Noah and the Ark - Page 64

pelathais · #**631** 04-07-2010, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamDat

Sorry my mistake, but Genesis 7:10 is also the same.

No, Genesis 7:10 uses "waters H4325 of the flood H3999" and NOT "tehom."

Ma-yim and mab-bool... no "tehom."

Quit making things up. LOL.

JamDat · #**632** 04-07-2010, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

No, Genesis 7:10 uses "waters H4325 of the flood H3999" and NOT "tehom."

Ma-yim and mab-bool... no "tehom."

Quit making things up. LOL.

Making things up? I see H4325 in all three scriptures. I don't mean to be thick here, but just because one of them reads "waters of the flood" doesn't mean Psalms 104 is talking about creation. Anyway, have a good night.

pelathais · #**633** 04-08-2010, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamDat

Making things up? I see H4325 in all three scriptures. I don't mean to be thick here, but just because one of them reads "waters of the flood" doesn't mean Psalms 104 is talking about creation. Anyway, have a good night.

Gen 7:10 And it came to passH1961 after sevenH7651 days,H3117 that the watersH4325 of the floodH3999 wereH1961 uponH5921 the earth.H776

I could not find H8415 (tehom) in the passage that you gave me to look at (Genesis 7:10). No biggie, it's confusing to jump back and forth and then try and keep one conversation straight from another.

H4325 is where the "beams of his chamber" are laid in Psalm 104. (Psalm 103:4). What is there about the story of Noah's Flood that would cause us to think of the Lord as building Himself a "chamber" anywhere at that particular time?

These "waters" (mah-yim) are not the same waters, nor even the same location as "the deep" which is said to cover the "foundations of the earth" in Psalm 104.

(Now, you literalists, just where are those foundations, as well?)

The foundations of the earth are said to be covered with "the deep" (tehom - Strong's H8415) in Psalm 104.

Psalm 104, tells us how the Lord built Himself a "chamber" and layed (KJV) the foundations of the earth. The Lord is then described as SPEAKING something ("thy command") that caused the dry earth to become separated from "the deep." All of this activity is clearly related to the story in Genesis 1, and not the story in Genesis 6.

"King David," even with his poetic license, doesn't appear to be supporting the idea of a literal global flood that would have occurred just about 1,000 years before his time.

notofworks · #**634** 04-08-2010, 08:08 AM

This has been passed around a lot, but when I received this in an email this morning, I thought of this thread. Above the picture was the caption,

"We're gonna have to get rid of the woodpeckers".

Aquila · #**635** 04-08-2010, 09:22 AM

One either believes the Bible or they don't. With so many other "Gods" out there many seek to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe to accomodate their "God", be it science, sex, drugs, or the occult. You name it.

pelathais · #**636** 04-08-2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

One either believes the Bible or they don't. With so many other "Gods" out there many seek to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe to accomodate their "God", be it science, sex, drugs, or the occult. You name it.

What have I said that causes you to think that I don't believe the Bible? You're the one who had to invent giant water sucking trans-dimensional wormhole straws in order to make you flood theory work.

Now, instead of addressing the many problems raised by your theories you fall back into this Pharisaical attitude of "I believe better than you!"

Have you cut off your right hand and gouged out your right eye yet? Can't "pick and chose," remember? Take a stand! Use up some of those health care dollars and do what the Bible is clearly telling you to do.

NotforSale · #**637** 04-08-2010, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notofworks

This has been passed around a lot, but when I received this in an email this morning, I thought of this thread. Above the picture was the caption,

"We're gonna have to get rid of the woodpeckers".

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...6&d=1270735676

NotforSale · #**638** 07-14-2014, 12:30 PM

Evidence is still clear, Noah and the Ark (as most believe) is an allegorical Myth, not a scientifically or historically proven event. This is an excellent Documentary on the subject, validating that Spectral Evidence, not Facts, abound with this Story that is impossible.

Sean · #**639** 07-14-2014, 12:53 PM

That was a biased, weak and void post. The ark was made of wood as the word says, it would have been likely stripped on the spot for Noah and his descendents to build homes and such.

You, NFS are a "MTYH chaser"....LOL

NotforSale · #**640** 07-14-2014, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

That was a biased, weak and void post. The ark was made of wood as the word says, it would have been likely stripped on the spot for Noah and his descendents to build homes and such.

You, NFS are a "MTYH chaser"....LOL

It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, doing no research of your own on this subject. Move along, move along.

And, you need to learn to spell before you go telling others what they are, and are not.