Search results

You were responding to my posts, where I was talking about how the other lands might have been populated after the flood, to avoid the necessity of other people surviving the flood.

MAD as a means of dividing believers into Jew and Gentile is already problematic, except where it sees the church as an in between state when the outer court is trampled by the Gentiles for a time times and half a time, perhaps, or something similar.

Do you have scripture for that assertion?

I'll let you look it up, as I did. Josephus is a good place to start.

Only if you think of "highly compelling" as pretty much the same as "analogies and common sense".

After the flood?

Seeing creatures "change" and assuming all creatures derive from a single common ancestor is the ultimate in And you rightly say they are not evidence.

My conjecture was that the new world or other continents could have been reached via boat after the flood.

You've just destroyed Darwin's theory.

Anyone from Noah's lineage (I.e., everyone after the flood) would have some concept of transoceanic travel, in historical narrative, at least. Some might have been able to execute it...

Please explain.

It's fine to imagine the scenario, but as @JudgeRightly has done, you have to keep reading to see whether the Bible allows for your scenario. It doesn't.

There was, starting around 41AD. He was a son of Annas.

@Idolater And it seems like God understood the timing involved, which is why He separated the people at Babel before the world was divided (Peleg's timeframe)--so they would reach those other continents and islands before the land bridges disappeared.

I don't see why boats would be contentious, and any boats they had would likely not be around any more, just like much of the technology the Mayans had has been lost to the people descended from them. Land bridges (due to water being out of the ocean during the ice age, as shown by settlements...

On to Acts ... and the gospel of Luke, by extension... Acts was written by Luke, who is NOT Paul, and since it was written as a letter and addressed to a man addressed as "O, Theophilus", it counts as a "non-Pauline epistle", though most would not necessarily think of it that way, nor is it...

How does that support the idea that the earth was covered with water ~6000 years ago?

Sorry for not getting your drift, but if what is true?

It seems like your belief in 6-day creation should lead you to the conclusion that dating techniques aren't accurate enough to really say that anyone has been in America that long.

As far as we know, though, there weren't any creatures in the water until after there was also dry land. Did you think some people might have survived 150 days of the water covering the earth during Noah's flood? It doesn't seem like the Bible allows for that.