Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[gnostic]

To Thief:

What you don't understand, thief, is that there are limitation to the size when constructing a wooden vessel, before it will break apart in the water.

Body of water exert a lot of pressures on any vessel. The more load weight you add into the vessel, the more pressures build up from the outside, which will be needed to keep the vessel afloat or it could sink. The heavier the load (referring to the ship and everything inside the ship, eg humans, animals, food, water, waste, belongings, etc), the more forces are required from the water to keep the ark afloat. So the wood would experience massive pressures from the water, which would flex or distort the woods.

When people build a large vessel, like a sizable ship, it is first build on dry land, then moved into the water, the pressures from water are less dramatic, because the intensity of the pressures exerted upon hull of the ship from the outside of the vessel is less. The forces and pressures are far more gentle when a ship is slowly lower into the water.

But as we all know from floods in recent years, floods are anything but gentle.

When flood occur on dry land, rivers and lakes would overflow, breaking riverbanks. The forces of rushing water will be sudden and greater than slowly moving a newly ship from dry land to sea, because any structure - whether they be buildings or ships - will have to deal with more than just H2O waters.

Not only will there be tonnes of water, but tonnes of dirty and soils - hence mud - as well possibly tonnes of sands, rocks and debris from wreckage of man-made structures, pushing at anything (like the ark for example) with great forces.

I'm sure you've seen footage of flash flood on the news, where trees were uprooted and houses were pulled off from their foundation and swept away. You would quite often seen there are more than just tonnes of water; there are tonnes of mud in the undrinkable water.

Any ship, on dry land, will not only be swept away, but will be ripped apart by the forces of these flood water. The larger the vessel the more likely the ship will be destroyed by the flood.

The only way, Noah's ark could survive the deluge, if the ark was already in open water, like the sea. That's apparently not the case in Noah's story.

With torrential rain and flash floods, do you seriously believe that some pitch on the inside and outside of the ark's hull will keep water leaking into the inside of the ark?

I don't think so.

Rushing water and mud would have wash away the pitch from any part of the hull, particularly at the seams. No vessels from the Bronze Age, or even the Iron Age, Middle Ages, and large part of the modern period, built with wood, kept water from seeping into the vessel. Nothing (referring to ships or boats) is ever completely water-tight or water-proof.

And with so many animals in the ark, plus supply of food and water, would add to the weight to the ark. I couldn't guess at how much the total weight of the ark and everything inside the arks, but it would be measure in tens of tonnes. That weight would also just as much forces as the water on the hull of the vessel. In open water, the ocean could get very choppy. There would have been large leaks everywhere on the ark. So unless there are five times as many people in the ark, bailing water out of the ark, 24/7, the ark could not possibly stay afloat for a whole year. Is the ark built to take the pounding of first flash flood and then the frequent pounding of waves.

So size and weight are issues.

So is the shape of the hull.

We are given no detail about the shape of the hull. The only things we do know, is that the ark was made of wood, with pitch slapped on the inside and out. We also know the dimensions of the ark (137 m in length or 444 ft), with possibly 3 levels, plus a door at its side, and either a roof or skyline(?).

We know the Ark is not navigable nor built for speed. Without any capability of navigating the vessel, the Ark is not really a ship; it would be more like a barge or raft.

That is really not much detail to go on, and certainly not the blue-print on how to build an ark.

Depending on the shape of the hull, each shape have specific maximum length for wooden ship. And each hull (shape) can only manage a maximum weight before it sink.

With all these factors, it is scientifically impossible for the Ark to endure all that in that size.

 

[gnostic]

As to the pyramids, Thief.

Before the Great Pyramids were built in Giza, during the 4th dynasty, the Egyptians had a lot of experiences in building pyramids from the 3rd dynasty. The earlier pyramids became the prototype for the later constructions of the true pyramids in Giza, but the Great Pyramids were neither the 1st pyramids nor the last to be built, but they were definitely the largest.

The first pyramid was the Step Pyramid for Djoser (flourished c. 2670 BCE), from the 3rd dynasty. The architect of this pyramid was the famous Imhotep. The Step Pyramid was built in Sakkara or Saqqara.

So the design of the pyramids were made out of nowhere. The design were continually improved, and reached it zenith with the Great Pyramids, but I believed that there are over 100 pyramids in Egypt alone.

So the construction of these pyramids were quite feasible, and doesn't in any way break the law of physics.

The Stonehenge were also not first stone circle, nor the last, but entirely feasible for the Neolithic people to quarry them and erect them.

The Ark on the other hand, is nothing more than a fantasy.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Another note or two on ship building that makes the Ark an impossibility:

At the dimensions mentioned for it, and the noted total lack of any navigation abilities, the Ark was doomed in any sort of rough sea. As an oblong with no keel, outriggers or control surfaces any presence of a cross sea would simply capsize the entire thing; everyone aboard dies.

Working of its timbers: we get zero info on the building techniques, but any vessel of wood planks will flex, or 'work' as the mariners called it, at sea. The action of the waves working on the vessel cause it to torque and flex, and sea water flows in between the wooden seams, even with tarring, caulking, and coppering [historical notes confirm this time out of mind]. Who aboard the Ark iis going to man the pumps to keep the water that flows in from sinking the vessel? In a bilge 450 feet long, 24/7 for 40 days? Noah's few sons? It only took about 2-3 hours of lack-of-pumps to sink the tall ship Bounty in Hurricane Sandy just this year, just over 180' long.

 

[gnostic]

Another note or two on ship building that makes the Ark an impossibility:

At the dimensions mentioned for it, and the noted total lack of any navigation abilities, the Ark was doomed in any sort of rough sea. As an oblong with no keel, outriggers or control surfaces any presence of a cross sea would simply capsize the entire thing; everyone aboard dies.

Working of its timbers: we get zero info on the building techniques, but any vessel of wood planks will flex, or 'work' as the mariners called it, at sea. The action of the waves working on the vessel cause it to torque and flex, and sea water flows in between the wooden seams, even with tarring, caulking, and coppering [historical notes confirm this time out of mind]. Who aboard the Ark iis going to man the pumps to keep the water that flows in from sinking the vessel? In a bilge 450 feet long, 24/7 for 40 days? Noah's few sons? It only took about 2-3 hours of lack-of-pumps to sink the tall ship Bounty in Hurricane Sandy just this year, just over 180' long.

Agreed. :yes:

Nothing in Genesis showed that they had a history on shipbuilding, prior to Noah and after Noah. What would any of patriarchs know anything about shipbuilding?

You can't just pick up shipbuilding without prior knowledge and prior experiences.

But then again, the Ark was really not a ship, by any convention.

 

[Thief]

To Thief:

What you don't understand, thief, is that there are limitation to the size when constructing a wooden vessel, before it will break apart in the water.

Body of water exert a lot of pressures on any vessel. The more load weight you add into the vessel, the more pressures build up from the outside, which will be needed to keep the vessel afloat or it could sink. The heavier the load (referring to the ship and everything inside the ship, eg humans, animals, food, water, waste, belongings, etc), the more forces are required from the water to keep the ark afloat. So the wood would experience massive pressures from the water, which would flex or distort the woods.

When people build a large vessel, like a sizable ship, it is first build on dry land, then moved into the water, the pressures from water are less dramatic, because the intensity of the pressures exerted upon hull of the ship from the outside of the vessel is less. The forces and pressures are far more gentle when a ship is slowly lower into the water.

But as we all know from floods in recent years, floods are anything but gentle.

When flood occur on dry land, rivers and lakes would overflow, breaking riverbanks. The forces of rushing water will be sudden and greater than slowly moving a newly ship from dry land to sea, because any structure - whether they be buildings or ships - will have to deal with more than just H2O waters.

Not only will there be tonnes of water, but tonnes of dirty and soils - hence mud - as well possibly tonnes of sands, rocks and debris from wreckage of man-made structures, pushing at anything (like the ark for example) with great forces.

I'm sure you've seen footage of flash flood on the news, where trees were uprooted and houses were pulled off from their foundation and swept away. You would quite often seen there are more than just tonnes of water; there are tonnes of mud in the undrinkable water.

Any ship, on dry land, will not only be swept away, but will be ripped apart by the forces of these flood water. The larger the vessel the more likely the ship will be destroyed by the flood.

The only way, Noah's ark could survive the deluge, if the ark was already in open water, like the sea. That's apparently not the case in Noah's story.

With torrential rain and flash floods, do you seriously believe that some pitch on the inside and outside of the ark's hull will keep water leaking into the inside of the ark?

I don't think so.

Rushing water and mud would have wash away the pitch from any part of the hull, particularly at the seams. No vessels from the Bronze Age, or even the Iron Age, Middle Ages, and large part of the modern period, built with wood, kept water from seeping into the vessel. Nothing (referring to ships or boats) is ever completely water-tight or water-proof.

And with so many animals in the ark, plus supply of food and water, would add to the weight to the ark. I couldn't guess at how much the total weight of the ark and everything inside the arks, but it would be measure in tens of tonnes. That weight would also just as much forces as the water on the hull of the vessel. In open water, the ocean could get very choppy. There would have been large leaks everywhere on the ark. So unless there are five times as many people in the ark, bailing water out of the ark, 24/7, the ark could not possibly stay afloat for a whole year. Is the ark built to take the pounding of first flash flood and then the frequent pounding of waves.

So size and weight are issues.

So is the shape of the hull.

We are given no detail about the shape of the hull. The only things we do know, is that the ark was made of wood, with pitch slapped on the inside and out. We also know the dimensions of the ark (137 m in length or 444 ft), with possibly 3 levels, plus a door at its side, and either a roof or skyline(?).

We know the Ark is not navigable nor built for speed. Without any capability of navigating the vessel, the Ark is not really a ship; it would be more like a barge or raft.

That is really not much detail to go on, and certainly not the blue-print on how to build an ark.

Depending on the shape of the hull, each shape have specific maximum length for wooden ship. And each hull (shape) can only manage a maximum weight before it sink.

With all these factors, it is scientifically impossible for the Ark to endure all that in that size.

A lengthy retort.
I did go looking for feasiblity reports.
Found some.

I suppose you could too....if you wanted to.

 

[Thief]

As to the pyramids, Thief.

Before the Great Pyramids were built in Giza, during the 4th dynasty, the Egyptians had a lot of experiences in building pyramids from the 3rd dynasty. The earlier pyramids became the prototype for the later constructions of the true pyramids in Giza, but the Great Pyramids were neither the 1st pyramids nor the last to be built, but they were definitely the largest.

The first pyramid was the Step Pyramid for Djoser (flourished c. 2670 BCE), from the 3rd dynasty. The architect of this pyramid was the famous Imhotep. The Step Pyramid was built in Sakkara or Saqqara.

So the design of the pyramids were made out of nowhere. The design were continually improved, and reached it zenith with the Great Pyramids, but I believed that there are over 100 pyramids in Egypt alone.

So the construction of these pyramids were quite feasible, and doesn't in any way break the law of physics.

The Stonehenge were also not first stone circle, nor the last, but entirely feasible for the Neolithic people to quarry them and erect them.

The Ark on the other hand, is nothing more than a fantasy.

Pyramids are everywhere.

You did notice one of the Egyptian models has more than one angle of slope?
Some physical limitations do apply.

And you are aware there is more than one flood story...'floating' around?

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, a typo(s). In bold and red that you have quoted, should have read:

So the design of the pyramids didn't come out of nowhere.

It is too late to edit for me to edit the other post.

What I mean, is that the Great Pyramids of Giza weren't the first pyramids.

Although, the older pyramids (in the 3rd dynasty) weren't what people called "true pyramids", it nevertheless showed that the Egyptians gradually improve architectural and engineering skills. That's what we would called "progress".

With the Genesis, Noah's predecessors (from Adam to Lamech) displayed no skills in shipbuilding. Heck, I don't see anything them (Noah's predecessors) being skilled carpenters. You can't just pick up a skill from nowhere.

The Egyptians didn't pick up the skill out of nowhere. They clearly knew how quarry stones, they know how to transport the stones, chisel the stones and build pyramids with those stones. They are evidences in their architectural and engineering skills.

There are no evidences, even in bible (textual evidences), to show Noah's predecessors passing them down skills in carpentry and in shipbuilding.

However, I would like to point out, once again, that the Ark is not a ship, since it is not navigable.

The Egyptians do have skills in building boats and ships throughout the 3rd millennium BCE, because they have a long history of ship and boat building.

 

[gnostic]

And you are aware there is more than one flood story...'floating' around?

Of course I know of other flood stories. So each culture and traditional story can have their own flood myth, doesn't prove a thing.

It doesn't mean they are all related to the one biblical and global flood, as given in Genesis (6-8). It doesn't mean they relate to one time, a single global flood. Flash flood can occur almost anywhere, so I wouldn't be surprise if each of these myths, related to a regional flood.

 

[Thief]

Of course I know of other flood stories. So each culture and traditional story can have their own flood myth, doesn't prove a thing.

It doesn't mean they are all related to the one biblical and global flood, as given in Genesis (6-8). It doesn't mean they relate to one time, a single global flood. Flash flood can occur almost anywhere, so I wouldn't be surprise if each of these myths, related to a regional flood.

But it could point to a technique of cleasing the earth that a God might apply.

 

[gnostic]

But it could point to a technique of cleasing the earth that a God might apply.

Only as a myth that the bible may claim of the Earth's cleansing.

There are no scientific nor geological evidences to support a global flood in the 3rd millennium BCE. There was a massive regional flood that occurred in the Mesopotamia around 2900 BCE, but there are no evidences to support in other regions, at this same time, in the Levant, Egypt and Elam (Iran).

The bible, or more precisely the Genesis, on the other hand, Noah's Flood has been estimated and calculated to occur around 2340 BCE (based on the Masoretic Text). And there are no (again, scientific and geological) evidences to support of global flood around this time, in non-Abrahamic kingdoms and lands that have their flood myths.

 

[outhouse]

Only as a myth that the bible may claim of the Earth's cleansing.

There are no scientific nor geological evidences to support a global flood in the 3rd millennium BCE. There was a massive regional flood that occurred in the Mesopotamia around 2900 BCE, but there are no evidences to support in other regions, at this same time, in the Levant, Egypt and Elam (Iran).

The bible, or more precisely the Genesis, on the other hand, Noah's Flood has been estimated and calculated to occur around 2340 BCE (based on the Masoretic Text). And there are no (again, scientific and geological) evidences to support of global flood around this time, in non-Abrahamic kingdoms and lands that have their flood myths.

Actually it is factual that no global flood occured anywhere near 2340 BC


If A global flood had happened, then there should be a exact date. If no date can be provided, then a flood did not happen.


But then again we are trying to use reason and logic against certain individuals that avoid it.

 

[CG Didymus]

Actually it is factual that no global flood occured anywhere near 2340 BC


If A global flood had happened, then there should be a exact date. If no date can be provided, then a flood did not happen.


But then again we are trying to use reason and logic against certain individuals that avoid it.

If, hypothetically, it did happen, all the plants would have to grow back. Did seeds float on the water for a year? If so, there should be seeds of every kind of plant scattered randomly around the world? How about the fish? Was it salt or fresh water? Either way there should be land-locked versions of ocean fish. Like when the water receded, there should be a lake with an octopus, a swordfish, a whale. Is there? If it was fresh water, then how long did it take for the ocean to get salty?

I heard Ken Ham say that only "kinds" of animals needed to be taken. He used a wolf as an example. All dog-like animals descended from one pair of dog-like creatures. How long did it take to make all the varieties? Are wolves still having puppies that are foxes or coyotes? I'm not quite sure, but it seemed like he was saying that there was a net loss in genetic material. That got me to wondering--Did apes de-evolve from humans? I know these things aren't really that important, because the main thing was to kill all the people and animals. What a great God we have.

 

[outhouse]

If, hypothetically, it did happen, all the plants would have to grow back. Did seeds float on the water for a year? If so, there should be seeds of every kind of plant scattered randomly around the world? How about the fish? Was it salt or fresh water? Either way there should be land-locked versions of ocean fish. Like when the water receded, there should be a lake with an octopus, a swordfish, a whale. Is there? If it was fresh water, then how long did it take for the ocean to get salty?

I heard Ken Ham say that only "kinds" of animals needed to be taken. He used a wolf as an example. All dog-like animals descended from one pair of dog-like creatures. How long did it take to make all the varieties? Are wolves still having puppies that are foxes or coyotes? I'm not quite sure, but it seemed like he was saying that there was a net loss in genetic material. That got me to wondering--Did apes de-evolve from humans? I know these things aren't really that important, because the main thing was to kill all the people and animals. What a great God we have.

All your questions are great and address reality.

Ive just simplified mine to one issue, date. Because if they pick a date, it is then refuted instantly by those who we know were living at that time with no break in writing or culture. No date no flood. Large floods do not happen without leaving evidence. We know the Euphrates flooded in 2900 BC by the flood deposits it has left behind, and mythology starts after this river flood. Where is any reason at all in thinking a global flood leaves nothing behind, then try and find natural events they know nothing about and claim the flood did it, to try and fit puzzle pieces that doent fit, together?

The problem we face, is that people that have faith, simply avoid facts and reason

 

[gnostic]

Actually it is factual that no global flood occured anywhere near 2340 BC


If A global flood had happened, then there should be a exact date. If no date can be provided, then a flood did not happen.

I am not saying that the flood occurred at this date, just that the Masoretic Text, which most English translations are based on, was calculated to this date.

My post was comparing the date in about 2900 BCE with this the estimated biblical date of 2340 BCE.

I am also quite aware that there are no evidences to support for this date, given that both Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures continued to flourish at this time. If there were global flood at the magnitude that the Genesis say, there would be evidences, particularly geological evidences be dated to this same date.

 

[outhouse]

I am not saying that the flood occurred at this date, just that the Masoretic Text, which most English translations are based on, was calculated to this date.

My post was comparing the date in about 2900 BCE with this the estimated biblical date of 2340 BCE.

I am also quite aware that there are no evidences to support for this date, given that both Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures continued to flourish at this time. If there were global flood at the magnitude that the Genesis say, there would be evidences, particularly geological evidences be dated to this same date.

I know where you were coming from.

I was just explaining further against inane ideas that come up towards a global flood

 

[Ouroboros]

I heard Ken Ham say that only "kinds" of animals needed to be taken. He used a wolf as an example. All dog-like animals descended from one pair of dog-like creatures. How long did it take to make all the varieties? Are wolves still having puppies that are foxes or coyotes? I'm not quite sure, but it seemed like he was saying that there was a net loss in genetic material. That got me to wondering--Did apes de-evolve from humans?

Also consider virus, bacteria, yeast, fungi, and many other microbal "life forms". If there has been no evolution of any virus, it would mean that small family of 10 people would have been carriers of all past, current, and future viral infections. And on top of that, all parasite infections, all kinds of cold, flu, stomach illnesses, e-coli, yada yada, and being that sick (deadly sick) for 9 months (or whatever-long it was)... Did one cow carry the mad-cow disease? Where did all these variations come from, unless they mutated? If they mutated, it's a very strong evidence for evolution.

Besides that, there are millions and millions of helpful microbal life, to help our digestive system to work, and many other kinds. I read an article recently that pheromones aren't made by a human or animal but are produced by symbiotic microbes (if I understand it right). I doubt Noah carried all millions of variations, all at once.

 

[CG Didymus]

I doubt Noah carried all millions of variations, all at once.

That's interesting that you'd say Noah would be carrying all these variations, because that seems like what Ken Ham was trying to say about how all the "races" of humans started. Noah had all the colors and characteristics in him. His kids had kids that had all the various colors and features, the Tower of Babel happened, and the different kids went off in different directions. So in the years after the flood an African looking kid went south, an Asian one went east, a light-skinned, blue-eyed one went northwest etc.

Genetically is something like that even possible? Shouldn't all the kids still have enough of the genes of Noah to give birth to a European looking Asian? Shouldn't all of them have continued to have a wide variety of colors and features in their children? Since there isn't anyone here that even believes in the myth, I feel I'm preaching to the choir, but just in case a Christian flood believer stops by and posts. How would you, the Christian, explain Ham's assertions?