This One Thing Will Make You Believe in Noah’s Flood

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, ChristB4us said:

Thereby creating a conundrum & doubts in His words for any assurance of salvation.

What?  What are you talking about?  Please show me any "conundrum" or where "doubts in His Words" come from my analysis of Gen 1:2.  Thanks.

1 hour ago, ChristB4us said:

God creating the heavens and the earth but something greater than God destroyed everything and made it a wasteland for why God had to restore it.

So you think I believe that "something greater" than God destroyed His work??  It's being destroyed NOW.  And nothing is greater than God.

So that means He has permitted all that occurs, minus all the things that He causes directly.  Why is it so hard to believe that God allowed whatever to destroy His earth?

Do you not accept God's permissive will?

1 hour ago, ChristB4us said:

OR God destroyed that pristine creation & did not care to say why.

Sure have a lot of assumptions up your sleeve.  Why do you judge God by saying He doesn't care just because He didn't give details?

1 hour ago, ChristB4us said:

Either way, death came into the reality of the heavens and the earth before Adam for why Adam cannot be blamed for the fall of creation along with the fall of man.

This statement supports my view.  Are  you asking or making a point?

1 hour ago, ChristB4us said:

  I mean, if there was death and destruction in the world before Genesis 1:2, then who is to say Adam's sin was responsible for everything then how can we take stock in His words for when by Jesus Christ, everything will be renewed and never perish away?

The Bible does NOT say that Adam was responsible for "everything" then anyway.  We know from Gen 3 that ultimate responsibility was placed on the devil.  And He sinned way before Adam did.  Isa 14:12-14 and Ezek 28:1-15.

1 hour ago, ChristB4us said:

OR there is no unknown between Genesis 1:1 & Genesis 1:2 because Genesis 1:1 is the topic sentence whereas the following verses was about how God did that in verse 1 as in that paragraph which ended that topic for how He did it in Genesis 2:1-3

I've already EASILY explained that the whole point of Genesis 1 is about God's restoration of the planet, making it habitable for humankind.

So you still don't have a refutation against my view.

Again, are you a YEC or OEC?  It's hard to keep everyone straight.

If a YEC, then explain how Gen 1 as a restoration changes anything anyway?

If an OEC, then explain ANY other NON evolution reason for it.

Thanks.

[ChristB4us]

17 hours ago, BeyondET said:

The Bible is silent on marine fossils, so it's only a theory. 

Marine fossils are not formed by rising waters actually marine life thrives in water no matter how deep or if its covering mountains. Like in the Atlantic ocean, there is no fish dying because of a underwater mountain. That's simply grand speculation.

Fossilized is a different process that forms a fossil and very very few animals get fossilized.

Whales are mentioned before the Flood and they are around today and they were not on the ark let's here your explanation?

Seeing how the earth & the sea that was all in one place is different than it was after the flood, I doubt we cannot see God's sovereignty in preserving marine life outside of the ark since it was all living things that breathe air was at risk of being drowned; not marine life.

Fossils are formed by layers of sediment upon the dead and the whale bones and the marine life found buried together with land animal fossils is why this was at the time of the Biblical global flood as they were found together in one smooth gradient.

And fossils found inland and not just the mountaintops all over the world, ought to tell you something.

Jesus confirmed the Biblical flood in Luke 17:26-37 & Peter did too in 2 Peter 3rd chapter starting from verse 5.

Thanks to Jesus, I see evidence of the Biblical global flood.  The devil may use that false science to fool people not to see the global Biblical flood and thus not to see God's coming judgment of fire on the earth, but it will not stop Him from doing so.

[ChristB4us]

5 hours ago, teddyv said:

There is no direct Biblical support for this. Any notion of the Pangaea supercontinent was derived from geological sources. Inferring the days of Peleg as the time the continents boke up is barely tenuous without additional context. The thermodynamics issues alone however render this supposition completely unreasonable.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Then the days of Peleg.

Quote

Fantasy.

I asked before - what cities dropped into the Atlantic? What evidence is there of this?

Well I had come across an article twice in my life about having found structures and buildings underwater off the coasts of Northeast Africa and another one further north and a vague recollection of one stemming as if there was a roadway from the Rock of Gibraltar to this supposed fabled land, but the internet search engine is failing me at the moment.

Even some links come up with "Hmmm… can't reach this page"

My folks' computer is compromised and it may be that the hackers are messing with me right now, but there are other such findings off of the shores of Cuba, India, Japan, & China.  I cannot help you now.  Sorry.

Quote

All this water is tied up in a mineral structure. There is no literal ocean of free-flowing water in the mantle.

Who says this?

You are right, but such water would have to be weighed down with minerals to sink into the earth with all of that deluge from the run-offs.

Just how they word those articles is how I am referring to them.

[ChristB4us]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Again, are you a YEC or OEC?  It's hard to keep everyone straight.

If a YEC, then explain how Gen 1 as a restoration changes anything anyway?

If an OEC, then explain ANY other NON evolution reason for it.

Thanks.

YEC and you are reading Genesis wrong, but only God can show that to you.

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

YEC and you are reading Genesis wrong, but only God can show that to you.

Then, since you claim the earth is young, please explain WHY God would create an earth with APPARENT AGE, since it is obvious just observing the whole universe that it appears to be quite old.  And scientists don't use Darwin's theory to come up with an old earth.  It was being measured WAY before Darwin wrote his stupid tome.

[LiveWire]

5 hours ago, teddyv said:

No, I do not "even know that". Do not misrepresent me. 

Just saying there is not evidence is wrong - because we can both go and walk over the ground, look at the rocks and fossils. There is evidence, but the interpretation is what is where the difference lies.  No one proved a theory - you cannot do that. They used the evidence at hand to create an explanatory framework for why the earth looks the way it does in that particular area.

You are free to believe that the Flood did it, but the burden is upon you to support that hypothesis (the Biblical narrative). 

Why should the Bible stand up to Science?

Who created who?

[LiveWire]

9 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Then, since you claim the earth is young, please explain WHY God would create an earth with APPARENT AGE, since it is obvious just observing the whole universe that it appears to be quite old.  And scientists don't use Darwin's theory to come up with an old earth.  It was being measured WAY before Darwin wrote his stupid tome.

Sin has aged it.

If Sin did not exist, it might look like it did the Day it was Spoken into Existence.

[BeyondET]

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

I just had to quote your brilliant typo of subduction zones as seduction zones. I think I'm going to use that in the future. It doubly works as a pun as mountain building areas are termed orogenous zones <nudge, nudge, wink, wink>.

 

I know I left it like that for spirit testing, you got a humorous spirit 👍 

Edited June 15, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

4 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

Seeing how the earth & the sea that was all in one place is different than it was after the flood, I doubt we cannot see God's sovereignty in preserving marine life outside of the ark since it was all living things that breathe air was at risk of being drowned; not marine life.

Fossils are formed by layers of sediment upon the dead and the whale bones and the marine life found buried together with land animal fossils is why this was at the time of the Biblical global flood as they were found together in one smooth gradient.

And fossils found inland and not just the mountaintops all over the world, ought to tell you something.

Jesus confirmed the Biblical flood in Luke 17:26-37 & Peter did too in 2 Peter 3rd chapter starting from verse 5.

Thanks to Jesus, I see evidence of the Biblical global flood.  The devil may use that false science to fool people not to see the global Biblical flood and thus not to see God's coming judgment of fire on the earth, but it will not stop Him from doing so.

Did God create all new air breathing marine life after the flood?

There's afew air breathing mammals in the ocean, whales being the largest.

Edited June 15, 2023 by BeyondET

[teddyv]

3 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Then the days of Peleg.

If you are going to be that literal, then you have to assume Jesus is a gate.

3 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

Well I had come across an article twice in my life about having found structures and buildings underwater off the coasts of Northeast Africa and another one further north and a vague recollection of one stemming as if there was a roadway from the Rock of Gibraltar to this supposed fabled land, but the internet search engine is failing me at the moment.

Even some links come up with "Hmmm… can't reach this page"

My folks' computer is compromised and it may be that the hackers are messing with me right now, but there are other such findings off of the shores of Cuba, India, Japan, & China.  I cannot help you now.  Sorry.

That's the Mediterranean, not the Atlantic. Yes, several cities have been found in the Med, ending up there due to earthquake and/or tsunami. But they are just offshore and not very deep.

3 hours ago, ChristB4us said:

You are right, but such water would have to be weighed down with minerals to sink into the earth with all of that deluge from the run-offs.

Just how they word those articles is how I am referring to them.

I am guessing you may have read a science press article. Those headlines are usually poorly written much like most headlines today. The water is bound up in the mineral structure. It does not weigh it down.