The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

[tabibito]

But God commanded them to take every kind of living creatures, not just endangered or specific ones. And he said he was ending all life under heaven. "17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it."

It is a matter of filtering the options:
Perhaps:
1/ a story with factual basis, but with elements added for dramatic effect. That would be a matter of determining just how much was added.
2/ a fable which has been severed from a cultural context which identifies it as such.
3/ a factual record

On the basis of all the available evidence, option 3 is not viable.

The first option is viable, with the timing being pushed further back in history if additional material is minimal. It can be brought forward in time if a lot of additional material has been added.

The second option needs no adjustments. Nor would that conflict with the New Testament record. Referring to fables as if they are factual is a perfectly ordinary behaviour. We do not, for example, ordinarily specify "the fictional" events and characters in the parables. They are simply referred to as if they were real - and even fictional characters in recent works. We do not say "the fictional character, Doctor Who said ~;" just "Doctor Who said ~."

[Sparko]

It is a matter of filtering the options:
Perhaps:
1/ a story with factual basis, but with elements added for dramatic effect. That would be a matter of determining just how much was added.
2/ a fable which has been severed from a cultural context which identifies it as such.
3/ a factual record

On the basis of all the available evidence, option 3 is not viable.

The first option is viable, with the timing being pushed further back in history if additional material is minimal. It can be brought forward in time if a lot of additional material has been added.

The second option needs no adjustments. Nor would that conflict with the New Testament record. Referring to fables as if they are factual is a perfectly ordinary behaviour. We do not, for example, ordinarily specify "the fictional" events and characters in the parables. They are simply referred to as if they were real - and even fictional characters in recent works. We do not say "the fictional character, Doctor Who said ~;" just "Doctor Who said ~."

1 and 2 make the bible into a liar.

[rogue06]

But God commanded them to take every kind of living creatures, not just endangered or specific ones. And he said he was ending all life under heaven. "17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it."

Reposting this

all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth" (Genesis 41:57). Did starving Australian Aborigines come to Joseph seeking food? How about Inuits? Similarly, the famine predicted by Agabus that "took place in the days of Claudius" was said to have occurred "over all the world" (Acts 11:28).

"And the fame of David went out into all lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nationswhole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom" (I Kings 19:11).

"And horses were imported for Solomon from Egypt and from all lands"(II Chronicles 9:28).

"All the kings of the earthall the world should be enrolled" (Lk 2:1). In this case "all the world" means only the Roman Empire.

Likewise, when Cyrus declares in II Chronicles 36:23 that God "has given me all the kingdoms of the earth" he meant only the lands controlled by the Persian Empire.

"For they covered the face of the whole earth

[Adrift]

It says, "every living creature"

And what about "under heaven?"

IT seems like the context of the whole passage is saying everything that exists. Trying to shoehorn it into it meaning a local flood seems like a stretch. It might have been a local flood but the writer's seem to be claiming it is global.

Every living creature where? Every living creature in the whole earth? That's the question we're attempting to figure out. And "every" is just the Hebrew word "all" (כֹּל / kōl) that Dr. Hesier was referring to. And again, like "all" "Under the heaven" is a common figure of speech in the ancient Mediterranean. A form of hyperbole. See for instance John Walton and Tremper Longman's recent book in the Lost World series, The Lost World of the Flood,

Source: The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by John H. Walton, Tremper Longman III

The Mesopotamian accounts are rather vague on the extent of the flood. In terms of land coverage, the only information is found in Gilgamesh once the flood has ended. When Uta-napishti opens the window he sees shores/the edge of the sea and fourteen places where landmasses were visible (11.140-41)--so not all was totally submerged. Regarding people, Atrahasis indicates that "total destruction" was called for by the gods, and in Gilgamesh, observing the aftermath of the flood, "all the people had turned to clay" (11.135).

The account in Genesis offers much more information on this count. The geographical extent of the flood is described in a variety of ways:

• "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" (Gen 7:19)
• "covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits" (Gen 7:20)
• "there was water over all the surface of the earth" (Gen 8:9)

Several factors, however, make these statements less specific than we might imagine. In keeping with the use of hyperbole, the rhetoric of universalism can be attested in numerous places in the Bible (for a few examples see Gen 41:57; Ex 9:6 [cf. Ex 9:19]; Deut 2:25). Examples in ancient literature that use universalistic language rhetorically are not difficult to find. A text known as Sargon's Geography states, "Sargon, King of the Universe, conquered the totality of the land under heaven."

When we turn attention to the impact of the flood on humanity, we again find that the biblical text is more explicit than the Mesopotamian version.

• "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created." (Gen 6:7)
• "I am going to put an end to all people. . . . I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." (Gen 6:13)
• "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." (Gen 6:17)
• "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (Gen 7:4)
• "Every living thing that moved on land perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. " (Gen 7:21-23)
• "Never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (Gen 8:21)

Most of these depend on the use of the Hebrew word translated "all," and the response would be the same as was given regarding the amount of land covered--that is, these are examples of universalistic rhetoric. The exception were "all" is not used is in Genesis 7:23, where it is turned around to say that "only Noah was left." This is a problematic translation. The Hebrew particle translated "only" is 'ak. This is not the word that would be expected if the text wanted to single out Noah (and those with him) as alone surviving. The normal construction for that can be observed in Job 1:15-18 (4x) where the word only is Hebrew raq. Hebrew 'ak usually begins a clause, so comparable examples of the syntactical construction in Genesis 7:23 (following a wayyiqtol verbal form) are difficult to identify. It regularly functions either as asseverative (e.g., "surely") or adversative (e.g., "yet"). In either of those cases, however, the particle should have led the clause.

In conclusion, both Hebrew and Akkadian texts are vague about the human survivors, which is no surprise since people would have only limited knowledge of populated areas across the known world. The widespread nature of the destruction is indicated by the use of universalistic rhetoric well-known for cataclysmic events, especially of a cosmic nature, in the ancient world.

© Copyright Original Source

[Adrift]

To be clear, if the flood was universal, and the Bible intended to speak of it as universal, I'm cool with that. The science on it is really strange if so, but the science of the day has been known to be wrong before, and it's possible it's wrong again this time. I just sincerely don't think the Bible intended the flood to be understood universally. I really do think it was using figures of speech, and hyperbole as was common in the era, in much the same sense that when we hear of the Israelites utterly destroying a nation down to every last man, woman, and child, and then we read a few chapters later and find that people from that nation still exist...or how we hear about the pre-flood Nephilim existing after the flood in Numbers 13.

[rogue06]

I could think of a number of species that would be wiped out by a local flood. Heck, there are species of animals that have been hunted out the region and that have never come back. For instance, the auroch, the Asiatic lion, the addax, the wild ass, and the red deer. And birds too, like the lappet-faced vulture are facing extinction in the area. In fact, there's an organization whose goal it is to save endangered birds found in the Bible. They're called The Biblical Ornithological Society.

It could be that God wants Noah to reestablish the local ecosystem as much as possible after the Flood which would include "all" of the various life forms that resided there and not just endangered ones.

[rogue06]

To be clear, if the flood was universal, and the Bible intended to speak of it as universal, I'm cool with that. The science on it is really strange if so, but the science of the day has been known to be wrong before, and it's possible it's wrong again this time. I just sincerely don't think the Bible intended the flood to be understood universally. I really do think it was using figures of speech, and hyperbole as was common in the era, in much the same sense that when we hear of the Israelites utterly destroying a nation down to every last man, woman, and child, and then we read a few chapters later and find that people from that nation still exist...or how we hear about the pre-flood Nephilim existing after the flood in Numbers 13.

The bolded bit often gets ignored by those insisting that all life under heaven had been exterminated. Given that Noah didn't appear to take any fish or other aquatic animals aboard the Ark I think it is reasonable to say that not all life under heaven had been exterminated (never mind the fact that sea creatures manage just fine during floods).

[Sparko]

Every living creature where? Every living creature in the whole earth? That's the question we're attempting to figure out. And "every" is just the Hebrew word "all" (כֹּל / kōl) that Dr. Hesier was referring to. And again, like "all" "Under the heaven" is a common figure of speech in the ancient Mediterranean. A form of hyperbole. See for instance John Walton and Tremper Longman's recent book in the Lost World series, The Lost World of the Flood,

Source: The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by John H. Walton, Tremper Longman III

The Mesopotamian accounts are rather vague on the extent of the flood. In terms of land coverage, the only information is found in Gilgamesh once the flood has ended. When Uta-napishti opens the window he sees shores/the edge of the sea and fourteen places where landmasses were visible (11.140-41)--so not all was totally submerged. Regarding people, Atrahasis indicates that "total destruction" was called for by the gods, and in Gilgamesh, observing the aftermath of the flood, "all the people had turned to clay" (11.135).

The account in Genesis offers much more information on this count. The geographical extent of the flood is described in a variety of ways:

• "all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" (Gen 7:19)
• "covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits" (Gen 7:20)
• "there was water over all the surface of the earth" (Gen 8:9)

Several factors, however, make these statements less specific than we might imagine. In keeping with the use of hyperbole, the rhetoric of universalism can be attested in numerous places in the Bible (for a few examples see Gen 41:57; Ex 9:6 [cf. Ex 9:19]; Deut 2:25). Examples in ancient literature that use universalistic language rhetorically are not difficult to find. A text known as Sargon's Geography states, "Sargon, King of the Universe, conquered the totality of the land under heaven."

When we turn attention to the impact of the flood on humanity, we again find that the biblical text is more explicit than the Mesopotamian version.

• "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created." (Gen 6:7)
• "I am going to put an end to all people. . . . I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." (Gen 6:13)
• "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." (Gen 6:17)
• "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (Gen 7:4)
• "Every living thing that moved on land perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. " (Gen 7:21-23)
• "Never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (Gen 8:21)

Most of these depend on the use of the Hebrew word translated "all," and the response would be the same as was given regarding the amount of land covered--that is, these are examples of universalistic rhetoric. The exception were "all" is not used is in Genesis 7:23, where it is turned around to say that "only Noah was left." This is a problematic translation. The Hebrew particle translated "only" is 'ak. This is not the word that would be expected if the text wanted to single out Noah (and those with him) as alone surviving. The normal construction for that can be observed in Job 1:15-18 (4x) where the word only is Hebrew raq. Hebrew 'ak usually begins a clause, so comparable examples of the syntactical construction in Genesis 7:23 (following a wayyiqtol verbal form) are difficult to identify. It regularly functions either as asseverative (e.g., "surely") or adversative (e.g., "yet"). In either of those cases, however, the particle should have led the clause.

In conclusion, both Hebrew and Akkadian texts are vague about the human survivors, which is no surprise since people would have only limited knowledge of populated areas across the known world. The widespread nature of the destruction is indicated by the use of universalistic rhetoric well-known for cataclysmic events, especially of a cosmic nature, in the ancient world.

© Copyright Original Source

where? It says " I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish

He seems to be making the point that everything is going to die. He makes the point over and over in different ways. The context is pretty clear. It seems like you have to do a lot of ignoring of context and chopping things into pieces in order to make it say it is local.

You guys are taking natural evidence that there was not a global flood, then working backwards to make that fit into the narrative, no matter how hard you have to shoehorn it in. That is eisegesis. The plain reading of the text shows it means globally. Now you can argue that the text is wrong, but I don't think you can argue that the writer (Moses?) MEANT it was a local flood because he goes to some length to make it read as a worldwide flood.

[Sparko]

The bolded bit often gets ignored by those insisting that all life under heaven had been exterminated. Given that Noah didn't appear to take any fish or other aquatic animals aboard the Ark I think it is reasonable to say that not all life under heaven had been exterminated (never mind the fact that sea creatures manage just fine during floods).

[Adrift]

It could be that God wants Noah to reestablish the local ecosystem as much as possible after the Flood which would include "all" of the various life forms that resided there and not just endangered ones.

Exactly. It seems my point about endangered species is a bit misunderstood though (since you're sort of making a similar point as Sparko). Lions aren't a necessarily an endangered species (they're currently on the "vulnerable" list according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature), but certain regional variations of the lion are endangered. Some are completely extinct. The Asiatic lion is endangered, and is nearly non-existent in the Mediterranean, and gone from Israel completely. I meant something similar to what you're saying...that the animals were preserved so that the local ecosystem was restored...that native variations did not go extinct.

[Adrift]

where? It says " I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish

He seems to be making the point that everything is going to die. He makes the point over and over in different ways. The context is pretty clear. It seems like you have to do a lot of ignoring of context and chopping things into pieces in order to make it say it is local.

You guys are taking natural evidence that there was not a global flood, then working backwards to make that fit into the narrative, no matter how hard you have to shoehorn it in. That is eisegesis. The plain reading of the text shows it means globally. Now you can argue that the text is wrong, but I don't think you can argue that the writer (Moses?) MEANT it was a local flood because he goes to some length to make it read as a worldwide flood.

In both Heiser's work, and in Walton and Longman's they offer examples of "all life," and even "under the heavens," and how these phrases are used rhetorically. These are Old Testament scholars. They're reading these passages in the Hebrew. They recognize them for what they are...exaggerations. Common exaggerations. You don't have to chop things into pieces to see that, it's perfectly clear to those who know the Hebrew, and the context of this sort of rhetoric in the ancient world. This isn't eisegesis, it's exegesis. Wouldn't an Old Testament Bible scholar be able to tell the difference? I don't think the text is wrong. I think the text is right, and that it's often been read wrong.

And I've stated (as did Heiser) that I am NOT taking natural evidence about the unlikelihood that there was a global flood and working backwards.

Do you really think that people in South America, or Korea, or Australia were afraid of Israel when the Bible says,



Did that ever happen universally? No. People beyond the Mediterranean never even heard of the people of Israel. What the Bible says did happen though. It happened among all the nations of the region under the heaven, not all nations everywhere universally.

[rogue06]

I'm not sure that excludes fish since fish are animals and AFAICT were regarded as such by the ancient Israelites. There are three groups mentioned along with humanity, animals, birds and "creatures that move along the ground" which IIRC is generally interpreted to mean bugs, worms and the like. But if all life was extinguished (except for what was inside Noah's Ark) that would include fish and other sea creatures.

[shunyadragon]

The bolded bit often gets ignored by those insisting that all life under heaven had been exterminated. Given that Noah didn't appear to take any fish or other aquatic animals aboard the Ark I think it is reasonable to say that not all life under heaven had been exterminated (never mind the fact that sea creatures manage just fine during floods).

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

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath [d]of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.

2 Peter 3:6-7 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

I do not believe it stated that the life in the oceans and seas were whipped out.

[Charles]

But we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true, which leads one to conclude that it's not the Bible but man's understanding of the evidence that is in error.

Martin Luther reasoned along those lines:

There is talk of a new astrologer [Nicolaus Copernicus] who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/103...copernicus-who

[Mountain Man]

Martin Luther reasoned along those lines:

That is, of course, in no way analogous to this specific topic or the arguments I have presented throughout this thread.

But nice troll attempt.