Bible contradictions
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
From my understanding of several models of what might have happend, NDS, it was just a wind that coincided with the receding waters. It hellps to think from a simple observers standpoint.
On your other questions...I have no answer...I don't know everything on individual scriptures. And when it comes to meanings...I prefer to do my research first before I set out an explanation.
In Genesis it's not uncommon for one Chapter to surmize the previous chapter. The same that occurs with the infamous "double creation of man and woman."
The verse you stated merely leaves out the details but states the same order of events down to the 150 days. Combining the two reveals that a mere forty days or rain was not enough to cover the entire Earth nor would the flood waters remain for 5 months after the end of the rain. Therefore 7:17 seems to be saying the waters continued to rise...which would make more sense than the waters simply sitting and then draining at 150 days.
This is only my reasoning.
Tell me something Saquist, how did Moses know that the Mid-Oceanic Ridge was erupting (fountains of the deep) if he was recording the Genesis account from "a simple observer's standpoint"?
If Moses was recording the account from "a simple observer's standpoint" then he wouldn't have mentioned the mid-oceanic ridge opening up, which no simple observer could possibly observe. So your point has no basis.
If Moses was recording the account from "a simple observer's standpoint" then Genesis 7:11 would have read:
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day the waters of the great deep began increasing and and the windows of heaven were opened."
Instead, the verse reads:
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
So if Moses was writing about the flood from a simple observer's standpoint, how could he have known that the Mid-Oceanic Ridge was breaking up and exploding with magma and water?
*************
M*W: Now you're getting down to semantics. Whatever I express in my posts, I express them as to what I think is the truth. I did not lead you anywhere. You lead yourself there based on your perception. I don't make a habit of limiting my references so as to confuse anyone or make ambiguous statements.
When you can't find an intelligent response to my posts, you inanely argue the words. Furthermore, most of your posts don't make any sense, so I don't plan to waste anymore time because of your lack of understanding when I've spelled everything out for you.
Good-Bye
Obviously not, so I'll try one more time... the water rose for forty days - stated in Genesis.
The rain stopped and the water stopped rising - stated in Genesis.
Nowhere (except in your "interpretation") does it say the water continued to rise after the rain stopped.
It's actually not my conclusion. IAC has concluded that the "fountains of the great deep" was the mid oceanic ridge erupting.
What do you believe the "fountains of the great deep" were?
Also, I know you don't "know for sure" whether Psalms 104 was referring to the flood or creation, but can you give me your personal opinion on looking at it?
Let me rephrase:
Do you believe "fountains of the great deep" = The Mid Oceanic Ridge?
Come on, Saquist. That's lame. We are never going to actually know anything in terms of true interpretations of scripture. That's why there are many interpretations of it and religious sects. If interpretation of "scripture" was "knowable" then your "Genesis Account and Science" thread would have no point, would it?
Absolutely not.
I refer to scripture first before subscribing to interpretation. Sometimes I can correlate with another scripture appropriately to establish a prescedent before dreaming up an interpretation.
P.S We are talking about a piece of literature not a text book. As much as I hate to admit it. There are areas that can be interpreted. But mostly it's inappropriate to simply interpret a text without considering the Author's other statement on similar topics to establish a meaning.
Fully agreed. The "fountains of the deep" are not the Mid-Ocean ridge. IAC is ignorant and will never accept this reality though.
Psalms 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model (reminiscent of the Big Bang) (verse 2, parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5, parallel to Genesis 1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8, parallel to Genesis 1:9-10). The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: "You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (Psalms 104:9) Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local.
There are a number of figures of speech used in Psalms 104 that clearly refer to the original creation as opposed to the flood. The reference to the boundaries of the deep are a clear reference to the original creation (Proverbs 8:29, Psalms 33:6-7, Jeremiah 5:22, and Job 38:8-11). There are no references to "boundaries" in any of the flood references. A second figure of speech is the idea of the earth being covered by a garment, which is only found in the creation passages, and never in the flood passages (Proverbs 30:4, Job 38:9). In addition, there are no references to the maintains rising and the valleys sinking (Psalms 104:8) after the flood, although these events could be clearly linked to the setting of the boundaries of the sea as described in Genesis 1 and Job 38.
How much more research do you need? It's very clear that Psalms 104 is referring to creation, not the Noah flood.
So NDS, what were "the fountains of the great deep which broke open?"
Did you get that from the USGS?