1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    11 Jul '13 06:48
    I think the guy in the linked video presents very good evidence that Noah's ark exists and the worldwide flood was a true historic event.

    YouTube&NR=1&feature=endscreen

    The Instructor
  2. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    11 Jul '13 07:11
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I think the guy in the linked video presents very good evidence that Noah's ark exists and the worldwide flood was a true historic event.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AVxRVXHYqo&NR=1&feature=endscreen

    The Instructor
    no
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    11 Jul '13 07:14
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    no
    You don't have to look at it. It is just for those that are interested in learning.

    The Instructor
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    11 Jul '13 08:16
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You don't have to look at it. It is just for those that are interested in learning.

    The Instructor
    "learning"
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    11 Jul '13 08:19
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "learning"
    Well, after all I am...

    The Instructor
  6. Standard membercaissad4online
    Child of the Novelty
    San Antonio, Texas
    Joined
    08 Mar '04
    Moves
    615460
    12 Jul '13 06:15
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, after all I am...
    The Instructor
    Fairy tales with a joke. Always with a joke. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    13 Jul '13 06:08
    Originally posted by caissad4
    Fairy tales with a joke. Always with a joke. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
    I am glad you liked it, Sweety.

    The Instructor
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    13 Jul '13 16:05
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You don't have to look at it. It is just for those that are interested in learning.

    The Instructor
    You mean those interested in learning dogma. There is no reality in what you 'teach'. Only an agenda to destroy.
  9. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    13 Jul '13 16:38
    Worldwide? No. There have been catastrophic events that could lead to such myths, though.

    I'm bemused by the human tendancy to uncritically buy into myth and legend. Suspect one day it'll be listed as a mental health disorder.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    15 Jul '13 04:08
    Originally posted by apathist
    Worldwide? No. There have been catastrophic events that could lead to such myths, though.

    I'm bemused by the human tendancy to uncritically buy into myth and legend. Suspect one day it'll be listed as a mental health disorder.
    You must not have viewed the video. It was obviously a worldwide flood, because a series of local floods at different parts of the world does not work.

    The Instructor
  11. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    09 Aug '13 19:20
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You must not have viewed the video. It was obviously a worldwide flood, because a series of local floods at different parts of the world does not work.

    The Instructor
    RJ, if the definition of "the world" should change in another, say 500 years to include the moon where maybe people live, mars where maybe people live, moons of another planet like mars where people possibly may live, how should we understand a "world wide flood" then ?

    When people read the Bible say 500 years from now, should they then understand your expression of "the Worldwide Flood" to include all these places ?

    Will future fundamentalists insist that waters covering the tops of all mountains must include mountains on mars, on the moon, on those moons around mars ?

    If someone argues that that expression in Genesis means the mountains just on the planet earth, would they be not accepting the literal text ? It says all the mountains under heaven were covered.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    10 Aug '13 02:591 edit
    Originally posted by sonship
    RJ, if the definition of "the world" should change in another, say 500 years to include the moon where maybe people live, mars where maybe people live, moons of another planet like mars where people possibly may live, how should we understand a "world wide flood" then ?

    When people read the Bible say 500 years from now, should they then understand your y be not accepting the literal text ? It says all the mountains under heaven were covered.
    Of course, we must consider what the people knew as making up the world of their time. But we must also consider the explanation of this flood and what it is reported to have done when we evaluate what is meant by the flood. So the idea of this was just a local flood covering only a certain area of the globe does not make sense from the description.

    It would also not make sense to include Mars or any moons.

    The Instructor
  13. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    11 Aug '13 05:481 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Of course, we must consider what the people knew as making up the world of their time. But we must also consider the explanation of this flood and what it is reported to have done when we evaluate what is meant by the flood. So the idea of this was just a local flood covering only a certain area of the globe does not make sense from the description.

    It would also not make sense to include Mars or any moons.

    The Instructor
    Your answer seems to say two things.

    You make a move towards "the world" being what was considered the world by the people of that time. Then you say if that was less that what we today would consider the world it doesn't make sense.

    It appears that you're giving me a kind of vague "yes and no" answer, unless I just don't understand you.

    Your title "Worldwide Flood" - do you mean "world wide" to the geographic senses of 21rst century people or "worldwide flood" to the people of many thousands of years ago, whose "world" we simply are not totally aware of today ?
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12696
    11 Aug '13 07:31
    Originally posted by sonship
    Your answer seems to say two things.

    You make a move towards "the world" being what was considered the world by the people of that time. Then you say if that was less that what we today would consider the world it doesn't make sense.

    It appears that you're giving me a kind of vague "yes and no" answer, unless I just don't understand you.

    Your ...[text shortened]... thousands of years ago, whose "world" we simply are not totally aware of today ?
    Well, obviously it is said to have covered the earth of that day, which according to the Holy Bible had lower mountains than those today.

    The Instructor
  15. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8683
    11 Aug '13 08:05
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, obviously it is said to have covered the earth of that day, which according to the Holy Bible had lower mountains than those today.

    The Instructor
    Where does it say in the Bible that mountains were lower then than afterwards ?
Back to Top