Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[CG Didymus]

I don't believe the Christian Bible literally, because they don't believe the Hebrew Bible literally. Literally, Isaiah chapter 7, in context, does not talk about the messiah being born in the future. So Christian take part of it, make the young maiden a virgin and use it to prove Jesus is supernatural. That's great--a powerful wonderful, miraculous story. Every religion has great and miraculous stories. But why believe any of them? I look at what it teaches. What does it want me to do with my life? All of them are pushing me to become more spiritual. Does a literal belief in the Christian Bible make people more spiritual? Some would say it has a negative effect, because it makes all other religions wrong. It makes a lot of Christian sects and denominations wrong.
The biggest irony for me is that the Hebrew Bible is centered on the Law. Not just any law, but the Law God gave them. That's literally. Christians don't follow that law. They don't follow the Commandment to keep the Sabbath. I've read verses that say the law and the Sabbath are "forever." I don't want to follow the Jewish laws. I don't want to obey the Sabbath, but it's God's law. I'm glad Christians don't take it literally. I'm glad they found a way to make it unimportant and not necessary. But why make the Hebrew history literal?
I know why, and that's to justify the literal belief in Jesus. A belief based on second and third hand reports of what he might have said and meant. What if they did misquote him? What if he said, "God and I are virtually one, because I do what He tells me."
Paul takes Moses out of context in Romans 10:8. He takes a piece of what Moses was saying in Deuteronomy 30:14, but flips it around. Why didn't he take what Moses was saying literal? Because Moses was saying the Law isn't hard to follow. Paul ends up making the Law impossible to follow. I agree with Paul! I couldn't come close to following God's Law. But if you take the Bible literally, it's God's Law. How can you toss it out? And, how can you toss out the Law, but still make things like a six-day creation, the flood, and the tower of Babel literal?
What is wrong with Noah and the flood being just a cute story. I know, I know, you have to take it as literal, otherwise, your faith in Jesus and the Bible would be in jeopardy. It's an all or nothing proposition. But, it causes you to force interpretations when things don't make sense. And,there are enough things that don't make sense for me to doubt a literal interpretation of the Bible. What is scary is--if you are right, all the rest of us are condemned to hell. So, hopefully, it's you that is wrong.

 

[Looncall]

I don't understand your reference to "liars for Jebus." Yes, a flood is a flood, just as a Tsunami is a wave. Size does matter. As to dating methods, professor of metallurgy Melvin A. Cook noted: "One may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess." And please note that the Flood of Noah's day did bring enormous changes that could well have affected such concentrations.

Really? Just more lies? I am a radio chemist and have made my living measuring radioactivity for around thirty years. I assure you that your source is lieing through his teeth.

This mendacity makes your religion look contemptible.

 

[CG Didymus]

So is it your position that by teaching lies, the Bible is urging us to be moral and kind? To the contrary, I think it is as Jesus said in prayer to God, "Sanctify them [Jesus disciples] by means of the truth; your word is truth." (John 17:17) Jesus believed the accounts of Adam, the Flood, and other accounts in Genesis to be accurate history, and so do his true disciples today.

Everyone thinks their religion's version of truth is the one that's right. I wouldn't expect any different. The problem will always be that it makes all the others false. You believe in Genesis, fine, but who wrote Genesis? Moses? Did God dictate it to him? It doesn't sound like it. It's written by some third person who sounds like an eye witness. Was the Jesus? Or, did God have a secretary that took notes? Whoever wrote it, did they write it down perfect the first time? Or, did they make a first draft and then had someone edit it?
A few books, like Enoch, are mentioned in the Bible, where are they? Did some inspired books get lost in the shuffle? Did some chapters, some verses, some words, some letters, some punctuation get changed? I was told early Hebrew didn't have vowels. Are you sure everything says exactly what it was meant to say? I looked at a Hebrew Bible and a few words had a side note that said that the meaning of that word is lost and unknown. Great, how come Christians know exactly how to interpret that word? I read some Christian apocrypha and it had Peter and some guy Simon flying. Is that history? You'd probably say "no" because that book isn't in the true, inspired canon.
So miracles in a non-canonical book are embellished fabrications, no, actually, you and I both believe that the whole story is a fabrication. Yet, the canonical books, approved by early Church fathers, the same early Church fathers that developed into a church so corrupt that Protestant Christians broke away from them, and then, redefined what was canonical and threw out a few books in the Hebrew part of the Christian Bible, you trust those people and the Jewish leaders that canonized the Hebrew Bible, the same Jewish leaders that consider the Talmud "God's word," the same Jewish leaders that rejected Jesus, anyway, all this to ask, Are you sure the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and literally historical? Of course you do. Why did I even bother to ask.
In actual words and written pages from creation to the flood isn't very long. It is written as if the writer was just glossing over a few highlights to get to the real story. You know like a little back story to get you up to speed on where we are now. Let me try. Well, God created everything. People screwed up and God killed them all but a few. They still screwed up, so he confused their languages. Joseph ended up in Egypt. His descendants became slaves. And now for the real story baby Moses was floating down the Nile...
It is not good historical writing. It leaves too many blanks, too many unanswered questions. You have to believe in rainbows and the sun sitting still. Great metaphors or whatever they are, but not historical fact. A boat full of animals? Great story, but who cleaned the stalls? Did the Gilgamesh story copy the Hebrew story or was it the other way around? What about polar bears? Did they come down from the North Pole to get on the ark or did they float it out on a chunk of ice? Did some guy survive holding on to a piece of driftwood? Did a 39 foot tall Nephilim stand on top of a mountain and survive?
If you're not asking questions then how does your brain work? You're denying other people their religious beliefs because you have so much faith that yours is right without enough questioning. And don't tell me you went through a period of doubt and now you know for sure. New questions arise everyday. You say Jesus believed Genesis is historical, but is Jesus historical? People have doubts. Like the birth narrative, two different versions by two different writers that weren't there. An out of context quote from Isaiah about a virgin and you have a great story. Historical? Was there a wandering star? Sorry, it sounds embellished, made-up, but definitely inspirational.
I know your dilemma. Your faith in God depends on the Bible being absolutely true and literal, but if it's true and literal why don't you pluck your eye out when a pretty girl walks by? Why don't you handle snakes and drink deadly poison. Jesus said his followers would have those "signs." So don't tell me you take it all literal. You use your head when it makes practical sense not to believe the Bible too literally. I just take it less, a lot less, literal than you.

 

[Valjean]

Strikes me that maximum stability would be achieved by a round, disk-shaped ship. It would also have more structural integrity than a long, thin design, which would place great stress on the middle section.
Of course navigation would be a virtual impossibility, but then I think Noah's craft pretty much drifted, didn't it?

 

[rusra02]

This leads me to a question: what value to one's faith is it to believe in a literal historical understanding of the Bible over simply an allegorical or metaphorical one? Does it matter that much? And, maybe most importantly, do you believe that your god cares that much about whether one believes the Bible to be more spiritual and less historical, or more historical?

Jesus said: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3) So yes, I believe it matters greatly whether Jehovah is the "God of truth" or not. (Psalm 31:5) It is a matter of life and death.
If Adam and Eve did not exist, then their sin did not happen. If that did not happen, then Jesus not only lied to us, but his ransom sacrifice has no value. "For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:21,22) Really, to claim the accounts in Genesis are not historical is to repudiate Christ's teachings.To the contrary, the Bible consistently presents the Genesis accounts as historical fact.

​

​

 

[rusra02]

No, it is supported by the laws of science and material physics. We know the kind of stresses experienced by long wooden boats. Making it taller and loading it down would hardly add to the stability. And it would not stop the wood from cracking under the strain.

Full sized replicas of the ark have been built, but kept on dry land. I believe the good folks at AIG are currently working on just such a project. But I can guarantee you this, they won't put it in the water. They know it would sink.

Of course I could be proven wrong. Just build the thing and put it in the water. But they won't. They will always put it on dry land.

I can only repeat that is your opinion. Obviously, the Bible disagrees with you.

 

[rusra02]

I don't believe the Christian Bible literally, because they don't believe the Hebrew Bible literally. Literally, Isaiah chapter 7, in context, does not talk about the messiah being born in the future. So Christian take part of it, make the young maiden a virgin and use it to prove Jesus is supernatural. That's great--a powerful wonderful, miraculous story. Every religion has great and miraculous stories. But why believe any of them? I look at what it teaches. What does it want me to do with my life? All of them are pushing me to become more spiritual. Does a literal belief in the Christian Bible make people more spiritual? Some would say it has a negative effect, because it makes all other religions wrong. It makes a lot of Christian sects and denominations wrong.

Believing falsehoods does not make one more spiritual. If religions are proved to be false, rather than this being a negative, in my opinion, it is a positive and liberating effect of the truth. One is set free from superstition, false beliefs, and false religions that do harm to their adherents. As Jesus said: "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)

The biggest irony for me is that the Hebrew Bible is centered on the Law. Not just any law, but the Law God gave them. That's literally. Christians don't follow that law. They don't follow the Commandment to keep the Sabbath. I've read verses that say the law and the Sabbath are "forever." I don't want to follow the Jewish laws. I don't want to obey the Sabbath, but it's God's law. I'm glad Christians don't take it literally. I'm glad they found a way to make it unimportant and not necessary. But why make the Hebrew history literal?
I know why, and that's to justify the literal belief in Jesus. A belief based on second and third hand reports of what he might have said and meant. What if they did misquote him? What if he said, "God and I are virtually one, because I do what He tells me."
Paul takes Moses out of context in Romans 10:8. He takes a piece of what Moses was saying in Deuteronomy 30:14, but flips it around. Why didn't he take what Moses was saying literal? Because Moses was saying the Law isn't hard to follow. Paul ends up making the Law impossible to follow. I agree with Paul! I couldn't come close to following God's Law. But if you take the Bible literally, it's God's Law. How can you toss it out? And, how can you toss out the Law, but still make things like a six-day creation, the flood, and the tower of Babel literal?

It is important to remember that God gave the Law to the nation of Israel. So the sabbath and other laws that were part of the Law covenant only applied to that nation. "And the sons of Israel must keep the sabbath, so as to carry out the sabbath during their generations. It is a covenant to time indefinite. Between me and the sons of Israel it is a sign to time indefinite." (Exodus 31:16,17)
Further, "Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness." (Romans 10:4) True Christians are not under the Law, but have deep respect for it's righteous principles and benefit greatly from understanding the Law and God's thinking.

What is wrong with Noah and the flood being just a cute story. I know, I know, you have to take it as literal, otherwise, your faith in Jesus and the Bible would be in jeopardy. It's an all or nothing proposition. But, it causes you to force interpretations when things don't make sense. And,there are enough things that don't make sense for me to doubt a literal interpretation of the Bible. What is scary is--if you are right, all the rest of us are condemned to hell. So, hopefully, it's you that is wrong.

I don't believe the Bible teaches anyone will be tortured in hellfire. But you are correct in saying that our faith in Christ would be in jeopardy if Adam did not really exist. I believe the Bible has been misrepresented by "Christian" churches that are not teaching people truthfully Christ's teachings.

 

[rusra02]

Really? Just more lies? I am a radio chemist and have made my living measuring radioactivity for around thirty years. I assure you that your source is lieing through his teeth.

This mendacity makes your religion look contemptible.

Perhaps you should argue that point with professor Cook. Concerning radioactive dating, Dartmouth College geologists Charles Officer and Charles Drake state: "We conclude that iridium and other associated elements were not deposited instantaneously ...but rather that there was an intense and variable influx of these costituents during a relatively short geologic time interval." (quoted from g90 2/8 p.11) As a practitioner in the field, you should know better than me the problems with dating accuracy using such methods. Certainly these have been discussed publicly and are available via an Internet search to anyone interested.

​

​

 

[Looncall]

Perhaps you should argue that point with professor Cook. Concerning radioactive dating, Dartmouth College geologists Charles Officer and Charles Drake state: "We conclude that iridium and other associated elements were not deposited instantaneously ...but rather that there was an intense and variable influx of these costituents during a relatively short geologic time interval." (quoted from g90 2/8 p.11) As a practitioner in the field, you should know better than me the problems with dating accuracy using such methods. Certainly these have been discussed publicly and are available via an Internet search to anyone interested.

​

​

The uncertainties associated with dating techniques are nowhere near large enough to lend any comfort to creationists, however much creationists lie about them.

 

[averageJOE]

I can only repeat that is your opinion. Obviously, the Bible disagrees with you.

What is the opinion exactly? And what does the bible disagree with? That the ark replicas haven't been in water?

 

[fantome profane]

I can only repeat that is your opinion. Obviously, the Bible disagrees with you.

Of course it is an opinion. But it is an opinion based on physical evidence and solid science. And yes, the Bible disagrees with me, at least a literalistic interpretation of the Bible disagrees with me. In this case a literal interpretation of the Bible disagrees with the evidence. All I can do is base my opinion on what the evidence indicates

Believing falsehoods does not make one more spiritual. If religions are proved to be false, rather than this being a negative, in my opinion, it is a positive and liberating effect of the truth. One is set free from superstition, false beliefs, and false religions that do harm to their adherents. As Jesus said: "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32) .

Well said. :clap

 

[Noaidi]

Given the volume of water that fell (enough to cover the Earth to an altitude of Everest - we are told in Genesis 7:19 that the highest mountains were submerged) within a short period of time (40 days and nights), wouldn't the sheer force of the impact of the deluge have been enough to boil the oceans, not to mention the waves it would have created? Hardly conducive to the safe passage of a boat made only of wood.

 

[rusra02]

What is the opinion exactly? And what does the bible disagree with? That the ark replicas haven't been in water?

As quoted: "A wooden boat of those dimensions would not last ten minutes in the calmest water. The stress placed on the hull by gentlest wave would split the boat to splinters. "

 

[rusra02]

Of course it is an opinion. But it is an opinion based on physical evidence and solid science. And yes, the Bible disagrees with me, at least a literalistic interpretation of the Bible disagrees with me. In this case a literal interpretation of the Bible disagrees with the evidence. All I can do is base my opinion on what the evidence indicates


Well said. :clap

Since no one beside Noah has apparently built and floated an Ark built to the specifications Noah was given, how can there be physical evidence to dispute the Bible's veracity?

 

[rusra02]

Given the volume of water that fell (enough to cover the Earth to an altitude of Everest - we are told in Genesis 7:19 that the highest mountains were submerged) within a short period of time (40 days and nights), wouldn't the sheer force of the impact of the deluge have been enough to boil the oceans, not to mention the waves it would have created? Hardly conducive to the safe passage of a boat made only of wood.

It is true that the Flood doubtless was a cataclysmic event. There is reason to believe the tall mountains of today are the result of the Flood, as well as the deep ocean rifts. (Psalm 104:6-9) There is no reason to believe the oceans boiled.

​

​

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It is true that the Flood doubtless was a cataclysmic event. There is reason to believe the tall mountains of today are the result of the Flood, as well as the deep ocean rifts. (Psalm 104:6-9) There is no reason to believe the oceans boiled.

​

​

Plate tectonics shows how we got mountains.

 

[Eliu]

@agnostic75
Words of mouth, for thousands of years, it's obvious something changed.
But this widespread diffusion of this "story", plus 85% of rocks of the surface of the planet are rock layers, plus millions of animals inside them (as for a global movement of layers and a global retiring of waters), plus the breaking of continents etc... it means something.

@otokage007
A bug, the bombardier beetle, can make a little chemical "flame". So it's possible, chemically, for bigger animals.

@looncall
There are tons of evidence, the difference is wish to see them or not!

@zoedoidge
Plate tectonics tells us that the starting continent broke.
And "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" by dr J. Baumgardner gives us a geologic tested (FEM model on supercomputers) model of that event. While respecting physics laws, breaking of continents should fit inside Biblical time.
In that model, bottom of oceans rose UP. So waters had to cover the whole Earth.
Ice age was consequent of Flood, which left oceans too warm.

God bless you all!

 

[Zoe Doidge]

@zoedoidge
Plate tectonics tells us that the starting continent broke.
And "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" by dr J. Baumgardner gives us a geologic tested (FEM model on supercomputers) model of that event. While respecting physics laws, breaking of continents should fit inside Biblical time.
In that model, bottom of oceans rose UP. So waters had to cover the whole Earth.
Ice age was consequent of Flood, which left oceans too warm.

God bless you all!

Yeah Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is what we call pseudoscience. There's no evidence that it happened at all.

 

[fantome profane]

Since no one beside Noah has apparently built and floated an Ark built to the specifications Noah was given, how can there be physical evidence to dispute the Bible's veracity?

Because people have built long wooden boats. And we know what happens when the length of any side of a sea going vessel becomes too long. It starts to bend and creak under the pressure of the water. The sides of the boat start to crack and leak. When a wooden boat gets to about 90 meters long it requires metal banding to keep it in one piece, and mechanical pumps to pump out the water comming from the enivitabe leaks. Much longer then that and the vessel is completely unseaworthy. This is not an unsubstantiated opinion. We know what happens with long wooden boats, and we know why it happens. There is a very good reason why no one has ever built a wooden boat the the length described in the Bible. Because boat builders know what would happen if they did.

 

[GawdAweful]

If there really was a catastrophic worldwide flood that covered even the tallest mountains and ‘ripped’ through the layers of the earth leaving the planet 70% covered with water…

-Why should we find kangaroos and their fossils only in Australia?

-Why did the floodwaters (so turbulent they supposedly pushed up new and higher mountains) not completely mix the earth’s layers containing kangaroo fossils? Instead, the Flood somehow preserved them only ‘down under’ in Australia?

-Why and how do we find these marsupials back in Australia after the flood if it caused such dramatic change in both climate and geography?
(Even stranger, we are led to believe by some that Australia really only came into existence after it was ‘pushed up’ by the hydraulic lift from the floodwaters ‘pushing down’ on the weaker crust areas of the earth.)

- Are we to believe that all the different species of marsupials on this island continent somehow made it across the ocean and populated only this continent with the variety we find today in only 4000 years?

-Did the wombat hitch a ride in the kangaroo’s pouch?

-Could the Great Barrier Reef really have formed in such a short time? If not, why was it not destroyed during the deluge?