ASSUMPTIONS IN RADIODATING.

[thomas t]

15 hours ago, HAZARD said:

the many dozens of Scriptures I have provided, when read with an open and honest heart proves there were two great floods on the earth?

Hazard, as I explained before, the first three verses you provided didn't show anything at all, so I didn't check the rest,

can we stop our discussion here, please?

Did you ever hear of the Elephant Hurling fallacy? Posting too much information, so that noone is able to check everything? If you want a theory, just post 100 Bibleverses and claim victory unless someone has the time to go through all this... I don't want to fall victim to this.

Regards,

Thomas

Edited July 28, 2019 by thomas t
explaing Elephant Hurling

[Still Alive]

On 7/27/2019 at 7:47 AM, Tzephanyahu said:

But the sun and moon were set in place for signs to man of seasons and feasts.  It would be difficult to observe the Sabbath or New Moon (month) without being able to see these ordained signs until the flood.  The only new "sign" in the skies after the flood was the Rainbow.  Nothing is mentioned pertaining to the sun, moon and stars being viewable.

Also, keep in mind that the water came from beneath the Earth as well.  "The fountains of the great deep were broken".  This would have easily lead to an extinction level event.  Details can be sourced here

If the vapour canopy IS to be believed (and I think there is merit to it), Earth's inhabitants would have still been able to see the luminaries for signs and seasons and, unfortunately, misplaced worship.

 

Did they have feasts based on the apparance of the sun, moon and stars before the flood? And would a new moon sky at night not look different than a full moon night, even with thick cloud cover? 

[Tzephanyahu]

12 hours ago, Still Alive said:

Did they have feasts based on the apparance of the sun, moon and stars before the flood? And would a new moon sky at night not look different than a full moon night, even with thick cloud cover? 

In Genesis 1:14, the Hebew word that commonly translated into English as "seasons" is "Moedim".  This is the same word used when referring to to the Feasts of Yahweh. For reference, see Strong's 4150.  But let's say, cynically, that there were no Feasts prior to the flood.   We still have a designation of the luminaries serving as indications of time.

As to whether cloud would look different under a new moon or a full moon, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.  However, if the clouds provided the kind of coverage you are implying, the light from a full moon, quarter moon and even a new moon would be very difficult to gauge. 

[Still Alive]

13 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

As to whether cloud would look different under a new moon or a full moon, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.  However, if the clouds provided the kind of coverage you are implying, the light from a full moon, quarter moon and even a new moon would be very difficult to gauge. 

Yeah, that's my point. And I live in the sticks. If there were a constant cloud cover and there was NO light except what is coming from the sky, the differences are far more obvious than people think. When I lived in Seattle, a full moon was cool. Where I now live, it's almost like a "dim sun". It's almost like walking around in daylight, but dimmer. Ancient man experienced this even more than I do.

Since all of the books of the bible were written after the flood, they were all written to people who only knew a world where the sun, moon and stars were clearly visible. I think we sometimes infer that type of world onto what the bible says about the world/age before the great flood

Edited July 29, 2019 by Still Alive

[Tzephanyahu]

16 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Yeah, that's my point. And I live in the sticks. If there were a constant cloud cover and there was NO light except what is coming from the sky, the differences are far more subtle than people think. When I lived in Seattle, a full moon was cool. Where I now live, it's almost like a "dim sun". It's almost like walking around in daylight, but dimmer.

Since all of the books of the bible were written after the flood, they were all written to people who only knew a world where the sun, moon and stars were clearly visible. I think we sometimes infer that type of world onto what the bible says about the world/age before the great flood

It sounds like you are reaching a bit to make the theory fit. 

In summary, you're suggesting that all the luminaries were covered until after the flood - Elohim kept them hidden for such an event.  Then, the writers of the Bible made no mention of it, as the audience were used to the luminaries post-flood - so better left unsaid.  And now, in the 21st century, we kinda discovered this "truth" without any evidence or significant indication.

I mean it's an idea but it seems an unnecessary theory and one that avails no reward.   

To be fair, I have no evidence to suggest what you are saying isn't true - other than taking the Bible at face value, simple logic and apocryphal books, such as Enoch.  Now, whilst we could discredit Enoch here and there, it's still certainly more of a persuasion on the pre-flood world than any 21st century theories.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Tzephanyahu

[Still Alive]

6 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

It sounds like you are reaching a bit to make the theory fit. 

In summary, you're suggesting that all the luminaries were covered until after the flood - Elohim kept them hidden for such an event.  The, the writers of the Bible made no mention of it, as the audience were used to the luminaries post-flood - so better left unsaid.  And now, in the 21st century, we kinda discovered this "truth" without any evidence or significant indication.

I mean it's an idea but it seems an unnecessary theory and one that avails no reward.   

To be fair, I have no evidence to suggest what you are saying isn't true - other than taking the Bible at face value, simple logic and apocryphal books, such as Enoch.  Now, whilst we could discredit Enoch here and there, it's still certainly more of a persuasion on the pre-flood world than any 21st century theories.

I pretty much agree. It's time I actually read 1 Enoch.

BTW, I changed my post wording from "subtle" to "obvious". And what I'm really trying to do with the whole thing is throw out my pre-conceptions and just go with what the bible ACTUALLY says. And the funny part is that it says the "windows of heaven were opened". For many at the time, it would imply (since they didn't have glass windows) that they could see through the "window" not that it was opened. i.e. I'm not trying to twist it to support a particular theory, but trying to see where we might already be doing it. 

But none of us were there at the time (not even the writers of the bible books), and the bible is NOT a science book, and it clearly DOES leave out scientific information from time to time, so we really don't know. I'm mostly speculating.

[Tzephanyahu]

5 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

And what I'm really trying to do with the whole thing is throw out my pre-conceptions and just go with what the bible ACTUALLY says.

Ah I see.  Well, in that case I applaud you!  Such a mindset is the best way to study!  But it's hard to do, right?  Those preconcieved ideas are wedged-in tight and deeply under cover.  So it's great to hear that you are challenging what others take for granted, it's the only way to make discoveries.

However, I think when the Scripture refers to the "heavens opening" it is possibly referring to the fact that it didn't rain on the Earth until the Flood.  But who knows, maybe this is referring to a deeper mechanism at work...

I think the "cloud coverage theory" is close to another idea of the "water vapour canopy theory", which could have caused a greenhouse effect -  vastly increasing the size and life expanse of all.   It's an interesting idea which I need to spend more time studying to be honest.  But The Creation Evidence Museum are creating a Hyperbaric Biosphere based on this principle, so you might find that interesting in your study of the "heavens opening".

Keep digging!

[Still Alive]

4 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

Ah I see.  Well, in that case I applaud you!  Such a mindset is the best way to study!  But it's hard to do, right?  Those preconcieved ideas are wedged-in tight and deeply under cover.  So it's great to hear that you are challenging what others take for granted, it's the only way to make discoveries.

However, I think when the Scripture refers to the "heavens opening" it is possibly referring to the fact that it didn't rain on the Earth until the Flood.  But who knows, maybe this is referring to a deeper mechanism at work...

I think the "cloud coverage theory" is close to another idea of the "water vapour canopy theory", which could have caused a greenhouse effect -  vastly increasing the size and life expanse of all.   It's an interesting idea which I need to spend more time studying to be honest.  But The Creation Evidence Museum are creating a Hyperbaric Biosphere based on this principle, so you might find that interesting in your study of the "heavens opening".

Keep digging!

I don't know if I mentioned this, but I read a book called "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch" and talked with the author a bit back in the late 1980's. I actually got some of this from that book. But yeah, it is very difficult to get through this stuff and flush out all the nonsense people teach in VBS, and just sticks with you. It's VERY hard to unlearn stuff you were taught in your first seven years.

[Tzephanyahu]

2 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I don't know if I mentioned this, but I read a book called "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch"

Interesting,  I haven't heard of this.  I will take a look.

2 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

It's VERY hard to unlearn stuff you were taught in your first seven years.

The hardest!  But so rewarding and stabilising - if that's the word.  The more you do this, with every book of the Bible, the more rewarding it is.  So many ideas pollute our concepts from church teachings and traditions!  

Still, it's very encouraging to hear that you are challenging these old dusty pillars which most other people walk by.    

[HAZARD]

On 7/24/2019 at 8:54 PM, thomas t said:

Hi Hazard,

oh no, it's the "Gap Theory". You don't have anything to back your allegation of pre-Adamite life up.

Rev 12:12 is in the future. It is at a time when the stars would have fallen down on earth, already. This was Rev 6.

Ezek. 28:11-18? "You were in Eden, the garden of God;" (verse 13a) sounds like the Garden ! ... just where Adam was in, too.

Isa. 14:12-14? How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! verse 12. There is nothing that indicates pre-Adamite life. This could very well have happened when Adam was there, too - maybe this happened when he ate the fruit.

So your first verse couldn't back up your theory, so I assume that the rest of it can't be supported by scripture, either. I don't have the time to go through all of it. Three verses that didn't provide any back up of what you say... is enough. Ok?

But let me discuss your purported "Lucifer's Flood".

There's no evidence to back this other flood up. Let me show that your first three arguments don't back up anything. If your first three arguments don't back up a "Lucifer's Flood", then it's likely to assume the rest of it won't back up anything either.

1. "L.F. Earth made waste (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-26; 2 Pet. 3:5-6)." you say. There is nothing in the text of Gen 1:2 that said "made" waste. This is your speculation. It says the earth was waste. Right from the start? Why not.

Jeremiah 4 is about Jerusalem. 2 Pet. 3:5-6 can very well describe Noah's flood.

Same applies to your arguments 2 and 3.

 

So let me conclude: your first arguments were nothing but unsupported allegation, since the Genesis passages didn't support a view that holds that the earth became dark/empty/waste after having been different from dark/empty/waste some time before.

I noted that the brothers and sisters couldn't refute you here, that's at least how I read the thread. That was sad to read.

Regards,

Thomas

 

 

 

Hi Thomas. I have another post re the pre Adamite world, Moses teaching on it.

Moses’ teaching on the overthrow of the Pre-Adamite world.

 

In Gen 1:2 we have the fact that the Earth was in existence before the Spirit of God began to move, (brood) upon the face of the waters which covered the Earth. The conjunction “and” is used to connect about 200 separate acts of God in Gen. 1 and 2. These acts are all equally independent and important. Verse 2 is as independent of verse 1 as are all other separate acts of God in these two chapters. In verse 1 we have the original creation of the heavens and the Earth, and in verse 2, we have the original perfect Earth made chaos and flooded with water which destroyed all lifeon the Earth.

 

The word “was” in verse 2 is from the Hebrew bayah, which is a verb to become, not the verb to be. It is translated became 67 times (Gen. 2:7; 19:26; 20:12; 24:67; Ex. 4:3-4; Num. 12:10; ect.); becamest (1 Chron. 17:22; Ezek. 16:8) ; came and  came to pass 505 times (Gen. 4:3; 6:1, 4; 11:2, 5; etc.) become 66 times (Gen. 3:22; 18:18; 48:19; etc.) come (and come to pass 131 times (Gen. 4:14; 6:13; 18-20; 27:40 etc.); and many times be in the sense of become (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 14: 3:5; etc.).

The phrase without form is from the Hebrew tohu, which means waste, desolation, or confusion. It is translated wast (Deut. 32:10); without form (Gen.1:2, Jer.4:23); vain (Isa. 45:18; 1 Sam. 12:21); confusion Isa. 24:10; 34:11; 41:29); empty (Job 26:7); vanity (Isa. 40:17, 23; 44:9; 59:4); nothing (Job. 6:18; Isa. 40:17); and wilderness (Job 12:24; Ps. 107:40).

 

It can be seen from these passages what the word really means and what the condition of the Earth was in Gen. 1:2. God did not originally create the Earth in such a waste and ruined state. It is definitely stated in Isa. 45:18 that God did not create the Earth tohu (vain, or desolate), yet in Gen 1:2 the Earth was tohu. If the Earth was not originally created desolate, then it must have been created, inhabited, and later became desolate. Even the English verb “was” proves that it had to become desolate before it could be desolate.

 

The Hebrew word for void is bohu, which means empty, ruin or void. It is translated viod (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23) and emptiness (Isa. 34:11). The Hebrew phrase tohu va bohu (wast and ruin, or desolate and empty) describes the chaotic conditions of the Earth since “the beginning” and before the six days of the reconstruction of Gen. 1:3-2:25. God did not create the Earth a ruin or a wast. It became so because of sin.

 

We can read Gen. 1:1-2 literally thus:

“In the beginning [by periods, ages] God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth became wast and ruin [desolate and empty]; and darkness was upon the face of the waters.” In these verses we have the whole span of the creative ages taking in all the original creation of the heavens and the Earth and all things therein to the six days of restoration of the Earth to a habitable state. The original creations include the sun, moon, and stars.

 

In these two verses alone we have the facts that in the dateless past God created the heavens, including the sun, moon, and stars, and then the Earth; that the heavens, were created before the Earth;  the waters; and that the darkness were all created before the spirit began to brood over the waters; and that these things were already in existence before the first of the six days, proving that they were not created in any one of those days.

 

How long the Earth was a waste and a ruin or desolate and empty since its original habitation is not known. How long it was in existence and inhabited before it became desolate and empty is not known, but why and when it was cursed and became desolate and empty is known and clearly revealed in Scripture. In Scripture all cases of obscuring the sun and bringing consequent darkness, and all cases of floods are a result of Judgment and never of an acts of creation, unless it be Gen. 1:2; and we have no authority on which to believe that this is an exception. Why could not Gen. 1;2 be a result of a curse, as is clear of all other floods and darkness on the Earth, as revealed in Gen. 6-8; Ex. 10:21-23; Isa. 5:30; 13:10; Jer. 4:23-26; Amos 5:18-20; Zeph. 1:15; Joel 2:30-3: 16; Matt. 8:12; 9:2; 16:10.

 

The fact that Moses by inspiration said that God told Adam, to multiply and replenish the Earth proves that there was a social system on the Earth before Adam, for he could not replenish something that had been plenished before. Some argue that the Hebrew word for replenish means fill and not refill, but this proves nothing. An examination of all the places where the word replenish is used disproves this. Suppose we make the word replenish mean plenish in Gen. 9:1; Isa. 2:6; 23:2; Jer. 31:25; Ezek. 26:2; 27:25, and note the results. Where the Hebrew word mala is translated fill, it does not mean that the thing referred to had never been filled before. For example, when Joseph commanded his bretheren to “fill their sacks,” does this mean that those sack had never been filled before? They had no doubt been filled many times. See Gen. 42:25; 44:1; 1 Kings 18:33; Hag. 2:7 etc. To say, “Fill that glass with water” does not prove that it had never been filled before, but to say, “Refill that glass with water” proves that it had been filled before. When God said to Noah, “be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth” Gen. 9:1, it is clear that the Earth had been plenished before, so why not believe that God meant the same thing when He said it to Adam? The same Hebrew statement is found in both passages (Gen. 1;28; 9:1), and it is translated exactly the same in English, so would it be wrong to believe that it means the same thing? If the Earth had been plenished before Adam, then it was overthrown by judgment before the six days, as is shown in Gen.1;2.