Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[JesusKnowsYou]

Like that anything less does not match the text nor achieve
the claimed purpose.

Some reason to avoid the fact that there is
zero evidence of any huge calamity of any sort?

And..

What if the entire genesis story is a fairy tale?

In the event you illustrate well my
earlier observation that nobody knows
what any of it is supposed to mean.

"How would the writers know..."? So it is not
"God inspired". Like that is news.

They made it up.

Talk about a waste of time.

The idea that something "God inspired" should be considered inerrant is itself not true.

As soon as fallible Man becomes involved in the process of revealing truth - there will be error.

The Genesis account could be a complete fabrication, but you wouldn't want to know exactly what it was claiming before describing it thus?

I am just trying to avoid making the same assumptions made by ignorant people throughout the centuries.

I would advise you to stop making so many assumptions.

 

[Audie]

I need to say, as your friend, that you haven't been acting all that friendly toward me.

If I had friends you would not be one of them.
As for outmatched, I was not referring to you
v anyone here. Outmatched like snowballs v
a tank. Except for you dont have anything on
your side except a fairy tale book that nobody
can figure what it is supposed to mean.
"What if"

That kind of outmatched.

 

[shunyadragon]

What does the Genesis account mean what it says "earth"?

We, today, think of "earth" as "the Earth", our planet, however the two ancient Hebrew words that could be used to describe the word "earth" were references to "dry land".

Much like how Genesis 1:10 reads, "And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."

The word "Earth" in the Genesis account meant "dry land", not necessarily the planet.

Also, how could the writer of the Genesis account possibly determine that all living things on the planet were killed or that the entire planet was covered in water?

Wouldn't any of his claims about the devastation of the Flood be bound to his limited perspective? He could only describe what he could see.

Also, what if the Garden of Eden and all subsequent events up to the Flood happened on an island?

You need to make a lot of assumptions to come to the conclusion that it was a world Flood.

You failed to respond to the direct specific quote from the Bible. IF the world of God literally as you believe the earth is the earth. Not an opinion like yours or those that lived at the time of Noah as to what is the earth. You asked for a specific quote and I gave, and your wiggling and squirming will not get you out of it. If any mountains were covered it would be at minimum most of the world

You no longer need to wait . . .

Genesis:7:17 the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

The mountains were ALL covered and all living things on the land were killed by the flood. Biblically it was a world flood.

Who is; 'We all get it.'

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

If I had friends you would not be one of them.

You said I was your friend though.

Why don't you have any friends? Do you smell funny?

As for outmatched, I was not referring to you v anyone here. Outmatched like snowballs v a tank. Except for you dont have anything on
your side except a fairy tale book that nobody can figure what it is supposed to mean."What if"

That kind of outmatched.

The only one claiming that there needs to be any conflict is you.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You failed to respond to the direct specific quote from the Bible. IF the world of God literally as you believe the earth is the earth. Not an opinion like yours or those that lived at the time of Noah as to what is the earth. You asked for a specific quote and I gave, and your wiggling and squirming will not get you out of it. If any mountains were covered it would be at minimum most of the world

You no longer need to wait . . .

Genesis:7:17 the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

The mountains were ALL covered and all living things on the land were killed by the flood. Biblically it was a world flood.

Who is; 'We all get it.'

Yet the Genesis account also claims that the waters only reached fifteen cubits high. That's roughly 23-26 feet.

You believe that was tall enough to cover all the mountains?

 

[Audie]

Yet the Genesis account also claims that the waters only reached fifteen cubits high. That's roughly 23-26 feet.

You believe that was tall enough to cover all the mountains?

No it says the highest hills were that far under.
Tty reading your book.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet the Genesis account also claims that the waters only reached fifteen cubits high. That's roughly 23-26 feet.

You believe that was tall enough to cover all the mountains?

The distance was 15 cubits higher than the high hills covering the mountains, and NOT 15 cubits high. The text is very very clear the water covered the mountains.

 

[shunyadragon]

You said I was your friend though.

Why don't you have any friends? Do you smell funny?

The only one claiming that there needs to be any conflict is you.

Insults do not represent a coherent response.

 

[ecco]

You need to make a lot of assumptions to come to the conclusion that it was a world Flood.

You need to make a lot more assumptions to believe any of Genesis is real. But that doesn't stop you.

 

[ecco]

It is possible that that was what the Genesis account records, but it is hardly "clear".

This would be your interpretation.

Interpretation?

17And the flood was forty days on the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly on the earth; and the ark went on the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21And all flesh died that moved on the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man: 22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23And every living substance was destroyed which was on the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24And the waters prevailed on the earth an hundred and fifty days.​

What does "the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered" mean to you? Do you really need an interpreter?

What does "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died" mean to you? Do you really need an interpreter?


A ten-year-old knows what those passages mean. Someone with a Masters in Language Arts knows what those passages mean. The only people who must pretend to not know what those passages mean are people who engage in mental gymnastics to try to resolve the nonsense of Genesis with their deeply ingrained religious beliefs.

I disagree.

Both science and Genesis could be wrong.

Science could be wrong and Genesis could be accurate.

Genesis could be wrong and science could be accurate.

"Multiple branches of science" have been wrong in the past, just as various interpretations of scripture have been wrong in the past.

Nonsense.

If the Genesis account is ambiguous in it's description of the Flood event, how could any of us determine that there is any conflict at all?

It isn't ambiguous. See above.

 

[ecco]

I am just trying to avoid making the same assumptions made by ignorant people throughout the centuries.

You aren't doing too well.

 

[ecco]

The only one claiming that there needs to be any conflict is you.

No, she isn't. You know that because you've been responding to my posts.

Why would you make a demonstrably false assertion?

 

[ecco]

Yet the Genesis account also claims that the waters only reached fifteen cubits high. That's roughly 23-26 feet.

You believe that was tall enough to cover all the mountains?

So now you are a proponent of a flat earth. No surprise there.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

No it says the highest hills were that far under.
Tty reading your book.

Let's read it together,

"And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:18-20)

Now when you read this you interpret it to mean that the "high hills" were lower than the fifteen cubits. That's why they were covered.

When I read this I interpreted that the fifteen cubits was referring to the height of the waters that covered the mountains.

I interpreted it this way because the one verse mentioned both the depth of the water and the fact that the mountains were covered.

Now, don't you see how two people reading the same account could come to different conclusions about the text?

How can we decide on how the Genesis account conflicts with current scientific findings if we cannot agree on what the Genesis account claims?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The distance was 15 cubits higher than the high hills covering the mountains, and NOT 15 cubits high. The text is very very clear the water covered the mountains.

Let's read it together,

"And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:18-20)

Now when you read this you interpret it to mean that the waters went up another fifteen cubits higher than the "high hills" and that caused the water to cover the mountains.

When I read this I interpreted that the fifteen cubits was referring to the entire height of the waters that covered the mountains.

I interpreted this as the account finally placing a measurement to the obscure references to the waters (which "prevailed exceedingly").

It claimed that the waters rose and rose (covering the "high hills") and then they finally rose to a level of fifteen cubits that covered the mountains.

Now, don't you see how two people reading the same account could come to different conclusions about the text?

How can we decide on how the Genesis account conflicts with current scientific findings if we cannot agree on what the Genesis account claims?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Insults do not represent a coherent response.

What insult?

@Audie claimed that she had no friends, not me.

I was merely asking why she didn't have any friends with a joke.

Lighten up.

 

[Audie]

Let's read it together,

"And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:18-20)

Now when you read this you interpret it to mean that the "high hills" were lower than the fifteen cubits. That's why they were covered.

When I read this I interpreted that the fifteen cubits was referring to the height of the waters that covered the mountains.

I interpreted it this way because the one verse mentioned both the depth of the water and the fact that the mountains were covered.

Now, don't you see how two people reading the same account could come to different conclusions about the text?

How can we decide on how the Genesis account conflicts with current scientific findings if we cannot agree on what the Genesis account claims?

As it is ectraordinarily unlikely that you would agree that
the flood is a myth your q is moot.

Also-I did not "come to a conclusion" about the
ambiguous account, mt v hill thing.

In the event, you are straining weevils to find a
distinction without a difference.

It still says the high ground went under water,
as it had to, to leave no dry ground; and the absurdity
just of trying to determine how far under water
the mt or hill is!

But those are trifles as no event matching any version
you can dream up actually happened.

 

[Audie]

Interpretation?

17And the flood was forty days on the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly on the earth; and the ark went on the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21And all flesh died that moved on the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man: 22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23And every living substance was destroyed which was on the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24And the waters prevailed on the earth an hundred and fifty days.​

What does "the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered" mean to you? Do you really need an interpreter?

What does "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died" mean to you? Do you really need an interpreter?


A ten-year-old knows what those passages mean. Someone with a Masters in Language Arts knows what those passages mean. The only people who must pretend to not know what those passages mean are people who engage in mental gymnastics to try to resolve the nonsense of Genesis with their deeply ingrained religious beliefs.




Nonsense.



It isn't ambiguous. See above.

When i said "ambiguous" i was referring to
tiny details not written to the standards of a legal
document.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's read it together,

"And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:18-20)

Now when you read this you interpret it to mean that the waters went up another fifteen cubits higher than the "high hills" and that caused the water to cover the mountains.

When I read this I interpreted that the fifteen cubits was referring to the entire height of the waters that covered the mountains.

I interpreted this as the account finally placing a measurement to the obscure references to the waters (which "prevailed exceedingly").

It claimed that the waters rose and rose (covering the "high hills") and then they finally rose to a level of fifteen cubits that covered the mountains.

Now, don't you see how two people reading the same account could come to different conclusions about the text?

How can we decide on how the Genesis account conflicts with current scientific findings if we cannot agree on what the Genesis account claims?

For purposes of this thread I do not interpret it beyond literally what is said: The rose higher than the high hills and covered the mountains, and all the life on the earth were killed..

You requested to cite what the Bible said concerning the world flood, and not how it can be interpreted.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You need to make a lot more assumptions to believe any of Genesis is real. But that doesn't stop you.

When did I say that anything in Genesis really happened?

What does "the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered" mean to you? Do you really need an interpreter?

That either the Genesis account was describing an old myth - without any firsthand knowledge of the events - or the witness of these events claimed to have seen certain mountains covered in water.

There is no possible way that any witness of these events could determine that all the mountains of the world were covered in water.

The only way anyone could claim that all the mountains on Earth were covered in water would be if either God Himself wrote the Genesis account or He later told someone that all the mountains had been covered in water.

Either way - it would take a divine source for someone to make such a claim - because they would have been unable to discern it for themselves.

Or it's just a story.

What does "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died" mean to you? Do you really need an interpreter?

That either the Genesis account was describing an old myth - without any firsthand knowledge of the events - or the witness of these events believed that this calamity was world wide.

There is no possible way that any witness of these events could determine that all life on dry land had been extinguished.

The only way anyone could claim that all life on Earth had been extinguished would be if either God Himself wrote the Genesis account or He later told someone that all life on dry land had been extinguished.

Either way - it would take a divine source for someone to make such a claim - because they would have been unable to discern it for themselves.

Or it's just a story.

A ten-year-old knows what those passages mean. Someone with a Masters in Language Arts knows what those passages mean. The only people who must pretend to not know what those passages mean are people who engage in mental gymnastics to try to resolve the nonsense of Genesis with their deeply ingrained religious beliefs.

Where did the events from the Fall of Adam to the building of the Ark occur?

Nonsense.

What did I share, exactly, do you consider to be "nonsense"?

It isn't ambiguous. See above.

Tell me where these events took place and maybe we could agree that it was not ambiguous.

You aren't doing too well.

How am I failing to avoid making assumptions by withholding judgment?

No, she isn't. You know that because you've been responding to my posts.

Why would you make a demonstrably false assertion?

I'm having one conversation with her and another with you.

In my conversation with her she is unequivocally stating that there is a conflict, while I do not believe there is enough information to make such a statement.

In my conversation with her - she is the only one claiming that there needs to be a conflict.

So now you are a proponent of a flat earth. No surprise there.

I am not a flat-earther and I don't understand why you would assume that I am one.

I also don't understand why you seem to be so angry about my unwillingness to jump to conclusions about the Genesis account.