LDS Freedom Forum

larsenb wrote: ↑March 25th, 2021, 8:46 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 8:44 pm . . . . . lol. I guess I don't read you very well. I try to take people at face value. Not everyone has the ability to "just believe". I get it. It can be hard. I feel for you, if that is you. Hopefully, there's a way to "put things on a shelf" in your mind until it is revealed to you how it all went down. It hasn't been revealed to me in some spectacular way - I've studied this for years, and have had little things - connections to some geological thing I studied, or some biological finding in a paper somewhere - just little things like that whispered to me as I've studied it to the point I'm willing to accept the story just as it is told. And actually, I would be surprised at this point if God suddenly said, "Nah, just kidding - it was a metaphor. Get it?" No. I'm pretty comfortable with the entire earth being submerged (not just "flooded") - every inch, all at the same time. And I'm also comfortable with 8 human souls as the only survivors.

The article I posted earlier about how plants might have survived the flood has a lot of food for thought. You may want to (finally?) read it. One thing it states is that the longesttime plants would have been completely submerged was 9 months, but it was probably more like 6 or 7 months.

Thistle lake isn't a good example - the slide happened in April 1983, and they weren't able to fully get the lake drained until over a year later. I remember not being able to go that way to the Manti Pageant that year. It wasn't till the next year that we went through what was left of Thistle. My dad pulled over, and we got out and looked. It is unbelievable.

I'm strongly evidence based. My science background. What this means, is if there is strong evidence or reasons why a particular statement in scripture may not be fully understood and seems to contradict the 'evidence', I can't just ignore the evidence or reasons. I'm more apt to put the scripture in question on the shelf, rather than the other way around.

Could you link to your post about plants surviving submerged? That would be helpful.

The train tunnel in Thistle area was completed July 1983; they started draining the lake a few months after August of 1983, according to a statement I found. And another statement said they had opened the road by sometime in December. I came through Spanish Fork in '82 or sometime in '83, but also came through in March '84; both times coming from Tulsa, OK, so I may be remembering passing by the dead standing trees in Thistle on my last pass-through.

mudflap wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 6:34 am

larsenb wrote: ↑March 25th, 2021, 8:46 pm . . . . I'm strongly evidence based. My science background. What this means, is if there is strong evidence or reasons why a particular statement in scripture may not be fully understood and seems to contradict the 'evidence', I can't just ignore the evidence or reasons. I'm more apt to put the scripture in question on the shelf, rather than the other way around.

Could you link to your post about plants surviving submerged? That would be helpful. . . . .

sure, no problem -

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... the-flood/ . . . . . . .

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:45 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:37 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:29 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:09 pm
But if there were survivors it would seem you have to qualify your definition of the flood being world-wide. I.e., did it cover everything, even high mountains, or not? If not, and then it makes sense that there could have been survivors left on high ground, or who at last could weather whatever flooding they had in their area w/pre-existing small boats . . . or maybe boats they were also warned to build before the flood, etc., etc.

Which also raises the question regarding how much high ground was left, and how interconnected it was. And if you look at a spectrum of the possibilities, you may get to a point, on the lower level, where you could call the phenomenon: world-wide flooding, instead of a world-wide flood.

We only have the story of Noah and his family.
There may have been other stories. The monotheistic world knows of the Tower of Babel incident, but how many know that a small group of people were led away to a new land and became the Jaredites?
When the Jews sat down by the rivers of Babylon and lamented the loss of their land, little did they know that a small band led by a man named Lehi had been led to a new land of promise.

So, given what we know something of the way God does things, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there were others, unknown to Noah and his descendants, who also built boats and escaped the flood.

Exactly! But why dismiss all the ancient accounts, to include at least 3 calendars memorializing a massive flood event, which in turn, are bolstered by actual physical, measurable data supporting them, as at least indicating the possibility that there were other survivors who experienced the same flood, but who may not have resorted to taking to boats?

But yes, we don't know from the Bible a lot of major things dealing with God's interactions with men. Same token, Biblical language could be couched using language and terms pertaining to Noah's local group. For all he knew, the flood he and his family experienced could have been universal, killing everything they were aware of in their particular locale . . . . and that is how it was written up.

I'm just speculating; but for me, I lean toward what I just said in my last paragraph.

A limited flood would not have required an ark and all of those animals. I believe it was worldwide and that it covered everything for a time. Some believe it was the baptism of the Earth.

ransomme wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 4:56 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:45 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:37 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:29 pm

We only have the story of Noah and his family.
There may have been other stories. The monotheistic world knows of the Tower of Babel incident, but how many know that a small group of people were led away to a new land and became the Jaredites?
When the Jews sat down by the rivers of Babylon and lamented the loss of their land, little did they know that a small band led by a man named Lehi had been led to a new land of promise.

So, given what we know something of the way God does things, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there were others, unknown to Noah and his descendants, who also built boats and escaped the flood.

Exactly! But why dismiss all the ancient accounts, to include at least 3 calendars memorializing a massive flood event, which in turn, are bolstered by actual physical, measurable data supporting them, as at least indicating the possibility that there were other survivors who experienced the same flood, but who may not have resorted to taking to boats?

But yes, we don't know from the Bible a lot of major things dealing with God's interactions with men. Same token, Biblical language could be couched using language and terms pertaining to Noah's local group. For all he knew, the flood he and his family experienced could have been universal, killing everything they were aware of in their particular locale . . . . and that is how it was written up.

I'm just speculating; but for me, I lean toward what I just said in my last paragraph.

A limited flood would not have required an ark and all of those animals. I believe it was worldwide and that it covered everything for a time. Some believe it was the baptism of the Earth.

This actually makes a case for a non-global event. The animal thing has some symbolic thing to teach us but I don't think it was two of every kind. Look at the species that can only be found in Australia or New Zealand for instance. There is a definite lack of many species when comparing across continents.

I would have loved to had wild kangaroos in California.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 5:17 pm

ransomme wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 4:56 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:45 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:37 pm
Exactly! But why dismiss all the ancient accounts, to include at least 3 calendars memorializing a massive flood event, which in turn, are bolstered by actual physical, measurable data supporting them, as at least indicating the possibility that there were other survivors who experienced the same flood, but who may not have resorted to taking to boats?

But yes, we don't know from the Bible a lot of major things dealing with God's interactions with men. Same token, Biblical language could be couched using language and terms pertaining to Noah's local group. For all he knew, the flood he and his family experienced could have been universal, killing everything they were aware of in their particular locale . . . . and that is how it was written up.

I'm just speculating; but for me, I lean toward what I just said in my last paragraph.

A limited flood would not have required an ark and all of those animals. I believe it was worldwide and that it covered everything for a time. Some believe it was the baptism of the Earth.

This actually makes a case for a non-global event. The animal thing has some symbolic thing to teach us but I don't think it was two of every kind. Look at the species that can only be found in Australia or New Zealand for instance. There is a definite lack of many species when comparing across continents.

I would have loved to had wild kangaroos in California.

With respect, that is a very weak argument. The distribution of species is much more to do with what happened after the flood in terms of environmental conditions, predation etc.

ransomme wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 4:56 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:45 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:37 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:29 pm

We only have the story of Noah and his family.
There may have been other stories. The monotheistic world knows of the Tower of Babel incident, but how many know that a small group of people were led away to a new land and became the Jaredites?
When the Jews sat down by the rivers of Babylon and lamented the loss of their land, little did they know that a small band led by a man named Lehi had been led to a new land of promise.

So, given what we know something of the way God does things, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there were others, unknown to Noah and his descendants, who also built boats and escaped the flood.

Exactly! But why dismiss all the ancient accounts, to include at least 3 calendars memorializing a massive flood event, which in turn, are bolstered by actual physical, measurable data supporting them, as at least indicating the possibility that there were other survivors who experienced the same flood, but who may not have resorted to taking to boats?

But yes, we don't know from the Bible a lot of major things dealing with God's interactions with men. Same token, Biblical language could be couched using language and terms pertaining to Noah's local group. For all he knew, the flood he and his family experienced could have been universal, killing everything they were aware of in their particular locale . . . . and that is how it was written up.

I'm just speculating; but for me, I lean toward what I just said in my last paragraph.

A limited flood would not have required an ark and all of those animals. I believe it was worldwide and that it covered everything for a time. Some believe it was the baptism of the Earth.

This actually makes a case for a non-global event. The animal thing has some symbolic thing to teach us but I don't think it was two of every kind. Look at the species that can only be found in Australia or New Zealand for instance. There is a definite lack of many species when comparing across continents.

I would have loved to had wild kangaroos in California.

larsenb wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 3:54 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 6:34 am

larsenb wrote: ↑March 25th, 2021, 8:46 pm . . . . I'm strongly evidence based. My science background. What this means, is if there is strong evidence or reasons why a particular statement in scripture may not be fully understood and seems to contradict the 'evidence', I can't just ignore the evidence or reasons. I'm more apt to put the scripture in question on the shelf, rather than the other way around.

Could you link to your post about plants surviving submerged? That would be helpful. . . . .

sure, no problem -

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... the-flood/ . . . . . . .

OK. I read your article. I was hoping for more actual experimental data about how long rooted trees of different types can remain viable in a submerged state. Wasn't much there.

I already excluded the aquatic/semi-aquatic plants and trees from those I was interested in . . . . which form only a very small part of mainly land-based vegetation.

He mentions how Howe (!) discovered that the seeds of wild flowering plant he tested were still viable enough to germinate after 140 days of being submerged. Well and good, but what about the rest of plants and seeds; and you still have to get those seeds into a good germinating environment. And to expect that uprooted trees could float around for over a hundred days with their roots being exposed to air, and then somehow replant themselves is a real stretch . . . . which I suppose might happen in very rare circumstances.

The article was mostly arm-waving speculation. Which is OK. But doesn't really give definitive answers.

ransomme wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 5:26 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 5:17 pm

ransomme wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 4:56 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:45 pm

A limited flood would not have required an ark and all of those animals. I believe it was worldwide and that it covered everything for a time. Some believe it was the baptism of the Earth.

This actually makes a case for a non-global event. The animal thing has some symbolic thing to teach us but I don't think it was two of every kind. Look at the species that can only be found in Australia or New Zealand for instance. There is a definite lack of many species when comparing across continents.

I would have loved to had wild kangaroos in California.

With respect, that is a very weak argument. The distribution of species is much more to do with what happened after the flood in terms of environmental conditions, predation etc.

And the fossil record?

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 2:10 am I believe the flood was worldwide, but that there were survivors in addition to Noah's family.

Cruiserdude wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2021, 7:30 am And I'm sure the science guys here on the forum don't question the God declared way of it, moreso they are just stating that we only have physical evidence of something else that isn't quite the God way.
I just didn't want our jest misinterpreted

mudflap wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 6:47 pm

ransomme wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 4:56 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:45 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 3:37 pm
Exactly! But why dismiss all the ancient accounts, to include at least 3 calendars memorializing a massive flood event, which in turn, are bolstered by actual physical, measurable data supporting them, as at least indicating the possibility that there were other survivors who experienced the same flood, but who may not have resorted to taking to boats?

But yes, we don't know from the Bible a lot of major things dealing with God's interactions with men. Same token, Biblical language could be couched using language and terms pertaining to Noah's local group. For all he knew, the flood he and his family experienced could have been universal, killing everything they were aware of in their particular locale . . . . and that is how it was written up.

I'm just speculating; but for me, I lean toward what I just said in my last paragraph.

A limited flood would not have required an ark and all of those animals. I believe it was worldwide and that it covered everything for a time. Some believe it was the baptism of the Earth.

This actually makes a case for a non-global event. The animal thing has some symbolic thing to teach us but I don't think it was two of every kind. Look at the species that can only be found in Australia or New Zealand for instance. There is a definite lack of many species when comparing across continents.

I would have loved to had wild kangaroos in California.

I always thought it was interesting that there were no land mammals (other than humans) in New Zealand before the Europeans arrived. not even rats - just reptiles, birds, insects and fish.

mudflap wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 7:07 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 3:54 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 6:34 am

larsenb wrote: ↑March 25th, 2021, 8:46 pm . . . . I'm strongly evidence based. My science background. What this means, is if there is strong evidence or reasons why a particular statement in scripture may not be fully understood and seems to contradict the 'evidence', I can't just ignore the evidence or reasons. I'm more apt to put the scripture in question on the shelf, rather than the other way around.

Could you link to your post about plants surviving submerged? That would be helpful. . . . .

sure, no problem -

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... the-flood/ . . . . . . .

OK. I read your article. I was hoping for more actual experimental data about how long rooted trees of different types can remain viable in a submerged state. Wasn't much there.

I already excluded the aquatic/semi-aquatic plants and trees from those I was interested in . . . . which form only a very small part of mainly land-based vegetation.

He mentions how Howe (!) discovered that the seeds of wild flowering plant he tested were still viable enough to germinate after 140 days of being submerged. Well and good, but what about the rest of plants and seeds; and you still have to get those seeds into a good germinating environment. And to expect that uprooted trees could float around for over a hundred days with their roots being exposed to air, and then somehow replant themselves is a real stretch . . . . which I suppose might happen in very rare circumstances.

The article was mostly arm-waving speculation. Which is OK. But doesn't really give definitive answers.

"arm waving speculation"
I'll give you that.

OTOH, can you imagine a modern scientist trying to get a paper proving a worldwide flood happened published in a serious journal?

which gives me doubts about whether science is as pure and unbiased as we are told to believe.

larsenb wrote: ↑April 1st, 2021, 3:27 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 7:07 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 3:54 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑March 26th, 2021, 6:34 am

sure, no problem -

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... the-flood/ . . . . . . .

OK. I read your article. I was hoping for more actual experimental data about how long rooted trees of different types can remain viable in a submerged state. Wasn't much there.

I already excluded the aquatic/semi-aquatic plants and trees from those I was interested in . . . . which form only a very small part of mainly land-based vegetation.

He mentions how Howe (!) discovered that the seeds of wild flowering plant he tested were still viable enough to germinate after 140 days of being submerged. Well and good, but what about the rest of plants and seeds; and you still have to get those seeds into a good germinating environment. And to expect that uprooted trees could float around for over a hundred days with their roots being exposed to air, and then somehow replant themselves is a real stretch . . . . which I suppose might happen in very rare circumstances.

The article was mostly arm-waving speculation. Which is OK. But doesn't really give definitive answers.

"arm waving speculation"
I'll give you that.

OTOH, can you imagine a modern scientist trying to get a paper proving a worldwide flood happened published in a serious journal?

which gives me doubts about whether science is as pure and unbiased as we are told to believe.

If the evidence could really be gathered and correlated, no problem.

mudflap wrote: ↑April 1st, 2021, 9:32 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑April 1st, 2021, 3:27 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑March 31st, 2021, 7:07 pm . . . . . OTOH, can you imagine a modern scientist trying to get a paper proving a worldwide flood happened published in a serious journal?

which gives me doubts about whether science is as pure and unbiased as we are told to believe.

If the evidence could really be gathered and correlated, no problem.

I think you place more faith in what passes for science than you probably should.

larsenb wrote: ↑April 10th, 2021, 1:07 pm ...also having worked with a lot of scientists and seen the integrity they generally display.

Japan's decision to release all this radioactivity into the ocean was backed by none other than the "scientists" at the International Atomic Energy Agency, with Director General Rafael Grossi saying it is "scientifically sound" and in line with standard practice in the nuclear industry around the world.

So... the IAEA has a standard practice of what exploded nuclear power plants do with their fallout water? And how often has this particular standard practice been invoked we wonder?

Between this and the covid debacle, one can almost see why nobody trusts the world's so-called whores for hire scientists any more.

China said it has conveyed its "serious concern" to Japan, calling on Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga's government to make a cautious decision to protect the public interest of international society as well as the health and safety of Chinese citizens.

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.

mudflap wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 9:00 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑April 10th, 2021, 1:07 pm ...also having worked with a lot of scientists and seen the integrity they generally display.

you're not working with these scientists, are you? SMH...

Japan's decision to release all this radioactivity into the ocean was backed by none other than the "scientists" at the International Atomic Energy Agency, with Director General Rafael Grossi saying it is "scientifically sound" and in line with standard practice in the nuclear industry around the world.

So... the IAEA has a standard practice of what exploded nuclear power plants do with their fallout water? And how often has this particular standard practice been invoked we wonder?

Between this and the covid debacle, one can almost see why nobody trusts the world's so-called whores for hire scientists any more.

~ https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/japan ... a-approves

So Japan & the IAEA think it's no big deal, but China (and their scientists) don't seem to agree:

China said it has conveyed its "serious concern" to Japan, calling on Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga's government to make a cautious decision to protect the public interest of international society as well as the health and safety of Chinese citizens.

....but yet every serious person would laugh at this because we all know where the Wuhan Virus came from - where was China's concern about everyone's "health and safety" when they knew about Covid19 back in November-December 2019?

So, no... I have very little respect for folks passing themselves off as "scientists" these days.

Look at this paper claiming that most published studies are fake anyway:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ ... ed.0020124:

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.

so much for the sanctity of science and unbiased studies.

Who can you trust?

God. God is who you can trust.

larsenb wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 4:26 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 9:00 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑April 10th, 2021, 1:07 pm ...also having worked with a lot of scientists and seen the integrity they generally display.

you're not working with these scientists, are you? SMH...

Japan's decision to release all this radioactivity into the ocean was backed by none other than the "scientists" at the International Atomic Energy Agency, with Director General Rafael Grossi saying it is "scientifically sound" and in line with standard practice in the nuclear industry around the world.

So... the IAEA has a standard practice of what exploded nuclear power plants do with their fallout water? And how often has this particular standard practice been invoked we wonder?

Between this and the covid debacle, one can almost see why nobody trusts the world's so-called whores for hire scientists any more.

~ https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/japan ... a-approves

So Japan & the IAEA think it's no big deal, but China (and their scientists) don't seem to agree:

China said it has conveyed its "serious concern" to Japan, calling on Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga's government to make a cautious decision to protect the public interest of international society as well as the health and safety of Chinese citizens.

....but yet every serious person would laugh at this because we all know where the Wuhan Virus came from - where was China's concern about everyone's "health and safety" when they knew about Covid19 back in November-December 2019?

So, no... I have very little respect for folks passing themselves off as "scientists" these days.

Look at this paper claiming that most published studies are fake anyway:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ ... ed.0020124:

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.

so much for the sanctity of science and unbiased studies.

Who can you trust?

God. God is who you can trust.

Science is a method for determining cause-and-effect relationships and knowledge about our physical world. When political or other nefarious agendas, or extreme profits, enter the mix, science, as a method, generally loses.

political or other nefarious agendas, or extreme profits

mudflap wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 8:25 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑April 13th, 2021, 4:26 pm

mudflap wrote: ↑April 12th, 2021, 9:00 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑April 10th, 2021, 1:07 pm ...also having worked with a lot of scientists and seen the integrity they generally display.

you're not working with these scientists, are you? SMH...

Japan's decision to release all this radioactivity into the ocean was backed by none other than the "scientists" at the International Atomic Energy Agency, with Director General Rafael Grossi saying it is "scientifically sound" and in line with standard practice in the nuclear industry around the world.

So... the IAEA has a standard practice of what exploded nuclear power plants do with their fallout water? And how often has this particular standard practice been invoked we wonder?

Between this and the covid debacle, one can almost see why nobody trusts the world's so-called whores for hire scientists any more.

~ https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/japan ... a-approves

So Japan & the IAEA think it's no big deal, but China (and their scientists) don't seem to agree:

China said it has conveyed its "serious concern" to Japan, calling on Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga's government to make a cautious decision to protect the public interest of international society as well as the health and safety of Chinese citizens.

....but yet every serious person would laugh at this because we all know where the Wuhan Virus came from - where was China's concern about everyone's "health and safety" when they knew about Covid19 back in November-December 2019?

So, no... I have very little respect for folks passing themselves off as "scientists" these days.

Look at this paper claiming that most published studies are fake anyway:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ ... ed.0020124:

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.

so much for the sanctity of science and unbiased studies.

Who can you trust?

God. God is who you can trust.

Science is a method for determining cause-and-effect relationships and knowledge about our physical world. When political or other nefarious agendas, or extreme profits, enter the mix, science, as a method, generally loses.

Ahh! NOW we're talking! Agree 1,000%!

And now we come to the point: IF there are any scientists outside the reach of

political or other nefarious agendas, or extreme profits

1. you wouldn't know it (Ok, LarsenB would know them)
2. They wouldn't get published
3. .... or be allowed to be on TV
4. .... or the internet ("youtube")

My conclusion ("my opinion") is that the number of honest scientists that we know about (those still able to get published) is probably a dozen or less. And there are 0 unbiased scientists - scientists are people. People by nature are biased. Therefore all scientists are biased. Sure: there are "degrees", but it's there in every case.

comonri wrote: ↑April 26th, 2021, 10:03 pm I think this passage from Moses is evidence of a local flood (see link attached). When you take the scientific evidence into account, a global flood around 4,000 years ago that destroyed everything except for 8 people and a boatload of animals is hard to defend.

https://sitatcit.home.blog/2020/01/23/n ... moses-752/