How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Valjean]

I agree with those of you who reject "The Flood" as "once upon a time happened on the Earth". Still, such a story is told all over the world in numerous cultures as it is mentioned here:

Most populations live near water. Ancient peoples did not have much flood control technology. Floods were a familiar agent of cataclysm and would be expected to figure prominently in world folklore.

I don't find any facts in anything he presented.
Like I said he injected his own ideas into the narrative.

Use your own common sense, then. Every animal, food for every animal -- consider the logistics. Ken Ham, I hear, was planning to house a small zoo on his Arc Encounter, but found the idea impractable -- even with a large staff, electricity, plumbing, &c. He had to settle for a stuffed menagerie.

Where in the narrative does it say "every species".

Genesis 1:14 - 16, Genesis1:20.

Where in the narrative does it say "lions needed x amount of meat"? Did lions eat meat according to the Genesis account?

Now you're changing nature? positing a whole different ecology? Talk about changing facts to fit the narrative....
You could just as well posit that lions, elephants and hippos were, at that time, only three inches tall and photosynthesized.
You can always come up with alternative scenarios, not discounted in the Bible, that fit the narrative, but seriously -- is this a reasonable argument?

If one start off with their own ideas, and ignore what those who actually read the Bible tell them, they will present ridiculous arguments, simply 1) because they don't care what the Bible says

You keep citing the Bible. You must realize by now that we don't consider the Bible an authoritative source, largely because the narrative it presents is so wildly at odds with observations and known facts. I could just as reasonably cite opposing texts from the Quran, Gita or Guru Granth. What makes the Bible more authoritative than these, or any other texts?

We don't present "ridiculous arguments" because we don't read the Bible. We present reasoned arguments based on observation, empirical testing and known science. We don't present "our own ideas." We present the conclusions the evidence necessitates. We have no preconceived ideas or agenda. We go where the evidence leads.
How is citing the Bible any more authoritative than citing Harry Potter or The Hobbit? At least these are monographs, with known authors and provenance.
Can you present a reasoned argument for the flood story without any Biblical support?

- because I am sure he heard it said before, the Bible said "of every kind" - every kind of cat doesn't mean every species of cat

So what does it mean? You seem to be twisting the meaning to fit a preconceived idea, Are you saying that the Bible is using "kind" as a technical, scientific term; that it doesn't mean what it seems to say?
How is this not a priori "reasoning?"

You are not saying that man has designed a perfect instrument, in which there is nothing that can cause its data to be inaccurate, are you?

When all else fails you invoke a Cartesian epistemology? You must realize this is unworkable. Requiring this degree of confidence would make everything dubious.

No, you didn't put it in the proper perspective.
The event - the flood - is mentioned by the eyewitnesses and passed on in letter form - the texts written by Moses - the primary source.

But there are no primary sources, nor does the Torah claim any authorship, nor are there primary sources for the existence of a Moses -- or a Jesus, for that matter.

Documents centuries later, and other physical evidence seen by others, is the secondary source,

which verifies the primary source.
That's the evidence - whether weak or strong.

No! Not even weak -- nonexistent!
There are no primary sources, nor is there any evidence. The only witnesses who survived the event left no extant writings -- or any evidence that they even existed, for that matter.

It's up to critics now to disprove the evidence. That's you.

present some and we'll get right on it.

 

[gnostic]

Since Mt. Everest did Not exist before the Flood, how can Mt. Everest have a bearing.
The Flood waters pushed the land masses around thus creating 'peaks and valleys' that did Not exist before the Flood.

Not in a single year it cannot, which is the duration of the Genesis Flood.

It took tens of millions of years for the Himalayas, including Everest, to rise up to their elevation.

The Himalayas rose from the ocean that started 30 million years ago, when the Indian tectonic plate push against the Euroasian tectonic, causing crust underwater to uplift.

Look up mountain formation, like crust uplift, fold, Himalayas, and if you have the tendency to use wiki, then look up geology of the Himalayas, which have more detail on the geological formation of these mountains.

I know that the other possible way for mountains are through volcanic activities, but the Himalayas were mostly from the result of uplift and folding of the Earth crust, because even today, the Indian tectonic is still pushing against the Asian tectonic, and the Himalayas including Everest are still rising.

 

[gnostic]

Do you know what happens if Genesis is dismissed as a fable?

We know the bible a couple of fables, whenever it include characters like talking serpent in Genesis 3 and talking donkey in Numbers 22.

 

[Audie]

Do you know what happens if Genesis is dismissed as a fable? To start with you get rid of...In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (fits right in with a atheism). Besides discounting the flood, there is no literal garden, no tree or forbidden fruit, no Adam and Eve, no Deceiver, no Fall into sin, no covenant with Abraham, no twelve tribes of Israel. I suppose you must also conclude that all the Gospels and epistles are fables, too, because if Genesis is a myth there is no sin, so why did Jesus have to come as the Savior? I'm sure that science has never been able to show evidence of the resurrection, either. Basically, it sounds like you are saying that the entire Bible is a lie and you want Christians to agree with you based on the naturalistic evidence that is available.

I don't think that you would be so bold as to say that you have all the evidence or all knowledge concerning the history of the earth or the beginning of life, or even whether or not there is a supernatural element to this universe. No doubt there is a tremendous amount of yet unknown information and I believe we humans have likely only scratched the surface. I am at least open to possibility that Genesis is accurate and God does not lie because ALL the evidence has yet to be discovered or understood. If there is a Being who created everything and has revealed some information to humanity about it, I just have to conclude that this Creator knows more than I do on the subject.

Not my conversation, but a couple of thoughts-

Nobody is doing an airy hand wave to just dismiss the
Bible. Far from it, this is a thoughtful examination of
the text, and what it means-an exervise recommended to
all.

If one decides it means certain things that prove to be out
of line with the reality about us, like say, putting sticks in
the ground for sheep-breeding or thinking Pi must be 3.0,
then one is insulting his own intelligence, as well as that of
the authors and any audience. To grimly cling to falsity is
not a demonstration of faith. What would you say it is?
I'd say it is egoism, among other things.

Now, as to ALL the info, let's see.

Thou hast not all the info on how to understand the bible;
nobody does. Big mistake to assume too much, think
thrre's no longer call to think ot learn. But you know this,
I am just trying to bring it into focus on this.

All the info will never be available to anyone on any subject.
We get by because it is not necessary.

Let's look at a coutt case.

We have a video of the perp, 20 eye witnesses, and
a confession, plus a great deal of material evidence.
Footprints, finger prints, fibres, you name it.

We do not need to know the flavour donut he ate.

Or take this- the prosecution has lots of testimony that
you did it. It may look bad for you. BUT!

All it takes is one good fact to disprove the prosecution's
story, right?

They SAY you robbed the quick stop in Gary Indiana and
drove off. But, you were in London, having high tea with Queen E.

Prosecution's case disproved, off you go.

So, who needs ALl the facts, like the flavour of tea?

One fact-the deep age of polar ice similarly disproves
the flood story, AS READ TO MEAN WORLD WIDE.
That is all. No need for every fact in the universe,
one will do fine, as with your high tea.
No call to think your life and religion will crumble.

Far from lt.

How could an intelligent informed underdtanding of anything
spoil a faith worth having?

 

[CLee421]

Multiple flood stories around the world actually are a testament that one actually happened (word of mouth to the grandkids and so on)

The geological evidence is overwhelming. Countless creatures encased in mud and evidence shows a quick death.. now our fossils. The only thing catastrophic enough and fast enough to produce those specific results is a flood.

Why don't you believe it?

 

[Audie]

Multiple flood stories around the world actually are a testament that one actually happened (word of mouth to the grandkids and so on)

The geological evidence is overwhelming. Countless creatures encased in mud and evidence shows a quick death.. now our fossils. The only thing catastrophic enough and fast enough to produce those specific results is a flood.

Why don't you believe it?

Uh, because all of that is false?

You would not say such things if you
acgually knew any geology.

 

[CLee421]

Uh, because all of that is false?

You would not say such things if you
acgually knew any geology.

Uh, because all of that is false?

You would not say such things if you
acgually knew any geology.

Right... and what was false and what do you propose is correct?

The mainstream ideas on geological history have been re-examined over recent years and the ideas of layers representing lots of time is illogical.

Fossilized trees shown going through multiple layers (layers that were allegedly supposed to represent millions of years) but...trees go through many of them. Meaning it happened very quickly.

Just because something is taught in a school or widely accepted does not make it true. And your assumption on my knowledge of "any" geology is arrogant. Such a treat - folks like you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Right... and what was false and what do you propose is correct?

Well, we can start with ...

Multiple flood stories around the world actually are a testament that one actually happened (word of mouth to the grandkids and so on)

Multiple flood stories around the world actually are a testament to the fact that there have been multiple floods around the world impacting multiple generations around the world. Your opening comment is drivel at best. And you follow it with absolute garbage,

 

[CLee421]

Well, we can start with ...

​

Multiple flood stories around the world actually are a testament to the fact that there have been multiple floods around the world impacting multiple generations around the world. Your opening comment is drivel at best. And you follow it with absolute garbage,

Cute!

That's a possibility (multiple floods) except that most of the stories say it was worldwide, not localized, and many involve a family some to the exact number of Noah's. And they are coherent in that the world had to be rebuilt by them. Either way it can't be dismissed - to do so is foolish.

Anchor stones - massive - have been found in a trail leading to the mountains where the boat was said to land.

I'm really not here to convince those who don't want to be. I'm more interested in conversations with original poster(s) or people who can be civil adults.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Cute!

That's a possibility (multiple floods) except that most of the stories say it was worldwide, not localized, and many involve a family some to the exact number of Noah's.

Many? Wow! Please provide references to three.

 

[CLee421]

 

[james dixon]

An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age. The ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]

Ice age - Wikipedia

When the ice melted the great flood began

 

[CLee421]

An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age. The ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]

Ice age - Wikipedia

When the ice melted the great flood began

That's an interesting theory however I subscribe to the idea that the ice age could've happened after the flood because of the extreme atmospheric changes caused by the increase of water.

Scripture says the heavens opened up AND the waters of the "great deep" burst forth. So we have a flood coming from the sky as well as the core of the earth. We see there are still places where water is flowing out of the earth in the ocean. It's hot!

 

[james dixon]

Scripture says the heavens opened up AND the waters of the "great deep" burst forth

I believe that as the ice melted it created a lot of moisture that caused a lot of rain

 

[CLee421]

I believe that as the ice melted it created a lot of moisture that caused a lot of rain

I do think that's interesting and have heard it before but it doesn't sound like it lines up with what Moses wrote.

 

[james dixon]

I do think that's interesting and have heard it before but it doesn't sound like it lines up with what Moses wrote.

I don't think Moses got the idea from a dream he had. He could have been referring to an earlier event that was passed down from one generation to another and he used this to support his view in a here and now context.

It's a maybe maybe not sorta thing that we may never know for sure

in my view of things

 

[CLee421]

I don't think Moses got the idea from a dream he had. He could have been referring to an earlier event that was passed down from one generation to another and he used this to support his view in a here and now context.

It's a maybe maybe not sorta thing that we may never know for sure

in my view of things

Moses talked to God "face to face" and I don't think it was a dream either. God gave him knowledge to benefit their people for generations to come.

But sure we will know the absolute truth ONE day

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... it doesn't sound like it lines up with what Moses wrote.

^ a Mosaic authorship is a faith-based claim

 

[CLee421]

^ a Mosaic authorship is a faith-based claim

I tend to side with Jews on their knowledge of their own history book.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I tend to side with Jews on their knowledge of their own history book.

I seriously doubt it.