-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Great Flood
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
That proves nothing considering my view Alcott.
My premise is that the world wide flood expanded the pre-flood bodies of water on the earth to expand into and include the oceans.
HankD
Actually הים is a pretty specific word that corresponds to the English "sea" as opposed to "ocean." A הים is a body of water bounded on at lease one side by land as opposed to ocean which is bounded by seas.
And in one,, and only one,, body of water bounded on at least one side by land?
As a possible source of H2O, consider the ice in comet tails and perturbations of Jupiter. There was enough water. Search for evidence of scratches on gopher wood in the mountains of Ararat--scratches made by human hands trying to find high ground--or get inside the ark.
God closed the door.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
God closed the door.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Consider the lilies of the field.
How does all of this conjecture spin in the paradigm of the earth may be flat?
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
How does all of this conjecture spin in the paradigm of the earth may be flat?
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Last edited:
I seldom answer irrational questions. There is no reason to add "one,, and only one,, body of water bounded on at least one side by land?"
Yes or No: Did all the fish in the sea live in one sea, and the aforementioned [by you] definition of sea?
"Sea," as with so many other words in English, is a collective noun. They all lived in the "sea" just as the non-aquatic animals lived on the "land," another singular, collective noun.
Is that not, in essence, the same thing I said above?
I don't have time to argue much at the moment, but in Genrsis 1:26 the word ,"sea," is singular, and in such use it means the oceans and waters accessible therefrom.
But you said,
"You are aware of the difference between an ocean and a sea, are you not?"
and
"Actually הים is a pretty specific word that corresponds to the English "sea" as opposed to "ocean." A הים is a body of water bounded on at lease one side by land as opposed to ocean which is bounded by seas."
You already know my Yes or No question-- which you did not answer with either.
As seas were all that existed prior to the flood, and as oceans were the result of the flood, your question presupposes something that did not exist. Go back and look at my post #7 to help understand my thinking on the subject.
"Presupposes?" Your statement presupposes the seas existed, but no ocean(s), even though "the sea" is a term used, and you indicate now it does not mean only one sea.
And a point I did not address earlier is your claim that the earth's surface was smooth, and high mountains-- though referred to as the flood waters rose-- did not exist before the flood. You cited Genesis 7:11, which says "...all the fountains of the great deep burst open..." as a fracturing causing the mountains-- apparently Ararat, too, which is more than 16,000 feet, and that's where the ark came to rest, even though the waters rose to about 45 feet above a smooth surface (according to you). That would mean, apparently, that the 'smooth' surface sunk roughly 29,000 feet, reducing the volume of the volume of the earth by about 3,157,709,762 cubic miles. Actually that checks reasonably well with with previously calculated 2.91 billion cubic miles of water... except there is no process that explains the mountains that were 'left' and that 'great canopy' of which you have written was not so great. And it would mean that the earth's crust was 'floating' on miles of water (more than 29,000 feet of it), instead of the crust and mantle floating on molten rock [ the inner and outer core] much deeper down.