"... take care of it." -Genesis 2:15.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: You douche bag's have some gall!

Your bile failed to de-liver.

.

Into the Night wrote:You DO need to be aware, however, that it's a package deal.

Into the Night wrote:You cannot just select individual scripture out of Genesis and take it out of context; which is what you have been doing.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:You are clueless as usual.

You are delusional, as usual.

Swan wrote: While it is true that Genesis is part of a book,

Nope. Genesis is a book, specifically the book of Genesis.

If you're feeling stupid right now, don't worry, it's totally appropriate.

Swan wrote: it finds nothing necessary to express.

Yes, the book of Genesis has a definite need to express the contents therein.

Swan wrote: See kid only the book's author could do that,

Exactly. The book of Genesis is the word and expression of its author, and needs to express what it needs to express.

Swan wrote:as books do not write themselves.

When the day arrives that your English comprehension surpasses the third-grade level, you will understand that "write" and "express" are not the same word.

But you go on babbling as usual.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: You douche bag's have some gall!

Your bile failed to de-liver.

I wasn't talking about the liver.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You DO need to be aware, however, that it's a package deal.

Good. We agree that it is a package.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You cannot just select individual scripture out of Genesis and take it out of context; which is what you have been doing.

I have a minor problem with your mention of "context." I have done nothing other than take everything as written.

IBdaMann wrote:
Context doesn't enter the picture for what I have mentioned thus far.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you question that the Bible reads as I have stated, please cite the text that I have misquoted.

IBdaMann wrote:
I use the King James Version.

IBdaMann wrote:
Whereas the KJV is written in outdated English, I believe that I am a competent authority to translate into modern/contemporary English. I'm happy to discuss the meaning of any part you wish.

IBdaMann wrote:
As a side note, do you accept 15 cubits to be roughly 27.5 feet, give or take?

IBdaMann wrote:
2nd side note: God's official window size: one cubit. God wouldn't have it any other way. Genesis 6:16

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: You douche bag's have some gall!

Your bile failed to de-liver.

I wasn't talking about the liver.

Try rereading what I wrote just a little slower than you are being.

Into the Night wrote: You continue to ignore the verses describing the mountains were covered.

Into the Night wrote:Of course, it IS a translation and like any translation it has it's inaccuracies (mostly due to idioms that don't translate), but I consider it the closest translation.

Into the Night wrote:Actually, you haven't, since you are cherry picking scripture and ignoring other scripture.

Into the Night wrote: In various kingdoms and societies, the king's arm was used. Thus, the cubit varies in size depending on the king at the time. In other words, it was an imperial unit...just an old one.

Into the Night wrote:Whether Noah used his own arm (most convenient), or a 'standard' cubit of the day is unknown.

Into the Night wrote:This unit of measurement was common throughout Egypt and Israel, as well as a few other places. It was simply the local unit of measurement at the time. Some builders still use it for rough measurements.

Into the Night wrote:The cubit used by Noah could easily have been anywhere from about 18 inches to 21 inches,

Into the Night wrote:giving a height of the vessel of anything from 540ft to 630ft

Into the Night wrote:The Ark wasn't built in a day or even in a year. It likely took some 70 years or longer to build the Ark.

Into the Night wrote:This interval is supported by genealogical information given in the same book at the time. The actual time is unknown.

Into the Night wrote:You forget AGAIN that the Bible is about events in and around Egypt, Rome, and Israel, where the cubit was commonly used.

Into the Night wrote:There is NOTHING that states God made ANY measurement system 'official'.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You continue to ignore the verses describing the mountains were covered.

There's a reason for that, and you touched upon it ...

Into the Night wrote:Of course, it IS a translation and like any translation it has it's inaccuracies (mostly due to idioms that don't translate), but I consider it the closest translation.

This is exactly the reason we should disregard mention of mountains. One unfortunate problem with translating amongst European languages (and even proto-European) is that the word for "plantlife" and "brush" and "countryside" also has, as a possible translation, the word for "mountain". It doesn't take a genius to read the Hebrew account of Genesis and realize the regrettable mistake of translating "phase/time period" as "day", even though the word "day" is technically a correct translation in other contexts. Similarly, it is fairly obvious (I say "fairly" because I really don't expect people to delve into multiple languages) that what was originally intended was that there was a lot of rain, flooding occurred, the ark was lifted off the ground and all the plants and trees were submerged. Take the mountains and the mistranslation out of it and it makes perfect sense. The 15 cubits fits right in. Someone in an ark would not be drowned.

Here are pictures of monte ...

but here are two more pictures of monte ...

As a sidenote, the brand Del Monte means "of the countryside plantlife" not "of the mountain." Later in Genesis there is reference to Jacob and his brethren laboring all night "in the mount", i.e. in the fields. The Bible has fallen victim to poor translations between "fields," "rocks," "mountains," "countryside" "pastures," "slopes", and many others that were interchanged when they should not have been. If you keep that in mind as you read the account of the great flood, it all makes perfect sense.

Note that when Jesus delivered the sermon on the mount, it was a mound on which he was standing, or a rock, not a mountain. He was standing on a mound so as to be somewhat elevated over the audience. Unfortunately it was translated as "mount" as you would refer to Mount Rushmore, and not as "mound", e.g. mound on the ground.

Into the Night wrote:Actually, you haven't, since you are cherry picking scripture and ignoring other scripture.

At the same time, you don't get to discount any Bible verse simply on the grounds that the entire rest of the Bible was not included as well.

There is no such thing as "cherry picking" when quoting the Bible. It's a package deal and you have to take all of it. I happen to take a humanistic interpretation because I know how people like to embellish when recounting stories and how stories change/evolve each time they are recounted, and how they change every time they are translated, and how they change every time they are edited (just note how the supposedly same story varies between different versions of the Bible). This is why I select one version (KJV) and use that. The English might be a little archaic but the gist of the story remains intact for the most part. As always, there are various translation pitfalls but those are more readily discerned in KJV than in more modern re-edits.

Into the Night wrote: In various kingdoms and societies, the king's arm was used. Thus, the cubit varies in size depending on the king at the time. In other words, it was an imperial unit...just an old one.

According to the Bible, one cubit is the size of a window.

Yes, yes, ... outside of the Bible, historically, yes a cubit was measured by elbow to fingertip. However, we must apply context, and the context is the Bible, and God doesn't use any other unit.

How long is it from God's elbow to God's fingertip?

Do you have any theories as to why God used cubits exclusively?

Can you think of a reason why God would make his official window measurement "one cubit"? Jussasking. You have to admit, it's no coincidence that God didn't give Noah any leeway on the size of the stupid window. God did not say "Noah, hey, it's your window, make it whatever size you want, just don't go crazy with it." He said "Noah, make the window exactly one cubit ... or I'll have the union all over your ass so fast you won't even have enough time to tell Shem to get the shotgun, ... I mean a sling and some stones."

From my point of view, cubits are God's unit of measure. He doesn't use any other.

Into the Night wrote:Whether Noah used his own arm (most convenient), or a 'standard' cubit of the day is unknown.

... or maybe he used God's cubit. If it's good enough for God then it might very well have been good enough for Noah.

Into the Night wrote:This unit of measurement was common throughout Egypt and Israel, as well as a few other places. It was simply the local unit of measurement at the time. Some builders still use it for rough measurements.

Outside of any Biblical context, and within an historical context, absolutely.

Into the Night wrote:The cubit used by Noah could easily have been anywhere from about 18 inches to 21 inches,

I'm going with Noah's cubit being one window in length.

Into the Night wrote:giving a height of the vessel of anything from 540ft to 630ft

That would be the length. The height would be about 55 ft, give or take.

Into the Night wrote:The Ark wasn't built in a day or even in a year. It likely took some 70 years or longer to build the Ark.

GasGuzzler said the same thing.

How did you calculate this figure? Juskyurious. Are you adding on a few extra decades because Noah tried to move large beams with levers?

Into the Night wrote:This interval is supported by genealogical information given in the same book at the time. The actual time is unknown.

I'm sure it is, but I'd be interested in knowing what information was used to make the estimate. Genesis doesn't even touch the subject. In Genesis 6, God tells Noah to build an ark, and he just does. Then in Genesis 7, God tells Noah to gather up all the animals ... in seven days ... and Noah just does.

Genesis 7 could be used as support for Genesis 6 taking a far shorter time period under the premise that God helped Noah ... because God helps those who help themselves. I think a strong case could be made that God helped Noah gather up all the animals to fill the ark in only seven days.

I wouldn't rule out God being helpful, jussayn.

Other Christians claim that the flood was 120 years in the coming, having been announced more than a century in advance, when Noah was about 480 years old, indicating Noah had been working on it that long. Others say Noah didn't "get right on it" but instead relaxed for a few decades before rolling up his sleeves. Yet others believe that God helped him get it done in a few months.

Something you might one day consider to expand your horizons, and to look at the great flood account from a differing historical perspective, is to read the Muslim account of Noah and the flood. In Islam, Noah is a nabi (prophet) and the account of Noah, which includes the flood, is much longer and more detailed. It's like Islam bought the movie rights to the Genesis short story. It has a little bit of Daedalus and Icarus in there, with Noah's "oldest son" not believing the prophecy, did not board the ark, but when the rain began, ran to the top of a hill ... and perished.

You had asked "from where did the water come." In Islam, Allah caused water to gush upward from huge cracks in the earth ... and when everyone was dead, he reopened the cracks to let the water disappear back into the earth.

The story of Noah in Islam is a major drama whereby Noah tries to save humanity by pleading with mankind to abandon idolatry ... but they all mock him. Then Noah begins building the ark at the appointed time, and humanity makes long pilgrimages just to find Noah and to mock him for building a ship on a hill far from any lake or ocean. Then Noah's wife, it turns out, never believed his story and she laughed at Noah, and mocked him as he was climbing aboard the ark ... and then the door was shut and she died.

Mainstream Islam holds that there were about eighty people on the ark along with all the animals.

Into the Night wrote:You forget AGAIN that the Bible is about events in and around Egypt, Rome, and Israel, where the cubit was commonly used.

You forget that this is not specified in the Bible. This is speculation. Genesis does not specify the geographic location.

One major reason for this is that the account of the great flood came to Egypt, Rome and Israel from parts further east in Asia ... but that is a non-Biblical context. If we simply go by Genesis, we simply don't know where it occurred.

Into the Night wrote:There is NOTHING that states God made ANY measurement system 'official'.

Yes there is: The book of Genesis. All you need is for God to mandate it, and mandate it He did. That more than made it official. It made it regulatory.

When Noah finished his window to one cubit, he wasn't being creative, he was being obedient.

.

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You continue to ignore the verses describing the mountains were covered.

There's a reason for that, and you touched upon it ...

Into the Night wrote:Of course, it IS a translation and like any translation it has it's inaccuracies (mostly due to idioms that don't translate), but I consider it the closest translation.

This is exactly the reason we should disregard mention of mountains. One unfortunate problem with translating amongst European languages (and even proto-European) is that the word for "plantlife" and "brush" and "countryside" also has, as a possible translation, the word for "mountain". It doesn't take a genius to read the Hebrew account of Genesis and realize the regrettable mistake of translating "phase/time period" as "day", even though the word "day" is technically a correct translation in other contexts. Similarly, it is fairly obvious (I say "fairly" because I really don't expect people to delve into multiple languages) that what was originally intended was that there was a lot of rain, flooding occurred, the ark was lifted off the ground and all the plants and trees were submerged. Take the mountains and the mistranslation out of it and it makes perfect sense. The 15 cubits fits right in. Someone in an ark would not be drowned.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Actually, you haven't, since you are cherry picking scripture and ignoring other scripture.

At the same time, you don't get to discount any Bible verse simply on the grounds that the entire rest of the Bible was not included as well.

There is no such thing as "cherry picking" when quoting the Bible. It's a package deal and you have to take all of it.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You continue to ignore the verses describing the mountains were covered.

There's a reason for that, and you touched upon it ...

Into the Night wrote:Of course, it IS a translation and like any translation it has it's inaccuracies (mostly due to idioms that don't translate), but I consider it the closest translation.

This is exactly the reason we should disregard mention of mountains. One unfortunate problem with translating amongst European languages (and even proto-European) is that the word for "plantlife" and "brush" and "countryside" also has, as a possible translation, the word for "mountain". It doesn't take a genius to read the Hebrew account of Genesis and realize the regrettable mistake of translating "phase/time period" as "day", even though the word "day" is technically a correct translation in other contexts. Similarly, it is fairly obvious (I say "fairly" because I really don't expect people to delve into multiple languages) that what was originally intended was that there was a lot of rain, flooding occurred, the ark was lifted off the ground and all the plants and trees were submerged. Take the mountains and the mistranslation out of it and it makes perfect sense. The 15 cubits fits right in. Someone in an ark would not be drowned.

Here are pictures of monte ...

but here are two more pictures of monte ...

As a sidenote, the brand Del Monte means "of the countryside plantlife" not "of the mountain." Later in Genesis there is reference to Jacob and his brethren laboring all night "in the mount", i.e. in the fields. The Bible has fallen victim to poor translations between "fields," "rocks," "mountains," "countryside" "pastures," "slopes", and many others that were interchanged when they should not have been. If you keep that in mind as you read the account of the great flood, it all makes perfect sense.

Note that when Jesus delivered the sermon on the mount, it was a mound on which he was standing, or a rock, not a mountain. He was standing on a mound so as to be somewhat elevated over the audience. Unfortunately it was translated as "mount" as you would refer to Mount Rushmore, and not as "mound", e.g. mound on the ground.

Into the Night wrote:Actually, you haven't, since you are cherry picking scripture and ignoring other scripture.

At the same time, you don't get to discount any Bible verse simply on the grounds that the entire rest of the Bible was not included as well.

There is no such thing as "cherry picking" when quoting the Bible. It's a package deal and you have to take all of it. I happen to take a humanistic interpretation because I know how people like to embellish when recounting stories and how stories change/evolve each time they are recounted, and how they change every time they are translated, and how they change every time they are edited (just note how the supposedly same story varies between different versions of the Bible). This is why I select one version (KJV) and use that. The English might be a little archaic but the gist of the story remains intact for the most part. As always, there are various translation pitfalls but those are more readily discerned in KJV than in more modern re-edits.

Into the Night wrote: In various kingdoms and societies, the king's arm was used. Thus, the cubit varies in size depending on the king at the time. In other words, it was an imperial unit...just an old one.

According to the Bible, one cubit is the size of a window.

Yes, yes, ... outside of the Bible, historically, yes a cubit was measured by elbow to fingertip. However, we must apply context, and the context is the Bible, and God doesn't use any other unit.

How long is it from God's elbow to God's fingertip?

Do you have any theories as to why God used cubits exclusively?

Can you think of a reason why God would make his official window measurement "one cubit"? Jussasking. You have to admit, it's no coincidence that God didn't give Noah any leeway on the size of the stupid window. God did not say "Noah, hey, it's your window, make it whatever size you want, just don't go crazy with it." He said "Noah, make the window exactly one cubit ... or I'll have the union all over your ass so fast you won't even have enough time to tell Shem to get the shotgun, ... I mean a sling and some stones."

From my point of view, cubits are God's unit of measure. He doesn't use any other.

Into the Night wrote:Whether Noah used his own arm (most convenient), or a 'standard' cubit of the day is unknown.

... or maybe he used God's cubit. If it's good enough for God then it might very well have been good enough for Noah.

Into the Night wrote:This unit of measurement was common throughout Egypt and Israel, as well as a few other places. It was simply the local unit of measurement at the time. Some builders still use it for rough measurements.

Outside of any Biblical context, and within an historical context, absolutely.

Into the Night wrote:The cubit used by Noah could easily have been anywhere from about 18 inches to 21 inches,

I'm going with Noah's cubit being one window in length.

Into the Night wrote:giving a height of the vessel of anything from 540ft to 630ft

That would be the length. The height would be about 55 ft, give or take.

Into the Night wrote:The Ark wasn't built in a day or even in a year. It likely took some 70 years or longer to build the Ark.

GasGuzzler said the same thing.

How did you calculate this figure? Juskyurious. Are you adding on a few extra decades because Noah tried to move large beams with levers?

Into the Night wrote:This interval is supported by genealogical information given in the same book at the time. The actual time is unknown.

I'm sure it is, but I'd be interested in knowing what information was used to make the estimate. Genesis doesn't even touch the subject. In Genesis 6, God tells Noah to build an ark, and he just does. Then in Genesis 7, God tells Noah to gather up all the animals ... in seven days ... and Noah just does.

Genesis 7 could be used as support for Genesis 6 taking a far shorter time period under the premise that God helped Noah ... because God helps those who help themselves. I think a strong case could be made that God helped Noah gather up all the animals to fill the ark in only seven days.

I wouldn't rule out God being helpful, jussayn.

Other Christians claim that the flood was 120 years in the coming, having been announced more than a century in advance, when Noah was about 480 years old, indicating Noah had been working on it that long. Others say Noah didn't "get right on it" but instead relaxed for a few decades before rolling up his sleeves. Yet others believe that God helped him get it done in a few months.

Something you might one day consider to expand your horizons, and to look at the great flood account from a differing historical perspective, is to read the Muslim account of Noah and the flood. In Islam, Noah is a nabi (prophet) and the account of Noah, which includes the flood, is much longer and more detailed. It's like Islam bought the movie rights to the Genesis short story. It has a little bit of Daedalus and Icarus in there, with Noah's "oldest son" not believing the prophecy, did not board the ark, but when the rain began, ran to the top of a hill ... and perished.

You had asked "from where did the water come." In Islam, Allah caused water to gush upward from huge cracks in the earth ... and when everyone was dead, he reopened the cracks to let the water disappear back into the earth.

The story of Noah in Islam is a major drama whereby Noah tries to save humanity by pleading with mankind to abandon idolatry ... but they all mock him. Then Noah begins building the ark at the appointed time, and humanity makes long pilgrimages just to find Noah and to mock him for building a ship on a hill far from any lake or ocean. Then Noah's wife, it turns out, never believed his story and she laughed at Noah, and mocked him as he was climbing aboard the ark ... and then the door was shut and she died.

Mainstream Islam holds that there were about eighty people on the ark along with all the animals.

Into the Night wrote:You forget AGAIN that the Bible is about events in and around Egypt, Rome, and Israel, where the cubit was commonly used.

You forget that this is not specified in the Bible. This is speculation. Genesis does not specify the geographic location.

One major reason for this is that the account of the great flood came to Egypt, Rome and Israel from parts further east in Asia ... but that is a non-Biblical context. If we simply go by Genesis, we simply don't know where it occurred.

Into the Night wrote:There is NOTHING that states God made ANY measurement system 'official'.

Yes there is: The book of Genesis. All you need is for God to mandate it, and mandate it He did. That more than made it official. It made it regulatory.

When Noah finished his window to one cubit, he wasn't being creative, he was being obedient.

.

What language was Genesis translated from, and what kind of writing implements were used by Adam and Eve and what school were they taught to use them at?

Sorry girls I can not participate in this PhD psychological wet dream

But you go right ahead explaining everything you know to no one

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Into the Night wrote:So you have decided to ignore any verse mentioning 'mountain'

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You continue to ignore the verses describing the mountains were covered.

There's a reason for that, and you touched upon it ...

Into the Night wrote:Of course, it IS a translation and like any translation it has it's inaccuracies (mostly due to idioms that don't translate), but I consider it the closest translation.

This is exactly the reason we should disregard mention of mountains. One unfortunate problem with translating amongst European languages (and even proto-European) is that the word for "plantlife" and "brush" and "countryside" also has, as a possible translation, the word for "mountain". It doesn't take a genius to read the Hebrew account of Genesis and realize the regrettable mistake of translating "phase/time period" as "day", even though the word "day" is technically a correct translation in other contexts. Similarly, it is fairly obvious (I say "fairly" because I really don't expect people to delve into multiple languages) that what was originally intended was that there was a lot of rain, flooding occurred, the ark was lifted off the ground and all the plants and trees were submerged. Take the mountains and the mistranslation out of it and it makes perfect sense. The 15 cubits fits right in. Someone in an ark would not be drowned.

Here are pictures of monte ...

but here are two more pictures of monte ...

As a sidenote, the brand Del Monte means "of the countryside plantlife" not "of the mountain." Later in Genesis there is reference to Jacob and his brethren laboring all night "in the mount", i.e. in the fields. The Bible has fallen victim to poor translations between "fields," "rocks," "mountains," "countryside" "pastures," "slopes", and many others that were interchanged when they should not have been. If you keep that in mind as you read the account of the great flood, it all makes perfect sense.

Note that when Jesus delivered the sermon on the mount, it was a mound on which he was standing, or a rock, not a mountain. He was standing on a mound so as to be somewhat elevated over the audience. Unfortunately it was translated as "mount" as you would refer to Mount Rushmore, and not as "mound", e.g. mound on the ground.

Into the Night wrote:Actually, you haven't, since you are cherry picking scripture and ignoring other scripture.

At the same time, you don't get to discount any Bible verse simply on the grounds that the entire rest of the Bible was not included as well.

There is no such thing as "cherry picking" when quoting the Bible. It's a package deal and you have to take all of it. I happen to take a humanistic interpretation because I know how people like to embellish when recounting stories and how stories change/evolve each time they are recounted, and how they change every time they are translated, and how they change every time they are edited (just note how the supposedly same story varies between different versions of the Bible). This is why I select one version (KJV) and use that. The English might be a little archaic but the gist of the story remains intact for the most part. As always, there are various translation pitfalls but those are more readily discerned in KJV than in more modern re-edits.

Into the Night wrote: In various kingdoms and societies, the king's arm was used. Thus, the cubit varies in size depending on the king at the time. In other words, it was an imperial unit...just an old one.

According to the Bible, one cubit is the size of a window.

Yes, yes, ... outside of the Bible, historically, yes a cubit was measured by elbow to fingertip. However, we must apply context, and the context is the Bible, and God doesn't use any other unit.

How long is it from God's elbow to God's fingertip?

Do you have any theories as to why God used cubits exclusively?

Can you think of a reason why God would make his official window measurement "one cubit"? Jussasking. You have to admit, it's no coincidence that God didn't give Noah any leeway on the size of the stupid window. God did not say "Noah, hey, it's your window, make it whatever size you want, just don't go crazy with it." He said "Noah, make the window exactly one cubit ... or I'll have the union all over your ass so fast you won't even have enough time to tell Shem to get the shotgun, ... I mean a sling and some stones."

From my point of view, cubits are God's unit of measure. He doesn't use any other.

Into the Night wrote:Whether Noah used his own arm (most convenient), or a 'standard' cubit of the day is unknown.

... or maybe he used God's cubit. If it's good enough for God then it might very well have been good enough for Noah.

Into the Night wrote:This unit of measurement was common throughout Egypt and Israel, as well as a few other places. It was simply the local unit of measurement at the time. Some builders still use it for rough measurements.

Outside of any Biblical context, and within an historical context, absolutely.

Into the Night wrote:The cubit used by Noah could easily have been anywhere from about 18 inches to 21 inches,

I'm going with Noah's cubit being one window in length.

Into the Night wrote:giving a height of the vessel of anything from 540ft to 630ft

That would be the length. The height would be about 55 ft, give or take.

Into the Night wrote:The Ark wasn't built in a day or even in a year. It likely took some 70 years or longer to build the Ark.

GasGuzzler said the same thing.

How did you calculate this figure? Juskyurious. Are you adding on a few extra decades because Noah tried to move large beams with levers?

Into the Night wrote:This interval is supported by genealogical information given in the same book at the time. The actual time is unknown.

I'm sure it is, but I'd be interested in knowing what information was used to make the estimate. Genesis doesn't even touch the subject. In Genesis 6, God tells Noah to build an ark, and he just does. Then in Genesis 7, God tells Noah to gather up all the animals ... in seven days ... and Noah just does.

Genesis 7 could be used as support for Genesis 6 taking a far shorter time period under the premise that God helped Noah ... because God helps those who help themselves. I think a strong case could be made that God helped Noah gather up all the animals to fill the ark in only seven days.

I wouldn't rule out God being helpful, jussayn.

Other Christians claim that the flood was 120 years in the coming, having been announced more than a century in advance, when Noah was about 480 years old, indicating Noah had been working on it that long. Others say Noah didn't "get right on it" but instead relaxed for a few decades before rolling up his sleeves. Yet others believe that God helped him get it done in a few months.

Something you might one day consider to expand your horizons, and to look at the great flood account from a differing historical perspective, is to read the Muslim account of Noah and the flood. In Islam, Noah is a nabi (prophet) and the account of Noah, which includes the flood, is much longer and more detailed. It's like Islam bought the movie rights to the Genesis short story. It has a little bit of Daedalus and Icarus in there, with Noah's "oldest son" not believing the prophecy, did not board the ark, but when the rain began, ran to the top of a hill ... and perished.

You had asked "from where did the water come." In Islam, Allah caused water to gush upward from huge cracks in the earth ... and when everyone was dead, he reopened the cracks to let the water disappear back into the earth.

The story of Noah in Islam is a major drama whereby Noah tries to save humanity by pleading with mankind to abandon idolatry ... but they all mock him. Then Noah begins building the ark at the appointed time, and humanity makes long pilgrimages just to find Noah and to mock him for building a ship on a hill far from any lake or ocean. Then Noah's wife, it turns out, never believed his story and she laughed at Noah, and mocked him as he was climbing aboard the ark ... and then the door was shut and she died.

Mainstream Islam holds that there were about eighty people on the ark along with all the animals.

Into the Night wrote:You forget AGAIN that the Bible is about events in and around Egypt, Rome, and Israel, where the cubit was commonly used.

You forget that this is not specified in the Bible. This is speculation. Genesis does not specify the geographic location.

One major reason for this is that the account of the great flood came to Egypt, Rome and Israel from parts further east in Asia ... but that is a non-Biblical context. If we simply go by Genesis, we simply don't know where it occurred.

Into the Night wrote:There is NOTHING that states God made ANY measurement system 'official'.

Yes there is: The book of Genesis. All you need is for God to mandate it, and mandate it He did. That more than made it official. It made it regulatory.

When Noah finished his window to one cubit, he wasn't being creative, he was being obedient.

.

What language was Genesis translated from, and what kind of writing implements were used by Adam and Eve and what school were they taught to use them at?

Sorry girls I can not participate in this PhD psychological wet dream

But you go right ahead explaining everything you know to no one

Who said Adam and Eve wrote Genesis?

Swan wrote:So if no one knows who wrote it then no one can verify that it is real.

Swan wrote:On the other hand government analyst like you claim to know everything

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:So you have decided to ignore any verse mentioning 'mountain'

Nope. I use intelligence and common sense to properly interpret all occurrences of the word "mount" and "mountain" because, as you point out, and then promptly forget, the Bible suffers from those translation problems.

I fully explained why. You are plugging your ears.

So you have decided to ignore the clear-cut distance of 15 cubits in order to change it on the order of magnitude to force-fit a different verse that is clearly misinterpreted..

IBdaMann wrote:

15 cubits is 15 cubits. You don't get to deny it with the excuse that I am somehow "cherry-picking." Either show that the waters did not prevail 15 cubits or accept that the use of the word "mountains" is just one of many mistranslations. I gave you several examples off the cuff.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Who said Adam and Eve wrote Genesis?

Not me, I ask who wrote it.

Swan wrote:
Seems that you have no clue who wrote it either. So if no one knows who wrote it then no one can verify that it is real.

Swan wrote:
On the other hand government analyst like you claim to know everything

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So if no one knows who wrote it then no one can verify that it is real.

Irrelevant. No religion is science.

IBdaMann wrote:
No religion needs to demonstrate anything to be "real."

IBdaMann wrote:
Showing that something is "real" is a requirement of science.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So if no one knows who wrote it then no one can verify that it is real.

Irrelevant. No religion is science. No religion needs to demonstrate anything to be "real."

Showing that something is "real" is a requirement of science.

Swan wrote:On the other hand government analyst like you claim to know everything

Which is silly because I'm the only one who knows everything.

IBdaMann wrote:

Nope. I use intelligence and common sense to properly interpret all occurrences of the word "mount" and "mountain"

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

I'll mention it to you as well. Any occurrences of the words "mountain" or "mount" in the Bible are likely gross mistranslations or, at the very least, poor word choices and should definitely be set aside until the rest of the account is understood without those words, and then proper meaning being assigned to those words.

It sounds like you accept that all the tallest trees were covered, correct? You acknowledge that the ark was "lifted off the earth," correct?

What is gained (storywise) by involving orders of magnitude additional water? Why is this somehow more important than understanding a proper translation?

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So if no one knows who wrote it then no one can verify that it is real.

Irrelevant. No religion is science. No religion needs to demonstrate anything to be "real."

Showing that something is "real" is a requirement of science.

Swan wrote:On the other hand government analyst like you claim to know everything

Which is silly because I'm the only one who knows everything.

So you just accept that Genesis is real because you have faith in comic books that were written in a time before writing implements or even language for that matter.

To you this makes sense.

Since you know everything you absolutely work for the government as all those as dumb as you are government employees

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

I'll mention it to you as well. Any occurrences of the words "mountain" or "mount" in the Bible are likely gross mistranslations or, at the very least, poor word choices and should definitely be set aside until the rest of the account is understood without those words, and then proper meaning being assigned to those words.

It sounds like you accept that all the tallest trees were covered, correct? You acknowledge that the ark was "lifted off the earth," correct?

What is gained (storywise) by involving orders of magnitude additional water? Why is this somehow more important than understanding a proper translation?

.

If I haven't made it clear in my last 1100 posts in this forum, my position is that solar and lunar winds ("waters") came flooding through a hole in Heaven, which was shattered because too much pressure built up on Earth, because too much CO2 had been emitted, around what are today the borders of Lybia, Egypt, and Sudan. These "flood waters" incinerated all life on land, most in the sea, and covered all the hills and mountains. Whatever "gopher wood" is, it shielded what was inside the ark. The solar and lunar winds lifted the ark 15 cubits.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

I'll mention it to you as well. Any occurrences of the words "mountain" or "mount" in the Bible are likely gross mistranslations or, at the very least, poor word choices and should definitely be set aside until the rest of the account is understood without those words, and then proper meaning being assigned to those words.

It sounds like you accept that all the tallest trees were covered, correct? You acknowledge that the ark was "lifted off the earth," correct?

What is gained (storywise) by involving orders of magnitude additional water? Why is this somehow more important than understanding a proper translation?

.

If I haven't made it clear in my last 1100 posts in this forum, my position is that solar and lunar winds ("waters") came flooding through a hole in Heaven, which was shattered because too much pressure built up on Earth, because too much CO2 had been emitted, around what are today the borders of Lybia, Egypt, and Sudan. These "flood waters" incinerated all life on land, most in the sea, and covered all the hills and mountains. Whatever "gopher wood" is, it shielded what was inside the ark. The solar and lunar winds lifted the ark 15 cubits.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

I'll mention it to you as well. Any occurrences of the words "mountain" or "mount" in the Bible are likely gross mistranslations or, at the very least, poor word choices and should definitely be set aside until the rest of the account is understood without those words, and then proper meaning being assigned to those words.

It sounds like you accept that all the tallest trees were covered, correct? You acknowledge that the ark was "lifted off the earth," correct?

What is gained (storywise) by involving orders of magnitude additional water? Why is this somehow more important than understanding a proper translation?

.

If I haven't made it clear in my last 1100 posts in this forum, my position is that solar and lunar winds ("waters") came flooding through a hole in Heaven, which was shattered because too much pressure built up on Earth, because too much CO2 had been emitted, around what are today the borders of Lybia, Egypt, and Sudan. These "flood waters" incinerated all life on land, most in the sea, and covered all the hills and mountains. Whatever "gopher wood" is, it shielded what was inside the ark. The solar and lunar winds lifted the ark 15 cubits.

Genesis 8
8. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.

9. But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth.

Why solar wind and not ketchup or something of that nature??

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

I'll mention it to you as well. Any occurrences of the words "mountain" or "mount" in the Bible are likely gross mistranslations or, at the very least, poor word choices and should definitely be set aside until the rest of the account is understood without those words, and then proper meaning being assigned to those words.

It sounds like you accept that all the tallest trees were covered, correct? You acknowledge that the ark was "lifted off the earth," correct?

What is gained (storywise) by involving orders of magnitude additional water? Why is this somehow more important than understanding a proper translation?

.

If I haven't made it clear in my last 1100 posts in this forum, my position is that solar and lunar winds ("waters") came flooding through a hole in Heaven, which was shattered because too much pressure built up on Earth, because too much CO2 had been emitted, around what are today the borders of Lybia, Egypt, and Sudan. These "flood waters" incinerated all life on land, most in the sea, and covered all the hills and mountains. Whatever "gopher wood" is, it shielded what was inside the ark. The solar and lunar winds lifted the ark 15 cubits.

Genesis 8
8. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.

9. But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth.

Why solar wind and not ketchup or something of that nature??

Actually dumbass a dove is not in any way capable of circumnavigating the globe, so the story is BS.

You may continue masturbating

Swan wrote:

Yo? I'm all out of meth laced LSD, can you spare any?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

I'll mention it to you as well. Any occurrences of the words "mountain" or "mount" in the Bible are likely gross mistranslations or, at the very least, poor word choices and should definitely be set aside until the rest of the account is understood without those words, and then proper meaning being assigned to those words.

It sounds like you accept that all the tallest trees were covered, correct? You acknowledge that the ark was "lifted off the earth," correct?

What is gained (storywise) by involving orders of magnitude additional water? Why is this somehow more important than understanding a proper translation?

.

If I haven't made it clear in my last 1100 posts in this forum, my position is that solar and lunar winds ("waters") came flooding through a hole in Heaven, which was shattered because too much pressure built up on Earth, because too much CO2 had been emitted, around what are today the borders of Lybia, Egypt, and Sudan. These "flood waters" incinerated all life on land, most in the sea, and covered all the hills and mountains. Whatever "gopher wood" is, it shielded what was inside the ark. The solar and lunar winds lifted the ark 15 cubits.

Genesis 8
8. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.

9. But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth.

Why solar wind and not ketchup or something of that nature??

Actually dumbass a dove is not in any way capable of circumnavigating the globe, so the story is BS.

You may continue masturbating

It doesn't say the dove checked the entire earth, dumbass. It says the dove found no place to land because water was over (that means above) all the surface of the earth.

I could say you couldn't find a parking place because they were all occupied, but that doesn't mean you checked all parking spots on the entire parking lot.

You continue your 3rd grade reading lesson. You'll get there.

Swan wrote:
1. There was no dove as the story is the equivalent of little red riding hood, a fable, not real.

Swan wrote:
2. If there was a dove it could not have checked any more than .000001 percent of the Earths surface, and as such could have not said that there was no land, not that doves can converse with people anyway.

Swan wrote:
3. How would the dove know which way to fly to find land anyway if there was land there to be found?

Swan wrote:
4. If the dove did find land, and it returned, how would it give the nautical coordinates to follow? Like would it say turn left at the next wave and then go East for 700 wing flaps?

Swan wrote:
5. This concludes this test of the Emergency Retard Alert system, if this had been a real retard alert further instructions would have been given.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
1. There was no dove as the story is the equivalent of little red riding hood, a fable, not real.

You mean parable, but OK, I get that your vocabulary is 3rd grade level. It was not written as a parable being told. It was written as what actually happened. If you don't believe it that is fine and it is everyone's own decision. However, it was not written as a parable.

Swan wrote:
2. If there was a dove it could not have checked any more than .000001 percent of the Earths surface, and as such could have not said that there was no land, not that doves can converse with people anyway.

The dove did not say there was no land. The dove could not find land to put it's feet on because there was no land. Did you find that parking place yet?

Swan wrote:
3. How would the dove know which way to fly to find land anyway if there was land there to be found?

It didn't need to know anything. It didn't find land because there was none visible anywhere on earth.

Swan wrote:
4. If the dove did find land, and it returned, how would it give the nautical coordinates to follow? Like would it say turn left at the next wave and then go East for 700 wing flaps?

Later on the dove did find an olive branch. Noah did not try to go find land mainly because his 3 outboard motors were toast. The olive branch simply meant that there was life on earth and conditions outside the ark were improving.

Swan wrote:
5. This concludes this test of the Emergency Retard Alert system, if this had been a real retard alert further instructions would have been given.

This test has been upgraded to a dumbass warning. Your instructions are to immediately consume large quantities of peanut butter.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

I'll mention it to you as well. Any occurrences of the words "mountain" or "mount" in the Bible are likely gross mistranslations or, at the very least, poor word choices and should definitely be set aside until the rest of the account is understood without those words, and then proper meaning being assigned to those words.

It sounds like you accept that all the tallest trees were covered, correct? You acknowledge that the ark was "lifted off the earth," correct?

What is gained (storywise) by involving orders of magnitude additional water? Why is this somehow more important than understanding a proper translation?

.

If I haven't made it clear in my last 1100 posts in this forum, my position is that solar and lunar winds ("waters") came flooding through a hole in Heaven, which was shattered because too much pressure built up on Earth, because too much CO2 had been emitted, around what are today the borders of Lybia, Egypt, and Sudan. These "flood waters" incinerated all life on land, most in the sea, and covered all the hills and mountains. Whatever "gopher wood" is, it shielded what was inside the ark. The solar and lunar winds lifted the ark 15 cubits.

Genesis 8
8. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.

9. But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth.

Why solar wind and not ketchup or something of that nature??

Actually dumbass a dove is not in any way capable of circumnavigating the globe, so the story is BS.

You may continue masturbating

It doesn't say the dove checked the entire earth, dumbass. It says the dove found no place to land because water was over (that means above) all the surface of the earth.

I could say you couldn't find a parking place because they were all occupied, but that doesn't mean you checked all parking spots on the entire parking lot.

You continue your 3rd grade reading lesson. You'll get there.

Retard alert.

1. There was no dove as the story is the equivalent of little red riding hood, a fable, not real.

2. If there was a dove it could not have checked any more than .000001 percent of the Earths surface, and as such could have not said that there was no land, not that doves can converse with people anyway. However refer back to #1

3. How would the dove know which way to fly to find land anyway if there was land there to be found? However refer back to #1

4. If the dove did find land, and it returned, how would it give the nautical coordinates to follow? Like would it say turn left at the next wave and then go East for 700 wing flaps? However refer back to #1

5. This concludes this test of the Emergency Retard Alert system, if this had been a real retard alert further instructions would have been given.

Spongy Iris wrote:
A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse, that illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

I'll mention it to you as well. Any occurrences of the words "mountain" or "mount" in the Bible are likely gross mistranslations or, at the very least, poor word choices and should definitely be set aside until the rest of the account is understood without those words, and then proper meaning being assigned to those words.

It sounds like you accept that all the tallest trees were covered, correct? You acknowledge that the ark was "lifted off the earth," correct?

What is gained (storywise) by involving orders of magnitude additional water? Why is this somehow more important than understanding a proper translation?

.

If I haven't made it clear in my last 1100 posts in this forum, my position is that solar and lunar winds ("waters") came flooding through a hole in Heaven, which was shattered because too much pressure built up on Earth, because too much CO2 had been emitted, around what are today the borders of Lybia, Egypt, and Sudan. These "flood waters" incinerated all life on land, most in the sea, and covered all the hills and mountains. Whatever "gopher wood" is, it shielded what was inside the ark. The solar and lunar winds lifted the ark 15 cubits.

Genesis 8
8. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.

9. But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth.

Why solar wind and not ketchup or something of that nature??

Actually dumbass a dove is not in any way capable of circumnavigating the globe, so the story is BS.

You may continue masturbating

It doesn't say the dove checked the entire earth, dumbass. It says the dove found no place to land because water was over (that means above) all the surface of the earth.

I could say you couldn't find a parking place because they were all occupied, but that doesn't mean you checked all parking spots on the entire parking lot.

You continue your 3rd grade reading lesson. You'll get there.

Retard alert.

1. There was no dove as the story is the equivalent of little red riding hood, a fable, not real.

2. If there was a dove it could not have checked any more than .000001 percent of the Earths surface, and as such could have not said that there was no land, not that doves can converse with people anyway. However refer back to #1

3. How would the dove know which way to fly to find land anyway if there was land there to be found? However refer back to #1

4. If the dove did find land, and it returned, how would it give the nautical coordinates to follow? Like would it say turn left at the next wave and then go East for 700 wing flaps? However refer back to #1

5. This concludes this test of the Emergency Retard Alert system, if this had been a real retard alert further instructions would have been given.

You belong to the Church of No God. Fine. You feel you need to ridicule any other religion except yours. That just fundamentalism and hate.

It is also obvious you have not read this passage in the Bible. The dove was sent out for several days, when it came back with an olive twig, Noah knew the Flood was nearly over.

The Ark had no engines. It probably had no motive power at all (not even a sail) and no way to steer. Why should it? Where would it go? What nautical coordinate system would it have used??? How do know the Ark even had a compass?? Why would it need it???

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

I'll mention it to you as well. Any occurrences of the words "mountain" or "mount" in the Bible are likely gross mistranslations or, at the very least, poor word choices and should definitely be set aside until the rest of the account is understood without those words, and then proper meaning being assigned to those words.

It sounds like you accept that all the tallest trees were covered, correct? You acknowledge that the ark was "lifted off the earth," correct?

What is gained (storywise) by involving orders of magnitude additional water? Why is this somehow more important than understanding a proper translation?

.

If I haven't made it clear in my last 1100 posts in this forum, my position is that solar and lunar winds ("waters") came flooding through a hole in Heaven, which was shattered because too much pressure built up on Earth, because too much CO2 had been emitted, around what are today the borders of Lybia, Egypt, and Sudan. These "flood waters" incinerated all life on land, most in the sea, and covered all the hills and mountains. Whatever "gopher wood" is, it shielded what was inside the ark. The solar and lunar winds lifted the ark 15 cubits.

Genesis 8
8. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.

9. But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth.

Why solar wind and not ketchup or something of that nature??

Actually dumbass a dove is not in any way capable of circumnavigating the globe, so the story is BS.

You may continue masturbating

It doesn't say the dove checked the entire earth, dumbass. It says the dove found no place to land because water was over (that means above) all the surface of the earth.

I could say you couldn't find a parking place because they were all occupied, but that doesn't mean you checked all parking spots on the entire parking lot.

You continue your 3rd grade reading lesson. You'll get there.

Retard alert.

1. There was no dove as the story is the equivalent of little red riding hood, a fable, not real.

2. If there was a dove it could not have checked any more than .000001 percent of the Earths surface, and as such could have not said that there was no land, not that doves can converse with people anyway. However refer back to #1

3. How would the dove know which way to fly to find land anyway if there was land there to be found? However refer back to #1

4. If the dove did find land, and it returned, how would it give the nautical coordinates to follow? Like would it say turn left at the next wave and then go East for 700 wing flaps? However refer back to #1

5. This concludes this test of the Emergency Retard Alert system, if this had been a real retard alert further instructions would have been given.

You belong to the Church of No God. Fine. You feel you need to ridicule any other religion except yours. That just fundamentalism and hate.

It is also obvious you have not read this passage in the Bible. The dove was sent out for several days, when it came back with an olive twig, Noah knew the Flood was nearly over.

The Ark had no engines. It probably had no motive power at all (not even a sail) and no way to steer. Why should it? Where would it go? What nautical coordinate system would it have used??? How do know the Ark even had a compass?? Why would it need it???

Sorry kid doves are not seabirds that can land in the water, they are land birds period so they do not fly over water for days. It is obvious that you are clueless.

Now on to the math of this fake flood, Mount Everest is and was at the time over 29,000 feet tall, meaning that if it was covered with water that sea level was over 29,000 feet higher than today, over the entire globe. LOL where did this water drain into?

Retard alert

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
How would "waters" prevailing upward only 15 cubits cause water levels to rise above all the mountains under Heaven?

The 15 cubits is probably the draft of the Ark, not height above present sea level.

Are you saying wind current is what lifted the ark 15 cubits?

I'll mention it to you as well. Any occurrences of the words "mountain" or "mount" in the Bible are likely gross mistranslations or, at the very least, poor word choices and should definitely be set aside until the rest of the account is understood without those words, and then proper meaning being assigned to those words.

It sounds like you accept that all the tallest trees were covered, correct? You acknowledge that the ark was "lifted off the earth," correct?

What is gained (storywise) by involving orders of magnitude additional water? Why is this somehow more important than understanding a proper translation?

.

If I haven't made it clear in my last 1100 posts in this forum, my position is that solar and lunar winds ("waters") came flooding through a hole in Heaven, which was shattered because too much pressure built up on Earth, because too much CO2 had been emitted, around what are today the borders of Lybia, Egypt, and Sudan. These "flood waters" incinerated all life on land, most in the sea, and covered all the hills and mountains. Whatever "gopher wood" is, it shielded what was inside the ark. The solar and lunar winds lifted the ark 15 cubits.

Genesis 8
8. Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.

9. But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth.

Why solar wind and not ketchup or something of that nature??

Actually dumbass a dove is not in any way capable of circumnavigating the globe, so the story is BS.

You may continue masturbating

It doesn't say the dove checked the entire earth, dumbass. It says the dove found no place to land because water was over (that means above) all the surface of the earth.

I could say you couldn't find a parking place because they were all occupied, but that doesn't mean you checked all parking spots on the entire parking lot.

You continue your 3rd grade reading lesson. You'll get there.

Retard alert.

1. There was no dove as the story is the equivalent of little red riding hood, a fable, not real.

2. If there was a dove it could not have checked any more than .000001 percent of the Earths surface, and as such could have not said that there was no land, not that doves can converse with people anyway. However refer back to #1

3. How would the dove know which way to fly to find land anyway if there was land there to be found? However refer back to #1

4. If the dove did find land, and it returned, how would it give the nautical coordinates to follow? Like would it say turn left at the next wave and then go East for 700 wing flaps? However refer back to #1

5. This concludes this test of the Emergency Retard Alert system, if this had been a real retard alert further instructions would have been given.

You belong to the Church of No God. Fine. You feel you need to ridicule any other religion except yours. That just fundamentalism and hate.

It is also obvious you have not read this passage in the Bible. The dove was sent out for several days, when it came back with an olive twig, Noah knew the Flood was nearly over.

The Ark had no engines. It probably had no motive power at all (not even a sail) and no way to steer. Why should it? Where would it go? What nautical coordinate system would it have used??? How do know the Ark even had a compass?? Why would it need it???

Sorry kid doves are not seabirds that can land in the water, they are land birds period so they do not fly over water for days. It is obvious that you are clueless.

Now on to the math of this fake flood, Mount Everest is and was at the time over 29,000 feet tall, meaning that if it was covered with water that sea level was over 29,000 feet higher than today, over the entire globe. LOL where did this water drain into?

Retard alert

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but later on He became too stupid to figure out where to drain a little water.