Questions on the Flood

[1ofWaterNFire]

Hi fellow creationists - both OECs and YECs alike. =)

I didn't know exactly where to post this, so I offer my apologies to the moderators if this is the the right section. :teeth:

For some reason, I see a strange trend among OECs and YECs in that OECs tend to try to defend their position that Noah's Flood was just local in the Mesopotamian area, and YECs tend to accept Noah's flood as global. Actually, so far, I've read nothing that contradicted this trend. Maybe this trend isn't so strange?...

Just to clarify my position to those that do not know, I am a YEC. However, I do not condemn or think less of OECs just because they hold on to a belief that seems to be a compromise of the Bible to "science of evolution". I think the more important issue is whether or not one has accepted Christ, and all are side-matters. Of course, there are those that disagree to this view as well. =)

...These are several questions I have for OECs, I would imagine, unless there are YECs that believe Noah's Flood was only local. Just questions so I can better understand the view of local-Flood believers. However, I would appreciate it if people from both POVs shared their inputs. :teeth:

I read this article located at http://www.evidence.info/creation/localflood.html titled "The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local". I read it with great interest, and I don't know if this is because the article was just breifly summarizing the basic arguments, but none of the arguments the article presented seemed convincing to me...

So my questions....

1) I imagine if there was a local flood, however long ago you imagine it was, that there would be fossil evidence of such thing (Unless you firmly believe floods cannot create fossils...). I also imagine that since Bible records such long age for people that lived before the Flood, that people would have populated to at least millions (Feel free to show why it wouldn't be so). There would've been cities, or at least artifacts left over from those people. Also animals.. lots and lots of them. Is there some evidence showing such a catastrophic event concentrated only in Mesopotamia? If not, and if you decide what I imagine cannot hold true, please feel free to explain.

2) Half-way through the article, I formulated several questions, of which were answered in the bottom half. However, they left a sort of a bitter taste... like I was missing out on something. It almost felt like the writer was trying to defend everything on poor speculation that's not even based on Bible as the title claimed. Of these... One of the questions that formed in my head was, "If the Flood was only local, then why did God require animals to be taken aboard?" It was to my pleasant surprise to find a very similarly structered question. But their only argument was that this was because some animals are specialized only to the Mesopotamian area. But then there are those undeniable verses in chapter 7 in Genesis where God says to take 7 pairs of every kind of clean animals and a pair of every unclean animals. To me, they seem very clear, or does the meaning of the word "every" seem to also be debatable in the original language?

3) When you read down the article, you find two points that seem to be very well defensed using Bible verses... the funny thing is, the two arguments seem to be contradictory to each other. The first one is: The "whole earth" often refers to the people not geography. The second one is: The "whole earth" usually refers to local geography. So which is it? Do the words "whole earth" often/usually (I thought they had similar meanings...) refer to a) people? or b) local geography?

4) If it was a local flood, how was all the water held within the local area and why didn't water proceed to flood surrounding areas and so on? Is Mesopotamian area bowl shaped? If it is, how did the water manage to recede? If it isn't, why did it take over 5 months for all the water to recede, and how was the flood water kept local? I think from the global-flood perspective, the water was able to recede because of elevation changes. Mountains were raised higher causing valleys to become deeper. I'm sure there is some scientific reasoning for this, though I for one do not know of the answer. However, I have no trouble believing God may have done that supernaturally, though to Him, it might be nothing more than just molding clay. :teeth:

5) "Planet Earth became a desert after the flood!" Is that what all local-Flood believers think? Or just some? I guess the writer concluded when the Bible said that "the earth was completely dry", it meant there would not be plants and vegetation. I think the scripture clearly contradicts that idea by the story of the dove that came back with the "freshly plucked olive leaf". Or did the dove manage to fly outside the flooded area, plucked a leaf, and bothered to fly back to the ark stranded in a well of water? Or is the author of the article trying to say there were plants while the water was receding and became a total desert after the water receded? That seems unlikely...

6) Just something I thought was funny. You can skip this if you want. =P The article writer says that when Genesis says all flesh has become corrupted, it did not mean literally all, pointing out that Noah was mentioned as a righteous man. Now, I personally think that Noah was also corrupted, but was just deemed righteous by God because he tried his best to walk with God, but I guess that's up the the individual. However, taking from this idea, how can OECs be sure God meant "all flesh" when He promised never to wipe out all flesh with a flood? Couldn't He have possibly meant with the exception of certain peoples? If He meant with the except of certain peoples, then hasn't He lied?? =P

That'll be all for now. Feel free to add, correct, comment, and/or respond to any of the above. Thanks! :teeth:

[Socratism]

1ofWaterNFire,

When scripture says "Noah was perfect in his generations" what does that mean?

It occurred to me some time ago when I was reading about the latest attempts at "genetic engineering" that perhaps the people who lived before the Flood were more advanced than we usually give them credit for and that if all the genomes of mankind were beginning to become "corrupted" that God's plan for a Messiah could have been in danger due to corruption of the Messianic bloodline.

Just a wild thought, but it might explain why all mankind had to be destroyed at that time to stamp out the inevitable corruption.

[1ofWaterNFire]

1ofWaterNFire,

When scripture says "Noah was perfect in his generations" what does that mean?

It occurred to me some time ago when I was reading about the latest attempts at "genetic engineering" that perhaps the people who lived before the Flood were more advanced than we usually give them credit for and that if all the genomes of mankind were beginning to become "corrupted" that God's plan for a Messiah could have been in danger due to corruption of the Messianic bloodline.

Just a wild thought, but it might explain why all mankind had to be destroyed at that time to stamp out the inevitable corruption.

I can't seem to find "Noah was perfect in his generations" anywhere. =/ Can you point to me which chapter and verse of what translation it belongs too? Thanks, sorry for the trouble. :teeth:
As for the idea that perhaps God used the Flood to stop corruption in the bloodline, I've actually heard that one before, though this would be based on the verse saying Noah was righteous and blameless while all flesh was corrupted (Is that the verse you meant? =) I think this idea is formed following the story about Nephilims and the sons of God had children by daughters of men. I think in this frame of thought, the "sons of God" are thought to be perhaps devils trying to corrupt the blood line. Though it seems pretty clear God deemed the people corrupted because of the violence (Genesis 6:11-13). But I guess the idea could also be put up to discussion, but I think that would require a new thread. :teeth:

[Socrates]

08-01-2003 @ 10:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164463#post164463)
1ofWaterNFire:

1) I imagine if there was a local flood, however long ago you imagine it was, that there would be fossil evidence of such thing (Unless you firmly believe floods cannot create fossils...). I also imagine that since Bible records such long age for people that lived before the Flood, that people would have populated to at least millions (Feel free to show why it wouldn't be so). There would've been cities, or at least artifacts left over from those people. Also animals.. lots and lots of them. Is there some evidence showing such a catastrophic event concentrated only in Mesopotamia? If not, and if you decide what I imagine cannot hold true, please feel free to explain.

No there isn't. But any proposed Mesopotamian flood would be far more catastrophic than the Spokane Flood (you can tell from the land gradients) where the Ice Age Lake Missoula burst through a barrier and carved out the Channeled Scablands.

Also, if there is no evidence for the local Flood, why are the scoffers morally culpable (2 Peter 3 says they are willingly ignorant of the previous destruction by water)?

2) Half-way through the article, I formulated several questions, of which were answered in the bottom half. However, they left a sort of a bitter taste... like I was missing out on something. It almost felt like the writer was trying to defend everything on poor speculation that's not even based on Bible as the title claimed. Of these... One of the questions that formed in my head was, "If the Flood was only local, then why did God require animals to be taken aboard?" It was to my pleasant surprise to find a very similarly structered question. But their only argument was that this was because some animals are specialized only to the Mesopotamian area. But then there are those undeniable verses in chapter 7 in Genesis where God says to take 7 pairs of every kind of clean animals and a pair of every unclean animals. To me, they seem very clear, or does the meaning of the word "every" seem to also be debatable in the original language?

The repeated emphasis of "all" (Hebrew kol) shows that it was a global Flood. Why build an ocean liner to escape a local flood when you could just migrate?

3) When you read down the article, you find two points that seem to be very well defensed using Bible verses... the funny thing is, the two arguments seem to be contradictory to each other. The first one is: The "whole earth" often refers to the people not geography. The second one is: The "whole earth" usually refers to local geography. So which is it? Do the words "whole earth" often/usually (I thought they had similar meanings...) refer to a) people? or b) local geography?

Depends on the context. In the context of Genesis 7-9, it's hard to imagine how God could have made it clearer.

4) If it was a local flood, how was all the water held within the local area and why didn't water proceed to flood surrounding areas and so on? Is Mesopotamian area bowl shaped? If it is, how did the water manage to recede? If it isn't, why did it take over 5 months for all the water to recede, and how was the flood water kept local? I think from the global-flood perspective, the water was able to recede because of elevation changes. Mountains were raised higher causing valleys to become deeper. I'm sure there is some scientific reasoning for this, though I for one do not know of the answer. However, I have no trouble believing God may have done that supernaturally, though to Him, it might be nothing more than just molding clay. :teeth:

No, Mesopotamia is a half-bowl. And the gradient would make the waters pour down towards the south. So how did the Ark land in the opposite direction, and how was it levitated several hundred feet above the level of the proposed Mesopotamian flood? Local flood advocates do not generally argue that walls of water were held up supernaturally.

5) "Planet Earth became a desert after the flood!" Is that what all local-Flood believers think? Or just some? I guess the writer concluded when the Bible said that "the earth was completely dry", it meant there would not be plants and vegetation. I think the scripture clearly contradicts that idea by the story of the dove that came back with the "freshly plucked olive leaf". Or did the dove manage to fly outside the flooded area, plucked a leaf, and bothered to fly back to the ark stranded in a well of water? Or is the author of the article trying to say there were plants while the water was receding and became a total desert after the water receded? That seems unlikely...

Can't imagine that. Most creationists believe that the Ice Age occurred after the Flood -- see www.answersingenesis.org/iceage

[1ofWaterNFire]

The repeated emphasis of "all" (Hebrew kol) shows that it was a global Flood. Why build an ocean liner to escape a local flood when you could just migrate?

That's a question I asked too, and the article I linked to responded saying God purposely did this so Noah can participate in His plans:
If the Genesis flood were local, why didn't God just sent Noah and his family packing. Once they were out of the Mesopotamian flood plain, God could have judged the unrighteous without making Noah go to all the trouble of building a huge ark. It is true that God could have done this, although there are some good biblical reasons why He chose not to do so. Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? 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! God could have just wiped out all the evil people in the world, as He did later to the all the Egyptians' first-born. Maybe God had good reasons for Noah to build the ark? God has a purpose for each person of faith to join Him in preaching His message. God's plan will be accomplished regardless of our participation in it. However, God gives obedient humans the privilege of participating in God's plans. Likewise, God had a plan for Noah, part of which was for him and his sons to demonstrate their commitment and perseverance to the Lord.

However, I find this unconvincing... I can recall only one other instance when God Himself poured judgement upon a group of people to wipe them out. When God poured fire from heaven upon Sodom, He didn't have Lot and his family build a shelter deep into the ground and take a pair of rats and cats that may be specialized only to Sodom... :metro: God led Lot and his family out to a safe area. I don't know how much good an argument this is, but trying to defend the question "Why didn't God just have Noah packing?" using the idea that sometimes God seemed to require people to do unnecessary things to carry out His plans so the same idea could be applied here... doesn't seem so strong, and looks to me as a poor speculation. :teeth:

Thanks for your input, Socrates! (BTW, you do know I believe in a global flood, right?) I like YEC inputs, but are there any OECs (who generally seem to believe in local floods) with thoughts on the six questions that I had? :dufus:

[Socrates]

Today @ 06:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166037#post166037)
1ofWaterNFire:

However, I find this unconvincing... I can recall only one other instance when God Himself poured judgement upon a group of people to wipe them out. When God poured fire from heaven upon Sodom, He didn't have Lot and his family build a shelter deep into the ground and take a pair of rats and cats that may be specialized only to Sodom... :metro: God led Lot and his family out to a safe area. I don't know how much good an argument this is, but trying to defend the question "Why didn't God just have Noah packing?" using the idea that sometimes God seemed to require people to do unnecessary things to carry out His plans so the same idea could be applied here... doesn't seem so strong, and looks to me as a poor speculation. :teeth:

What's worse Hugh Ross's ridiculous speculation in The Genesis Question, pp. 164–165:

‘First, when God pours out judgment, He gives ample warning ahead of time. He sends a spokesperson, a prophet, and gives that prophet a kind of platform from which to be heard. For the antediluvians, Noah was that prophet and the scaffolding around the Ark was his platform.’

Most outlandish, what other prophets in the Bible, of whatever epoch, were needed some sort of special platform from which to preach, especially one requiring such a huge expenditure of labour? :saywhat:

In any case, the Bible explains the purpose of the Ark—to save land vertebrates and Noah’s family from being wiped out by the Flood (Genesis 6:18–22, 7:23, 8:1)!


Thanks for your input, Socrates!

You're welcome :thumb:

(BTW, you do know I believe in a global flood, right?)

I do now. :cheers:

[aniso]

Today @ 02:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=165846#post165846)
Socrates:

No there isn't. [/i]

In fact, there is no evidence of a flood in Mesopotamia, other than the likely flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. That is why the legendary flood was both local and imported. An example might be an older legend such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. In fact, many historians lean toward the catastrophic filling of the Black Sea as the origin of the global flood legend. Very large, very sudden and very catastrophic, but still local from a global viewpoint.

But any proposed Mesopotamian flood would be far more catastrophic than the Spokane Flood (you can tell from the land gradients) where the Ice Age Lake Missoula burst through a barrier and carved out the Channeled Scablands.

Well, if you lived in the Spokane area, you might disagree with this. Not sure what the degree of catastrophism has to do with it anyway.

Also, if there is no evidence for the local Flood, why are the scoffers morally culpable (2 Peter 3 says they are willingly ignorant of the previous destruction by water)?

There is plenty of evidence for local floods. They happen all the time. And very large ones are present in the geological record.

The repeated emphasis of "all" (Hebrew kol) shows that it was a global Flood.

Sure, all of the KNOWN world. Emphasis of the word 'all' has little to do with it. We know that some primtive tribes even today have no idea how large the world is.

Why build an ocean liner to escape a local flood when you could just migrate?

Some people think that the flooding of the Black Sea was so rapid that migration might not have been an alternative. Unless you are talking about a general rise in sea level, then yes, migration would be possible.

Aniso, please observe the rules for this section ... they are clearly posted in red at the top of this area (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=81), and you'd have to bypass a copy of them ... marking agreement before you could post here. I am assuming by your previous posts that you do not adhere to the stipulations of being able to post in this area, and are therefore just flouting them indiscriminately. ~Sher

[Socrates]

From Noah's Flood covered the whole Earth (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4104.asp)

Many Christians today think the Flood of Noah's time was only a local flood, confined to somewhere around Mesopotamia. This idea comes not from Scripture, but from the notion of 'billions of years' of Earth history.

But look at the problems this concept involves:
If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.

If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1

If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 metres) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn't rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2

If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of 'all' men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.

If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His
promise never to send such a flood again. [See cartoon below]Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science, and Christ Himself.

[routerider]

Well what we seem to be debating is whether the flood was local or whether is was global. What I think is a more interesting question is whether the story is a myth to begin with. You see, man at that time thought that whatever "breathed" was alive, breath = life. You notice that the bible doesn't have Noah taking all kinds of plants and trees on the ark to preserve them [only for food]. This is a fatal mistake. If the earth is covered in water for a year there is no way that any plants or trees are going to live. It'a also ludicrous to think Noah took a specimen of each tree and plant aboard....where would they get the sunlight to live? Also, how did diseases which require living hosts survive? Did Noah have small pox? There are micro-organisms that need a living host to survive and there are zillions of them...how did they survive?

The story simply is a tale.

Routerider, please observe the rules for this section ... they are clearly posted in red at the top of this area (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=81), and you'd have to bypass a copy of them ... marking agreement before you could post here. According to your religion marker, you do not adhere to the stipulations of being able to post in this area, and are therefore just flouting them indiscriminately. ~Sher

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I am finding this thread very interesting!

Try the following:

Genesis 7:6 tells us that:In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened..

Genesis 8:14-16 tell us that:And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dried. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dry. And God spoke unto Noah, saying: 'Go forth from the ark, you, and your wife, and your sons, and your sons' wives with you.

Thus, Noah & family were in the ark for just over one year.

Genesis 9:28-29 tells us that: And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

Something doesn't jibe. Noah was 600 when the flood started. He was in the ark for (just over) one year. He lived 350 years after the flood & died at the ripe old age of 950. What happened to the year he was in the ark? One of my rabbis writes that: The arithmetic of Noah's years (600 before + 350 after = 950) seems not to take into account the year of the Flood. There is a good case to be made for not considering the duration of the Flood in calculations of the chronology of the world. We might look at the Flood as a period of "suspended animation" - laws of nature were not in effect; perhaps time as we know it cannot apply to that interval. The animals in the ark did not function in their normal ways.

This could explain a lot; interesting, no?

Didja know that Noah was the greatest businessman in the Bible?

'Cause...(wait for it)...he was floating his stock while everyone else was in liquidation!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Sher]

Today @ 08:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166671#post166671)
stillsmallvoice:

Something doesn't jibe. Noah was 600 when the flood started. He was in the ark for (just over) one year. He lived 350 years after the flood & died at the ripe old age of 950. What happened to the year he was in the ark?

Hi SSV,

Nothing happened to it:
Gen 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry.

As to the 950, it probably meant that he died before his 951st birthday that year! Nothing more complicated than that.

:shersig:

[1ofWaterNFire]

Uh... I think this could be just me short of understanding... but I didn't quite get Sher's last post. =/

And just wondering... is there anyone that believes in a local flood? I know there several that believe God used evolution to "create" our world... but are there no old-earthers that believe Noah's Flood was only local? :huh:

[Sher]

Today @ 03:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=188289#post188289)
1ofWaterNFire:

Uh... I think this could be just me short of understanding... but I didn't quite get Sher's last post. =/

Sorry ... I may not have been clear enough :duh:

The scripture clearly reads that Noah was 600 when the floodwaters came ... and in the 601st year is in the verse I quoted above ... so a year.

SSV questioned why Noah "died at the ripe old age of 950" ... and I was pointing out that it was simply in the 951st year ... but before he'd actually hit that birthday evidently.

Picture this ... man "A" lives for 40 years ... gets married ... and lives as a married man for 40 more years. The death record shows he died at 79 ... how is this possible? Because he'd not yet hit his 80th birthday!

Hope that helps.

And just wondering... is there anyone that believes in a local flood? I know there several that believe God used evolution to "create" our world... but are there no old-earthers that believe Noah's Flood was only local? :huh:

I don't know why anyone *would* believe in only a local flood. Surely in 120 years, Noah and Co. could have outrun any local flood ... simply by moving away ... rather than building an ark.

See how silly it is not to believe what the scriptures clearly teach?

"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matt 24:37-39)

All! is all ... not just all that lived locally in Noah's region.

:shersig:

[1ofWaterNFire]

Aah, I understand. I must've misread what stillsmallvoice posted. No wonder Sher's comment didn't make any sense. :doh: Thanks though!

I take it by the silence that there are no local-flood believers on TWeb. Or if there are any, speak now or forever hold your peace. :dufus:

[beeblebrox]

No OEC's here? Strange huh?

I think there is corroborating evidence for a local flood which inspired the story. Keeping facts straight 1000 years or more after an event would have been extremely difficult.

The oldest epic ever found (written in cuniform) contains a story from 2700BC, about 2000 years before Moses wrote about the flood.

It contains another similar story of a global flood, a chosen man who is told to build an ark, take his family a few people, take all the animals, then send out some birds, and make an offering. Then the gods send a flood which destroys everything.

In this area, geologist DO find evidence of an ancient local flood. This flood was so massive, it would have devastated for as far as people could see - though many of them likely died. It indeed would have destroyed their "world".

Read it here if you like (it's the last tablet):

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm


I found it very interesting how similar the accounts were even though the characters have different names and the flood only lasts 6-7 days. The location of this flood is the exact same region described by Moses.

Here's a sample quote:
When a seventh day arrived
I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a swallow and released it.
The swallow went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.
Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed
(a sheep).
I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat.
Seven and seven cult vessels I put in place,
and (into the fire) underneath (or: into their bowls) I poured
reeds, cedar, and myrtle.
The gods smelled the savor,
the gods smelled the sweet savor

I don't really want to debate the flood either way, just thought I'd offer some additional ancient text for comparison.

Beeble

Beeble,
It's obvious from your comments in the non-theist only section that you consider yourself an atheist. Since this is a theist-only section it is inappropriate for you to be posting here.

Thanks

[Socratism]

The Flood story in Genesis never described the region where Noah built the Ark. It is merely assumed it was in the Near East. However, the point where the Ark landed is described as "the mountains of Ararat".

The stories from Genesis, as compiled by Moses, may have originated far earlier. Obviously the one's prior to the Flood would have been preserved on the Ark, and may have been the source for all subsequent Flood stories.

See: http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

[beeblebrox]

Thanks for the link. I had never heard anyone suggest that Adam may have actually written something himself!! wow. But that site does not give any reference to the other flood myths written in the ANE, nor any explanation for them.

My only difficulty with the Noah story coming earlier is the dating. According to most biblical dating the Noah flood would have occured after the Babylonian flood. (ie if the flood occured in 2300BC, how can there be a story written about it in 2700BC that would be derived from an even earlier story?). The Babylonia myth gives reference to an actual King Uruk who was a real historical King- even though they made him into a myth after his death.

If you are correct, then the actual flood would have happened much earlier than 2700BC.

It's difficult to try to interpret history so many thousands of years ago, but the comparisons of timelines between Noah/Bablylonia/Sumeria are actually pretty solid.

It is well known that the emergence of polytheitic culture predates the emergence of monotheism in that area. So it's sounds logical to me that the Babylonian myth came first.

I'm not an history or archaeology expert, but the major experts in the field (with the exception of the YEC's) agree on this dating.

I'm not saying it's impossible for the Noah story to predate the other, just not very probable.

beebleBeeble, see my notice on your prior post in this thread.

[dizzle]

Hey Beeble, can you get in touch with me? I was under the impression that you are a nontheist. If so, this section of the forum is for theists only, specifically creationist theists. The rest of the Science Building is open for all.

[Socratism]

This posting is in reply to someone who earlier was not able to find the following phrase highlighted in bold type"


Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. KJV

The Hebrew words translated as “perfect” and “generations” are as follows:

8549. tamiym, taw-meem'; from H8552; entire (lit., fig. or mor.); also (as noun) integrity, truth:--without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole.

8435. towledah, to-led-aw'; or toledah, to-led-aw'; from H3205; (plur. only) descent, i.e. family; (fig.) history:--birth, generations.

To people in this modern era who now know about DNA and genetic defects it is clear that the phrase “perfect in his generations” may possibly be referring to Noah’s genome.

[Sher]

Socratism:

To people in this modern era who now know about DNA and genetic defects it is clear that the phrase “perfect in his generations” may possibly be referring to Noah’s genome.

Hey Socratism, long time no talk to :smile:

I have a rather big issue with that thought, honestly. With Noah being post fall, I don't think it is possible that there could have been perfection in his genome ... in his integrity and righteousness, yes ... but not his genome. I'm positive that it was still rather pure, but it just couldn't be perfect ... He was simply too many generations removed from Adam to claim "perfection" in that way.

:shersig:

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 02:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=192642#post192642)
Sher:



Hey Socratism, long time no talk to :smile:

I have a rather big issue with that thought, honestly. With Noah being post fall, I don't think it is possible that there could have been perfection in his genome ... in his integrity and righteousness, yes ... but not his genome. I'm positive that it was still rather pure, but it just couldn't be perfect ... He was simply too many generations removed from Adam to claim "perfection" in that way.

:shersig:

You probably do not recall my original speculation that started this thought, namely that there was an advanced civilization prior to the Flood that was starting to do genetic experimentation, much as is starting to be done today.

If this had been the case then the entire human genome might have been in danger of becoming "polluted", which then would have been justification for wiping out humankind except for a few survivors whose genomes had not been affected yet.

In other words, I was not referring to the slow process of natural mutations, but to a deliberate attempt to create hybrid creatures, presumably with "designer genes".

There are hints of precisely this sort of thing in the ancient legends about Atlantis. In fact this appeared in a movie about Atlantis some 40 or 50 years ago. Unfortunately I don't remember the title or any of the actors who appeared in it.

At any rate I thought it was an interesting speculation.