Summations Only

Can you break down the events in chronological order for us? And include the passages?Like:Beginning: god creates earth (gen 1:1)
Then all the adam and eve stuff, can and able and all that (Gen 2 - ?)
We get to Noah, and the flood (gen 7...)
This is where all the water is gathered in one place (Gen 1:9 or whatever)
It looks like Pangea
Then its devided in the days of Peleg (Gen 10:?)
And then we get to all the other stuff in Gen 1?Am I close?

Yes, thank you. What do you make of Genesis 4:26?

quote:

---

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

​

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

---

Which ties directly to Gen 5:1-6

quote:

---

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

​

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

​

3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

​

4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

​

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

​

6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

---

Gen 5 is talking about the day that god made man in his image, which would be during the seven days of Moses, right? But that contradicts the history of Gen 1:1 if you don't remove Gen 4:26 from it. Is that why you don't include it? Because it messes up your story? Noah came from Lamech, who came from Methuselah, who came from Enoch, who came from Jared, who came from Mahalaleel, who came from Cainan, who came from Enos, who came from Seth, who came from Adam. Gen 4:25 says that Adam had Seth because Cain killed Abel. But according to your story, those are seperate peoples', one in the history of Gen 1:1 and one from the seven days of Moses.What do you make of this contradiction? So the Noahic flood happened during the seven days of Moses? And that's what caused the state of the earth in Gen 1:2?And then all the rest of Genesis also happened during those seven days? All the way through to Abraham and all that?ABE:From Message 101: The earth has never been covered in water since humans existed. That's a scientific fact that contradicts the flood story. Are you claiming there was no inland water on Pangea?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Yeah, you ran away from it last time too. Seems to be the exact topic here... but I understand you wanting to avoid the refutations of your story.Anyways, I'm still curious about how the other parts fit in:

quote:

---

So the Noahic flood happened during the seven days of Moses? And that's what caused the state of the earth in Gen 1:2?

​

And then all the rest of Genesis also happened during those seven days? All the way through to Abraham and all that?

---

Where does all the rest of Genesis fit within your story?You could also address these parts:

quote:

---

Scientist and others say Science says there was no global flood.

​

But without knowing the geography of the Earth at the time of the flood no conclusion can be reached.

​

The earth has never been covered in water since humans existed. That's a scientific fact that contradicts the flood story.

​

Pangea existed. Water in one place and dry land in one place.

​

Are you claiming there was no inland water on Pangea?

---

Sure it does, you've made it so. You're placing the flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. But doing that messes up the continuity and consistancy of the story, so the premise that your basing the rest of your story on is flawed from the get go. I'm quoting myself, from Message 102. You replied to it, but you didn't answer the questions. Humans have been around for a couple hundred thousand years. The last time the earth was anywhere near covered in water was millions of years ago. Alo, humans lack the genetic bottleneck that would be present after a global flood during their existence. You said this:

quote:

---

Pangea existed. Water in one place and dry land in one place.

---

And also you've been claiming that for the water to be in one place, there cannot be and landlocked water in the land. For pangea to be both water and land in one place, there cannot be any landlocked water on pangea. Um, no. Here's the start of the animation: Or were you just confused because it was all colored yellow before you start it? That one gets us to this animation: Again we can see land-locked water at the beginning. Pfft, that one is a hand-drawn cartoon of pangea, but nonetheless, it contains land-locked water. I've added some arrows to help you find them: No, its the exact opposite, everone of those shows landlocked water on pangea. By your own evidence, you have been proven wrong. QED. Kinda, but not really. And having all the water in one place does not necessitate all the land being in one place. Two islands in a sea with no landlocked water would have all the water in one place.

No, not necessarily. It could have looked like this: All the water is in one place but the land is in two places.

I didn't use the word "lands" either, and yet my sentance made perfect sense. The land (singular) was in two places.Now, onto to Message 124 where your whole story is refuted.

That's retarded.You should know this: your posts read as if they lack any sincerity at all. I thought that's where you put it... that the Flood is how the earth go to the state that it was in during Gen 1:2. But if not, then I was wrong. Its not as if your story makes any sense, or is easy to follow. It jumps all over the place. Humans are the apes that evolved here on Earth over the last coupla hundred thousand years. Pfft, trillions of years... Yeah, or they're may have been two seperately created Earths. You're just inserting your pre-conceived notions into the text. Its the same old game you always play: obfuscate the facts into meaninglessness so you can claim 'see, you can't prove me wrong'. You're strategy here, to avoid having your personal Flood theory refuted, is to hide it away in an untouchable place so that you cannot be presented any evidence against it. That's pathetic.But as anyone can see, you're whole story has already been refuted by the geneology of the characters being contradictory when placed in the order you place them in. So you're already wrong from the get go. Yeah, its inconsistant. All the shapes of the lanlocked water are there, but they're just colored yellow instead of blue, once you start the animation, though, they are blue. Yeah, well, you know what: Its showing Lake Victoria, and that didn't form until about 400,000 years ago, so there's no way that it could have been on pangea... My point is that cartoons of pangea cannot be used to show that there was no landlocked water in it.This is ridiculous.