Noah's Flood

[BJ64]

Some bible commentators interpret these verses to mean that the water was 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain.

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

The quote does not say that there was anywhere on earth that was not covered by water.  The quote says that some places on earth would have had more water than others.  

Fair enough.   My emphasis was that he said the details of the flood are not known to us and that the writer of Genesis simply reported what he observed.   That was my real point.   I agree that he really doesn't say point blank that the earth was not covered in water (I'll even edit my post to only include the quote).  More or less could have been anything from zero to infinity. 

I guess if people really wanted to argue about it, technically water has three states in the natural world, solid (ice), liquid (liquid water), and gas (water vapor).   Technically the earth can be covered in water from a scientific standpoint, but some of the water would have to be in gaseous or solid form. Ice is still water and so are clouds.  I guess it could be argued that that doesn't constitute a flood, but it's a silly argument in my book.  

As far as the whole world earth goes, according to the Old Testament, a big enough tree can be seem from the whole earth, at least in dream and vision (Daniel 4:11).  I'll leave that there though. 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Scott

[Vort]

2 hours ago, zil said:

Isn't Moses the author of Genesis?

Ultimately, yes. I am quite sure that our current version of Genesis has been through many other hands.

2 hours ago, zil said:

So you think Moses saw all this and didn't see that the earth was spherical?

I don't know. The account also says that Moses saw literally every particle of the earth. Are we therefore to understand that Moses was well-versed in DNA, genetics, continental drift, and the atomic nature of matter?

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Ultimately, yes. I am quite sure that our current version of Genesis has been through many other hands.

I don't know. The account also says that Moses saw literally every particle of the earth. Are we therefore to understand that Moses was well-versed in DNA, genetics, continental drift, and the atomic nature of matter?

That would be a heck of a vision.

As an approximation, if someone could view 100 particles per second, viewing all known particles on earth would take approximately 3,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years (written out long hand because it more visual than 3.17E+42).   I did do some rounding though, so take this as an approximation only.  Also, there are probably a lot of subatomic particles that we don't know about at this time, so the actual number is more than likely far greater.

[person0]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

if someone could view 100 particles per second

What about viewing all of the particles at once through the Spirit of God which 'knoweth all things'?  Seems like that would not take long at all.  Imagine something along the lines of God's knowledge of the earth on a USB stick plugged directly into Moses' brain.  BAM!  Knowledge/vision all at once.  Similarly, many other prophets beheld things in vision that would have taken years upon years to behold without some type of instantaneous and simultaneous transfer of information.

Edited May 9, 2018 by person0

[Guest]

9 hours ago, zil said:

Isn't Moses the author of Genesis?

So you think Moses saw all this and didn't see that the earth was spherical?

7 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't know. The account also says that Moses saw literally every particle of the earth. Are we therefore to understand that Moses was well-versed in DNA, genetics, continental drift, and the atomic nature of matter?

6 hours ago, Scott said:

That would be a heck of a vision.

As an approximation, if someone could view 100 particles per second, viewing all known particles on earth would take approximately 3,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years (written out long hand because it more visual than 3.17E+42).   I did do some rounding though, so take this as an approximation only.  Also, there are probably a lot of subatomic particles that we don't know about at this time, so the actual number is more than likely far greater.

In order for Moses to have seen all this, he had to be transfigured (different for Satan) to behold the Glory of God.  So, it isn't a matter of so many particles seen per second.  It was a spiritual learning.  We don't really have a common referent to understand what that is like. It was so unfamiliar that he was left enervated by the process to the point that it took many hours to get up again.

If that was among his earlier visions then it would have been very difficult for him to remember everything.  He simply wasn't used to it.  But he remembered the essence of everything.  He remembered that the earth is so large and that the heavens are indeed many.  And he was humbled by the process.  It was not about learning academically, but learning spiritually.  And that isn't the same as what we tend to think of when we think of visions.

And, yes, this was one HECK of a vision.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Guest

[Traveler]

14 hours ago, zil said:

So you think Moses saw all this and didn't see that the earth was spherical?

 

If Moses was educated in Egypt he knew he earth was spherical.  In fact, there have been few civilizations that did not know the world was round - including stone age civilizations.  The concept of a flat earth appears to be medieval doctrine pooped out of the Dark Ages by foolish theologians in a great age of apostasy.   Any civilization with a solar calendar understood the earth was round.  Any civilization that was capable of predicting a solar eclipse – of necessity must understand the earth is round.  Also, that the moon revolves around the earth and the earth revolves around the sun.

The true is that traditional Christianity really screwed up simple truths that mankind had known and established for thousands of years previously.

 

The Traveler

[MrShorty]

@Traveler: According to Wikipedia, there were many ancient civilizations who believed in a flat earth long before the dark ages

Quote

Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century.

Edit to add Wikipedia reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat-Earth_theory

It would almost appear that the Greeks of the classical era may have been the first to recognize that the earth was round and the idea propagated from there (except for those Europeans in the dark ages who refused to accept it). Wikipedia says that Ancient Egyptians also held to a flat earth model (at least, during Moses's time). I admit that I have not researched this thoroughly, and that Wikipedia is not always the most reliable source, but I don't see much mention of round earth cosmologies prior to the Greeks.

I don't know if the Genesis account is a case where the later Israelites decided they believed in a flat earth and rewrote Moses's account to reflect their flat earth cosmology, or if the Israelites derived their cosmology from Moses's description of what he saw, or what happened. I think I have said before, if (as reflected in the book of Moses in the PoGP -- assuming we believe that the JST was a faithful restoration of Moses's originally recorded account) Moses truly saw the same universe we see, then he did a poor job of describing what he saw.

Edited May 9, 2018 by MrShorty

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If Moses was educated in Egypt he knew he earth was spherical.

Do you have a reference for this?  I knew Aristotle figured that it was a sphere.  But he was quite a bit after the days of Moses.  And Eratosthenes apparently also figured it out around 200 B.C.

Others (earlier) believed it to be round.  But they figured it was a round disk, not a sphere.  This was based on reasoning rather than science.  They looked up and saw the moon and sun were round.  Therefore, it followed that the Earth was round as well.  They couldn't see any detail on the sun because that would burn out their eyes.  But the moon could be seen as having the same face, never rotating.  It appeared to be a disk.  So, they thought the earth was a disk as well.

Unless you've got a source that says they knew it was a sphere...

Edited May 9, 2018 by Guest

[askandanswer]

13 hours ago, Scott said:

As an approximation, if someone could view 100 particles per second, viewing all known particles on earth would take approximately 3,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years (written out long hand because it more visual than 3.17E+42).   I did do some rounding though, so take this as an approximation only.  Also, there are probably a lot of subatomic particles that we don't know about at this time, so the actual number is more than likely far greater.

To my non-scientific way of thinking, this doesn't sound right. When I turn my head to look at my kitchen, an act which only takes a second, I believe that in that one act, I see things that are made up of billions and billions of particles.

[Rob Osborn]

Its truly unbelievable to me that we as LDS would really question if Moses knew the earth was a sphere or not. Thats no different than asking if Christ was really a real person or not.

[Guest Scott]

When I turn my head to look at my kitchen, an act which only takes a second, I believe that in that

 one act, I see things that aremade up of billions and billions of particles.

True, you are seeing a collection of many particles, but most particles are invisible to you.  You are only seeing a very, very tiny portion of the collection of particles.

 

 

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Do you have a reference for this?  I knew Aristotle figured that it was a sphere.  But he was quite a bit after the days of Moses.  And Eratosthenes apparently also figured it out around 200 B.C.

Others (earlier) believed it to be round.  But they figured it was a round disk, not a sphere.  This was based on reasoning rather than science.  They looked up and saw the moon and sun were round.  Therefore, it followed that the Earth was round as well.  They couldn't see any detail on the sun because that would burn out their eyes.  But the moon could be seen as having the same face, never rotating.  It appeared to be a disk.  So, they thought the earth was a disk as well.

Unless you've got a source that says they knew it was a sphere...

 

About the time of Abraham, a secret cult group of scientists appeared in Egypt called the Pythagoreans.   Century’s later a Greek slave that belonged to the cult (called himself Pythagoras) leaked some of the secrets.  The Pythagoreans believed that the universe exists in ratios like fractals.  The reason we know they knew the earth was round is from their calendars and the ability to navigate.  If you know anything about a Mercator projection you would know that map making of a globe on a flat surface would will create inaccuracies such that a person would be lost within 50 miles without a land mark.  Because such information was so important and powerful – it was maintained in secret by those in power.  But the fact that the earth is a sphere is a very difficult secret to hide.   

One last thing – education today is so poor that many think in terms of “a source” rather than a method for discovery.  So, we think that if someone does not have access to an expert – they are uneducated.

 

The Traveler

[Guest Scott]

Quote

But he remembered the essence of everything.  Heremembered that the earth is so large and that the heavens are indeed many.  And he washumbled by the process.  It was not aboutlearning academically, but learning spiritually. And that isn't the same as what we tend to thinkof when we think of visions.

Yes, something like this.  If one were to believe the vision, he probably saw everything  (including particles) collectively, rather than individually.  I seriously doubt that he, for example saw the contents of every toilet on earth  (and I don't mean to be crass by this, but to emphasize a point), but the earth and heavens (including particles) collectively.

Of course this too is another silly argument and it depends on just how literal people want to take things.

Take this example from the New Testament.   

Acts 7:55:

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,"

Stephen said that he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God.  If one were to take this 100% literally, it means that God (the Father) had his hand out or rested on something and Jesus was literally standing on that hand with his feet.  Almost surely though, this isn't really what is meant.  What is meant was that Jesus was standing next to God's right side and hand.  At least that is my opinion.

I think the meaning of a lot of scripture verses  (including the one above) is lost if every single word is taken to be 100% literal.  Once you start taking everything 100% literal, the meanings are often lost. The same us true of our language today, even if less so.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Scott

[askandanswer]

 

19  And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease—for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours—and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land.
 

3  Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.
4  And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.
5  And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.
6  And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;
7  Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.
8  And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.
9  And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.
10  And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations.
11  And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.
12  And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations.
 

So, after just three hours, the results are:

Zarahemla burned

Moroni sunk

Moronihah covered

Gilgal sunk

Oniha, Mocum, Jerusalem flooded

Gadiandi, Gadiomna, Jacob, Gimgimno sunk

Jacobugath, Laman, Josh, Gad, Kishkumen burned

“and many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land….” because of the wickedness and abominations of the people.

I think, given the much greater time period of forty days and forty nights, the amount of destruction at the time of the flood would be at least proportionately greater. And given the state of wickedness prevalent during the time of Noah, I think we can safely conclude that God had the means, the method and the opportunity. Of course this doesn't prove that the whole earth was flooded but I think it tips the scales in that direction. 

 

 

 

[Jersey Boy]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

Yes, something like this.  If one were to believe the vision, he probably saw everything  (including particles) collectively, rather than individually.  I seriously doubt that he, for example saw the contents of every toilet on earth  (and I don't mean to be crass by this, but to emphasize a point), but the earth and heavens (including particles) collectively.

Of course this too is another silly argument and it depends on just how literal people want to take things.

Take this example from the New Testament.   

Acts 7:55:

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,"

Stephen said that he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God.  If one were to take this 100% literally, it means that God (the Father) had his hand out or rested on something and Jesus was literally standing on that hand with his feet.  Almost surely though, this isn't really what is meant.  What is meant was that Jesus was standing next to God's right side and hand.  At least that is my opinion.

I think the meaning of a lot of scripture verses  (including the one above) is lost if every single word is taken to be 100% literal.  Once you start taking everything 100% literal, the meanings are often lost. The same us true of our language today, even if less so.

Your point might have been a valid and effective one if it weren’t for the fact that one of the long-held standard meanings of the word “on” is defined as follows:

c —used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with...  a village on the sea... stay on your opponent. (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Guest Scott]

3 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

Your point might have been a valid and effective one if it weren’t for the fact that one of the long-held standard meanings of the word “on” is defined as follows:

c —used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with...  a village on the sea... stay on your opponent. (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

 

Would you prefer these analogies? 

Here is the first:

Quote

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

Which of the following choices portrays the true meaning of the verse or at least the closest to the true meaning (in your opinions of course)?

A.  The verse has an implied meaning that all men means those who you know, are acquainted with, or meet.   You must forgive them and carry forgiveness in your heart.

B.  The verse is 100% literal.   All men means all men.   To do this you must know every single person so you know what to forgive them for (maybe you must be transfigured in order to do so).  You must literally forgive every single man on earth during your lifetime and throughout all of earth's history. 

If your answer is A, why couldn't this also be applied to Moses seeing all particles?  If your answer is B, good luck with that.

Here's another one.  Which of the following choices portrays the true meaning of the verse or at least the closest to the true meaning (in your opinions of course)?

Quote

21 ¶ Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

A.  The verse is saying that you should forgive your brother boundless times.   Seventy times seven is symbolic.

B.   The verse is 100% literal.   Seventy times seven is equal to 490.  You keep track of how many times your brother offends you, perhaps with a tally sheet.   Once the number 490 is reached you are free to take your revenge.

What is your answer?  For the record, my answer was A on both accounts, but you are free to choose your own answer.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, in my own opinion at least, taking everything 100% literally just leads to the loss of intent among many scriptures (and other things as well).  

Edited May 10, 2018 by Scott

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Traveler said:

About the time of Abraham, a secret cult group of scientists appeared in Egypt called the Pythagoreans.   Century’s later a Greek slave that belonged to the cult (called himself Pythagoras) leaked some of the secrets. 

So, there was a conspiracy of geometrists 2500 years ago?  And this secret group were the ones who taught the world was a sphere.  And even though it was a secret society, this meant that ALL of Egypt accepted their tenets on the sphericity of the earth.

If everyone knew it, then why did they need to keep their cult a secret?

17 hours ago, Traveler said:

One last thing – education today is so poor that many think in terms of “a source” rather than a method for discovery.  So, we think that if someone does not have access to an expert – they are uneducated.

If you don't have "a source" do you have any evidence of this cult actually being real?

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, there was a conspiracy of geometrists 2500 years ago?  And this secret group were the ones who taught the world was a sphere.  And even though it was a secret society, this meant that ALL of Egypt accepted their tenets on the sphericity of the earth.

If everyone knew it, then why did they need to keep their cult a secret?

If you don't have "a source" do you have any evidence of this cult actually being real?

 

I am thinking I need to take a different approach.  Let’s start with this – How do you know or think you know the earth is a sphere?  How do you know the insistence that the earth is a sphere is not a very sophisticated conspiracy? 

We know what the ancient Egyptians knew and understood by what they did and accomplished.  I will provide one example.  If someone was to create a garden exactly twice the size (in area) of another garden then we know that they understood the square root of two as the ratio of a diagonal of a square to be exactly the side of a square twice the size of the previous smaller square.

We know that there were some scientist and mathematises in ancient Egypt that called themselves Pythagoreans but not directly – they are referenced very seldom and they did not leave behind a single document.  We are not 100% sure they were the engines of ancient Egyptian science but we do know when the science of Egypt turned them into a super power.  And we have a good idea of when the Greeks were able to challenge the science of Egypt.  – We know the role of someone we call Pythagoras – and that was not his real name.  Where and how he was educated is unknown but the school created by Pythagoras was a school where the students that a communal and secret life style.  Why?  

You can Google Pythagoras and come to you own qjuick and easy conclusions.   I have spent years researching and putting things together – and since you want a source – you can find your own.  It will be a good exercise for you – especially if you have never done your own research beyond believing what your teachers have told you.

 

The Traveler

 

[unixknight]

So yeah, it's a paradox...  The description of a global flood vs. Geological evidence, and its interpretation.

There are multiple possible solutions to this paradox:

1. It never happened.  The Biblical story is either pure fiction or at best a metaphor.  

2. It occurred, but not precisely as described.  Maybe the flood was local only or maybe it wasn't the cataclysm it's described to be.

3. It occurred exactly as described in Genesis.

I don't really have a strong argument on this one.  Too many variables.  Maybe the scribe, working from a vision, saw a local flood and took it to be global.  Maybe the whole planet was underwater for a time but some of the higher places were dry.  Maybe maybe maybe maybe.

I do know that I am wary of casting doubt on scripture purely because it conflicts with National Geographic and my 7th grade geology teacher.  It feels like picking and choosing.  Sometimes we take the Bible at its word, sometimes we doubt it because Science!(TM) says something different.

We can believe that God can make the Earth, raise the dead, destroy cities and lead people across the sea but no...  The Flood is a bridge too far.  I dunno, maybe it is.  But I do know that there have been times when my faith was rewarded when I stuck to faith over "common knowledge."

You know the popular anti-Book of Mormon argument that says it must be false because there are  no genetic traits in Mesoamerican people to conne t them with ancient Israelites?  That can be a heavy hit to the testimony...

Well I heard a fascinating interview with a geneticist who said that with the way genetics are passed along and after so many generations, we shouldn't expect to see any.   It would actually be a surprise if we DID find those markers even when taking the BoM completely at face value.

So no, Science!(TM) doesn't know everything, but neither do scriptorians.  I remain neutral, since my salvation doesn't hinge on it either way.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by unixknight

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, unixknight said:

So yeah, it's a paradox...  The description of a global flood vs. Geological evidence, and its interpretation.

There are multiple possible solutions to this paradox:

1. It never happened.  The Biblical story is either pure fiction or at best a metaphor.  

2. It occurred, but not precisely as described.  Maybe the flood was local only or maybe it wasn't the cataclysm it's described to be.

3. It occurred exactly as described in Genesis.

I don't really have a strong argument on this one.  Too many variables.  Maybe the scribe, working from a vision, saw a local flood and took it to be global.  Maybe the whole planet was underwater for a time but some of the higher places were dry.  Maybe maybe maybe maybe.

I do know that I am wary of casting doubt on scripture purely because it conflicts with National Geographic and my 7th grade geology teacher.  It feels like picking and choosing.  Sometimes we take the Bible at its word, sometimes we doubt it because Science!(TM) says something different.

We can believe that God can make the Earth, raise the dead, destroy cities and lead people across the sea but no...  The Flood is a bridge too far.  I dunno, maybe it is.  But I do know that there have been times when my faith was rewarded when I stuck to faith over "common knowledge."

You know the popular anti-Book of Mormon argument that says it must be false because there are  no genetic traits in Mesoamerican people to conne t them with ancient Israelites?  That can be a heavy hit to the testimony...

Well I heard a fascinating interview with a geneticist who said that with the way genetics are passed along and after so many generations, we shouldn't expect to see any.   It would actually be a surprise if we DID find those markers even when taking the BoM completely at face value.

So no, Science!(TM) doesn't know everything, but neither do scriptorians.  I remain neutral, since my salvation doesn't hinge on it either way.

 

The scriptures are much closer to the truth than science.

[unixknight]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

The scriptures are much closer to the truth than science.

Of course they are.  I think the problem many people are having is knowing exactly how to interpret them.

[Traveler]

27 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The scriptures are much closer to the truth than science.

 

Will you please provide some (or at least a) example(s) and specifically how you validated that the examples you provide are "true"?

I will give one counter example – in 1946 a shepherd boy discovered a cave with ancient Biblical scrolls.  This and other scientific discoveries of ancient manuscripts in the area have become known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The discovery forced the entire religious community (Christian and Jewish) to admit that the Masoretic Text (which was the basis of all modern published versions of the Jewish and Christian Scripture to that date) were among the most inaccurate.  Forcing new versions to be created.  Except for the LDS – A foot note here – the standard LDS scripture include a great deal more than the standard Biblical scriptures.

I would also purport that without the science of translating ancient scriptures – you would not be able to read and Biblical scriptures – which is the only scripture account we have of Noah and the flood.  In short - without science you would be unable to claim scriptures are closer to the truth than science.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am thinking I need to take a different approach.  Let’s start with this – How do you know or think you know the earth is a sphere?  How do you know the insistence that the earth is a sphere is not a very sophisticated conspiracy? 

1) I've actually done my share of travelling and have seen things out the window as I flew.  

2) All the arguments to the contrary have severe flaws of have indeed been proven false by evidence and logic that I understand and accept.

3) The greater the conspiracy the greater the reason required to keep the public unaware of it.  For lack of motivation for such a consipiracy, I see no reason to believe in such a conspiracy.

Quote

We know what the ancient Egyptians knew and understood by what they did and accomplished.  I will provide one example.  If someone was to create a garden exactly twice the size (in area) of another garden then we know that they understood the square root of two as the ratio of a diagonal of a square to be exactly the side of a square twice the size of the previous smaller square.

No.  Not really.  There is a very simple way of doing this same thing without understanding squares and roots.  You just measure it.  I've done it myself.

Quote

We know that there were some scientist and mathematises in ancient Egypt that called themselves Pythagoreans but not directly – they are referenced very seldom and they did not leave behind a single document. 

Again, I'm asking for evidence.  But you all but admit there was no evidence.

Quote

We are not 100% sure they were the engines of ancient Egyptian science but we do know when the science of Egypt turned them into a super power. 

So, how are we even 1% sure?  by what reasoning, evidence, knowledge, understanding?

Quote

And we have a good idea of when the Greeks were able to challenge the science of Egypt.  – We know the role of someone we call Pythagoras – and that was not his real name.  Where and how he was educated is unknown but the school created by Pythagoras was a school where the students that a communal and secret life style.  Why?

You're setting yourself up as a demagogue on this topic.  I'm sorry, but you have not enough ethos to do so.  Certainly not on this topic.  But then after setting yourself up, you swipe your own knees out when you say the following:

Quote

You can Google Pythagoras and come to you own qjuick and easy conclusions.   I have spent years researching and putting things together – and since you want a source – you can find your own.

I'm sure I could.  But to go through such efforts, I would have to have a motive to do so.  So far, what you've given is enough to make me run the other way.

Quote

It will be a good exercise for you – especially if you have never done your own research beyond believing what your teachers have told you.

Do you have any idea how insulting you're being?  After all these years on this forum and you honestly believe I just accept everything anyone tells me?  Why do you think I'm even questioning what you're saying?  I'm trying to give you a chance to convince me that things I've learned are wrong because I recognize that I can ALWAYS use correction.  But by opening myself up to you, you choose to insult me.

While I do have some problems with what you've written from time to time, overall, I've had a good deal of respect for how you've thought things through, and your unusual perspective on things that provide valuable insights.  But sometimes when you're that far out there, it is not the time to insult someone for shedding some doubt on your words.  It is time to actually, you know, provide some actual evidence that might convince people of the truth.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

Of course they are.  I think the problem many people are having is knowing exactly how to interpret them.

Yeah. I admit it took me twenty some years to figure out the flood. The hardest part for me was to just really study what the scriptures really teach on the flood. For so many years I tried to think of the myriad of ways the flood waters could cover the great mountain chains. Then, one day I read in the scriptures where it teaches the mountains we have now came up- uplifted from the flood floor and created the massive mountain chains we now have. I was too stuck in mans way of thinking to understand that. After that everything made sense.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Rob Osborn