The Mediterranean was once part of the Tethys Sea, a long lasting ocean in between and bordering the major landmasses. Its been collecting sediment for eons and still does. Did the article offer explanations for the build up of salt?.
Run off from Africa into the Med.
It would seem to me that After the Flood, and the continents were moving at a different rate than they do now, water would come in from the Atlantic, evaporate, and then fill up again. Some models show that even the Continents, could have been covered with huge ocean like seas. As these oceans filled up the Oceans, the water would flood the Med, then the seams in the Ocean floor would open up more room in the Ocean leaving the Med to evaporate, until the oceans filled back up. The North American continent was probably the last land area to empty out it's internal "ocean". It is interesting that the Med is the oldest continental spread area. It is also the only land-locked Sea that is the closest to the Equator so it's waters never cool like the other Oceans. The other salty body of water, nearby is the Dead Sea.
God called the waters "Seas", not Sea or ocean. If there was just one ocean and one landmass then "Seas" would not apply. These people were surrounded by seas that were considered parts of the surrounding ocean, that is the gathering of waters into one place as seas.
It is a geographical illusion. You see the sea/ocean on the west coast, and then another one on the east coast. If you never go north or south, you may never realize you are on an island and proclaim, we are surrounded by two seas.
Pangaea was the first Land mass that came out of the water. It later was split apart. The water was gathered together in one place. That one place did not mean that land surrounded it, but that the water surrounded the land without any continental separation, the definition of one place. It never says the land was divided, and there can still be the sense of Seas surrounding the Pangaea. See last section.
But who knows, if this planet was hit by an object(s) ~4 bya large enough to put a face or rabbit on the Moon then maybe the first "land" was concentrated in one region like it would be on the Moon if it had an ocean.
My theory/hypothesis is that the earth may have been smaller in mass. Two moon size objects (the three worlds colliding in the Veda) hitting the earth would have added more mass, and they could have broken apart and hit in two major spots, but with dozens of impact sights. It would have affected the earth's axis, and perhaps the orbital path as well. The tectonic plates were broken up and completely recycled at this point, leaving only the two original parts in Africa and Australia. In the same event, there would have been more land mass available thus changing the ratio of land and water.
I think this planet might have formed at the asteroid belt and ~4 bya it was surrounded by water, no (dry) land, just one ocean covering everything and in darkness just like Gen 1:2 describes. That region is the logical place in the early solar system for a water planet to form because of the solar wind.
The ocean could have been dozens or even hundred of miles deep and most of it was left behind when the Earth was given a new orbit closer to the Sun with land-producing plate tectonics and life.
The problem is that both the Genesis account, and the Veda account, state the water is the makeup of the universe itself. Not a separate area of the universe, or even the solar system. The water is the beginning and end of each cycle of the universe.
Some in the past have reasoned from this that the whole universe is surrounded by water. That would be a lot of water. You also have to remember that the solar system is not even in the same spot from where it started, as it is on an orbital path around the milky way. Could there be huge pockets of water spread throughout the universe?
God did that on the 2nd and 3rd days, the water was there before the 1st day.
The mist was rain and it preceded man, therefore it appears on one of the first few days of creation:
The Earth was under water ~4 billion years ago (Gen 1:2), that was when we were left with roughly our current supply. The question for you is: if the Flood of Noah covered the highest mountains, where did the water go? If it was caused by the collapse of some massive body of water in the sky, where did the water go? I dont think Noah's Flood covered the world, most life on the planet was not recently wiped out.
There is still water in the form of ice in the atmosphere. If the tectonic plates were to brake apart into small chunks, and were evened out and leveled flat, they would either sink under the weight of the water, or float on the surface of the water as one land mass, with no water above ground at all. No one knows what it looked like when all the land was covered with water. According to geologist there is only a small portion of Australia and a larger size portion in Africa that was part of the first continent that was "out of water". All other current tectonic plate portions where under water after the Flood, long enough to classify them as being from a different "time" period.
The veda describes that after each "Flood" (there was only one major one, but many after floods), the mountains were like chunks of rock and God moved them around to re-build the mountains like the Himalayans. That seems to give a sense that the mountains were not a natural occurrence but an "artificial" construct. The first Christians foretell that in the future the valleys would be filled in and the mountains leveled like a huge reconstruction event which humans would be able to watch and not be killed or wiped out when it happens. With human's able to move around in today's economy, mountains seem like hills. In the past they were impassible borders preventing humans from mixing with each other, unless they put some effort into the process. There did not have to be any mountains before the Flood. All humanity were all together in one homogenous group. Chapter 1 of Genesis says that God made humans male and female and placed them on the earth. The 2nd chapter told of just one Human that God created and singled out to torment in the Garden of Eden.
IMO, there was only one Pangaea that came out of the water, it was destroyed in the Flood event, and only two small sections of the current form survived the effects of the Flood. The Flood did not happen 4500 years ago, and probably not even 6000 years ago. It was 10,000+ years or before the current known "recorded" history. Evolution is not a modern concept. It was around 5000 years ago, but without the influence of Greek philosophical reasoning that led to modern science.
The Sun was appointed to rule over Earth's sky on the 4th Day, the Earth is named on the 3rd Day - the Sun already existed but it had to wait for its appointment because the Earth was still submerged until the 3rd Day.
I also said the sun and the whole universe in it's current form (not size, it has been expanding) existed in verse 1. You keep telling me that God did not create it. All I said is that the universe was dark until the 4th day, and then the stars including the sun started to send out radiation in the form of light. It does not matter if the earth was covered with water, or land was "visible" God even put plant life on the earth on day 3. The 2nd and 3rd day there was still darkness after God separated the light from darkness. The universe had time and motion, but was in darkness. The current model states that the darkness lasted for 400,380,000 years.
The Veda I read cleared up some things for me. After reading it though, I can appreciate the concise account in the book of Genesis. Even before Hindu, the proto concept started out with only one God. In the English version, there is a 65 page introduction that attempts to explain what the Veda is saying. Then there is a 21 page summery. From my feeble attempt to understand any of it, it would seem that multiple gods, is the philosophical rationalization of why this one God did anything. Even the Greeks were more concise. I may have misunderstood, but even the Hindu rejected the earlier writings as part of their scriptures, and yet they took parts of them as a basis for their religion.
No rain until a few thousand years ago?
There was rain before this time period. The continents were where they are now (give or take an island here and there). The mountains had formed. And there are archaeological sites that go back well over 10,000 years ago.)
I am not claiming that the Flood was a few thousand years ago. It happened before the current round of human's conscious recorded history. The ancients (after this Flood) believed in evolution as well. It happened before the current round of "known" history, as well as during the then current history. We have found remains of this "destroyed" world that we cannot explain, but we do call it evolution.
Continents are in motion, yes. But not to the extent where there was a single landmass before the Flood and separation afterward. That's just an attempt to get around the question of how animals could have survived if they weren't native to the Middle East (must have been an amazing sight, all those unique North/Central/South American, Australian, and other animals swimming and flying to the Middle East so they could be saved from a flood that never happened).
There were no continents to have animals "unique to" before the Flood. They can only be unique if it happened after the Flood. How are you going to convince the thousands of people who experienced it, that it did not happen? How did ancient humans describe events, that only modern science can explain, and almost come up with the same evolutionary description? It was either imagined or experienced. They experienced it, and the story grew over time. Modern humans imagine what happened without taking into account that such events can be experienced. They imagine it an impossibility.
In several billion years, yes. Not tomorrow, next year, next century, next millennium, or in the next million years.
Only time will tell, and that is an extraordinary claim. Not a single human can prove that it will happen in a billions years, or will happen in a few thousand years. The assumption is based on the current rate of change, and that is the biggest assumption in the history of the universe.
This entire paragraph contradicts basic human biology.
Can you prove that it never happened that way? You accept that it could have been months instead of years. The life span went from 41 years to 10 years. Couples were having up to twelve children and then died at the age of 10? At 2, they started having children, and had at least 1.5 kids a year, for 8 years and then died. And this only lasted for 83 years. How was that possible and miraculously allow there to be people in Africa, Europe, India, China, and the Americas? Changing the definition of years to months contradicts basic human biology.
Oh. Come. On.
No rain? Earth would have been a desert. The animals and plants that need water wouldn't have survived.
The whole Earth was
not underwater.
So for billions of years nothing happened? Then billions of more years and nothing happened? How could nothing happen for billions of years?
All of the humans in the ancient world grew up hearing stories of how the earth was under water, and that there was enough water to take care of life. Then something happened and destroyed this world, and it was considered a major event where everything was destroyed, in a Flood. Perhaps the Flood was not water, but actually a Flood of fire. Fire scorched the whole earth and burned up the water, and guess what? after billions of years, there was enough water filtering through the atmosphere, and the earth again was able to provide life. How did the humans know that the Flood was fire after a billion years? Saying the earth was never totally covered by water, and that it was not possible that the first continent was destroyed defies logic. How did the ancient humans guess what happened without first hand experience? How do modern humans guess at what happened? They both describe the same event. One set said that humans experienced it. The other set says that is not possible, it happened billions of years ago. The current model concurs that the earth was once mostly water with one land mass, which was made up by collisions of a lot of small ones. There is no clue how this collision was set in motion. No clue, no explanation. The Ancients said that the land appeared out of water, not a collision of bits of land.
The ancients who believed in evolution said there were 7 continents that were totally engulfed in water. Modern science says there was one continent that was split up. There has only been one Flood that changed the first continent into 7. The ancients were contradicting modern science by stating there was not one continent, but 7. The Genesis account says that there was one land mass that came out of the water and then was destroyed by a Flood event. Modern cosmology claims there was one Pangaea, and it gradually spread apart, without anything to set it in motion. It just started "happening" about 160 million years ago.
The ancients who believed in evolution said that after the Flood there were millions of years of evolution. Modern science agrees with their evolutionary explanation. The Genesis account states that the old world was lost and the current known human history happened after the Flood. Maybe there was a mistranslation, and instead of millions of years, the ancients meant millions of day cycles? Otherwise the ancients were able to keep the experience of 200 million years in their "conscious" history like it was yesterday. The ancients about 9,000 to 10,000 years ago wrote down a very sophisticated and graphically detailed event that left a very deep impression on their psyche that they taught people to memorize it in verse form. Perhaps they made it up, We come up with thoughts in modern times and instruct our kids through are education system to accept the same beliefs we come up with, even though we do not experience them. Perhaps they did experience the core belief, and it grew bigger and bigger as humans who had not experienced it, added their own interpretations? Eventually it is all relegated to a religious experience without humans even realizing it. The evolution of a belief system no matter how regulated, is the basis of religion. Even science is not immune to falling into the black hole of religion.
