| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2007 06:18:47 PM |
| Object: |
The World According to Genesis: The Flood |
John Wilkins has set himself up as a latter-day Asimov over at
www.scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts, and is running a series with
this title "The World According to Genesis"
He's starting "In the beginning" and has reached the flood here:
http://tinyurl.com/yt79v5
You'd think with all the panning he indulges in, he'd find some gold
in Genesis, but nope:
"The Flood is the result, in chapter 6, of rains, and the waters cover
the highest mountains after rising 15 cubits, or about 7 m. This can't
be right even for someone who lives only in a flat region of the world
like the Mesopotamian delta, so either there's a mistranscription, or
neither "land" nor "mountain" means what it is translated as. Eretz,
the term used for land, is remarkably wide in its translation,
according to Strong's. It can mean everything from the locale one is
now in to the entire world. But then, we have the rest of the text
that suggests that every living thing that lives on dry land will die,
so we are forced to conclude that the world of Genesis is very flat -
and no hill (which is another meaning of the term har translated as
"mountain") was higher than 6.5m. The traditional reading is that the
waters rose 15 cubits above the mountains. This is even more
problematic - even if we restrict mountain heights to those known to
the ancient world, these rise to 900m in the old Judea, and most of
Iran is 1200m above sea level. Peaks in that region rise to 5600m. So
these mountains had to have risen after the Flood."
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "ZilentNoise" |
|
| Title: Re: The World According to Genesis: The Flood |
13 Jun 2007 06:49:28 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
John Wilkins has set himself up as a latter-day Asimov over at
www.scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts, and is running a series with
this title "The World According to Genesis"
Here something you should know -Arguments from authority carry little
weight (in science there are no "authorities"). - Carl Sagan Based on
the book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark"
published by Headline 1996.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elijahovah" |
|
| Title: Re: The World According to Genesis: The Flood |
13 Jun 2007 05:31:55 AM |
|
|
On Jun 11, 6:18 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
John Wilkins has set himself up as a latter-day Asimov over atwww.scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts, and is running a series with
this title "The World According to Genesis"
He's starting "In the beginning" and has reached the flood here:http://tinyurl.com/yt79v5
You'd think with all the panning he indulges in, he'd find some gold
in Genesis, but nope:
"The Flood is the result, in chapter 6, of rains, and the waters cover
the highest mountains after rising 15 cubits, or about 7 m. This can't
be right even for someone who lives only in a flat region of the world
like the Mesopotamian delta, so either there's a mistranscription, or
neither "land" nor "mountain" means what it is translated as. Eretz,
the term used for land, is remarkably wide in its translation,
according to Strong's. It can mean everything from the locale one is
now in to the entire world. But then, we have the rest of the text
that suggests that every living thing that lives on dry land will die,
so we are forced to conclude that the world of Genesis is very flat -
and no hill (which is another meaning of the term har translated as
"mountain") was higher than 6.5m. The traditional reading is that the
waters rose 15 cubits above the mountains. This is even more
problematic - even if we restrict mountain heights to those known to
the ancient world, these rise to 900m in the old Judea, and most of
Iran is 1200m above sea level. Peaks in that region rise to 5600m. So
these mountains had to have risen after the Flood."
Budikka
mountain #1 is 3600 feet so the Flood was 3622 feet
mountain #2 was 5000 feet so the Flood was 5022 feet
mountain #3 was 4700 feet so the Flood was 4722 feet
doesn't anyone see the misinterpretation of thinking the data
is to be regarded as 22 feet over all mountains.
If my local river flooded 6 inches over every house then
isnt anyone going to wonder what the heck are all houses
exactly the same height in altitude. Gee so if my house sets
on 500 feet and is 10 feet high, my neighbors house that
sets on 502 feet is only 8 feet high, and the river was exactly
6 inches over every house.
CLERIFICATION.... day one slightly above sea level
5 feet or 500 feet who cares, water comes along and
anything over 22 feet causes the ark to lift off the ground.
Day 150 the ark jolts, it has hit ground and no ground in sight.
The ground is duh how far below the surface????
well let's see, the ark is floating on 22 feet of water up its
side across the 2nd floor door, right across the middle
of the ark 's 45-foot height.
So duh that means the ground is 22 feet below the ocean surface
on day 150 which is 110 days since the water quit.
The water drains and where are they, mount ararat.
Little Ararat appears as OTHER mountains 74 days
after this grounding.
Later thru centuries, this ark slides down to the plateau.
It did NOT originally ground on that plateau
below the ararat peak otherwise
you could not say water was 22 feet over mountains.
So how deep was the water. Well it's a volcanoe
and so from its base at 6000 feet to 17,000 feet
these 11,000 feet were soldified or the ark would
have been in the molten spouting peak.
So the ocean was at least 11,000 feet deep
the base of the mountain being the surface of tectonic
plate under water. How much water came from
water canopy? well sea level is 24 pounds per inch
and 33 feet under sea is 48 pounds, and 45 feet below
water is 57 pounds. This means 45 feet of rain if
over our heads in a canopy would put 57 pounds
on us. Therefore, the canopy collapse was only
a syndrome or effect of something far greater when
falling star impacted the earth. Something hit the
Earth so hard it was swallowed up by the inside
of the Earth and pushed the ocean plates level
with the land plates. The waters from the depths
means from the depths of the ocean, and it means
from the depths of the horizon. Tsunami.
This is proven by ancient astronomy language
which speaks of the planets and sun and stars
descending in the west into the depths of the
earth, and rising in the east from the depths
of the earth. What they saw was water rise
up from the horizon in a massive wave that
lifted the ark with a single impact.
The definition of LUCK is mathematical
numeric odds and probabilities. It is an exact
science of cause and effect. Yes Jehovah
means that too. The experience on the ark
was in itself a fear of life or death. Thrown
about inside they could only have faith they
wouldnt break up or sink, and when a single
ocean became calm, only faith could ever
hope to see land again.
The 40-day rain is recorded by descendents
in Egypt as a 40-day (reborn) Osiris who
floated in his coffin. A very vivid psychoanalysis.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dali_70" |
|
| Title: Re: The World According to Genesis: The Flood |
12 Jun 2007 08:47:50 AM |
|
|
On Jun 11, 7:18 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
John Wilkins has set himself up as a latter-day Asimov over atwww.scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts, and is running a series with
this title "The World According to Genesis"
He's starting "In the beginning" and has reached the flood here:http://tinyurl.com/yt79v5
You'd think with all the panning he indulges in, he'd find some gold
in Genesis, but nope:
"The Flood is the result, in chapter 6, of rains, and the waters cover
the highest mountains after rising 15 cubits, or about 7 m. This can't
be right even for someone who lives only in a flat region of the world
like the Mesopotamian delta, so either there's a mistranscription, or
neither "land" nor "mountain" means what it is translated as. Eretz,
the term used for land, is remarkably wide in its translation,
according to Strong's. It can mean everything from the locale one is
now in to the entire world. But then, we have the rest of the text
that suggests that every living thing that lives on dry land will die,
so we are forced to conclude that the world of Genesis is very flat -
and no hill (which is another meaning of the term har translated as
"mountain") was higher than 6.5m. The traditional reading is that the
waters rose 15 cubits above the mountains. This is even more
problematic - even if we restrict mountain heights to those known to
the ancient world, these rise to 900m in the old Judea, and most of
Iran is 1200m above sea level. Peaks in that region rise to 5600m. So
these mountains had to have risen after the Flood."
Budikka
The world is flat! ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: The World According to Genesis: The Flood |
12 Jun 2007 10:31:16 AM |
|
|
Anyone that has actually read the Bibles with any degree of perception knows
they are nothing more than a collection of myths and fables!
"dali_70" <w_e_coyote12@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181656070.987372.189610@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 11, 7:18 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
John Wilkins has set himself up as a latter-day Asimov over
atwww.scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts, and is running a series with
this title "The World According to Genesis"
He's starting "In the beginning" and has reached the flood
here:http://tinyurl.com/yt79v5
You'd think with all the panning he indulges in, he'd find some gold
in Genesis, but nope:
"The Flood is the result, in chapter 6, of rains, and the waters cover
the highest mountains after rising 15 cubits, or about 7 m. This can't
be right even for someone who lives only in a flat region of the world
like the Mesopotamian delta, so either there's a mistranscription, or
neither "land" nor "mountain" means what it is translated as. Eretz,
the term used for land, is remarkably wide in its translation,
according to Strong's. It can mean everything from the locale one is
now in to the entire world. But then, we have the rest of the text
that suggests that every living thing that lives on dry land will die,
so we are forced to conclude that the world of Genesis is very flat -
and no hill (which is another meaning of the term har translated as
"mountain") was higher than 6.5m. The traditional reading is that the
waters rose 15 cubits above the mountains. This is even more
problematic - even if we restrict mountain heights to those known to
the ancient world, these rise to 900m in the old Judea, and most of
Iran is 1200m above sea level. Peaks in that region rise to 5600m. So
these mountains had to have risen after the Flood."
Budikka
The world is flat! ;)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: The World According to Genesis: The Flood |
12 Jun 2007 04:11:25 PM |
|
|
On Jun 12, 8:47 am, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The world is flat! ;)
It is if it's represented as a 3D graph of creationist IQ! LoL!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
