Nashville Conference 2008 - audio #7, 8a, 8b, 9 and 10

Kat · October 07, 2008, 11:07:25 PM

Saturday afternoon part #7: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession7.mp3
Sunday morning part #8A: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession8A.mp3
Sunday morning part #8B: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession8B.mp3
Sunday morning part #9: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession9.mp3
Sunday morning part #10: http://bible-truths.com/audio/Nash08ConfSession10.mp3

video #3 - audio # 7

The Six Days Of Creation

I want to show you something very interesting, these are the things that require meditation and study. these things don't just pop out at you on the first or the thirty or fortieth reading.

This person that I have been quoting from, all this nonsense. He says, 'well there are those that say Genesis 1:1-2 happened ages before verse 3, they call it the gap theory.' No actually the 'gap theory' is not that. But the fact of the matter is that you get a big period of time between verses 1-2 and verse 3.

You know Moses informs us that the heavens were created at the same time as the earth and then he tells us in Exodus 20;

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth...

They will tell you, 'see it's all the same thing. So the heavens and earth were made in the six days. In a portion of one of the six days the earth was created. In a portion of those six days, because he tells us in Exodus "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth." In Gen. we have "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and if He made them in six days then it has got to be in one of those six days.' Well I already showed you that the words are not "create" (Gen. 1:1) and "create" (Ex. 20:11), it's "created" and "made."

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created (H1254 - bara) the heaven and the earth.

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made (H6213 - asah) heaven and earth

Everything was created from which He was then going to make, the raw materials if you will.

Gen 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made (asah), and, behold, it was very good.

Then when we read in verse 31 of all that God created for making, when He bara for asah, you see. He created for making, so He did not create the heavens and earth in six days. In six days He made the heavens and the earth as they now are, from what He had already created, millions or billions of years earlier in verse one.

Now let me give you another very unique proof to what was created and what wasn't created in the six periods called yoms.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living (chay) creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Did you notice how He starts that off "And God said"? Every time He is going to make something, from what He had already created, it says "And God said"... here's what I'm going to do. He always starts it that way... here's what I'm going to do. "And God said," here's what I'm going to do.

When did that period, that He's taking about doing something, when did it start? Well back up one verse to 23, it says.

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. v. 24 And God said...

Then we go into the creation of the sixth day. So what begins the sixth day? It's between "And the evening and the morning were the fifth day," that's where it starts and then God said let it happen. That is the sixth day.

Here is the end of the six yoms or the six creation times. The very last verse of the first chapter of the Bible, and how does it end? It ends with...

Gen 1:31 ...And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

What began the sixth day? Verse 24 "And God said..." So between what God said and the evening and the morning, that was the sixth day. There is nothing that happened in the sixth day before verse 24 and nothing that happened after verse 31, it's got to be between there. The sixth day ended with the evening and the morning, that ends it, that is the sixth day. When did it begin? When "God said" in verse 24. Now we're getting it.

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

That's the end of the fifth day or the fifth yom or the fifth period of time. When did that fifth day of making begin? Verse 20, "And God said..." Simple? There is a pattern here, we are talking Scripture.

Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

This was the end of the forth day. When did it begin? Verse 14, "And God said..."

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

When did it begin? Verse 9, "And God said..."

Gen 1:8 ...And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Which began when? Verse 6, "And God said..."

Gen 1:5 ...And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The ending of the first time. When did it begin? Verse 3, "And God said..." Where is verse 1 and 2? Before the six days. [Someone says, 'It was there all the time.'] Bingo, it was there all the time.

The six days only consist of what "God said" should take place during those periods of time. But in the beginning God had already created the heavens and the earth. The creation was finished from the foundation of the world. In verse 2 the earth was uninhabitable for humanity, tohu and bohu.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form (tohu), and void (bohu);

It had to be fashioned and He begins that fashioning with "And God said." Verses 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the 6 creating times. Totally outside if that period. Can you see it? Okay.

I'll continue on with the meaning of 'yom.' Young earth creationist say, whenever yom is used with an ordinal or cardinal number, like first, second, one, two and so on, that it ALWAYS represents a 24 hour day... always. Not true.

Zec 14:6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:

"...that day," this is referring to a certain period of time I reckon, like the day of the Lord or in that day.

Zec 14:7 But it shall be one day (yom)...

Same words used in Genesis 1.

v.7 ...which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
Zec 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

"In summer and in winter," you have whole seasons "in that day," it says "one day." So much for that unscriptural nonsense. So no, there is a cardinal - ordinal number, "one day" and it is going to be for seasons, that "one day."

Had God meant evening and morning to have meant day and night, without even using the words day and night, He could have used the sunsets or something. You know from sunset to sunset was the second day and the third day and so on.

But He uses this evening and morning and this has more profound meanings. We already read in this paper that this heretic said, 'no where else in the Bible do we find evening and morning, it's only here and it must represent a 24 hour solar period of time. No where else in the Bible is this used.' Actually there are three times, I'll show you one.

Psa 90:1 A Prayer of Moses the man of God. Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
v. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.
v. 3 Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.
v. 4 For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

It interesting that just these couple of verses brings in all this, the creation of the heavens and earth, a thousand years are as a day and so on, it's all in there.

v.5 Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.
v. 6 In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.

What do we have here? This is what it is telling us in Genesis. Morning signifies order, light, birth, growth, progress. At night things get dark, gloomy, they become fizzy, you can't see them anymore. It's chaos to cosmos.

Here He is using the evening and morning exactly into that context. In the morning they are like grass, but in the evening they are cut down. The morning is positive, growth and light. The evening it's cut down, darkness and death. They say, 'no where else in the Bible these words are used.' Well you just read it didn't you. Did it mean sunset? That a person is born at sunrise and he dies at sunset? Well yea, it can be used that way, but it could represent his whole life, not 24 hours.

So here you see the symbolism of evening and morning portrayed perfectly. One has to do with progress and order and light and life. The other has to do with darkness and death. So we do have an example as to what these words mean, don't we.

So the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. Well you say can these days, these periods, these yoms, these times of making, can they be long periods of time? Of course. We have example after example in the Scripture. It can be any where from hours, to days, to weeks, to years or aions, ages.

But what is the proof of the pudding? The proof in the pudding is when we examine the universe, that's what they show. That these were long periods of time and no verse 1 and 2 are not part of the first day of refashioning the creation. They are not. We went through that, the evening and the morning was the sixth day, "And God said" started that day. Day one was started when "God said," not when "in the beginning." God had already created the heavens and the earth. You got that all clear.

That is one thing that you should learn from this conference and really let it stick. Verse 1 and 2 are outside of these six days of fashioning the earth.

Exodus in the King James is wrong where it says "for in six days." The word "in" is not there, they made it up and stuck it in there. "For six days the Lord made (the word is asah) heaven and earth." (Gen. 20:11)

The word is asah. Asah is making, bara is creating. He had already created them in verse one. Now for six whole days He is asahing them into the fashion He wants them to be.

I want to expand more upon this evening and morning as we just read in Psalms 90, having a much more profound meaning than sunset and sunrise. It has to do with bringing order out of chaos. Where we say cosmos, it means orderly. The cosmos is the orderly creation of the universe.

Now when we look at the science of the universe we are going to see something about this evening and morning business, right out here in the open, right out here in the creation.

You know people like this person who wrote me and said, 'maybe someday you will believe in Exodus, Ray.' You know they parrot all the right words and all the right phrases and all the Scriptures, but where the tire meets the road they don't believe a word of it. They deny it all.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Not all humanity, but those...), who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

That is not the Elect, okay. If you are holding the truths of God in unrighteousness, you are not one of God's Elect.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in (to or among) them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...

Why then do we deny everything that is made and say, 'well yea I know it looks like this and the laws would have it be that way and yea my stupid argument contradicts those laws, but I believe the Grand Canyon was formed in one year.' It is such nonsense.

Listen Jesus Christ said, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17). Paul says, "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom.1:20). Now that is true, that is a true statement. If you can not see these things, then they are not being clearly understood or seen by you.

When I look at the Grand Canyon and see six thousand feet of water laid strata... then try and convince me, at the end of a barrel of a 357 mag, that a flood laid every one of those layers down one after the other. In a violent turbulent flood that had ripped up the crust of the earth 3 to 5 miles deep? Now it is laid down in these beautiful patterns, where you can see one row after the other. It's just total nonsense.

Then scientist look at things that are made, the Grand Canyon is made. That is something made, it is there to see. God decided one place on this earth I'm going to dig a big trench right through the middle of the strata a mile deep. Everybody can come from around the world and they can see what is down there, what is in the next layer and the next. How deep are they? Six hundred feet of Sandstone and so many hundred feet of Shell and so many hundred feet of something else, a mile deep. What is down there? Granite and what they can basement rock.

They say, 'it was all laid down in the flood.' Is that what you see? You think there was a worldwide flood that killed everything and that is what you are seeing down there? Well where are the dead animals... where are their bones... where are their fossils?

It is six thousand feet of water laid strata and there is not one mouse down there? Not one rat, not one snake or fish. Higher up there is a few fish teeth. Not one dinosaur, in spite that these lying turkeys put up a wall in their museum and say it represents the Grand Canyon and then they stick dinosaur bones in it. They are lying deceitful frauds. Why do they do that? Because they have nothing, so they make it up, they lie, they fabricate and they fraud, because they despise the Word of God. They despise this verse here. So don't tell me you love God, and the Word of God, when you despise everything that it says and you despise everything it shows you. I don't mean you here, I know you people are with me. I'm talking about those that be.

Kat · October 07, 2008, 11:07:53 PM

So this statement is true, that Jesus said "Thy Word is truth." This is truth, the rocks out there do not lie.

Those rocks I picked up yesterday (at the Wetumpka, Alabama crater site) aren't like any rocks I have ever seen on a hill top or mountain top. They just look like pulverized mush made into different things and of course there are some quartz in there and so on. But that thing was caused by a meteorite, a big rock from outer space. I mean they are just pulverized, because that thing came in at forty thousand miles an hour. That is three times faster than a high powered rifle... that's fast. When you consider a rock, one rock that's a quarter of a mile in diameter hitting Wetumpka Alabama at forty thousand miles an hour...

You saw what happened to the jet that crashed in Pennsylvania. Well it was doing 590 miles per hour. Where is the plane? There is no plane. Then that poor woman pilot that was flying that passenger jet over the Everglades when those oxygen canisters caught fire, it put her into a straight drive into the Everglades. Where is that plane? They never found it. Over 500 miles per hour and that was thin aluminum.

Now imagine solid rock a quarter of a mile in diameter and not hitting at 500 miles an hour, but forty thousand miles an hour. I mean it created it's own little mountain chain over there. That's power.

From the book by Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder (in italic).

GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG
[The discovery of harmony between modern science and the Bible]

He has a small chapter in here called Evening and Morning and taking order out of chaos. Genesis 1:31 says "And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good."

I showed that Onkelos translated Gen. 1:1 "In wisdom, God created the heavens and the earth." Onkelos had his own translation on this too, rather than saying "God saw everything that He had made and behold it was very good (Gen. 1:31)." Here's how he translates it and this is marvelous, this was a man 1850 years ago translated this verse. Now he knew something, he didn't just make this up. "And God saw everything that He made and behold it was a unified order." Well what was it before? Chaos. I showed you a chart of lakes and rivers and mountains and everything on the earth. The earth makes all those things.

The beginning was chaos, covered with water. With only slight variations in the order of the wording, the phrase in the six days of creation, is marked by the phrase "and there was evening and there was morning." Commentaries for the opening chapter of Genesis have wondered at the appearance of the evening and morning sequence and the stated passage of each day close. This is especially true of the first few days of Genesis, when even according to a liberal reading of the text there was neither sun nor earth.

Did you ever realize that before? In the beginning God had already created the heavens and the earth. The heavens would have already included the sun and of course it included the earth. But there was no earth like we understand it. The word earth means ground anyway. There was no ground, it was covered with water and chaos. And the sun wasn't shining, you get that on the fifth day.

The sequence in which a day starts, beginning with the evening, follows the Biblical concept of a day.

Then he talks about Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, they were to keep it from evening to evening. Because if you just say 'keep it a day' then you would keep it for the daylight portion of the day and then instead of fasting all night too, they would go out and binge. So God had to say it that way.

Maimonides summarizes this thing about evening and morning by saying; On the earth both evening and morning are both always present. They are on the earth at every moment at ever changing places. Where it is morning, in places opposite it is evening.

It's always evening and morning at the same time on the earth, at all times.

This reveals quite an exact comprehension of the illumination of the sun's light on a spherical earth at a time in history when mankind mostly in western humanity dreaded falling off the edge of the earth.

Maimonides understood this, that the earth is a sphere and that it is sunrise and sunset at the same time always on the earth. It never goes away. You might say it turns around on it's axes or whatever, but it is always there, it never leaves. It's always sunset, it's always sunrise and he had the sense to see that.

Continuing with Schroeder.
The Hebrew for evening is 'ereb' and this is the literal meaning of the word, although the root of the word carries with it implications far beyond that of a setting sun. What is the visual sensation of an evening? Darkness begins, objects become obscured and blurred. The root of ereb means just that, mixed up, stirred together, disorderly.

The Hebrew for morning is 'boqer' it's meaning is quite the opposite of ereb. Morning brings the first light, objects mingled by the dark of night become distinct entities. This is the root meaning of boqer; discernable, able to be distinguished, orderly.

It is interesting that Jesus Christ died and was buried in the evening. When did He rise? In the morning.

Had the text said that it was morning and then evening, our concept of a day might have been better satisfied. But the sequence is included in here, it always starts with evening. There is a systematic flow of disorder, chaos or evening to order - cosmos, order or morning. To appreciate this rarity of flow of disorder to order we must at this point acquire more understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy, chaos, out of order. Not order out of chaos. The laws of thermodynamics that control the universe is bringing something that is orderly into disorder and chaos, everywhere always.

Why would God do that? Why would He make something that by it's very nature it starts to fall apart, break down and become unuseful? There is a spiritual lesson here.

The order that we see about us, the exquisite orchestration of inorganic chemical and organic molecules into a symphony of life is misleading, if we apply it to the universe as a whole.Those intricate and regular arrangements of matter, they are characteristic of life and stand in sharp contrast to the ever increasing chaos of the universe. A chaos that at times is referred to as the impending heat death of the universe. With each act it is as simple as sustaining a nuclear reaction or as complex as a parent tickling a giggling child. Some energy or some matter or transferred from an orderly state of potential usefulness to random chaotic state from which useful work can never again be drawn.

Isn't that amazing. This is what happens everywhere. Everywhere the universe is breaking down, hot thing are getting colder.

There are three law in science thermodynamics and they are valid in every condition in the universe ever observed by scientist. The first law states, that regardless of the reaction taking place within a closed system, the sum of the energy in that mass of the system remains the same.

You could change things, but you can't get rid of them or diminish them. You can burn a piece of wood and it will become fire, heat and smoke. But you still got fire, heat and smoke or at least you've got heat and some smoke until it dissipated into some other thing. But it is still there, it has just soaked in and you don't see it, but you have not totally destroyed it.

When hot water is mixed with cold water in an insulated container, the hot gets cooler and the cool get warmer. But the total heat remains the same, it does not change. The molecules of the hot water are moving rapidly and randomly within the liquid. The molecules of the cold water are also moving randomly but more slowly.

The speed of these molecular motions, the kinetic energy of the molecules is what determines temperature of an object, motion. Molecular motion is in fact what heat is. When these fast hot molecules are mixed with the slow moving molecules of the cold water, random collisions among the two groups distributed energy equally among them and they were all eventually in moderate motion.

The first law of thermodynamics provides the ground work for what is the most relevant in our discussion. The simple way to remember the laws of thermodynamics is as follows. The first law states, you can't win. The second law states, you can't break even. The third law states, you can't get out of the game.

Having mixed a cup of hot water with the cold water there is no way we can now separate the now lukewarm molecules back into the two separate groups, every one hot and every one cold without the expenditure of more energy. With every action chemical, physical or nuclear as well, there is a decrease in the amount of energy or usefulness for future work.

Within the myriads of stars of the universe, mass is being propelled out as radiate energy. The sum of the mass plus the energy of the universe remains unchanged. That is the first law of thermodynamics. But the cosmos potential to produce useful energy in the form of high temperature heat is ever diminishing and it is heading towards what we call the ultimate frigid temperature of minus 270 degrees centigrade.

That's where all motion stops. There is no motion and there is no heat. Where there is no heat there is no motion and all molecules stop.

The flow of heat from hot to cold is what provides the basis for work. Yet within a limited portion of the universe...

All this is going on every where in the universe. In the stars, in the planets and on the earth and under the earth and everywhere and everywhere else.

And yet, within a limited portion of the universe highly ordered structures have appeared. We humans are the most extreme example of such local order. Our life systems or even those of the most simple celled bacteria or algae are so vastly complex, that one might question the validity of the second law of thermodynamics. Only when we view life processes in context with our environment does the overall increase in entropy become apparent.

You know how our body temperature is 98 degrees, yet if we are put in a room that is 98 degrees, we ought to be perfectly at home. But we are hot. So the body comes up with a way to create entropy, to cool it down. You perspire and it evaporates and it cools your body down.

Now comes the major psycho-physiologic question; If the universe trend is towards chaos, why is there order at all?

If the basic laws of physics dictate that orderly things slow down, get colder, deteriorate and go from order to chaos, why is there order anywhere in the universe? It seems to defy the laws of thermodynamics, which work on everything, always everywhere.

The ordered complexities of life is clearly extraordinary. The universe might have remained the mass of randomly moving electrons, protons and assorted subatomic particles, present at that first speck of time referred to as "In the beginning." If such were the case we would not be here to wonder about it or the overriding purpose of this flow of the universe from it's state of the Big Bang to the form we observe today.

The Author of Genesis thought this flow towards order was sufficiently important and exceptional, to emphasize it at regular repartition, "and it was evening and there was morning."

Because everything else in science and in the universe goes the other way. But God is making this go contrary to that. Life is different. Life is special.

The compartmentalization of events of our Genesis, of the days bracketed by ereb and boqer, evening and morning is convenient for talking in the language of man, but the root meanings of the words hold the secrets.

There is a proverb, I don't know exactly how it goes; the words of God are like apples of gold in a silver vessel. What does that mean? Well, what that means is the word of God are like golden apples, in a silver bowl. The silver bowl is what you read, what you see, what you observe in the literal sense, that's the silver. But His real words are not the silver. The real words, the deep meaning behind all of that, those are the apples of gold inside the silver bowl. So inside the text of this Bible, the silver words, there are apples of gold. You will never learn it from heretics though.

In the beginning there was turmoil, a cosmos soup of highly concentrated energy and matter all mixed together. There was neither heavy elements ready to release the heat of the radio (capedecator?) nor energetic chemical complexes available to power the process of life. The temperature was ten to the power 32 Kelvin.

Kelvin is a measurement of temperature where 0 is absolute zero, 340 million degrees below zero or whatever. In other words when all matter stops and nothing movies anymore.

With the expansion of the universe the energy concentration fall, temperatures dropped drastically. As we have learned the average proton temperature today is a mere 3.5 degrees Kelvin. Entropy increased throughout the volume of the universe, but the increase was not uniformly distributed. At many places within the increasing volume of the universe's local order was imposed on matter. But those basic properties instilled within all matter at the creation, the nuclear magnetic and gravitational forces. Matter started to join with matter, light and matter became distant.

In the beginning God had created the heavens and the earth and then down the road He said now let there be light. The light had to come out of this matter which was slowing down and growing colder.

The converging flow towards local centers of concentration produces high velocities and eventually high pressure. As the matter crashes towards a local center, both the velocities and pressure become pressed together as heat. Temperatures in the core rise at approximately a million degrees Kelvin. The velocity of the nucleus becomes superficially high to cause nuclear fusion on collision with the nuclei, hydrogen converts to helium, helium's the heavier elements. In the process of fusion some of the mass converts to pure energy. A nuclear furnace has ignited... a star has been born.

Notice Genesis 1.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God (HAD) created the heaven and the earth.

He created the heavens back in verse 1. In verse 5 He made the stars also, He made them out of what He already created.

The Big Bang puts it's energy into spreading matter, gravity helps recover part of the energy by forming second and third generation hot spots, which we call stars. Life processes derive their power from the recycling of energy and matter. The Biblical text describes this localize progression from less order to more order as a flow from evening to morning. Or more accurately from ereb to boqer.

Hundreds of years before the appearance of the Greek language, before the words chaos and cosmos was ever written this step by step progression towards the orderly world described by the subtle language, evening and morning. This is an ancient text that confirms this interpretation.

Onkelos that translates where it says everything "was very good" and he says everything was an "unified order." At that point it was a unified order. What was it before? It was chaos, then every created period went from chaos to order... from chaos to order... from chaos to order until finally at the end of the six periods, everything was a unified order. That's how God got rid of the chaos. God uses a process. Why does He use that process? Why does He do a lot of things? God does strange things.

Onkelos perceived that a qualitative change in the nature of the universe had occurred. A change from disorder without the possibility of life, to order with life.

There is a lot in that first chapter of Genesis, there is a lot in there.

Kat · October 16, 2008, 05:19:25 PM

Video #4 - Audio #8a

IMPACT CRATERS AND NOAH'S FLOOD

I was lying in bed about six months ago and I was thinking and meditating to God about this thing. I said there has got to be a way to show without going into all these isometric dating systems and formulas and calculating how much sodium is in the oceans and at what rate the earth is slowing down or the moon is going further away or the dust is accumulating on the moon, just all this nonsense. It's all nonsense, because they hear something about something is doing something and they say, 'oh wait a minute, if we run that back a billion years, then it would end up here and that can't be.' But it's always false assumptions, false premises, bad math, pseudo science. I have checked out thousands of pages of material now, I know where of I speak. They have nothing... nothing.

But God put it in my mind... impact craters! But maybe you don't know where I am going with that, but I knew in my mind, yes impact craters. There are impact craters on the earth! There couldn't have been a global flood and the earth has got to be billions of years old.

That crater is about one mile across, a little more than a kilometer. They dated that to 49-50 thousand years ago. It had the destructive power of 150 nuclear bombs and this is a small crater, there are bigger ones.

The one in Chicxulub in the Yucatan is about 150 miles in diameter. It had the destructive power of 25,000 nuclear bombs. There are some bigger ones than that and many more.

These rounded structures with a deep depression surrounded by a parapet of ejected stone and earth, millions of tons of finely pulverized silica, large quantities of iron globules 'shale balls.' And randomly mixed meteorite material, anomalies such as 'shocked quartz,' radiometric datable 'melt rocks.' Plus the absence of any naturally occurring volcanic rock in the vicinity. The reason that is important is that they would say, 'this is an old dormant volcano.' This proves that some of these structures were formed millions and billions of years ago. How so? They radio date them.

These rock melts contain radioactive elements which were set in motion at the time of the impact. All you need to do is find which appropriate method (I'm going through some of these methods this morning) to use to date the half life and then figure out backwards how long ago it was that it fall. This one 49,000 years ago. There are very few this early. There are almost none of any consequence in the late time of any human being.

There was one in 1644 in the desert of Iraq and it's about the size of a backyard swimming pool and that is 350 years old. But most of them are extremely old.

How does this prove there was no flood and the earth is billions of years old? Had there been a global flood... first of all if you can prove there was no global flood, then you have automatically prove that all the water laid sedimentary rock around the earth were not formed by a flood, if there was no flood. Therefore you have to account for how those strata gets laid down one, two and three miles thick, if no flood water laid them down, in one global flood at one time. That will take you back automatically millions/billions of years.

When you do radiometric dating on these melt rocks and so on, that will tell you when this impact occurred. So had there been a global flood, there would be no remaining surface signs left.

This one is only 50,000 years old. And look at it, it looks like it could have hit there ten years ago. If there was a global flood for one solid year, with currents 150 mph and the deep was broken up. They say all the subterranean water was broken up (Gen. 7:11) and the earths crumbed and crushed and mixed together miles of strata in the earth crust. What do you think would have happened to that crater? [Someone says, It would have disappeared] It would be so disappeared. Can you see that? A global flood 4300 years ago, it would have wiped out all traces of that crater. Yet there it is. There it is, proof that there was no flood 4300 years ago in Arizona or that crater would not be there.

Now they didn't find but half a dozen or a dozen such craters around the world until recent times, that just stick out like a sore thumb. But now they keep finding more and more and more.

Friday I visited the impact crater in Wetumpka, Alabama (link to Wetumpka site http://www.wetumpkachamber.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=41).
It was only about 10 years ago that Alabama University or one of those in the geology department got funds and so on. They did core drillings down from the parapet wall and they established once and for all, yes indeed this was an impact crater. They dated it 83 million years ago, that impact crater hit.

The ocean (at that time) was right there at Wetumpka. They are not sure if it hit on shore or out in the water slightly off shore, but right there is the dividing line. If you look at a topographical of Alabama or the United States you will see, it will be in yellow sweeping up there towards Wetumpka and Montgomery and they call that the Coastal plateau. That was all under water. Actually when you go back a little further than that, a couple of hundred million years ago and the ocean went all the way through the center of the United States and up to Canada, it was a giant waterway. It was maybe 800 miles wide, right through the middle of the United States. That was all ocean at one time.

Then we have these large ones (craters). Now the reason they believe that Chicxulub in the Yucatan... you know where the Yucatan Peninsula is, there between South America and the United States. The reason they think that may be responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs is that they know from other ways of dating that the dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. The Chicxulub impact crater dates to 65 millions years ago. So we not only have the extinction of the dinosaurs, we've got the smoking gun. So could an impact like that have destroyed all these huge beasts? Absolutely.

Scientist don't know because it is too mammoth and their calculation are too off the board kind of, but they estimate the power of that impact... But this one in Arizona was 150 nuclear bombs and they estimate that one was 25,000 nuclear bombs. They think that would have created a global winter, where the sun would have been blocked from all the dirt and debris. Listen when you blow a hole in the ground, you know 150 mile hole in the ground and just billions of tons of debris comes flying out, that is going to be a mess for a long time. That could have wiped out the dinosaurs.

Now there is a bigger one yet at the tip of South Africa and there is even a bigger one yet in northern Canada. The one in northern Canada I think is the oldest one dated, it dates to almost 2 billion years ago. It was a huge impact crater though, it's 180-200 miles that the crater is or whatever. We are talking about a rock that is 10-15 miles in diameter, a rock hitting the earth at 40,000 mph.

I put in here these pictures, so you will get a little bit more of a picture of these shocked quartz and melt rocks, so you can see what it is they actually find.

Iridium is an extremely rare element and you don't fine it on earth hardly anywhere, but it does come from meteorites. They find that meteorites contain iridium and here you fine a huge layer of that stuff. They find it at different places around the world as it settles out of the atmosphere and that is a sure sign too. Where is that found? Right in between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary.

SEEING IS BELIEVING

The simple indisputable facts. If the largest impact craters were formed before man and Noah's flood was global, then all impact surface structures would have been totally obliterated or covered over by such a flood. We would not see a single one of them today, but we can see them today.

But if the largest impact craters were formed after Noah's flood, then the size and magnitude of the larger ones would have since obliterated much of the human race during recorded history. Poisonous gases, dust and debris and global winters would have lasted for many years causing worldwide death and extinction. But there is no record of such worldwide famine and death in the recordings of man.

Therefore the earth and large impact crater are very much older than man and there never was a global flood. There it is, How do you get around that? These Dr. Alston, Dr. Bombardon, Dr Humphrey, they try to twist and distort all the formulas they want, until the cows come home. You can't get around this. I saw an impact crater myself day before yesterday and I know how big it is. I know of what destructive forces they are and that was a tiny one. The Wetumpka crater was about three and a half miles in diameter and some of them go up to 150-200 miles in diameter. Now how many were there? They have now found, from my National Geographic of two months ago, showed the latest founding and they have now found 176 impact craters on the surface of the earth.

Now young earth advocates say, 'well if the earth is billions of years old and these meteorites have been crashing into the earth for millions and billions of years, how come they don't find any subterranean impact craters?' Well a few years back they had only found two, but you have to understand that when something is buried... take Wetumpka, which is three miles across, now buried it a mile under the ground... like if you opened up the ground and put it a mile under, what are the chances of anyone would ever find it? Who would ever drill a hole one mile deep around the town of Wetumpka Alabama? Who, for what? So the chances are infinitesimal that they would ever find one. But guess what? They do drill holes all over the world. For what? Oil. Do you know how many subterranean meteorite impact craters with shocked quartz, melt balls and all the things that prove that it was a crater? 130. So you add 130 subterranean to 176 terrestrial and you will have 300. So what does that represent of the total amount though... 1% maybe.

[Question: Why are they subterranean?] In other words they (meteorites) impacted the earth a million, five million, hundred million, two million or two and a half billion years ago and they have been covered over. You see this again is a major proof of the age of the earth. It is interesting to me, when you read in Genesis, "there was no man to till the soil (Gen. 2:5)." It says "ground," the word is soil. Soil is manufactured by the earth and it takes a long long time.

You have to have volcanoes build up mountains, then you have to have rain and wind and storms and glaciers and everything, chewing away and grinding it down to powder and distribute into the valleys. That is soil. Now you picture a mountain chain eroded away and filling the valleys, right. Well what happens when everything gets down to an equilibrium? The earth keeps building new mountains.

What begins right here in this area of the country and goes all up into the New England states, the Appalachian Mountains. They are among the oldest mountains on earth. They think this may have been the oldest and tallest mountain chain on the planet, the Appalachian mountain. Maybe reaching 40-50 thousand feet, but they are wore down. They are worn down to where they are smooth and rolling now.

But the Rocky Mountains they have a lot of sharp jaggedy edges and uplifted huge displacements of rocks. I forget, but they are only a couple hundred million years old, they are youngsters. This earth is very very old.

So we know of 300 meteorite impact craters on and in the earth. Say we found 1%, we may have found more than 1% that is on the surface, because what they are finding now are more difficult to say for sure. First they go by a visual formation and then maybe it is or maybe it isn't an impact crater.

The Ries meteorite impact crater in Germany, there are 15 little cities down in the bottom of this crater. They have their own little mountain range around it. It only about 15 miles, but it has 15 villages and cities in there just scattered all around. Nobody ever dreamed that's an impact crater. They have done core drilling now and a meteorite caused that. But it is worn pretty much down now.

So they will be finding less and less. But they will still keep finding them, especially using satellite technology and so on. But the last point I want to make in all this... so maybe in total there was, I don't know, maybe 30,000 of these things that hit the earth or something.

Before I forget of all the subterranean meteorites craters they have found, of 130 only one was smaller than the Barringer crater in Arizona. Only one was small, the other 129 were all larger.

Well look at the moon it's covered with impact craters, right. You've got impact craters on top of impact craters. You see a big impact crater, but what you don't know is that probably a hundred are underneath that that one wiped out and now there is the big one. Now you get smaller ones and medium size ones inside the big crater and inside the craters crater and so on. The whole moon is totally pock marked with thousands of them. The moon is tiny compared to the earth. The moon is smaller, so 1) Less meteorites would hit the moon. 2) It has much smaller gravity, so less impact craters would be drawn into the moon than the earth. So when you look at the moon you have to understand that the earth received many many times more impact craters than that. Any two or three of them would wipe out... if they hit all at the same time, on different parts of the earth, it could probably wipe out the entire population of the animal kingdom and if there were people too.

So the idea that the earth is 6000 years old and some how 30,000 giant impact craters with the destructive force of hundreds and thousands of megaton of nuclear bombs, all landed here, someplace between Adams creation and the flood? Because after the flood we have good documented history from all the major nations of the world. It's nonsense! Why in the world can't people see that this is nonsense.

All these millions of young earth enthusiasts, trying to prove that God created the earth 6000 years ago in six days and that there was a global flood. Give it up! It's nonsense, there is no proof for a young earth and a global flood. None! Not one proof, none! Not only that it is stupid and foolishness to try and come up with these theories. You've got millions and billions of tons of debris showing the strata from the impact craters.

Glen Martin, you know the one that graduated from The Institute For Creation Research and then he talked about his buddies, they became geologist. When they got out in the field, he said he ask him, 'What is true, what did you learn in geology in The Institute For Creation Research? What did you learn that when you get out in the field and start working with this day to day, what did you find that is still true?' Nothing!

People have this giant horrible prejudice against science. Like science is of the devil. I mean this microphone, my clothing, books, computers, lights, air conditioners, automobiles, this is science. This is not satanic voodoo. Lets get our thinking straight on some of this.

Are there atheistic evolutionist who try to provocate some stupid theories? How man evolved from a rock? Yes, but we are not talking about that, we are talking about sincere dedicated scientist that follow the scientific method, which is a very very concise protocol of how you do things to establish what is true and what's not true. Are you with me? Okay. Alright there's one, now here is another one. I only have one page on this one.

Now scientist have known about exploding stars and supernovas for many many many decades. However something happened interesting here.

Kat · October 16, 2008, 06:48:24 PM

How Old Is the Earth? By Merle Hertzler
http://geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve1

Last night light arrived at your house from the distant stars. It must have taken a long time for that light to reach your house, for the stars are very far away and light travels at only 186,000 miles per second. Scientists tell us it would have taken billions of years for the light to have made that journey from the distant stars. If the light did indeed come from those stars, then the light left those stars billions of years ago. And if the light was traveling for billions of years, than the stars must be very old and the universe is very old.

Now that's just as simple as it is. But that is a major problem for all these young earth heretics. So what do they do with it? They say, 'Well yea, I mean today it takes that long, but when God created the stars and put them out there. He created the light all ready here or part way in between.' What? What kind of reasoning nonsense is that? You are going to use science, but then you turn science into a miracle, which goes against the science that you are trying to show. It's just nonsense.

Some people will object to this conclusion and will tell me the universe is only 6000 years old, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

No based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, it absolutely does not show that.

But if the universe and the stars are only 6000 years old and light appears to have taken billions of years to make that journey, how did that light manage to reach the earth?

Creationists have made several attempts to explain this problem. Some have questioned that the universe is really that big. If the stars are a lot closer to us than scientists claim, then the light would have had time to reach earth in 6000 years.

So how can scientists be so sure the stars are far away? Good question. Let's look at one measurement that was made. On February 23, 1987, a supernova, which is a vast star explosion, was observed. It was known as SN 1987A. About eight months after the explosion was observed, reflections from the explosion were seen in a distant gas cloud ring that circled the supernova. The ring can be seen as an orange circle in the photo above. The reason the reflected light was delayed eight months was that it took time for the light to travel from the supernova to the distant gas clouds and then to reflect from there back to earth.

Here is the earth (bottom of illustration). So up here is a supernova star that explodes (top center), then you have gaseous material out here (circle around the supernova), around this thing in space. We don't know how big or whatever, but it does encircle this supernova. Now light comes from this supernova towards the earth at 186,000 miles a second.

Now what happened was, in 1987 the light from that supernova reached the earth. This man was taking photos at about 2:00 in the morning at the observatory and apparently he didn't pay attention to the last couple of photographs that were made and then he went to the dark room to develop them. One of the plates showed the starry sky like he knew he was photographing it, but there was this bright spot. He thought there was a problem with the development of the film. But no, it didn't look like a chemical problem, it just looked like it was a bright light there. He thought, 'What the heck is that?' It wasn't there when he was looking through his telescope. Astronomers have the sky memorized and he said, 'that is so bright that I should be able to see it outside.' Then he realized what happened.

This star that had been there from times memorial and the night he took the photograph, he saw it as a supernova exploding. But it didn't explode that night, it exploded 169,000 years ago and the light came to his observatory in February 1987, the light came to his telescope. So now this is an interesting thing, so they keep an eye on this. In other words they are seeing to first light... in other words they are looking back in history. They are actually seeing right now, what happened 169,000 ago.

Low and behold eight months later they see something else. Not only did they see the bright star, they now see and orange halo out around the star. So there is this gas out there... So when this star exploded it sent it's light toward the earth and it sent it's light towards outer space, this way and that way in all directions and it hit that gas. When it hit that gas it illuminated it and reflected the light. So the light that hit the gas, they didn't see that circle until eight months after he first saw the explosion, eight months later. So now we know it took eight months to go from here (the supernova) to here (the gas ring) and then be reflected back to the earth. So this light traveled from here to here (supernova to earth) and this light traveled from here to here (gas ring to earth) it had to go further. So we got all the direct light, but we also got some of the light that went in other directions and was reflected back too. But it took eight months to go from here to here (supernova to gas ring).

So now all we need to do is a trigonometry triangulation, from here to here (supernova to gas ring) is eight months and back down to the earth, we can then do a triangulation and by this we can prove that it is 169,000 light years away. By simple mathematics. So you can't deny that. That star is 169,000 light years from the earth and therefore that star has got to be at least 169,000 years old. But now we know that it's not only 169,000 years old. It's been 169,000 years since it blew up. So how many billions of years old was that star before it blew up? Are you following me?

So is the earth 6000 years old? No no no no, there it is, absolute proof positive. There is nothing these young earthers can do with it, so what will they do? They will avoid it and pretend it never happened. They will say, 'Well we are still working on that one.' Or as Ken Holden (?) would say, 'I don't think all the results are in yet.' Well Ken got 10 years in the big pen to meditate on all his lies and deceitfulness.

THE PYRAMIDS

Alright I have one more. How do the pyramids prove that there never was a global flood and that the earth is billions of years old? How? Can somebody tell me? Okay, I only came up with this one about three weeks ago. I came up with the meteorite impact crater more than a half a year ago. Now how so the pyramids? Well the pyramids really are pretty close to the time of the traditional date of Noah's flood.

The Step Pyramid was built in 2750 BC and the Great Pyramid was built about 2560 BC. Now the traditional time of the flood is 2348 BC, so the Great Pyramid is at least 200 years before the flood. The Step Pyramid, it is a little more eroded it was not built as well, because they got better with it as they went, it's about 400 years before the flood. So if there were a global flood 200-400 years after the main pyramids and of course there are numerous other ones, why are they still standing? Anybody know? [Answer: Because they were built good.] Well yea, but we are talking about a flood that would tear up mountain ranges. [Answer: There wasn't no global flood] Amen brother, there you go, there was no global flood.

So a couple of things here, I've got this one really book ended. Not only didn't the flood wipe them away, there is no flood damage! You know what I mean, there was no flood damage on these pyramids. These things are not totally water tight and if there had been a flood rocking around for a whole year and all that sea water would be seeping down into all the chambers an stuff. There is no sea water down in those chambers. You know there is a lot they haven't found yet around the pyramids. The pyramids was a huge religious complex of buildings and canals and so on. The boats came off the Nile river and came right up to the pyramids. Oh yea, you could drive a boat right up to the pyramids, they had canals.

About 30 years ago they found this one chamber, out from the pyramid built down in this big rock vault. They didn't know what was in there, they did soundings and they found it was hollow, so there was something in there. They finally drilled a hole about as big as your thumb and put a tiny camera down, it was a big room. Finally they opened it up and there was a dismantled ship in there and they put it together. A whole ship, dismantled all piled up very neatly in that vault. So who knows what else is all under there.

But that thing was not suffering from any consequences of so many thousands of years of sea water or something being down there. So if there were a flood in 2348BC it would have destroyed or certainly badly damaged the pyramids. It did not. Nor is there any record in Egypt that there was a flood that destroyed or badly damaged the pyramids. So I think it goes without saying that there was not a global flood after the pyramids. Yet the date is centuries after the pyramids.

So somebody suggested that they were built good. So let's say that maybe it flooded Egypt and just didn't knock them down. You know like the flood rose up in other parts and carved out the Grand Canyon, like a million scoop shovels. But over there maybe it just moved the sand around a little bit and didn't do any damage and the pyramids survived the flood. Now what is wrong with that scenario? Well if it didn't damage the pyramids how did it lay down 1-3 miles of water laid sentiment underneath the pyramids? Did God lift the pyramids up in the sky and totally destroy the land one, two, three miles deep and laid it back down in the course of a whole year and all these water laid strata and then gently put the pyramids back on top? Either it had to totally obliterate the pyramids, which it did not or we would have to account for all this water laid strata, which if it had come through a flood, there would not still be any pyramids standing on top of it. Can't you easily see that? You can not both preserve the pyramids from being destroyed and yet totally wipe out three miles of strata underneath it and relay it over the course of a year and all of the stratification layers we find. You can not have both. But we have the pyramids and we have the strata underneath.

You can dig holes down under areas of the pyramids and you will find the same basic geological strata columns that you find everywhere else around the world. Those columns are pretty much laid down by water and not by any global flood. But at different places at different times over many millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and billions of years of plate tectonic movement and continent movement and mountain building and erosion and so on. In billions of years all of those layers were accumulated. It could not have been done by a flood. It absolutely was not done by a flood. Because we have some 'markers' we put on top and they said, 'okay when the flood comes we'll see what it does with our 'markers.' Oh they are still there.'

So those are three ways that you don't need to know a lot of technical stuff about anything and you can know that this earth is millions and billions of years old and there never was a global flood. Now there was a flood and we are going to talk about that, but it was not global.

Now one other possibility for this, if only the Great Pyramid is 200 years off, the Step Pyramids 400 years. What if they are all off a few hundred years? Maybe the pyramids were made a little more resent and maybe the flood was a little more early... possibility? Maybe the flood came before 2348, maybe it came around 2770 or something. Well it would have to come a lot earlier than that, because it takes a long time to build the pyramids. But lets give them a 100 years to build the pyramids and maybe it's not 2348, but maybe it's 2800 BC and then after the flood the Egyptians built the pyramids. It was one of the first things they did, built the pyramids. So we would have a global flood and we would have all the strata accounted for and we would have the pyramids still intact, right. Is there a problem with that?

[Answer: There would be nobody there to build them, they would be all dead.] Well now that is a good point. Noah might say, 'kids let get together and we are going to start raising big families over there in Egypt and I think in about, oh I don't know, about 500 or 1000 years will have enough laborers we can build pyramids.' That wouldn't work would it, because then we would have the pyramids being built about 1044 BC when King David was reigning over Jerusalem. That won't work at all. They would be building the Pyramids 500 years after the children of Israel were slaves down there.

There would be no people who would have built the pyramids. He was over in Mesopotamia some where, Noah and his boys. Then they built the tower of Babel, they didn't build pyramids. There is nobody to build the pyramids.

Well let's push this thing a little further, maybe the pyramids were built two three or four hundred years later. There is still a problem, there is still a insurmountable problem and I'll tell you what it is.

With all the architectural Egyptology work going on in Egypt in the last one or two hundred years they have discovered a lot of stuff. They have the kings list pretty complete now, they have the first Dynasty beginning in 3050-2857 BC, Dynasty II: 2857-2705 and they have all the names (see list below) and all the dates of their reigns. All the way through the first dynasty, the second dynasty, the third dynasty that is then known as the Old Kingdom. Dynasty 4,5,6...

COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ANCIENT EGYPTIAN KINGS
With chronology

ARCHAIC PERIOD
(a.k.a. EARLY DYNASTIC)

Dynasty I: 3050-2857

Horus Aha   Meni     3050-3016
Horus Djer   Iti     3016-2970
Horus Wadji   Iterti?     2970-2963
Horus Dewen   Khasti/Zemti?      2963-2949
Horus Andjib   Merpibia?     2949-2897
Horus Semerkhet   Iri-Nebti     2897-2889
Horus Qa'a   Qa'a-Nebti     2889-2859
Horus Ba?   (sequence uncertain)
Horus Seneferka   (sequence uncertain) 2859-2857
Horus [. . .]   (sequence uncertain)

Dynasty II: 2857-2705

Horus Hetepsekhemw Hetep-Nebty    2857-
Horus Nebre           -2815
Horus Ninetjer     Ninetjer-Nebty     2815-2778
Horus Weneg?     Weneg-Nebty    2778-2772
Sened        2772-
Nubnefer           -2751
Seth Peribsen        2751-2743
Horus Sekhemib (-perenma'at)    2743-2732
Horus Khasekhem     (= same person as the next king)
Horus-Seth Khasekhemwy(-hetep-netjerwyimef) 2732-2705

OLD KINGDOM

Dynasty III: 2705-2630

Horus Nekhtza (Za)   Nebka I     2705-2687
Horus Netjerikhet     (Djoser)     2687-2667
Horus Sekhemkhet (Djeser-Teti)     2667-2660
Horus Khaba        2660-2654
Horus Qahedjet      Huni     2654-2630

Dynasty IV: 2630-2524

Snefru        2630-2606
(Khnum-)Khufwi     (Khufu/"Cheops") 2606-2583
Radjedef     (Djedefre)     2583-2575
Khafre     ("Chephren")     2575-2550
Nebka II        2550-2548
Menkaure   ("Mycerinus")     2548-2530
Shepseskaf        2530-2526
[Interregnum?]        2526-2524

Dynasty V: 2524 2400

Userkaf        2524-2517
Sahure        2517-2505
Neferirkare I Kakai        2505-2495
Shepseskare Izi?        2495-2488
Neferefre   (Raneferef?)     2488-2477
Niuserre Ini        2477-2466
Menkauhor Ikauhor        2466-2458
Djedkare Izezi        2458-2430
Unis        2430-2400

Dynasty VI: 2400-2250?

Teti        2400-2390
Pepi I        2390-
Userkare     (userper?)        -2382
Pepi I     (again!)     2382-2361
Mernere I Nemtyemzaf        2361-2355
Pepi II        2355-2261
Mernere II Nemtyemzaf 2261-2260
Queen Nitocris        2260-2250?

Dynasty VII: 2250?-2230

Neferkare II . . . . .
Sekhemkare . . . . .
Wadjkare
Netjerkare [Abydos] = Neitiqerti [Turin]
(sequence of rule uncertain).

Dynasty VIII: 2230-2213

Qakare Ibi        2222-2220
Neferkaure     (= Imhotep?)     2220-2216
Neferkauhor Kapuibi (= Iti?)     2216-2214
Neferirkare II        2214-2213

FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD

Dynasty IX: 2213-ca. 2175

Meryibre Akhtoy   (= the first or second king?)    2213-
. . . .
Neferkare V     (= the third king?) ca. 2185-
. . . .           -2175

Dynasty X: ca. 2175-ca. 2035

. . . . ca. 2075
Nebkaure Akhtoy   (father of Merikare?)
Merikare       (contemporary with latter ca. 2075
part of reign of Wahankh Inyotef I)

These others cannot be dated even approximately:

Meri[. . .]re Akhtoy(different from "Merihathor" and founder of Dynasty X)
Wahkare Akhtoy
Khui     (on a fragment from Dara)
Iytjenu      (part of a Dyn. X personal name from Saqqara)

Dynasty XI: 2134-1991

Horus Tepi-'o     Mentuhotep I     2134-
Horus Sehertawy     Inyotef I     -2118
Horus Wahankh     Inyotef II        2118-2069
Horus Nekhtnebtepnefer Inyotef III 2069-2061
Horus Sankhibtawy        \
Horus Daikhasut \     \ Mentuhotep II
Horus Nebhedjet    /Nebhepetre / 2061-2010
Horus Sematawy
Sankhkare     Mentuhotep III 2010-1998
Qakare Inyotef IV     (sequence uncertain)
Iyibre-Khent     (sequence uncertain)
Nebtawyre     Mentuhotep IV     -1991
   TIME OF ABRAHAM

http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/graphics/kinglist.html

Kat · October 16, 2008, 06:55:31 PM

When we come to the old dynasty 3 Nebka I 2705-2687, that was the time of the Bent Pyramid was built during his reign. Then when we come down to the forth dynasty which is 2630-2524 and we have Khufu/"Cheops" and the Great Pyramid of Cheops and that was 2606-2583 that he reigned.

In the sixth dynasty there was a Pharaoh called Pepi II he reigned from 2355-2261. How could Pepi have reigned from 2355 when seven years later there was Noah's flood? Yet years later he is still reigning. The flood occurred in the middle of the reign of Pepi II of the VI dynasty of the Old Kingdom, right in the middle of his reign. It didn't kill him, he reigned right through the flood.

I take this list all the way down to 1991 BC to Mentuhotep IV and he reigned at the time of Abraham. Now Abraham is just this side of the flood. So if you are going to tell me that the pyramids were built after the flood, then that's where they were, not knocked down. What are you going to do with a thousand years of perfectly documented history of the kings of Egypt? Some of these kings built them... Cheops built The Great Pyramid and we know when he reigned 2606-2583, that's when he built The Great Pyramid of Cheops. The Bent Pyramid was built back in 2705 under the reign of Nebka I.

So we know when the pyramids were built and we know who was reigning and it is unbroken for a thousand years. How are you going to cramp a thousand years of history, that occurred before the flood, into after the flood? Where are you going to put it? It's like we take all the history from 1750-1850 in the United States and try to cram it in between 1850-1950 how are you going to cram a hundred years of American history in there, I mean it is just foolishness. So there is the proof.

There was no (global) flood, it would have destroyed the pyramids. But if it didn't destroy the pyramids, then they would have had to be built after the flood. If they were built after the flood then you can't cram a thousand years of history in there... a fully documented history. If they say there was a flood and they survived the flood then you can't account for the two to three miles of strata underneath the pyramids. How was that water laid strata put down if the flood didn't even destroy the pyramid, how did it put down two to three miles of strata underneath the pyramids, you see. I've got this thing book ended, there is no way around it. That is all the proof you will ever need.

Geologic ages in North America

25 COMPLETE GEOLOGIC COLUMNS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

Morris (in the Creation Museum and all that nonsense) and Parker (1987, p.163) writes: Now the geologic columns is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence.

So they (young earthers) say, 'It's just a pike dream of evolutionist, there is no geologic column. They (evolutionist) will say it starts down in the pertramery and all these different layers; the Pennsylvanian, the Mississippian and all these geological you've got eras and epics and it is broken down in various ways and it only exist in the mind of these evolutionist. There is no place on earth when you can actually dig down in the ground and find all of these layers.'

Wrong pale face. They have now found dozens and dozens of places where you can find the entire... but granted it is not all the same everywhere. A great example is the Grand Canyon, it starts with the Kaibab Limestone and then it goes down from there one mile down to the bottom of the canyon until you hit granite. But there is two thousand feet of strata missing.

(click on pic for larger view)

You can see that there is three sections of rock (picture on right). The first is the Grand Canyon and you see how high that goes, but that is not the top of the earths geographical surface. That is what we call the Colorado plateau above the canyon walls and that was wiped off. There are a couple of thousand feet of strata wiped away and then another thousand dug down into the channel of the canyon.

But if you go to other parts of the surrounding states, in Utah and places, you will pick up where to two stratas meet, the top strata of the canyon and one of the lower stratas still visible in that part of the country. You go up higher again and then you can pick up that same layer in another state and you can take it up another thousand or so. So if you put it all together and you drilled at an angle through the states, then you would hit almost all of the layers of the geologic column, even in that part of the country.

[Question: What happened to the strata above the surface (of the Grand Canyon)?] It's been eroded away over the millions of years. There is also the possibilities that some layers of the column are laid down in some parts of the country and not in others. Because you have the shifting plat tectonics and shifting continents and various degrees of erosions in some parts of the northern hemisphere and you have glaciations. Glaciers can push whole mountains of dirt and level it off. You know now they are finding glacier marks in South America. They think there was a time, so many hundreds of millions of years ago, that the entire earth became a giant snow ball for a couple million years.

You have no idea how old this earth is. It is very old. When God speaks about the ancient hills, He is talking old.

So for that stupid fraudulent argument (There is no place on earth when you can actually dig down in the ground and find all of these layers.), well there are 25 locations here, all at different places around the world (notice dots on map below), where they have found the complete geologic columns. All ages and segments of the column.

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

Glen Morton(?) is one of my favorite writers on this, because he really believers the Bible and he spent 30 years in the oil field and he knows his stuff. Here is one location in North Dakota (list below) where they did a well drilling. It has all of the basic geologic stratas. Now in some place the strata may be ten feet thick and in other places two thousand feet thick. But here at a hundred foot they were still in the Tertiary. At 4900 feet Cretaceous, they call it Greenhorn. Then Cretaceous Mowry, then Cretaceous Inyan, then Rierdon, they have different names for it. At 6000 feet Jurassic and at 7325 feet Triassic and at 7740 Pennsylvanian... Precambrian.

ENTIRE GEOLOGIC COLUMN AS FOOUND AT ONE LOCATION IN NORTH DAKOTA
The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ...............................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm............................ 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm.................................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm...............................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm..................................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm.......................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm............................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.............................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm..........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm..........................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm......................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm...............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm.............................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm............................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm........................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm.......................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm.................................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp......................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.................................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm..........................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite..................13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp..........................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm.......................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm............................14445 feet
Precambrian.............................................14945 feet

Precambrian was before there was any kind of life forms, no bacteria or nothing. So there is just one well, it has those layer exactly like you would find in different charts in the geographic strata.

Kat · January 13, 2009, 04:04:30 PM

Audio #8b - Video #5

I'm going to continue on with the email I received. Now these points are not necessarily used in mainstream 'young earthism,' but they are used from time to time.

So this person says: No one is saying there is not a literal seventh day, because you have already determined that there was not an evening and morning statement after that. So there is no reason to believe it ended. (But then he says), no one is saying that there isn't a literal seventh day.

Well wait a minute if there was a literal... and if what they mean by literal is a 24 hour period, then it would have to end with the evening and the morning. Because that is how every day ended. But it doesn't. These people they just... you know they are stepping on their own toes.

The next one: Besides all this we have the next verse of Scripture with which to contend.

No we don't have to contend with this at all. But for arguments sake we will contend with it.

It says in Isa 48:3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of My mouth, and I showed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.
Now here is Strong's definition of suddenly - instantly: straightway, sudden (-ly).

He goes into great detail about this word 'suddenly' and what it means and where it's used in the Bible... it means it came suddenly, quickly, it happened rapidly. Just all that to prove that this suddenly means very quickly. You know, from the beginning it was done suddenly or quickly.

It really takes a lot less faith to believe that a hen was created and sat on her egg, than to conceive some way that the hen evolved over long periods of time.

All this has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever, nothing. Don't try to tie in these stupid arguments of this utter foolish nonsense. You get people that say, 'if you don't believe my foolish nonsense, than you've got to believe in evolution.' It has nothing to do with evolution! It's two totally different subjects. How in the world do you try to string those two together?

He shows that when God created the universe, He did it suddenly. He was showing Isa. 48, so let's go there. Let's go back to the first verse at the beginning of the chapter, if all else fails lets read it in context.

Isa 48:1 Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.
v. 2 For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The LORD of hosts is His name.
v. 3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of My mouth, and I showed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.
v. 4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;
v. 5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee;

Oops... this emailer thinks that this is talking about the creation of the heavens and the earth. But this has nothing to do with the creation of the heavens and the earth. If you read any or all other translations, it doesn't even say "I have declared the former things from the beginning." In other words it makes this sound like it's Genesis 1:1 talking, you know "In the beginning."

He's saying in this verse, I've shown you these things from the start, that's all it is. I showed you these things from the start and told you these things would happen from the start and then when I did them I did them suddenly. Verse 4 "because I knew how you were" and verse 5 "I have even from the beginning" or from the start "declared it to you."

Excuse me was the nation of Israel back in Genesis 1:1? [ Someone responses - No.] Did He declare these things to Israel back in the beginning, in Genesis 1:1? I just marvel, I scratch my head in total unbelief at the absolute paramount ignorance and foolishness of such arguments, when you try to have this thing that Isaiah is talking about the creation of the heavens and the earth.

He's talking about things He showed He was going to do to Israel and then brought them about quickly, to prove that He was behind it. When He said, that I have from the start declared it to you. He knew before it came to pass... What? These things that came to pass quickly. The creation of the heavens and the earth? No, this is just unbelievable. Well everybody that reads this and follows this person believes it. They would sit there and argue with you, yes they would.

(Email continues) In closing I will also note that for any spiritual word to be understood there must first be a literal and physical shadow given. To take the initial shadow and make it the spiritual, robs us of our ability to rightly divide the word of God.

What he is arguing here is, that you cannot have these days, where it says "day one," "day two." You can not have them represent anything that is figurative or symbolic language, meaning not a literal day, but an age or a long period of. You can not have them represent that, because this is the first we are presented with these words 'days.' Before a word can ever be used in a spiritual sense, it must be first shown to us what it is in the literal and physical sense.

Okay first of all let's notice that the first time we are presented with the word 'day,' isn't this literal, as they call it a literal day? No. They don't accept the Scriptural definition of the first time day is used and how it is defined. Why? They reject it. Why? Because they despise the Word of God. They reject this here, because they despise the Word of God in other places.

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

He divided those two.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day...

Now there is the first literal use of the word day in the Bible. What is a day? "God called the "light" day." Did He call the night half a day... part of a day... the other half of the rest of the day? No.

Gen 1:5 ... and the darkness He called Night.

Is this too hard? What is God's definition of a day? "Light." What is the first definition in Strong's concordance? Day. The warmth and heat of the sun during the DAY.

Now can a day refer to - from sunset to sunset again, which would mean 24 hours? Yes. Out of 2291 times, how many times does it do that? Almost never. When it does it fills in by letting you know for sure that He's talking about day and night.

When Jesus fasted He didn't say He fasted for 40 days. If 40 days means a lunar cycle of 24 hours, then that is all that needed to be said, He fasted for 40 days. But they knew the Biblical, God given, definition of the word day, so when He fasted for 24 hour periods, he didn't say He fasted for 40 days. He fasted for 40 day and for 40 something else... nights. Is that clear? Alright, don't let anybody bamboozle you with that bit of nonsense again.

So he (emailer) say... You can't have these represent ages or longer periods of time. Anything but a literal day. The first place that a literal day is mentioned he totally rejects it. Then he says, You can't use anything that has a spiritual connotation before it is first used in the literal physical connotation. Oh really.

For example, he says. I hope you have as much fun with this as I did. He says, For example, Christ is called the Lamb of God. If I now take that word lamb and point out that this is a spiritual statement, does that mean that there never really was a literal physical lamb? Of course not, but that is exactly what is being done with this word 'day.'

No, that is exactly what you are doing in your stupid and foolish argument here. So lets follow him. The physical type that is first given is being denied, even being given as an original type. The claim is being made that it is spiritual in it's first use and this flies in the face of Genesis 1, Exodus 20, Isaiah 48, Romans 1:20 as well as the logic and true science and all the rest of the Word of God. Oh really. You probably have forgotten something that I just read to you yesterday.

Yesterday I began reading this man's statement where he said, In the beginning, (then he gives the Hebrew word that means first fruit.) So you look at Lev. 23:10, in Christ God created the heavens and the earth, that's Christ. The "First fruit" is Christ. What does "first fruit stand for there? Christ. Okay. He says, Excuse me, you can't use a word that in a spiritual sense till we first use it in a physical literal way. Were they farming in Genesis 1:1? Did they bring in the first crop of the year and call it the first fruit. Then we are told that the universe was created by Jesus Christ the First fruit.

Ooops. So here we have him telling us that the First fruit means Christ, but we didn't have any first fruits yet, not literal first fruits. We don't have any first fruits until the 23 chapter of Leviticus. That's the first place the word first fruits is used, Genesis, Exodus and then Leviticus. Oops, shot yourself in the foot there I guess.

It isn't that he just said this is another point to consider, but he said. The physical type that is first given is being denied, if you are saying that these things can be longer than 24 hours, literal. A day is not a 24 hour day, literally. That is not a literal day. A literal day is "the light."

The physical type that is first given is being denied, even being given as an original type. The claim that is being made that it was spiritual in it's first place. This flies in the face of Genesis 1, Exodus 11, Isaiah 48, Romans as well as the logic and the true science and all the word of God.

Wow, now what did he just do? He just shot himself in the foot with his own words. I just wanted to go through some of that stuff because this email started out, Maybe this will help you understand... maybe this will help you read the Bible Ray.

NOAH'S FLOOD

Here's one point, not that this is of great significance other than there are thousands of such things and here is just one.

When the European priest first entered the arid northwestern United States they found vast track of land with 'cobbles,' dark on the top and light on the underside. They turned the stones over making huge light colored crosses in the desert out of these stones.

These stones were dark on top, light on the bottom and they turned them over and used the light side and made crosses out of them.

In the intervening 300 years the crosses are still visible, but are now beginning to fade. It has taken 300 years for the micros to cover the upper surfaces of these stones with a type of varnish. With this as a background, which is one to conclude that when we find the same kind of varnish coatings in the Permian sand grains in the North sea. The Permian rocks are from the very middle of the supposed flood deposited rocks of Noah's flood.

This should be the time of the maximum flooding of the earth, yet we find desert varnish which requires at least 300 years to form on these rocks in this strata, in the middle of the flood. Not only this, but sand grains which are coated with this slow forming film are found in shore and sand dunes alike. Clearly this evidence shows that there is at least 300 years interval in the middle of the flood. This is something that young earth creationalist never will tell you.

There are hundreds of things like that. By the time this thing is studied and hashed over next 50 or 100 years, there will be thousands of things, that just totally fly in the face of this silly idea that there was a global flood a couple thousand years ago.

According to the Nova Scotian department of environment when waters reach 6.0 pH the insects, crustaceans and some plankton disappear. When waters reaches 5.5 pH and that is very acid, mosses and unwanted plankton invade the waters and some fish disappear. But when the water goes below 5.0 pH nearly all the fish die. So a global flood in which case just a small factions of the bulk of the volcanism occurred, in a single year, the result would be the ocean being totally devoid of all life.

So they have problems they have to contend with. How do you account for all the volcanoes? They say, 'Oh during the flood there was thousands of volcanoes going off.' Oh really.
1) It would have raised the temperature of the water, probably would have evaporated it all.
2) Noah would have had a tough time in that ark with eruptions worldwide by the hundreds.
3) It would have poisoned the water where nothing could live.

See, every time they come up with a solution, they create 10 problems. Some of the problems with the flood... Columbus' wooden ships are 300 feet, the ark is 450 feet. The only way that a ship could sustain any kind of turbulent water is if it was steel reinforced. You cannot make a wooden ship 450 feet long that will survive rough seas. It will not, it is just philological impossible. It's too much stress over too large an area, it will not hold. You must have steel reinforcement if you are going to make it out of wood.

So 1 - The boat certainly could not have been any bigger than that. And 2 - It could not have been really violently turbulent water. The purpose of the ark was to float, not to be able to navigate hurricanes and volcanoes and all that kind of nonsense. It just floated while God destroyed everything in the land.

ANIMALS ON THE ARK

Could animals have traveled from else where? Some like seals and penguins can't travel over the land very well. Some like koalas and insects require special diets. Some cave dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity. Some like the Dodo must live on island.

Could the animals all have lived near Noah? Some Creationalist suggest that the animals traveled to reach the ark. A moderate climate would have made it possible for them to live a long time. However this proposal makes matters even worse. The points above would apply to not only island species, but almost all species. This is the reason why, Gila Monsters and Yaks don't live together in a temperate climate. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organism's preferred environment. That's how they die, you take them out of their environment. Now we are going to take all the animals of the world out of their environment to preserve them? No, you will kill them, they cannot live like that.

How was the ark loaded? Noah had only seven days to load the ark. If they only had 15,764 animals on the ark, one animal would have had to be loaded every 38 seconds.

What is the time? Creationalist cannot decide on an answer to this, they propose a criterion ranging from species to order. I've seen an entire kingdom like bacteria being suggested as a single kind... Compromises like genus as a kind, however kinds must have something closer than a species. Why?

Why were they taken on the ark? To preserve them alive. So if they were taken on the ark to preserve them alive, they had to be able to breed. Many animals that seem somewhat related, are not of the same species, they can't breed. If they can't breed, then you can't preserve them alive.

Kat · January 13, 2009, 04:06:22 PM

DINOSAURS ON THE ARK ?

Then we have the problem putting in the dinosaurs. (Pointing to pictures of different dinosaurs), This dinosaur, does it look like this one? This dinosaur, does it look like this? I mean he did not just take two dinosaurs. This is a huge kingdom of animals. They have discovered approximately 700 species to date (that mean that one species can breed with each other, but not with other species). If you want to preserve all of these animals, you are going to need two of this one and two of these and two of these and two of these and two of these... of each species. You will need at least a thousand of those (different species) times male and female, so two thousand. Now do you begin to see a little problem with putting two thousand dinosaurs on the ark? Do you see a little problem with that? Two thousand of those! These things [pointing to a big one] weight almost a hundred tons.

So they took babies. You know these type of four footed animals usually grow to nearly adult size in one year. Have you ever seen a one year old cow? He's bigger than a one day old calf, a lot bigger.

So they think it's got to be at least a thousand of these species of dinosaurs, because they know of 700. It just shows how diverse they are.

Now on the flip side... up here (top of the chart) these are dinosaurs from the northern hemisphere and down here these are from the southern hemisphere and they're all different from these over here (different continent). There are many many many of these. How are you going to get them on the ark? How do you feed them? How do you keep them from fighting?

DINOSAURS IN THE BIBLE ?

While we are at it, where do the dinosaurs fit into the Bible? Alright there is one place that I think that they fit.

It's interesting that there are only three things that God said He "created."
1) The heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1).
2) He created man and woman (Gen. 1:27).
3) And He created the great tanniyn (Gen. 1:21). That's what the Bible translates whales. A lot of newer translations like Concordant, have it "great monsters."

Gen 1:21 And creating is the Elohim great monsters... (CLV)
Gen 1:21 And God created the great sea-monsters... (Rotherham)
Gen 1:21 So God created the great sea monsters... (NRS)
Gen 1:21 And God prepareth the great monsters... (YLT)

They look like monsters don't they.

In Strong's the Hebrew tanniyn and tanniym - a marine or land monster, that is, sea serpent or jackal: - dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale.

But they do have it down as a serpent in Strong's. In Exodus 7:9 we read of a serpent, but it is the word tanniyn. In Exodus 7:15 it plainly tells us that this tanniyn was Strong's no. 5175 which is nachash, which is a snake. So we know that the tanniyn were in the snake family or the snake family was in the tanniyn family or that a snake can also be called a tanniyn, which is a reptile.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales (tanniyn)...

Can you see why He would use the word "great"? The only place in the Genesis creation where He used the word great, one time only, "the great tanniyn."

At our little chat last night (in hotel lobby), I was saying how I was laying in bed one night and I got to thinking about this... I think about this stuff all day long too. But I'm laying there thinking about how God says He told the first people that He made there in verse 28, "and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Gen 1:28).

I said wait a minute, what is this in here, because back in Genesis it said, "And God said—Let the waters swarm with an abundance of living soul, and, birds, shall fly over the earth..." (Gen 1:20)

So He made the fowl of the air and the fish in the sea and on the next day before He made the first humans... I'm not sure that was Adam and Eve, because Adam comes along in chapter 2. But God said in verse 25, "And God made the wild-beast of the land after its kind, and the tame-beast after its kind, and every creeping thing of the ground, after its kind."

So we have the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and the creeping things and cattle on the earth, right. Then He said after He made the humans verse 28 "and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the bird of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth on the land."

Why didn't he have dominion over the great tanniyn? This is the thing that He calls great of all the animals, the birds or the fishes. The one thing that He calls great is the great tanniyn. So why didn't He said have dominion over the great tanniyn? Because they had been dead for 65 million years, that's why. There were no great tanniyn, when the humans were made, that's why they didn't have dominion over them or they would have had dominion over them along with the fish and the birds and everything else. You see the fish and the birds and everything, they survived down to the creation of the humanity. The great tanniyn were no longer there, that's why they could not have dominion over them.

One other point regarding this is these dinosaurs lived by the millions and millions and millions on the face of this earth. Millions of these dinosaurs lived. If you go to these fraudulent creation museums they will have you think that there was children playing with dinosaurs or riding on their backs or whatever. Yet they know that there are no dinosaurs anymore. How do they account for that? 'Well they were all killed in the flood, that's why there are no dinosaurs today, they were killed in the flood.' Excuse me do you see a problem with that? They say, 'Of course that's why we don't have them God wiped them out in the flood.' What is the problem there?

[Noah couldn't get them on the ark] Well even if he could, there is still a problem with that. [Well we don't have them now, where did they go?] Right. So they have no answer for that. Dinosaurs died out, probably from the Chicxulub impact crater that caused a nuclear winter and they all died, except small mammals and things that could crawl in holes and some how survive a year or two.

So they said, 'Oh we have the perfect answer for that. They were killed in Noah's flood.' Excuse me, what was the purpose of the ark? To preserve the animals. Those double talking lying frauds, all of them. How can you take them on the ark to preserve them and have the flood kill them all? You can't have it both ways. If they were taken on the ark to be preserved, then they would have lived after the flood and been preserved. They would have had to live at least the first couple of thousand of years or so. But we don't have one example of a human being with a dinosaur.

So any way they slice it, they fail. If they died in the flood, then God didn't do what He said the purpose of the ark was, to have a male and female of every animal to preserve it. That is a major point actually.

[Why did the Lord make them?] Well I don't know. I'll tell you something else I don't know why did He take so long to do this? I have some ideas, but I'm not going to put those out until I have a couple more years to meditate on it.

RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY ?

[Is that where we get our oil, from the dinosaurs?] No, I don't think so. Now don't get me wrong, there are similarities between oil and coal. Coal does come from vegetation. Over in Georgia we have the Okie Pinokie Swamp, that swamp will be a coal vein one day. As it gets pressed down and more heat and pressure and that will be a giant coal vein.

So coal can come from vegetation, but there is some problems with this, even the global flood people would have you believe that during the flood all of the massive forest and vegetation were sweep together and then buried under the strata some place. Some deeper, but some not so deep and this is what is now is our coal deposits.

Sure enough coal does come from decayed vegetation, under time, heat and pressure and all of that. But there is a major problem with that and that is how coal is formed, but it's not in one year. Not in the one year of the flood. There is so much coal under the earth and some pretty close to the surface, in this world, that if it all came from the vegetation available at the time that the flood started, that the earth would have had vegetation so thick that you could not stick your finger through it, for a mile high.

In other words, whatever amount of vegetation in trees and forest that you find on the earth in any one given year, if you took all of it and scooped it together and pressed it down into coal, it wouldn't be a fraction of the amount of coal that is in the earth. Are you following that?

The oil has always been called a fossil fuel. Do you know why? [They claim that there was studies and they claim that it is decayed dinosaurs.] Again we have the same problem. Suppose we say alright it comes from dinosaurs, so you take all dinosaurs that were alive at any one given time, when the flood hit. But of course they say that nothing died until the flood.

So all the millions and millions and millions of dinosaurs that they know are in the ground and that they are finding around the world. Young earthers would tell you that they were all alive at the same time, virtually. In that short period of time before the flood. So every dinosaur that was ever born and grew up and had babies and they grew up and had babies and they grew up and had babies, for almost two thousand years and they were all alive at the time of the flood. You would have animals three hundred feet deep around the entire globe. It's nonsense.

But even if you took that they died off and there is only so many alive at one given time. So you take all the dinosaurs and all the animals and all the trees and anything that is organic and you kill it and squish it all together at the time of the flood, everything that is available at that one period. You would not have one fraction of the amount of oil from what was killed on that one day, that we would use up in a week and it would be gone.

There's more. Down in the Gulf of Mexico there is a place called Eugene Island. It's just this little island where they drill for oil. They struck oil there about twenty years ago and they are pumping about twenty thousand barrels a day. Finally it went down to about three thousand barrels a day and they're thinking we are about finished here, right. Well what do you think happened? It started filling up. They are up to ten thousand barrels a day again.

So the oil companies involved and the federal government had matching grants of five or ten million dollars or something like that. So they sent geologies and sea divers and they went down there and started doing all kinds of experiments, because they were thinking what the hell is going on here. They found out that there was new oil coming in to fill the reservoir that they had drained out.

So you know they say that these are not renewable sources of energy, well they well may be. Why do they call these fossil fuels in the first place? Because they find bacteria in the oil, at least some of it. So that is proof that this was once alive, this bacteria. The truth of the matter is that they are finding bacteria thousands of feet down in the ground. They don't know how it gets there, but it gets there, because there is bacteria thousands of feet in the ground.

About three or four years ago was the first I heard of this. A Russian scientist said, 'I don't think oil comes from an organic source' and I don't either. I'll tell you where oil comes from, the earth makes it. The earth makes it's own oil, the earth makes it's own gold, the earth makes it's own diamonds and the earth makes it's own silver. The earth manufactures it on the inside and spews it out. The earth is like a living organism, it's like a giant manufacturing concern. It manufactures everything. Everything that is on the earth came out of the earth, I don't care if it's sulfur or a diamond the earth made it. So I think the earth makes oil.

One last point. Now I know we have some deep wells, Chevron has drilled some wells 18,000 ft. deep and that is pretty deep. But the Russians are now pumping oil at 40,000 ft.

Have you ever been in an airplane or taken a cross country trip where they fly as high as they can go, 40,000 feet? You can hardly see an interstate, it looks like a human hair. Well they are drilling oil at 40,000 feet, that's eight miles.

I'm glad that somebody brought this up, because this is interesting. Can you imagine Noah's flood churning the earth up eight miles deep and depositing trees and dinosaurs to turn into oil eight miles under the surface. They would say, 'well maybe it was higher and seeped down.' No, oil floats.

Kat · February 25, 2009, 11:12:23 AM

Audio #9 - Video #6

If you add up all the different species that are necessary to preserve a particular kind, you get so many tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of animals. They won't fit on the ark. They just will not fit, absolutely not.

But if you just take the species from the area that was flooded, you can easily put a lot of animals on the ark from one area.

   Caring for the Animals on the Ark

Caring for the animals would be a massive undertaking. They have calculated how much food (for example, a horse or a cow) any of these consume in a year and it's mind boggling. They would need a thousand tons of food. There just wasn't room on the ark. Not only would you need thousands of tons of food, what are you going to do with all the waste? You've got eight people to take care of 20,000 - 30,000 animals and all of their poop?

But if you'd just taken the animals from a big valley area that is going to be flooded, where all these bad people had their city. Wherever it was that God said I'm going to wipe them all out, then it certainly is conceivable and feasible.

There are hundreds of points I could bring up. Why is there no evidence of the flood in the ice cores?

We talked a little bit about the bristlecone pines and the creosote bushes that get to be 11,000 years old. Tree rings are basically annual. Some Young earthers say sometimes two rings form in a year, but this is not the norm. It depends if there is an early winter, something I guess could screw it up just slightly. But basically the tree rings will tell you whether or not it was an above average wet year or a dry year. If there are seven years of drought you'll find seven rings very tightly spaced together. So they can tell a lot from dendrochronology.

But the thing is, if the trees survived the flood and they are much older, since bristlecone pines go back 5,000 years and the flood goes back 4,300 years... so you have 700 years. When that tree was 700 years old, if there was a one year flood then that particular ring or two should show some significant difference. There is no difference.

      Ice Cores

Ice cores show the annual summer - winter snowfalls. It gets compacted down, 20 feet gets compacted down to three inches, two inches. When you get down a couple thousand feet, years are compacted down very tightly due to tremendous pressure.

They can actually take air out of the core and can tell you the temperature at that time. They can tell you the gasses that were in the atmosphere and everything from an ice core, going back 50,000 years. It's amazing what they can do. But 4,300 years ago on the ice cores there is nothing significant. It doesn't indicate there was an entire year of flood where there was no snow deposits or whatever.

Why are geological eras consistent worldwide? How do you explain the worldwide agreement between apparent geological eras and several different independent radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods? You're getting into very technical stuff. There are just hundreds of things. It does not hold up. There was no flood worldwide and the earth is billions and billions of years old.

   The Geologic Column

Some of these are interesting. The geologic column... let's look at the Grand Canyon. You come up from the Colorado River where you have the granite. Granite is a metamorphic rock.

You know what metamorphic means? It's like refried beans. Metamorphic rock is one that was formed into a rock, was forced back under the earth into the magma, reheated and comes up again. Granite is one example of metamorphic rock. It has gone through the heat cycle twice.

If there was a worldwide flood and all the animals, all the plants, everything is killed and scooped together and everything during this turmoil of a flood and then it's laid down in water laid strata. Why is it when you go to the bottom of the Grand Canyon you start coming up the canyon wall, you find clays and sandstones and all these different things?

At the very bottom you find the most primitive, like algae and stuff. You come up further and you run into very early types of sea life. Then you come up to trilobites and sea feathers and sea stars and all these different things. You come up and up and up... 500 ft, 1,000 ft, 2,000 ft, 3,000 ft... not one dinosaur bone. Not one elephant bone. Not one skeleton of a mouse. Not one, but all very primitive life. The entire 6,000 ft of water laid strata, supposedly all laid during Noah's flood and there is not one skeleton of one animal anywhere. They've combed that canyon and its walls for 200 years now. Why is that? Because there were no dinosaurs, elephants and mice living back when that strata was put down, that's why.

Don't you think that out of a gorge that is 18 miles wide and 170 miles long and a mile deep, with all the walls of those layers all exposed, they would find one bone? So what do they do? They lie, these fabricating fools. They put up a fake wall in the entrance to their 'Creation Museum' and they say this represents the wall that of the Grand Canyon and they stick dinosaur bones in there. Lying, deceiving people, trying to teach the word of God by lying.

There are no bones in the Grand Canyon. You've got to go 1,000 ft higher (that's two Washington Monuments on top of each other), 1,000 ft taller up in the strata. You've got to go to some other part off from the canyon, because that's as high as it goes. You go 1,000 ft higher before you even begin to see dinosaur footprints or any sign of a dinosaur, right. Then you've got to go another 1,000 ft or 2,000 ft higher before you find a horse or something, because they lived that far apart.

Now you can't tell me in a worldwide flood when you've got 18 miles by one mile by 170 miles of open strata, you can't find one bone. You can't tell me that was laid down by a flood. Does that make sense?

God bless these young earthers, they just don't know any better. They think that when they read Genesis 'literally' that it's telling them the earth is 6,000 years old and there was a flood that went around the world. They think that's what it says. So for those who are not fraudulent, lying fools, but sincerely just believe that's the way it is, we don't want to be too harsh on them.

But those who invent lies and deceit and spend $27 million building the museum full of lies, that's another story. Just like this paper I read, the first time the day is used literally and he rejects the first time the day is used literally. The first time the day is used literally is not talking about a 24-hour period, it's talking about the light, twelve hours. Jesus Christ said are there not twelve hours in the day? Not twenty four.

Joh 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?

In the strata of the earth we find raindrops. In a lot of strata they find raindrop marks. How do you preserve raindrops in a global flood?

They find in some of the sandstone layers of the Grand Canyon, they're not sure what, but some kind of little lizard type things. Higher up, they find tracks, tiny footprints. No skeletons, no remains, but little footprints.

I read several papers on it, where they did experiments in water tanks to show that these tracks were made in sand under water. Some of them are pushed sideways where the foot went into the sand and it pushed up a little bank as it went. They say, 'well that was the current pushing them. The current was pushing them in the sand.'
[Comment from someone: That same current would do away with them too.] Amen, brother. I mean they did great experiments in these tanks and stuff, all these young earth scientists. I said wait a minute, if the current would push the little creature sideways, what would it do to its tracks? It's nonsense. I mean it just boggles your mind, such foolishness.

They find river channels. Remember our friend Glenn Morton? Morton's Demon and all the papers I read by Glenn Morton? I want to give credit to Greg Norman. I think I already did, but Greg Norman has the site 'Answers in Creation' and he has some really great material. This one here I'm going through is from 'Talk Origins,' which is also a good scientific site.

But Glenn Morton said that he found mountains under the earth and riverbeds. Through seismic stuff they can detect it (I have some pictures and some other material, but I just can't go through it all). But he's got seismic pictures, you know how riverbeds look from the air, they swirl back and forth, there's the leeward side or whatever the technical name is, where the water is pushing against the bank and then coming back the other way, it pushes the sand up that way. You can detect this all underground.

Are we saying that Noah's flood preserved riverbeds underwater during a one year flood? Those are ancient riverbeds from hundreds of millions of years ago, that have now been covered over with thousands and thousands of feet of strata and earth and rocks and so on. But they're still there, they were not wiped out by a flood.

Glacial deposits, beaches, burrows, in place trees. You know what else they find deep, deep, deep underground, a mile underground? Soil. Soil that was buried, maybe it was a couple inches thick and that's how it was buried. You don't bury soil in a turbulent flood.

You notice how orderly the stratas are. This has to do with receding seas and things over eons of time. For awhile I entertained getting a big glass fishbowl and I was going to put down different layers of colored sand, some light sand, dark sand, maybe even some blue sand, green sand, some bigger rocks, little pebbles, some marbles and some little skeletons of things and I'd make all this stuff layered. Then I was going to put about a foot of water on top of that. So through the glass you'd see all these layers and all these rocks and all these different things at different levels. Then I was going to get a big steel rod or stick and stir the whole thing up, just stir it up until it was one big swirly, muddy mess. Then when you let it settle out... where are all those layers? Where are all those distinct layers? You'd have a muddy mess is all you have. Think, don't let these people bamboozle you.

Footprints, ripple marks, meteorite craters, coral reefs and whole cave systems underground, buried millions of years ago.

      Angular Unconformity

How does a global flood explain angular unconformity? As you go down the Grand Canyon you have pretty much straight horizontal layer after layer after layer, until you get down to the area of angular unconformity. There the layers are no longer angled like this (holding hand horizontal, flat). They angle into the canyon like this (holding hand with fingers angled or pointing up), layer after layer after layer.

Then you come down to your basement rock and granite and so on. How did those first layers get laid at an angle like that? At one end of the canyon they would be like this and at the other end of the canyon they would be like that. But they don't go that high. What happened was all these angular rocks, that go up at an angle were then eroded off. So you've got one piece here going that way, another piece here and different layers going like that (side by side), was then eroded off. Then these flat layers go up another 4,000 - 5,000 ft. You can't do that in a flood. You can't do that in one year. That's nonsense.

Why would the flood lay down rock at an angle? You can never lay down anything at an angle, because gravity pulls things flat. Water causes things to go flat. If it was laid down flat, how did it then tip up? We have major continental drift going on here. I mean that was either the start or the end of some mountain building.

Here it says, How could a single flood be responsible for such extensive detailed layering? One formation in New Jersey is six kilometers thick. (That's about four miles, four miles thick.) Yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered.

They talk about trees being found in strata upright. Where you've got layers of strata and a tree is upright. They say, 'well that couldn't happen over millions of years.' No, of course not, that was like a river overflowed in numerous stages over so many months for a period of a year or two, in uncertain climactic condition. Until the trees were pretty much buried and that went on to become hardened into rock or strata. No that didn't have to take millions of years. So they say, 'no that shows a flood, a quick flooding, Noah's flood.' One area where they bring this up out west where they have these trees like that. What they won't tell you, these young earthers, they have found ten layers of forests. Ten forests on top of each other going through the strata.

I've got page after page after page... What about this? What about that? What about this? What about that? Here's a good one, I've got to give you this.

Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Koru Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized. They range from the size of a lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that if the 800 billion animals in the Koru Formation could be resurrected, there would be 2,100 of them for every acre of land on earth.

This is one deposit on one spot of the earth. If they were all buried in one flood, then they were all alive before the flood. If they were dispersed over the entire globe, not all the other animals buried in North and South America, Asia, China, no, just that one spot, when the flood began then there must have been at least 2,100 living animals per acre ranging from the size of a shrew to an immense dinosaur. Even to a non-creationist's mind that seems a little bit crowded.

One cow needs about half an acre to live on. You can only put like two cows to an acre, only a couple cows can graze one acre. You put more than that on per acre and they're going to starve, because there isn't going to be enough food. 2,100 animals per acre? But this is only from one burial site, can you see the nonsense that the flood buried all of those animals? Those animals were being buried there for millions of years.

According to experts in Leningrad there is in Russia an area 1,000 km long along the arctic coastal plain that they say contains 500,000 tons of tusks. 500,000 tons along about a 600 mile stretch. They were not all alive at the same time and killed in one flood. They were not.

Kat · February 25, 2009, 11:13:53 AM

Radiocarbon Dating

Let me get on to something else here a little bit. They talk about how radiometric dating is not accurate and there are some deviations. I have here page after page of different methods of radiocarbon dating, argon to argon, rubidium to strontium, strontium to neodymium... and the results.
Age of the earth: 4.52 billion years... 4.53 billion years... 4.448 billion years... 4.55 billion years... 4.57 billion years... 4.50 billion years... 4.56 billion years... 4.444... billion years. Every single one, so are you telling me this is so unreliable? There are slight deviations, but they are all at 4.5 billion year, like 40 of them. They have all the names of the things they used, how many samples, whether a whole rock with eighteen samples or five samples, which methods they used and what were the results and so on and so forth. The earth is very old.

The young earthers did this thing, the 'Rate Program' it's called, where they raised about $5 million and had Dr. Steve Austin. Those who have checked his figures, say he rigged it. He rigged it, the lying... whatever. He rigged it so it would come out and look like it wasn't accurate, this radiometric dating. Really it wasn't like he did it where somebody said these rocks from a particular area dated at 1.5 billion years. Then he dated it and said you can make them come out to 50,000 years, no. Even when he rigged this experiment where he knew he was using inaccurate material, but material that was out there in the scientific world and somebody had done it years before. But no reputable scientist would ever use those figures again, but he did, because he was trying to rig this in his favor. So he showed where these rocks that were dated at 1.5 billion years and he came up with 1.2. He said there was 300 million years missing, this is off by 300 million years. But really when you're talking 1.5 or 1.3 billion, it's still a pretty close range. The truth of the matter is his experiment, I think was fraudulent. It says in here, the Rate Group begins with a false premise that it intends to prove by misinterpretation of the data and an incomplete reading of the literature. Everything they did is wrong.

There is one scientist who went through Humphreys' radiometric dating thing and he said, no reputable scientist would ever show his face in the light of day, if he ever tried to pull something like this in the scientific community. His name would be mud. These are Christians. To prove that radiometric dating is invalid the Rate team must demonstrate different dating methods and produce different ages most of the time. This is a tall order because tens of thousands of well documented radiometric measurements have been conducted on rocks from around the world with concordant results. Given the body of evidence that supports radiometric dating, the result for a handful of samples for two locations are statistically meaningless.

Pollen - Deserts - Arches

We're getting back to the flood again. I just wanted to get some of this stuff out of my way.

This same group from Answers in Genesis, took some rock samples from one of the cliffs in the Grand Canyon and found pollen that they say is modern pollen. Yes they found this in a layer that is supposed to be 50 million years old. How can you have modern pollen in 50-million-year-old strata? Well, first of all, there are ways. Number one, when water hits the ground it does go down, it doesn't all run off. It seeps into the ground over hundreds and thousands of years, some even through little channels that formed, it goes down. Surface water can seep into lower strata and that takes with it something like pollen.

However, in the scientific method, you must be able to duplicate whatever it is you say is the scientific fact you want to present. You must be able to duplicate it. If you can't reproduce it, you can't say this is a truism or a law. So they went back to where he found this pollen. First of all, he didn't take it very far inside the wall, he just scraped it off the wall. That's no good, any scientist knows that's no good. That has all kinds of potential for external pollution and so on, so you have to take it much deeper. They tried to duplicate his experiment, in that same area, to find young pollen. They couldn't do it. But they did find that same young pollen scattered all over the place, on the surface.

One of the biggest problems in the Grand Canyon is the second layer down, it's this huge 600 ft thick, what's called the Coconino Sandstone Formation. The reason that's a problem is it's a desert. So we have hundreds of feet of windblown desert sand sandwiched between all those levels below that in the canyon, plus another thousand or two layers that eroded away from the top. So in the middle of Noah's flood we have a desert? They say, 'no, those aren't windblown, those are water dunes, not windblown sand.' There is a difference and scientists can tell the difference, whether ripple marks in the sand were made by water or whether they were made by wind.

Also the size of the kernels, whether the kernels of sand have been blown in the wind over millions of years beating against each other. Whether they are rounded as opposed to sharper, they have ways. Of course they have to lie about it and come up with something. What are you going to do with a desert in the middle of Noah's flood?

Here is one that I thought about one day. I'm thinking wait a minute, arch monuments in Arches Natural Park.

You see that, how precarious that rock is sitting on top there?

Here's an arch, very, very thin.

I have an article by some young earther, he says, 'here's proof of Noah's flood. Look how it washed the mud out from underneath there and left an arch.' Are you crazy? You have a pile of mud, you've got torrents and billions of gallons of water flowing back off as the water receded, and it's going to wash all the mud out from underneath this mud arch on top and it's going to stay there for the next 3,000-4,0000 years? Unbelievable.

There is proof positive that that arch was carved out by wind, not water. Very slowly wind got a hole through there and it got bigger and bigger and bigger. Even now after that has gotten hard as rock, if for thousands of years water ran through there and swished against that thing at any speed, it'd knock it right down. How stupid can you get? You think when it was still soft and muddy it stayed standing?

WallArch
By the way that arch fell down two months ago. After billions of years it fell down back in June. First a big chunk fell out of it and then the whole thing came down.

But anyway, it's just an amazing thing. See that arch up on the hill there? You think that was carved out by Noah's flood Give me a break That's proof positive that those arches are extremely old, because they were carved out by the wind over millions and millions of years.

Earth - Land

I want to cover some of these points here. In Genesis 6, if we just take the word earth out.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth...

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the land. It's the land.

Gen 7:19 ...and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
v. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

So in verse 19 we have the high hills then we have the mountains and in another place it just says the hills. Well the hills, the high hills and the mountains are all the same Hebrew word - har. But if you take that out.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth (land); and all the high hills (land), that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
v. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains (lands) were covered.
v. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth (land), both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (land), and every man:
v. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
v. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground...

Now notice the King James didn't use the face of the 'earth,' it's "the ground."

Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth...

Now they put earth again... and were destroyed from the land.

Gen 7:23 ...and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
v. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth (land) a hundred and fifty days.

All you have to do is be consistent with the word, it's the land. Wherever this flood was, that whole land where it was flooded, that's what's in question here. So if you read through that, then there is not that big of a problem.

But there are all kinds of problems, I'll just point out some of them.

Gen 8:8 And he sent forth a dove from him,—to see whether the waters had abated, from off the face of the ground;
Gen 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
v. 11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off:

My bible has a little 1 there, a superior 1 and then in the margin it says "freshly plucked." Now Rotherham's Bible says "newly sprouted." Newly sprouted? Not after one year of salt water covering it to a depth of six miles. No, no, no. Nobody ever saw that before, did you?

Gen 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

It says that the ark came to rest on Ararat at the top of the mountain. It's the same thing as the hills or it can mean the hill country. But young earthers say, 'yeah it landed on Ararat up there.' Now in Turkey they call it Mount Ararat... it says "the mountains" or the hills of Ararat. It isn't like one mountain, but now we've got one Mount Ararat. They're up there looking for the ark and there is one that claims he found it. Of course he didn't, he lies.

But that mountain is 17,000 ft tall. So think for a moment, just think here men and women. The ark lands at the top of Mount Ararat, 17,000 feet up in the sky and then the water slowly starts to dissipate. Noah sends out a dove and it comes back with an olive branch... growing 17,000 feett high in the sky? Olives don't grow 17,000 feet on the top of mountains. See the Bible knows what it's talking about, but young earth Christians and theologians don't know what they're talking about.

Here's another thing I got just the other day. I usually don't spend that much time reading Genesis, I know pretty much what it says. I didn't dissect this like I did the first chapter.

But notice it says at the end of the flood God says;

Gen 9:11 And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
v. 12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
v. 13 I do set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth.

God said this is the token covenant that I will give to you in that rainbow covenant. There is something interesting in there. Verse 11 "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood..." To what? "...destroy the earth." Did you ever see that before? This flood destroyed the earth? That means to decay, ruin, corrupt, cast down, batter, perish, waste utterly, that's what Dr. Strong says that word (destroy-shachath) means. Are we being told here that Noah's flood was a global flood and the entire planet was totally destroyed, decayed, ruined, corrupted, cast down, battered, perished and wasted utterly? The entire earth planet? I don't think so. But where this flood was, it destroyed the earth. Not only did it destroy the animals, but it destroyed the earth at that spot. Who knows how long until it came back.

These are major points, they're in your Bible. You've got to pay attention to all the words!

The word earth is used locally all through the bible Exodus 9:33, Jeremiah 34.

Jer 34:1 ...and all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the people, fought against Jerusalem...

Oh, really? All the kingdoms of the earth? The Chinese came down and the Japanese came over and the Indians and the Aborigines and the American Indians, they were all over here in the fight against Jerusalem were they? No. "All the kingdoms of the land," that land.

So if that land, if it's only the kingdoms of that land that came up against Jerusalem, then you have no reason to say that this water covered the whole earth. It's the land. What land? The land where all these corrupt people were doing all these corrupt things. It doesn't say that there weren't any bad people anywhere else in the world. This was just a spot of utter corruptness.

Listen, when God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, why? They were corrupt. Were there not other corrupt people? Yeah. Why didn't he burn them all with fire? There'd be nobody left. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and all the cities on the plain, that's all, just that area. But when you get a 100 miles further on all sides, you find more corrupt people. But he didn't destroy them all, just those in that land.

2Ch 36:23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me;

Cyrus Empire is said to have encompassed all the kingdoms of the earth. But we know how far it went. All the kingdoms of the land, that land.

Acts 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world...

It speaks about a famine throughout all the world. Throughout all the land, not the whole world.

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

The decree went out to tax the whole world? They weren't taxing the Chinese or the French. The whole land was taxed.

Another good point is if the earth was flooded globally, then the water dissipated. Where did it go? You can't empty a swimming pool by taking a bucket out at one end and pouring it in the other. You can't. You'll dip buckets all day long and you'll never get that, in a million years, you'll never get that pool empty. The fact that the earth would have been completely flooded by a mile or two miles or six miles of water, the fact that it's totally flooded shows one thing. Why was it flooded? There was no place for the water to go but up. How are you going to get it to come down when it's all up?

There are thousands and thousands and thousands of such points, I'm convinced concerning the geologic table, the age of the earth, Noah's flood and there is no end to the insurmountable problems. But if you just have a flood in the land, all problems are solved. All the problems are solved.

Kat · February 26, 2009, 11:17:13 AM

Video #7 - Audio #10 first half

More on the Flood

So anyway, I could take you through dozens and dozens of scriptures where the whole earth, the whole world means the land. If we make that distinction we won't have any problem with the flood being local.

Now, the word translated earth is erets. But it's also translated country 140 times. So you can even say God flooded the whole country. It's also translated 1,476 times land. Not earth, land.

Cain was driven from the face of the 'earth.' Where did he go, Jupiter? He was driven from the 'land' where he lived, the land of his parents.

Then later we read of Abraham, it says

Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country (erets), and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land (erets) that I will show thee:

Gen 20:1 And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country (erets)...

Same word translated earth.

Gen 2:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land (erets) of Havilah, where there is gold;

It talks about the whole land of Havilah, erets. Not the whole earth of Havilah. No, it's just the land. Then if we come over we have the different destructions.

Isa 13:5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land (erets).

They destroyed the whole land. Well, if they had put it earth, like they did back in chapter six, there it said you destroyed the whole earth.

Jer 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land (erets) shall be desolate;

Here the whole land shall be desolate. The word is erets. They could've translated it earth, but the whole earth was desolate? No it wasn't, only that part of the 'land.'

Jer 25:11 And this whole land (erets) shall be a desolation

Jeremiah makes it more specific though. There it says, "And this whole erets" or land. This whole earth? No, this whole land.

Of course we talked about mountains and it can be translated hills.

Did I mention about the pressure? You know, if you piled the water up six miles high, instead of being 15 lb per square inch, it would be 800 tons. So the idea that fish could at least survive in Noah's flood. No, they couldn't. Pyramids wouldn't make it either, nor Stonehenge.

This guy brings up an interesting point. He says God told him (Noah) to take everything, male and female. He said how do you tell the difference between a male and female snake or ants or termites? Many fish can only live in fresh water. You put them in saltwater, they're dead. So did we lose all the saltwater fish? No. We would've lost all the fish.

You all familiar with Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote in the second century AD. He's the one who recorded the most famous secular history of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It says, So after they had stayed seven more days, he sent the living creatures out of the ark. Both he and his family went out when he also sacrificed to God and feasted with his companions. However the Armenians call this place, 'The Place of Descent,' for the ark being saved in that place. Its remains are shown there by inhabitants to this day.

So he's saying in 200AD you could still go over in the area of Armenia and there was still some remnants of the ark.

Now all of the writers of the Barbarian historians make mention of this flood and of this ark, among whom is Borosus the Caldean. For when he described the circumstances of the flood, he goes on as thus. "It is said there is still some parts of this ship in Armenia at the Mountain of Cordenians. Some people carry off pieces of the bidimen which they take away and use chiefly as amulets for averting of mischief."

In other words, for religious charms to ward off evil spirits.

Heronimus, the Egyptian also wrote, "the Phoenician Antiquities and Menaceas and a great many more, make mention of the same."

Rey Nicolas of Damascus in his 96th book had a particular relation about them where he speaks thus. "There is a great mountain in Armenia over Meneas called Baris upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the deluge were saved."

Notice that many who fled at the time of the deluge, were saved at Mount Baris.

That one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved.

This may be the man about whom Moses the Ledger, seder of the Jews, wrote. It's not a lot here, just little bits. Okay, a little bit more.

This is chapter four of 'The Antiquities,' of the Jewish book one. Concerning the Tower of Babylon and the confusion of tongues. Now the sons of Noah were three, Shem, Japheth and Ham, born 100 years before the deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains and fixed their habitation there. They persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood and so were very loathed to come down from the high earth places, to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shiner.

How about them apples?

God also commanded them to send colonies abroad for the peopling of the earth (the land), that they might not raise seditions among themselves.

Why were there be seditions among themselves? It's only four boys and their wives.

But might cultivate a great part of the land and enjoy its fruits after plentiful manner, but they were so ill instructed that they did not obey God. For this reason they fell in calamities and were made sensible by experience of what sin they had been guilty for....

They added to their disobedience to the divine will the suspicion that they were therefore ordered to send out separate colonies, and being divided asunder they might be more easily repressed.

They already had colonies. They didn't go out and become a colony. They were sent out in colonies. Josephus has more to say about that but nothing that's really specifically, it has to do with what we're talking about here today.

But now I want to show you something from the bible.

Gen 10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
v. 2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
v. 3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
v. 4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
v. 5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands...

By these three sons they didn't form the nations of the isles. By these they divided the isles of the Gentiles. See that? These were the take charge people. These were the people that knew a lot... they knew how to build arks. They had instruction from God. They were trained by their father Noah. They went out to the isles of the Gentiles.

Gen 10:5 ...divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

What tongues? You mean Ham, Shem and Japheth spoke three different languages? Can you see this? Did you ever see that in the bible before? No.

I've got hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages more on the flood. I didn't bring it with me. Even what I brought with me I can't go through it all. So we'll end with that. Is that enough? Are you convinced now? The earth is very old and there was no global flood. But there was a flood, and God destroyed the whole land and everything that was in it. Then he went out and his three sons kind of took charge, divided up the nations and the Gentiles. Of course they all went their wrong ways after that as well.

So in concluding this series I want to talk a little bit about the creation and something that I found. Maybe you won't think there is anything to it, I don't know. I thought it was very profound.

[Comment to Ray: I just wanted to know if those people, those Indians that were killed 16,000 years ago by that meteor.] Don't know. You know, we were talking last night about the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals and so on, and we could talk about it for hours and hours and it's just really speculation.

[They've got a whole series on that on the History Channel about the Indians. They were Europeans that migrated around.] Yeah, that's what I was saying yesterday. Did I talk to you about my Indian arrowheads? I said that the Clovis Indian arrowheads... the closest thing they could find to it was found in France.

[The oceans were lower and there was a glacier and they just crossed it?] There was a glacier and they think they could've followed it. I read it in a book, you saw it on TV, but it's the same thing.

Big Bang - God Awesome Blast

Alright, so I talked about the Big Bang. Is it the Big Bang or the God Awesome Blast? It's all the same thing. Just if you're talking from the perspective of a scientist, it's the Big Bang. If you're talking from the perspective of the scriptures, it was a God Awesome Blast that started this whole thing off.

There are some unique things about the universe. We learn in Hebrews that God made everything that is was made from that which does not appear. In other words that's saying it's made of things that you can't see, it's invisible things. But it was made of something, it wasn't made of nothing. I find Christian scientists and fundamentalist Christians alike insisting that this one site on the Internet and the very name of it, has to do with creation out of nothing. No, God did not create it out of nothing. Hebrews said it was created out of things that are not seen, invisible.

Now God is spirit and it says plainly in the new testament God is invisible. Now, can we then conclude that the universe came out of God? Well yes. Notice Romans 11, it plainly says so and we don't need to speculate about this, this is clear. Well it may not be as clear in the King James, but it's clear in all other Scriptures whether you go to Concordant, the American Standard Version, Rotherham, the Diaglott, they all say the same thing.

Rom 11:36 For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen. (KJV)

It says, "Of Him and through Him." The Greek is for out of Him. For out of Him and through Him and for Him. It says to Him, but it should be for him. It should be out, through and for... not of, through and to. "For out of Him, and through Him and for Him is all." Not are all things. "...Is all. To Him be glory for the eon, Amen." So, what is out of Him? ALL is out of Him.

Now turn to John 17:8. In Revelation 3:14 we learn that Jesus Christ is "the beginning of the creation of God."

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send Me.

Jesus said "I came out from Thee." Where did Jesus come from? Did He come out of the Virgin Mary, is that where Jesus really came from? No. I mean I know that people believe that is where Jesus came from, out of the Virgin Mary. He did, but He was before that. Jesus plainly says "I came out from Thee," the Father. He came out of the Father and He was before He became the Messiah. He was sent to be the Messiah from back in the Old Testament times.

It plainly says He was conceived of or by the Holy Spirit of God the Father. We're in John 17:8, back up a couple verses and Christ says,

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.

He was glorified in His Father before there was a world, it says so. In Philippians it said He was made.

Php 2:7 But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

It means emptied. He emptied Himself of His divinity and became in the form of man. That isn't where He came from, He didn't originate in a human baby. He emptied Himself into a little baby to become in the form of a man.

Kat · February 26, 2009, 11:51:33 AM

[Comment to Ray: It's impossible for God to die.] Okay, it's impossible for God to die, that's why He sent His son.

[But Jesus was God... you're saying.] He could be called God, but Jesus said no you not, you are gods.

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

God is not the name of the Father, it's like a title.

I'm a Smith and my boy Blake, he could say, 'I'm a Smith.' But he's not me and I'm not him. I came first and he came second and all of those things are true with Jesus. So you have too many scriptures, you cannot buck them.

Thomas, remember when he said I won't believe it until I see it myself? So when Christ appeared when Thomas was present, He said here Thomas, put your hands in the side of My body. And what did he say?

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God.

"my Lord and my God." Jesus Christ did not correct him and say, wait a minute, don't be calling Me God. Earlier, before He was resurrected, somebody called Him good, they said "good Master" (Luke 18:18).

Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
v. 9 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

He said don't call Me good. There is only one good, that's God. Now we've got Thomas calling Christ Himself God.

[Comment to Ray: They also said that God judges no man but committed all judgment to the Son.] Yeah, that's true.

So, Jesus Christ... He said Abraham looked for this day, that's what He told the Pharisees.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad.
v. 57 Then said the Jews unto Him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?
v. 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am.

The Pharisees said, 'what are you talking about?' They said you're not even 50 years old and you're talking like you knew Abraham. He said, "before Abraham was, I Am." I Am, that was the name God used to Moses when the Egyptians said, 'well who sent you.'

Exo 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is His name? what shall I say unto them?
v. 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

He said, I Am sent you. I Am that I Am sent you. In Ephesians, God created all things through Christ.

Eph 3:9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;

ALL things.

1Cor 8:6 but there is to us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him.

There is one God by whom all things are and one Lord through whom all things are. All things in creation are through Jesus Christ.

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Everything that is created, whether it be visible or invisible, principalities, powers, it was all created by Jesus Christ.

Psa 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at Thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of Thy nostrils.

Then we have this statement in Isaiah 42.

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out;

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.

These are all great scientific statements really and found in the bible thousands of years ago.

Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, says the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth,

Can we not see that there is a process going on? He stretched out the heavens. Did He want the heavens here... then out there? Well, apparently so. Then why didn't he put them there? Are you following me? Why didn't he put them there if that's where He wanted them? Well, because He wanted them here... and then there... and then there... and then there... over a period of time and they're still being stretched out. It's interesting, the word the King James uses, "stretcheth." "He stretcheth," that means it's still going on. It's a process still going on and how would anybody thousands of years ago know that the stars are flying apart at the speed of light? Who would know that? The bible knew it.

So there is a process going on. You say, 'why does God...' We just know that He does. He started with a process.
Now we learn that in Genesis 1:1

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In the beginning God had created the heavens and the earth.

Heb 4:3 ...although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

At the foundation of the world, the works were already finished. They were finished at the foundation. Now scientists tell us that the universe, since it's stretching out, it had to come from within, and all you have to do is keep going back further and further and further. What do you get? You get a point where everything came together and was very tiny, the size of a grapefruit or a mustard seed. Ancient Jewish Kabalists say the universe was at one time the size of a mustard seed. Two - three thousand years later, the greatest physicists in the world say the universe at one time, was the size of a mustard seed. Can you believe it? Now, God started the universe at a point that we would consider a point in time, it says the beginning.

He did not build an earth. He did not then build some planets and then build some stars and then build some galaxies. It all started with Him, out of Him, ALL is out of Him.

I didn't cover that other one verse where all the better translation says Jesus Christ said "I came forth from the Father."

John 16:28 I came forth (1831, exerchomai) from the Father, and am come into the world:

The Greek is I came out of, "I came out of the Father." I'm not talking about when He was born human. When He came into existence, "I came out of the Father." Everything "came out of" God.

The Universe came out of God and it started with Him and it went out. He stretched it out. Now scientists know that if everything was in one condensed place, but it was energy matter, it couldn't consist of anything more than the hydrogen atom. You can make everything in the universe out of a hydrogen atom. Did you know that? That's the simplest and the lightest of all elements, the hydrogen atom. It'll just float and it's invisible. How can you make steel ball bearings out of an invisible gas? You just add more protons and electrons, that's all. The more you add the heavier they get. It's an amazing thing. You've got the nucleus, you've got a proton and you've got an electron that spins around it very fast. That's the building block and you add more protons, you add more electrons and you build more materials.

But in the beginning there was a hydrogen atom. Scientists would say there was a big bang, a big explosion, you know, when God (blowing sound) into space. It was very hot and going very fast but it slowed down and began to cool to the point that some time afterward light could escape. But first there had to be molecular changes, atomic changes, for there to even be light. This all happened under these laws of thermodynamics that began to work. Then eventually there was a solar system.

So we have those first descriptions there in the beginning of Genesis, He created all this, He had created. The earth was already or had existed in this form, void - darkness. Then we begin the six periods of fashioning. The first one He says, let there be light. This is exactly what scientists say. So far out into the universe as this expansion went on, light could start to escape and there was light.

Now, scientists who don't believe in God do understand now for the first time... 20 - 30 years ago most scientists would not tell you there was a beginning. Now all reputable scientists say yes, there had to be a beginning. Just like Genesis said for thousands of years. There had to be a beginning.

When they discovered what they call background radiation from outer space, this is the background sonic boom, if you will, of the big bang. Therefore they know it had to go back, that the earth, that the universe is not stagnant. In other words, the earth and the universe is not just here and it's always been here and it'll always be here. You see that was the concept. But no, it had a beginning.

They will tell you that everything that has come out of that big bang had to be so infinitesimally calculated and timed that any error at all and this universe could not have come about. Nothing in the explosion could've been off by a hundredth quadrillionth billionth of a mega second or it would not have worked. The power, the density, the speed is so awesome it had to be absolutely flawlessly perfect. PERFECT. This universe now manufactures new solar systems, sun, moons, stars and so on. It's already built in, like a preprogrammed robot.

Our sun was not created in Genesis 1:1 as a sun. Only the raw materials that eventually become our sun were created. The universe is probably 16 billion years old. Our sun is 4.5 billion years old. Where was it for those other 11.5 - 12 billions years? Where was it? It was in another sun. Our sun is not an original sun, it's not old enough and it's made of the wrong materials. Are there original suns? Probably, but they're blowing up.

That one (click on image to enlarge) blew up 169,000 years ago, because it's light reached the earth back in 1987. Our sun came from one of those explosions. The original suns do not have heavy metals and they can prove all this stuff, I mean they have ways of measuring.

So you cannot even conceive how technically advanced science is today. They know so much and they can do so much, it is mind boggling. Original suns do not contain heavy metals. You do not get heavy metals until you blow one up and that produces heavy metals. It then formulates a new sun from that blown up material and you have heavy metals.

Our earth has heavy metals. If we didn't come out of the creation we wouldn't have heavy metals, because what originated did not contain heavy metals. So there is a reason why our earth and sun and solar system didn't come along until after about 12 billion years. That's why we're younger than a lot of the stars and the rest of the solar system. We were not there yet.

Then when God started to fashion the earth... I know we've been through all the theories on how the earth came out of the stars, but there are ways to explain that scientifically. How the sun came out, then the stars and the planets, and then for so many millions of years they were being bombarded with meteorites and everything until they got to their present size and so on. Then most of the meteorites and so on had spent themselves, in our area of the galaxy. That's why we're not being bombarded every ten or twenty years with one of these giant ten mile meteorites. We are now where God wants us.

In Genesis 1:2, the earth was tohu and bohu, which really means uninhabitable for man. I mean unsuited and cannot be inhabited by man. It was in a condition that we could not live here. But it said God made it so that it could be inhabited, I think that's in Genesis 45. So He put it in that condition, in yom one, yom two, yom three, yom four. But it's all a process.

I mean the very Bible, the very first chapter shows it's all a process. He did not snap His finger or speak a word and boom, there was a universe, an earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, trees, mountains and everything. It was not. That's not the way it's done and that's not the way the Bible said it was done. Now it was done at His command. It was done at His behest. It didn't happen by itself, but God built it in.

One of the young men was asking me about verse 10.

Gen 1:10 And God called the dry Earth (erets)...

Erets, He called it "earth" or it could be called land or ground. How could He call "the dry," earth, when two-thirds of the earth is water? You following me? He wasn't calling this "the dry," the earth. The earth is two-thirds water and one-third land. He's calling it "land." The one-third of it that He's calling... that's the earth? No, that's the land. So can you see how this word gets confusing when you always translate erets - earth?

Gen 1:10 ...and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas...

So the gathering together He called seas...

Gen 1:10 ...and God saw that it was good.
v. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass...

That word grass just means green really, plant. Bring forth plant, green, probably algae, the simplest form of plant life.

They say, God took a hand full of earth and molded grass or something. No, He said let the earth do it. You see that? Where did the green come from? From the earth. Who made it? The earth made it. God said let the earth do it. But it was at the command of God. It wouldn't have happened if God didn't command it. This is not spontaneous generation or evolution. This is all at the behest of God. But see how He did it. Let the earth do it and the earth did it. That's how God did it. Now when He made man He Himself formed the man and molded the man. But the grass He let the earth do it.

Nashville Conference 2008 - audio #7, 8a, 8b, 9 and 10

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat

Kat