dad2

Peleg lived probably over 200 years after Babel. If the rapid separation was around that time (and I heard somewhere that Peleg was probably around 5 years old at the time) So yes the earth was split in his time

amen

I assumed you realized you ran out of steam days ago. I guess it took awhile. Pretending there is some mystery secret unspeakable science you comprehend that you could somehow not post on the issues here is dishonest and ridiculous. I have seen what science preaches on these matters. They expound upon the natural realities of the present, trying to explain all the past and future by these. Then you mentioned some made up left field nonsense about 'Lucifer's flood'. More foolishness. Neither bible or science. You are done all right! Then you alluded to many 'global floods' in the past. Another foolish crock. Then in your last post you displayed a true ignorance of the bible by saying this "biblical account of the floods I've mentioned" Sorry I didn't let you get away with pretending you were leaving the discussion in victory. Unless you can clean up your act, you don't even have anything worthy of debate or mild consideration.

It is far better. It is a firsthand account given by the creator. Modern science is not a science textbook either. It is a mish mash of ever changing and often conflicting theories. I dismiss nothing. The bible is also not that hard to understand. Only to believe. ? There was only one flood of Noah. Never heard of the devil flood, sorry. There was no flood before Noah in the bible Support your claim about numerous global floods? Don't offer you vague daydreaming as fact. Nothing actually lines up with what you made up. There was no other global flood and nothing matches imaginary floods before that in the real world.

Nothing wrong with honest faith. The dishonest belief offered as fact is an issue.

Since the rest of the days of creation were a day, one could not say the first day was not as well. No problem whatsoever. There is one order of creation and in chapter two a look at what was already (as verse one says) FINISHED. Not two conflicting confused accounts at all.

Why allude to 'evidence' you can neither produce or defend is you did? The earth and heaven were created on day one. That heaven did not contain anything though like stars sun or moon. That came later and was put IN the heaven. Just as a lot of things were put on the earth later.

The way great time in the 'cosmos' is determined by science is faith based. One way to dispel any notion of a pre existing universe (before the world was created) is to read how the entire heavens (cosmos) will vanish in one day. The basic question becomes who we believe and lean on for the truth. Science or God.

The fact the bible says the flood was all over the world is not debatable Nonsense. Traces of what? What evidences the sites were subducted and resurrected again as needed? Ha Still waiting for you to evidence that the specific sites were dunked miles under and resurfaced again? What sentence in your link even addresses that? I am not going to argue how deep they say it was, I gave links that said miles under. It is all fantasy anyhow, so who cares? Prove it. A year long worldwide flood that covered the highest mountains would actually move a lot of sand and rock etc. Get a grip

No. It was worldwide, clearly. Not a serious debate issue. Foolishness. How about no radiation as we know it? Not like you have the ability to know. How would we know? You just look at the present and assume it all got here in this nature, which is religious quackery and not knowledge based. What evidence? You are making stuff up Make a point, and use links as support, not a reading project. Why repeat a falsehood that is not even relevant? I never asked how it worked. I asked what evidence YOU have for a claim it happened in Gabon to the sites in question. They claimed it was miles under in the previous link I posted. It also does not matter what you think 'had to be'! What matters is what you can prove was. Provide some sentence or place in your link where it talks about the submerging and resurfacing of the site? Ha ? Are you now disputing their claim it went deep under the earth and later resurfaced at the right time?! You seem confused. Being is sandstone could be related to the flood of course. The uplifting probably later on near the time of the tower of Babel in the days of Peleg. No one needs your fable because there is sandstone there. You really have nothing it seems.

Shorten IN this nature and physics. Irrelevant. No one asked how tectonics happen. You claimed the sites in Gabon specifically were dunked miles under and resurfaced as needed and that this was known and supportable. Posting a cartoon pic does not even address the issue. Show the specs got Gabon. (otherwise I might have to)

As mentioned, the fact the flood covered the world and killed everyone is not debatable

Supporting you claims does not consist of telling other posters they deny something that you failed to support. Perhaps you are getting your threads mixed up, because no one here even mentions some 'faster' decay in the past but you. Specifics? Name the plate and evidence that it was dunked for the precise times the recipe needed to work? Ha Explain what 'the mantle' has to do with Gabon and the specs you claim that were dunked? You don't just get to say the word mantle as if it supports your fairy tale In other words you need it to be so! There 'had to be' certain things. Seriously?? I didn't think anything, I cited articles dealing with the Oklo reactor. One example is here "If uranium can be so easily dissolved in oxygenated groundwater, how can the Oklo uranium deposit have survived intact for almost two billion years? The geologists told us that the basin containing the Oklo sediments apparently sank to a sufficient depth to protect the uranium ore from re dissolution over most of its geological history. Only in recent time, within the past few million years, has the ore horizon approached the surface where normal prospecting efforts could succeed in identifying it, Thus the series of special circum stances necessary to the discovery of the Oklo phenomenon includes not only the processes which produced a natural critical mass of uranium but the unusual geophysical and geochemical conditions which preserved the ore body for nearly half the lifetime of the planet and finally brought it to the surface" https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00394162.pdf In other articles I read it was many thousands of feet under. They basically claim whatever is needed to produce a natural reaction today. Hilarious. "He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface." https://www.livescience.com/75-natural-nuclear-reaction-powered-ancient-geyser.html hahahaha

No problem whatsoever and not even worthy of debate.

No they show you use beliefs to piece together explanations regardless of how utterly unsupported and absurd they may be. Different does not mean faster. Support the claim that the whole plate submerged and resurfaced? Of course your link says nothing about what plates moved how or why etc. Zero. It says this The tectonic hypothesis suggests that the reactors occurred in an aquatic environment that eventually was raised through plate and fault movements Less than laughable

Everything observed in labs has only been observed since there were labs. What is to deny? What you need to do is prove plate tectonics selectively dunked the sited of Oklo then resurfaced them again as needed! Plates move and did move a lot in the past. Nothing to do with Gabon and the Oklo specs. Yes absolutely needed. You should know that if you raise the issue. The needed reactions require being under the surface (some of them)

The whole site was submerged underwater years ago, so no one can go and recheck evidences. There were reactions in the former world nature as well, in case this is news. The problem for you is that you invoke a long series of miracles to have the ratios of isotopes we saw there come to exist. Ever consider that it may have happened another way? One such miracle in your fable is the magic elevator ride. The sites all got dunked miles underground for no apparent reason right at the exact right time. Why? Because that needed to happen for a natural explanation, using today's physics to be even possible theoretically. Then of course untold eons later just when needed all sites magically rise to the surface again! Hilarious. I am surprised you would mention that, let alone make a silly allusion that is supports your religion.

How ancient evidence is would be the question.

Funny He gave details of when He will destroy the world and make a new one in the future. Ever consider that the reason there are no details for the mystery gap former world is that there never was one? Why do you think that the world exists, if not (in large measure) for man? The stars and sun also! He gave us the record of beginnings for this world. How is it you imagine He left a gap so big that one could stuff billions of years and a destruction of earth in there?? So what? Ever consider that a destroyed land might bear some similarity to a proto-planet blob with no land light or life? I do not share your extremist view that a planet without life or land plants or animals or even light should be considered well formed and finished. You take the meaning of having form to the extreme and ridiculous level. No verse says the newly created world on the first day did not exist! It just was nothing like the world we know and was totally unsuitable for man There are oodles of versions that say the same thing. The earth was formless and empty - NLT Now the earth was formless and empty - NIV And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness - NASB etc etc etc How the world WAS on the first day of course can be applied. The construction was over the week. Not all over afternoon tea. First one needs a foundation before one calls in the finishing carpenters! First we need a planet, before we add the continents, light, seas and life and light. The stars were not even needed that first day! They were added later! Science has a very myopic, degrading small view of mankind.

You have no clue why the earth that you think was created perfect up and became desolate and wasted. OK. You didn't think God would tell us about something that big? Yes it is your story. False. You have shown that you ignore some meanings and cling to others that you thought fit your story. If the planetary blob has no land I would say formless is a great word. He did make plenty from the newly created, existing earth. That is what is referred to. It was all part of creation. So what, it took both! Both are part of the creation of man. And woman. Yes, He sure did. So I guess it was not already perfect and finished! One of us would.

So you know what forces wiped out the earth so that it had to be restored? Explain? The concept is the same. Some perfect world that was destroyed somehow by someone or something. Any more details? Ha Explain? It just became 'a mess' on it's own? Who if anyone was responsible? It's your story. Neither does a woman coming from a rib, so? Genesis is a record of beginnings not what 'exists'. The context of not yet being formed fully does not mean not in existence. It means that it was not formed to what He was working on making it. Planetary blob is one way of describing it. You claim that this planetary blob with no life or land or light was a perfect creation, correct? Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Look at all the things made in those six days. It includes each day like day one. The sea was not here before God separated the land and water. There were no stars in the sky or sun in the heavens. The animals and fish and stars and land and light and mankind were all made of existing materials one would assume. In simple terms God created the materials on day one and on the other 5 days used those materials to form other things. Until at last it was finished.

You- "Somehow, absurdly, you think my position is that God created the earth in 6 days and THEN it was "stolen from Him and wiped out by forces unknown and reasons unknown and times unknown etc etc." To which I brought up the restoration you speak about (or rejiggering). So, your position apparently is that this destruction/restoring was not after the creation days were finished. Rather it was on the first day of creation. I think we all know that is your story. So what is not clear? Try to come up with something new. You are restating your fantasy as if repetition makes it real. The creation was not finished on day one. Regardless of how the earth looked on the first day of creation, before light, land and life. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. ʻâsâh Brown-Driver-Briggs' 1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to do, work, make, produce 1a1a) to do 1a1b) to work 1a1c) to deal (with) 1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect In the six days, God fashioned and made the earth and heavens. That was all part of creation. You try to make only the first day 'creation'. Eve did not have form when a bone was taken out of Adam. Adam did not have form until He was formed from the dust of the earth. Animals did not have form till God made them. Nor did they have names. The earth had no from until God made the land and separated the water from the land. Now you could say some planetary blob without land and light or life had some sort of 'form' but that would be silly. You could Eve had form when there was nothing but a bone in His hand. Again that would be foolishness. God formed and finished all of creation in the six days. Trying to portray the lifeless landless blob of a planet as perfect on day one is indeed foolishness and against Scripture. So when we look at Gen 1:2 in context it is clear. On day one the earth was still formless or as some translate, without form. Brown-Driver-Briggs' 1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness 1a) formlessness (of primeval earth) 1a1) nothingness, empty space 1b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (figuratively) 1c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places) 1d) place of chaos

I quoted you and asked if that was what you meant. If not then be clear. The issue is not what God coulda done. It is what He said He done. It is creation on the first day. And a creation that was new, not some reclamation project of a failed past experiment. When it was finished after six days then God said it was good. Try not to ignore that or pretend otherwise. Which is exactly what they were doing - IN EZEKIEL The form is not what matters as much as the context. In no other verses would the context be the same as a newly created planet. The link I posted says that the context is clearly 'was'. I agree. In the context of the newly created world, and what it was like, my arguments reign supreme. You should have realized you lost a long time ago.

You are simply unable or unwilling to realize that the 6 days follow v.2 which says in the LITERAL HEBREW that the earth became a wasteland. The word also can mean other things. Let's pick the uses that fit with day one of creation. Say what? Are you suggesting that God destroyed His Own world for no apparent reason on the first day? Be clear It needed to be worked on. Things like adding land and life and light. Not true. Creating and making perfect the heavens and earth in six days did not make God inept or unskilled. Telling us it took six days was not some inept mistake either. What is clear is that you ignore all meanings of a word except ones you can misapply to fit your own beliefs. Very disrespectful Except you made that up. The only time God mentioned it was good was after the six days. Not in the middle of the first day. I have no doubt it was good then also, but not good for man or animals or birds etc. So what? That is a great way to describe a world with no land or light or life. No problem whatsoever. The earth's condition before God made land and light and life was not some other way. It was how it was on that first day. When God put Adam to sleep on day six and made a woman from a bone He removed from the man, that does not mean woman was imperfect! It means that she took longer to make. If we had looked at the rib or bone after Good took it out, and applied words like barren, or dry or ugly or tiny or whatever to it, that does not mean God 'restored' Eve. If you looked at the dirt Adam was formed from, that does not mean Adam was restored rather than newly created. If we looked at the void and emptiness of space/heaven on day four that does not mean the stars and sun and moon were 'restored'. Etc. You just choose to focus on an unfinished state of something newly created but not yet finished, and declare some mysterious former world existed and this was actually just some sort of restoring. Totally made up, and abusing the language and context and clear message of Scripture that is confirmed elsewhere. Let's look at the word created. In the beginning God created the heaven and earth. That was not destruction. "In short, in order to establish that a significant time ‘gap’ is possible between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, that argument would have to do so without resort to a ‘became’ sense for hyth. That is, the Gen. 1:2’s ‘was’ would have to be preserved within that view. Alternatively, the following presentation against ‘became’ would have to be faulted. ‘Was’ and ‘became’ [1] ‘Was’ is static, or merely links the beginning of Gen 1:1 with a state, a description of the earth as being: "without form and void". ‘Became’ is dynamic, and implies some (cause and) result. With ‘became’ this can be read as: ‘the earth was not always this way’ (that is, ‘without form….’), it had ‘become’ this way. [2] ‘Was’ is the majority English rendering of this statement. Thus to argue for ‘became’ one would have to contend that the translators missed this meaning in the first instance of this regular ‘be’ verb. Therefore, to promote ‘became,’ or to suppose that sense hovered around this first use of hyth would need solid linguistic justification. [3] ‘Was’ (Hebrew: hyth) is the natural and usual reading of this ‘be’ verb, given the syntactical constructions in which it is set, and to which it contributes. This can be seen from many other examples in the Hebrew Bible. Some are presented below, with an analysis of how ‘was’ is differentiated from ‘became.’ [4] It is true that forms of the Hebrew verb ‘to be’ like hyth occur in ‘became’ expressions. However, for a ‘became’ sense, hyth (or its cognates) has to be qualified by additional linguistic features in the context, or associated syntax. These are lacking in the immediate environment of Gen. 1:2. Again, this shows, reinforced by the following analysis, that ‘became’ would not be a tenable translation of hyth in Gen. 1:2. ‘Became' instead of ‘was’ and the ‘Gap’ view [5] ‘Was’ is about what is (or was) at some early point in Gen 1:1-2. Its temporal antecedent is "in the beginning" (see, [11](d), and [14], below). ‘Became’ introduces a different impression. It suggests another point in time, which is distanced from (or some time after) that beginning. Adherents of some ‘gap’ view between verses one and two would certainly be assisted by a ‘became’ reading. Yet, combined with ‘finished’ in Gen. 2:1, and "without form and void" ‘was’ (in Gen. 1:2) simply presents a state of affairs on planet earth, relative to ‘in the beginning,’ that is ready for, or requires, development (see [7], and [14], below.) No gap need be presupposed to this. This is how the earth became within the initial conditions of Divine creative activity, not ‘became’ through cataclysm, or chaos. This is what it was like at this stage." http://cdelph.org/_old_site/was.html Ha

No. You ignore that it took 6 days to complete creation. Your fantasy earth demolition and rejiggering was on the first of those six days. Creation included life and that was not here on that day. Life came later, as did the sun, land and etc. Looking at the world that day, total destruction would be a word men might relate to. As other uses of the root word would ALSO fit. For 'void' it means From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void. And 'formlessness' Brown-Driver-Briggs' 1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness 1a) formlessness (of primeval earth) 1a1) nothingness, empty space 1b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (figuratively) 1c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places) 1d) place of chaos 1e) vanity Strong's From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness. So as we can see MOST uses FIT the first day of creation. You are without excuse to grasp at straws to defend your pipe dream theory. It was the beginning of creation, day one. Desolate, no land, no life, no stars no light. No one snuck in and wrecked God's creation! You should have a little faith in God and less faith in man's so called science wisdom.