Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Hold These Thoughts
3 years ago  ::  Jan 22, 2015 - 9:23AM #1
Posts: 3,398


I'm gradually posting an accumulation of things from the Bible that come in handy now and then for just about everybody.



Quick Reply
3 years ago  ::  Jan 22, 2015 - 9:23AM #2
Posts: 3,398

The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New

This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite useful.

In a nutshell:

1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based upon a human sacrifice.

2• The Old Testament's priesthood is captained by men subject to death; while the New Testament's priesthood is captained by a man impervious to death.

3• The Old Testament reveals curses for people who disobey the Ten Commandments; while the New Testament reveals an escape from those curses.

4• The Old Testament is where we learn of the origin of the human race as we know it; while the New Testament is where we learn of the termination of the human race as we know it; along with the introduction of a new human race about which we know comparatively little.


Quick Reply
3 years ago  ::  Jan 23, 2015 - 3:25PM #3
Posts: 3,398

The Length Of A Creation Day

Before one even begins to interpret the time elements involved in the creation story; it's very important to be aware that the Hebrew word for "day" is ambiguous. For example; at Gen 2:4, yowm (yome) encompasses the entire creation endeavor from start to finish.

It's all too easy to fall into the habit of assuming that the phrase "evening and morning" indicates a 24-hour calendar day; but God began marking off His creation days with evenings and mornings before the sun even existed; so I think it's pretty safe to rule the sun out as a time-keeping mechanism relative to the days of creation.

According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land animals but the sixth. Seeing as how the sciences have easily proven that the Jurassic era was over and done several millions of years prior to the entrance of truly human life then I think it's probably a good idea to lend the sixth day a whole lot more hours than just 24.

So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

In addition: I suggest that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a place-card label; viz: a convenient way to indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another.

The Bible doesn't say right from the outset that creation's six days were 24 hour calendar events; but most of us assume the terms evening and morning insist upon it; when even those terms are ambiguous. For example; when Jesus Christ was here, a day consisted of only 12 hours rather than 24 (John 11:9) which means that when he was here, evening consisted of the hours between high noon and sundown, while morning consisted of the hours between sunrise and high noon. Why only daylight hours? Because at Gen 1:3-5 God decreed "day" as a time of light, and "night" He decreed as a time of darkness.

NOTE: A day divided into twelve equal parts was regulated by what's known as temporal hours; which vary in length in accordance with the time of year. There are times of the year at Jerusalem's latitude when days on earth consist of less than 12 normal hours of daylight, and sometimes more; but when Jesus Christ was here; the official number of hours was always 12 regardless. I don't exactly know why the Jews of that era divided their daylight into twelve equal parts regardless of the seasons, but I suspect it was just a convenient way to operate the government and conduct civil affairs; including the Temple's activities (e.g. the daily morning and evening sacrifice)

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the "days" of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events. It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

FYI: In the sixth chapter of Genesis, Noah is instructed to coat the interior and exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word is is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally-occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.


Quick Reply
3 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2015 - 9:20AM #4
Posts: 3,398

Creation's Light

In the April 2014 edition of Discover magazine, astrophysicist/cosmologist Avi Loeb states that the Bible attributes the appearance of stars and galaxies to the divine proclamation "Let there be light". Is Mr. Loeb's statement correct? No; of course not. God created light on the very first day of creation; while luminous celestial objects weren't created until the fourth.

The Bible is notoriously concise in some places; especially in it's story of the creation of light. Well; the creation of light was a very, very intricate process. First God had to create particulate matter, and along with those particles their specific properties, including mass. Then He had to invent laws to govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the presence of, other kinds of matter in order to generate photons. The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate photons also make other conditions possible too; e.g. thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy, gravity, atoms, molecules, magnetism, radiation, high energy X-rays and gamma rays, temperature, pressure, force, inertia, friction, and electricity; et al. So the creation of light was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives its origin passing mention.

†. Gen 1:1-2 . .The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep

That statement reveals the cosmos' condition prior to the creation of light; and no mystery there because sans the physics that make light possible, the cosmos' particulate matter would never have coalesced into something coherent.

2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to, the Higgs Boson.

Some Bible students regard science an enemy of religion; but I sincerely believe that is a bad attitude to take towards science. Galileo believed that religion and science are allies rather than enemies-- two different languages telling the same story. Religion provides answers to questions that science cannot answer, while science provides answers to questions that religion does not answer.

1Tim 6:20 commands Christ's followers to avoid "science-- falsely so-called". However, not all science is false. Previous to what we might call the modern era, many scientific ideas were theoretical and largely untested. and therefore subsequently proven largely false. But that all began to change as men begin making, not ideas, but discoveries; and discoveries are far more reliable than untested ideas.

There are well-meaning folk who prefer to keep science out of the first chapter of Genesis. I truly believe that is an error because though the cosmos has a supernatural origin, it is not a supernatural cosmos; rather, it is a very natural cosmos and the creation story makes better sense, at least to me anyway, when it's approached from that angle.


Quick Reply
3 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2015 - 9:56AM #5
Posts: 3,398

The Image And Likeness Of God

†. Gen 1:26-27 . . Then God said: Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 9:5-6 outlaws murder: not on the basis that its morally wrong, but because humanity was created in the image of God.

James 3:9 frowns upon cursing people: not on the basis that it's morally wrong; but because humanity was created in the image of God.

I take it from those passages that were it not for the fact that mankind was created in the image of God, human life would be very cheap, and have no more value than a gerbil or a garden slug. The image and likeness of God is what lends human life a measure of dignity over and above the animal kingdom. Were it not for their image and likeness of God, people could go on safari and hunt each other for sport, like human wildlife, and mount their heads on walls and mantles.

Gen 5:3 indicates that at least one of the meanings of "image and likeness" is the reproduction of one's self by means of engendering biological children. However; humanity bears small resemblance to its creator because God isn't physical. According to John 4:24 God is spirit, while according to John 3:6 humanity is solid. According to Ex 3:14 God is imperishable, while according to Matt 10:28, humanity is perishable: body and soul.

Though humanity obviously isn't God's biological offspring, it still seems to me "children" is the best way to define humanity's image and likeness of God: at least in a limited way; for example:

†. Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.

Now, obviously humanity's status as sons of the Most High isn't a biological status because according to Gen 2:7 human life was manufactured from the dust of the earth; in other words: humanity wasn't born a son of the Most High by means of the Most High giving birth. So then; I think it safe to conclude that humanity's status as a son isn't a natural-born status; but rather, an honorary status; viz: the image and likeness of God is conferred rather than inherited. And a pretty amazing status it is too seeing as how it's about as close to divine as a creature can get without actually having biologically descended from God.

†. Ps 8:5 . .You have made man a little lower than the angels; and You have crowned him with glory and honor.

The "glory and honor" spoken of in that Psalm pertains to the image and likeness of God; which puts humanity pretty high up on the food chain-- not because they are brighter and smarter then the other creatures; but because the image and likeness of God lends mankind a degree of divinity that no other species on Earth can match.

Q: If mankind was created in the image and likeness of God, then why is mankind so prone to evil?

A: Because mankind isn't biologically related to God, nor is mankind a chip off the olde block, so to speak. The term "image and likeness" is merely a status. It has no bearing whatsoever upon either the qualities, or the character, or the personality of mankind's creator. Were mankind biologically related to God, it would be 110% impervious to sin in thought, word, and deed.

†. John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Q: But doesn't Acts 17:28-29 say that mankind is God's biological kin?

A: According to Acts 22:3, Paul the apostle was accomplished in Judaism; so he knew very well from the schooling he underwent with Gamaliel that according to Gen 2:7 human beings are definitely not God's biological kin. No; Paul simply appealed to Greek poetry to point out to the Athenians that if human beings were truly God's biological offspring, then the father of human beings surely would be made of something other than metal and/or stone. I think maybe the Greeks took their religious art just a mite too seriously.


Quick Reply
3 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2015 - 7:45AM #6
Posts: 3,398

Why Adam Didn't Drop Dead

†. Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of it, you shall die.

Long story short: Adam didn't drop dead when he tasted the forbidden fruit. In point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800 years after the birth of his son Seth. (Gen 5:4)

The trick is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted the fruit. God's exact words were "in the day"

Well; according to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It can easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours; viz: the "day" of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit.

That was a milestone in human history. Up till Adam tasted the fruit, the only days on record were the six of creation, and the one when God ceased creating. Adam inaugurated a new day by tasting the fruit-- the day of death.

"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men" (Rom 5:12)

Well; like Jack Palance's character Curly in the movie City Slickers said: "the day ain't over yet"

"It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of gaiety, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this seriously." (Ecc 7:2)


Quick Reply
3 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2015 - 10:44AM #7
Posts: 3,398

Why Cain Was Rejected

†. Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.

Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to the Adams' survival. Humans at this time were vegetarians so Cain farmed and raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.

†. Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to The Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock.

There's no indication in this scene suggesting that the items they brought were sacrifices for sin. The Hebrew word for "offering" is from minchah (min-khaw') and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).

Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- which are essentially gifts rather than atonements --it would be wrong to insist Abel slew his firstling and/or burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings are indicated by the word 'olah (o-law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 22:2.

Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of oblation.

T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)

Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce was the appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate first fruits offering.

I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather, responsible men in this particular scene because God treated them that way. This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God. The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing gifts for many years; ever since they were of age. And up to this point, apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.

But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?

"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)

It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given religion rather than a pagan ritual. (cf. Heb 11:4)

†. Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed.

The language and grammar of that verse indicate that God not only snubbed Cain's offering; but also Cain himself; so that his offering wasn't the only issue: Cain himself was an issue too.

Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or thoughtless, nor did she neglect or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang, didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed, drink, snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women.

Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he associate with the wrong crowd. He was very religious and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the rituals he practiced were correct and timely.

The man did everything a model citizen is supposed to do; yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected. What?

Well; for one thing; at this point in his life, in spite of appearances; Cain was actually impious. (1John 3:12)

In what way was he impious? Well, Cain's blemish is an elephant in the middle of the room. It was friction between him and his brother. It is unacceptable to worship God while the worshipper's relationship with their brother is dysfunctional.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)

†. Gen 4:5b-7a . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And the Lord said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

Cain knew the drill; viz: it's conduct first and worship second. That can be readily seen played out in the first chapter of Isaiah where Yhvh's people are depicted practicing their God-given worship to perfection. They were attending Temple on a timely basis, praying up a storm, offering all the correct sacrifices and offerings, observing the Sabbath, and all the feasts days. But God soundly rejected all of that because their conduct was unbecoming.

Bottom line is: Abel and his offering were acceptable because Abel's conduct was acceptable; while Cain and his offering were unacceptable because Cain's conduct was unacceptable. So then, from Cain and Abel we learn that the key to acceptable worship is acceptable conduct. The two are joined at the hip; so to speak. And that being the case; I'd have to say that there are a number of Christians attending church every Sunday morning who really ought to stay home and not come back until they clean up the things in their lives that they know very well are rubbing God the wrong way.


Quick Reply
3 years ago  ::  Jan 28, 2015 - 11:24AM #8
Posts: 3,398

Why God Didn't Prosecute Cain For Murder

According to the covenant that God instituted with Noah after the Flood; murder is a mandated death offense. (Gen 9:5)

The death penalty for murder was included as a mandate in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God at Sinai as per Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num 35:31-34.

Q: So then, seeing as how capital punishment for murder is a divine mandate; then how was God able to let Cain walk without obstructing justice and compromising His own integrity? Does God practice a double standard?

A: Murder is morally wrong, yes; and it is intrinsically a sin, yes; however; prior to the Flood, homicide wasn't a transgression because God had not yet enacted any laws to that effect. Divinely ordained capital punishment was unheard of, and unthinkable, prior to the Flood because it is an axiom that Bible law isn't retroactive; viz: it can't be enforced until after it is enacted; which is precisely why God couldn't prosecute Cain for murder. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17)

Case in point: Abraham married a half-sister. Sarah was his father's daughter, but not his mother's (Gen 20:12). According to the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God at Sinai, it is a breach of the covenant to sleep with someone that close.

"The nakedness of your sister-- your father's daughter or your mother's, whether born into the household or outside --do not uncover their nakedness." (Lev 18:9)

But Abraham was exempt from that law because God didn't introduce it till several centuries after Abraham's passing; and this is very important to understand. Here's why:

Modern Judaism insists that Deut 29:14-15 retroactively binds Abraham to the covenant. Well; not only is that kind thinking a stretch of the imagination; but it's not even sensible because any and all breaches of the covenant incur curses.

"Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother." (Deut 27:22)

"Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them." (Deut 27:26)

If God were to level curses at Abraham for breaching the covenant; then God would be quite obligated to level curses at Himself.

"I will curse him who curses you" (Gen 12:3)

Not only that; but any curses that the covenant would impose upon Abraham for sleeping with his half sister, would quite effectively annul any and all of the promises that God made to him in the book of Genesis.

The Jews' occupation of the land of Israel has always been conditional upon their compliance with the covenant; but their ownership of the land has always been conditional upon the promises that God made to Abraham prior to the covenant's institution. That way there is no possible chance of Abraham's posterity ever losing the deed to their land no matter how many times they breach the covenant. They might get evicted from their homeland from time to time; but it will always remain theirs due to Abraham's immunity to the covenant's curses.


Quick Reply
3 years ago  ::  Jan 29, 2015 - 8:29AM #9
Posts: 3,398

From Whence Cain Got A Wife

†. Acts 17:26 . . From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth

It's easy to fall prey to the assumption that God created more human beings than only Adam on the sixth day of creation. But if He did, then there's no record of it. And seeing as how God completed creating things for the current physical cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --on the sixth day, then from that time till now, He's created nothing more. So then, on record; the only human being that God ever really created from the dust of the Earth was Adam.

Adam got his wife from himself; viz: she wasn't created from the dust of the Earth as he had been, but was instead manufactured from already-existing organic tissue amputated from his side. Thus, Eve was biologically just as much Adam as Adam.

So: had God made a wife for Cain like He did for Adam-- from Cain's own already existing biological tissues --then those tissues would have been biologically related to Cain's father Adam. Hence, Cain would have married a sister, which is exactly what he did regardless; and so did Abraham (Gen 20:12).

Some believe that inbreeding has always been abhorrent to God since it's forbidden by laws stipulated in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Deut 29:9-15. However, those laws were not enacted till many, many years after the Flood; and according to Gal 3:17 they are not retroactive.

Inbreeding is currently very risky business indeed. But it was neither a risk, nor a taboo in Cain's day like it is now. After all, Adam engendered the entire human race by mating with a woman manufactured from his own organic tissues. You can't get any closer to home than that.

The human race in Cain's day was very young, very healthy, and very close to its origin. Not enough time had elapsed to damage the human genome. Proof of the excellent quality of human life was longevity. Adam lived till he was 930 and Noah till he was 950. Nobody even comes close to that anymore.

When the ark finally came to ground, the only people left alive on the whole planet were grandpa and grandma Noah and their three sons and their wives: eight souls; that's all. Hence: everybody alive today is the progeny of inbreeding; no exceptions.

"He did not spare the ancient world when he brought the Flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others." (2Pet 2:4-5)

It was from those eight survivors that everyone alive today descends; via inbreeding.

"Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated." (Gen 9:18-19)

Were the Flood to be repeated in 2015, the human race would be in serious trouble because inbreeding today is very dangerous; but back in Noah's day, it wasn't.


Quick Reply
3 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2015 - 10:37AM #10
Posts: 3,398

How The Critters Got To Noah

†. Gen 6:3a . . And Yhvh said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever. Yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood, didn't die till he was 175 years old. No; it's far more reasonable to conclude that God was announcing a deadline; viz: the antediluvians had 120 years left to get ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed anybody? Heck no. They went right on; business as usual.

"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)

The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz: reprieves are not acquittals-- though God bear a great while, He never bears forever.

†. Gen 6:12-14 . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark

†. Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters upon the earth --to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish.

†. Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female. From birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing on earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.

Fortunately Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers. God said two of each "shall come to you" (cf. Gen 7:9, Gen 7:15) which implies of course that species who failed to come got left behind and went extinct in the Flood. There was plenty of time for them to make it because Noah was 120 years building the ark and getting it ready.

A man named Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4 years from June 1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450 miles, crossing four continents and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of shoes, and walking more than 20 million steps. That was an odd thing to do, but does prove it can be done in a relatively short time; so 120 years was plenty enough for all the critters to make it on over to Noah's place in time for the Folly's maiden voyage.

If the ark were to launch in 2015, critters would have been on the move towards it since 1895-- eight years before the Wright Brothers historical flight, and seventeen years before the Titanic foundered --and probably reproduced many times along the way since there are not all that many species that live to see 120 years of age.

But how did they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny theological problem. But with today's knowledge of the geological science of plate tectonics, the answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know that continental land masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry parts brought so close together as to form one single super continent.

Scientists also know about subduction and magma hot spots and pressure points that can raise and lower the earth's crust like a service elevator; for example according to Gen 14:3, the area now known as the Dead Sea was once known as the Vale of Siddim. Sometime in the distant past the earth's crust rose in that region, blocking the Jordan River's natural drainage into the gulf of Aqaba; thus trapping it's waters in a huge basin from which they cannot escape. Subduction causes the earth to wrinkle, bulge, and form mountain ranges and hill country.

"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover the earth." (Ps 104:5-9)

That portion of Psalm 104 is probably speaking of Gen 1:9-10. It's handy for showing that God is capable of molding the Earth's lithosphere into any geological configuration He pleases to push sea beds up and form land bridges; thus expediting migrations from all over the world over to Noah's diggings.

This idea is by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old stone structure utilized to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the surface of Lake Huron; and is the most complex structure of its kind in the Great Lakes region.

The structure consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac. Within the lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters hid while taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that hunting was probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down the lanes towards the blinds while another group waited to attack.

The site-- discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley Ridge, 35 miles southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor connecting northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario.

Actually the Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) shell anyway, although its profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea level at various high spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were smooth, the world would be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the Earth's mantle were perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough indigenous water on it to cover the crust to a depth of 9,000 feet of water. That would be equivalent to a global ocean approximately 1.7 miles deep.

Geological processes normally take thousands of years to accomplish, but those processes can be sped up considerably by the cosmos' creator, who has absolute control over everything-- not just the earth's geological processes; but all the rest of nature's processes too.


Quick Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook