[geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:38:41 +1000

Thanks Allen   , saved me a lot of work..  Phil. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:57 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia


  Me in Blue:


  ----- Original Message ----
  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:53:58 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia


  Allen can you give any biblical support for the contention that all life was 
destroyed..  couldn't tall trees survive in the water ? Difficult to see whole 
groves unaffected by a global flood with raging currents and such..flooding has 
a bad habit of undermining the root foundation and after a ~year under water 
root root would be the expected norm, particularly for 100-300 year old groves 
trees ..??UHH???  ..No, i  think all significant plant life would have died 
even if scripture allowed plant life ot "survive"...but the seeds would still 
heve been abundent...........in fact all our coal and oil deposits could have 
come from that little "thunder storm" ........ scripture  makes staments like 
"ALL living substnace was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground" in 
7:23 & "AND everything that is IN the earth"Genisis 6:17....but the context 
could be construded as a little vauge ..?   Did not all the fishes and animals 
of the sea survive? I assume fishes were spared since there is not even a vauge 
passage of scripture that would demand their total demise....and well.. whales 
are with us today....the emphsisi in the context is "the land" and we might say 
"breathing" but this begs the question if man so courupted the land that 
animals were included why were the plants excluded?? plants "breath" too.. :) 
......Water covering the whole earth could be true even if in places trees 
imerged from only a foot of water.  Genisis 7 20 fefteen cubits upward over the 
tops of the mountains unlikely that trees existed at the very tops of the 
mountains ....but the tops of mountains were visable for ~ 2 moths before the 
dove found a place to rest ..Gen 8:9..so no tall trees there, .when the dove 
did come back the best he found was a olive leaf..olive trees are not that 
tall, but aparently a olive tree did survive or at least what was left of a 
olive tree with leaves...the tree could have been dead; the leaf could have 
been dead too ?....it just says a leaf from a tree...... dead trees with and 
leavs in cold water can be preserved for long time but would be expected to die 
shortly after the flood subsided if it were the water that were perserving the 
tree....? Any way, the flood was caterstrophic that is a good indicator that 
even if "plant life" were spared total demise, any significant trees were not 
abundant certainly not 100-300 year old  entire groves of trees !!!!!.......but 
hey i was not there ..... ?             More , how long was the entire earth 
submerged. 
  see attached image 10 ~ 150 days according to Genisis 7:23

  PS im not looking at my LXX right now but i dont think it says anything 
significantly different that would further demand or preclude these issues..i 
get back to this tommorow........?


  The water could have began to subside quickly in some places..  and the 
integrity of scripture remains intact..  Philip. 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 1:34 AM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia


     Although i dont agree with much of Mr. Setterfield this excerpt from Barry 
Setterfields's work on bilical Chronology addresses that very 
issue.........this issuse is but one of many reasons why i support the LXX but 
it is by no means the only reason..........

      An external line of inquiry supports the long LXX chronology here, namely 
tree-ring dating. Stands of bristlecone pine in the USA have several living 
specimens around 4600 years old, one suspected of being 4900 years old, and 6 
over 3000 years of age. It has been shown that they grow slowly, and are more 
inclined to miss out a ring than put one on. So the general age is about 
correct. Consequently, this means that the oldest started growing around 2900 
BC. This means it survived the Flood on the MT in 2657 BC or 2305 BC on the 
short chronology. This is inadmissible. But on the LXX chronology, their growth 
commenced not only after the Flood in 3537 BC, and after the Babel incident in 
3302 BC, but also after the Peleg continental division in 3006 BC.

    Allen

    PS I put several charts together to show the comonilities and the 
diferences between the Chrono modles in the LXX and MST..very interesting i 
think........you can almost reach paridy between them if the majority figures 
are used up to Abraham......


    ----- Original Message ----
    From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:16:32 AM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia


    Dear Philip,

    I agree with Jack that organic evolution is not a viable alternative to 
creation. Not in any way, shape or form.

    However, I want to pick up on the second thing you said, "the world has 
existed no more than 10,000 years and probably less." Are you questioning the 
Genesis record that allows us to estimate ~6,000 years for the age of the 
universe?

    In relation to this, I recall that someone resigned from ICR because of the 
ages of some trees, as determined from their growth rings. Does anyone else 
remember this and, if so, can they supply some meat on the bones, please?

    Neville

    www.GeocentricUniverse.com



      -----Original Message-----
      From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
      Sent: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:50:20 +0100


      Dear Philip,
      Of course I'm biased, but not against true science.

      I don't understand your comment below. Your sure its a viable 
alternative? It's not a viable alternative! If it were there would be no point 
in discussing it!

      Jack 
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: philip madsen 
        To: geocentrism list 


        Not me. I am absolutely certain that evolution is a viable alternative 
as to how we arrived today. I just happen to know with certainty that it did 
not happen that way, and that the world has existed no more than 10,000 years 
and probably less. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Get Free 5GB Email – Check out spam free email with many cool features!
    Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!

     


    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
    Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.31/1031 - Release Date: 
26/09/2007 12:12 PM





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 27/09/2007 
5:00 PM

Other related posts: