Genesis 10:25 "in his days was the earth divided"

[George Antonios]

Please refer to both articles below and tell me how you would interpret Genesis 10:25. Thank you

In the Days of Peleg

Post-Deluge Earth’s Global Re-Population Record Re-Evaluated & Vindicated

 

[David Kent]

I don't hold to any timetables for secular chronology, including accepted dates. Anstey said there was no accurate chronology before when Alexander conquered Persia.
Anstey says the accepted Persian rule of about 200 years was far too long and conflicted with Persian and Hebrew records that gave it about 55 years.

I think the accepted time of the Judges is too long.

 

[37818]

God divided mankind by confounding the then one language into many for a purpose. Acts of the Apostles 17:26-27, ". . . And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: . . ."

 

[church mouse guy]

It is talking about the dispersion of people from Babel after the confounding of their language. This can be reconstructed to some extent by place names and individual names even today.

 

[agedman]

It is important to not get too caught up with articles such as the second one of the OP (Post-Deluge Earth’s Global Re-Population Record Re-Evaluated & Vindicated)

The source material is not listed and so much of the article must be taken as perhaps a fun read but held extremely unauthenticated until much further documentation can be added for either support or refutation.

The first article (In the Days of Peleg) does offer a nod to some source material, but do not take the footnotes as pointing to this material. So, unless one goes to the other articles to validate the source is in fact being mentioned accurately, then, as above, the article must be held extremely unauthenticated until much further documentation can be added for either support of refutation.

In my own opinion, establishing "dates" isn't very important. It doesn't change the chronological order of events as recorded in the Scriptures.

Too often folks have become "locked into" dating that from the early years of archeology were not accurate. But, because the dating was repeated in many articles and by many "authorities" they are taken as factual. The repetition when chased back to the original source is not nearly as supportable.

We ran into this when decades ago, students would be using the typical timeline given for the Exodus. It just didn't allow for matching up with known dates of the later conflicts with the Babylonians, Persians, Greece and Romans.

However, by shifting the exodus back few centuries to an earlier time (as some more modern accounts now are beginning to accept) the alignments find total agreement, and the artifacts are more accurately depicting the appropriate dating.

So, "dating" isn't really all that important to me. I don't put great need into proving by dates something happened, but do make certain that that which is recorded in Scriptures actually took place as described in the Scriptures.

 

[church mouse guy]

It is important to not get too caught up with articles such as the second one of the OP (Post-Deluge Earth’s Global Re-Population Record Re-Evaluated & Vindicated)

The source material is not listed and so much of the article must be taken as perhaps a fun read but held extremely unauthenticated until much further documentation can be added for either support or refutation.

The first article (In the Days of Peleg) does offer a nod to some source material, but do not take the footnotes as pointing to this material. So, unless one goes to the other articles to validate the source is in fact being mentioned accurately, then, as above, the article must be held extremely unauthenticated until much further documentation can be added for either support of refutation.

In my own opinion, establishing "dates" isn't very important. It doesn't change the chronological order of events as recorded in the Scriptures.

Too often folks have become "locked into" dating that from the early years of archeology were not accurate. But, because the dating was repeated in many articles and by many "authorities" they are taken as factual. The repetition when chased back to the original source is not nearly as supportable.

We ran into this when decades ago, students would be using the typical timeline given for the Exodus. It just didn't allow for matching up with known dates of the later conflicts with the Babylonians, Persians, Greece and Romans.

However, by shifting the exodus back few centuries to an earlier time (as some more modern accounts now are beginning to accept) the alignments find total agreement, and the artifacts are more accurately depicting the appropriate dating.

So, "dating" isn't really all that important to me. I don't put great need into proving by dates something happened, but do make certain that that which is recorded in Scriptures actually took place as described in the Scriptures.

Very interesting! Indeed, there is a serious problem with Egyptian dating and placing the Hittites in history, as you know.

 

[Alan Gross]

Philip Mauro
Wonders of Bible Chronology - from the Creation of Adam to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Is a classic.

He gives the Bible Time line, as God has Provided it.

He purposely ignores and then obliterates the man produced timeliness.


https://www.amazon.com/Wonders-Bible-Chronology-Creation-Resurrection/dp/0873770609

I need to order this, myself, BTW.

It isn't available online, in pdf, or on a web page, etc., that I have ever found. (It was at one time and they scrubbed it).

...
This is Gill with a date for Peleg's birth relative to the Flood.

for in his days was the earth divided;
among the three sons of Noah, and their respective posterities; their language was divided, and that obliged them to divide and separate in bodies which understood one another; hence that age, in which was this event, was usually called by the Jews the age of division; whether this was done about the time of his birth, and so this name was given him to perpetuate the memory of it, or in some after part of his life, and so was given by a spirit of prophecy, is a question: Josephus, Jarchi, and the Jewish writers, generally go the latter way; if it was at the time of his birth, which is the sense of many, then this affair happened in the one hundred and first year after the flood, for in that year Peleg was born, as appears from ( Genesis 11:11-16 )

 

[church mouse guy]

Philip Mauro
Wonders of Bible Chronology - from the Creation of Adam to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Is a classic.

He gives the Bible Time line, as God has Provided it.

He purposely ignores and then obliterates the man produced timeliness.


https://www.amazon.com/Wonders-Bible-Chronology-Creation-Resurrection/dp/0873770609

I need to order this, myself, BTW.

It isn't available online, in pdf, or on a web page, etc., that I have ever found. (It was at one time and they scrubbed it).

...
This is Gill with a date for Peleg's birth relative to the Flood.

for in his days was the earth divided;
among the three sons of Noah, and their respective posterities; their language was divided, and that obliged them to divide and separate in bodies which understood one another; hence that age, in which was this event, was usually called by the Jews the age of division; whether this was done about the time of his birth, and so this name was given him to perpetuate the memory of it, or in some after part of his life, and so was given by a spirit of prophecy, is a question: Josephus, Jarchi, and the Jewish writers, generally go the latter way; if it was at the time of his birth, which is the sense of many, then this affair happened in the one hundred and first year after the flood, for in that year Peleg was born, as appears from ( Genesis 11:11-16 )

The Noachian Flood is considered 4300 years ago, followed by an Ice Age of 700 years. Told to disperse, men instead clustered at the Tower of Babel and Nimrod arose. Personally, I see this as a sign of the total depravity of the human heart to so disregard the great testimony of Noah.

 

[George Antonios]

So, I'm sorry but maybe my OP was not specific. I meant to hear your thoughts on whether the earth had been one continent which was divided during or just after the flood. Thank you.

 

[church mouse guy]

So, I'm sorry but maybe my OP was not specific. I meant to hear your thoughts on whether the earth had been one continent which was divided during or just after the flood. Thank you.

Very interesting question!

Oh, the earth was broken up into 7 continents during the Noachian Flood. The leading Christian scientist on this issue is Dr. John Baumgardner. The issue is called plate tectonics. Yes, the earth was one continent but men were so evil that not only were all of them drowned except Noah, his wife, their three sons and the sons' wives, but the earth had to be broken up, which so destroyed the original agriculture that God allowed people to eat meat after the flood. Nothing of Noah's old world is left. Noah's world was Adam's world outside of the Garden of Eden after the curse that Adam's sin caused. That world was destroyed by the flood so that we have no trace of anything before the flood except what Noah brought on the Ark--the plants and animals and the books of history of the world before Noah. Sin has had a catastrophic effect upon the universe and sin is so terrible that eventually the universe will have to be destroyed by fire as water was just a forerunner of the destruction to come by fire.

Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood - creation.com

 

[agedman]

So, I'm sorry but maybe my OP was not specific. I meant to hear your thoughts on whether the earth had been one continent which was divided during or just after the flood. Thank you.

That is an excellent question.

Because of the way a relatively minor earthquake in comparison to whole continental shifting does create huge tsunamis, I have always been skeptical of the whole scheme of some sudden massive continental changes.

The presentation of anyone surviving such (even in the ark) would be as fanciful as Noah surfing, and the time previous and after Noah give no answer.

I’d rather consider (without support) that the Noah flood, and the breaking up of “fountains of the deep” caused land to sink and push up other land.

So much is all a huge amount of conjecture based upon preconceptions and presentations of error and failure that I really hold nearly all as a vapor unless there is Biblical support.

 

[church mouse guy]

That is an excellent question.

Because of the way a relatively minor earthquake in comparison to whole continental shifting does create huge tsunamis, I have always been skeptical of the whole scheme of some sudden massive continental changes.

The presentation of anyone surviving such (even in the ark) would be as fanciful as Noah surfing, and the time previous and after Noah give no answer.

I’d rather consider (without support) that the Noah flood, and the breaking up of “fountains of the deep” caused land to sink and push up other land.

So much is all a huge amount of conjecture based upon preconceptions and presentations of error and failure that I really hold nearly all as a vapor unless there is Biblical support.

The Ark was very well built as Noah was no caveman. We know the upheaval was great because when great lake sized waters left from the flood broke loose, they quickly carved out the Grand Canyon showing a mile deep pile of sediment from the flood--sediment that contains the fossilized remains of the trillions of animals killed by the flood.

Earthquakes, the fountains of the deep, volcanoes, the crust breaking into plates that were flying around at 40 mph and crashing into each other to form the high mountains along the coasts--all this and more point to a very violent flood.

 

[agedman]

The Ark was very well built as Noah was no caveman. We know the upheaval was great because when great lake sized waters left from the flood broke loose, they quickly carved out the Grand Canyon showing a mile deep pile of sediment from the flood--sediment that contains the fossilized remains of the trillions of animals killed by the flood.

Earthquakes, the fountains of the deep, volcanoes, the crust breaking into plates that were flying around at 40 mph and crashing into each other to form the high mountains along the coasts--all this and more point to a very violent flood.

Nope. The plates show no such evidence of horizontal shifting that would cause massive amounts of mantle to be exposed causing greater sulfuric changes in the atmosphere. Noah couldn’t have survived in such atmosphere. Just can’t have happened that way.

More likely the earth crust collapsing upon itself and what didn’t left the great caverns scattered about the world.

But such thinking (both yours and mine) have no Biblical cause, and geological evidence from the Grand Canyon does more support the multiple tsunamis. This would present better for survival of both the ark considering the lack of “seatbelts.”

The fossil evidence at the canyon is actually upside down.

Smaller fossils at the bottom layers and ever larger larger creatures as one ascends toward the top.

 

[church mouse guy]

Nope. The plates show no such evidence of horizontal shifting that would cause massive amounts of mantle to be exposed causing greater sulfuric changes in the atmosphere. Noah couldn’t have survived in such atmosphere. Just can’t have happened that way.

More likely the earth crust collapsing upon itself and what didn’t left the great caverns scattered about the world.

But such thinking (both yours and mine) have no Biblical cause, and geological evidence from the Grand Canyon does more support the multiple tsunamis. This would present better for survival of both the ark considering the lack of “seatbelts.”

The fossil evidence at the canyon is actually upside down.

Smaller fossils at the bottom layers and ever larger larger creatures as one ascends toward the top.

The layering of fossils supports the Genesis Flood because little things drown first. Big things climb up and hold their heads above water longer. Even secular geologists are admitting the geological evidence points to a great lake of water running off to form the Grand Canyon. As for the plates of the earth, Baumgardner worked at Los Alamos and his discoveries might have been ignored but they are not refuted. Read him for yourself. God dictated the size of the Ark and the shape conforms with other vessels of the ancient world after the flood. Remember, much technology was lost when Rome was destroyed by Vandals but a few Roman buildings still stand.

Darwin has been proven to be scientifically false and secularists have given up on Darwin as mathematically impossible. If DNA is made up of 20 amino acids arranged just so in strands of 250 molecules, then the math is 20 to the 250th power or 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 until you get to the 250th time. Computers can't hold the numbers of all the different DNAs in the world.

 

[David Kent]

Philip Mauro
Wonders of Bible Chronology - from the Creation of Adam to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Is a classic.

He gives the Bible Time line, as God has Provided it.

He purposely ignores and then obliterates the man produced timeliness.


https://www.amazon.com/Wonders-Bible-Chronology-Creation-Resurrection/dp/0873770609

I need to order this, myself, BTW.

It isn't available online, in pdf, or on a web page, etc., that I have ever found. (It was at one time and they scrubbed it).

...
This is Gill with a date for Peleg's birth relative to the Flood.

for in his days was the earth divided;
among the three sons of Noah, and their respective posterities; their language was divided, and that obliged them to divide and separate in bodies which understood one another; hence that age, in which was this event, was usually called by the Jews the age of division; whether this was done about the time of his birth, and so this name was given him to perpetuate the memory of it, or in some after part of his life, and so was given by a spirit of prophecy, is a question: Josephus, Jarchi, and the Jewish writers, generally go the latter way; if it was at the time of his birth, which is the sense of many, then this affair happened in the one hundred and first year after the flood, for in that year Peleg was born, as appears from ( Genesis 11:11-16 )

Yes this is a great book. I can't rememeber if I read it online or from the Evangelical Library in London. It was based on Martin Anstey's The Romance of Bible Chronology, which I did read at that Library. It is in two volumes one with text and the other with charts. I found it a bit difficult as the charts seemed to differ from from the text, unless I misunderstood something.

It is online here Martin Anstey : The Romance of Bible Chronology (1913) Free Online Books @ PreteristArchive.com, The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism and Preterist Eschatology

I disagree with him on the length of the time of the judges and the the period of Joshua and possibly on the length of the time of the elders that outlived Joshua.

 

[agedman]

The layering of fossils supports the Genesis Flood because little things drown first. Big things climb up and hold their heads above water longer. Even secular geologists are admitting the geological evidence points to a great lake of water running off to form the Grand Canyon. As for the plates of the earth, Baumgardner worked at Los Alamos and his discoveries might have been ignored but they are not refuted. Read him for yourself. God dictated the size of the Ark and the shape conforms with other vessels of the ancient world after the flood. Remember, much technology was lost when Rome was destroyed by Vandals but a few Roman buildings still stand.

Darwin has been proven to be scientifically false and secularists have given up on Darwin as mathematically impossible. If DNA is made up of 20 amino acids arranged just so in strands of 250 molecules, then the math is 20 to the 250th power or 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 until you get to the 250th time. Computers can't hold the numbers of all the different DNAs in the world.

I really don't disagree.

What I suggest is that both the atmospheric makeup, the temperature of the water, the insecure (lack of restraints) inside the ark, and other factors cannot allow for the complete horizontal movement of the earth plates such as some would ascribe.

The movement of the plates is nothing new, it has been around since the early maps showed certain formations. It is a natural assumption folks can make by merely looking at a modern map.

The construction of the arc could not have withstood the trip had the earth crust moved horizontally apart some 1600 miles (shortest distance across the Atlantic), India crashing north, Australia chasing south east, and Africa swinging south west. The very gravitational effects and sudden shifting of atmospheric pressures would have been far more than the arc could have withstood at a molecular level, much less the unrestrained occupants.

The huge amounts of exposed magma would have caused the seas would boil and would have not only wiped out all sea creatures, but dumped enough sulfur into the air as to suffocate all inside the ark. This is shown when St. Helens erupted and the lake began to boil and steam seconds before the eruption, with the sulfur PPM raising significantly. One cannot imagine how the exposure of vast miles of magma would have quickly turned the oceans to boil.

I am not discounting that earth changes were made as a result of the flood.
I am not discounting that the results of the world wide flood are not still evident.
But, I do doubt that vast continental shifting took place.

What is possible, is not so much a shifting, but an enlargement took place.

That is as the "fountains of the deep" broke down, the circumference of the world was increased as the weight of the water was redistributed and even pressures were exerted upon the land by the weight of the water. It is even possible that such formed the great "fault lines" of the earth. That the weight of the water cracked the earth crust as the mantle's magma sought relief.

But, again, these matters are all speculative, and subject to the fanciful imaginations that better fit science fiction than Biblical foundation.

 

[church mouse guy]

I really don't disagree.

What I suggest is that both the atmospheric makeup, the temperature of the water, the insecure (lack of restraints) inside the ark, and other factors cannot allow for the complete horizontal movement of the earth plates such as some would ascribe.

The movement of the plates is nothing new, it has been around since the early maps showed certain formations. It is a natural assumption folks can make by merely looking at a modern map.

The construction of the arc could not have withstood the trip had the earth crust moved horizontally apart some 1600 miles (shortest distance across the Atlantic), India crashing north, Australia chasing south east, and Africa swinging south west. The very gravitational effects and sudden shifting of atmospheric pressures would have been far more than the arc could have withstood at a molecular level, much less the unrestrained occupants.

The huge amounts of exposed magma would have caused the seas would boil and would have not only wiped out all sea creatures, but dumped enough sulfur into the air as to suffocate all inside the ark. This is shown when St. Helens erupted and the lake began to boil and steam seconds before the eruption, with the sulfur PPM raising significantly. One cannot imagine how the exposure of vast miles of magma would have quickly turned the oceans to boil.

I am not discounting that earth changes were made as a result of the flood.
I am not discounting that the results of the world wide flood are not still evident.
But, I do doubt that vast continental shifting took place.

What is possible, is not so much a shifting, but an enlargement took place.

That is as the "fountains of the deep" broke down, the circumference of the world was increased as the weight of the water was redistributed and even pressures were exerted upon the land by the weight of the water. It is even possible that such formed the great "fault lines" of the earth. That the weight of the water cracked the earth crust as the mantle's magma sought relief.

But, again, these matters are all speculative, and subject to the fanciful imaginations that better fit science fiction than Biblical foundation.

Here is John Baumgardner's opening paragraph:

"Any serious model for the Genesis Flood must account for the massive tectonic changes evident in the geological record since the point in that record where metazoan fossils first appear. These tectonic changes include the complete replacement of the world’s ocean lithosphere, lateral displacements of continents by thousands of kilometres, significant vertical motions of the continental surfaces to allow deposition of thick and laterally extensive sediment sequences, and large local increases in crustal thickness to generate today’s high mountain ranges. Without a mechanism that can account for these major tectonic changes in a logical and consistent manner, any claims about understanding, much less modelling, the Flood cataclysm are hollow at best. The correct mechanism, on the other hand, will provide a framework into which the vast accumulation of detailed geological observations can be understood in a unified, coherent, and comprehensive manner. A major claim of this paper is that the mechanism of catastrophic plate tectonics, enabled by runaway subduction of negatively buoyant ocean lithosphere into the Earth’s mantle, does account for the main tectonic changes associated with the Flood and provides the best candidate framework currently available for integrating and understanding the vast store of geological observational data."

Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood - creation.com

There were volcanic eruptions because the smoke and dust kept the summers cool and allowed the winters do be cold enough that the Ice Age began at the end of the flood and built up for 500 years and then took 200 years to recede to today's ice cap geography. The ocean was thought to be about 86 degrees at the poles, hardly the boiling point that you are talking about since the flood left the earth about 70% water as it is today still.

Now you are questioning the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark. Based on the royal cubit, the Ark Encounter is 510 feet long, 51 feet high, and 85 feet wide. It had 3 decks inside and God commanded that the door be on the side: Genesis 6:16 (KJV) A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it.

Now Noah was a great man. Not only was he a ship-builder of a very, very large ship, but he also had to have been a naval engineer. For a discussion of naval architecture, began looking at this video at the 12:45 mark, about half way:

How Could Noah’s Ark Survive the Storm?

 

[agedman]

Here is John Baumgardner's opening paragraph:

"Any serious model for the Genesis Flood must account for the massive tectonic changes evident in the geological record since the point in that record where metazoan fossils first appear. These tectonic changes include the complete replacement of the world’s ocean lithosphere, lateral displacements of continents by thousands of kilometres, significant vertical motions of the continental surfaces to allow deposition of thick and laterally extensive sediment sequences, and large local increases in crustal thickness to generate today’s high mountain ranges. Without a mechanism that can account for these major tectonic changes in a logical and consistent manner, any claims about understanding, much less modelling, the Flood cataclysm are hollow at best. The correct mechanism, on the other hand, will provide a framework into which the vast accumulation of detailed geological observations can be understood in a unified, coherent, and comprehensive manner. A major claim of this paper is that the mechanism of catastrophic plate tectonics, enabled by runaway subduction of negatively buoyant ocean lithosphere into the Earth’s mantle, does account for the main tectonic changes associated with the Flood and provides the best candidate framework currently available for integrating and understanding the vast store of geological observational data."

Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood - creation.com

"Any serious model for the Genesis Flood" is and must be viewed with a great amount of speculation.

I have lived long enough to see "proof" disappear in the face of research, and opinions of major scientific folks radically change.

So, though we may disagree, it is more important that one also not "lock" into a specific view thinking that all is resolved. It is not.

"Major tectonic changes" did NOT have to occur at the time of the flood. That is a fact.

The changes could just as well have happened at the creation when God caused the land to appear by setting the boundaries of water.

There were volcanic eruptions because the smoke and dust kept the summers cool and allowed the winters do be cold enough that the Ice Age began at the end of the flood and built up for 500 years and then took 200 years to recede to today's ice cap geography. The ocean was thought to be about 86 degrees at the poles, hardly the boiling point that you are talking about since the flood left the earth about 70% water as it is today still.

You can't have it both ways.
Volcanologists know that one of the signs of an pending eruption is the local water temperature and often content changing.
If the North and South American continent, the African continent, India, Australia, and not to mention the Philippines and Antartica all shifted "thousands of kilometers" it would not have allowed the oceans to be merely a warm 85 degrees. That just is not feasible.

Beside, such activity would not have allowed the earth to replenish the growth as proven by Noah sending out birds in such a short time. Again, such is proof that the Teutonic plate shifting scheme may certainly be questioned.

Now you are questioning the seaworthiness of Noah's Ark. Based on the royal cubit, the Ark Encounter is 510 feet long, 51 feet high, and 85 feet wide. It had 3 decks inside and God commanded that the door be on the side: Genesis 6:16 (KJV) A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it.

Now Noah was a great man. Not only was he a ship-builder of a very, very large ship, but he also had to have been a naval engineer. For a discussion of naval architecture, began looking at this video at the 12:45 mark, about half way:

How Could Noah’s Ark Survive the Storm?

Ok, let's get this straight.

1) I have no contest with the presentation of the Scriptures concerning the Ark, nor that God preserved as only God can.

2) I do know enough about wood to know that no building constructed to keep water out is capable of withstanding the enormous natural pressures the movement of Teutonic plates would have created. That is just fact. The modeling of the video does not compare to what violence such would have been.

3) The occupants in the Ark were not "strapped down." There were no seat belts, shoulder harness, or restraints. The violence created by Teutonic plate shifting would far exceed the ability of any life to survive on the ark. That has been completely validated by such tragedies as Nascar racers running into a solid wall at 130 MPH. Water is not forgiving, and even a minor tsunami displaces and causes havoc.

4) There is no account of wind along with rain at the time of the flood, but one does not have such upheaval as suggested in your post without tornadoes, and hurricane force winds. Having been through both, I can assure you that wooden structures no matter how well engineered cannot withstand such forces for 40 days.

Ok, I think by now you get the point.

All really I suppose you are encouraged to do is keep all things as pliable and speculative EXCEPT what is specifically related in the Scriptures. Don't conform your thinking without a healthy dose of continued speculation, because often doing so removes the thinking processes.

 

[church mouse guy]

"Any serious model for the Genesis Flood" is and must be viewed with a great amount of speculation.

I have lived long enough to see "proof" disappear in the face of research, and opinions of major scientific folks radically change.

So, though we may disagree, it is more important that one also not "lock" into a specific view thinking that all is resolved. It is not.

"Major tectonic changes" did NOT have to occur at the time of the flood. That is a fact.

The changes could just as well have happened at the creation when God caused the land to appear by setting the boundaries of water.


You can't have it both ways.
Volcanologists know that one of the signs of an pending eruption is the local water temperature and often content changing.
If the North and South American continent, the African continent, India, Australia, and not to mention the Philippines and Antartica all shifted "thousands of kilometers" it would not have allowed the oceans to be merely a warm 85 degrees. That just is not feasible.

Beside, such activity would not have allowed the earth to replenish the growth as proven by Noah sending out birds in such a short time. Again, such is proof that the Teutonic plate shifting scheme may certainly be questioned.



Ok, let's get this straight.

1) I have no contest with the presentation of the Scriptures concerning the Ark, nor that God preserved as only God can.

2) I do know enough about wood to know that no building constructed to keep water out is capable of withstanding the enormous natural pressures the movement of Teutonic plates would have created. That is just fact. The modeling of the video does not compare to what violence such would have been.

3) The occupants in the Ark were not "strapped down." There were no seat belts, shoulder harness, or restraints. The violence created by Teutonic plate shifting would far exceed the ability of any life to survive on the ark. That has been completely validated by such tragedies as Nascar racers running into a solid wall at 130 MPH. Water is not forgiving, and even a minor tsunami displaces and causes havoc.

4) There is no account of wind along with rain at the time of the flood, but one does not have such upheaval as suggested in your post without tornadoes, and hurricane force winds. Having been through both, I can assure you that wooden structures no matter how well engineered cannot withstand such forces for 40 days.

Ok, I think by now you get the point.

All really I suppose you are encouraged to do is keep all things as pliable and speculative EXCEPT what is specifically related in the Scriptures. Don't conform your thinking without a healthy dose of continued speculation, because often doing so removes the thinking processes.

I don't think that you looked at the video about shipbuilding. We know the oceans are young from the debris on the ocean floors and therefore the continents were created at the time of Noah's Flood. We know that the sedimentary deposits are actually the graveyard of the animals killed by the flood.

Baumgardner deals with the issue of temperature in the article linked twice above.

Are you an evolutionist? If so, science has disproven evolution. Are you a uniformitarianist? If so, the flood was a violent upheavel and not a peaceful overflow of some type. Do you believe in deep time? If so, the oceans are young. Finally, Genesis is an eyewitness account from God, Who was present at Creation.

 

[agedman]

I don't think that you looked at the video about shipbuilding. We know the oceans are young from the debris on the ocean floors and therefore the continents were created at the time of Noah's Flood. We know that the sedimentary deposits are actually the graveyard of the animals killed by the flood.

Baumgardner deals with the issue of temperature in the article linked twice above.

Are you an evolutionist? If so, science has disproven evolution. Are you a uniformitarianist? If so, the flood was a violent upheavel and not a peaceful overflow of some type. Do you believe in deep time? If so, the oceans are young. Finally, Genesis is an eyewitness account from God, Who was present at Creation.

The oceans existed prior to the present earth creation. Genesis 1:1 "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

This alone gives cause for me to question the validity of the presentation.

The oceans are not "young." Such thinking is inconsistent with the opening of the Scriptures.

Do not try to assume I am anything other than a Bible believer.

Like this business with "young" oceans. That just isn't consistent with Scriptures. The water covered the whole earth in Genesis 1:1 when the heavens and earth were created God had already established the earth covered by water prior to even the first demand for light.

Do you doubt the statements of the Genesis account in preference to something someone presents that may or may not be valid?

I am not saying that they may be right or wrong. I am posting that one should hold all matters with a healthy skepticism unless the presentation is validated in the Scripture statements.