Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    If the flood wasn't global and the only humans (homo sap.sap.) in the world lived on a sizable island that got drowned, a boat would make perfect sense. The development of a radically different species on an isolated island would be a fairly normal event. Volcano, bolide strike, tsunami, earthquake could sink even a large island. Sizable areas of land have been known to wind up at the bottom of the sea in the past. Notably Doggerland - which 6 000 years ago formed the peninsula connecting Europe with the British Isles.
    Even assuming barely weaned animals when they were taken aboard the ark - it isn't big enough to accommodate every species in the world - nor even every genus. Again, the animals on an island could be accommodated. While some plant and animal life would survive a calamity, it would make sense to take known animals along for the ride rather than trying to go hunting in an unknown environment. Entirely - the ark was designed so as to not sink. It wasn't designed to manoeuvre.

    In all probability the story is a fable. If it is a record of real events, they must have occurred more than 200 000 years ago. The Biblical story would then be a written record of a tale told down through the generations, with a patch to recent ancestors abutting a tale of ancient ancestors with nothing to show where the missing generations belonged. Epic tales of long-ago events tend to be preserved as they were after a few generations - they usually don't continue to get updated.
    Which brings up another problem: the story is not presented as a fable but as an historical account.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      The problem is, if the flood wasn't global then the story makes no sense. Why build a boat when Noah and his family could have simply moved to another part of the Earth that God wasn't planning to destroy? Why bring two of every land animal aboard when there would have been plenty of survivors in the unflooded regions? Is it plausible that Noah and his family could have spent a year on the water without ever seeing evidence of distant dry land?

      I have trouble reconciling the details of the story with the premise that it wasn't a global flood.
      Trying to reasonably argue for answers to your questions based on the actual story as opposed to the objective verifiable evidence concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the story is a myth, based on the evolved account of the Sumerian cuneiform account of a local catastrophic flood of the Tigris Euphrates Rivers.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Which brings up another problem: the story is not presented as a fable but as an historical account.
        Many myths in many ancient cultures in history are presented as fact, but there is no objective verifiable evidence that they are true.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          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. I'm willing to accept that the flood may have happened much further in the past than "young earth" creationists believe, and that the evidence may be "lost", but I can't accept that the flood never happened at all.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            The problem is, if the flood wasn't global then the story makes no sense. Why build a boat when Noah and his family could have simply moved to another part of the Earth that God wasn't planning to destroy? Why bring two of every land animal aboard when there would have been plenty of survivors in the unflooded regions? Is it plausible that Noah and his family could have spent a year on the water without ever seeing evidence of distant dry land?

            I have trouble reconciling the details of the story with the premise that it wasn't a global flood.
            Why did God make the ancient Israelites look upon the bronze serpent in order to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? Why did God make them march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No, of course not. Likewise God didn't need for Abraham to bind Isaac and prepare to kill him when He could have simply read what was in his heart.

            One will notice in the judgments that God renders, He almost always gives a warning to those who are being judged. For example, God sent angels to Sodom before it was to be destroyed, sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of the judgment to come, and will send two prophets to warn the people of the earth of the final judgment. The building of the Ark was a great testimony of the coming judgment, since it was preached for 100 years during its construction. The New Testament states this idea directly, since it says that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness."

            Scripture Verse: II Peter 2:4-5

            For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

            © Copyright Original Source



            If God had told Noah to just migrate away from the flood area, the people would not have been warned of the impending judgment. Ultimately, they were without excuse in their rebellion against God, since the impending judgment was proclaimed to them for 100 years before it happened. Further, if Noah and his family had merely migrated away to safety then they could not have born witness to God's judgment.
            Last edited by rogue06; 06-05-2019, 02:24 AM.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              But we (as in Christians) know the Bible is true, which leads one to conclude that...
              ...Christians hamper themselves by starting with unnecessary assumptions.
              Last edited by Roy; 06-05-2019, 06:48 AM.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Why did God make the ancient Israelites look upon the bronze serpent in order to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? Why did God make them march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No, of course not. Likewise God didn't need for Abraham to bind Isaac and prepare to kill him when He could have simply read what was in his heart.

                One will notice in the judgments that God renders, He almost always gives a warning to those who are being judged. For example, God sent angels to Sodom before it was to be destroyed, sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of the judgment to come, and will send two prophets to warn the people of the earth of the final judgment. The building of the Ark was a great testimony of the coming judgment, since it was preached for 100 years during its construction. The New Testament states this idea directly, since it says that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness."

                Scripture Verse: II Peter 2:4-5

                For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

                © Copyright Original Source



                If God had told Noah to just migrate away from the flood area, the people would not have been warned of the impending judgment. Ultimately, they were without excuse in their rebellion against God, since the impending judgment was proclaimed to them for 100 years before it happened. Further, if Noah and his family had merely migrated away to safety then they could not have born witness to God's judgment.
                So you go with the argument that the flood narrative is essentially true but certain details are exaggerated or embellished. Which begs the question: how do you distinguish the fact from the fiction?

                I'm of the mind that we can accept the stories in the Bible as wholly trustworthy and reliable even if man, with his limited knowledge and understanding, can't confirm them. Which is to say that I can accept the account of Noah's flood as true even if it supposedly contradicts science. After all, "science" tells us that it's impossible that Jesus could have risen from the dead, and yet the resurrection is the central truth of my world view. It seems to me that you've placed yourself in a position of arbitrarily accepting science over the Bible in some cases but not in others.

                Note that I am not dismissing the value of science, only that we should be wary when it starts telling us that something in the Bible couldn't have happened.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  So you go with the argument that the flood narrative is essentially true but certain details are exaggerated or embellished. Which begs the question: how do you distinguish the fact from the fiction?

                  I'm of the mind that we can accept the stories in the Bible as wholly trustworthy and reliable even if man, with his limited knowledge and understanding, can't confirm them. Which is to say that I can accept the account of Noah's flood as true even if it supposedly contradicts science. After all, "science" tells us that it's impossible that Jesus could have risen from the dead, and yet the resurrection is the central truth of my world view. It seems to me that you've placed yourself in a position of arbitrarily accepting science over the Bible in some cases but not in others.

                  Note that I am not dismissing the value of science, only that we should be wary when it starts telling us that something in the Bible couldn't have happened.
                  I'm one that believes that the flood was universal but not global in extent. This was what I meant in post #4 when I wrote
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  This kinda leads into a discussion concerning the use of "all" in the Bible and just how literally it should be taken in some instances.

                  During the account of the Flood itself we read that all flesh had become corrupted; yet the text also says that Noah was a "righteous man, blameless in his time." Thus, "all flesh" doesn’t mean all flesh since there was at least one exception. All does not mean all.

                  Likewise, Gen 3:20 pronounces Eve as "the mother of all living." Literally, that means that all life originated from a human woman, Eve, which nobody contends this is the case.

                  Are there other instances when "all" does not literally mean "all"? Definitely.

                  "Moreover, 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 nations" (I Chronicles 14:17). Apparently American Indians were quaking in fear at David’s reputation. But then they were apparently consoled when Solomon’s reign began because now "the whole 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 earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom." (II Chronicles 9:23) – does this include rulers in America as well?

                  "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all 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, so that the land was darkened" (Exodus 10:15 – KJV), though verses 12, 14 make it clear that it meant only the land of Egypt and why some other versions choose to use "whole land" instead of "whole earth."

                  Mark 1:5 tells us that "all the land of Judea" were baptized by John in the wilderness. Of course, we understand from the context that this does not literally mean every single human in the land of Judea.

                  Mark 4:34 says Jesus taught His disciples about "all things," but does anyone serious believe this included details of such things like space travel, advanced calculus and the sex life of sea slugs?

                  And Paul explicitly stated that the entire world was hearing the gospel (Romans 1:8; Colossians 1:6; cf. I Timothy 3:16). Later Christian theologians used these passages as "proof" that no one could possibly be living on the other side of the world. The Bible said it, they believed it, and that settled it. Nevertheless, millions of Native Americans lived in the Americas despite the theologian’s ideological objections.

                  These are only a few examples illustrating the fact that all does not always literally mean all.

                  Please note that this does not mean that certain details are exaggerated or embellished.

                  And unless God deliberately wiped out every sign of a global flood[1] there would be unmistakable evidence virtually everywhere. Especially if it took place only a few thousand years ago. To give you a glimpse of what I'm talking about essentially we should expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand and silt, overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record, and being only a couple thousand years old, still remain with very little erosion. But this worldwide blanket doesn’t exist. Further, we would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit dumping of transported sediment in accordance with Stokes Law (largest particles first and smallest ones last).

                  And that is just one of a myriad of insurmountable issues.

                  Many of the early geologists were also clerics who went out confident that they would find evidence everywhere for a recent global flood, but not only did none of them ever find any what they did find again and again contradicted any possibility of such an event. And that has not changed since that time but rather continues to be reinforced.

                  ETA: And IMHBAO comparing this to the resurrection is a bad analogy primarily because with the Flood we have physical evidence that can be examined.







                  1. Of course being God He could very easily do so but such a course is contradicted by His making the rainbow a symbol of the Flood, something you wouldn't do if you were concealing every scrap of evidence that one took place. Further erasing all evidence of such a flood would be as big if not bigger miracle than just flooding the planet. And I tend to be leery of explanations requiring that level of miracle to accomplish but somehow doesn't get mentioned.
                  Last edited by rogue06; 06-05-2019, 01:06 PM.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    So you go with the argument that the flood narrative is essentially true but certain details are exaggerated or embellished. Which begs the question: how do you distinguish the fact from the fiction?
                    You can read the flood passage literally (or, at least, from a literalist perspective) and still come away with a picture of a local flood. Keeping in mind, of course, that a literalist reading was never intended to be stone literal (figures of speech are recognized and appreciated for what they are), and realizing that Hebrew words like ha-arets which we sometimes translate as "earth", are better translated "land". I think it also helps to take in consideration the views of OT scholars like John Walton, John Sailhamer, Tremper Longman, etc., that the Genesis author/s had in mind the Promise Land when referring to ha-arets. While some Christians take a more radical approach and say that the Creation narrative and Flood narrative are poetic writings, or wholly mythological (in the fictional sense) I think that goes too far, and isn't necessary.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      if the flood was local, what was the purpose of saving all the animals?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        if the flood was local, what was the purpose of saving all the animals?
                        Simply those that compiled, redacted and edited the story over time that became part of Genesis believed the animals needed to be saved, and there was a world flood. The authors(?) compiled Genesis between ~1100 - 700 BCE, and not at the time Genesis was claimed to be written. There are no known documents older then the Dead Sea scrolls.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          And unless God deliberately wiped out every sign of a global flood[1] there would be unmistakable evidence virtually everywhere. Especially if it took place only a few thousand years ago.
                          This is why I say that it's possible the flood happened much longer ago than young earth creationists believe.

                          We also don't know the exact mechanism of how God caused the flood to happen, where the water came from, where it receded to, how it receded, etc, so there's no guarantee we would necessarily recognize the evidence if we saw it.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            This is why I say that it's possible the flood happened much longer ago than young earth creationists believe.

                            We also don't know the exact mechanism of how God caused the flood to happen, where the water came from, where it receded to, how it receded, etc, so there's no guarantee we would necessarily recognize the evidence if we saw it.
                            The problem is the fairly simple matter of fact evidence in the rock strata, and the history of the erosion surface demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that no such flood has ever happened in the past hundreds of millions of years. We have continuous uninterrupted lake varves 60,000 years in Lake Suigetsu.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              This is why I say that it's possible the flood happened much longer ago than young earth creationists believe.

                              We also don't know the exact mechanism of how God caused the flood to happen, where the water came from, where it receded to, how it receded, etc, so there's no guarantee we would necessarily recognize the evidence if we saw it.
                              Unless the water and sediments were themselves nothing like what we see today, and I mean radically different, they would still 'behave' in certain predictable ways.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                The problem is the fairly simple matter of fact evidence in the rock strata, and the history of the erosion surface demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that no such flood has ever happened in the past hundreds of millions of years. We have continuous uninterrupted lake varves 60,000 years in Lake Suigetsu.
                                We also have deposits that cannot possibly be laid down by a flood, such as arid deserts and the like, found smack dab in the middle of what have been called "Flood layers" all over the world.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X