forum.christogenea.org

The Flood Was World Wide

Many in the Israel Identity movement believe the Genesis story of the flood was a local event, and, not world wide. They contend that the flood only inundated the Adamic people within a specific region, and, that outside of that particular geographical locale the rest of the world was essentially undisturbed. Initially, when I first began reading Identity literature, I also assumed this must be the case, that the flood couldn't have been on a global scale, and, scoffed at the idea of it being otherwise. But, upon close re-examination of the Genesis account, and, carefully reading the text as objectively as possible, foregoing any previous preconceived notions concerning the issue, I contend that the flood must have been a global occurrence.

If you take the Biblical record at face value, the following verse should fairly well convince most that the flood was, indeed, worldwide, and, not merely a local event: "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die." [Genesis 6:17]. That's a fairly conclusive statement, leaving little room for doubt as to the extent of the flood. Again, in Genesis 7:4: "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

Now, I know, Biblical scholars and exegetists are going to take the word "earth" ("erets"- Hebrew) and turn it around and upside down, and, slice and dice it, and reinterpret it into saying that it means only the land in the particular geographical location of which the flood occurred. But, one must look at the preponderance of verses wherein Yahweh states that He is going to destroy "every living substance" upon the earth, not just once does He say this, but, repeatedly in various formulations He reiterates this, as if to emphasize that, indeed, this is to be a worldwide catastrophic global flood, and, not merely another regional flood, which have commonly occurred multiple times in different areas of our planet, year in and year out, since the dawn of creation.

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." [Genesis 7:19]. In this verse, the writer tells us as to how much of the earth was to be engulfed; that is, all the land that is "under the whole heaven" was to be covered. That is clearly designating a worldwide event. That verse leaves no room left for the advancement that Yahweh's flood was only a local event. You really have to go through some strenuous mental gymnastics to arrive at the opposite conclusion of that which is plainly spoken of in the Holy Writ. How about another verse? "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." [Genesis 7:21-22].

Come on, now! How many times does Yahweh have to reiterate that He wiped out every living thing upon the earth, all creatures, great and small; "all in whose nostrils was the breath of life"..."under the whole heaven..." These verses leave no doubt that the flood was a cataclysmic worldwide event. Furthermore, there is innumerable fossil evidence that the earth has been completely engulfed in the distant past. A global flood is not some preposterous idea that defies human imagination. One can still find fossils of sea life in remote areas of the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachians, clearly proving that the notion that the earth can be completely covered in water is not out of the question.

The clencher in favor of the belief that the flood was world wide comes in chapter nine of Genesis, where Yahweh makes a covenant with Noah and "all flesh that is upon the earth" that He will never again destroy the world by flood: "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth." [Genesis 9:11-17]

If, as some contend, the flood was only a local event, and, not global, then, why did Yahweh make a covenant with "all flesh that is upon the earth" that He would never again destroy them by flood? And, if it was only a local flood, and, Yahweh has made this "everlasting covenant" with "all flesh that is upon the earth" that He would no more destroy them by another flood, wouldn't that make Yahweh's promise to be false, since there have been, since the time of Noah, countless floods that have inundated many people, including Adamic people, and, have destroyed untold numbers of both man and beast throughout recorded history right on up to our own modern time? If it was only a local flood, then, has Yahweh broken His everlasting covenant promise that He would no more destroy "living creatures" by another local flood, since there have been an untold number of deadly floods since Noah's era? No, I don't think so. The covenant Yahweh made with Noah and "all flesh that is upon the earth" that He would never destroy them again by flood can only mean by way of a world wide flood, because local floods are a common occurrence of which most everyone is well aware.

And, if it was merely a local flood, then, why the ark? Why go to all the trouble to round up all those animals and board them onto an ark and to procure and store massive amounts of food, water, medicine and bedding, enough for the prolonged seafaring expedition to come, as well as to have to contend with maintaining sanitation and removal of animal waste products that such a monumental makeshift floating zoo would have engendered? If it had been only a regional flood, it would have been much more practical, and, more humane for the animals, to have simply packed up the family and herded the creatures into another region until the flood was over. It just doesn't make sense to cram all of those wild animals, from the largest of the mammals down to the smallest of "every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth", onto a boat and float around for a year if it was only to be a local flood in the first place. And, if it was merely a regional flood, they surely could have, at least, sailed the ship to the edge of the flood waters and unboarded and waited in relative comfort and ease for the water to subside. No, it just doesn't make sense to go to such extremes unless, of course, it truly was a world wide flood, and, then, the hardship of enduring such an extended stay upon the ark with a boat load of wild animals in the swollen floodtides would have, then, made perfect sense.

The Apostle Peter, writing in his second epistle, states that the flood wiped out the whole of the old world that used to exist: "...there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." [2Peter 3:3-6]. Again, the Apostle Peter writes: "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly..." [2Peter 2:4-5]. It is evident from these verses, that Peter clearly believed the flood innundated the entire "old world" and wiped out the ungodly, leaving no speculation that the flood may have been only a local event, but, was, indeed, world wide.

The Prophet Isaiah also wrote of the world wide flood, to wit: "In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee." [Isaiah 54:8-9]. Here the prophet refers to Yahweh's promise that He, in His wrath, would no more cover the earth with a catastrophic universal flood. As I've mentioned before, surely this promise cannot be in reference to a mere regional flood, as there have been tens of thousands of floods at one time or another in various parts of the earth since the time of Noah. But, there has never again been another world wide flood, as Yahweh has promised in His Book.

From an objective reading of the narrative of the Genesis flood, and, taking it at face value, rather than deconstructing and then reconstructing it to fit a preconceived notion, and, by keeping all of the relevant verses in context, coupled with other related passages from other books in the Bible pertaining to the Noahic flood, I believe the flood was a global event. And, the everlasting covenant that Yahweh made wherein He pledged He would no more destroy all life on earth by means of a flood convinces me, as well, that it was a world wide flood, and, not merely another local flood among many others. In other words, the flood depicted in Genesis was a flood of Biblical proportion, as the old saying goes, and, nothing less.

Praise Yahweh

Daniel Joseph

If it was a global flood, then HOW did the non-whites/ non-Adamites , and satans's seed (cain-ites)
survive ?
Are you saying they some of the beasts and cain's/satan's lineage were taken aboard the ark ?

If it was a global flood, then HOW did the non-whites/ non-Adamites , and satans's seed (cain-ites)
survive ?
Are you saying they some of the beasts and cain's/satan's lineage were taken aboard the ark ?

Yes. The Serpent Seedline was continued via the bastard spawn of Canaan. I believe Ham's great sin noted in chapter nine of Genesis wherein he "saw the nakedness of his father" is a Biblical euphemism that he had a sexual affair with Noah's wife: "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." [Leviticus 20:11]. I also believe Noah's wife, whom he took onto the ark, was a Serpent Seed, but, that she was NOT the mother of his three son Shem, Ham and Japheth. In the geneaology of Adam in chapter five, Noah was 500 years old by the time he had begat his three sons. He was 600 when he went on the ark; he lived another 450 years after the flood, and, still had no other children ("500 or 600 years old", in those days, meant a man was still of relatively young age). I contend he became aware that his wife was of the Serpent Seedline during the flood ordeal (Serpent Seed and Adamic Seed are like the "wheat and the tares" parable in Matthew, difficult to distinguish the two apart until harvest time), and, being a just man, kept this knowledge to himself, yet, refused to sire any children with her. But, alas, she managed to seduce Ham while he was passed out drunk, and, even attempted unsuccessfully to beguile the other two sons (cf. Gen. 9:22). All throughout the Biblical text, the Canaanites and their related tribes were the most evil, most wanton people in all the land and the fiercest contenders with Israel. Esau lost his birthright, not by eating a bowl of soup, but, because he married into the Canaanites; hence, we get the infamous Edomites.

I'm still researching this and plan to write up my thesis that Canaan continued the Serpent Seedline after the Flood as soon as I sew up a few more loose ends, and, will post it on the forum, that is if Bill doesn't ban me for posting heretical doctrine. LOL I know some of my views are somewhat unorthodox compared to many of the more prominent figures in Anglo-Israel Identity. But, Two Seedliners, in general, have never been noted for following orthodoxy, anyway...

Daniel

Correction to the above post: When I stated Noah lived another 450 years, I meant from the time he had already begat his three sons, and, not necessarily from the time after the Flood, which would have been approximately another 350 years (Noah lived to be 950).

DJ

Things Dan does not consider in his made-up flood tales:

First, the word erets (Strong's #776) in the flood story of Genesis Chapters 6 through 9 was translated over 1000 other times in the King James Version as "land". The word's meaning is often shown by its use in context in many passages of Scripture to refer to a particular geographical area, and not to the entire planet.

Second, Dan insists on claiming that Yahweh's promise to destroy "every living thing" in the erets (land) meant every living organism on the entire planet . But then he claims fossil evidence to prove that at one time mountains were covered with water. Yet if every living thing on the planet were destroyed, there would be no such fossil evidence possible! So Dan has a serious breach in his thinking here on this topic. In truth, it is much more likely that, the planet being billions of years old, the tops of many mountains were indeed once under the sea, in ancient events totally unrelated to Noah's flood. The dating of the fossils Dan cites far exceeds in antiquity the flood of Noah which the Bible tells us occurred approximately 3245 BC. Furthermore, the fossils Dan cites are in the Andes and similar mountains which are now up to 20,000 feet above sea level and many miles from the current seashores. Mollusks simply do not travel that quickly, not in a year and not in 25 years. Yet the waters were upon the "LAND" where Noah's family was for barely a year. Dan, wake up and get with the evidence in its context.

Third, Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation (descent), and this is why he was chosen by Yahweh to carry on the Adamic race. The Adamic race of Noah's time were destroyed because they were race-mixing. Yet Dan supposes that Noah and his family were preserved to carry on race mixing? And they were mixing right on the ark? Dan, you are deep into clown territory here: drop the cartoon-books and drive out now before it is too late!

Dan has to invent his unscriptural tales about the wives of Noah and Ham being "serpent seed" because he realizes that the whole-planet flood theory has a fault: it cannot explain why we have serpents and non-Adamites survive the flood in the first place. But doing so, he is adding his own accounts to Scripture, making up lies while he supposes to be helping God. Stop it Dan. The Kenites (descendants of Cain), the Rephaim (descendants of the Genesis 6 giants), Kadmonites, Girgashites, and many other races not even mentioned in Scripture but which have no relation to the Adamic families of Genesis Chapter 10 all survived the flood of Noah simply because they were not in the LAND in which that flood occurred. Canaan had later mingled with these people (Genesis 15).

Noah simply did not pick up and leave the land, because Noah's ark was for a sign. The reasoning of Yahweh is not necessarily practical according to the reasoning of man. Your interpretation of the events is pretty bad, and I urge you to rethink all of it, from the ground up and without your own personal embellishments of Scripture: especially where they violate the precepts which are actually found in Scripture!

As for your remarks concerning orthodoxy: If you ask Eli James, Clifton Emahiser, or myself, you will find that we claim to be the orthodoxy: it is "judeo" so-called Christianity which is unorthodox! We are traditional Christianity!

I hope this helps. I will try to get to chapter 6 of the Christogenea Overview on Genesis soon. Once you realize that the average steer eats about 80 to 100 pounds of food per day, with all of the diverse species which inhabited the globe, looking at the size of the ark it is clear that only the most simple-minded schoolchildren could believe a global flood story! Unless, of course, you want to make many other embellishments to scripture. But if one believes that Noah and Ham were married to serpents, why stop there?

First, the word erets (Strong's #776) in the flood story of Genesis Chapters 6 through 9 was translated over 1000 other times in the King James Version as "land". The word's meaning is often shown by its use in context in many passages of Scripture to refer to a particular geographical area, and not to the entire planet.

Bill: It matters not whether you translate "erets" as "land" or "earth" or "ground" or "world", etc. Here is Strong's definition:

776 'erets eh'-rets from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.

But, if you prefer the word "land", that's fine. Now, how much land does Yahweh say was to be flooded? Rather than "thus sayeth Bill Finck", what does Yahweh say? Let me quote the Biblical passage from my original post, as it does not seem as though you read it or understood it, or, else you simply chose to avoid it:

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." [Genesis 7:19].

Yahweh says the flood "prevailed exceedingly upon the earth", and, that everything, hill and dale, was covered that was "under the whole heaven". "Heaven" means "the sky; or, where the heavenly bodies revolve" [cf. Strong's 8067]. Therefore, when Yahweh says "under the whole heaven", He means all of the land that is "under the whole heaven"; i.e. the entire land, or, earth, or, ground, whichever word you prefer, that can be found under the heaven. But, Brother Bill says, no, it wasn't all of the land under the whole heaven, only the land that was under a small segment of heaven. So, who is one to believe? Bill, or, Yahweh? I'll let the reader decide.

Second, Dan insists on claiming that Yahweh's promise to destroy "every living thing" in the erets (land) meant every living organism on the entire planet . But then he claims fossil evidence to prove that at one time mountains were covered with water. Yet if every living thing on the planet were destroyed, there would be no such fossil evidence possible! So Dan has a serious breach in his thinking here on this topic.

LOL Bill, you're funny. The fossil evidence I mentioned was that of sea creatures. Yahweh didn't say He was going to wipe out the sea creatures. It was a world wide flood, guy, not a world wide drought. Again, here are the words of Yahweh:

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." [Genesis 7:21-22].

"All flesh died that moved upon the earth", Bill. Not all flesh died that moved in the water. You're really grasping for straws, aren't you, Bill? I notice from your responses, that you like to build "straw man" arguments, and, then make your fallacious attacks against non-existent premises. That's not very convincing, Bill.

In truth, it is much more likely that, the planet being billions of years old, the tops of many mountains were indeed once under the sea, in ancient events totally unrelated to Noah's flood.

Another fallacious 'straw man' attack, Bill. I never said the fossil evidence was related to the Genesis flood. Only that the fossil evidence shows that it is within the realm of possibility for such a world wide flood to have occurred, as they have occurred before in the distant past. Either you are lacking in basic reading comprehension skills, or, you are just being intellectually dishonest; neither of which are very becoming from someone claiming to be a scholar and a Christian.

Third, Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation (descent), and this is why he was chosen by Yahweh to carry on the Adamic race. The Adamic race of Noah's time were destroyed because they were race-mixing. Yet Dan supposes that Noah and his family were preserved to carry on race mixing? And they were mixing right on the ark? Dan, you are deep into clown territory here: drop the cartoon-books and drive out now before it is too late!

"Cartoon books"... It appears that you are saying the Holy Bible is a "cartoon book". Because that is the only book I have referenced in my postings. You really enjoy fallacious ad hominem attacks, as well, don't you, Bill? A person resorts to fallacious personal attacks when they have no real argument to present, and, cannot actually address the issue head on, so they resort to name calling and other childish, irrational reactions. Where did I say they were race mixing on the ark? Honestly, did you even read my post? Or, are 'straw man' fallacies the best you can come up with? You don't back up any of your assertions with Biblical text, only ad hominem and straw man fallacies and "thus sayeth Bill Finck". You remind me of the proverbial Don Quixote charging at windmills fantasizing that they are dragons.

Dan has to invent his unscriptural tales about the wives of Noah and Ham being "serpent seed" because he realizes that the whole-planet flood theory has a fault: it cannot explain why we have serpents and non-Adamites survive the flood in the first place.

I haven't even addressed that issue, except as a quick aside to Les in a previous post. And, I never said it was Ham's wife that was serpent's seed. Honestly, Bill, I expected a much more elevated, scholarly approach to the subject than what you are presenting. So far, all I have gotten from you is name calling and misrepresentation of what I have actually written. I feel like somebody who has dared to question the 'holocaust', with all of your irrational, fallacious responses. Have you been taking lessons from Abe Foxman?

The Kenites (descendants of Cain), the Rephaim (descendants of the Genesis 6 giants), Kadmonites, Girgashites, and many other races not even mentioned in Scripture but which have no relation to the Adamic families of Genesis Chapter 10 all survived the flood of Noah simply because they were not in the LAND in which that flood occurred. Canaan had later mingled with these people (Genesis 15).

Well, stop here, and, reflect for a few minutes, Bill, if you can. In your quote above, you say the "Genesis 6 giants" survived the flood. Yet, Yahweh states in His Book that His intention was to wipe them out:

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 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." [Genesis 6:4-7]

Here, Yahweh states He is going to destroy these race mixed mongrel giants. Yet, according to "thus sayeth Bill Finck", Yahweh missed the mark; that He wasn't able to destroy them with the flood; that the race mixed mongrel giants survived. What was the point of Yahweh's flood, then, Bill, if the race mixed mongrels were going to survive, anyway? Now, you talk about me "inventing unscriptural tales", I think you need to look in the mirror, brother, and, cast out the beam that is in your own eye before attacking me. Talk about contradicting Scripture! Yahweh says He is going to flood them and destroy them. Bill Finck says, no, the flood never touched them. Okay, then... whatever.

Noah simply did not pick up and leave the land, because Noah's ark was for a sign. The reasoning of Yahweh is not necessarily practical according to the reasoning of man. Your interpretation of the events is pretty bad, and I urge you to rethink all of it, from the ground up and without your own personal embellishments of Scripture: especially where they violate the precepts which are actually found in Scripture!

Yes, it was for a sign. A sign that Yahweh's flood was world wide and that He flooded everything that was "under the heaven", just as the Holy Writ states; and, just as Moses, and, the Prophets, and, the Apostles all attest to in their writings. Even Yahshua the Christ attests to the world wide flood and that all were wiped away:

"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away." [Matthew 24:37-39]

I know. You're going to say that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says and that it means what you say it says. But, as I propositioned earlier, who are we to believe? Bill Finck, or, Yahweh? I'm going with Yahweh, brother.

As for your remarks concerning orthodoxy: If you ask Eli James, Clifton Emahiser, or myself, you will find that we claim to be the orthodoxy: it is "judeo" so-called Christianity which is unorthodox! We are traditional Christianity!

Ironically, you have merely underscored the very point of my previous joke about "orthodoxy", Bill. That there is a kind of self-appointed "orthodoxy" being established within the Israel-Identity movement, and, anyone who does not tow the party line is considered anathema. I wasn't talking about "Judeo-Christianity", at all. I guess we better start referring to you as Cardinal Bill. Or, would you prefer Pope Bill? Pope Bill issues a papal bull...

The flood was world wide. This is what the Holy Writ states in no uncertain terms. You can believe otherwise, if you so desire. But, your attacks against your self-created straw men arguments are not convincing, to say the least. You hardly addressed any of the points I had raised, instead veering off into fabrications and distortions. I expected you to be more focused and to address the issue, not go off on one fallacious red herring after another. I hope, that in future correspondence, we can elevate the discussion to a somewhat higher level of scholarship.

Praise Yahweh!

Dan

Yes Dan, you are deep into clown territory. I will answer your post at length next week. Your shallow accusations do not scare me, and you are NOT following the Bible at all. In fact, you are the one who can't read. Yahweh said He would destroy the man that He created. He said NOTHING about the Rephaim. So where did Yahweh say he would destroy the "giants"? Show me, Dan. If you can't show me, then you have earned yourself a new name.

The breach remains on your thinking concerning the fossil evidence. You have already changed your position. Are those fossils of sea creatures from the flood of Noah? Or aren't they? C'mon, Dan, don't be a jellyfish.

Oh, and since the planet is NOT "under the whole heaven", then your interpretation of the word erets is wrong. Now, Mr. Astrophysicist, is the planet "under the whole heaven"?

I will get back to this when I can make the time.

Yes Dan, you are deep into clown territory. I will answer your post at length next week. Your shallow accusations do not scare me, and you are NOT following the Bible at all.

Bill: I never made any accusations. I simply pointed out the obvious. Even here in your first sentence, your only argument is an ad hominem personal attack. That's all you seem to be capable of is personal attacks and straw man arguments. These are not accusations I am making. They are facts. Anyone who has had a single course in Logic 101 will know what I am talking about. Logical fallacies are all you seem to be able to muster, Bill.

In fact, you are the one who can't read. Yahweh said He would destroy the man that He created. He said NOTHING about the Rephaim. So where did Yahweh say he would destroy the "giants"? Show me, Dan. If you can't show me, then you have earned yourself a new name.

Bill, I've quoted the relevant verse in question already in my previous post. And, you say it is I who cannot read? Are the "giants" not men, Bill? Are they not capable of breeding with other Homo sapiens, or, Adamic seed, or, Serpent seed? Okay... well, for the sake of argument, let's say they're not men. That means they are some form of beast, then, right? The giants are either some kind of man or some kind of beast. Can you agree to that much? The giants must be either man or beast. Okay, now, what did Yahweh say? To wit:

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 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." [Genesis 6:4-7]

Can you see that clause I emboldened for you, Bill? "Both man and beast", Yahweh said he would destroy. Also, all the creeping things and the birds. That pretty much covers all the bases. No, Yahweh didn't say he was going to destroy all the fish or sea critters. Only earth dwelling creatures.

The breach remains on your thinking concerning the fossil evidence. You have already changed your position. Are those fossils of sea creatures from the flood of Noah? Or aren't they? C'mon, Dan, don't be a jellyfish.

No, I was clear on that in the last post and in the original post. If you need to go back and read it again, please do. I really don't think it will accomplish anything to repeat myself again a third time. If you have not understood what I have plainly written the first two times, I doubt you will understand it if I repeat it again a third time. Maybe you should try quoting these passages of mine that seem so vague and obscure and/or contradictory to you, so that I can get some understanding of just what it is your talking about. You say I changed my position. Where? How? Give some examples, rather than just calling me names and making false accusations with no evidence.

Oh, and since the planet is NOT "under the whole heaven", then your interpretation of the word erets is wrong. Now, Mr. Astrophysicist, is the planet "under the whole heaven"?

The text doesn't say the "planet", Bill, it says the "earth", or, as you prefer, the "land". And, yes, the land is under the whole heaven. All of it is under the whole heaven. I was just outside on my land enjoying the breeze in the trees and watching the moon beaming down from the heaven under which the trees and myself are located at this very moment. I can hike the all over the land out here, Bill, and every bit of it is under the whole heaven. Trust me. Never is it not under the whole heaven.

I will get back to this when I can make the time.

Well, you would do well if you could address the points I raised in my first post before going to the second post. But, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that. To tell you the truth, Bill, I'm somewhat disappointed. I expected a higher caliber of discourse coming from you, and, not just personal attacks and straw man arguments and red herrings.

Yeah, get back to me whenever you can, Bill. There's no rush. I've made my case for the flood. You appear to have no substantive rebuttal. I'm already moving on. I'm working on Canaan, now, and the origin of the Canaanites. Man! That is a much more daunting task than the Noahic Flood. The Flood is child's play compared to the story of the Curse of Canaan and the Canaanites. But, what a revelation it has been thus far delving into that story. There is much to ruminate upon there. I will post my findings on here at a later date, if you want, and, you can call me names and make false accusations against me, that is if you haven't banned me for heresy by then, Monsignor Bill.

Praise Yahweh

Daniel

NO DAN GIANTS ARE NOT MEN!
Get real Dan, the word for "man" in that verse is ADAM. Giants are NOT Adam!!!
Hebrew - 1
Dan - 0
Like I said in the first place, you give yourself far too much credit.
Were the Rephaim on the ark too, Dan? Keep digging yourself in.
Oh, and read the part which says "which I have made". Yahweh did NOT make the Giants, Dan.

A lesson in sheer idiocy:

Furthermore, there is innumerable fossil evidence that the earth has been completely engulfed in the distant past. A global flood is not some preposterous idea that defies human imagination. One can still find fossils of sea life in remote areas of the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachians, clearly proving that the notion that the earth can be completely covered in water is not out of the question.

Just because there is mastodon dung in Siberia, does not mean that at one time the entire earth was once covered in mastodon dung! You said it, Dan. You're the genius.

Oh, and Dan, you said "world wide", is that NOT the planet? No Dan, the planet is NOT "under the whole heaven". It is all a matter of perspective, and your's is pretty narrow. You can't tell a metaphor from a hole in your head.

Furthermore, there is innumerable fossil evidence that the earth has been completely engulfed in the distant past. A global flood is not some preposterous idea that defies human imagination. One can still find fossils of sea life in remote areas of the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachians, clearly proving that the notion that the earth can be completely covered in water is not out of the question.

Dan,

Two things we should find, if your hypothesis is correct:

1. The strata containing the fossil evidence would all be from the same period worldwide. It is not. Meaning that the strata from various parts of the world indicate floods, or uplifting at different times and various stages.

2. There should be an equal mixture of land animals and plants within the fossil record at the same strata. There isn't.

Here is an excellent site for further study. It is written from a Christian perspective.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

A simultaneous worldwide flood cannot be proven with fossil records and it is impossible to have occurred. Even if all the ice melted, there would still not be enough water to cover the entire earth.

"Earth" in this connotation would necessarily mean only a portion of the earth.