• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Energy does not need to produce heat.
But heat does require energy. Heat is energy.

Expanding (i.e., energy releasing) SCW is VERY, VERY COLD! It turns into KINETIC energy (due to the EXTREME expansion) and NOT heat.
It doesn't mater! I never brought up temperature in the first place, you did! It isn't the temperature, necessarily, that would rip the material to shreds anyway, its the forces involved in accelerating things at such a rate. The G-forces alone would be enough to rip the electrons off the atoms.

The energy involved in the bursting forth of the great deep was spread out over a VAST area... i.e., the entire surface of planet earth. It was primarily KINETIC energy. Equating energy to heat is simply wrong.
No it isn't wrong. Temperature is just another form of energy. It hardly matters at all what form that energy took. The temperature is completely irrelevant to the argument. The only reason you're even talking about is because there was an example given of what an equivalent amount of energy would look like in the context of a nuclear explosion. The fact that one would produce high temperatures and the other doesn't only makes the problem worse for you! If it got super hot them that would be one way to dissipate the energy. You insisting that it was all converted to kinetic energy, which if fine by me, only means that the material would have been subjected to just that much more stress. At the end of the day, you still have to deal with Newtons first law of motion and overcome inertia, which is going to place stresses on the material which in turn will have effects on that material, like blasting them into clouds of gas and plasma rather than hard rock and water ice.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Other kinds of "month".....

1. Lunar Month​

  • Synodic Month: The time it takes for the Moon to complete one full cycle of phases (from new moon to new moon), which is about 29.53 days. This is the basis for the months in many ancient calendars, including the Islamic calendar, which is purely lunar.
  • Sidereal Month: The time it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth relative to the fixed stars, approximately 27.32 days.
  • Tropical Month: The time it takes for the Moon to return to the same position relative to the celestial equator, around 27.32 days.
  • Anomalistic Month: The time it takes for the Moon to return to the same point in its elliptical orbit around the Earth, about 27.55 days.
  • Draconic Month: The time between successive crossings of the Moon through the same node of its orbit (where it crosses the ecliptic plane), roughly 27.21 days.

2. Solar Month​

  • Gregorian Month: The months used in the Gregorian calendar, which range from 28 to 31 days. These months are based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun and are designed to align with the solar year.
  • Julian Month: Similar to the Gregorian months but used in the Julian calendar, which was in use before the Gregorian reform.
  • Ancient Egyptian Month: The Egyptians used a calendar with 12 months of 30 days each, plus an additional 5 days added at the end of the year to make 365 days.

3. Lunisolar Month​

  • Hebrew Month: The Hebrew calendar is lunisolar, meaning it uses lunar months but aligns them with the solar year by adding an extra month (Adar II) in a leap year. The months are 29 or 30 days long.
  • Chinese Month: The Chinese calendar is also lunisolar, with months that are either 29 or 30 days long. A leap month is added approximately every three years to align the lunar months with the solar year.
  • Babylonian Month: The Babylonians used a lunisolar calendar with 12 months of 29 or 30 days, adding a 13th month periodically to keep the calendar in sync with the solar year.

4. Cultural and Historical Variations​

  • Mayan Month: The Mayans used a calendar with 18 months of 20 days each, followed by a 19th month with 5 days, totaling 365 days.
  • Inca Month: The Inca calendar had 12 months of varying lengths, based on agricultural cycles and lunar observations.
  • Ancient Roman Month: Before the Julian reform, the Roman calendar had months of irregular lengths, and the year was sometimes manipulated for political purposes.

NONE of which require the existence of an exactly 360 day year, which there is basically no scientific or historical evidence for. Most of the traditions that suggest a 360 day year make an association between days in a year and the number of degrees in a circle as if there couldn't have been any other reason why someone would have found it convenient to divide a circle into 360 degrees. 360 degrees just happens to be a great number to use for anything that you're dividing because it make it easy to mark out parts of that thing because the number 360 has lots of factors. It is evenly divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180 & 360. While 365 can be equally divided by 1, 5, 73 & 365, which is not nearly as convenient and makes basically no sense when the physical size of the divisions would be hardly noticeable on whatever instrument is so divided until you went to actually do math with them, which is the whole point of having them in the first place. (Division is a form of math.)
Don't tell me... let me guess... Chat GPT. I don't see the relevance of any of that stuff. The BIBLE says that 5 months was 150 days... it cannot get more clear than that.

Gen 7:11 (AKJV/PCE)​
(7:11) ¶ In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.​
Gen 7:24 (AKJV/PCE)​
(7:24) And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.​
Gen 8:3-4 (AKJV/PCE)​
(8:3) And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. (8:4) And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.​
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
I'm am genuinely shocked, disapointed, and ashamed of you, RD.

This is the most flat-out dishonest nonsense I've ever seen you post.

Shame on you! You should be embarrassed.
I'm simply going by the fact that you will not even look at the evidence because you have made up your mind that it cannot happen.

I'm sorry that you feel that makes me dishonest. I disagree with your assessment.

Here, again, is what you said:
It is irrelevant because the material could never have made it off the planet in the form of rock and dust (much less liguid water or ice) given the proposed method of getting it there.
I stand by what I said.
 

Right Divider

Body part
But heat does require energy. Heat is energy.
But energy is not necessarily heat.
It doesn't mater! I never brought up temperature in the first place, you did! It isn't the temperature, necessarily, that would rip the material to shreds anyway, its the forces involved in accelerating things at such a rate. The G-forces alone would be enough to rip the electrons off the atoms.
Simply not true. Dr. Brown knows enough about science to know that what he proposes is possible. He spends many pages describing, in detail, why the interplanetary debris in our solar system is from the earth.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Don't tell me... let me guess... Chat GPT. I don't see the relevance of any of that stuff. The BIBLE says that 5 months was 150 days... it cannot get more clear than that.

Gen 7:11 (AKJV/PCE)​
(7:11) ¶ In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.​
Gen 7:24 (AKJV/PCE)​
(7:24) And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.​
Gen 8:3-4 (AKJV/PCE)​
(8:3) And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. (8:4) And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.​
In other words...

Don't confused me with the facts... I've already made up my mind.... got it.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This is your evidence?

Do you know how many different definitions of "a month" have existed in history?

The point is that the reason so many different calendars exist is because of the fact that men were used to a 360 day year, and because of the changes to the solar system as a result of the Flood, they now had to try to find a reliable way of counting days in the year.

360 is easily divisible by the integers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, and 180 (and 1 and 360 obviously).

365.24... Is not.

Three of Jupiter's primary moons have an interesting orbital pattern. 1 orbits once, while the next orbits twice, while the third orbits four times, like clockwork, in NEARLY PERFECTLY CIRCULAR ORBITS.

I find it hard to imagine that God created the Earth, the center of His attention, with an orbit that isn't so perfectly divisible, and then calling it "very good," when He set in motion so precisely other objects that are NOT Earth. But I'm certainly open to being corrected...

Just one of many examples is the Hebrew calendar which is lunisolar, meaning it uses lunar months but aligns them with the solar year by adding an extra month (Adar II) in a leap year. The months are 29 or 30 days long.

Other kinds of "month".....

1. Lunar Month​

  • Synodic Month: The time it takes for the Moon to complete one full cycle of phases (from new moon to new moon), which is about 29.53 days. This is the basis for the months in many ancient calendars, including the Islamic calendar, which is purely lunar.
  • Sidereal Month: The time it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth relative to the fixed stars, approximately 27.32 days.
  • Tropical Month: The time it takes for the Moon to return to the same position relative to the celestial equator, around 27.32 days.
  • Anomalistic Month: The time it takes for the Moon to return to the same point in its elliptical orbit around the Earth, about 27.55 days.
  • Draconic Month: The time between successive crossings of the Moon through the same node of its orbit (where it crosses the ecliptic plane), roughly 27.21 days.

2. Solar Month​

  • Gregorian Month: The months used in the Gregorian calendar, which range from 28 to 31 days. These months are based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun and are designed to align with the solar year.
  • Julian Month: Similar to the Gregorian months but used in the Julian calendar, which was in use before the Gregorian reform.
  • Ancient Egyptian Month: The Egyptians used a calendar with 12 months of 30 days each, plus an additional 5 days added at the end of the year to make 365 days.

3. Lunisolar Month​

  • Hebrew Month: The Hebrew calendar is lunisolar, meaning it uses lunar months but aligns them with the solar year by adding an extra month (Adar II) in a leap year. The months are 29 or 30 days long.
  • Chinese Month: The Chinese calendar is also lunisolar, with months that are either 29 or 30 days long. A leap month is added approximately every three years to align the lunar months with the solar year.
  • Babylonian Month: The Babylonians used a lunisolar calendar with 12 months of 29 or 30 days, adding a 13th month periodically to keep the calendar in sync with the solar year.

4. Cultural and Historical Variations​

  • Mayan Month: The Mayans used a calendar with 18 months of 20 days each, followed by a 19th month with 5 days, totaling 365 days.
  • Inca Month: The Inca calendar had 12 months of varying lengths, based on agricultural cycles and lunar observations.
  • Ancient Roman Month: Before the Julian reform, the Roman calendar had months of irregular lengths, and the year was sometimes manipulated for political purposes.

NONE of which require the existence of exactly 360 day year, which there is basically no scientific or historical evidence for.

Incorrect. There is plenty of evidence that the world used to use a 360-day calendar.


No, that isn't what I'm saying. It doesn't have to be one object. It could be one object or it could be millions of smaller objects. Regardless, the total mass is the same

The problem is that you're totaling the energy as a result, then trying to apply the Total amount of energy to one object.

and it would had to have all gone up at pretty much precisely the same time or else it could never have coalesced into a comet or asteroid.

40 days is roughly the same time, in the grand scheme of things...

If one part left the Earth even 3 seconds after some other part, those parts would end up at least 60 miles apart which would have put them well outside each others gravity wells.

I would argue that the majority of the debris was launched well within 3 seconds of each other, over the course of 40 days.

Once they leave the "barrel" of the earth's crust, they still have to go another roughly 60 miles before clearing the atmosphere completely, during which time they were still likely being accelerated by the expanding fountains (expansion due to the pressure drop).

Like so:
hpt-heat-BN-hands-butane.jpg

So, perhaps 6.6 seconds to fully accelerate out of earth's atmosphere from the very bottom of the crust?

Once they've achieved escape velocity, two objects that are only a few miles apart at worst (since, I would argue that the debris from the walls of the cracks in the crust would have been eroded away at a nearly constant rate), traveling in basically the same direction, are much more likely to come back together and stay together, coalescing into the "floating rock piles" we see today.

If we're talking weeks or months apart, then we're talking parts of what are supposed to coalesce into a comet being many thousands, if not millions of miles from one another.

No one is saying that debris that was that far apart coalesced into anything.

This is why I said to do the math (which you didn't do, by the way) for an object with a mass of 2000 kg, instead of one with a mass of 330,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg.

You keep just increasing the complexity and, in so doing, you make the problem worse for the theory, not better. You are literally suggesting that this material was sent up as though shot from a garden sprinkler head rather than a gun barrel.

Given the scale of the event, yes, it would be more akin to a garden sprinkler than a gun.

The energy in a bullet is used up relatively quickly. A sprinkler outputs energy much more slowly, yet it can eventually expend the same amount of energy as the bullet, no?

The "rail gun" analogy I used earlier was only to show you that the debris was not just suddenly wrenched away from the surface of the earth, instantaneously made to break escape velocity.

Something I failed to mention is that, while I agree that the initial gush of water when the earth cracked might have vaporized the material along the walls, as the crack widened, the fluid along the boundaries likely would have slowed due to friction (still enough to rapidly erode away the walls, and to cause broken-off chunks to fall into the stream of water flowing up from the depths of the earth), while the flow closer to the middle of the gap would be flowing much faster due to a lack of any significant amount of friction.

So even then, the acceleration of any debris wouldn't be "instantaneous," and while smaller chunks would have been vaporized, larger chunks would likely have only had portions of their mass vaporized, at least until the object itself had had time to be accelerated to escape velocities.

Again, this is why I asked for you to do the math for a much smaller object.

The total mass ejected would have been the same and so the total energy would have been the same and it doesn't work to spread it out over weeks or months

Which is exactly what I said you were doing.

You're trying to apply all of that energy at once, rather than spreading it out over the course of 40 days.

How much energy does it take to launch one object that is 2000 kg, or heck, 20,000 kg, to escape velocity, over a distance of 60 miles?

Oh, and don't forget that the object, along with the supercritical fluid it's being launched with, is starting from being motionless.

because then the constituent parts of what's supposed to become a comet would be literally many many thousands of miles apart with no mechanism whatsoever to ever bring them back together again to make the comet.

No, they wouldn't. Not the majority of them, at least.

For bodies to coalesce in space (presuming for the sake of argument that they can do so at all) they do have to be in close proximity with each other.

They also have to be going in roughly the same direction.

Which according to the HPT, was not only likely, but practically guaranteed.

Not only that but it has to be a very large cloud of rock and dust, the vast majority of which does not end up being part of the coalesced body but ends up getting ejected out of the system because of a collision here and there and/or because a particular piece that was being gravitationally attracted to the larger body simply missed and was flung off in some random direction.

Again, not when they're going roughly the same direction.

If they were going two different directions, to begin with, then that's a problem, obviously.

But when their relative velocity is less than the other object's escape velocity, then they will eventually coalesce into a pile. It might take a while, but if there isn't enough energy to force them apart, then it's guaranteed that they will.
And let's not forget the other possibility, that some of the objects end orbiting each other. And, yes, there was a comet recently discovered that is a binary comet/asteroid. (288P)

And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that water cannot exist as a liquid in space - period. It exists either as a solid or, if the Sun hits it just right, it will sublimate into a gas but the pressures in space are too low for it to ever be a liquid and so how are these collections of rock and dust ever supposed to get cemented together with water ice? (Comets definitely are NOT collections of loosely bound boulders and dust that are cemented together with water ice.)

I'm not beholden to the idea that comets are just "dirty snowballs," more like they're rock piles with more water-ice content in them.

But to deny the existence of water ice in comets and asteroids is a step too far.

In short, if the theory is that it was a huge number of car sized objects,

Car sized or larger or smaller. The point was to shift your perspective away from trying to launch one giant object with the total amount of energy, to launching millions of smaller objects with the total amount of energy expended divided up mostly evenly between them.

ejected over a long period of time then there's a whole new set of problems. Such a solution creates far more problems that it solves, not the least of which is the fact that it would have created a spherical shell of debris around the Earth,

How?

long before it ever created a nice ring of stuff around the Sun; a shell of debris that would have rained back down onto the Earth over decades, if not centuries of time.

Well we know that there were a few that fell centuries afterwards.

Sodom and Gomorrah, being one of them.

Every night would have been lit up like the fourth of July with the most astounding fireworks show you can imagine. Tens of thousands of meteors an hour burning up in the atmosphere, all day and all night for years and years and years.

Why do you assume tens of thousands of objects per hour? Achieving a stable enough orbit that lasts for decades is relatively difficult to do. Even the ISS is constantly having to adjust it's trajectory because it's fighting a miniscule amount of resistance from the extremely thin atmosphere at that altitude.

I'd argue that most of the debris around the earth, had there been any significant amount in a "shell" around it, would have burned up or fallen to earth or would have been fully ejected within a relatively short period of time after the flood.

Also, impacts on the Moon would have been practically continuous as well

I mean, there are still things that impact the moon today, no?

and easily visible from the Earth.

I doubt it... I think here you're underestimating just how big the moon is, compared to the size of the "straggler" debris launched...

I sort of feel like we'd have found someone who mentioned that sort of stuff being witnessed in history at some point, don't you?

Begging the question that such phenomena would be not only visible, but that there would have been someone paying close enough attention to the moon.

Oh, and lets not forget that "written history" wasn't a thing until long after the flood.

As I write this, more and more things come to mind! For example, there would have been great collections of material find their way to the five different Earth-Sun Lagrange points, where they would have remained to this day. So far as we know there are two and only two Earth Trojans (i.e. asteroids that orbit a Earth Sun Lagrange point), not the thousands that there would be if this portion of Dr. Brown's theory were correct.

I'm not aware of any prediction by the HPT that suggests that there would be thousands of objects within Earth's Lagrange points...

And that doesn't touch the Earth-Moon Lagrange points

Luna L4 and L5 points have the Kordylewski clouds.

or any other Lagrange points throughout the solar system, most of which are empty. The major exceptions being Jupiter's L4 and L5 Lagrange points which do have many thousands of natural objects in them.

The vast majority of objects in the solar system are in orbit around the sun in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, followed by the random direction orbits (including TNOs), and arguably the next largest amount from those two are within Jupiter's L4 and L5 points, which contains the Jupiter Trojan asteroid

I think you need to do a bit more research on this:

Dr. Brown, it seems to me, would have a hard time explaining how many tens of thousands of times as much debris from Earth would have ended up in Jupiter's Lagrange points vs. what ended up in Earth's.

Why? When you add energy to an object's orbit, it will get further away from what it's orbiting, generally speaking, unless the energy is directed to slow the orbiting object. This is why the vast majority of asteroids, comets, TNOs, etc, are further out from the sun than the Earth than they are closer, let alone having had their orbits reversed.

Seems to me that the reason there's way more material in the Jupiter L-points than there is in Earth's is because of that.

P.S. Let me just say that I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the premise of the objection that I've been making. I feel like we've been mostly talking past one another, so this seems like excellent progress.

It's my favorite topic, I want to have the best arguments for it!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I'm simply going by the fact that you will not even look at the evidence because you have made up your mind that it cannot happen.
On the contrary. I've read the book and watched the videos and NONE OF IT addresses the issue I've brought up. It's taken till today for you to even act like you understood the argument I was making and so you haven't addressed it either. I'm perfectly open to being shown that I am wrong but simply repeating the theory isn't going to do it.

I'm sorry that you feel that makes me dishonest. I disagree with your assessment.
No you don't! If that's what you were doing, then that's what you'd say. Instead you insult me and pretend like I've made no arguments at all and that all I'm doing is closing my eyes and ears to the truth because I feel like being some sort of brat.
Here, again, is what you said:
I didn't just make the claim thought, RD! I made an actual argument and presented evidence including cold hard mathematics that you won't even hardly acknowledge much less refute but instead throw try to throw cold water on it because someone somehow has gotten you convinced that everything that ChatGPT says is automatically false because it said it, no matter the subject matter or carefully it is used.

I stand by what I said.
Thank you for conceding that you've got nothing to refute my arguments with.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
But energy is not necessarily heat.
No kidding! That's what I already said!!!!!@

What planet have I been transported to here?!!!

Simply not true. Dr. Brown knows enough about science to know that what he proposes is possible. He spends many pages describing, in detail, why the interplanetary debris in our solar system is from the earth.
And says nothing at all about how it could actually happen in real life.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
In other words...

Don't confused me with the facts... I've already made up my mind.... got it.

Come on, that was uncalled for, Clete. He gave clear scripture to support the claim he made.

150 days / 5 months= 30 days per month

Genesis 7:11 gives the start date of the flood, giving the exact day and month of the year.

Genesis 7:24 gives the duration of the flood in days.

Genesis 8:3-4 gives the end date of the flood, giving the exact day and month of the year.

From the first date given to the second date given is 150 days.
The first date was on a specific day of the month, "the 17th day of the month."
The second date was on a specific day of the month, "the 17th day of the month."

From the 17th day of the second month, to the 17th day of the seventh month was 150 days.

That's EXACTLY five months, regardless of how you count them.

But in addition to telling us the months, and the days of the months, it tells us the duration, 150 days.

150 days divided by five months is 30 days, on average.

The math is pretty clear here, Clete. What reason do you have to assert that the 150 days was not divided by exactly five thirty-day months? And if they were not 30-day months, then how many days were in each month, that adds up to 150 days?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
And says nothing at all about how it could actually happen in real life.

Afaik, "In the Beginning" was never meant to be a technical explanation of literally every aspect of the theory, which likely would have filled multiple volumes.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Come on, that was uncalled for, Clete. He gave clear scripture to support the claim he made.

150 days / 5 months= 30 days per month

Genesis 7:11 gives the start date of the flood, giving the exact day and month of the year.

Genesis 7:24 gives the duration of the flood in days.

Genesis 8:3-4 gives the end date of the flood, giving the exact day and month of the year.
It was no less called for than when he said it to me. Indeed, more so because I actually responded to that point by demonstrating that a month can be pretty nearly anything close to 30 days and, in fact, the passages of Genesis are not there to intimate to us that months are 30 days. That isn't the point of the passages nor is it even a reasonable lesson one can draw from the passage. It is more or less a point of trivia that the passages are consistent with 30 day months but so was the Egyptian calendar that Moses grew up with and that most of the world used, a major exception being the Jews who most definitely DID NOT have 30 months! Their months were normal lunar months (i.e. not precisely 30 days) that they then adjusted as needed to coincide with the beginning of the year.

Incidentally, the Egyptians had a 360 day year that they added an extra five days to every year in the form of festivals or whatever. In short, there is no evidence of any culture anywhere that had an actual 360 day year. They practically all have seven day weeks and have a flood tradition but not a 360 day year. Image that! They all agree the thing that is supposed to have caused the year to be longer is agreed upon the world over but nary a peep from any civilization anywhere about an actual 360 day year.

From the first date given to the second date given is 150 days.
The first date was on a specific day of the month, "the 17th day of the month."
The second date was on a specific day of the month, "the 17th day of the month."

From the 17th day of the second month, to the 17th day of the seventh month was 150 days.

That's EXACTLY five months, regardless of how you count them.
Yes, I understand that. It doesn't argue that the Earth's orbit slowed down.

But in addition to telling us the months, and the days of the months, it tells us the duration, 150 days.

150 days divided by five months is 30 days, on average.
On average. I can live with that! It is consistent with both the text and with every known use of the word "month" that has been used by every culture throughout the history of mankind. In short, "on average" is hardly proof that the world used to orbit the Sun in 360 days.

The math is pretty clear here, Clete. What reason do you have to assert that the 150 days was not divided by exactly five thirty-day months? And if they were not 30-day months, then how many days were in each month, that adds up to 150 days?
I am not disputing that!

What I am disputing is that these passages are somehow proof, or even valid evidence, that the Earth's orbit has slowed down and that it now takes an extra five days longer to go around than it used to before the flood. There is simply no good reason to believe that; not that has ever been presented to me, anyway. And, yes, I heard Pastor Enyart speak about it many times. It's one of a very few things he taught that I'm a long way from being convinced is correct, which is a very short list, by the way...

  • 360 day year
  • the origin of comets
  • the age of accountability
  • the choosing of a king by random lot for any nation not being directly and supernaturally protected by God

I think that's the whole list of things that I'm not on base with Pastor Enyart on. You probably remember me telling people on more than one occasion that I am very much accustomed to the idea that Pastor Enyart is (was - well still is) very much smarter than I am - very much and that I generally would reserve any disagreement that I might have with what he taught in abeyance and presumed that I was wrong and that he was right until given good reason to think otherwise. Even now, I default to that position and if any of you guys can show me where I'm wrong rather than just telling that I am wrong then I'll happily concede. I have no dog in this hunt aside from an elegance to the actual truth.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Afaik, "In the Beginning" was never meant to be a technical explanation of literally every aspect of the theory, which likely would have filled multiple volumes.
Quite so, which was the point I was making. He wrote it in layman's terms.

I'm not saying that he couldn't write the stuff up in more scientifically formal ways and do the math and all that. I'm sure that he is very capable of doing so. In fact, I wish he would, or, if he has done so already, that he would publish the work. It would go a very long way towards answering these objections that I have.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Quite so, which was the point I was making. He wrote it in layman's terms.

I'm not saying that he couldn't write the stuff up in more scientifically formal ways and do the math and all that. I'm sure that he is very capable of doing so. In fact, I wish he would, or, if he has done so already, that he would publish the work. It would go a very long way towards answering these objections that I have.

I will point out that He did have technical notes in his book. I linked to them before, but you never gave any indication of having viewed them. Here is the post with those links again:

Clete, you keep hinting at a belief that the acceleration was instantaneous.

The HPT does not assert that it was.

Consider the rail-mounted guns developed by the Germans in WW2.

View attachment 12169
View attachment 12170

They were designed to launch projectiles long ranges without vaporizing them in the process.

They did so by having extremely long barrels.

The HPT asserts that there was a roughly 60-mile "barrel" that was the crack in the earth's crust that would have accelerated the supercritical fluids from beneath the crust to escape velocities and higher.

In other words, your "immediate acceleration would vaporize the material" objection doesn't apply to at least most of the material ejected with the Fountains, even accounting for the spikes in pressure caused by the "fluttering" of the crust as the SCFs escaped.

You can accelerate something quite a lot over a distance of 60 miles, even without super high amounts of energy being applied constantly.

The "rocket science" of it all is here.


More technical notes links:

 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Incidentally, the Egyptians had a 360 day year that they added an extra five days to every year in the form of festivals or whatever.

Yes, that's my point. They had to ADD days to the calendar, because a 360-day calendar would result in incorrect dates, and eventually calling for harvest in the middle of winter, had they not made adjustments.

In short, there is no evidence of any culture anywhere that had an actual 360 day year.

This is simply false. Many ancient cultures had 360-day calendars. Here's a list:

See also the https://kgov.com/360 link as well.

Yes, I understand that. It doesn't argue that the Earth's orbit slowed down.

It wasn't an argument for that. It was evidence for 30-day months prior to the end of the flood.

It is more or less a point of trivia that the passages are consistent with 30 day months but so was the Egyptian calendar that Moses grew up with and that most of the world used, a major exception being the Jews who most definitely DID NOT have 30 months! Their months were normal lunar months (i.e. not precisely 30 days) that they then adjusted as needed to coincide with the beginning of the year.

Easily explained by God knowing exactly the amount of time it would take for the moon to orbit at the point He implemented such a calendar.

Food for thought, maybe part of the reason God waited so long to reimplement His calendar for Israel was because He was waiting for the rotations and orbits of the moon and earth to stabilize after the flood...

It was no less called for than when he said it to me.

You're right, and I should have called him out for it. @Right Divider don't do that either.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I will point out that He did have technical notes in his book. I linked to them before, but you never gave any indication of having viewed them. Here is the post with those links again:
Okay, so I want to point out that I am limited on time with these posts and that because I don't have all day, everyday to spend on this stuff, I go a lot on memory from what I've read in the past and on the fact that you guys are usually very honest and quick to agree about one point or another if that point is genuinely valid. I am therefore convinced that the impasse in communication here is my fault and am going to try again....

I think that my use of the word "instantaneous" has been a source of confusion. When I talk about this material being accelerated almost "instantaneously", I am not saying anything that Dr. Brown himself didn't say in his book. The gun analogy that I've been using comes straight out of Dr. Brown's book and what I've been talking about has been intended to be entirely consistent with the following.....

"However, in the fountains of the great deep, every fluid bundle, throughout the entire column, expanded continuously because of the properties of supercritical water and its vast energy content. The column’s expansion was extreme, because the surrounding pressure dropped, in seconds, from the enormous pressure in the subterranean water to almost zero pressure in the vacuum of space.​
A closer analogy than that of a standard propulsion system is a bullet traveling down a gun tube. A propellant burns and generates gas throughout the expanding gas behind the bullet, steadily accelerating the bullet until it leaves the gun tube. Some pistols, many rifles, and most artillery pieces steadily accelerate their projectiles to supersonic velocities while in relatively short gun tubes. [See “Paris Gun,” Figure 215 on page 410.] The fountains were in an approximately 60-mile-long “gun tube,” not to mention the hundreds-to-thousands of miles of acceleration before and after reaching that “tube.” Back pressure from the escaping SCW (like the recoil of a gun or the thrust of a rocket) retarded the flow of SCW trying to escape from the chamber." [emphasis added]​
My objection here, which I can remember thinking about years ago when this material was brand new and only existed in a hard cover book that I purchased from Bob's ministry a couple of decades ago, has to do with the stresses that the material would undergo while being accelerated to 32 miles/sec "in seconds" (which is stupid fast, by the way). Even if the appropriate about of energy was there, it is the NEARLY instantaneous application of that energy that would rip the material into bits. And I mean itsy bitsy tiny bits, where some of the atoms are having their electrons ripped off. No kind of rock is made of material that could withstand it and remain in the form of a rock. Even if the stresses weren't enough to ionize the material, it would be enough to overcome the forces holding the molecules of rock together. The rock, at the very least, would crushed by the g-forces into powder.

And I'm NOT just saying that because I have some baseless desire to disbelieve this theory. I know for a fact that much much tougher materials (like stainless steel and tungsten) get turned into plasma at energies and velocities very much lower than what Dr. Brown is talking about. The primary difference being that while Dr. Brown is talking about accelerating material, these ionized projectiles were decelerating because of an impact but the stresses on the material are the same in type (i.e. deceleration is just acceleration in the direction opposite of travel). These ionized projectiles were going very much slower but decelerated much faster while Dr. Brown's material accelerated for a longer period of time but at very very much higher velocities. Either way, its the extreme g-forces (i.e. the extreme acceleration) that's the issue. Think of a material being in the shockwave of an atomic explosion but instead of it being in it for a micro second as it passes at the speed of sound, imagine the material being subjected to several hundreds of times that amount of force for several seconds.

I'm telling you guys, its a real problem that, to date, no one has addressed or even hardly understood, which again, I chalk up to my inability to properly articulate it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Yes, that's my point. They had to ADD days to the calendar, because a 360-day calendar would result in incorrect dates, and eventually calling for harvest in the middle of winter, had they not made adjustments.



This is simply false. Many ancient cultures had 360-day calendars. Here's a list:

See also the https://kgov.com/360 link as well.
None of them had ACTUAL 360 day calendars! They used callenders that had 360 days but they all added the extra five days in one way or the other.

The point here is that Bob's theory is their use of 360 days is a left over from the time before the flood but that's speculation. The fact of the matter is that 360 is a much more convenient number to use than 365. The advantages using 360 gives far out weighed the hassle of having to add the extra five days each year. In other words, there's more than one reason that a culture would want to use a 360 day calendar even though they all knew that the year was almost a week longer than that. It simply isn't the proof that the Earth used to have a 360 day year that some want it to be.

Also, has anyone thought about the fact that a 360 day year would require the Earth to be about 1% closer to the Sun than it is today? That, among other things, would make total solar eclipses impossible, unless the Moon was pulled in closer to the Earth by the same percentage. Total solar eclipses are presented all the time by Christians as evidence of God's clock work precision in His creation. Does that issue bother you at all?

It wasn't an argument for that. It was evidence for 30-day months prior to the end of the flood.
Yes, in the context of there being a 360 day year. The number 360 is divisible evenly by both 12 and 30. Nice and convenient but not evidence that no one had to deal with the five extra days as every ancient culture all over the planet did in various and sometimes quite convoluted ways. There simply is no historical evidence that anyone every thought that the year was actually only 360 days long. Every 360 calendar had ways of dealing with the left over days.

Easily explained by God knowing exactly the amount of time it would take for the moon to orbit at the point He implemented such a calendar.
There is no evidence that He ever instituted any such calendar. God said which month would start the year off but there's no record of him instituting a twelve month calendar with 360 days a year.

Food for thought, maybe part of the reason God waited so long to reimplement His calendar for Israel was because He was waiting for the rotations and orbits of the moon and earth to stabilize after the flood...
The only calendar He implemented was a modification of the one that already existed and He didn't say that each month had thirty days or that the year had 360 days nor did He adjust anything to account for an extra five days. Basically, the Jewish calendar was based on Lunar months and was adjusted to keep up with reality.

You're right, and I should have called him out for it. @Right Divider don't do that either.
(y)

My doing it was to illustrate how uncalled for it was, by the way. What's good for the Gander - if you will.
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Okay, so I want to point out that I am limited on time with these posts and that because I don't have all day, everyday to spend on this stuff, I go a lot on memory from what I've read in the past and on the fact that you guys are usually very honest and quick to agree about one point or another if that point is genuinely valid. I am therefore convinced that the impasse in communication here is my fault and am going to try again....

I think that my use of the word "instantaneous" has been a source of confusion. When I talk about this material being accelerated almost "instantaneously", I am not saying anything that Dr. Brown himself didn't say in his book. The gun analogy that I've been using comes straight out of Dr. Brown's book and what I've been talking about has been intended to be entirely consistent with the following.....

"However, in the fountains of the great deep, every fluid bundle, throughout the entire column, expanded continuously because of the properties of supercritical water and its vast energy content. The column’s expansion was extreme, because the surrounding pressure dropped, in seconds, from the enormous pressure in the subterranean water to almost zero pressure in the vacuum of space.​
A closer analogy than that of a standard propulsion system is a bullet traveling down a gun tube. A propellant burns and generates gas throughout the expanding gas behind the bullet, steadily accelerating the bullet until it leaves the gun tube. Some pistols, many rifles, and most artillery pieces steadily accelerate their projectiles to supersonic velocities while in relatively short gun tubes. [See “Paris Gun,” Figure 215 on page 410.] The fountains were in an approximately 60-mile-long “gun tube,” not to mention the hundreds-to-thousands of miles of acceleration before and after reaching that “tube.” Back pressure from the escaping SCW (like the recoil of a gun or the thrust of a rocket) retarded the flow of SCW trying to escape from the chamber." [emphasis added]​
My objection here, which I can remember thinking about years ago when this material was brand new and only existed in a hard cover book that I purchased from Bob's ministry a couple of decades ago, has to do with the stresses that the material would undergo while being accelerated to 32 miles/sec "in seconds" (which is stupid fast, by the way). Even if the appropriate about of energy was there, it is the NEARLY instantaneous application of that energy that would rip the material into bits. And I mean itsy bitsy tiny bits, where some of the atoms are having their electrons ripped off. No kind of rock is made of material that could withstand it and remain in the form of a rock. Even if the stresses weren't enough to ionize the material, it would be enough to overcome the forces holding the molecules of rock together. The rock, at the very least, would crushed by the g-forces into powder.

And I'm NOT just saying that because I have some baseless desire to disbelieve this theory. I know for a fact that much much tougher materials (like stainless steel and tungsten) get turned into plasma at energies and velocities very much lower than what Dr. Brown is talking about. The primary difference being that while Dr. Brown is talking about accelerating material, these ionized projectiles were decelerating because of an impact but the stresses on the material are the same in type (i.e. deceleration is just acceleration in the direction opposite of travel). These ionized projectiles were going very much slower but decelerated much faster while Dr. Brown's material accelerated for a longer period of time but at very very much higher velocities. Either way, its the extreme g-forces (i.e. the extreme acceleration) that's the issue. Think of a material being in the shockwave of an atomic explosion but instead of it being in it for a micro second as it passes at the speed of sound, imagine the material being subjected to several hundreds of times that amount of force for several seconds.

I'm telling you guys, its a real problem that, to date, no one has addressed or even hardly understood, which again, I chalk up to my inability to properly articulate it.
A couple things.

First, since we already can sling objects into sub-orbital trajectories I don't see the "obvious" problem with the inner portion of the ejection stream actually reaching escape velocity.

Second, the 360 day year evidence is very compelling. It reveals that, yes, the closer we get back in the timeline to the flood the more the cultures seemed to think the 360 day year was the norm before the flood.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
None of them had ACTUAL 360 day calendars! They used callenders that had 360 days but they all added the extra five days in one way or the other.

If they had had 365.24-day calendars to begin with, why not use a 365.24-day calendar?

The extra 5.24 days seems like an afterthought, not part of the original calendar, for ANY of the cultures.

Also, in the book of Revelation, there are TWO instances where it specifically uses 360 day years, and not 365 days.


Hebrew Calendar and the Bible's Year: John wrote the Book of Revelation in about 95 A.D., a century and a half after the Julian calendar reform of 45 B.C. which adopted a 365-day calendar with modern leap years. However, in verses 11:2-3; 12:6, 12:14; and 13:5, John explicitly indicates a year of 360 days. By a 365-day calendar, three and a half years would equal 1278 days. However, John wrote of 1,260 days (3.5 * 360) in Revelation 11:3 & 12:6, which equals exactly the three and a half (360-day) years that he mentions in Revelation 12:14. That number also exactly equals the 42 months of Revelation 11:2 and 13:5. These year and month equivalents are exactly equal, and only equal 1,260 days, when calculating with months of 30 days each. Additionally, the prophet Daniel proclaimed, "Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, for wisdom and might are His. And He changes the times and seasons..." (Dan. 2:20-21). Of course this could be a reference to the seasons as in Genesis 8:22. The first Hebrew word Daniel used in that statement is typically translated moment, time, or times, and the second word here rendered "seasons" is also translated times, or appointed period, epochs, or time. Thus Daniel may have been suggesting to his ancient audience that God's power was evident even in the world's changing calendars. As an end-times prophet, Daniel's book refers us to the latter days. Thus in the Lord's prophetic countdown in the Book of Revelation toward the New Creation, though written in the age of the modern calendar, God used His own originally perfect length of the year. The Book of Esther implies a 30/360 calendar in that King Ahasuerus reigned over 127 provinces (Esther 1:1; notice this is not rounded). And the king "made a feast lasting seven days" (i.e., one week; Esther 1:5) just after a feast of "one hundred and eighty days" (i.e., half a year; Esther 1:4) suggesting that those 180 days were exactly six months. Other passages consistent with Revelation's explicit 360-day year include Daniel 7:25 and 12:11-12. Finally, regarding the global flood, Genesis 7:11 7:24 and 8:3-4 twice mention a period of exactly 150 days, the five months from the 17th day of the second month to the 17th day of the seventh month. Because lunar months vary between 29 and 30 days and not until Roman times did men use a 31-day month, Moses here records calendar dates that present a pre-flood 30-day month, assuming the use of exclusive counting (as in Neh. 5:1). Thus like Daniel and Esther, Genesis too implies a 360-day year as consistent with what is explicit in Revelation.



The point here is that Bob's theory is their use of 360 days is a left over from the time before the flood but that's speculation.

It fits the evidence for a fallen creation affected by the flood, a creation made "very good," and orderly. 365.24 days to a year isn't very good nor orderly. It looks more like a fallen creation.

The fact of the matter is that 360 is a much more convenient number to use than 365.

So we use it, but not God?

That seems backwards.

The advantages using 360 gives far out weighed the hassle of having to add the extra five days each year. In other words, there's more than one reason that a culture would want to use a 360 day calendar even though they all knew that the year was almost a week longer than that.

Or, the calendar was originally 360 days, and something happened that added an extra almost 5 and a quarter days to the year, which is easily explained by the flood.

It simply isn't the proof that the Earth used to have a 360 day year that some want it to be.

Who said anything about "proof"?

Also, has anyone thought about the fact that a 360 day year would require the Earth to be about 1% closer to the Sun than it is today?

No, it wouldn't.

It would simply require the earth to revolve slightly slower. 360 times per year, instead of 365.24 times per year.

That, among other things, would make total solar eclipses impossible, unless the Moon was pulled in closer to the Earth by the same percentage. Total solar eclipses are presented all the time by Christians as evidence of God's clock work precision in His creation. Does that issue bother you at all?

365.24 (and that's not even a precise number, but is good enough for the most part) days seems more like the clockwork got damaged somehow, which causes the clock to run slightly faster.

360 days in a year is far better for clockwork.

Yes, in the context of there being a 360 day year. The number 360 is divisible evenly by both 12 and 30.

It's divisible by a LOT more numbers than that, as I listed above.

It makes perfect sense for God to set the earth in motion so that it rotates 360 times per year, because it's divisible by so many numbers, INCLUDING 24 (the number of hours in a day).

Nice and convenient but not evidence that no one had to deal with the five extra days as every ancient culture all over the planet did in various and sometimes quite convoluted ways.

Do you think that God, an excellent designer, would design the earth to rotate 365.24 times per year, which would make His creation have to come up with these convoluted ways to deal with the extra 5.24 days in addition to the 360 days calendars they came up with?

Or does it seem more likely that God, the excellent designer, would design His earth to rotate 360 times per orbit, thereby allowing His creation to design their calendars with a year made up of 12 months, 30 days in a month, 24 hours in a day, but because of sin, just as a little leaven leavens the whole lump, has affected (albeit indirectly) even the rotation of the earth? And lets not forget that 365.24 is not nicely divisible by 3 (https://kgov.com/three), and that 360 divided by 3 is 10 times 12 = 120, just like there is 12 tribes of Israel, and 12 is 3 times 4.

There simply is no historical evidence that anyone every thought that the year was actually only 360 days long. Every 360 calendar had ways of dealing with the left over days.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

The point is that it's a 360 day year PLUS 5.24 days.

There is no evidence that He ever instituted any such calendar. God said which month would start the year off but there's no record of him instituting a twelve month calendar with 360 days a year.

This is what I meant.

The only calendar He implemented was a modification of the one that already existed and He didn't say that each month had thirty days or that the year had 360 days nor did He adjust anything to account for an extra five days. Basically, the Jewish calendar was based on Lunar months and was adjusted to keep up with reality.

So the Hebrews can adjust their calendar to keep up with reality, but other civilizations' calendars are not adjustments to keep up with reality?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
A couple things.

First, since we already can sling objects into sub-orbital trajectories I don't see the "obvious" problem with the inner portion of the ejection stream actually reaching escape velocity.
Escape velocity, I have no problem with. It's the idea that these very large amounts of material were flung, not just into orbit around the Earth and not just around the Sun in extremely eccentric orbits but that way more material than that was flung clear past Mars and even out past Neptune!

Just stating it is nearly enough to prove it wrong. To claim that sufficient velocity could be imparted to that amount of material (or any amount of rocky material for that matter) in only seconds and have the material still exist as rock, strains credulity in the extreme. The stuff would disintegrate into powder, if it could happen at all.

Second, the 360 day year evidence is very compelling.
I completely disagree. It is literally based on speculation. I would agree that the Earth originally having a 360 day year would be one way to explain why ancient societies liked to use 360 day calendars but that isn't evidence, that's a hypothesis.

It reveals that, yes, the closer we get back in the timeline to the flood the more the cultures seemed to think the 360 day year was the norm before the flood.
It doesn't reveal that. That's just speculation.

Look, I'm not saying its stupidity. I'm just saying that its speculation.

The hard fact is that every one of these ancient civilizations that used 360 day calendars knew that the year was longer than that and they used various ways to deal with it. Everyone seems to just ignore that point. They clearly liked using 360 days, but to take that, by itself, and leap to the conclusion that these 360 day calendars are vestiges of an actual 360 day long antediluvian year is simply speculation. Speculation that ignores all of the other possible explanations, not the least of which is the fact that 360 is a very much easier number to deal with when dividing something up and there is at least as much evidence that this is the reason for using a 360 day calendar than believing that there used to be a 360 day year.

And so, I say it again...

There is no scientific or historical evidence that the Earth ever had a actual 360 day year.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If they had had 365.24-day calendars to begin with, why not use a 365.24-day calendar?
Because 360 is a very much easier number to work with.

The extra 5.24 days seems like an afterthought, not part of the original calendar, for ANY of the cultures.
That's one interpretation but superstitious cultures probably liked the "perfection" implied by the number 360 and they concocted all sorts of beliefs and ceremonies and rituals and the like surrounding the extra days.

Also, in the book of Revelation, there are TWO instances where it specifically uses 360 day years, and not 365 days.
So what? Are you implying that John didn't know how long the year was?

The Jewish calendar used a 360 day year and the date was periodically adjusted to coincide with reality. This includes the religious practice of figuring out the timing of prophetic events, which were indeed based on a 360 day calendar.

In other words, I do not deny that 360 day calendars were used in ancient times. What I deny is that there is any actual evidence to support the leap from that fact to the idea that the Earth used to actually have 360 day years.

It fits the evidence for a fallen creation affected by the flood, a creation made "very good," and orderly. 365.24 days to a year isn't very good nor orderly. It looks more like a fallen creation.
That's your opinion, and does not count as actual evidence.

The current orbit that Earth is in is precisely perfect for life on this planet and the Earth just so happens to be precisely the same number of times further away from the Sun as the Moon is smaller than the Sun, which is why total solar eclipses can happen here and nowhere else (perhaps literally NOWHERE else in the universe).

So we use it, but not God?

That seems backwards.
God did not set up the calendar, JR.

Or, the calendar was originally 360 days, and something happened that added an extra almost 5 and a quarter days to the year, which is easily explained by the flood.
I agree that it is a possibility but there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.

Who said anything about "proof"?
I said that I wasn't convinced that the Earth ever had a 360 day year and you started acting like I just pick and choose the things I desire to accept from the bible. If either of us is being dogmatic here, it's you, not me!

No, it wouldn't.

It would simply require the earth to revolve slightly slower. 360 times per year, instead of 365.24 times per year.
This is incorrect. If the Earth goes slower, then it's orbit moves in toward the Sun (Kepler's third law). The distance of an orbiting body is the result of the balance of the gravitational attraction between the two bodies and the angular momentum of those bodies. It is not possible to orbit at this distance and have a 360 day year, especially if the Earth had more mass, which would increase it's angular momentum even more, although probably not enough to make hardly any difference.

Incidentally, I've done further investigation into this point and it turns out that the difference would be less than 1%. It would, in fact, be about .28%. This difference would still permit the occurrence of total solar eclipses, just less frequently, with annular eclipses becoming the more frequent type of eclipse.

In short, I think it isn't a sufficiently big difference to be used as a valid argument against Dr. Brown's theory.

365.24 (and that's not even a precise number, but is good enough for the most part) days seems more like the clockwork got damaged somehow, which causes the clock to run slightly faster.

360 days in a year is far better for clockwork.
Again, that's an opinion, not an argument.

An opinion that I am sort of inclined to agree with, by the way, but that's beside the point.

It's divisible by a LOT more numbers than that, as I listed above.
I listed the entire list of divisors of 360 myself. It was not suggesting that those were the only two. If that were the case then 365 would be superior!

It makes perfect sense for God to set the earth in motion so that it rotates 360 times per year, because it's divisible by so many numbers, INCLUDING 24 (the number of hours in a day).
I agree but, once again, our personal opinions are not evidence. The fact that we like an idea isn't evidence for that idea.

Do you think that God, an excellent designer, would design the earth to rotate 365.24 times per year, which would make His creation have to come up with these convoluted ways to deal with the extra 5.24 days in addition to the 360 days calendars they came up with?

Or does it seem more likely that God, the excellent designer, would design His earth to rotate 360 times per orbit, thereby allowing His creation to design their calendars with a year made up of 12 months, 30 days in a month, 24 hours in a day, but because of sin, just as a little leaven leavens the whole lump, has affected (albeit indirectly) even the rotation of the earth? And lets not forget that 365.24 is not nicely divisible by 3 (https://kgov.com/three), and that 360 divided by 3 is 10 times 12 = 120, just like there is 12 tribes of Israel, and 12 is 3 times 4.
The only evidence that exists would show that this is what He did.

Do you think that God, an excelled designer, would design a universe so vast that we, the pinnacle of His creation, would have to invent wildly complex machines in order to learn about and explore even the closest object to us?

That question is rhetorical. If you answer it directly, it means you missed the point of my asking it. That point being that God made the universe the way He made it and we have nothing to say about it, except, WOW! Our personal opinions about how it could have been done differently are maybe interesting topics of discussion but do not serve as evidence that God actually did do it another way.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

The point is that it's a 360 day year PLUS 5.24 days.
I'm not missing anything.

The fact is that every calendar we know anything about dealt with the actual 365 day solar year in one way or another. The explanation of the fact that they took the form of 360 plus 5 and 1/4 days as being because the actual solar year used to be 360 days is a viable hypothesis which, unfortunately, has no actual evidence to place that explanation above any other.

This is what I meant.
(y)

So the Hebrews can adjust their calendar to keep up with reality, but other civilizations' calendars are not adjustments to keep up with reality?
I don't understand.

So far as I am aware, every culture that had a calendar that was based on 360 days also had mechanisms by which the extra 5 days were accounted for, not just the Hebrews.
 
Top