when God scatters them over the face of the earth.
Modulous writes:
And I'm telling you that you aren't the first person to come to this understanding
That is great. It is tough to think you are the only crazy person in the world.
Modulous writes:
but that even many Young Earth Creationists strongly disagree with you...because they think (as do almost all people that have ever read that section ever) that the context of Genesis 10-11 means that this clearly refers to the splitting apart of the nations and the lingual splitting etc and is nothing to do with continental splitting.
Why would they want to agree with me.
To agree with me they have to give up their flood theory.
But how do they explain how the animals got to the different continents?
How do they account for man getting to the different continents.
Seems kind of hard to me.
The continental splitting is mentioned in only one verse and that is Genesis 10:25 when it is stated one of Ebers two sons was named Peleg because in his lifetime the earth (land mass) was divided.
PS Mod the Hebrew fonts are not transfering when I hit the preview key, they go to a transliteration of some sort with English letters.
Just so you know.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2009 2:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2009 5:04 PM ICANT has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 112 (503036)
03-15-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
03-15-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Re Water
quote:
Sure I believe it happened.
Why do I need any evidence?
Oh boy. I don't even know where to start, there is no way to rationally speak with you at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2009 2:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2009 4:35 PM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 32 by Dr Jack, posted 03-20-2009 8:56 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 11 of 112 (503039)
03-15-2009 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phage0070
03-15-2009 4:23 PM


Re Water
Hi Phage,
Welcome to EvC.
Phage0070 writes:
Oh boy. I don't even know where to start, there is no way to rationally speak with you at this point.
Then don't discuss what I believe with or without evidence.
But you could discuss the OP and show me where the Bible does not say what I say it says.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phage0070, posted 03-15-2009 4:23 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Phage0070, posted 03-15-2009 5:43 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 12 of 112 (503041)
03-15-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
03-15-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Re Water
Sure I believe it happened.
Why do I need any evidence?
And I don't believe it happened and it seems whether there is evidence or not it is not needed.
Why do you bother coming here? You claim that your beliefs supersede everything else. Evidence be damned. Why bother with this OP if no matter what you are told or shown as evidence you discount it simply by saying it doesn't fit your beliefs.
Sounds like a big waste of time for everyone. It seems your OP is just an excuse to attack other peoples arguments. Have fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2009 2:52 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 112 (503045)
03-15-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ICANT
03-15-2009 4:13 PM


Re: Do the Splits
It does not say the earth spoke one language.
It says the earth was of one language.
Where earth means 'land mass'. So the land mass was of one language? The land mass was of one speech? How does this make any sense? It can only make sense if it is talking about the 'people of earth'.
The division of the land mass in Peleg's day was a statement because of his name.
The Hebrew word translated Peleg means channel, canal or division.
The earth (land mass) was divided.
It has nothing to do with the people (nations) being scattered.
Yes, it means division. The problem is with the context - which is clearly stated at throughout Chapter 10, including the beginning and end as well as the entirety of chapter 11 which sets out what is being divided. And that's what you have to ignore, and that is what you are ignoring. It does not say 'land mass' it says eretz.
The whole of Chapter 10 is yelling out for you to understand it is about the division of nations.
Genesis 10:5 writes:
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands {eretz}; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Genesis 10:20 writes:
These [are] the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries {eretz}, [and] in their nations.
Genesis 10:31-31 writes:
These [are] the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands {eretz}, after their nations.
These [are] the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth {eretz} after the flood.
Are you going to ignore all these other mentions of 'the earth' in this chapter?
If you want to, you can like many amateurs since plate tectonics was discovered, translate this single verse to be talking about the breaking up of Pangea. To do it, you have to assume that one and only one sentence, in the middle of a treatise on the origins of different nations and lands and languages was about what should be a huge miracle worthy of at least a chapter in its own right if it was worth mentioning at all.
You are not going to convince anybody that your interpretation is in any shape compelling with the kind of argument you are putting forward here. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Of course, it could be that God inspired this holy text so that only people born after the breakup of Pangea was understood and who interpret things in a certain special way (which glory of glories just happens to be ICANTs way) would know what it meant.
Channels and canals have to do with putting water between land masses.
Or maybe - just maybe - the roots of a word don't necessarily indicate how it is being used? That maybe context might be important? Did you check to see what the root meaning of the English word 'divide' was? It kind of makes your sentence gibberish to think of it in terms of its roots. As best I can make it out it comes from +dis and +videre which means that to 'divide' translates to (excuse my poor Latin) 'taking apart our understanding or observations'.
Besides the quote is clearly indicating something coming between them, something like a divider, like a river or waterway.
If we were talking about continents spreading out over the globe, why not use פרד - parad - which seems much closer to the idea you are trying to bring into the text since it implies spreading out, scattering abroad, to sunder, to seperate. Rather than just the small division a 'channel' might be imply.
Why would they want to agree with me.
To agree with me they have to give up their flood theory.
But how do they explain how the animals got to the different continents?
How do they account for man getting to the different continents.
Seems kind of hard to me.
The one who controls everything should have no problem. If He can speak everything into existence as He did in Genesis 1:1.
They would agree with you because they love finding 'proofs' that the Bible predicted scientific facts before science did!
PS Mod the Hebrew fonts are not transfering when I hit the preview key, they go to a transliteration of some sort with English letters.
Just so you know.
Use the HTML codes:
פלג {press peek to see what I did}
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2009 4:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 03-16-2009 4:57 PM Modulous has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 112 (503049)
03-15-2009 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
03-15-2009 4:35 PM


Re: Re Water
quote:
By ICANT:
But you could discuss the OP and show me where the Bible does not say what I say it says.
Why bother? Even if I could show you where the Bible contradicts your statements in the OP you have already said that evidence (which that would be, riddled with inaccuracies and make-believe as it is) is not required. You came to your original beliefs without the benefit of evidence, so there is no reason to think that providing evidence to the contrary would sway you.
The only possibility I can see is if you think everyone else has to justify themselves by presenting evidence of their statements, but you are the only one who is exempt from such requirements. I don't know what it would be called, but I am fairly certain that is a type of severe mental illness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2009 4:35 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 15 of 112 (503082)
03-15-2009 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
03-15-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Re Water
quote:
Please explain how all the water under heaven can be in one place and the land mass in more than one place.
Imagine a primal ocean. Now imagine two islands. The waters are still one contiguous mass of water, with two separate land masses in amongst them.
Anyway, it doesn't say that the waters were in one place after the land was created. The waters couldn't have been in one place anyway, unless you want us to believe that Pangea had no lakes or inland seas.
quote:
Actually the nations (mankind) was scattered over the face of the entire land mass as recorded in Genesis 11:8.
Yes, they were divided into separate nations, with separate languages, across the face of the Earth. It still isn't talking about the absurd catastrophe you are describing. Do you not think that the spectacle of the continents being torn from their foundations and scattered about the world deserves more than just one cryptic sentence? This is a miracle on such a magnitude that it makes the Flud look like a day out on a boating lake. It would not be given such scant treatment.
Seriously, this is an argument so dodgy that even Kent Hovind thinks it's suspect. If it's too stupid for a man who claimed that a single drop of water can cover the entire Earth (if you spread it thin enough), it's too stupid even for you. Drop it already. Even the other fundamentalists are embarrassed by this nonsense.
quote:
Sure I believe it happened.
Why do I need any evidence?
Oh well, that makes it easy then.
Christopher Hitchens writes:
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2009 2:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 03-16-2009 3:26 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024