> Transcripts of Ray's Audio's and More Teachings
Nashville Conference 2008 - audio #7, 8a, 8b, 9 and 10
Kat:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version