Did someone say "fountains" wasn't a figure of speech?
Of course it is!
But a figure of speech means something.
"Fountains of the great deep" broke forth.
"The windows of heaven" were opened.
The "connecting text" is the "and."
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
A missing Link to Genesis 1:6 God said, “I command a dome to separate the water above it from the water below it.”
- Thread starter tieman55
- Start date
Did someone say "fountains" wasn't a figure of speech?
Of course it is!
But a figure of speech means something.
"Fountains of the great deep" broke forth.
"The windows of heaven" were opened.
The "connecting text" is the "and."
Derf
Well-known member
What does "fountains of the great deep mean, if not literal fountains and a literal deep? Because I think we would both agree that the water spewing out of the earth was fountains in the literal sense of the word, right? And deep refers to either the above ground seas (my view) or the underground water (your view), both literal.
Right, but if one is figurative and one literal, the structure is awkward, if not deceptive.
This is the HPTs depiction of the "fountains" of the great deep. Please note that the uploaded video is over 12 years old (and the footage itself is probably much older), so some of the things Walt says in it are out of date, compared to the current state of the theory.
This is a literal fountain:
Large Water Fountains to Make Your Commercial Office or Brand Stand Out
There are literally tons of ways you can make your business office or your brand stand out from all the rest, through clever decoration or by the use of large water fountains.
carvedstonecreations.com
The above depiction of the FotGD is not showing a literal fountain.
Deep is just a descriptor of a location. A figure of sorts.
When you say something is deep (referring to physical location), it's "a long distance underwater or underground."
"The deep" is a figure of speech that means "something that is far below," describing something that is literal in a figurative manner.
Again, the above image is a literal fountain.
The only similarity between that, and the HPT's depiction of the "fountains of the great deep," is that water is coming up from below and being launched into the air.
Other than that, it's not a fountain at all, except figuratively.
Don't confuse a literal thing with a figurative description of a literal thing.
I literally just said, both are figurative.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
This is a litter-all fountain:This is a literal fountain:
Because you can always see a lot of discarded, waxy, single-use beverage cups (often traffic-flattened) uncourteously strewn about in public spaces covering areas of at least a mile radius around any McDonald's in America.
Bladerunner
Active member
and do you take the scientist word over that of GOD??
Bladerunner
Active member
IF there is no dome, the earth can be a ball. If there is a dome, the earth cannot be a ball.
St. John tells us in Rev. the Door of Heaven opened and was above His head........
Rev. 4:1.." After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter."
Gen 7:11,,,the windows were opened.
and in Gen 8:2..."The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;"
Even if one tries to argue there WAS a dome that fell to earth, the possibility of a planet, ball, circle floating around in the 2nd heaven is none to zero.
St. John tells us in Rev. the Door of Heaven opened and was above His head........
Rev. 4:1.." After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter."
Gen 7:11,,,the windows were opened.
and in Gen 8:2..."The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;"
Even if one tries to argue there WAS a dome that fell to earth, the possibility of a planet, ball, circle floating around in the 2nd heaven is none to zero.
Scientists are human.
I let God be true, and every man a liar.
The science, however, points to God.
Do you believe the earth is flat? If so, please take your post to this thread:
Is the Earth Flat? (and other related nonsense)
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNmIagGtoQaYEw7oNvbTwXD-xPG8XEjvI&si=viIH2fE5PldzUI1e
theologyonline.com
Derf
Well-known member
Why not? Are you saying domes can't have balls in them? I can show you they can. But more importantly, if the dome is also a ball (sphere), then at any point on the surface of a ball (sphere) earth, the viewer would see a dome above.
Bladerunner
Active member
I prefer science that proves His word not simply pointing to Him.
Bladerunner
Active member
exactly...thus not sphere earth.
No two ways about it. That is an excellent video that makes an outstanding point that I cannot refute.
Science is science.
There's not different kinds of science, such as "science that proves His word" and "science that disproves His word" and "science that simply points to Him" and "science that simply does not point to Him."
All science points to God. Some science does so more than other science.
Take it to this thread, please.
Is the Earth Flat? (and other related nonsense)
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNmIagGtoQaYEw7oNvbTwXD-xPG8XEjvI&si=viIH2fE5PldzUI1e
theologyonline.com
Right Divider
Body part
Are you now accepting that aspect of the HPT?
I'm accepting that the discoveries made on the various asteroids and comets we've sent probes to are consistent with predictions made by the HPT.
Taking this as proof would be going beyond what this piece of evidence can rightly accomplish because correlation does not prove causation. The fact that some of the rocks on an asteroid are similar to those found at oceanic ridges is not proof that they are from those oceanic ridges.
I actually cannot think of anything that would prove it. Eventually, you could probably get to a place where the preponderance of the evidence is such that rejecting the theory is no longer reasonable but we are far from that, at least in respect to the origin of asteroids, comets, several moons and Pluto. The most important sticking point for me is still the fact that the forces involved are just too big. Accelerating things at such a rate would result in their electrons being ripped off and converting it all to plasma.
Right Divider
Body part
The reason that HPT predicts these things is because it claims that the material came from earth and was ejected from the earth during the events surrounding the flood.
So I don't see how you think that they can be consistent, since you reject HPT's explanation for their existence.
I somewhat agree. However, simply saying that "God put them there that way" has no support whatsoever.
In effect, you are calling Dr. Brown grossly incompetent. Since he spends many, many pages of his book explaining in many details how asteroids, comets, several moons and Pluto came from the earth.
The chemical make up of the material in the asteroid is similar to that which is found in the oceanic ridges. That is predicted by the DPT because the ridges are where it claims this material left the Earth but that isn't proof of the theory because because the similarity in material is not proof that one came from the other or that they both have a common source.
That is not relevant. Argument from silence.
That's silly.
I don't believe he is correct and have been shown no explanation for how what he proposes is physically possible.
I've read the book. If he or someone else can explain how material can be accelerated as such a rate sufficient to achieve the necessary velocities need to project planet sized masses into such far flung orbits around the Sun without blasting them into subatomic particles, I'll read it gladly.
It's not just that it's similar. There's lots of material that is missing from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
I believe I've shared this before.
I think the problem here is that you're assuming (and if I recall correctly, the math you presented earlier was based upon the idea that) all the material was launched all at once within a few seconds.
This wasn't the case. It was a sustained lauching of material over the course of 40 days, yes, launching material from below the 60-mile thick crust into outer space.
The context is that the material was ejected, not just suddenly accelerated. It was, for lack of a better word, shoved out of the crust and the earth's atmosphere by the sheer pressure of the supercritical fluid acting upon it.
In other words, the electrons you say would have been ripped off would have been carried right along with all of the material being launched, being pushed up by the very hot supercritical fluid that caused the rupture.
Also, there IS a preponderance of evidence. The video I linked to is just one example.
Comets. Asteroids. Meteors/meteorites/meteoroids. TNOs (such as Pluto and Charon). The fact that one of the clockwork comet's orbit puts it within a few million miles, within a hundred year margin of error, of where the earth was at the time of the flood, which lines up with Biblical chronology (around 3290 B.C, give or take 100 years). The fact that there's literallly algae, specifically marine plankton, living and growing on the windows of the ISS. The Moon. The missing crust in the Atlantic. The sunken crustal plate in the pacific that makes the earth looks like a ping pong ball was crushed inwards on one side.
And most importantly (but certainly not last of all), all of the predictions that are made by HPT proponents regarding our solar system.
There's so much evidence that the current state of our solar system is a result of the flood, it's mind-boggling!
Whether they'd have been carried along with them or not isn't the point. The point is that minerals with their electrons ripped off aren't mineral any more and even if the ions reaquired some electrons along the way, they would not have reassembled themselves into rocks that look anything remotely similar to what they used to be. That being rock from the oceanic ridges.
Also, it doesn't matter how long a period of time the material was erupting. It makes no difference if it was trillions of tons or if it was one ten thousandth of an ounce. You simply cannot shoot material out of a gun at any velocity you desire. There is a finite amount of time the projectile is going to spend in the "barrel" of the gun and you have that much time and not one microsecond longer than that to get it to its full velocity. The pressures and inertial forces involved in getting any amount of material accelerated to a speed not just sufficient to escape Earth's gravity but to propel it into an orbit 40 times further from the Sun that it's origin is colossal in the extreme! It would turn the hardest titanium into plasma never mind the fragile, layered, sheet-like structure typical of the phyllosilicates (clay minerals) found on Bennu.
In regard to the origin of Pluto (and other far distant solar system objects? No.
You're going further than is needed here. I accept much of the theory as valid. Certainly more valid that Plate Techtonics. I have no problem with believing that the oceanic ridges where formed when the waters were released from under the earth's crust. I have no problem with Pangaea being split apart and the continents of today coming to their modern locations in just a few hours. I have no problem with the theories explanation of most all of the geological oddities that exist all over the planet, etc. The issue I have with the theory is the notion that ALL of the comets, the asteroids and Pluto used to be part of the Earth. I think that is entirely implausible and it is not a necessary part of the theory. Would some material have been launched into space? Yeah, probably. Could there be some comets that resulted? I very much doubt it but, maybe. Was the entire asteroid belt and everything else past Neptune ejected from the Earth during Noah's flood? No.
I agree that the theory has had some successful predictions but that isn't proof that the theory is correct. It is valid evidence but it not proof.And most importantly (but certainly not last of all), all of the predictions that are made by HPT proponents regarding our solar system.
There's so much evidence that the current state of our solar system is a result of the flood, it's mind-boggling!
In 1948, George Gamow, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman predicted that if the universe began in a hot, dense state, there should be residual radiation that has cooled as the universe expanded, with a temperature around 5 K. In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the CMB at a temperature of ~2.7 K, confirming this prediction.
In the late 1940s, George Gamow and his collaborators predicted that the Big Bang nucleosynthesis would produce about 25% of the universe's baryonic matter as helium. This was confirmed through spectral analysis of stars and interstellar gas, showing helium abundance consistent with the predictions.
In the 1980s, the theory of cosmic inflation, an extension of the Big Bang Theory, predicted that quantum fluctuations in the early universe would grow into large-scale structures like galaxies and galaxy clusters. These fluctuations would leave an imprint as slight temperature variations in the CMB. In the 1990s, the COBE and later the WMAP and Planck satellites detected these tiny temperature fluctuations in the CMB, precisely matching predictions.
Would you accept these successful predictions as proof that the Big Bang Theory is true? I wouldn't!
Last edited: