Dead wrong, Clete.
I have not intentionally insisted on using poor grammar.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
I have not intentionally insisted on using poor grammar.
Poor grammar in scripture.
wartburgproject.org
Does Jesus use bad grammar?
ARE THERE GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN SCRIPTURE?
Answering Bible Difficulties – Question 21 by Don Stewart.One of the arguments brought forth against an inerrant Bible concerns errors of grammar in the text. Since the language of Scripture does not always conform to the normal rules of grammar, it is assumed to be in error in those particular instances. A number of examples are usually given:
1. There Are Examples of Grammatical Irregularities
There are a number of examples of grammatical irregularities in Scripture. This is especially true in the Book of Revelation. John, the author of this book, often uses a plural verb when the accepted practice was to use a singular verb. These are known as solecisms.John uses an ungrammatical construction in describing Jesus. He wrote the following:
John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne. (Revelation 1:4 NRSV)
The words, “From him who is, and who was, and who is to come” are written in very ungrammatical Greek.
Other illustrations can be given where standard grammar is not used. For example, Paul begins the third chapter of Ephesians by using a sentence that does not have a verb. This is not correct grammar.
Right Divider
Body part
The Bible clearly and positively affirms that there was a global flood.
Gen 7:19-20 (AKJV/PCE)
(7:19) And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. (7:20) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
So why insist on using a weak and pointless argument based on absence of information and a double-negative?
Gen 7:19-20 (AKJV/PCE)
(7:19) And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. (7:20) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
So why insist on using a weak and pointless argument based on absence of information and a double-negative?
Okay, wow!
It's official. I can no longer remember a time when anyone on TOL ever changed their mind about anything, no matter what anyone said or how they said it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The fountains of the deep
notthebee.com
Oh look, another scientific discovery that shows the Bible was right all along
One of the core arguments against the historicity of the Bible and the flood account in Genesis by scientists has been that a global flood is impossible because there simply is not enough water on earth to flood the entire thing.
notthebee.com
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I believe in a flood over the entire earth.The fountains of the deep
Oh look, another scientific discovery that shows the Bible was right all along
One of the core arguments against the historicity of the Bible and the flood account in Genesis by scientists has been that a global flood is impossible because there simply is not enough water on earth to flood the entire thing.
Color me stupid but I can't see how falling sheets of ice could be proof of it or that they would cause mass freezing.
Konkin' a wooly mammoth on the head and killing it sure.
This from the article...
Consider the work of Dr. Walt Brown, an MIT grad with a PhD in mechanical engineering, who explained the decades ago that highly pressurized water from the earth's crust could have shot up into the atmosphere before falling in frozen sheets – and that this frozen deluge would explain why so many prehistoric animals like mammoths were frozen instantly with green grass in their stomachs (grass takes mere seconds to turn brown in the acid of an elephant's stomach).
Reckon all that ice built up in a big pile miraculously missing a direct hit on them and then once they were covered, they then froze?
Right Divider
Body part
A hyperbaric chamber only goes to about 3 ATM (3 atmospheres). That's not a lot.
Last edited:
It still requires a different gas mix.
Right Divider
Body part
Agree, but we were talking about pressure.
Last edited:
We're talking about both. We don't really know the pressure, but if we have a better idea of the gas mixture that might help us to figure it out.
Right Divider
Body part
Do you assume that the atmosphere was radically different?
way 2 go
Well-known member
Fly Through A Colossal Cave: Son Doong in 360°
Son Doong's caverns can comfortably fit a 747 airplane. Explore them with these unbelievable 360° panoramas.
www.nationalgeographic.com
"Radical" is subjective, but yes I think it was different. Perhaps higher carbon dioxide and less oxygen as a percentage. And, yes, that would require higher pressures to breath.
Right Divider
Body part
I'm sorry that you did not like my word choice. Was the pre-flood atmosphere extremely different? Very different? Quite different?
Yes, it probably had more carbon dioxide and probably MORE oxygen. Many of the dinosaurs would have needed a high oxygen atmosphere to survive (due to their small breathing holes and large bodies).
It would have been either somewhat or very different. I'm not sure without more data.
But having less oxygen as a percentage and higher pressures would also allow larger creatures to breath.
Right Divider
Body part
The pressure that we are talking about per the canopy theory would be greater than could be survived regardless of the atmospheric composition.
What canopy theory are you talking about? I've never eluded to any *formal* canopy theory.
I'm not so sure the canopy would have had to be that thick to exist. It only had to be thick enough to induce the pressure that was required for life.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
No canopy at all is "required for life".