PDA

View Full Version : GR Morton's Biblical Mediterranean Fllod Model



shunyadragon
07-06-2014, 05:59 AM
It has been some time since, years, since I had a dialogue with Glenn concerning his proposal on the old Tweb that the flooding of the Mediterranean fits the 'required' Flood for the Biblical Flood. I had actually had forgotten which flood he was defending for a Biblical flood. Nonetheless I am prepared to go over his article defending his proposal, and give my reasoning for rejecting it.

He opens the article with the following which I agree with:

The Bible is unique among the world's religious writings in its dependence upon critical historical events. Without the creation, without Adam and Eve, without the historical events of the Fall, without the incarnation, and without the resurrection, Christianity is left in shambles. These events have traditionally been viewed as actual events in space-time and are intimately intertwined in Christian theology. In short, Christianity is a historically based religion and as such, the events depicted in the Scriptures must be historically verifiable.

There is one other important historical event mentioned in the Bible and that is the Flood of Noah. The Flood, while not crucial to the theological basis of Christianity (a Christianity lacking the text describing a historical flood would still be the same), is crucial to the veracity of the scriptural documents. The Flood story is related to us by the same document that informs us of three of the five crucial Christian doctrines. If science were to conclude that no flood occurred, then serious doubt would be cast upon the authority of the Scripture and, thus, on the historicity of the earlier temporal events: creation, Adam and Eve, and the Fall.

Glen describes what I call the Achilles’ heel of traditional Christianity very well and why I propose that the foundation doctrine and dogma of Christianity does not remotely fit the known science and history of humanity and our world. The efforts in Christianity to 'make things fit' range from futile attempts at out right rejection of science for a literal inerrant Bible in one form or another to the extreme allegorical interpretation where justification of the Fall, Original Sin and the Flood is lost. Glenn's attempt lies in between, but closer to the fundamentalist view. I believe in the past Glenn has claimed in the past that he still maintains the belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible in harmony with science.

I have a fundamental scientific philosophical problem with trying to make a scientific causal relationship to the claim of a Divinely directed miraculous event that in the claim has no scientific basis. Science must stand alone as the best explanation of the nature of our physical existence and the history of life and humanity.

My greatest objection is that the catastrophic inundation of the Mediterranean 5.3 million years cannot remotely fit the anthropology of human or Homo cultural and technology development required to fit the Biblical account. In the article Glenn presents no evidence to support a human or Homo population that would be adequate.

tabibito
07-06-2014, 06:38 AM
It has been some time since, years, since I had a dialogue with Glenn concerning his proposal on the old Tweb that the flooding of the Mediterranean fits the 'required' Flood for the Biblical Flood. I had actually had forgotten which flood he was defending for a Biblical flood. Nonetheless I am prepared to go over his article defending his proposal, and give my reasoning for rejecting it.

He opens the article with the following which I agree with:

The Bible is unique among the world's religious writings in its dependence upon critical historical events. Without the creation, without Adam and Eve, without the historical events of the Fall, without the incarnation, and without the resurrection, Christianity is left in shambles.
Biblical Christianity takes only the historical facts of incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection as critical to the faith - they alone are recorded in the Bible as essential historical events.


These events have traditionally been viewed as actual events in space-time and are intimately intertwined in Christian theology. In short, Christianity is a historically based religion and as such, the events depicted in the Scriptures must be historically verifiable.

There is one other important historical event mentioned in the Bible and that is the Flood of Noah. The Flood, while not crucial to the theological basis of Christianity (a Christianity lacking the text describing a historical flood would still be the same), is crucial to the veracity of the scriptural documents. The Flood story is related to us by the same document that informs us of three of the five crucial Christian doctrines. If science were to conclude that no flood occurred, then serious doubt would be cast upon the authority of the Scripture and, thus, on the historicity of the earlier temporal events: creation, Adam and Eve, and the Fall. The flood has as much bearing on Christian precepts as do the creation and fall. Which is to say, they are used in expository passages. However, the fable of the fox and the grapes could as readily be used in an expository passage - without any need for the existence of a literal fox.


Glen describes what I call the Achilles’ heel of traditional Christianity very well and why I propose that the foundation doctrine and dogma of Christianity does not remotely fit the known science and history of humanity and our world. Achilles heel? The life and death of Christ are attested even in the Targums - albeit with a viewpoint that portrays the Christ in unfavourable terms.
The efforts in Christianity to 'make things fit' range from futile attempts at out right rejection of science for a literal inerrant Bible in one form or another to the extreme allegorical interpretation where justification of the Fall, Original Sin and the Flood is lost. The precept of original sin is denied by the Old Testament.
Glenn's attempt lies in between, but closer to the fundamentalist view. I believe in the past Glenn has claimed in the past that he still maintains the belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible in harmony with science.

I have a fundamental scientific philosophical problem with trying to make a scientific causal relationship to the claim of a Divinely directed miraculous event that in the claim has no scientific basis. Science must stand alone as the best explanation of the nature of our physical existence and the history of life and humanity.

My greatest objection is that the catastrophic inundation of the Mediterranean 5.3 million years cannot remotely fit the anthropology of human or Homo cultural and technology development required to fit the Biblical account. In the article Glenn presents no evidence to support a human or Homo population that would be adequate. The only possible time slot for a flood, if it was physical, would be between 200 000 and 50 000 years ago - or rather, between 150 000 and 70 000 years ago (on the basis of the most current data I have available). IF there was a "Noahic" flood, it would have to have affected the region around the Omo River, and before any migration of h sap sap had expanded beyond that region.

Truthseeker
07-06-2014, 11:23 AM
"Historically verifiable"? AFAICS, there are essentially two ways to verify that a given document is historically accurate: 1) Question people who claim to be eyewitnesses. 2) Apply scientific knowledge to extant physical evidence and make inferences as much as Sherlock Holmes did in A Study in Scarlet when he minutely examined the room in which the first murder occurred. With the Bible, the first way is not possible, all eyewitnesses, if any, are now dead. The second way fails when a sentient being such as the Lord God interferes with the natural course of the universe; for example, holding a book thus preventing its fall to the ground, in seeming violation of the Law of Gravitation.

Consider when the Exodus Israeli crossed the Red Sea. There were a great many eyewitnesses, including citizens of Egypt, which lost a whole army, but they are all dead now. As for scientific evidence, I rather doubt there would be any extant now.

The crossing is not historically verifiable, is it?

shunyadragon
07-06-2014, 12:57 PM
Biblical Christianity takes only the historical facts of incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection as critical to the faith - they alone are recorded in the Bible as essential historical events.


The flood has as much bearing on Christian precepts as do the creation and fall. Which is to say, they are used in expository passages. However, the fable of the fox and the grapes could as readily be used in an expository passage - without any need for the existence of a literal fox.

The flood of Genesis is described and has been considered a literal fact, up until recently with the advent of modern science a literal world wide event. through most of the history of Christianity. Many Christians today still insist on a literal world wide flood in the literal Biblical context. The talking fox has never been described in the parable as a real fox.



Achilles heel? The life and death of Christ are attested even in the Targums - albeit with a viewpoint that portrays the Christ in unfavourable terms.

As far as I have read the Targums do not attest to anything during the life of Jesus during his life, but may attest to a response to Christian claims concerning Christ later. This claim does not relate to the problem of tying necessary events and beliefs in traditional Christianity to ancient mythic literature that has no relevance, does not fit,' to our contemporary knowledge of the history of humanity.


The precept of original sin is denied by the Old Testament.

You and/or your church may believe that, but the precept of 'Original Sin' is not specifically denied in the OT, and that is not the issue here. As Glenn described the precept of 'Original Sin' is considered essential to traditional Christianity in terms of the 'Fall,' 'Original Sin,' Incarnation and 'Resurrection.' That is the issue where the historical events are essential.


The only possible time slot for a flood, if it was physical, would be between 200 000 and 50 000 years ago - or rather, between 150 000 and 70 000 years ago (on the basis of the most current data I have available). IF there was a "Noahic" flood, it would have to have affected the region around the Omo River, and before any migration of h sap sap had expanded beyond that region.

Actually, if there was a flood of sorts, this time slot is out. The technology of the culture during the period the Noahic flood took place would be clearly later then this paleolithic stone age world cultures before 50,000 years ago. All over the world there were many local and regional castastrophic floods that could be understood by a culture as a world flood well after 50,000 years ago, particularly during the retreat of the glaciers.

shunyadragon
07-06-2014, 01:04 PM
"Historically verifiable"? AFAICS, there are essentially two ways to verify that a given document is historically accurate: 1) Question people who claim to be eyewitnesses. 2) Apply scientific knowledge to extant physical evidence and make inferences as much as Sherlock Holmes did in A Study in Scarlet when he minutely examined the room in which the first murder occurred. With the Bible, the first way is not possible, all eyewitnesses, if any, are now dead. The second way fails when a sentient being such as the Lord God interferes with the natural course of the universe; for example, holding a book thus preventing its fall to the ground, in seeming violation of the Law of Gravitation.

OK, maybe?, but does not contribute to a viable argument.


Consider when the Exodus Israeli crossed the Red Sea. There were a great many eyewitnesses, including citizens of Egypt, which lost a whole army, but they are all dead now. As for scientific evidence, I rather doubt there would be any extant now.

Those reported to have witnessed and participated in the Exodus left no known records from the time the event is claimed to have taken place.


The crossing is not historically verifiable, is it?

Correct. By the biblical descriptions the route reported represent the known trading routes through the Sinai. The claims of the numbers involved do not work, and there is no evidence of such an invasion of the Palestine region at the time frame claimed in the Bible.

shunyadragon
07-06-2014, 01:33 PM
Glenn's knowledge and description of the Mediterranean is very accurate. His conclusion that this is the event described as Noah's flood described in the Bible in his conclusions:

The model of Noah's Flood presented here is a novel but plausible scenario for the Flood, which fits all the disparate facts outlined in Genesis and in the geological record of the Mediterranean. The model handles the listed problems as follows:

1. The localization of the human race. The view must assume that one of three conditions held: (1) the flood occurred early enough in human history so that there was not widespread migration throughout the world; (2) the lands surrounding the Mediterranean were too hostile to navigate (but this violates God's command to fill the earth); or (3) humankind, in its rebellion, refused to disperse. A refusal to disperse could have some bearing on God's reaction to a similar refusal to disperse at Babel.

2 The location of the local flood is identified. The importance of this is that it allows rational discussion of the implications which the view predicts. Evidence for and against the view can be collected. It also removes the nebulousness of most local flood theories.

3. The Mediterranean basin provides the only location on earth in which a local flood could transport the ark to the top of 10,000-feet-tall mountains. This most serious of objections to a local flood is negated by the chosen location. Furthermore, the Mediterranean basin exactly fits the hydrologic and mineralogic description of the preflood countryside.


4. The ark was needed to save the lives of Noah and his family and the animals. Due to the vast areas over which rain would occur in such a catastrophe, migration of Noah and the animals would be unlikely.

5. The Mediterranean basin provides the only location which can explain why the flood would last a little over one year in duration.

6. The size of the ark is poorly understood due to a loss of the relevant length of the cubit.

One objection which must be countered is the charge that advocating a local flood is equivalent to giving in to the demands of modern geology. Strictly speaking this is not true since as Filby notes, Matthew Poole in 1670 and Edward Stillingfleet in 1662 both argued for a local flood prior to the advent of geological knowledge.58

From the point of view of a geoscientist who believes the biblical account, it is reassuring that there exists a hypothesis which exactly fits the facts outlined in the biblical record. While this hypothesis is not concordant with the most widely held view of the Flood, it should be judged not upon how well it fits our present view but upon how well it fits the available facts of theology, geology, and physics.

I believe one of the major reasons Glenn focuses on this event as the Noah Flood event because he proposes the ancestors of humanity only inhabited this region at this time 5.3 million years ago making it fit that ALL were wiped out by the flood except the descendants of Noah and his companions.

The claim that pre-human Homo civilization existed at this time in the Mediterranean Basin capable of building an Arc 5.3 million years ago is unreasonable, but similar to the claims of Atlantis, the evidence is now under hundreds if not thousands of feet of sea water.

Regardless of the uncertainty of the length of the cubit, the necessary size of the Arc as described would outside the possibility of such a ship being built and sea worth with the load described including necessary water and food for the animals and humans.

whag
07-06-2014, 01:42 PM
Biblical Christianity takes only the historical facts of incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection as critical to the faith - they alone are recorded in the Bible as essential historical events.[/cite]
The flood has as much bearing on Christian precepts as do the creation and fall. Which is to say, they are used in expository passages. However, the fable of the fox and the grapes could as readily be used in an expository passage - without any need for the existence of a literal fox.
Achilles heel? The life and death of Christ are attested even in the Targums - albeit with a viewpoint that portrays the Christ in unfavourable terms. The precept of original sin is denied by the Old Testament. The only possible time slot for a flood, if it was physical, would be between 200 000 and 50 000 years ago - or rather, between 150 000 and 70 000 years ago (on the basis of the most current data I have available). IF there was a "Noahic" flood, it would have to have affected the region around the Omo River, and before any migration of h sap sap had expanded beyond that region.

How could they even be in a cognitive state to understand who sent the flood and why? They worshipped animals and their ancestors. Maybe not worshipped but thought were alive after passing.

Surely your theology accommodates a more realistic understanding of prehistory.

Truthseeker
07-06-2014, 03:52 PM
Those reported to have witnessed and participated in the Exodus left no known records from the time the event is claimed to have taken place.It may be that you are thinking, no evidence means non-existence or non-occurrence. I quite disagree. One possibility, which I had raised before, is that evidence vanishes with time. Another possibility is that the Exodus people did pass on their stories orally.


Correct. By the biblical descriptions the route reported represent the known trading routes through the Sinai.You mean there was a trading route through the Red Sea? Please, give us some citation of the literature of the study of the ANE.



claims of the numbers involved do not workExplain, please. Numbers of what?



, and there is no evidence of such an invasion of the Palestine region at the time frame claimed in the Bible.Again, what I said about "no evidence" and more above.

Truthseeker
07-06-2014, 04:22 PM
The claim that pre-human Homo civilization existed at this time in the Mediterranean Basin capable of building an Arc 5.3 million years ago is unreasonable, but similar to the claims of Atlantis, the evidence is now under hundreds if not thousands of feet of sea water.

Regardless of the uncertainty of the length of the cubit, the necessary size of the Arc as described would outside the possibility of such a ship being built and sea worth with the load described including necessary water and food for the animals and humans.But the story is that Noah was following God's instructions. As long as beings can handle simple tools like an adz and an axe, and have plenty of time . . .

I cannot prove that scientifically, but do you think your objections are really conclusive?

shunyadragon
07-06-2014, 07:40 PM
It may be that you are thinking, no evidence means non-existence or non-occurrence. I quite disagree. One possibility, which I had raised before, is that evidence vanishes with time. Another possibility is that the Exodus people did pass on their stories orally.

I do not interpret no evidence as non-existence or non-occurrence, or that the events did not possibly happen. No evidence is simply no evidence which reduces the likelihood that the events as recorded in Genesis and Exodus happened the manner they were recorded.


You mean there was a trading route through the Red Sea? Please, give us some citation of the literature of the study of the ANE.

Egypt’s Interactions with Pastoral Nomads in the Sinai, Negev, and Transjordan By Joshua Nielsen

Egypt from ancient times interacted with peoples and territories beyond its own borders in periods of both wartime and peace. Sometimes the interaction was military in nature involving the conquering of peoples and territories, or through political and cultural influences (such as when establishing authority over vassals and Egyptianizing them), through trade, and sometimes through diplomatic correspondence (such as the Amarna letters) and exchanging gifts with foreign dignitaries. The character of Egypt’s interactions with Canaan, particularly in the New Kingdom period (ca. 1550-1070 B.C.), was one of primarily “domination and resistance” as one scholar has phrased it (Hasel 1998: 2). Egypt expanded its empire into Canaan and further north into Syria during the New Kingdom, where at its northerly border it was primarily kept in check by the powerful Hittite empire and also the kingdom of Mitanni.

read on with maps . . .

http://www.bibleistrue.com/qna/pqna55.htm



Explain, please. Numbers of what?

The numbers of Hebrews supposedly in the Exodus.

tabibito
07-07-2014, 01:36 AM
How could they even be in a cognitive state to understand who sent the flood and why? They worshipped animals and their ancestors. Maybe not worshipped but thought were alive after passing.

Surely your theology accommodates a more realistic understanding of prehistory.

KNOWN facts
General:
There are demonstrable errors in the Biblical record.
Specific to the flood:
The Biblical record regarding the time that Noah lived is undeniably incorrect.
There is no evidence of a flood that submerged all the land of the planet.
Estimates put subterranean reserves of water at somewhere between 1 and 2 times the current volume of the oceans. Even if the upper limit of those estimates is correct, there is not enough water on the planet to make submersion possible.
Recovery of plant life to the point described in the account of the immediate post flood world is not possible.
Only a relatively local flood would account for the descriptions provided by the Bible.
The Hebrew word translated as "world" is ambiguous, and does not necessarily indicate the entire planet.

POSSIBILITIES:
Noah might simply be a fable.
Noah might be an embellished pre-historical account.

In keeping with scientific method, only the known facts can be asserted, with speculation granting lines of enquiry and nothing more.

SPECULATION
What the state of development might have been in an essentially pre-apocalyptic world is largely a matter for conjecture.
It has taken less than 70 000 years to move human society from the primitive state of hunter gatherers to become the technological society we now know.
Around 70 000 years ago (if available information is correct) h sap sap was brought to the brink of extinction
h sap sap has been around for roughly 200 000 years - the span between origination and and near extinction is almost twice as long as the span between near extinction and now. It would not be unreasonable to suppose that a certain technological development might have developed in 130 000 years, if only to (say) early bronze age standard.
It is argued that human settlement more than 70 000 years ago was primarily coastal.
It is further argued that any artifacts from that time period (having been coastal) are now in fairly deep ocean - roughly 80 metres below current sea level.
Stone age dated as beginning 3.5 million years in the past could be
irrelevant to Biblical records if a "Noah" was H Sap Sap, which would make 200 000 years (on current estimates) the start point for development. The start of the stone age would be rendered irrelevant - only the time of existence of H Sap Sap would be relevant.

Stone age dated as beginning 3.5 million years in the past could be
relevant to Biblical records if a "Noah" was not H Sap Sap, in which case the earliest possible time for a flood event would extend to around 3.5 million years. In such a case, this "Noah" would only need to be an ancestor of H Sap Sap in direct line, and of course, a near extinction event would need to be identified for the relevant homo ? ancestor.

shunyadragon
07-07-2014, 03:23 AM
But the story is that Noah was following God's instructions. As long as beings can handle simple tools like an adz and an axe, and have plenty of time . . .

I cannot prove that scientifically, but do you think your objections are really conclusive?

There is no evidence that before 50,000 years ago our Homo ancestors had simple adz nor axes. The design and size of the Arc actually could not have been built before 2 or 4 thousand years ago. It is unlikely it could have been built at all and be sea worthy other then maybe float in calm water, and break up and sink under the load of the animals.

shunyadragon
07-07-2014, 04:12 AM
POSSIBILITIES:
Noah might simply be a fable.
Noah might be an embellished pre-historical account.



Considering the known evidence concerning Genesis. It is an evolved ancient literature with distinct roots in pre-Babylonian and Babylonian cultures as recorded in the known cuneiform tablets. Variations of flood accounts very similar to the Biblical account have been found recorded on these tablets, including other parts of the OT like the Psalms. Along with the rest of the Pentateuch this literature cannot be traced back before 600-800 BCE, and likely compiled in the present form after the exile

Geologic and climate history of the region give some hints as to the possibilities for the origins of the Garden of Eden and the flood. The region of the Middle East was once far more Verdant and lush, and a Garden of Eden like climate in places. It has sense dried out with mostly harsh arid to semiarid environment remaining in recent history. Only the River valleys remain to support large populations. The sediment records world wide give witness to numerous post glacial regional and local flooding events. Such flooding events, and even more recent extensive flooding events are known to occur in the Tigris Euphrates Valleys. These floods can occur with out rain if the source is the mountains, and survivors and be washed to sea on debris mats, rafts with some animals to make it appear larger then the flood was, and washed a shore. Variations of local catastrophic flood events can grow into recorded flood events in ancient literature with embellishment. It is a common theme for ancient peoples to attribute catastrophic events as caused by God(s) displeased with human faults.

Truthseeker
07-07-2014, 11:19 AM
There is no evidence that before 50,000 years ago our Homo ancestors had simple adz nor axes. The design and size of the Arc actually could not have been built before 2 or 4 thousand years ago. It is unlikely it could have been built at all and be sea worthy other then maybe float in calm water, and break up and sink under the load of the animals.Evidence of such tools would be buried under sediment and water. Moreover, if I understand correctly, dating the tools would be rather problematic anyway.

Truthseeker
07-07-2014, 11:29 AM
The numbers of Hebrews supposedly in the Exodus.Oh, I think I know what you are referring to. I think the YEC crowd demonstrated that the Hebrews could have grown in population size that quickly. If you have seen the demonstration and rejected it, won't you please explain in detail why?

shunyadragon
07-07-2014, 03:19 PM
Evidence of such tools would be buried under sediment and water. Moreover, if I understand correctly, dating the tools would be rather problematic anyway.

The descendants of Noah would have and make the tools after the flood. There is no such sophisticated stone tools found before ~10,000 BCE, and significant functional tools capable of Arc building were not available until ~3,000 BCE (Advent of the Bronze Age).

Truthseeker
07-07-2014, 03:42 PM
The descendants of Noah would have and make the tools after the flood. There is no such sophisticated stone tools found before ~10,000 BCE, and significant functional tools capable of Arc building were not available until ~3,000 BCE (Advent of the Bronze Age).Clovis arrowheads dated to 13,500 years ago. You consider them NOT sophisticated, but people able to make them could make adzes and axes as well. That's sharp logic for you! Still, 5 million years ago is quite a stretch, all right.

shunyadragon
07-07-2014, 06:32 PM
Clovis arrowheads dated to 13,500 years ago. You consider them NOT sophisticated, but people able to make them could make adzes and axes as well. That's sharp logic for you! Still, 5 million years ago is quite a stretch, all right.

No not sophisticated, arrowheads and spear points are common in different styles throughout the Paleolithic. We still lack the sophistication of the adz anywhere.

The oldest known timber shaping used in construction is 5600 to 4900 years ago.



A research team led by Willy Tegel and Dr. Dietrich Hakelberg from the Institute for Forest Growth of the University of Freiburg has succeeded in precisely dating four water wells built by the first Central European agricultural civilization with the help of dendrochronology or growth ring dating. The wells were excavated at settlements in the Greater Leipzig region and are the oldest known timber constructions in the world. They were built by the Linear Pottery culture, which existed from roughly 5600 to 4900 BC. The team’s findings, which have been published in the international scientific journal PLoS ONE, afford new insight into prehistoric technology. The study was conducted by archaeologists and dendrochronologists from the Institute for Forest Growth in Freiburg, the Archaeological Heritage Office of Saxony in Dresden, and the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL in Birmensdorf, Switzerland.

Doug Shaver
07-07-2014, 07:13 PM
POSSIBILITIES:
Noah might simply be a fable.
Noah might be an embellished pre-historical account.

In keeping with scientific method, only the known facts can be asserted, with speculation granting lines of enquiry and nothing more.
The fable hypothesis is simpler, by far, and none of the known facts is inconsistent with it.

Truthseeker
07-07-2014, 08:15 PM
The fable hypothesis is simpler, by far, and none of the known facts is inconsistent with it.Oakham's razor. So, you rule out the account in the Bible as easy as that [snaps fingers].

Truthseeker
07-07-2014, 08:19 PM
No not sophisticated, arrowheads and spear points are common in different styles throughout the Paleolithic. We still lack the sophistication of the adz anywhere.
Spearheads could just as well as be knife blades. One could do plenty of woodworking with knives. Incidentally, how were those bone carvings made? When?

tabibito
07-07-2014, 10:35 PM
Given the history of the Pentateuch, the possibility of the fable hypothesis being accurate can't be discounted.
Evidence is strong that it was assembled from a patchwork of lore and written material. Internal evidence of Deuteronomy, if none of the other books, shows that it was written after the time of Moses, and probably some generations after.

shunyadragon
07-08-2014, 04:05 AM
Spearheads could just as well as be knife blades. One could do plenty of woodworking with knives. Incidentally, how were those bone carvings made? When?

As with the reference of timber shaping, you need the technology for making large timbers, and ways to join these timbers to make something as huge as the Arc. The reference showed a relatively small timber construction. No, spearheads and knife blades will not cut it. Bone carvings were made and shaped by abrasion techniques using primitive stone tools.

Teallaura
07-08-2014, 09:23 AM
Abrasion techniques will work just fine on wood - and without knowing exactly how they were joined it's stupid to argue for a particular tool set.

shunyadragon
07-08-2014, 09:51 AM
Abrasion techniques will work just fine on wood - and without knowing exactly how they were joined it's stupid to argue for a particular tool set.

No problem in ancient China they have found the stone tool set used to abrade Ivory, bone and other stones. Actually this is far from the topic of the high technology required to shape timbers and link them together to make anything, nonetheless a huge Arc.

Glenn used a comparison of the Bible account and what he considered the circumstances of the inundation of the Mediterranean 5.3 million years with the hypothesis that ALL of the pre- human Homos were living in the basin based on what he felt was necessary to explain the whipping out of this population except for the descendants Noah, his family, and his companions. The largest flaw is of course the known primitive state of ancestors of humanity at this time. It could be proposed, like Atlantis, that the evidence is buried beneath the sediment at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. Glenn in his paper gives no further justification concerning the problem of the limits of the technology of the cultures that are known to exist at this time.

Again, the survivors and descendants of Noah would have carried the tools and technology with them after the flood. There is absolutely no evidence before ~5000 BCE that any such technology was available.

Teallaura
07-08-2014, 10:21 AM
Still assumes facts not in evidence - you don't know how they were joined so saying the technology didn't exist is dumb.

Joinery from stone will work on wood. Anything that can shape stone can shape wood (sometimes better) - so if they could shape stone they could shape wood.

Coping isn't really so much technology as it is patience and persistence - and for most wood joinery involved in ship building coping is part of the process (ditto log cabins esp. when people care what they are doing). Joining really big timbers isn't the technical hurdle - it's not that hard to shape wood. Moving the danged things is the hard part.

It's silly to argue that they couldn't do X when the technology doesn't have to be exceptionally advanced.

Truthseeker
07-08-2014, 10:35 AM
Given the history of the Pentateuch, the possibility of the fable hypothesis being accurate can't be discounted.OK, so it isn't disproven. So, you conclude that the Bible is 100% myth?



Evidence is strong that it was assembled from a patchwork of lore and written material.Not quite correct, but there were most likely many authors spread out over centuries. Anyway, so, did you conclude from that evidence that the Bible is 100% myth?



Internal evidence of Deuteronomy, if none of the other books, shows that it was written after the time of Moses, and probably some generations after.That is only an inference from what is in the Bible. A loose inference, with which many Bible scholars disagree. How do we know you were not strongly biased to read evidence as the Bible being 100% myth?

shunyadragon
07-08-2014, 10:49 AM
Still assumes facts not in evidence

No assumption of fact, just conclusions based on the evidence. It is you who are making assumptions with no evidence.


- you don't know how they were joined so saying the technology didn't exist is dumb.

Joinery from stone will work on wood. Anything that can shape stone can shape wood (sometimes better) - so if they could shape stone they could shape wood.

Coping isn't really so much technology as it is patience and persistence - and for most wood joinery involved in ship building coping is part of the process (ditto log cabins esp. when people care what they are doing). Joining really big timbers isn't the technical hurdle - it's not that hard to shape wood. Moving the danged things is the hard part.

It's silly to argue that they couldn't do X when the technology doesn't have to be exceptionally advanced.

If you feel it is 'not exceptionally advance,' Where is the evidence of any such technology before ~5600 BCE? Any vessels found before this date are dugout canoes made by the burnout technique.

The evidence remains that ship building is a technology that did not exist actually until the first Egyptian ship ~2500 BCE and the first Sea going vessel from Dover, England in ~about 1500 BCE.

Talk is cheap!!!! Where's the evidence?!?!?

Truthseeker
07-08-2014, 10:49 AM
As with the reference of timber shaping, you need the technology for making large timbers, and ways to join these timbers to make something as huge as the Arc. The reference showed a relatively small timber construction. No, spearheads and knife blades will not cut it. Bone carvings were made and shaped by abrasion techniques using primitive stone tools.I have been thinking about the possibility of training a gang of chimps to construct log cabins. If that group could do that, they could build the ark as well. All the ark needs to be able to is to just float, mind you. I don't know how smart Noah and his people were as compared to us modern humans, but maybe they can build log cabins better or quicker than those chimps, or an ark.

The ark's bottom could be a raft-like construction. Not sure what kind of rope or cordage Noah could use, though.

shunyadragon
07-08-2014, 10:56 AM
I have been thinking about the possibility of training a gang of chimps to construct log cabins. If that group could do that, they could build the ark as well. All the ark needs to be able to is to just float, mind you. I don't know how smart Noah and his people were as compared to us modern humans, but maybe they can build log cabins better or quicker than those chimps, or an ark.

Who would you propose to train the chimps if the technology does not exist?


The ark's bottom could be a raft-like construction. Not sure what kind of rope or cordage Noah could use, though.

Does not work for a ship that size. It would basically fall apart.

tabibito
07-08-2014, 11:01 AM
Well - I am now satisfied that a "Noah" can have existed, and that the Bible date is confirmed to be incorrect.
But - if there was a Noah, he would necessarily have lived circa 200 000 years ago. To make the story workable, the "first humans" arising in Africa would necessarily have been Noah and family - arriving from an island obliterated in a Krakatoa like event.
On the data to hand, it doesn't seem to be anything like a realistic scenario. (understatement)

Teallaura
07-08-2014, 11:04 AM
No assumption of fact, just conclusions based on the evidence. It is you who are making assumptions with no evidence.



If you feel it is 'not exceptionally advance,' Where is the evidence of any such technology before ~5600 BCE? Any vessels found before this date are dugout canoes made by the burnout technique.

The evidence remains that ship building is a technology that did not exist actually until the first Egyptian ship ~2500 BCE and the first Sea going vessel from Dover, England in ~about 1500 BCE.

Talk is cheap!!!! Where's the evidence?!?!?


You're the one that keeps saying 'X couldn't happen because the tech didn't exist' when it simply isn't true - any technique that will shape stone will also work on wood. The argument that they couldn't shape wood is stupid - you cannot disprove a contention based on a falsehood.

It's equally stupid to assume that because X could be done that it was done. Basically, you're being ridiculous.

shunyadragon
07-08-2014, 11:35 AM
You're the one that keeps saying 'X couldn't happen because the tech didn't exist' when it simply isn't true - any technique that will shape stone will also work on wood. The argument that they couldn't shape wood is stupid - you cannot disprove a contention based on a falsehood.

It's equally stupid to assume that because X could be done that it was done. Basically, you're being ridiculous.

I am not saying it is impossible, or couldn't possibly happen. I am saying there is absolutely no, zip, nada, negatory, nil evidence that it ever happened, nor capable of happening.

No, on the scale of the Arc, there is no evidence that any technique will work. Research is quite extensive on the history and what techniques are capable of achieving such a task.

The bottom line is I go by the evidence, and not an emotional attachment to ancient literature to justify what I believe ignoring the evidence.

Teallaura
07-08-2014, 11:51 AM
I am not saying it is impossible, or couldn't possibly happen. I am saying there is absolutely no, zip, nada, negatory, nil evidence that it ever happened, nor capable of happening.

No, on the scale of the Arc, there is no evidence that any technique will work. Research is quite extensive on the history and what techniques are capable of achieving such a task.

The bottom line is I go by the evidence, and not an emotional attachment to ancient literature to justify what I believe ignoring the evidence.

There is evidence - you're deliberately ignoring the evidence. Whether or not physical evidence exists, documentary evidence does. Evaluating that evidence along with any other is called correct evidentiary procedure - not mere clinging to a type of evidence to support an emotional attachment to a certain theory.

And you did say they could not have shaped wood timbers - at least stay consistent in your assertions.

shunyadragon
07-08-2014, 12:04 PM
Well - I am now satisfied that a "Noah" can have existed, and that the Bible date is confirmed to be incorrect.
But - if there was a Noah, he would necessarily have lived circa 200 000 years ago. To make the story workable, the "first humans" arising in Africa would necessarily have been Noah and family - arriving from an island obliterated in a Krakatoa like event.
On the data to hand, it doesn't seem to be anything like a realistic scenario. (understatement)

What do you base your proposed date or range of dates on? Actually, though totally flawed by the evidence the literal interpretation of the time the Biblical Noah is closer to the time when the technology existed to build an Arc.

Truthseeker
07-08-2014, 12:12 PM
Talk is cheap!!!! Where's the evidence?!?!?Begging your pardon, may I not venture to ask, did you not agree that no evidence does not necessarily mean nonexistence or nonoccurrence?

shunyadragon
07-08-2014, 12:19 PM
There is evidence - you're deliberately ignoring the evidence. Whether or not physical evidence exists, documentary evidence does. Evaluating that evidence along with any other is called correct evidentiary procedure - not mere clinging to a type of evidence to support an emotional attachment to a certain theory.

I consider evidence to be as defined in standard English dictionaries. No such evidence exists. Actually the Biblical literature used to justify the Arc does not date any further back then about ~600 to ~800 BCE (maybe?), and there is no firm evidence for versions of the Books of the Pentateuch existing even at this time. The pre-Babylonian and Babylonian text that the much of the Pentateuch. likely originated does not date any further back then ~2000 to ~3000 BCE. There is absolutely no other evidence other then this where Bronze/Iron Age technology was known as described in the OT text in building anything.

If you can provide other evidence I am willing to listen.


And you did say they could not have shaped wood timbers - at least stay consistent in your assertions.

I said there is no evidence they had the technology, nor any other evidence of timber shaping prior to about ~5600 BCE.

shunyadragon
07-08-2014, 12:23 PM
Begging your pardon, may I not venture to ask, did you not agree that no evidence does not necessarily mean nonexistence or nonoccurrence?

Yes, but I base my conclusions on the evidence not on conjecture and maybes of what might have happened without any evidence. Vague stretches of possibilities based on ancient literature does not translate into evidence.

Again

Talk is cheap!!!! Where's the evidence?!?!?

Truthseeker
07-08-2014, 04:36 PM
Shuny, maybe you are a logic positivist or something like that. If so, you should know that this philosophy is untenable. With your permission I shall show why I think so.

shunyadragon
07-08-2014, 06:54 PM
Shuny, maybe you are a logic positivist or something like that. If so, you should know that this philosophy is untenable. With your permission I shall show why I think so.

Your over stating the supposed 'logical positivism' in my argument, and evading the problems with considering the Genesis flood and Noah's Arc in anyway historical. I do give priority to Methodological Naturalism as far as the nature of our physical world, and I give priority in standard academic historical methods to understand our history and the available evidence. Ancient literature alone is not reliable evidence. It qualifies as the human view of the world the authors lived in set in history. these historical narratives may be used to understand history, but they are not considered accurate history in and of themselves.

Rejecting the witness of ancient narratives, unless corroborated by outside evidence, does not make me a logical positivist.

Doug Shaver
07-08-2014, 08:27 PM
Oakham's razor. So, you rule out the account in the Bible as easy as that
According to the linguistic conventions that I follow, to rule out a hypothesis is to demonstrate its impossibility. Occam's razor never rules anything out in that sense. The only result of applying Occam is a statement of preference.

Perhaps you think biblical hypotheses should be treated as exceptions to Occam's razor. Please feel free to explain why.

shunyadragon
07-09-2014, 04:12 AM
Oakham's razor. So, you rule out the account in the Bible as easy as that [snaps fingers].

I agree with Doug, your response misuses Ockham's Razor. The preference inferred by Ockham's razor would be between two hypothesis of equivalent value. In this case the preferred would the simplist hypothesis with the least assumptions.

tabibito
07-09-2014, 04:24 AM
OK, so it isn't disproven. So, you conclude that the Bible is 100% myth?


Not quite correct, but there were most likely many authors spread out over centuries. Anyway, so, did you conclude from that evidence that the Bible is 100% myth?
That's what I said. (well, except for the "spread out over centuries" bit).
I conclude from available evidence that the Bible is substantially correct, and contains scripture. I further conclude from available evidence - self evident and obvious references comprising that evidence - that not everything in the Bible is factual or scriptural.



That is only an inference from what is in the Bible. A loose inference, with which many Bible scholars disagree. How do we know you were not strongly biased to read evidence as the Bible being 100% myth?

Sad innit? Nothing I have said could possibly have led to the conclusion that I consider the Bible to be 100% myth. You have misnamed yourself.

shunyadragon
07-09-2014, 04:27 AM
OK, so it isn't disproven. So, you conclude that the Bible is 100% myth?


Not quite correct, but there were most likely many authors spread out over centuries. Anyway, so, did you conclude from that evidence that the Bible is 100% myth?


That is only an inference from what is in the Bible. A loose inference, with which many Bible scholars disagree. How do we know you were not strongly biased to read evidence as the Bible being 100% myth?

Careful with using statements like ". . . many Bible scholars disagree." Without some coherent argument as to which scholars 'disagree' and why, this is a logical fallacy appealing to popularity.

The accusation or assumption that someone is arguing 100% one way or another without specific reference in his argument is either another fallacy, or the sarcasm needle just pegged. No any ancient literature from any culture is neither true nor false 100% of the time. It is written, edited or compiled by one or more authors of a very human view of the world at the time they lived. The evidence indicates that ancient literature of the Pentateuch evolved over time from earlier sources.

tabibito
07-09-2014, 04:49 AM
What do you base your proposed date or range of dates on? Actually, though totally flawed by the evidence the literal interpretation of the time the Biblical Noah is closer to the time when the technology existed to build an Arc.
Simple enough - the first known h sap sap remains are in the vicinity of the Omo River in Africa. If those people had been - shall we say - castaways from an offshore original home of h sap sap which was obliterated in a Krakatoa like event, there would be no way to establish what the state of technology was at that time, or even a prior existence of h sap sap. It is also fairly certain that below a certain population, technology cannot be maintained: the constraints of day to day living make it impossible even in a relatively benign environment.
Assuming that there was some exploration by boat originating on such an island, evidence of hunting, or other evidence, earlier than 200 000 years past might exist. What an archaeologist might attribute that evidence to is anyone's guess. Given that no evidence for H Sap Sap existing prior to 200 000 years past, it would likely be attributed to some other member of genus homo, perhaps even the one for which only a genetic trace exists, a recent discovery for which no archaeological evidence is available.
The Biblical count of generations is definitely wrong. Nothing in the derived time period makes a Noah event possible. This thread and the associated checks taken show that if Noah was not H Sap Sap, the event would of necessity have occurred even further into the past.
If "Noah's Island" existed, the story could be regarded as simply being assigned an incorrect chronology. However, in the absence of acceptable evidence to that effect arising: the story of Noah can't be reasonably asserted to be true - it must be accepted as mythological.

tabibito
07-09-2014, 05:07 AM
That is only an inference from what is in the Bible. A loose inference I only discovered that there was any academic support for the view that the Pentateuch arose from collected material while I was checking into matters that arose in this thread. I have held the view that Deuteronomy was not (at least wholly) written by Moses, or people of that time, for more than 30 years. Internal evidence makes it impossible.

shunyadragon
07-09-2014, 12:35 PM
I have difficulty with tis line of reasoning on many accounts. The response did not propose a simple coherent justification for a date before 100,000 years ago. I appears that you are using a similar approach as Glenn looking for a time that the flood event could have whipped out humanity leaving the select Noah, family and his companions.


Simple enough - the first known h sap sap remains are in the vicinity of the Omo River in Africa.

Ok according to present finds this is the case. The Omo River site appears to continuously occupied by Homo Sapiens from ~195,000 to ~104,000 years ago. This continuous sequence of finds are available because of the particular environment that allowed for the preservation of fossil and not that this was the only location where the lived. These same early Homo Sapiens. Other finds in the vicinity of Herto, Ethiopia date at 154,000 and 160,000 years ago. The consistent culture of all these finds represent a primitive Neolithic Culture. Also associated with the Omo site is a more primitive Homo called Omo II, demonstrating the evolution of humanity in a diverse variety of subspecies living at the same time. The finding in Omo and Herto demonstrate a regional extent of these first (at present) known Homo Sapiens.


If those people had been - shall we say - castaways from an offshore original home of h sap sap which was obliterated in a Krakatoa like event, there would be no way to establish what the state of technology was at that time, or even a prior existence of h sap sap. It is also fairly certain that below a certain population, technology cannot be maintained: the constraints of day to day living make it impossible even in a relatively benign environment.

The above is highly hypothetical without evidence. At present there is no evidence of such a Krakatoa like event in this period. The only event that is known to likely have impacted humanity is the Toba event ~70,000 years ago. There is no evidence that the preservation of technology is population dependent.

The beginnings of primitive technologies begins after ~50,000 years ago (not sufficient to make things from parts), and not until within the past 10,000 years.



Assuming that there was some exploration by boat originating on such an island, evidence of hunting, or other evidence, earlier than 200 000 years past might exist. What an archaeologist might attribute that evidence to is anyone's guess. Given that no evidence for H Sap Sap existing prior to 200 000 years past, it would likely be attributed to some other member of genus homo, perhaps even the one for which only a genetic trace exists, a recent discovery for which no archaeological evidence is available.

The present extent of evidence indicates that the extent of Homo Sapiens was regional over the first 100,000+ years not local. The known ancestors found prior to 200,000 years ago were similar enough to demonstrate a diverse evolution of closely related species and subspecies like Omo II after 200,00 years ago with a broad regional distribution over central and parts of Northern and Southern Africa.


The Biblical count of generations is definitely wrong. Nothing in the derived time period makes a Noah event possible. This thread and the associated checks taken show that if Noah was not H Sap Sap, the event would of necessity have occurred even further into the past.

All indications are that if Noah existed or an event or events that this narrative evolved from would be relatively technological advanced culture within the last 10,000 years.


If "Noah's Island" existed, the story could be regarded as simply being assigned an incorrect chronology. However, in the absence of acceptable evidence to that effect arising: the story of Noah can't be reasonably asserted to be true - it must be accepted as mythological.

The evolution of the Genesis narrative possibly represents one or more experiences of local and/or regional floods, and is the most likely scenario within the past ~5000 years with the depiction of the Arc itself an added feature of the narrative. I believe the earliest known cuneiform text depicts it as a round ship. The likely region for the 'Garden of Eden' and the flood event(s) is likely the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys.

Truthseeker
07-09-2014, 04:08 PM
Does not work for a ship that size. It would basically fall apart.Holy cow, how did you know? But people trying and failing does not mean there is a technique to construct rafts of that size given skilled labor.

Truthseeker
07-09-2014, 04:11 PM
Well - I am now satisfied that a "Noah" can have existed, and that the Bible date is confirmed to be incorrect.
But - if there was a Noah, he would necessarily have lived circa 200 000 years ago. To make the story workable, the "first humans" arising in Africa would necessarily have been Noah and family - arriving from an island obliterated in a Krakatoa like event.
On the data to hand, it doesn't seem to be anything like a realistic scenario. (understatement)Why so-advanced people? If the ark project is something a gang of children could do given adequate supervision and time . . .

Truthseeker
07-09-2014, 04:22 PM
Your over stating the supposed 'logical positivism' in my argument, and evading the problems with considering the Genesis flood and Noah's Arc in anyway historical. I do give priority to Methodological Naturalism as far as the nature of our physical world, and I give priority in standard academic historical methods to understand our history and the available evidence. Ancient literature alone is not reliable evidence. It qualifies as the human view of the world the authors lived in set in history. these historical narratives may be used to understand history, but they are not considered accurate history in and of themselves.

Rejecting the witness of ancient narratives, unless corroborated by outside evidence, does not make me a logical positivist.I am now puzzled why you started this thread. Initially I thought I knew, but now it appears you only want to discount Glenn's theory so that everyone except Glenn rejects it as impossible.

shunyadragon
07-09-2014, 06:45 PM
I am now puzzled why you started this thread. Initially I thought I knew, but now it appears you only want to discount Glenn's theory so that everyone except Glenn rejects it as impossible.

I feel it was obvious from the beginning that I rejected Glenn's proposal that the inundation of the Mediterranean Sea ~5.3 million years ago represents Noah's flood. I also reject all the present proposals in different time frames that try to place Noah's Flood and the Arc as being in some way real historical events. I consider the Genesis narrative to be an evolved account of the pre-Babylonian flood accounts found on cuneiform tablets. These accounts are most likely evolved oral accounts of natural flood events of the Tigris Euphrates Valleys.

shunyadragon
07-09-2014, 06:59 PM
Holy cow, how did you know? But people trying and failing does not mean there is a technique to construct rafts of that size given skilled labor.

How do I know?!?!? By the evidence I do not believe the building of the Arc and the accompanied flood is remotely plausible. There is no evidence that the tools and skilled labor was available. First it was not a raft, even if it was it could not possible support the reported animal population reported to be on it for the time frame described in the Bible. The huge size of Arc and the technology required to build it is far beyond the abilities of any culture before ~10,000 years ago. Even within the past ~3,000 to 5,000 Bronze to Iron Age Cultures it is unlikely that such a sea worthy vessel was possible, though the basic wood working tools and skills were available within this period.

tabibito
07-09-2014, 11:51 PM
My examination focuses on "what conditions have to be in play if the story of the Ark were true" - it isn't a matter of trying to show that the story is true. For the story to have veracity, hypotheticals are necessary. As stated previously, without concrete evidence to support the possibility of one or another of the hypotheticals, the story of the Ark has to be consigned to the realms of myth. That fact is acknowledged.


The likely region for the 'Garden of Eden' ... is likely the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys.
Eden translates to Koine Greek as παράδεισον - Paradise, the same place that Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be in. Records from the Old Testament show that Eden is still in existence at the time (at least) of Ezekiel. Eden, according to the Biblical accounts, is not on this planet.


All indications are that if Noah existed or an event or events that this narrative evolved from would be relatively technological advanced culture within the last 10,000 years. That time frame has been ruled out of contention. If the story could be proven to have originated less than 70 000 years ago, it would certainly be a myth.


I believe the earliest known cuneiform text depicts it as a round ship. ... the flood event(s) is likely the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys. And it is also possible that these are independent stories arising from the same event, or wholly unrelated. Nothing demonstrates conclusively a copying from Babylonian or any other culture's lore. That there are some consistencies in the narratives is not evidence of cross cultural contamination. It is evidence of possible cross contamination.

Tamil legends refer to an extensive land comprised of 49 countries that was claimed by the sea. There are consistencies with the Greek legend of Atlantis. The Tamil story might be an adaptation of Atlantis, via cross contamination through the Roman empire. Whether cross contamination is involved, and to what extent, would be purely a matter of conjecture. To some, might be = is: not a logical course.


The Omo remains, archaic h Sapiens, progressed to h. S. Idaltu which were anatomically but not behaviorally modern, then to h S. Sapiens who are the anatomically and behaviorally modern humans of today. Recent DNA evidence shows there was little gene flow from previous species such as h. Neanderthalensis, and h. Denisova. Based on the archaeological evidence, somewhere in the divide between - h. S. Idaltu and h. S. Sapiens or shortly after, is the only viable time frame for a Noah event. If the objections regarding technology are valid, it didn't happen, or rather, if they are valid, evidence of a a suitably advanced, hitherto unknown, technological development would need to be unearthed to bring a Noah event back to the realms of possibility.

The second objection, that no flood of suitable proportions occurred, makes a different scenario the only viable possibility. The only way the Ark story could have veracity is for a largish land mass to sink below the sea. A Krakatoa event is not the only way that might happen, but it is the easiest to point to.

Doug Shaver
07-10-2014, 08:45 AM
Based on the archaeological evidence, somewhere in the divide between - h. S. Idaltu and h. S. Sapiens or shortly after, is the only viable time frame for a Noah event. If the objections regarding technology are valid, it didn't happen, or rather, if they are valid, evidence of a a suitably advanced, hitherto unknown, technological development would need to be unearthed to bring a Noah event back to the realms of possibility.

The second objection, that no flood of suitable proportions occurred, makes a different scenario the only viable possibility. The only way the Ark story could have veracity is for a largish land mass to sink below the sea. A Krakatoa event is not the only way that might happen, but it is the easiest to point to.
If we must defend the notion that the Noah story had some connection with actual history, what's wrong with this hypothesis: Somewhere in Mesopotamia, probably during Sumerian times, there was a catastrophic flood in which there was an unprecedented loss of human and other life?

tabibito
07-10-2014, 09:33 AM
Our problem is the whole "make an end of human kind" thing. For the Noah story to hold together, there has to be a near extinction event to point to. I thought at first that the event of 70 000 years ago may have been a suitable possibility, but discussion on this thread has shown it to be a non-starter. Associated discussion and checking the matters raised leaves only an event similar to what I have outlined as even remotely feasible.
I'll consider Noah to be a fable until such time as a buried under the sea, hitherto unknown civilization's remains dating back to around the H. S. Idaltu split is uncovered. Or until some wholly outlandish discovery throws the entire archaeological science world into utter disarray.

shunyadragon
07-10-2014, 09:58 AM
My examination focuses on "what conditions have to be in play if the story of the Ark were true" - it isn't a matter of trying to show that the story is true. For the story to have veracity, hypotheticals are necessary. As stated previously, without concrete evidence to support the possibility of one or another of the hypotheticals, the story of the Ark has to be consigned to the realms of myth. That fact is acknowledged.

I believe the embellished oral legends of actual local and regional actual floods is the most likely source of the Genesis flood narrative.



Eden translates to Koine Greek as παράδεισον - Paradise, the same place that Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be in. Records from the Old Testament show that Eden is still in existence at the time (at least) of Ezekiel. Eden, according to the Biblical accounts, is not on this planet.

Relying on the Greek is too late to describe the origins of the belief in Eden in more ancient literature.


That time frame has been ruled out of contention. If the story could be proven to have originated less than 70 000 years ago, it would certainly be a myth.

In reality I do not believe any time frame is viable based on the present evidence.


And it is also possible that these are independent stories arising from the same event, or wholly unrelated. Nothing demonstrates conclusively a copying from Babylonian or any other culture's lore. That there are some consistencies in the narratives is not evidence of cross cultural contamination. It is evidence of possible cross contamination.

The evidence in cuneiform pre-Babylonian tablets is quite extensive and conclusive, and no other potential source is known prior to ~600 BCE. There are parts of the Psalms found in the tablets, and other books of the Pentateuch.


Tamil legends refer to an extensive land comprised of 49 countries that was claimed by the sea. There are consistencies with the Greek legend of Atlantis. The Tamil story might be an adaptation of Atlantis, via cross contamination through the Roman empire. Whether cross contamination is involved, and to what extent, would be purely a matter of conjecture. To some, might be = is: not a logical course.

There is abundant evidence of local and regional catastrophic memorable flood events where ever in the world the legends are found. It is most likely that they are independent legends and myths.


Based on the archaeological evidence, somewhere in the divide between - h. S. Idaltu and h. S. Sapiens or shortly after, is the only viable time frame for a Noah event. If the objections regarding technology are valid, it didn't happen, or rather, if they are valid, evidence of a a suitably advanced, hitherto unknown, technological development would need to be unearthed to bring a Noah event back to the realms of possibility.

Based on the present evidence it is difficult to remotely expect hitherto unknown culture with an advanced technology. The science of archeology is reaching the bedrock world wide with little room for significant new cultures hitherto unknown. There is potential in Africa especially across center of Africa for the discovery of early Homo Sapiens and our ancestors, but I doubt the possibility that new technology could be found.


The second objection, that no flood of suitable proportions occurred, makes a different scenario the only viable possibility. The only way the Ark story could have veracity is for a largish land mass to sink below the sea. A Krakatoa event is not the only way that might happen, but it is the easiest to point to.

I believe that many places in the world regional floods are possible that may appear unbelievably vaste and worldwide to local populations. The yellow and Yangtze Rivers, the Nile, Rivers of the Indian subcontinent, and the Tigris Euphrates Valleys. Survivors could be washed into the Ocean, on debris rafts and later then wash up on land roughly creating a situation that would evolve into a Genesis flood myth when the legends were embellished over time until written down, and even embellished and changed after it was written down.

The main motive among Christians to justify an ancient date, ie before ~70,000 and ~200,000 years ago is to come up with a time when most of humanity could be wiped leaving a few Noah survivors to start over as in Genesis before humans spread out across Europe and Asia. Glenn argues for an even more ancient ~5.3 million years ago for the same reason.

It remains the normal for all ancient cultures of the world to attribute catastrophic events to the wrath and disfavor of god(s)

Truthseeker
07-10-2014, 03:52 PM
How do I know?!?!? By the evidence I do not believe the building of the Arc and the accompanied flood is remotely plausible. There is no evidence that the tools and skilled labor was available. First it was not a raft, even if it was it could not possible support the reported animal population reported to be on it for the time frame described in the Bible. The huge size of Arc and the technology required to build it is far beyond the abilities of any culture before ~10,000 years ago. Even within the past ~3,000 to 5,000 Bronze to Iron Age Cultures it is unlikely that such a sea worthy vessel was possible, though the basic wood working tools and skills were available within this period.I am going to let you win in that I am going to unsubscribe the thread after posting this. I don't know what your understanding of Genesis 6:15-21 and Genesis 7:2-3 is, but you WILL always interpret those passages so that it seems impossible scientifically speaking. Maybe for all we know you interpret "kind of animal" in Genesis as "species." No matter how often people suggest a reading of Genesis that seem to square with our scientific knowledge in nearly all points, you WOULD stubbornly respond with your own impossible reading and point out the lack of evidence.

Surely by now you know that the lack of evidence is explicable for at least two reasons: 1) Evidence that was extant got lost in the mists of time. Wars, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, human errors, etc. 2) There may be evidence that is not now extant but may be later. For example, critics pointed out the lack of evidence for the Hittites for years. But now we have much evidence.

tabibito
07-10-2014, 09:24 PM
I believe that many places in the world regional floods are possible that may appear unbelievably vaste and worldwide to local populations. The yellow and Yangtze Rivers, the Nile, Rivers of the Indian subcontinent, and the Tigris Euphrates Valleys. Survivors could be washed into the Ocean, on debris rafts and later then wash up on land roughly creating a situation that would evolve into a Genesis flood myth when the legends were embellished over time until written down, and even embellished and changed after it was written down.
Something along those lines would seem a logical explanation.


Genesis 7:2-3 is, but you WILL always interpret those passages so that it seems impossible scientifically speaking. Maybe for all we know you interpret "kind of animal" in Genesis as "species." And nothing says that "erets" means the entire planet, which means that not even every species of animal would need to be on any ark that may have existed. But even at that, the story of the Ark, in full, can't be reconciled with the known history of the planet. It isn't impossible scientifically - as I have outlined, some scenarios would allow for it ... but those scenarios are so outlandish that, in the absence of supporting evidence, they have to be consigned to the realms of science fiction.

shunyadragon
07-11-2014, 03:20 PM
2) There may be evidence that is not now extant but may be later. For example, critics pointed out the lack of evidence for the Hittites for years. But now we have much evidence.

I think this challenge deserves a response. It cannot be expected that academic archeology and history would accept the existence of a culture, kingdom or technology until discoveries and investigations provide the evidence to support it. Before modern discoveries Archeologists did not consider the Hittite culture nor the kingdom confirmed to exist. It is inaccurate to call them 'critics.' They did not say the Hittites did not exist, like all academics, without evidence, it was not accepted as fact that they existed.

The proposition that there is potentially not yet found evidence of an ancient technology over ~50,000 to ~70,000 years ago capable of building an Arc is stretching ones expectations beyond reasonable limits. Yes, if such evidence is found academic archeology will accept it. It remains the fact that academic standards of archeology will not take the testimony of ancient narratives as evidence alone without corroborating archeological evidence.

Adam
07-11-2014, 07:09 PM
The main motive among Christians to justify an ancient date, ie before ~70,000 and ~200,000 years ago is to come up with a time when most of humanity could be wiped leaving a few Noah survivors to start over as in Genesis before humans spread out across Europe and Asia. Glenn argues for an even more ancient ~5.3 million years ago for the same reason.

When I saw Glenn quoted earlier at 5.3, I assumed that was a misprint for 5.3 THOUSAND, which would exactly fit how long ago the Septugint places the Flood of Noah. Yet it would still fit into a time frame allowing for Young Earth Creation. (As it would for counting the Bible years from the creation of Adam at 4004 B. C. or 5300 B. C, allowing for the age of Earth to be billions of years.)

Doug Shaver
07-11-2014, 07:30 PM
There may be evidence that is not now extant but may be later.
Fine. When new evidence is discovered, I can change my mind then.

There are countless things I could believe if the only evidence I needed was something that I can imagine being discovered sometime in the future.

shunyadragon
07-11-2014, 07:40 PM
When I saw Glenn quoted earlier at 5.3, I assumed that was a misprint for 5.3 THOUSAND, which would exactly fit how long ago the Septugint places the Flood of Noah. Yet it would still fit into a time frame allowing for Young Earth Creation. (As it would for counting the Bible years from the creation of Adam at 4004 B. C. or 5300 B. C, allowing for the age of Earth to be billions of years.)

Glenn proposed a Noah's arc flood in the inundation of the Mediterranean Sea 5.3 million years ago. He basically proposes a time when pre human Homos were wiped out in the flood in the Mediterranean except the descendants of Noah and his companions.

tabibito
07-11-2014, 07:58 PM
Yes, if such evidence is found academic archeology will accept it.

Not without a fight. There's only so much turning upside down of current knowledge that any one generation can cope with. In time, yes, it would be accepted.

Doug Shaver
07-11-2014, 11:40 PM
Not without a fight. There's only so much turning upside down of current knowledge that any one generation can cope with.
Should it be otherwise? Should we all be willing to change our minds immediately whenever someone said, "I have discovered proof that your entire worldview is wrong"?

tabibito
07-12-2014, 01:45 AM
Should it be otherwise? Should we all be willing to change our minds immediately whenever someone said, "I have discovered proof that your entire worldview is wrong"?
Hand a thousand year old skull to an archaeologist that has a partially healed bullet hole in it ... He'll do everything possible to show that the skull is a fake before he even begins to take the bullet hole seriously. So he should. But that's if he's honest. If he isn't - the skull will most likely be destroyed or discrediting evidence faked. (YEC anyone?)
There is also such a thing as being too willing to embrace a new concept.
I am willing to investigate any claims that challenge my world view, and without prejudice. That is: WILLING to do it without prejudice - which doesn't mean that I always achieve such a state, and certainly not easily. Sometimes I have an emotional attachment to the prior view which results in anger when an opposing view starts to seem possibly valid.
But until I have thoroughly investigated a claim, or the claim is so obviously correct that I can't believe I haven't noticed, I'll hold to the old view.
With regard to doctrine, that "obviously correct" claim has happened a few times on TWeb. One comment citing an appropriate reference, and a long held belief crumbles to dust.