Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record
From: Raymond Griffith (tiffirgREVERSE_at_ctc.net)
Date: 07/11/04
- Next message: Bigdakine: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Life on Mars....and the Election!"
- In reply to: jwk: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Next in thread: Joe Blow: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:28:02 -0400
jwk wrote:
> "news" <acorso@moon.odn.ne.jp> wrote in message news:<cack80$2ids$1@nwall1.odn.ne.jp>...
>
>>>If every molecule of H2O were squeezed out of the atmosphere, it would
>>>not be sufficient to cover all the mountains with 15 cubits of water, as
>>>the Bible states in Genesis 7:20. Even if the ice caps melted, there is
>>>no way enough rain could fall to flood the entire earth. None.
>>>
>>>Since you advocate for a flood, tell me: Where did the water come from,
>>>and where did it go?
>>
>>if I come across to brash I apologize
>>first off you are assuming that the earth has always had the same mountains
>>valleys and plateaus that we see today...this is the first mistake secondly
>>you are not considering that there is a whole lot of water out there in the
>>oceans rivers lakes streams brooks springs ponds pools air ice ect.
>>est....in the bible the first mention of mountains and valleys is post flood
>>because if you do a little research you will find out that if you flatten
>>out all of the mountains and raise up the valleys the earth is pretty much
>>flat and in this case the earth would be flooded as high as mount
>>Everest...first read the bible before you go blabbing about how it cant be
>>done then talk to some people who know what they are talking about (experts
>>on the subject(even if you dont agree with them)) and then after you have
>>studied all of the material take a long meditation (or prayer) and see what
>>gets stirred up...here are some sources to check out
>
>
> So the whole earth was flat was it? Except Mt Ararat of course.
> Right? Just that one mountain and no others? Righttttttttt.
>
> By the way try this: empty your sink of water out onto the countertop
> (use a bucket). How much of that water stays on the countertop for
> forty days?
>
> jwk
The issue of whether or not there were mountains and valleys in the
pre-Flood world is easily taken care of by the text itself. Genesis 2
speaks of a river flowing though Eden, and spliting into 4 headstreams
-- major rivers in the area the author would have been familiar with or
have heard of. It also speaks of gold and gems in the land.
You cannot have rivers without valleys. And for one river to gender four
others means that the land is fairly high -- mountainous, in fact. Gold
and gems are almost always found in mountainous regions.
In point of fact, the post-Flood author really doesn't seem to recognize
that there was any geographical difference between his world and the
pre-Flood world. He also has his geography wrong, but he was speaking of
places he'd never been (Ethiopia is in Africa, a different continental
region).
So it is safe to say from the text itself that there were mountains
before the Noahic Flood. The implication is that Eden was in a mountain
valley. You certainly cannot infer from the text that there were not any.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
- Next message: Bigdakine: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Life on Mars....and the Election!"
- In reply to: jwk: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Next in thread: Joe Blow: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
