25 replies to this topic

[room2593]

The bible details the lives of the people after the flood as being WAAY shorter than the people before the flood. The common explanation for this is the influx of sin, but what if they actually didn't, it just felt like they did?
To explain my creepy statement, what if they lived the same amount of time, just a different amount of years?
If the people before the flood lived about 900 years and we live about 80, the difference is staggering. If the earth rotates more slowly around the sun now days, we could be living the same amount of time. It's just that back then, the earth whipped around the sun so fast that years passed like weeks. For serious! It could work!
The flood could have caused this. See, the flood is described as a massive cataclysmic event. Water poured down from heaven and up from the ground. (Wait, up from the ground?) Yeah, up from the ground. All I'm asking is this: did this slow down the earth?
A rocket ship expels burning fuel from an enclosed location. The pressure pushes on all sides of the chamber, but flows out the bottom. This pushes it upward, because the only place where force is NOT is the bottom - the topward force is unhindered, so the rocket moves. What if the earth operated like a rocket?
If the side of the earth facing the direction of its orbit blew open and water flew out, then in would operate somewhat like a rocket, and it would slow the earth down - perhaps significantly. The earthquake in Indonesia recently shook the earth on it's axis, so this is not inconceivable.
So, how do you feel about this theory? Good enough to work, or am I a total crackpot? I'm not sure it happened, but just the thought of the earth shooting water, rocket-like, is too cool not to share. PSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHCGH! This Spaceship Earth!

---

My roommate has tried to inform me that this theory is totally bunk.
Try to see it - he sure doesn't. It could work, but only under extremely weird conditions. The probability against it happening is as massive as the probability against evolution.
Totally disregard it if you will and substitute instead that God slowed the earth down. That's not the important part.
It's like saying this: here's an awesome book about how the earth slowed down, but I'll disregard the theory because the cover is the wrong color. I don't care about the rocketship earth theory. Just think, what if we live the same amount of time.

[truefusion]

The earth's rotation-speed argument was one explanation given that i've heard, from a scientific viewpoint that is. It would explain how they lasted so long, since time was based on the sun and the moon's appearance, and if you see them more often than we do today, then they could have lasted a very "long" time. The other argument i've heard is that the atmosphere back then could better support life than today's. I'm not sure if natural gases can undesirably affect the atmosphere, especially to the point where it caused the lifespan of mammals (or more) to decrease, but i feel that the argument on the speed of the earth's rotation is easier supported or more supportable. These are the only arguments i've heard that can be scientifically validated.

Your argument that seeks to support the flood event on how it affects the earth's rotation is invalidated by Biblical principles. That is, the flood wasn't a world-wide event. At the time of the flood, the people weren't located or scattered throughout the earth for there to have been a world-wide flood. They were all conveniently placed in one location somewhere in the East, therefore not requiring a world-wide flood. The Abrahamic religions agree that it wasn't a world-wide flood, especially since the Hebrew word that is rendered "world" does not necessarily mean the entire earth. It can also mean just the people on the earth, and other things. These definitions fit for the flood event. To determine which one is to be considered above the others depends on the context, in this case showing that they were all located quite near each other, since the Bible goes quickly from Adam to Noah.

I have not fully thought on how they were able to last so long, that is, from a viewpoint that science can place "under the microscope," but if the speed of the earth's rotation shows to be better than any other explanation i can come up with, then i don't see the point in trying to figure it out.

[room2593]

truefusion, on Mar 18 2009, 04:04 PM, said:

Your argument that seeks to support the flood event on how it affects the earth's rotation is invalidated by Biblical principles.

Right, pull the other one and it sings Elvis.

The fact is true: everybody lived all together in one spot, but I don't think you can confuse this sequence for a minor flood:

Quote

Genesis 7:19-23 NIV
They [the waters] rose greatly on the earth and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

If that's not a cataclysmic, world-wide event, I don't know what is. That's what I love about the bible - it repeats its point until you can't miss it. Now, if you still feel that the word "world" was only their explored territory, I'm okay with that theory and I'm fine with the water covering the world. But the tops of the mountains and every living thing dying - that sounds a little bit harsher than a regional flood.

Lastly, I almost wish God hadn't promised us that he wouldn't do it again, just so that I could see it. Man, that would be the baddest explosion ever:

Quote

Gen. 7:11
--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Mind boggling.

[buxgoddess]

I was reading a book by Robin Sharma - The Monk who sold his Ferrari, and was amazed to find that the people in India follow the traditions of special meditation and yoga whereby they easily enhance their life longevity. There were theories where you have to stop all forms of negative thinking and try to inculcate features to enhance brain activity. This in turn makes you active and zealous . Finally with the help of fresh food the life longevity is increased. Also the process of self control and good thinking most troubles in life are eradicated.

[truefusion]

room2593, on Mar 21 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

If that's not a cataclysmic, world-wide event, I don't know what is.

If we examine not only the context but the very passage you bring into the discussion, what would we see? But before we get into that, one question should be asked, if there is heavy rain and strong winds and geysers (there were indeed geysers as implied in Genesis 8:2), do birds take to flight or do they take the time to hide? But coming back to the context, it could be argued that because Noah was 600 years old at the time that the floodgates of heaven opened up, that it took Noah about 500 or so years to bring all the animals God commanded to bring into the Ark to where Noah lives. Assuming the earth back then was what it looked like today geographically, that is a lot of ground to walk, if it can be at all traveled in less than 570 years (i give at least thirty years for Noah, as i wouldn't say that God would pick a child to go out and do what God asks of him). Wouldn't it be easier for God to just bring all the animals to Noah? And if so, does the Bible give way for that? In fact, Genesis 7:8-9 and 7:15 does just that.

Geographically speaking, Noah's Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat—where exactly, that is, which mountain is uncertain. "All the mountains under heaven" does not necessarily have to be from God's viewpoint (assuming more than just the mountains of the area existed back then). Since Ararat has a lot of mountains (at least from what can be derived from the text and observed today), it could very well be limited to which is visible by (to) Noah's perspective. Since the waters pretty much covered the mountains, if it were truely to cover every mountain in existence (assuming there were mountains in existence back then that reach the heights of the tallest mountain today), Noah and every other living thing on the Ark would require oxygen tanks—unless the only mountains in existence at the time were only the ones in Ararat. The mountains of Ararat could be climbed without requiring such equipment (or at least many of them), as implied by the text. If these people were limited to that geographical location and had never wondered off to other regions, it could be argued that that was indeed the only mountains they thought existed. The people at the time of Noah were apparently too foolish to actually consider leaving the area. Though by the time they did consider, it was obviously too late for them—like with all judgements.

So if all the animals were brought to that one location, and all the people were all in one location also, a world-wide flood would be unnecessary. Even if it were the case that it rained all over the earth, the only part that required so much water was just that one region.

room2593, on Mar 21 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

Lastly, I almost wish God hadn't promised us that he wouldn't do it again, just so that I could see it.

If you call that great, then what about what is written in Revelations? Isn't it the case that you will most likely be there to see the Last Day?

buxgoddess, on Mar 22 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

I was reading a book by Robin Sharma - The Monk who sold his Ferrari, and was amazed to find that the people in India follow the traditions of special meditation and yoga whereby they easily enhance their life longevity. There were theories where you have to stop all forms of negative thinking and try to inculcate features to enhance brain activity. This in turn makes you active and zealous . Finally with the help of fresh food the life longevity is increased. Also the process of self control and good thinking most troubles in life are eradicated.

Unless those people could live up to 900 or so years just by performing such things and eating well, then it's not entirely relevant to the discussion. Since you mention Ferrari, it is obvious that the people you refer to are incapable of living for so long, as it concerns our time. But the question may arise, What is the current, average lifespan in India? And just how many more years do those that practice these things surpass the the average lifespan of those in India?

[room2593]

truefusion, on Mar 25 2009, 07:39 PM, said:

1. I give at least thirty years for Noah, as i wouldn't say that God would pick a child to go out and do what God asks of him.

2. Noah and every other living thing on the Ark would require oxygen tanks—unless the only mountains in existence at the time were only the ones in Ararat.

3. Though by the time they did consider, it was obviously too late for them—like with all judgements.

4. So if all the animals were brought to that one location, and all the people were all in one location also, a world-wide flood would be unnecessary. Even if it were the case that it rained all over the earth, the only part that required so much water was just that one region.

5. If you call that great, then what about what is written in Revelations? Isn't it the case that you will most likely be there to see the Last Day?

1. It says in Joel 2:28

Quote

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions

So I don't think that it is so anachronistic of God to choose a child. I mean, I'm convinced that Noah wasn't a kid when he started, but God doesn't seem very averse to choosing children. Josiah and Joash were children-kings of Israel, Daniel and his friends were adolescents, David was underage, Samuel took the reigns of the religion at a young age, and Jesus was able to stump the priests at the passover festival when he came of age. Plus, I like to think that God was able to use me when I was a child.

2. Put quite simply; no. The water would push the oxygen out. It would be like they were at sea-level. And there were no mountains at the time. As far as I understand, when the "fountains of the deep" burst forth, the crust would have to be completely busted up and floating around (in other words, pangea to current landmass configuration in 40 days). So in the idea of a world-wide flood, there would be no mountains of Ararat-as a matter of fact, there would be no mountains until after.
Plus, Genesis was written by Moses, so the population of the earth had spread to the degree that any knowledgeable person (moses was court-trained) would know about the massive mountains in other places. At least, that's what I am led to believe.

3. Amen. Hindsight IS 20/20.

4. But why would they need 2 of every animal if some others survived? If there were 4 million giraffes on the other side of the globe, Noah wouldn't need his 2, now would he? No, I'm pretty sure that every animal (except those on the ark) died.

5. Yeah, God is amazing. I hope to be INSIDE the city when the fire goes down. I'll look for you, okay? We can stand in stunned silence together.

[truefusion]

room2593, on Mar 26 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

1. It says in Joel 2:28 So I don't think that it is so anachronistic of God to choose a child. I mean, I'm convinced that Noah wasn't a kid when he started, but God doesn't seem very averse to choosing children. Josiah and Joash were children-kings of Israel, Daniel and his friends were adolescents, David was underage, Samuel took the reigns of the religion at a young age, and Jesus was able to stump the priests at the passover festival when he came of age. Plus, I like to think that God was able to use me when I was a child.

I suppose a next example could be Samuel, as he was chosen, or made a prophet, at a young age. But i think the emphasis is better placed on the task or "burden" placed upon the individual, that is, on whether or not it could be successfully performed by a child or an adult. In this case, we can observe with either David, Jesus, et al, that the tasks were simple or there were none at all when they were small. In the case of David we have Goliath, but i don't recall God telling David to go out and take down Goliath—that is, it was David's choosing.

room2593, on Mar 26 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

2. Put quite simply; no. The water would push the oxygen out. It would be like they were at sea-level. And there were no mountains at the time. As far as I understand, when the "fountains of the deep" burst forth, the crust would have to be completely busted up and floating around (in other words, pangea to current landmass configuration in 40 days). So in the idea of a world-wide flood, there would be no mountains of Ararat-as a matter of fact, there would be no mountains until after.
Plus, Genesis was written by Moses, so the population of the earth had spread to the degree that any knowledgeable person (moses was court-trained) would know about the massive mountains in other places. At least, that's what I am led to believe.

Interesting statement. I don't have any outside knowledge or information concerning for or against the former, but mentioning Moses seems to counter the former. If the flood was truly a world-encompassing event, and mountains formed due to extremely strong geysers or "fountains of the deep," then to say that Moses wrote about the mountains of his time for Genesis for the time of Noah is to say that Moses made an observational error. An error in any case you should see everything undesirable about it. Therefore either there existed mountains back then before the time of Moses and it is God providing revelation to Moses, or there is an error in the Bible concerning Genesis for the time of Noah which was caused by human assumptions. And if there were mountains during the time of Noah, then it would follow the point that i have been for during this whole discussion.

room2593, on Mar 26 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

4. But why would they need 2 of every animal if some others survived? If there were 4 million giraffes on the other side of the globe, Noah wouldn't need his 2, now would he? No, I'm pretty sure that every animal (except those on the ark) died.

I already mentioned that the animals on the other side of the globe were brought to the location. And it wasn't just 2 of very kind. God ordered Noah to take male and female (i.e. the 2 for each pair or "kind" that you are referring to) of 7 clean pair of animals and 1 unclean pair of animals.

room2593, on Mar 26 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

5. Yeah, God is amazing. I hope to be INSIDE the city when the fire goes down. I'll look for you, okay? We can stand in stunned silence together.

I'd rather not be in any city during that time. But i can't remember whether or not those who are written in the Book of Life are to be taken up before these amazing events occur. So even if you were resurrected, or "woken up" (to be more Biblically accurate), you would probably be observing it from afar.

[room2593]

truefusion, on Mar 27 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

1. In the case of David we have Goliath, but i don't recall God telling David to go out and take down Goliath—that is, it was David's choosing.


2. Interesting statement. I don't have any outside knowledge or information concerning for or against the former, but mentioning Moses seems to counter the former. If the flood was truly a world-encompassing event, and mountains formed due to extremely strong geysers or "fountains of the deep," then to say that Moses wrote about the mountains of his time for Genesis for the time of Noah is to say that Moses made an observational error. An error in any case you should see everything undesirable about it. Therefore either there existed mountains back then before the time of Moses and it is God providing revelation to Moses, or there is an error in the Bible concerning Genesis for the time of Noah which was caused by human assumptions. And if there were mountains during the time of Noah, then it would follow the point that i have been for during this whole discussion.


3. I already mentioned that the animals on the other side of the globe were brought to the location. And it wasn't just 2 of very kind. God ordered Noah to take male and female (i.e. the 2 for each pair or "kind" that you are referring to) of 7 clean pair of animals and 1 unclean pair of animals.


4. I'd rather not be in any city during that time. But i can't remember whether or not those who are written in the Book of Life are to be taken up before these amazing events occur.

1. Valid point - but God still asks young people to do things, and that's all I'm saying. I've heard that the story of Esther never happened, but even if it didn't, God asked a young girl to save an entire nation of people by risking her neck.

2. I'll be trying to clarify and make more understandable.
a. I believe Pangaea was an applicable landmass back in the day - it makes sense. Pangea would be extremely flat, by its very nature - no plates pushing against each other. As soon as the fountains burst forth and geysers blew apart the world, the plates as we know them were moved around and thrown together- forming mountains.
b. The mountains of Ararat were new mountains when Noah landed on them, and they still existed in the time of Moses. They probably still exist, they just have been renamed or forgotten. So Moses wasn't making an error when he wrote about THOSE. The ones that existed DURING the flood, the ones that were covered, I don't know how tall they were or any such thing. But for water to cover a mountain, that would still have to be a massive amount of water, and you can't have that much localized water for 40 days without it running away. For it to stay that high where Noah was for 40 days, it would have to cover the whole earth.

3. You did not answer my point. I did know that there were 7 pairs of clean animals(for eating and for faster repopulation) I just considered it superfluous to mention them. My point was that Noah would not need some of the animals if it was merely a localized flood. If there was going to be a flood that covered the midwest, why would you need lions on your boat? You wouldn't, because they would be safe in Africa. Why would God go to all that trouble to bring those animals if they were just fine? It's just that I believe in a world-wide flood, and unless they were REALLY screwed up about the details, it was. It's quite clear from the text. If I'm willing to accept an error about the flood, then I would have to be willing to accept errors about creation, or about the death of Jesus on the cross. I don't believe that he made a mistake.
Oral tradition back in the day was not like the game of "telephone." The speakers had phrases that they would repeat and chant again and again until the story was exactly the same every time. The native americans do the same thing. So there was no warping with time - no hyperbole through repetition. For this reason, I trust the words of the bible.

4. In Revelation 20, it talks about the thousand years. We and all the righteous dead will be taken to heaven at the second coming 20:4 (incidentally, I believe that people sleep once they're dead, just so you know. We can get into that if you disagree or care at all) where we'll spend a thousand years. During the thousand years, Satan will be all alone on the earth, a la 20:2 (bound for a thousand years). At the end, the second resurrection (the evil) will rise as it mentions in 20:5 (I don't have time to find the place where it goes into this more clearly). Satan is released 20:7 deceives them again 20:8 and they assault the camp of God's children 20:9. Coincidentally, I believe in an eternal fire being translated as it is effectually eternal, not that it burns forever. I'm just telling you so you know where I come from. We could discuss this too, if you want.

This lengthy discourse was just so that I could say that I want to be INSIDE that camp when they attack, not outside with the deceived. Also, that fire will be the most amazing and awe-inspiring thing ever (beside God, of course). So I'd like to see it and live to remember it.

Lastly, I want to thank you for being intelligent. Most everybody on the internet is kind of an imbecile, (no offense to them, but look at youtube comments) and it's refreshing to meet someone who is not.

[truefusion]

room2593, on Apr 2 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

1. Valid point - but God still asks young people to do things, and that's all I'm saying. I've heard that the story of Esther never happened, but even if it didn't, God asked a young girl to save an entire nation of people by risking her neck.

She was declared as a young person at the time of the banquet and a little further on, but i have no idea what age range was considered young. But the text makes clear that Esther, by the time she requested to have her people saved, she would have been in at least above 20 years old, that is, assuming she was picked within her teens, since the time of the banquet was in the third year of the king's reign, and it had passed over 9 years before she requested for the king to put an end to Haman's plans. But i didn't see any command from God (albeit i did skim a bit) for her to do such things.

room2593, on Apr 2 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

2. I'll be trying to clarify and make more understandable.
a. I believe Pangaea was an applicable landmass back in the day - it makes sense. Pangea would be extremely flat, by its very nature - no plates pushing against each other. As soon as the fountains burst forth and geysers blew apart the world, the plates as we know them were moved around and thrown together- forming mountains.
b. The mountains of Ararat were new mountains when Noah landed on them, and they still existed in the time of Moses. They probably still exist, they just have been renamed or forgotten. So Moses wasn't making an error when he wrote about THOSE. The ones that existed DURING the flood, the ones that were covered, I don't know how tall they were or any such thing. But for water to cover a mountain, that would still have to be a massive amount of water, and you can't have that much localized water for 40 days without it running away. For it to stay that high where Noah was for 40 days, it would have to cover the whole earth.

Hmm. Though i've heard about it, i didn't know it was called "Pangea." But the Pangea concept does make things interesting. I had thought about this too in the past, but never considered bare land—that is, land without mountains high enough to reach levels with dense air. I have no reason to not allow for this, but running off of the thought, would it be safe to assume, then, that the actual shape or land mass was entirely the same as today but placed together like a puzzle? This does bring in a lot of scientific explanations or considerations. Genesis 1:9 could probably be interpreted to argue for a Pangean earth. But in either case, i can accept the majority of this, if not the whole thing, while maintaining my position.

room2593, on Apr 2 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

3. You did not answer my point. I did know that there were 7 pairs of clean animals(for eating and for faster repopulation) I just considered it superfluous to mention them. My point was that Noah would not need some of the animals if it was merely a localized flood. If there was going to be a flood that covered the midwest, why would you need lions on your boat? You wouldn't, because they would be safe in Africa. Why would God go to all that trouble to bring those animals if they were just fine? It's just that I believe in a world-wide flood, and unless they were REALLY screwed up about the details, it was. It's quite clear from the text. If I'm willing to accept an error about the flood, then I would have to be willing to accept errors about creation, or about the death of Jesus on the cross. I don't believe that he made a mistake.

Interestingly enough, your questions should have answered themselves. Concerning the assumed lions, Noah had to bring them in because God commanded Noah to do so. Even though those animals were "just fine," God had declared their annihilation anyway due to how wicked the people were. (Note: this implies that animals were made for us, and if there were no us, then animals serve little to no purpose.) I would find it more probable (which implies more logical) if God brought the animals to Noah rather than have Noah go all around the world picking 16 animals (i.e. 7 pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals, totaling 16) of every kind of animal just to place in his boat, the Ark. Noah at the time was over 500 years old when God declared the people as wicked (because Noah's sons weren't born till after Noah turned 500: Gen 5:32), therefore allowing less than, and no more than, 100 years for Noah to go and retrieve the animals. Even if we were to accept the Pangea concept and even if we were to accept that Adam's time and Noah's time were not that far apart (therefore implying less animals existing back then than today's world), there is still less than 100 years for Noah to build an Ark capable of holding so many animals. There cannot be enough time for Noah to build an Ark and go around the world picking 16 animals of each kind before he turns 600 years old. Therefore God must have brought these animals to Noah, therefore only requiring a regional flood.

room2593, on Apr 2 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

Oral tradition back in the day was not like the game of "telephone." The speakers had phrases that they would repeat and chant again and again until the story was exactly the same every time. The native americans do the same thing. So there was no warping with time - no hyperbole through repetition. For this reason, I trust the words of the bible.

Right; i've heard a lot about this. They say this still exists among certain African tribes today. I'm not entirely certain about how the Jews did it back then, but i hear that priests weren't allowed to become priests unless they remembered everything they were told to remember, where this would often involve a book's worth of information (normally, i would assume, being the Law, that is, the Books of Moses). I'm not entirely sure on the accuracy of this statement, but the Bible mentions plenty of times that the Jews and surrounding nations kept a lot of annals concerning what happened in their time. Some of which, if you recall, for example, in the book of Joshua (Joshua 10:13—i.e. the book of Jasher), bearing more authority, at least through implication (i.e. due to their mentioning), than certain books of the Bible itself.

room2593, on Apr 2 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

4. In Revelation 20, it talks about the thousand years. We and all the righteous dead will be taken to heaven at the second coming 20:4 (incidentally, I believe that people sleep once they're dead, just so you know. We can get into that if you disagree or care at all) where we'll spend a thousand years. During the thousand years, Satan will be all alone on the earth, a la 20:2 (bound for a thousand years). At the end, the second resurrection (the evil) will rise as it mentions in 20:5 (I don't have time to find the place where it goes into this more clearly). Satan is released 20:7 deceives them again 20:8 and they assault the camp of God's children 20:9. Coincidentally, I believe in an eternal fire being translated as it is effectually eternal, not that it burns forever. I'm just telling you so you know where I come from. We could discuss this too, if you want.

Only martyrs who lost their lives for Jesus and God's word will be part of the first resurrection (Rev 20:4-6). After the thousand years, then everyone will be awakened and called to judgement. Unless you become a martyr from here to then, it appears you're not going to be able to witness what you want to witness (not that it can't be replayed for you later on, but if what God has in store for those written in the Book of Life is better than any amazing previous event, then chances are you will not care to have it replayed).

Whether or not the fire is metaphoric or not, i do not know, but i've always considered them literal—doesn't really matter to me if they weren't.

room2593, on Apr 2 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

Lastly, I want to thank you for being intelligent. Most everybody on the internet is kind of an imbecile, (no offense to them, but look at youtube comments) and it's refreshing to meet someone who is not.

Oh, i've seen the Youtube comments. I debate on there, too. I've been the "victim" of much name calling, though it never helps their arguments.

[room2593]

This time, I'll put forth the effort to include quote and /quote tags on everything

truefusion, on Apr 3 2009, 04:23 AM, said:

She was declared as a young person at the time of the banquet and a little further on, but i have no idea what age range was considered young. But the text makes clear that Esther, by the time she requested to have her people saved, she would have been in at least above 20 years old, that is, assuming she was picked within her teens, since the time of the banquet was in the third year of the king's reign, and it had passed over 9 years before she requested for the king to put an end to Haman's plans. But i didn't see any command from God (albeit i did skim a bit) for her to do such things.

True, there wasn't a direct "Esther, do things!" from God. But I still believe that God talks to us through other people, or circumstances. Nowdays, he also talks to us through the Holy Spirit, given at the day of pentecost. But that is neither here nor there.

Quote

Hmm. Though i've heard about it, i didn't know it was called "Pangea." But the Pangea concept does make things interesting. I had thought about this too in the past, but never considered bare land—that is, land without mountains high enough to reach levels with dense air. I have no reason to not allow for this, but running off of the thought, would it be safe to assume, then, that the actual shape or land mass was entirely the same as today but placed together like a puzzle? This does bring in a lot of scientific explanations or considerations. Genesis 1:9 could probably be interpreted to argue for a Pangean earth. But in either case, i can accept the majority of this, if not the whole thing, while maintaining my position.

Wow. I have thought about this a lot, so I subconsciously assumed it was a universal thought. The evolutionists throw pangea in my face a lot, so I just point out how it's totally plausible within the scope of the bible. You kind of have to assume a world-wide flood, too. Nothing else would be catastrophic enough to change the face of the earth that much.
And I would like to point out that of course you can't accept all of it. The other piece refutes your claim. Consider a cube of water sitting over your floor. It couldn't happen - it wouldn't stay there - unless it was frozen. Water dissipates to cover the maximum possible area, and does it very quickly. To cover the land for 40 days, it would HAVE to be worldwide.

Quote

Interestingly enough, your questions should have answered themselves. Concerning the assumed lions, Noah had to bring them in because God commanded Noah to do so. Even though those animals were "just fine," God had declared their annihilation anyway due to how wicked the people were. (Note: this implies that animals were made for us, and if there were no us, then animals serve little to no purpose.) I would find it more probable (which implies more logical) if God brought the animals to Noah rather than have Noah go all around the world picking 16 animals (i.e. 7 pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals, totaling 16) of every kind of animal just to place in his boat, the Ark. Noah at the time was over 500 years old when God declared the people as wicked (because Noah's sons weren't born till after Noah turned 500: Gen 5:32), therefore allowing less than, and no more than, 100 years for Noah to go and retrieve the animals. Even if we were to accept the Pangea concept and even if we were to accept that Adam's time and Noah's time were not that far apart (therefore implying less animals existing back then than today's world), there is still less than 100 years for Noah to build an Ark capable of holding so many animals. There cannot be enough time for Noah to build an Ark and go around the world picking 16 animals of each kind before he turns 600 years old. Therefore God must have brought these animals to Noah, therefore only requiring a regional flood.

Okay, whoa! What's this with 16 animals of each kind?
In Deuteronomy, God details exactly what "clean" and "unclean" animals are. I always assumed that the "clean" animals on the ark were these that Noah and co. could eat - cows, chickens, turkeys and so forth. The "unclean" animals (the mass majority of them) were the ones that weren't okay to eat - pigs, horses, elephants and so forth. Since this would be the case, there would be 14 cows and 2 tigers, 14 chickens and 2 orangutans.
Is there a reason why you designate each species as having "clean" and "unclean" animals within it? Because that would change a lot - clean elephants and so forth, and unclean sheep.

Quote

Right; i've heard a lot about this. They say this still exists among certain African tribes today. I'm not entirely certain about how the Jews did it back then, but i hear that priests weren't allowed to become priests unless they remembered everything they were told to remember, where this would often involve a book's worth of information (normally, i would assume, being the Law, that is, the Books of Moses). I'm not entirely sure on the accuracy of this statement, but the Bible mentions plenty of times that the Jews and surrounding nations kept a lot of annals concerning what happened in their time. Some of which, if you recall, for example, in the book of Joshua (Joshua 10:13—i.e. the book of Jasher), bearing more authority, at least through implication (i.e. due to their mentioning), than certain books of the Bible itself.

Yeah. Precisely. I believe there was little or no deviation from the time it occurred to the time it was written down. The people back then were anal about everything being exact and repetitive - every time you tell the story of Abraham sacrificing Issac, you use the same words. Plus, people lived a lot longer back then, so a single storyteller could survive for 500 years and tell the same story the whole time.

Quote

Only martyrs who lost their lives for Jesus and God's word will be part of the first resurrection (Rev 20:4-6). After the thousand years, then everyone will be awakened and called to judgement. Unless you become a martyr from here to then, it appears you're not going to be able to witness what you want to witness (not that it can't be replayed for you later on, but if what God has in store for those written in the Book of Life is better than any amazing previous event, then chances are you will not care to have it replayed).

Whether or not the fire is metaphoric or not, i do not know, but i've always considered them literal—doesn't really matter to me if they weren't.

I hold some pretty weird echatalogical views - the end times is a little different for me than it is for most christians. The way I read all of this going down is that the dead in christ (all of them) are raised at the first resurrection and then those who are alive and in christ (all of us) will meet them in the air.
Then the thousand years in heaven, Satan roams the earth alone, contemplating his massive boop-up - and then the second resurrection, when everyone who ever lived is alive at the same time. Satan gets one last chance to show if he's ACTUALLY as contemptible as he seems and he does not disappoint. He tries to muster his troops for one last stand, at which time the massive, literal fires of God will devour them, annihilating any evidence of them for all eternity.
So the way I read it, I will be caught up to him in the clouds along with all the dead people and I will get a chance to see this massive hellfire thing.

Quote

Oh, i've seen the Youtube comments. I debate on there, too. I've been the "victim" of much name calling, though it never helps their arguments.

Heh. It just makes 'em look unintelligent.