nebula Posted February 11, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 11, 2004 To suggest that the flood was local conflicts with other Genesis verses. Well, considering that back then no one, as far as we know, had a concept of the Earth as a planet (as we know it now). To say "the entire world" to us means "the entire planet." But to Noah, what do you suppose "the entire world" meant? By no one, do you mean human or God? Genesis states that all life that needed dry land to survive was destroyed. Gen (6:7 and 6:17) It didn't matter what Noah thought, but It might have mattered what Moses thought, after all, he wrote Genesis. Well, did Moses have any more of a concept of the Earth as a planet, either? Anyway, I looked up these two passages for the word "earth" in an on-line Hebrew Lexicon and found this: Gen. 6:7 - "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fovezer Posted February 11, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2004 the fifty generations tracing to a common ancestor is true not just for certain people, but for all people on the planet. i'm not sure how many people have been studied to come to that conclusion, but it is a widely accepted theory, at the very least, among the experts in the fields of genetics and social anthropology. This could be true. You want to know what that "common ancestor" was? Drumroll, please. It was an ape-like ancestor from which we evolved. fovezer, you're in the minority here. you may be athiest, but you are on a christian site, and Christians believe the Bible to be fact. perhaps you'd do better presenting your arguments as theories rather than facts? ..... noah built a darn huge boat. Yes, I understand that. But not all Christians take the Bible, especially Genesis, as literal. That is where you are the minority. Please, show how Noah could have built a boat that big out of wood. nebula, I agree, the Bible was probably simply refering to a local flood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 skidd, i found an article that may be of interest to you. i found it rather enlightening. biological concept of racial differences has no scientific basis the actual title of the article is "Genetic code doesn't reveal race distinctions" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fovezer Posted February 11, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2004 skidd, i found an article that may be of interest to you. i found it rather enlightening. biological concept of racial differences has no scientific basis the actual title of the article is "Genetic code doesn't reveal race distinctions" Lets quote this article, shall we? "We all evolved out of the same three or four groups in Africa, as black Africans,'' he said. With migrations, he said, groups began to form and stabilize over time, and slight differences began to emerge. Instead, it is probably linked to subtle physiological characteristics that have been acquired over the course of evolution -- and may have concentrated in specific populations adapted to different environments. I don't see what you are trying to show that supports creationism here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 you're confusing the threads fovezer. this one deals with evolution of the human race after the great flood, not with the creation of the earth. this is one of many articles that can be found on the relatedness of the human race. i found it interesting. skidd might also. the three or four groups out of africa referred to in this article is the perspective of the author, and i do not know what her basis of reference was, nor will i try to guess. noah wasn't from africa, however, so that was obviously NOT her reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fovezer Posted February 11, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2004 you're confusing the threads fovezer. this one deals with evolution of the human race after the great flood, not with the creation of the earth. this is one of many articles that can be found on the relatedness of the human race. i found it interesting. skidd might also. the three or four groups out of africa referred to in this article is the perspective of the author, and i do not know what her basis of reference was, nor will i try to guess. noah wasn't from africa, however, so that was obviously NOT her reference. No, I'm not confusing threads. I guess I could have worded the last line better. I meant that it doesn't support your claims of how we all came from Noahs family, and the only peopl who accept Noah's flood as global ae creationists, that is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Obviously the Biblical account of the flood was not her reference. I am guessing the theory of evolution was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 ok, you continue guessing. meanwhile, i will still consider the article to be a very good explanation of the human genome, and how our dna has nothing to do with races. that's the reason i posted it, so it might be useful in answering some of skidd's curiousity about that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skidd2 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 this is one of many articles that can be found on the relatedness of the human race. My issue isn't really how the different races became different, but when. There is a large amount of evidence that people from different parts of the world have been different for a very long time. If I am to believe in a young Earth then some of these conflicts need to be resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 this is one of many articles that can be found on the relatedness of the human race. My issue isn't really how the different races became different, but when. There is a large amount of evidence that people from different parts of the world have been different for a very long time. If I am to believe in a young Earth then some of these conflicts need to be resolved. you can't separate the two though, skidd... in order to understand the timeline, one has to understand the way it occurrs. i do hope you'll read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skidd2 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Now, if the words which we translate as "earth" to the people of the time meant the land they inhabited, and God said He would destroy the whole earth, why wouldn't that term be the concept the people of the time had of it? If your theory is correct then another problem exists. God further stated that he would never do that again, and according to your theory, that means no more local flooding or major events that could wipe out the inhabitants of a region. since major tidal waves and monsoons have done just that, then I must accept that God doesn't keep his word, or accept that the flood was world wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts