@Nuclear boy
I opened this thread to address an issue I have in mind.
This issue developed as i read some of your write ups.
This issue is about your opinion on the magnitude of "Noah's flood".

_{(Side note: Noah's flood here means flood at the time of Noah.)}


I want to first appreciate you for your work and your defense of what you believe is the truth.
And also having the honesty to admit your errors at some point in time.
I didn't open this to make you a public spectacle.
Just like i said earlier to address is issue clarify doubts and come to a better understanding.

Am not forcing you to answer.
but please if you are opportune do.

These questions are mainly for him.
But others can comment to
But whatever happens give him the preeminence
Also help me to inform him about this thread.

You @nuclear boy aid that the flood of Noah is a local flood.
meaning that it was not over all the face of the earth.

if you really believe this what do u say of this?

1) If Noah's flood was local cos it is believed by some people to be unsupported by science and some others to be actually opposed to scientific finding
What will be said of the initial Flood that covered the earth at the beginning?
if you think that Noah's flood is not proven by science then is the initial flood proven too?
or is it also local?
The initial flood i mean is the one before creation when there was no dry land.
"the spirit of God moved upon the waters"

2)if the flood was Local and God promised not to destroy the world with this "LOCAL FLOOD"
How about all the local flood we see destroying the earth?

I apologize if my view gives you concern. It is a personal view based on my own study and "faith" which is based on

[1] Eden was a location - "LOCALISED" to someplace and not global.
[2] The timing from Adam to Noah gives me to believe that the world's populace had not spread like it has today to all continents
[3] Need - why would God destroy people in say, Europe, by destroying the 6 continents. Why not a precision strike?
[4] Pedigree of God - This just buttresses [3] above - God is not wasteful so why the whole world if Europe is all that is needed?
[5] Language - Even till today, we say the whole world and refer only to Earth. Is that the whole world? So why couldn't those who knew their "locality" as the entire world have called it the world? Some today have the whole world as their hometown.
[6] I do not think it glorifies God to assume. Contrary to what most non-Christians want to believe, we are encouraged to study and "test all spirits" - that includes the facts set out for us. Science is gradually accepting many things they once vociferously insisted did not happen. Why shouldn't we too study and put God in His rightful place. What I have come to understand is what I have postulated and it is defensible from both Biblical and the scientific point of view today (please note that science is not my standard but it helps to clarify things at times) .

But again - I have not said I am right. I have only presented my belief.

Your second question puzzles me as even your choice of words defeats your argument- yes, there are "LOCAL" floods wreaking havoc today. Is any global? Why the comparison when you agree they are "LOCAL"?

Genesis 6v17. I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.



Only believe!

^^ Notice I said its my belief, and not that I speak for God.

From the Hebrew, the word "Earth" in verse 17 of Gen 6 is translated as

erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

In effect, "earth" could refer to "a land", "a country", "nations", "a way" OR "a world". A world is not always the same as "the world".

Again, its a personal thing.

Image123:

Genesis 6v17. I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.



Only believe!

Notice the bolded. I respect/understand your 'personal'

^^^ Semantics. For someone who never left his village, heavens are what he sees. Its God speaking but a man writing in his understanding under inspiration.

God is not a wastrel and I don't think He needs us to prop Him up so He seems great.

This matter is not worthy of debate. I don't know the bearing it has on me today. Issues like false Gospels, the antichrist, Islam etc abound.

Thanks for ur understanding

maybe i should rephrase the second question. i never said that i agree with the localization of the flood.

2)if the flood was Local and God promised not to destroy the world with this "LOCAL FLOOD"
How about all the local flood in our Time(E.g chinedumo's flood lol) we see destroying parches of the earth?


My ur argument
it appears that the promise has failed.
And so the rainbow as token of the covenant is expired.

Eden is a local place of course though some people may have thought otherwise but a closer study will show so.
When adam was driven from the garden, to where were they driven to?
out of the earth planet?
of course not!!

Noah, no doubt was the ninth generation from Adam.
You must understand that it is not the human population that was targeted alone but entire creation.

I wont call that a waste. Nothing is wasted where God is. he is over abundant
Remember that this same God threaten to wipe out the entire Isreal population and make of Moses a great nation.

God was the original suggester of the Flood disaster. he suggested it and introduced it
The damage could have formed part of his reason for promising not to destroy entire human population that way again

Or should i ask
why did God promise not to do so again
is it just the sacrifice and sweet savour that prompted such
Do u think that if Noah had done so earlier that that would have prevented the flood?

There is a reason why God chose the flood disaster as a necessary measure to the tide of evil
Think of it from the creator perspective
Let me give u a clue

KJV
Jer 19:11And shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury.

NIV-cannot be repaired
New Living Translation-beyond all hope of repair.
English Standard Version-so that it can never be mended
Bible in Basic English-and may not be put together again

Our concern at first should be

what was the extensive coverage of living things with the exception of marine life?

Do u specifically believe that God would restrict the water boundary to these places if there was and it was limited and local.

My point if in the beginning it was possible to have no dry land it is not impossible at the time of Noah

When I think of the number of sperm (potential genius contained in each of them) that I waste, if not on a daily basis, then on a weekly basis it is hard for me to accept the idea that God is not wasteful.

When I think of of the eggs that get disposed of when a woman has her menstruation every month, when I think of all the fruit that are rotting away in a jungle somewhere, when I think of many many things in nature, it is very hard for me to agree with the statement that God is not wasteful.

C'mon. Where do we get all these ideas about what God is and what he isn't? It's going from ridiculous to post-neo-ridiculous.

Pastor, wastage, especially in the way you've articulated it is not wastage at all. You seem to be looking through exclusively human eyes. The earth is not about us only. The sperm and egg thing is just hilarious. Lol. Evolution/God is wasteful but I don't think in the manner you've put it. I think it's more pertinent to ask why these guys appear to be taking the bible so literally. The earth is freaking not 6000years old. Continental drift proceeds at one infinitesimal distance, I forget, per year. Extrapolating and you can imagine what results are obtainable. There are the plethora of dinosaur fossils. The difference in Cambrian, Jurassic etc is more than 6000years. Other people make plausible stories around the bible to make of it an allegory and I find this pathologically dishonest but the literal rendition is unacceptable. It is simply not. Come to logic. God supposedly wiped out all the sinners with the deluge. I think He failed in that bid as the progeny of the righteous is humanity as we've known it over the centuries. Surely He should have had more foresight about such a futile cleansing.

The problem lies in the very idea of wastage. Rather like the idea of God's perfection. It presumes a function, an intention for a thing or event.

Sperms are meant to bring about human conception, that is their function. Therefore it follows that any sperm that does not do so is being wasted.

However have we considered that there might be other things that the sperm is used for. For instance I know that in many spiritual disciplines the sexual energy (horniness) is an essential factor in advancing in the practice.

Similarly, if God is perfect, what is the function that he is perfect at Is he a perfect beast? A perfect moronn? A perfect mugu? (apparently many pentecostal pastors take him for a mugu). What is that role in which we are to appreciate his perfection?

What is the function of the flood that makes it's localisation rather than it's globalisation less wasteful?

Pastor AIO:

The problem lies in the very idea of wastage. Rather like the idea of God's perfection. It presumes a function, an intention for a thing or event.

Maybe it will help your ceaseless queries on God's perfection if perfection is defined simply as an eternal unchangeable. Hope that helps. So it is not function-based, as you repeatedly assert.

Sperms are meant to bring about human conception, that is their function. Therefore it follows that any spermatozoa that does not do so is being wasted.

To some extent, you have already answered your question.

Addittionaly, and opn a less serious note, I may say that if it takes millions of sperms to struggle to ensure that just one sperm makes it to the promised land, then the millions of sperms that do not make it are not wasted. That is what was required, simple.

However have we considered that there might be other things that the spermatozoa is used for. For instance I know that in many spiritual disciplines the sexual energy (horniness) is an essential factor in advancing in the practice.

The connections between se.xu.al energies and spiritual practices are legion.

I think I have tried to discuss this in the past and received a great deal of insult for the attempt. -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-324109.0.html

Similarly, if God is perfect, what is the function that he is perfect at Is he a perfect beast? A perfect moronn? A perfect mugu? (apparently many pentecostal pastors take him for a mugu). What is that role in which we are to appreciate his perfection?

As stated above, the perfection of God needn't be understood in the context of a function.

@Pastor. I concede the point that one might see Him as wasteful at some point. But when we zoom back and see a bigger picture, the waste is minimal. What I mean is, from whose point of view is something a waste? Fruits rotting in the jungle is exactly what a tree counts on to reproduce. But to the monkey, that's a waste. Semen seems a waste till you try to imagine an orgasm with a drop. The earth is a perfect recycling plant if you remove man's influence and even in spite of it. Nothing is wasted. It might not serve its purpose according to some quarter but something else will find use for it. As for Noah and his ark, I'll leave that to those who believe the story.

@ Pastor - What waste? Nothing is wasted in nature, that's elementary.


I think this from Vesc sums it up -

vescucci:

Fruits rotting in the jungle is exactly what a tree counts on to reproduce. But to the monkey, that's a waste. Semen seems a waste till you try to imagine an heavenly feeling with a drop. The earth is a perfect recycling plant if you remove man's influence and even in spite of it. Nothing is wasted.

Deep Sight:

The connections between se.xu.al energies and spiritual practices are legion.

I think I have tried to discuss this in the past and received a great deal of insult for the attempt. -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-324109.0.html

As stated above, the perfection of God needn't be understood in the context of a function.

Unfortunately for you I didn't see that thread while it was hot otherwise I would have made some contributions that wouldn't have involved insulting you. You had a very good point and in fact sexual energy is at the heart of most religious disciplines.

I agree in part with nuclearboy, and in part with Image123.

I believe the flood was as Local [/b]as it was also [b]Global. At the time of Noah's flood, the continents were an entire land mass. This was prior to the advent of continental drifts. Thus, all the animals and plants were in one area and this local flood was global, too. Every other surface area was water anyway.

Four generations after Noah, Peleg is born and it is said of him "In his days the earth was divided". Many believe this means that the continental drifts began at this time, but I don't think so. I believe that was when they DISCOVERED that the land mass had split, because, huddled together into small societies after the flood, they never wandered far enough to find out that the deluge had starting a process that was gradually tearing up the earth's land mass into chunks. Alternatively, Peleg's name could also refer to the scattering at Babel "the earth was divided" and this makes sense too because it was the scattering at Babel that made the people go in various directions, where they would have noticed the continental drifts.

Best Regards.

InesQor:

At the time of Noah's flood, the continents were an entire land mass.

Chai, so Noah lived 250 Million years ago? Na wah for this Oga-Madam o.

Pangaea, Pangæa, or Pangea (pronounced /pænˈdʒiːə/, pan-JEE-ə[1], from Ancient Greek πᾶν pan "entire", and Γαῖα Gaia "Earth", Latinized as Gæa) was the supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago, before the component continents were separated into their current configuration.

@Inesqor:

Never ever noticed this Peleg thing. Thanks for the insight.

InesQor:

Alternatively, Peleg's name could also refer to the scattering at Babel "the earth was divided" and this makes sense too because it was the scattering at Babel that made the people go in various directions, where they would have noticed the continental drifts.

This would also mean that Babylon was in existence 250 million years ago. Chai, na wa for this oga-madam o.

@nuclearboy: My chairman! How's the week coming along?

@Deep Sight:

Deep Sight:

Chai, so Noah lived 250 Million years ago? Na wah for this Oga-Madam o.

Thanks bro. I'm male.

Deep Sight:

Pangaea, Pangæa, or Pangea (pronounced /pænˈdʒiːə/, pan-JEE-ə[1], from Ancient Greek πᾶν pan "entire", and Γαῖα Gaia "Earth", Latinized as Gæa) was the supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago, before the component continents were separated into their current configuration.

Deep Sight, by my own understanding, the same way Adam was not created a baby (but was pre-aged), I believe the earth was pre-aged and thus could support itself.

Thus, carbon dating will read millions of years because the earth was MATURE when it was made. Your reference points of measuring time are plainly flawed.

I know I have had this discussion with you in the past, so I dont know why you are bringing it up here again.

Let me illustrate for those who don't get my point.

Now assume, just assume the earth was created "pre-aged" as 5,000,000 years (judging by its level of maturity at the time of creation). Now, time with respect to mankind, is at t=0. Thus the earth is minus 5 million years old.
So when carbon-dating is carried out, the time is measured between two time-reference points: t1 and t0 as t1-t0. And thus in this case, something that took place 100,000 years ago will be measured as 100,000 minus (minus)5,000,000 which will give 5,100,000 and thus the measurement is flawed.

This is my own understanding and I will please liek not to argue about it.

Be good.

Deep Sight:

This would also mean that Babylon was in existence 250 million years ago. Chai, na wa for this oga-madam o.

Please see post above.

InesQor:

Deep Sight, by my own understanding, the same way Adam was not created a baby (but was pre-aged), I believe the earth was pre-aged and thus could support itself.

Thus, carbon dating will read millions of years because the earth was MATURE when it was made. Your reference points of measuring time are plainly flawed.

I love this Pre-aged idea. Love it love it love it. You see I think that every moment in time is pre-aged. There is no history, just now. an eternal now. But it is made to seem as if there is a history that has led up to every moment. That is the illusion we live in. We have just created yesterday in this moment now.

@Chinedumo. I'm sorry, I won't derail again.

@InesQor. That's very ingenious. The whole predating thing. I like it. I'll ponder on it a bit and I promise not to argue about it.

@Nuke. How are things? You realise, sir, that you're the guest of honour on this thread?

@Pastor AIO:

Pastor AIO:

I love this Pre-aged idea.  Love it love it love it.  You see I think that every moment in time is pre-aged.  There is no history, just now.  an eternal now.  But it is made to seem as if there is a history that has led up to every moment.  That is the illusion we live in.  We have just created yesterday in this moment now.

Aha! Bravo!! I have toyed with this the-only-moment-that-truly-exists-is-now idea of yours in the past (de jure history and de facto history, as I like to call it) but I dropped it because, if the passage of time was totally an illusion, then I find it weird that we all have the very same memories of [i]de jure [/i]history. . .

Care to discuss your perspective?

@vescucci: Lol Thanks, man. But that line about not arguing about it, was meant for Deep Sight. And that is because we have argued it extensively in the past, I am not certain we will see any new points in a fresh argument over the same ideologies. Im not sure if I posted as Inesqor then, I think my username then was mavenbox. Please let me know your thoughts, consenting to the idea or not.

Inesqor - I don't recall that we have argued this in the past? Please refer me to the link.

There is nothing in your "pre-aged" post that even remotely addresses the question raised, sorry, but I cant see how it makes sense to professor Vescucci.

@Vesc:

Way I see it, I was just required to state my view first.

Plus the thread is no longer even about views concerning the OP's desire.

BTW, did you ever see the thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-214364.0.html ? Page 2 is particularly interesting. Way more interesting.

I mean! Somebody help me out here?

How people can advance such brazen illogicalities and seek shelter in further illogicalities simply beats me.

@ Inesqor: apologies  - I have to violate your request not to argue the point. You must realize that I view that request as an attempt to evade scrutiny of what must perforce emerge as seriously off-centre in your surmise.

Now here we go -

The premise is this - you located Noah in Pangea - Pangea is the name given to the single mass of land that existed before the last continental realignment/ continental drift. You stated that at the time of Noah, it all the continents were a single piece of land - thus you have stated that Noah lived in the time of Pangea.

Pangea was a reality about 250 million years ago. THUS you place Noah as having lived 250 million years ago. That is comical as it is absurd.

Rather than own up to this incongruity, you seek solace in a further incongruity - "pre aged" - helloooooo? Let's examine it!

InesQor:


Thus, carbon dating will read millions of years because the earth was MATURE when it was made. Your reference points of measuring time are plainly flawed.

Lol. This is just delightful. Inexie at his/her best. Read it again, bro! YOU STATE THAT THE EARTH WAS MATURE WHEN IT WAS MADE.

Was the "making"of the earth something that happened after the earth already existed and had already "matured"? ? ? ?

Lol.

So what's the deal, eh? Zing! Like Adam, it pops into existence fully formed, and as you say - "mature" - OR

- Second choice - and which obviously makes better sense - the earth developed and in so doing has gone through many stages lasting many millions of years.

Now in the process of that development, you have continental drift and at some point about 250 million years ago, you have all the continents as one mass of land, which is called Pangea. This happened right here, on this earth my dear, and so no need to develop any esoteric notion of time. Now you simply cannot argue that Noah supposedly lived 250 million years ago, or that Babylon existed 250 million years ago. That is not only false, but hideously off-centre. The fact is that the earth was already in existence at that point in time, so it make no sense to talk about it being pre aged. It was simply developing in time, as it doubtless still is.

So when you state that my reference points in measuring time are "plainly flawed" I will have to ask you to have a rethink on that - since you are the one locating Babylon and Noah at an improbable date 250 MILLION years ago.

Now assume, just assume the earth was created "pre-aged" as 5,000,000 years (judging by its level of maturity at the time of creation).

Now this is absolutely incoherent and makes no sense whatsoever. What do you mean "created pre aged"? ? ? ? ? ? You cannot speak of the "creation" of the earth as though it is an event that happened AFTER the earth had already been in existence and indeed had ALREADY "matured" for the example of 5, 000, 000 years that you indicated! This simply does not add up.

Now, time with respect to mankind, is at t=0. Thus the earth is minus 5 million years old.

Wrong, the earth is, using that example 5 Million years old - NOT minus 5 Million years old, which makes NO SENSE.

So when carbon-dating is carried out, the time is measured between two time-reference points: t1 and t0 as t1-t0. And thus in this case, something that took place 100,000 years ago will be measured as 100,000 minus (minus)5,000,000 which will give 5,100,000 and thus the measurement is flawed.

Stark gibberish. Carbon dating, and no form of dating, works with any such reference point. Dating is independent of the supposed date of arrival of man on the scene. Heck, Trees and Fossils that long predate mankind are dated - and NO such refernce point as your t-0 is used.

You are cooking up serious fallacies and the circus needs to be stopped right now.

It is much easier to admit it does not make sense, but you won't do that, will you? Carry on then.

This is my own understanding and I will please liek not to argue about it.

If you do not wish to discuss it, you can ignore my post. But such scary fallacies need to be set straight with a firm hand.

Be good.

You know i'm a first rate gentleman, am i not?

I see that maybe I was wrong (if so, Im sorry, Deep SIight), or else I cant find THAT thread which lives in my own memories, because on this one I and Deep Sight didnt argue over the points but its a great read anyway!

Here is the thread where I made posts in the past as mavenbox. Notice carefully that I had strong WOF-tendencies back then and so I believed in a pre-Adamic MAN and other such stuff. But the core of my ideas stay the same.

Ah digging up this thread reminds me of how much I have missed viaro!
My guy needs to return to NL. Haba! I will contact him.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-363748.0.html

P.S. Wow! I just found out that the thread digressed into Noah as well! And Aletheia said what I just said about Eber and Peleg. Interesting!

P.P.S. I just got DS' new post above while searching for the thread linked above. Obviously I have only wasted my time searching for it. Cheers.

@InesQor. It seems me and Pastor were creaming ourselves at the same time about this pre aged thing. You think out of the box, or perhaps in a Maven one. I do not believe it, at least not yet, I just find it an interesting possibility. I take it I can talk about your ideas then. I'll return to them. You adequately did away with the illusion concept. Good.

@Deep Sight. Quit calling me professor o. Real professors will sue you for libel by extension. I don't buy the pre date thing. It is just a neat(er) explanation than the frankly other ridiculous ones. In any case, the nature of the surmise entails that it is impossible to prove it wrong provided you believe God is all powerful etc

@Nuke, don't be modest sir. I'll check your link presently.

@Chinedumo. I think I'll apologise forever. Give me permission eh? Please?

^^

Modesty? E-thugs are not known for such. Truth is, been a bit ill and am in my worst mood ever. Twould be better not to answer some offensive stuff above.

Study without practise is generally idiotic, IMO, whether of Christianity or Islam or Ifa or Science. Makes for the perfect nice sounding air-head.