- This topic has 114 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
The flood happened to the whole planet, because the dove and the raven could not find a resting place.
The devil is the god of the whole earth not just of the middle east.
The world bankers have brought up China’s industry, and are still doing it today.
Manufacture has gone to china, and asia.wakeup.
Wakeup, your post is senseless and you come across as an unreasonable fanatic.
I can just see the dove flying all the way to New Zealand and back.
And then China? What has that to do with this topic. Nothing.
Are any these two verses talking about the whole planet?
Daniel 7:23
“He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it.Jeremiah 51:24-25
“But I will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea for all their evil that they have done in Zion before your eyes,” declares the LORD. “Behold, I am against you, O destroying mountain, Who destroys the whole earth,” declares the LORD, “And I will stretch out My hand against you,While scripture uses the phrase “the whole earth” to speak about the planet, it seems to me that it can also refer to the known world of the time. Neither the Roman or Babylonian empires were global for example, yet they were said to impact “the whole earth” . If this phrase does not always mean global, then this could have a profound impact on some doctrines out there regarding the Beast in prophecy and perhaps even the flood of Noah too. I am not saying that I support that the flood of Noah was a local flood rather than a global one, but I would certainly look at that possibility if the same wording is used. It may or may not use the same wording though as I have yet to check that out. But we usually say that the whole earth was flooded, so I would like to incorporate possible implications like this into this topic.
T8…..Gen 6:13…..And God said unto Noah, the end of “all” flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled wth violence through them; and behold I will destory them with the earth.
The words “all flesh” is all inclusive right? So it must have been the complete earth in order for God to say “all flesh”. God also told Noah to bring of “EVERY” LIVING THING OF “ALL” FLESH into the ark.
It certainly appears to havebe global to me, but i have heard of what you are putting foth before. Now when it comes to the world ruling powers, being all inclusive of the whole earth, that is amother thing, because as you have said even Rome did no rule china and other remote parts of the world, so the term could have been speaking ofthe domnite ruling power at a particular time in history. IMO
peace andlove to you and yours……………gene
Yes, the flood does say on the face of the whole earth and all flesh. So how did a pair of kiwis, moas, and tuataras make it onto the ark?
If the whole earth can mean the known world of the time, then it could possibly mean all flesh in that area. And if God told Noah to take “EVERY” LIVING THING OF “ALL” FLESH” into the ark as you say, then did he come to New Zealand?
@t8,
I believe it is speaking of the whole land. It is rather vague so it could mean any amount of land. I do not even know if any of the languages had a word that means the same as world. Translators try to determine what it means by the context.
Even in space you cannot see the whole world unless you sit there and allow it to spin and yet Jesus went to a high mountain and saw the whole land is a short space of time.
T8…….We can only do the best we can with the scriptures we have and the wording used, but there are words that have been translated wrong throughout scriptures. But as far as GODS ABILITY TO BRING A PAIR OF ALL THE ANINAL CREATION , I DONT THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM FOR HIM TO BRING ABOUT.
THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE TO CONSIDER JEFF BENNERS, the Manicanical translation of the book of Genesis. He is a Hebrew scholar.I had the book once butsentit to our frind Adam years ago. There are definetly Hebrew word that do not match a lot of English translations. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………gene.
Jeremiah 51:41 40“I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, Like rams together with male goats. 41“How Sheshak has been captured, And the praise of the whole earth been seized! How Babylon has become an object of horror among the nations! 42“The sea has come up over Babylon; She has been engulfed with its tumultuous waves.…
Rev 16 13And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; 14for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty
Thanks for those verses Princess.
Gene, if scriptures use “the whole Earth” to define the land that they knew about, then we have to be open to that phrase also meaning that in other parts of scripture, even the flood.
Of course we have to be open to it also meaning the planet. As kerwin said, context is important.
Personally speaking I would not argue that it was the whole planet as that raises a whole lot of difficulties that may be unnecessary to argue for.
What we know for sure is the whole Earth is the Middle East. I guess as time went on, the known world got bigger and bigger until it became the planet, so it certainly means planet today, but what about then?
Is it fair to impose our modern view of the whole earth on these ancient cultures?
T8….I checked out what Jeff Banner said in his mechanical translation of the book of Genesis and according to him the word earth used there is should be translated “LAND”, another words it could be translated as (the whole land), so that could restrict it to a particular area of land.
Another thing to consider is the hight of the water, we know it covered Mount Ararat , because that iswhere the boat came to rest, so if water seeks its own level, then by knowing how high Mount Ararat is could help us determine its range. The hight is 16854 ft, that is equal to aprox 3 miles high from sea level. That could cover the entire earth i believe, though i am not sure.
peace and love to you and yours. ………………gene
Good points Gene. Another thing to consider is the land broke apart after the flood. In one sense that backs up the whole planet, but it also does not, because mountains got bigger when the land broke apart or the plates collided.
@t8
Yes, the flood does say on the face of the whole earth and all flesh. So how did a pair of kiwis, moas, and tuataras make it onto the ark?
The Great Deluge may have confused the record as there were fountains from beneath as well as rains. Continental drift may have occurred though it would have to be a faster than currently happens. There are a lot of things that may have occurred though I have heard no evidence they did. You have to remember that Satan has no problem muddying the water either by falsifying evidence or corrupting the judgment of those that interpret the evidence.
The kiwis, moas, and tuatuas may be breeds of a kind of animal that was on the arc. Two of the kind whose descendants became multiple breeds. We already know the descendants of the survivors had to spread out and fill the world.
@t8,
The Quaternary extinction event is in about the right time, 30,000 to 5,000 years ago, and effect many areas. We are still in the Quaternary Ice Age which may be related to the flooding. I lack knowledge which means I would have to do a lot more research before eliminating anything and I would not be sure that case I made was correct because the evidence in the case may be interfered with.
@t8,All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.T8,What do you do with this scripture??Seems pretty convincing Seekingtruth. It could still mean the dry land and life in the known world, but the traditional view of planet wide seems more likely. Would like to study the original language though. Can’t do that now as I am off on holiday. See you in a week.
🙂
The Tuatara is a distinct order of reptile, the only two species of its kind which scientists say flourished around 200 million years ago, its main food source is the Weta a very strange looking insect that is obviously also ancient. They are pretty scary looking too and seem to jump on you when you least expect.
So ancient is the Tuatara that it has body parts that no one can fully explain. It has what is believed to be a a third eye and can hear even though they have no external ears. Their is skeleton resembles features found in fish. They also have have two rows of upper teeth that overlap one bottom row of teeth.
But yes it was possible it was related to something in the Middle East once, but hard to explain that it is endemic to New Zealand which is the utmost part of the world and like nothing else in the world.
@t8,
Hope you enjoy your holiday.
Would gladly Discuss this topic when you have the time, but I believe it is much more likely that scripture will win the day as understood for the most part.
Wm
@T8
Wikipedia articled on Tuatara says a study was done on them and the two so called species are genetically similar enough to be considered the same species. It believes the difference is geographical variance.
A 2009 paper re-examined the genetic bases used to distinguish the two species of tuatara, and concluded they only represent geographic variants, and only one species should be recognized.
Other than that I cannot find anything that contradicts the idea they are the only example of their kind.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
