Megalodon teeth abundant in a west Java village, how does Bible explain this ?

[creativemechanic]

the bible doesnt because it's spiritually irrelevant. There were far more relevant things to put in  it. I find people who focus on these things just want an excuse to attack the scripture or disregard it

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Afternoon Jayne,

Not to redirect this thread, but it is interesting that the Great Pyramid is covered with microscopic sea life from top to bottom. The implications of that and what it entails.

I checked. The stone used to build it contains sea creatures. They did not settle on top of the great pyramid. Which btw used to have an outer cover of a white stone but has been removed and recycled in more 'recent' times.

[Jayne]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Afternoon Jayne,

Not to redirect this thread, but it is interesting that the Great Pyramid is covered with microscopic sea life from top to bottom. The implications of that and what it entails.

Ayin Jade is right.  The great pyramids were definitely post-flood.  And they are man-made, not natural.

The  materials used to build it contained these fossils.  We could build anything we wanted even today from much material containing fossils.

[teddyv]

12 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Ayin Jade is right.  The great pyramids were definitely post-flood.  And they are man-made, not natural.

The  materials used to build it contained these fossils.  We could build anything we wanted even today from much material containing fossils.

Current dating of the Great Pyramids puts them as pre-Flood to almost contemporaneous to the Flood. Answers in Genesis sets the date of the Flood as 2348BC (I think this is similar to the Ussher date). Pyramids are estimated as 4500 years old, so that would put them about 2478BC.

(ETA: the above is based on the assumption of AiG/Ussher chronology being correct).

Edited August 20, 2022 by teddyv
clarity

[Jayne]

21 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Current dating of the Great Pyramids puts them as pre-Flood to almost contemporaneous to the Flood. Answers in Genesis sets the date of the Flood as 2348BC (I think this is similar to the Ussher date). Pyramids are estimated as 4500 years old, so that would put them about 2478BC.

(ETA: the above is based on the assumption of AiG/Ussher chronology being correct).

Thanks,teddyv, I am aware of those things.  I have a hard time grasping that the Pyraminds were pre-Flood as Egypt is named for Noah's grandson, Mizraim.  Ham's son.

[Dennis1209]

47 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

I checked. The stone used to build it contains sea creatures. They did not settle on top of the great pyramid. Which btw used to have an outer cover of a white stone but has been removed and recycled in more 'recent' times.

Yes, I have thought and read about that also and do not discount it, possible and maybe even likely. Without going into much detail, I do not think the Egyptians built to Great Pyramids. I think they were sturdy and weighty enough to withstand Noah's flood. I don't think all those failed pyramids were progression to success. I suspect they were progressive failures to replicate what was there before upper and lower Egypt existed. 

Then again there's a distinct possibility according to some scholars, they could have been built under Joseph? Everything about those pyramids screams a master builder, location, mathematics, and astronomy. It is fascinating to conjecture about. 

[Dennis1209]

58 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Ayin Jade is right.  The great pyramids were definitely post-flood.  And they are man-made, not natural.

The  materials used to build it contained these fossils.  We could build anything we wanted even today from much material containing fossils.

I just posted a response to ayin jade on my thoughts, not that they are correct. 

 

[Dennis1209]

7 hours ago, Jayne said:

I whole-heartedly do not believe in the Gap Theory or Lucifer's Flood.  It's not in the Bible.  There are good and decent people who believe this, and I am not trying to bash anyone.

R. Hartono, here's how this belief came about.

• Some of these people are trying to make evolution and the six-day creation mesh or dovetail together like jigsaw puzzles pieces connect. This idea didn't come about until relatively modern science created the idea of evolution and the debate between evolution and creationism began.  It's not that some of these believe in a strict evolution, but they are trying to "force" the timelines to match.  As I said, it's a way of trying to mesh the two.  They believe that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 that million and millions of years passed by - with animal life and soul-less humans living and dying on the perfect earth.

 

• They believe that suddenly, the devil was cast out of heaven for his wickedness along with his demon-angels and they ruined the perfect earth.  That's what they believe that Genesis 1:2 means - "the earth was without form and void".  And they believe that the phrase "and darkness covered the face of the deep" as to mean a flood came because of some sort of "darkness" or, to them, meaning evil.  Sometimes darkness is just the absence of light.  That's what I take it to mean here.

Here is how I interpret Genesis 1:1-2.

• Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  This is informing the reader, from the get-go of reading the Bible that everything comes from God and came from him from the start.
• Genesis 1:2 - "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."  First the Bible says God made everything and now, in verse 2, begins the explanation of HOW and the order of what he did.  JUST LIKE Genesis chapter 1 tells how and the order of what he did and Genesis chapter 2 recaps much more detail of day six.  

Genesis chapter 1 is NOT a re-creation.  It's THE creation. 

 

Hello, once again, Jayne,

I am not contending, debating, for or against views on old vs. young earth. Fortunately, it is not a Salvation issue and should not divide us as Christians with our different hermeneutic views. I am not trying to dispute or convince one way or another.

Not that it matters one iota, I’ve been meticulously studying the creation account for some time now. Not my thoughts (hermeneutics), but what does the Bible say and not mention?

You are 100% correct; this is a new concept and theory in historical terms. I think it was introduced by Simon Episcopies in the 19^th century and popularized by C.I. Scofield, reference Bible (of which I grew up with and still own among many).

If I were to ask you or anyone what day something was created, I think most could quote the Bible verse the day it was made, fashioned, or created. What if someone asked, was it caused by existing material (material mold) such as Adam’s body, or spoken into existence (ex nihilo)? What Hebrew words are used to describe any distinctions between the two, or are there any? Are they interchangeable?

Recently I started a thread, “Water, Water, Everywhere” for a bit of help. I inquired what day of the six-day creation account was water created (a fundamental element for all created physical life).

In all my research, I could not find an answer to that question. What I don’t think I mentioned was why I wanted to know. It related to what I was studying, and I thought possibly someone on the forum might bring to my attention something I am missing or overlooking.

My conclusion thus far since everything is accounted for in the six-day creation account, except water. I leave open the possibility water preexisted before the six-day creation account. I would imagine if this is conceivable, it presents more than one view, and thus a Gap Theory.

Two scholars (learned persons) with opposing views. The majority opinion vs. the minority opinion. Who has the biblically correct view?

On this one, I am playing a moderate politician, standing on the double yellow lines in the middle of the road, watching both sides whizzing by in opposite directions.  😊

 

[teddyv]

6 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Yes, I have thought and read about that also and do not discount it, possible and maybe even likely. Without going into much detail, I do not think the Egyptians built to Great Pyramids. I think they were sturdy and weighty enough to withstand Noah's flood. I don't think all those failed pyramids were progression to success. I suspect they were progressive failures to replicate what was there before upper and lower Egypt existed. 

Then again there's a distinct possibility according to some scholars, they could have been built under Joseph? Everything about those pyramids screams a master builder, location, mathematics, and astronomy. It is fascinating to conjecture about. 

The main blocks of the pyramid are fossiliferous. I don't think there is any question about that. These are bearing "nummolites", which are sea creatures, fossilized in limestone (limestone is further comprised of calcium rich oozes from microscopic organisms).

I've not heard any secular evidence of them built by Joseph. The Bible does not indicate that - just mentioning Pithom and Rameses as store cities. All evidence currently supports construction well before Joseph.

[teddyv]

32 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Thanks,teddyv, I am aware of those things.  I have a hard time grasping that the Pyraminds were pre-Flood as Egypt is named for Noah's grandson, Mizraim.  Ham's son.

This is of course, where we will differ on interpretation of Biblical history. I am aware of your view, and can understand that this can be a bit of a conundrum. I suppose it is possible that these structures could have survived an immense deluge, as they are pretty solid.