rl Quote:Now just exactly does the author mean when saying this lake covered parts of MN, ND, etc?
We all know that these areas were not known by those names until a few hundred years ago.
Did the lake really cover 'Minnesota'?
'Minnesota' was not in existence, but the land we now call 'Minnesota' was.
These hills might have been the tallest features of the landscape in that day, but it doesn't mean that they were necessarily as tall as they are now.
In fact, the context indicates this:
19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Interesting how you snipped the quote to exclude the 'high hills' just a few words prior.
If it referred to a mountain, the adjective 'high' would be rather redundant, wouldn't you say?
But go ahead and keep quoting things stripped of their context. I'll be glad to keep pointing out your attempts.
The thing about "embracing ambiguity" is that you have to continuously keep two diverging realities sacred, Are you saying that glacial lakes were part of a greater FLOOD?. Its interesting that, since we know that lake deposits undeniably indicate the lakes existence, there are also similarly,terminal lake deposits that undeniably show where these lakes had their shorelines and their surrounding highlands . These glaciofluvial deposits are easily read like a book, they dont need some mythological interpretations that are heavily dependent upon superstition and the existence of mythological people.
From your quote, Do you now accept the fact that the Wisconsin glaciation is more than 10 times older than The Creationists entire age of the planet? Where do you stand really ? you seem to want to argue both sides whenever noones looking.
Quote:In the same way, the flood is said to 'cover the mountains'. It could mean simply that it covered the area that now contains mountains, or more likely that smaller hills existed which were later uplifted further into what we now see as very large mountains.
CAn we say equivocation? My my, when you have to spin yarns of "What ifs" like that, you might as well just look and see what the actual evidence shows and see how these lacustrine, palludal, or riverine deposits actually indicate that there was no "Worldwide flood" (since water-borne deposits that have distinct terminii cannot really define a worldwide event)
Quote:In fact the Hebrew word for 'mountain' and 'hill' is the SAME word. It probably refers to a hill, not a mountain.
In one post youre trying to argue science and then , all of a sudden ,you default to some Genesis mythology. You are really stuck between two woldviews arent you?
Youve just been introduced to the incompatability of science evidence and Genesis myth.
