[geocentrism] Re: Adam and Eve
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 13:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Oh yea one other thing ..If you are going to argue that the condition of the
earth staining in and out of the waters persisted on day 2, 3, etc.. after the
waters were divided from the land in to seas ..DAY 2 v6"Let there be a
firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the
waters".v7?" and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the
waters which were above the firmament: ?Day 3.v9 "Let the waters under the
heavens be brought together into one place (earth!) and let the dry land
appear." And it came to be so?10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the
gathering together of the waters called he Seas:?If day 3 describes/ includes
the condition of the earth standing "in and out of the water" ..Then how in the
world does any of that identify where the flood waters came from?....They had
seas before the flood and we have seas today !?
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Me in blue....
PETER CHARLTON <peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Day one the waters
where all on the earth, then God seperated the waters that should be above the
sky from the seas that should be below the sky, I dont see how it shows the
waters above the expanse where only in place on day 1 because it plainly states
the waters came to be above the expance on day 2, exactly..that is the point
the earth was no longer sanding in the water and out of the water that was the
conditionof day 1 not day 2 and 3 and 4 ect.....day two they were
separated..below and above .which is a condition that is differnt then staning
in and out ...they were separted from the condition of staninging in and
out..that is the whole point of v 2 's separtaion of the waters.....???...why
would God spend a whole day seperating the waters if it was just for the one
day?Come on really why would God take 6 days instead of 1 day..all he has to do
is speak it..? why is not a reason the issue is how he did it not
why....?.....look at the verse on day 2
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were
the second day.
The waters were not separated untill the 2nd day wich by definition changes
the condition that existed prior to day two, on day on.."Let there be a
firmament in the midst of the waters, .the earth sanding in and out of the
waters"...did you notice there was no firmimnt untill day 2 only a formless
earth....standing in and out of the waters..the key "it was without
form".v2.......day 2 God created the firmiment via whcich the waters were
separated ..the condition of day one did not exist on day two. logicaly nor
scripturaly...
6 And God went on to say: ?Let an expanse come to be in between the waters
and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.? 7 Then God
proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that
should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse.
And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there
came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day.
9 And God went on to say: ?Let the waters under the heavens be brought
together into one place and let the dry land appear.? And it came to be so. 10
And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the
waters he called Seas.
As for your previous e-mail where you say,"
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
yes they were destryoed by water the means of the distruction. You are
confusing a sequence of events with the method of destrution which was water
not the condiont of the water itself....?. It does not say that the earth
was still standing in and out of the waters prior to the flood after day 2 and
even if by some wild imagination you construded that the flood itself was the
earth standing in and out of the waters..then you deffet your own argument for
the flood did not exist for nearly 1600 years before the flood...so if the
flood is what you are caling standing in and out of the waters then the
condition of the flood would have had to existed since day 1 of creation...!?
these verse outline a chonology of events from creation to the flood, not the
source of the flood waters...!?"
I consider the fact the waters above the expanse being mentioned in verse 5
and then verse 6 saying the world was overflowed with water IS showing these
where the source of the flod else why mention it in this portion of scripture?
And you said
if it were true that day one condition existed untill the time of the flood
you would also have to accept then that there were no annimals at the time of
the flood either..???
Why would I have to accept no aminals?, .........If you are going to ignore
the condition change from day one to day two then where in 2peter3 allows any
room for the changes of the earth with plants & animals...you cannot hold that
postion and be consistiaint with the construct of your own
argument......BECUASE THE CONDITION OF THE EARTH STANDING IN AND OUT OF THE
WATERS IS SPECIFIC TO AND can only be demontrated without assumption to TO DAY
ONE...DAY TWO &THREE, EVERYTHING CHANGED WITH THE WATER AND THE EARTH...... THE
FIRMEMENT WAS CREATED AND SPECIFICALY DIVIDED /CAHNGED THAT CONDITION OF THE
EARTH STANING IN AND OUT OF BECUSE IT WAS FORMLESS.......after God seperated
the original waters that covered the earth in the first verse of Genisis by
creating the water mantle, verse 9 says the waters that where beneath the
expanse where brought together to form seas and dry land appeared, the animals
would live on the dry land, the waters that where still in place above the
sky wouldnt harm them, in fact it would protect them from the UV rays of the
Sun and cause a greenhouse effect ensuring the whole Earth was a uniform
temperature, hence the remains of tropical rainforest under the ice caps.
Exactly!... if all those things took place as you just described,... how is the
earth standing in and out of the waters that were removed/ divided and separted
via the expanse and seas !!!? each day of the creation naritive describes a
sequence of events that change the relation ship in this case water to earth,
You are attempting to force an imparitive on the condition of the earth that is
nowhere found in scripture wihout assuming it is true first and then
'interpreting" very verses that "support that view" to mean the very thing you
assumed, external of any and all nessesary inference ....?
Day ones condiont was changed via day two & 3.....period! Just like all
subsequent days changed the condtions untill the 7th day when all was
completed....The creation naritve is about the changes that took place on those
six days......The Flood is yet another change that took place again ~1600 years
latter..!?
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 6:43 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Adam and Eve
staning in the waters and out of the waters in Genisins as well as 2 peter 3
only applies untill day 2&3 ..what dont you understand..it was on thoes days
that it was separated out..? 2peter 3 is a sequence, it starts at creation and
goes to the flood but incudes all 6 days of creation not that day one of
creation was the same enviroment as the time of the flood..!? Day 2&3 the
condition that existed on day one with the earth stanind in and out of the
waters does not exist anymore .!?
PETER CHARLTON <peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Sorry Allen, Iam not
sure what you are saying?
The way I see 2nd Peter 3 is that its likening the last days before Christs
2nd coming, as to the last days of the pre-flood world at the time of Noah,
nothing to do with creation, but that the waters where still above the
firmanent until used by God to bring destruction upon a world of ungodly men.
2PET 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2PET 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers
fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
creation.
2PET 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2PET 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
So I cannot see the point you are making about contridicting the Genisis
accouint?, I consider it supports the Genisis accouint of the waters that where
above the firmanent untill the day God used them to bring the flood.
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 4:54 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Adam and Eve
Peter,
this verse is restating the creation account in order to the flood it is not
about the flood exclusivly thus you cannot make the argument without assuming
it is saying somthing about the preflood world...1 differntly then the Genisis
account and 2. without contridicting that very genisis account
PETER CHARLTON <peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2nd Peter 3 says the "Standing in the midst of water was the source
of the flood, "5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice,
that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of
water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the
world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water."
A water mantle being in place one minute, then falling to Earth would account
for the very many animals, mammoths and the like, that have been found frozen
solid, but fresh enough to eat when thawed, with green grass still in thier
mouths, something happened instantly to turn warm grasslands into frozen wastes
before flesh even had a chance to decay.
Likewise the remains of tropical rainforests beneath the ice caps.
The first appearence of a rainbow after the flood when presumably the light
from the sun would have appeared differantly, no longer passing through a water
canopy.
The change in the lifetime of man from around 900 years old, to around 120
being now exposed to the full radiation spectrum of the sun, no longer shielded
by a water canopy.
Iam unfamiliar with the expanding earth theory so will look this up and see
if said model can explain the above points, better than the Biblical given
account.
Pete
Other related posts:
