but if there was all that water in the sky......

Freelancer, you took that post as serious? Silly human.

but...i was being serous.

No you weren't. You were being sarcastic. Silly human.

Actually, preflood conditions included a thick layer of water in the atmosphere, creating a temperate and hospitable atmosphere. After/because of the flood this layer dissapated. On top of that, Man had a near perfect genetic code, as opposed to now, because we lose genetic information from generation to generation. Man was much healthier because of their genetics, They had a much healthier diet, and very few diseases existed back then.

Wait, how did the Sega Channel work?

Huh? The flood covered the whole earth. Where do you get this regonal stuff frrom? Somewhere the Bible says that the flood rose high enough to cover the highest mountains (think Mt Everest).

Because there is NO evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth. If there had been such a flood, we would know it. Geologists have determined that there may have been a large regional flood in the Middle East, however, which may explain why it is mentioned in the Bible. The same flood is mentioned in other ancient texts as well. To think that a flood actually covered the whole earth is possibly one of the most ridiculous notions I can think of.



Proof?

You know, mount Everest may not have existed before the flood. A flood that would cover the world would cause dramatic changes in the land. plates would be moved back and forth and create huge mountains and vallies (Which would have been worn down considerably be now) The earth was probably rather flat before the flood. As for geological evidence, why is it that fossils of sea creatures are so easy to find in the middle of large continents?

All those things are explainable if millions of years are allowed for these processes to happen. Places which are land now used to be seas. But that was hundreds of millions of years ago. The flood of the Bible happened 5 or 6,000 years ago, in one massive flood, and it's just not feasible.

if this is true, why do christians referance the OT for protests against abortion/gay people/etc.?

wouldn't your statement automatically make them non-christians or bad christians?

And by the way, where did all the water go, eh?

I'd also point out that it'd take a lot of water to raise the global water level by over 3000m.

Simple to understand. Man arrived and global warming occurred instantly melting the polar ice caps.

Time for a little Math. Mt. Everest is 8.85 km above sea level. The earth's surface area is 510,000,000 km^2. That means that the supposed flood in the Bible somehow conjured up 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water which no longer seems to exist. ROFL.

Ready to be debunked royally? Ok, heeeere we go!

1) Mount Everest formed over LARGE SPANS of time when the Indian plate decided to ram into the Eurasian plate and just couldn't seem to stop. In fact, Everest is growing taller even as I type this. But no, Everest did not exist...some 100 million years ago.

2) Earth was never "flat" There have always been mountains, valleys, hills, ravines, canyons, and mesas. This planet has always been reshaping itself.

3) Continental drift, climatological changes, you name it caused whatever area previously submerged to dry up. This is why you see sea fossils and parts of land that resemble a sea floor on continents.

Summary) There could not have been a planet-wide flood.

A good article on where all the water came from is here. And I did some more research on a vapor canopy, and apperently there are some serious flaws. (like frying the earth)

The problem with your article is that it depends on god raising the level of dry land to explain where the water went. By the way, if what the article says is true, then they indirectly believe half the earth's crust was water before the flood. Uhmmm... no.

Abortion is considered murder, which is covered by thew New Testament.

As for homosexuality, Romans 1:27:



Some cite Leviticus 20:13 as justification for violence and hatred against homosexuals:



However, Christians are not held by or judged by these laws (or at least, that's what I believe), and the New Testament makes no mention of putting people to death for their sins (as exampled by Jesus saving the adultress from being stoned). The only people that gays have to be afraid of are those who feel they are judged by the old laws and the Jews.

All of this stuff about whether or not the Earth really was flooded is irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about what Genesis says about the flood, not what science says about it. That's a whole 'nother can of worms that really should be taken to a different thread to be properly discussed.

The fact of the matter is, the Bible describes a global flood which covered the mountains. Whether you choose to believe that is entirely up to you.



That would make sense, except for the fact that you would have people bearing children at 8 years old. Seems a little young, to me...



The question of incest isn't really all that controversial. In ancient times, in the Near East at least, it was commonplace for one marry one's sister, and in fact in many cases it was considered desirable to marry a close relative (such as a cousin). To use a well-known Biblical example, Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah. Our modern culture has put a very strong taboo on incest which wasn't present in earlier times.

[q
>> The Old Testament laws do not apply anymore.



if this is true, why do christians referance the OT for protests against abortion/gay people/etc.?

wouldn't your statement automatically make them non-christians or bad christians?[/quote]

There are effectively two parts to Old Testament law: that which describes certain things as sins against God (think the 10 commandments), and that which describes the methods by which the Israelites could atone for any sins they had committed, by a complicated system of sacrifices and rituals. Christ's death did away with the need for the second part (the rituals and sacrifices of atonement), but not the first. That's why Christians include the Old Testament in the Scriptures, rather than simply chucking it out.

Or, and here's a crazy thought: the flood didn't happen. There is no evidence of this flood not because your invisible sky-friend covered it up to trick us; there is no evidence of this flood because it didn't happen.

Answers in genesis? HAH. Read a real ****ing book.

"an help meet" is what god calls woman.. before Adam calls her "woman"

You know, you have a real problem with arrogance and superiority.



Can you give me a specific scripture citation? I don't recall that in the Bible.

Guys, really, get off it. This thread isn't about proving or disproving the events in Genesis. The man has some honest questions and is looking for some honest answers. If you want to make a statement about religion or whatever, start a different thread. But please, stop hijacking this one.


[Edit: And Spiral, again, I think that's just the confusing wording of the KJV; I believe it means "helper", as that's what other translations call her. no translations are really better than others, because they all say the same thing, but some are just easier to understand]

That's sick. It's a good thing our laws aren't like that...

If "god = infallible", then God can do whatever the **** God wants to do.

My suggestion is to not take it so literally. Instead look for the good things in it. Strive to understand the overall picture rather then focusing on the smaller details. If you bog yourself down in the smaller details, then you'll miss out on the point the "Word of God" is trying to get across.

Tenshu, Spiral had some questions about genesis so he started a thread in hopes of getting answers. Your posts have been angry useless flamebait which have no place in this, or any, thread. You're entitled to an opinion, but not here and now. Go derail somone else's thread.

Spiral, I looked that verse up in a different version of bible and it says companion, so I think That might help shed some light on what a "help meet" is.

My advice, Spiral, is to get an easy to understand version and read it along with the KJV so you have the origional version and a comprehensible copy. That way when I don't understand something, I just check the other translation. I say read the another translation with the KJV because sometimes new translations will change a word and accidentally miss or leave out a double meaning in the scripture. And it is so cool when you find those.:)

Oops, double post,:o sorry.

Well, Sok Munkey was asking for it, really.

Pretty much all of Genesis is scientifically flawed at best, and any attempts to 'rationalise' it are going to fail miserably.

But, more importantly, that isn't the point of this thread. The purpose of this thread is understanding Genesis, assuming that it is true

I'd strongly recommend that Tenshu simply doesn't post on this thread, and anything even remotely approaching 'science' is kept well away from it too. That is how we're going to achieve the purpose of this thread.

That's just how Tenshu is in any thread...

I'm not so sure Spiral's intentions are so noble as seeking to understand Genesis. I'm not attacking him personally but it seems that his questions are loaded and mocking the material in question. Seems that this thread was destined to be a flame war.

I think it's cool your checking out the Bible. Glad you at least have an open mind about it. The Message version (which is technically a paraphrase, not a translation) is written entirely in modern english and might help you cut through the olde english of the KJV.

Some thoughts on a few of your points. I only skimmed through the responses so far, since I'm getting into this late, so someone may have already responded to a couple of these. I would recommend looking at biblegateway.com, as it has a bunch of different translations of the Bible and various other good reference material.

1) The passage you might be referring to is:
I Tim 6:10 (NIV) "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil..." The KJV version says "money is the root of all evil". Not being a Bible scholar I can't tell you what the actual greek says, but generally the newer translations (NIV, NKJV, ASV, NLT) are more accurate than the KJV because more manuscripts have been found since the KJV was translated. More reference material means a more accurate translation. Where differences between manuscripts exist, most Bibles have footnotes that describe the "alternate" translation (in 99.9% of cases the differences are so minor they don't change the meaning of the passage)

From my limited knowledge, I would say the idea that money=evil is not Biblical. IMO money, like all gifts or talents, is value-neutral. Certainly, money can lead to evil, but it can also lead to good (for example helping Tsunami victims).

2) "Be fruitful, and multipy, and replenish the earth" In modern english this might be translated, "Get it on." See when a man reaches a certain age...and then the bees are involved...and then there are some birds in there somewhere... (BTW I don't think the idea that sex=evil is biblical either, but that's a whole nother can'o'worms)

3) Can't really respond to that as it's an opinion. Although, I don't think they're too bad either.

I forget who's book I read this in, it was either Larry Crabb or John Eldridge, but anyway one of them pointed out that there was a brief period of time when Eve had "fallen" and Adam had not. Adam is faced with a choice (not just do I disobey God), but do I follow Eve, or follow God? We all know how that turned out. Perhaps that's why women are, at best, painted in a negative light in the beginning of Genesis. Food for thought.

"However, Christians are not held by or judged by these laws" - Wolfy

Okay, then what would you say to Mathew 5:17-20 (NIV) [Jesus speaking] "17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

First off, a bit of a redundant statement, but I'll say it anyway: understanding the Bible takes faith. Attempts to perceive the Bible with logic alone will cause problems, to say the least.

As note on measurements (age, etc.): How things were measured back then seems to be impercise. For instance, a cubit (measurements used to built the ark) were essentially the length of your forearm. Last I checked, the length of any body part differs from person to person The better question might be to ask why measurements, dates, and events in general are told...

And that's what I'll contribute to this matter.

As for question 7, about who gives birth to whom, I think that only the line of sons is followed. I don't remember seeing anything about who gives birth to which DAUGHTERS. If my memory is correct, that explains why you counted only two women and many, many men.

Almost forgot:

Go to [url]www.bibleontheweb[/url] , you can read MANY versions of the Bible there for free. No buying new Bibles every time someone suggests a new one

The link's broke, Crimson. But that looks awesome. I'm bookmarking that one.

OK concerning the bible and why it might be very confusing. Back then people were eating plants or fruits sprouting out of the ground, some of which held chemicals that produce hallucinations. Examples would be peyote and the psychadelic mushrooms. They obviously also ate foods that were poisonous *oops* or just plain food that held no hallucinogenic chemicals or poisons *the good stuff*. Now i ask, what if whatever the authors of the bible claim they saw was mainly due to hallucinations? What about those crazy indians and their spirtual peyote ceremonies? What about the salem witch trials where people claimed to have seen others practicing real witchcraft? What if they were just "trippin"? There are many what ifs....but i guess it comes down to faith. However, I want you to take a brief look at Moses. Did that flaming bush really talk to him? Sorry if I offended anybody....I'm kind of sick.

...okay...

I have never laughed so hard in my life!

You sound like discussions I had with friends in highschool in the middle of corn frields in the dead of night looking at the sky under the influence of "things."

"Dude, what if like... our world is just a speck of dust on the dresser of a dead old lady and we're like fermenting?"

"Woh... thats deep."