Coal reserves - how did they get to where they are?
Views: 674
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Thomas Posey on -
That was my take as well.
Justin Mooney said:The pitch for coating wooden ships was made from pine tree resin, not petroleum. http://creation.com/the-pitch-for-noahs-ark
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on -
Actually the word for pitch used in Genesis 6:14 is KaPHaR (verb) and KoPHeR (noun). Elsewhere in the Old Testament it is translated in noun form as:
"Covering," "Atonement," "Ransom," "Covered [place]," "bitumen (any resin)," "bribe," "payment," "ransom," "redemption;"
and in verb form as
first of all "cover," then "expiate," "atone," "cancel," "appease," "make atonement," "cleanse," "forgive," "pacify," "pardon," "put off [sin[," "reconcile," and "make reconciliation."
In our text it means to cover of course, but there is no clear designation in the word itself as to the nature of the material applied to make that covering. In the AiG article cited above it is asserted that it must have been pine resin, but there is absolutely no way to know for certain what material was used for the coating.
IF petroleum is a fossil product, the remains of dead animals, then we should assume that the resin would not have been petroleum based. But if petroleum might possibly be something God directly created, a stored mineral in the rock of the creation week, then some sort of petroleum based product could indeed have been used in the "pitch."
"Tar" can be made of various substances, including pine sap or petroleum.
The point can not be demanded from the Hebrew that the pitch here was not petroleum based. However we may assume that if all petroleum materials are always only made of previously living organic materials, i.e. fossils buried in the Flood, then the pitch used by Noah was made of some other material. Pine would be a good candidate, but there are all sorts of possibilities when one considers the wide range of organic materials available to Noah and his engineering staff. Pitch simply means "covering," in its most basic form.
But the possible materials are vast. Maybe the compound was composed of some sort of ooze from sea creature or some sort of minerals heated and melted and mixed with some other substance, or something akin to our modern rubber (from the rubber tree). Anyone who would insist that it was pine resin is guessing.
To say categorically and absolutely that it was NOT PETROLEUM is wholly based on a presumption that petroleum is always only a product of the Flood. Maybe they had presses where they heated left over cooking oil under high pressure and refined it to use it in some sort of concoction that was penetrating and flexible that added to the strength of the gopher wood. We should never underestimate or impose our modern decrepit technology upon the more pristine minds and capabilities of the antediluvian geniuses.
Noah's name meant, "He will ease our labor," "comfort concerning the work and toil of our hands." This would seem to suggest that Noah's life constantly providing ease of labor. Maybe he was a great inventor. I wouldn't put it past God to bless a man with a gift in engineering and then use him to build the Ark. Noah knew what He was doing.
-
Permalink Reply by David Thomas Posey on
-
Thanks, Jim, for the detailed response. I know practically nothing about petroleum myself, but I have heard some things that call into question the standard "oil comes from organic remains" argument. As helpful as petroleum products are, I tend to think God could have provided some other means of producing petroleum for pre-flood folks. Still, I reckon there's no way of knowing. As for Noah's pitch, I hadn't thought of rubber, but other tree saps could have turned out some suitable by-products. Glue from animals wouldn't have been in Noah's tool kit because he couldn't kill animals yet, but I think he could manage something.
Jim Brenneman said:Actually the word for pitch used in Genesis 6:14 is KaPHaR (verb) and KoPHeR (noun). Elsewhere in the Old Testament it is translated in noun form as:
"Covering," "Atonement," "Ransom," "Covered [place]," "bitumen (any resin)," "bribe," "payment," "ransom," "redemption;"
and in verb form as
first of all "cover," then "expiate," "atone," "cancel," "appease," "make atonement," "cleanse," "forgive," "pacify," "pardon," "put off [sin[," "reconcile," and "make reconciliation."
In our text it means to cover of course, but there is no clear designation in the word itself as to the nature of the material applied to make that covering. In the AiG article cited above it is asserted that it must have been pine resin, but there is absolutely no way to know for certain what material was used for the coating.
IF petroleum is a fossil product, the remains of dead animals, then we should assume that the resin would not have been petroleum based. But if petroleum might possibly be something God directly created, a stored mineral in the rock of the creation week, then some sort of petroleum based product could indeed have been used in the "pitch."
"Tar" can be made of various substances, including pine sap or petroleum.
The point can not be demanded from the Hebrew that the pitch here was not petroleum based. However we may assume that if all petroleum materials are always only made of previously living organic materials, i.e. fossils buried in the Flood, then the pitch used by Noah was made of some other material. Pine would be a good candidate, but there are all sorts of possibilities when one considers the wide range of organic materials available to Noah and his engineering staff. Pitch simply means "covering," in its most basic form.
But the possible materials are vast. Maybe the compound was composed of some sort of ooze from sea creature or some sort of minerals heated and melted and mixed with some other substance, or something akin to our modern rubber (from the rubber tree). Anyone who would insist that it was pine resin is guessing.
To say categorically and absolutely that it was NOT PETROLEUM is wholly based on a presumption that petroleum is always only a product of the Flood. Maybe they had presses where they heated left over cooking oil under high pressure and refined it to use it in some sort of concoction that was penetrating and flexible that added to the strength of the gopher wood. We should never underestimate or impose our modern decrepit technology upon the more pristine minds and capabilities of the antediluvian geniuses.
Noah's name meant, "He will ease our labor," "comfort concerning the work and toil of our hands." This would seem to suggest that Noah's life constantly providing ease of labor. Maybe he was a great inventor. I wouldn't put it past God to bless a man with a gift in engineering and then use him to build the Ark. Noah knew what He was doing.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on
-
Noah's food was restricted to plants. You said:
Glue from animals wouldn't have been in Noah's tool kit because he couldn't kill animals yet, but I think he could manage something.
WHY NOT?
God made them coats of skins. There was no restriction against killing animals. Abel brought the firstlings of his flock.
And then even if we do (without biblical warrant) restrict the godly from killing animals, there were also animals that were not air-breathing, jelly fish, krill, shell fish, insects, bees wax, etc. There are all kinds of substances available from animal sources that may have been useful for creating a penetrating resin/oil plasticizing coating.
Then the upper window of the Ark called in Hebrew the noon, meaning directly over head, possibly to admit air and light, one wonders whether it had a translucent or even transparent covering. That might have also been a modified form of the pitch, that was clarified so as to provide for admitting light.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on -
If I may jump in here, I think David is referring to Genesis 9:2-3 (cf. Gen. 1:29-30) where permission to eat animals is initially given to humans. Given that Noah was righteous, it is unlikely that he had previously violated this commandment, though many other antediluvians may have, given the wickedness of the pre-flood world.
However, this verse only grants permission to eat animals, and doesn't necessarily indicate that they couldn't kill them for other purposes before that time, like sacrifices. Even so, God's making coats of animal skins doesn't necessarily mean that humans had permission to do the same, since God is morally able to do things that we are not at times (e.g. accept praise, take life, etc.)
-
Permalink Reply by David Thomas Posey on
-
Temporary mental confusion. You're right, killing animals was not forbidden, only eating them.
Jim Brenneman said:Noah's food was restricted to plants. You said:
Glue from animals wouldn't have been in Noah's tool kit because he couldn't kill animals yet, but I think he could manage something.
WHY NOT?
God made them coats of skins. There was no restriction against killing animals. Abel brought the firstlings of his flock.
And then even if we do (without biblical warrant) restrict the godly from killing animals, there were also animals that were not air-breathing, jelly fish, krill, shell fish, insects, bees wax, etc. There are all kinds of substances available from animal sources that may have been useful for creating a penetrating resin/oil plasticizing coating.
Then the upper window of the Ark called in Hebrew the noon, meaning directly over head, possibly to admit air and light, one wonders whether it had a translucent or even transparent covering. That might have also been a modified form of the pitch, that was clarified so as to provide for admitting light.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on
-
Noah was righteous. I doubt that he ate meat. But I would suspect that he did make clothes out of animal skin, following the leading of God, who first clothed Adam and Eve in this manner. There is never a hint that man should not kill animals, unless we read that into the dietary instructions.
Could they use animals as beasts of burden in the world before the flood? Could they kill poisonous snakes or threatening animals, or mosquitoes?
There is no clearly stated prohibition of killing animals. Then also consider the use of biological material from non-air-breathing creatures.
But I think also of all kinds of animal by-products, skins, horns, hair, feathers, molted skins. In mentioning possible ingredients for the "pitch" that was used to cover the ark, there is no limitation or definition anywhere that says it was "pine sap," or "pine resin."
-
Permalink Reply by Donald Smith on -
If the waters covered the whole earth, would those trees need to travel anywhere? :)
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Guiley on -
Not necessarily, but the currents of a global flood would likely carry them elsewhere. So, no, but it is also not necessary that they stay where they were.
Donald Smith said:If the waters covered the whole earth, would those trees need to travel anywhere? :)
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Brenneman on
-
In order for Coal to exist in its present form, it was necessary for some formations that multiple layers of organic material be piled in certain locations and then covered with sediment. So, yes, in some cases the trees and vegetation would need to be washed into localized piles. The process of piling vegetation and then subsequent covering with sediment would be repeated in cycles effected by tides and tectonically generated tsunamis, as well as by cosmic impacts. Just look at the footage of the tiny little Japan tsunami and note how material floating on the surface of the ocean was washed ashore. Multiply this by the tens of thousands and add vegetation debris earlier flood events and you will begin to get a picture of how coal formed.
But as Brian pointed out, some coal seams are of such a size as to be accounted for by the burial of a single lush forest environment being flattened in place and then covered by waves of muddy, sediment laden sludge.
The world that then was, the ancient world perished (2 Peter).
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
