The Theories of Pianistimo

[shortyshort]

I think we've all gone off topic    Now what was the topic...oh yes....oh no 

 

[pianistimo]

it cannot have been localized if the ark rested on the highest peaks of mt ararat and three months later the 'tops of the mountains' were seen.  gen 8:4-5 'and in the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of ararat.  and the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month , the tops of the mountains became visible.'

some have said 'impossible.'  the ark would have floated around the mountain in a circle until landing much further down.  but, it could have been fairly flat and still at a high altitude.  or slightly tilted - but enough to drain the ark and allow the passengers to get out. 

[wishful thinker]

oh man.........

[fiddes]

Ms Pianistimo

Can i just say i have to credit you for your passion

Well Done

[shortyshort]

Ms Pianistimo

Can i just say i have to credit you for your passion

Well Done

Don't encourage her. You'll get a 5 page essay on God now.

[fiddes]

its fun to see others opinion on the world, and you never know when you might need the infomation she might provide (intentionally or not)

[shortyshort]

its fun to see others opinion on the world, and you never know when you might need the infomation she might provide (intentionally or not)

No useful information will be forthcomeing, I assure you. 

[pianistimo]

there's more fingers in the cup to the right.

[fiddes]

Everything is useful, me waking up this morning and banging my head was useful i cant see how this very minute but im pretty sure it happened for a reason as has  meeting pianistimo and her love of christianity

[shortyshort]

there's more fingers in the cup to the right.

Cheers

Everything is useful, me waking up this morning and banging my head was useful i cant see how this very minute but im pretty sure it happened for a reason as has  meeting pianistimo and her love of christianity

I'll leave you two to it then. Happy bonding 

[fiddes]

see you wouldn have found out how to get more fingers if it wasnt for her :-p

[shortyshort]

see you wouldn have found out how to get more fingers if it wasnt for her :-p

They just fell off

[fiddes]

tut thats the bag of duds, ill have a word and see if i can find u any working ones

[thalbergmad]

it cannot have been localized if the ark rested on the highest peaks of mt ararat

Mt Ararat is almost 3 miles above current sea level.

Have you any idea how much water would be needed to flood the entire world up to an elevation of 3 miles above what is the sea level now?

Kindly explain how this was possible in English, in less than 30 million words and without saying God can do anything he wants.

If you wish to spend a couple of days consulting your happy clappy tambo banging mates, please do so.

Thal

[emill]

Reading this thread makes me sad because it immediately becomes clear that this was purposely made to continue "ridiculing" pianistimo.  How I wish that Susan would not respond to such an obvious trap; but it seems her faith dictates that she must defend it at the cost of sounding"absurd" to those who invoke "facts and science".

Civility is down the drain in this thread. You can just feel the innuendos and sarcasm of some to pianistimo's "theories".  And to complete the whole thing, a dash of name-calling too -  clappy tambo banging mates. One thing though I can say for Susan, she has not responded with the same.

Come on guys, if your really find her theories strange and amusing (as you seem too), so be it; but please, let civility prevail in the discussions.

[pianistimo]

thal - you are so - dull in the head.  it was A FLOOD.  not a trickle.  do you think it covered the tops of the mountains without rising to the tops?  and, the current ocean is probably 10 miles (or more) above what it used to be before noah's time.  why the land bridges under the water from some continents to others?  it's just my theory anyway.

ok.  what else needs to be addressed here?  oh. the fingers. yes.  those were castaways.  the rubber ones.  let me see if i can find the plastered ones.  that was the idea.  save the plaster of my fingers before i die.

you see - the 'how would you like to die' thread got me thinking that my family just might want a replica of my fingers to sit on a table at my funeral.  also, the music i heard today by mr. nelson (american composer) of some renaissance dances would be my choice of funeral music.  this is just in case.  you can never be too prepared. (must find out the name of the renaissance dances that i heard today.  they were amazing).

[pianistimo]

do not worry, emill.  this is my only mental challenge during the day - besides 'what's for dinner.'  and occasional questions asked to myself - like, 'why is the samsung screen 1/4 of the size it is on the box?'

[pianistimo]

btw, here is a book i am going through verse by verse.  we'll see how far it proves itself truthful - even though it calls itself 'truthbook.'
https://www.truthbook.com/UrantiaBook/U59.htm

ok here is where a lot these ideas came from (and some/or many are in science textbooks today!)
https://www.truthbook.com/UrantiaBook/U59.htm

FIRST QUESTION:  what about the food chain?  who determined the marine life that would live and not live.  obviously, if there were no fish and only a bunch of amoeba - there would be such a proliferation that the ocean would become one big bowl of jelly.  that is, if we have fully determined that our planet had the same sun it does now - 1 billion years ago.

[prometheus]

    *

The Urantia Book shares the following general concepts with most Christian faiths[1]:

    * God is the creator of all reality
    * God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinite, and eternal
    * God is described as a loving personality–"God is love"
    * God is a single deity that exists in a Trinity of three persons
    * God has a vast "heavenly host"
    * Believers who have a personal relationship with God are "born of the spirit"
    * Those having faith survive death
    * Angels and divine personalities exist and can be sent to guard and minister to people throughout their lives.

Some differences with Christianity include[4][6][5]:

    * Jesus' crucifixion was not an atonement for the sins of humanity. The crucifixion was an outcome of the fears of religious leaders of the day, who regarded his teachings as a threat to their positions of authority.
    * God is never wrathful or angry. He is a personality entirely motivated by Father-like love.
    * Jesus is the human incarnation of "Michael of Nebadon," one of more than 700,000 "Paradise Sons" of God, or "Creator Sons." Jesus is not considered the second person of the Trinity as he is in Christianity. The book refers to the Eternal Son as the second person of the Trinity.
    * Jesus was born on earth through natural means of conception. The Virgin Birth is the product of human myth developed later.
    * Jesus did not walk on water or perform some of the miracles that are attributed to him in the Bible. These were attributed to him after his life.
    * Jesus rose from the dead in a "more glorified form," a transitional stage between material and spiritual existence known as the "morontia" form. As with all mortals, his physical body was subject to decomposition, but celestial beings removed his body from the tomb for the immediate dissolution of his remains through a process of "accelerated time."
    * The book says that Jesus may return to the world many times. Common Christian eschatology doctrines, such as the Rapture, where Jesus returns to take faithful believers to heaven and leaves behind unbelievers for tribulation, are not supported.

[pianistimo]

back to SCIENCE - prometheus. 

how old is our sun?

evolution says billions (i think - from this interpretation -unless ocean life survived without any form of food from the combo of sunlight /water/oxygen levels)

NEXT QUESTION:  HOW OLD ARE TREES?  i mean when did trees first exist?  was it WAYYY after the oceans existed?

do you realize that most of our oxygen levels on planet earth come from TREES.

NEXT QUESTION:  where does wind come from?  who created the winds to blow the ocean (causing the weather conditions to cycle water - which also, btw, needs the sun).  when did tides fully exist?  was the moon extant at the beginning - or did it suddenly just blow it's way into an orbit?  it isn't that big.

[ramseytheii]

thal - you are so - dull in the head.  it was A FLOOD.  not a trickle.  do you think it covered the tops of the mountains without rising to the tops?  and, the current ocean is probably 10 miles (or more) above what it used to be before noah's time. 

I didn't know they kept measurements back then.  Or is it just from how high up the wood of the ark rotted and festered?  Anyways, the higher ocean level must be due to the melting ice caps.

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

Buy college level science book on the subject of your interest.

[pianistimo]

i have read college level science books...but they are only spreading the same theories.  whatever - zoic period - that they claim is first, second, third, fourth, fifth.  what supports these claims?  1920's superstition.  that's much worse than people not believing the bible was inspired. 

this is just live having a cave-man tell you what's for dinner.  of course, whatever comes to mind. 

i want each of the periods of 'zoic' explained - as to how some of creation could survive without the othe r- when the other half of the science textbook explains the food chain and how things are completely interdependent.

if the world were 1/100,000,000th created at the beginning - and life slowly slowly evolved - who would take care of the details when it all started unravelling and collapsing after the first day.  interdependence started from day 1.  SUN, MOON, EARTH, WATER, FIRE, OXYGEN, ELEMENTS, GRAVITY, LAWS #1.  just a start - not to mention our earth's atmosphere.

[prometheus]

Don't mix up your personal views with those proposed by science.

Don't ask stupid questions like: "If the dinosaur lived more than 65 million years ago then where did they live since god created the earth only 6000 years ago."

If you really read science books then they show you why people think the things proposed are true. Read about the history of the alternatives to the big bang and how and why they failed.

I don't understand your points either.

[thalbergmad]

thal - you are so - dull in the head.  it was A FLOOD.  not a trickle.  do you think it covered the tops of the mountains without rising to the tops?  and, the current ocean is probably 10 miles (or more) above what it used to be before noah's time.  why the land bridges under the water from some continents to others?  it's just my theory anyway.
 

Yeh, it is just your theory as you say.

10 miles, you have outdone yourself for stupidity this time. So therefore, if the ocean level is 10 miles higher now than it was in Noah's day, the flood must have been sufficient to raise the sea level by 13 miles in order to deposit said ark on Mt Ararat. Please correct me if i have not understood your nonsense.

Again, i ask you to tell me where all the water came from.

If all the Ice on Earth melted now, how far do you think that the sea level would rise?

Answer in English, less than 3 billions words without mentioning God.

Thanks

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Buy college level science book on the subject of your interest.

I don't think she should start that advanced.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

One thing though I can say for Susan, she has not responded with the same.

Indeed, if you don't include dull brain.

I created this thread for 2 reasons.

1. Because i was bored.

2. I thought that if she had her own thread, it would stop her infesting others with religious nonsense.

I hope this explanation is satisfactory.

Thal

[pianistimo]

ok. thal - i looked up mt ararat and the southwest? slopes are 5000 ft above sea level.  that equals less than a mile straight up.  this is the highest portion of mt ararat (above the plain) - so what portion of mt. ararat is 3 miles above sea level?  i think you meant angled measurement.

that would be the same under the sea.  10 miles straight down and portions of the seabed would already be hit - wouldn't they?  ok exaggeration.  what i want to know is  how far under are most land bridges.

the ideas that a whole continent or 'atlantis' was buried (and mentioned frequently by certain ancients) must mean there was a certain belief at that time that a whole area of land (whether continent or island) sunk.  this happens at times of geological chaos and it could have been that land sunk in places where water rose - and oppositely in other places.  the land rose - and there was less water covering it.

now - in terms of my questions - nobody has answered.  where do we get oxygen for this early marine life.  they can somehow survive without land and trees.   this 'one step per 150 million years' is really ridiculous.  as though the plankton and all wouldn't cause the sea to become jelly in a matter of months without serious predators and somekind of interdependent cycle of operation.  this is not counting where the sun obtained it's magical powers to fuse for 1 billion years and still have something left for us.

[thalbergmad]

ok. thal - i looked up mt ararat and the southwest? slopes are 5000 ft above sea level.  that equals less than a mile straight up.  this is the highest portion of mt ararat (above the plain) - so what portion of mt. ararat is 3 miles above sea level?  i think you meant angled measurement.

The summit is 3 miles above see level. If the slopes are only 5000 foot above sea level, there would still not be enough water on the entire Earth for your fictional Ark to be deposited at that level, even if all the ice caps melted.

For your information, only one "ancient" mentioned Atlantis, but about 10 million have mentioned it since. One possible explanation would be the volcanic eruption on Thera approx 1350 - 1250 bc, that destroyed the Minoan civilisation.

I will leave the rest of your post to be answered by someone else, as i am not sure what you are wittering on about.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

now - in terms of my questions - nobody has answered.  where do we get oxygen for this early marine life.  they can somehow survive without land and trees.   this 'one step per 150 million years' is really ridiculous.  as though the plankton and all wouldn't cause the sea to become jelly in a matter of months without serious predators and somekind of interdependent cycle of operation.  this is not counting where the sun obtained it's magical powers to fuse for 1 billion years and still have something left for us.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05705.html

Hmm, there seem to have been trees around for a while.

Please forgive me for posting links to a scientific site.

These learned people obviously don't know as much as the Bronze age goat herders that you base your theories on.

As for the rest of your questions, you could buy some books that are designed for Junior School children.

Hope this helps.

Thal

[pianistimo]

the summit, according to the site i was on, is about 1,000 meters above sea level. i could be wrong.  do you have a site that you can confirm how high the summit is reliably as compared to sea level?

remember - mt. ararat is in a sort of valley - itself.  maybe you just mean how high it is to the summit and not how high above sea level.

what confuses me a bit - is that the bible mentions that the ark rested in the 'mountain's' of ararat and doesn't say mt. ararat itself.  yet, the places most venerated are on mt. ararat aren't they.  dupinar region or something.  but, the bible also says that the 'tops of the mountains' became visible after the ark had rested for two months wherever it landed.

i was reading heroditus - and he mentions the idea of 'atlantis' from plato?  or somebody.  and, also, there are poems, etc. written - so the idea got spread - if it only came from one source (which i highly doubt - because there were probably many cultures living at the time that endured this catastrophe of the flood - which i believe happened at the time that atlantis went under).  atlantis is simply a way of saying the portions of the earth that remained flooded after the flood.  that's my theory.

what is important to me - is that a flood is no more unbelieveable that one or two steps of evolution per 150 million years.  this is really crazy.  life is interdependent.  create one thing only and the sustainable universe crashes in days (perhaps seconds).

[pianistimo]

and i want to hear some scientific stuff about the size of our sun in relation to how old it is - and how long it's been fusing.

[prometheus]

Do you want to know this because you want to know how wrong science is or do you want to know this because you wonder about the nature of this incredible universe we live in?

[pianistimo]

it's only incredible when you realize it had to be created in a very short amount of time to make it all work in harmony.  yes - i doubt the sun is much older than the earth.  i believe they were all created about the same time.  how to prove this?  how can any survive without the other.  no life could be sustain on earth without the sun.  life couldn't be on earth without oxygen and water.  evolution does not make concessions for 'which came first' and how long we were living without the other.

for instance, early evolution says nothing about the vast quantities of water that are now proven to have existed at creation.  pbs documentary was speaking about that last night.  basically, as the bible puts it -there were two floods.  the one at creation where water covered the entire earth - and noah's flood.  land appeared the third day - according to the creation in the bible.

if evolution were true - there would be so much more possiblity for life on other planets because they also would have water in vast quanities.  why is ours the only blue planet.  it's like a jewel in a desert.  how can this be so?  where did all the water come from?  i say God created it.

[thalbergmad]

the summit, according to the site i was on, is about 1,000 meters above sea level. i could be wrong.  do you have a site that you can confirm how high the summit is reliably as compared to sea level?

You do not need a website, surely you have other books at home other than 500 bibles.

Mt Ararat is 5165 metres above sea level, or should i say current sea level. Even if it were 1000m and your fictional ark landed on it, there still would not have been enough water on the entire earth to achieve this.

I would not try to link stories of the flood and Atlantis as they are most probably unrelated. The Author Graham Hancock found 159 ancient versions of a flood story whilst researching his excellent book "Fingerprints of the Gods". Interest in Atlantis is a much more recent thing, the original story coming from Plato. Hundreds of authors have jumped on the bandwagon and most bookstores should have a few.

I don't think there is any mention of Atlantis in the Bible, so i suppose it could not have happened.

You should find and read a copy of the above mentioned book, it makes interesting reading and it was not written 2500 years ago by a myriad of yak keepers.

Thal

[prometheus]

Yes, Atlantis was always considered to be allegorical. But then suddenly Plato was taken literally.

[ramseytheii]

I would not try to link stories of the flood and Atlantis as they are most probably unrelated.

I would actually encourage pianitisimo to explore the links between the two, I think it could provide us all with a smile.

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

Splendid idea.

Pianistimo, please continue with a theory linking Atlantis with the flood.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I wonder if it were not for the work of Ignatuis Donnelly, if Atlantis would have ever surfaced into public interest as it has.

The sheer amount of books on the subject is incredible. I have only 12 or 13, but i guess it would not be too hard to reach three figures.

The number of different theories are also mind boggling, ranging from the fantastical to the just about possible.

Since the Atlantic Ocean has been accurately mapped, i guess that a large submerged continent waiting to be discovered is out of the question, as is the feeble theory that the Azores are the remnants. A lot of theories revolve around the fact that Plato placed Altantis "beyond the Pillars of Hercules" and it has been assumed that he was referring to the Straits of Gibralter. But perhaps he was not.

Thanks to Donnelly, Atlanteans were all of a sudden everwhere. They even built the Great Pyramid of Egypt and hid a record of their history in a great forgotten Library under the Sphinx.

Even if it is all nonsense, it still makes interesting reading, or at least it does for me.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

yes - i doubt the sun is much older than the earth. 

Maybe 5000 years?

How old do you think the sun is?

Thanks

Thal

[pianistimo]

how could it be 1000 years - instead of day four of creation?  thal, you never read the bible.  you just guess.  i suppose that by year 1000 - we'd have all been in the dark?  the dinosaurs - foraging around on bleakness (since nothing grows in the dark).  that's what i mean -everything needs the sun - so how could one thing be created without the rest in a matter of days and not 150 million years.  it's just preposterous. 

carry on.  btw, i would like to hear a banjo concerto sometime.

[thalbergmad]

Before the Earth was created, or God switched on the lights, how long was a day?

Me is wondering that if the day did not exist as the measurement of time that we use now, perhaps the day that God used was maybe 4 days, 4 years, or perhaps 4 billions years.

Thal

PS If you are living on Venus, the day is longer than the year. Interesting eh?

[pianistimo]

before the earth was created - hmmm.  probably there was no day.
but, at creation - from the very start - that was the first thing created. light.  it's crazy - but God himself was the light - i think.  He just said 'let me be.'  or let my light shine during the day and not at night.  He effectively changed himself in the cloud over the children of israel that way.  being a 'pillar of fire' at night - and a glowing cloud during the day.  i really have no idea how he does it - but i believe that if he set the days and nights to be 'evening' and 'morning' - it would be a very strange jump from days 1-3 to day 4 - if it was 1000's of years and then suddenly 24 hours.  that's my theory.  besides -other places in teh bible say that he created the world in six days.  genesis1:31 and genesis 2:1  'thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts (stars?).'

losing track of time must have some benefits.  and, nbody has complained about venus yet.

[thalbergmad]

before the earth was created - hmmm.  probably there was no day.

Indeed, so it would it not be unwise to use the day as the same measurement of time as we know it today?.

I am reading Genisis now and it says that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth. And the Earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep"

Therefore, there was a period of time before God said "let there be light". Subsequently, without light, there could be no day.

I have only been studying the Bible for 10 minutes as opposed to your many years, but it would seem to me that it was entirely possible that God took an unknown amount of time to switch the lights on. This might have been only been 24 hours, but it also could have been millions of years.

That suggestion, would not be in contradiction to the Bible and would fit with generally accepted theories as to the age of the Earth. It would certainly be more satisfactory to me.

Thal

PS me will read the rest of Genisis tomorrow.

[pianistimo]

well...it's a good question and one that i have pondered.  but, i believe that if exodus 20:11 says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days - then He did.  literally.  i mean - what he did on day one was probably to make the earth start rotating.  He kept standing where He was.  one day and one night were according to the periods of light and dark - as mentioned in genesis 1:4-5.

i am going to make some guacamole.

[prometheus]

It's called the gap theory. It is not very popular because it has problems.

There are 44 different interpretation of the first two sentences of the bible, so it is problematic to find the right one.


"In the beginning god created heaven and earth."

Here is told what will happen in this part of the bible. The 'heavens and the earth' must be understood as 'the world'. Not as the planet earth and the rest of the galaxy. And the original text doesn't say 'in the beginning'. This part can be translated just as well into: 'When God began to create the heaven and the earth.'

I have actually seen some bibles that use this. But none of them are English.

Actually, there are some people that do think this means a creatio ex nihilo creation. Creatio ex nihilo has been a Christian dogma for a long time now. But in the Jewish tradition, way back in the time Jesus supposedly lived, this was different.

"The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Spirit of God was hovering over the water."

This describes the primordial chaos that was there before god started to create things. This is before the first day and before god did anything. Here god arrives on the scene and sees the primordial chaos he is going to shape into 'the heavens and the earh', 'the cosmos', 'the world', etc.

"Then God said, "Let there be light!" So there was light."

Here god starts to create.

There are two different creation stories, Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 the Priestly source. And Genesis 2:4 to 2:24, the Yahwist source. They contradict each other on some points.


Anyway, the gap theory. It was proposed for the first time in 1800 something. Before that the Abrahamic tradition has always been to rest on the seventh day. Because that is what god did. The bible makes this claim quite often.

The only reason this 'gap theory' came up is because we found out that the bible creation story contradicts reality.

[pianistimo]

thanks for explaining that.  i think it's quite apt.  and, for the record - i have pondered - excepting that exodus 20:11 is literal 'for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth....' how do you explain that as a gap theory?  does it really say 'remade?'  i'd like to know the translation.

some believe that the original creation was by lucifer - and destroyed by a flood.  IIpeter 3:5 'for when they maintain this...it is escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world AT THAT TIME was destroyed, being flooded with water.  but the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgement....'

so - either the heavens and earth were 'remade' or the earth was flooded with water fairly quickly after it was created.  but, how would God be destroying anything - if nothing was made?  so which flood is this referring to?  maybe i'm confused.  perhaps what is meant by the creation of the earth in genesis 1:1 and between 1:1 and 1:3 - is the time between the creations.  if there were several.  but, God typically doesn't remain silent about what He has previously done - and why, then, would some portions of the bible say the heavens and earth were made in six days?

in any case - psalm 24 says 'the earth is the Lord's, and all it contains.  the world, and those who dwell in it.  for He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers....'

[prometheus]

The primordial chaos is that what those people that wrote the bible imagined the world to be before god started to create the world.

How exactly we should see that from our modern perspective, mine being a bit more modern than yours, I do not know.

It is just how the it was before god arrived and before he started creating.

[shortyshort]

i believe that if exodus 20:11 says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days - then He did. 

One of my Step-daughters has a book that says "Three witches lived in this old house, and they ate children for breakfast"

So is that true do you think?
It is written.

Sorry pianistimo, but you are so blinkered it's unreal. Have you ever used your brain for anything other than Piano?

[wishful thinker]

Oh Shorty....cut the gal some slack....she's a Merkin, after all