Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Subduction Zone]

typical answer when someone is loosing ground.





Appeal to authority. You can “interpret” what you see and you assume much.


How old are you? Was these faults the ones may have happened at that time? A lot of assumptions here

Oh boy. You should never accuse someone of "assumptions" if you can't support that personal attack. Where are his assumptions? How do you know that they are assumptions?

 

[shunyadragon]

How old are you? Was these faults the ones may have happened at that time? A lot of assumptions here

Oh my! Your ignorance continues to be profound. . . . your fundamentalist apologist objections to geologic dating methods is glaringly apparent. Simple education and research on your own can resolve your intentional apologist ignorance. It is abundantly apparent you are not willing to accept physical geologic evidence for the history of the earth, but you are willing to accept an ancient tribal text as factual history of miraculous events.

How old are you? Were you in San Francisco on April 18, 1906, to "KNOW" what happened: Old photos can be digitally created. Too many assumptions. There are no witnesses alive today, and all the physical evidence of the city is gone. The only way we can objectively determine the date, magnitude, and nature of the earthquake is through geologic evidence.

 

[Kenny]

Oh my! Your ignorance continues to be profound

Again… a common statement that you use to multiple people.

. . . . your fundamentalist apologist objections to dating methods is glaringly apparent. Simple education and research on your own can resolve your intentional apologist ignorance. It is abundantly apparent you are not willing to accept physical geologic evidence for the history of the earth, but you are willing to accept an ancient tribal text as factual history of miraculous events.

How old are you? Were you in San Francisco on April 18, 1906, to "KNOW" what happened: Old photos can be digitally created. Too many assumptions. There are no witnesses alive today, and all the physical evidence of the city is gone. The only way we can objectively determine the date, magnitude, and nature of the earthquake is through geologic evidence.

Really?

 

[shunyadragon]

Again… a common statement that you use to multiple people.

Huh?!?!?!

Really?

Yes really. This is a severe problem of fundamentalist apologist arguments rejecting scientific and geologic information in favor of ancient tribal texts without science and historical provenance in history.

This is true of other fundamentalist apologists like @YoursTrue and @SavedByTheLord who consider scientific evidence that does not fit their Biblical view as assumptions and not objective evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

So where does the bible say that the flood story wasn't based on a river flood,

You're arguing the negative, which is a fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

The word for river in Hebrew is "נהר." There is no mention of a river flood in Genesis causing the flood. It was specifically described in Genesis as a God-ordained World flood to punish humanity and destroy all humans and animals except for those on the Ark.

It is the extremely outrageous accusation that the Rabbis are illiterate when they are scholars in their own language and you are a ranked amateur with a religious agenda.

Not all the Rabbis considered it totally myth, one did, but all considered the text of Genesis to refer to literally describe a world flood ordained by God.

Based on the evidence it is justified to consider the Genesis account of Noah and the flood is indeed a myth based on a more ancient account in Sumerian literature, which also described a world flood..

 

[Monty]

You're arguing the negative, which is a fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

The word for river in Hebrew is "נהר." There is no mention of a river flood in Genesis causing the flood. It was specifically described in Genesis as a God-ordained World flood to punish humanity and destroy all humans and animals except for those on the Ark.

IOW the bible doesn't say that the story isn't about a river flood which was 15 cubits high and affected Noah's little world under the dome-shaped heavens-tent in which he and his family lived, and why Noah blamed his god for his family tragedy and the collateral damage to his innocent cattle and pigs, because the god threw a tantrum when it regretted creating them, Just like Donald Trump and other gods.
And the bible doesn't describe the world as a rotating sphere orbiting the sun, but describes it as a flat immovable disc with ends and corners to which is attached the tent-like heavens with it's daily light display - just like snow dome.

It is the extremely outrageous accusation that the Rabbis are illiterate when they are scholars in their own language and you are a ranked amateur with a religious agenda.

At least I'm familiar with the English language and can see that the KJV & OJB & YLT clearly say that the flood was only 15 cubits high, and that they don't meaninglessly say that the highest hills were covered by 15 cubits. And using a bit of common sense and simple logic, the Hebrew text also says the same based on a similar sequence of their word symbols in that verse. And any other interpretation is totally meaningless if it doesn't mention the actual flood height as falsely interpreted by the writers of the NIV and other meaningless interpretations.

 

[shunyadragon]

IOW the bible doesn't say that the story isn't about a river flood which was 15 cubits high and affected Noah's little world under the dome-shaped heavens-tent in which he and his family lived, and why Noah blamed his god for his family tragedy and the collateral damage to his innocent cattle and pigs, because the god threw a tantrum when it regretted creating them, Just like Donald Trump and other gods.
And the bible doesn't describe the world as a rotating sphere orbiting the sun, but describes it as a flat immovable disc with ends and corners to which is attached the tent-like heavens with it's daily light display - just like snow dome.

You're arguing the negative, which is a fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

The word for river in Hebrew is "נהר." There is no mention of a river flood in Genesis causing the flood. It was specifically described in Genesis as a God-ordained World flood to punish humanity and destroy all humans and animals except for those on the Ark.

It is the extremely outrageous accusation that the Rabbis are illiterate when they are scholars in their own language and you are a ranked amateur with a religious agenda.

Not all the Rabbis considered it totally myth, one did, but all considered the text of Genesis to refer to literally describe a world flood ordained by God.

Based on the evidence it is justified to consider the Genesis account of Noah and the flood is indeed a myth based on a more ancient account in Sumerian literature, which also described a world flood..

At least I'm familiar with the English language

Apparently not remotely familiar with the Hebrew the language of the Torah that is the native language of the Hebrew Rabbi scholars, which you misrepresented.

and can see that the KJV & OJB & YLT clearly say that the flood was only 15 cubits high, and that they don't meaninglessly say that the highest hills were covered by 15 cubits. And using a bit of common sense and simple logic, the Hebrew text also says the same based on a similar sequence of their word symbols in that verse. And any other interpretation is totally meaningless if it doesn't mention the actual flood height as falsely interpreted by the writers of the NIV and other meaningless interpretations.

The plain text reading and interpretations I gave are by Rabbi scholars. Again, you lack the knowledge to dispute them. You also have an odd Christian agenda to justify your misreading of the plain text of Genesis.

It was specifically described in Genesis as a God-ordained World flood to punish humanity and destroy all humans and animals except for those on the Ark.

 

[Monty]

You're arguing

IOW you can't tell us anything about the flood and the flood height the writer was describing, except that a god waved it's magic wand after throwing a tantrum.

And none of that silly obfuscation changes the fact that the Hebrew text says the flood was only 15 cubits high, and as confirmed by the KJB & OJB & YLT Hebrew scholars and thousands of other Hebrew scholars.

And that's your personal choice if you want to believe that the writer of the flood story claimed that the flood height was over 15,000 cubits.
And how high did your Hebrew scholars say the flood was, and was it more than 15,000 cubits too?

 

[gnostic]

IOW you can't tell us what type of flood the writer was describing, except that a god waved it's magic wand after throwing a tantrum.

And none of that obfuscation changes the fact that the Hebrew text says the flood was only 15 cubits high, and as confirmed by the KJB & OJB & YLT and hundreds of other Hebrew scholars.

IOW the bible doesn't say that the story isn't about a river flood which was 15 cubits high and affected Noah's little world under the dome-shaped heavens-tent in which he and his family lived, and why Noah blamed his god for his family tragedy and the collateral damage to his innocent cattle and pigs, because the god threw a tantrum when it regretted creating them, Just like Donald Trump and other gods.
And the bible doesn't describe the world as a rotating sphere orbiting the sun, but describes it as a flat immovable disc with ends and corners to which is attached the tent-like heavens with it's daily light display - just like snow dome.


At least I'm familiar with the English language and can see that the KJV & OJB & YLT clearly say that the flood was only 15 cubits high, and that they don't meaninglessly say that the highest hills were covered by 15 cubits. And using a bit of common sense and simple logic, the Hebrew text also says the same based on a similar sequence of their word symbols in that verse. And any other interpretation is totally meaningless if it doesn't mention the actual flood height as falsely interpreted by the writers of the NIV and other meaningless interpretations.

No it doesn't. The Hebrew text says that the total flood height was only 15 cubits and as confirmed by the KJV & OJB & YLT and many other versions, and does not say anything about the depth of water above the highest hills in the flooded area nor the height of the highest hills.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters rise; and the harim were covered. (OJB)
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (KJV)
Fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered; (YLT)

Any other interpretation of the Hebrew text is totally irrelevant and useless unless they tell us what the actual flood height was.

You are mincing and interpreting the passages as you see fit, ignoring the original context.

Here are couple of better translations than the ones you provided:

NRSV (New Revised Standard Version):​

​

Genesis 7:17-20 (NRSV)

17 The flood continued forty days on the earth, and the waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.​

​

NJPS (New Jewish Publication Society (1985):​

Genesis 7:17-20 (NJPS)

17 The Flood continued forty days on the earth, and the waters increased and raised the ark so that it rose above the earth. 18 The waters swelled and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark drifted upon the waters. 19 When the waters had swelled much more upon the earth, all the highest mountains everywhere under the sky were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits higher did the waters swell, as the mountains were covered.​

You should be reading 4 verses as they are, but I have highlighted the last 2 verses - verses 19 & 20 - to address the original contexts of both verses are talking about water covering “all the high mountains”, by “15 cubits”.

What you are doing is shameful selective interpretation, completely ignoring that both verses are talking about mountains being covered.

Plus, when verse 19 says ”all the high mountains“ as it does in both translations, follow by “…under the whole heaven were covered” (NRSV), and “…everywhere under the sky were covered” (NJPS), then both verses are telling me every mountains were covered by flood water, which would imply ”global flood”, not “regional flood” or “localized flood”…and then it verse 8:4 clearly state the Ark came to rest on mountains of Ararat, then those verses in 7:19-20 & 8:4 tell us it couldn’t be river flood, as you would be suggesting elsewhere, because water would run down the slopes, so the Ark should have ended up either in the Black Sea or in the Persian Gulf.

not only misreading & misinterpreting the whole 15 cubits…which suggest either you have poor reading comprehension or you are dishonestly twisting the passages…and that it cannot be river flood, you have poor understanding of science and logic.

 

[Monty]

You are mincing and interpreting the passages as you see fit, ignoring the original context.

Here are couple of better translations than the ones you provided:

NRSV (New Revised Standard Version):​

​

​

NJPS (New Jewish Publication Society (1985):​

You should be reading 4 verses as they are, but I have highlighted the last 2 verses - verses 19 & 20 - to address the original contexts of both verses are talking about water covering “all the high mountains”, by “15 cubits”.

What you are doing is shameful selective interpretation, completely ignoring that both verses are talking about mountains being covered.

Plus, when verse 19 says ”all the high mountains“ as it does in both translations, follow by “…under the whole heaven were covered” (NRSV), and “…everywhere under the sky were covered” (NJPS), then both verses are telling me every mountains were covered by flood water, which would imply ”global flood”, not “regional flood” or “localized flood”…and then it verse 8:4 clearly state the Ark came to rest on mountains of Ararat, then those verses in 7:19-20 & 8:4 tell us it couldn’t be river flood, as you would be suggesting elsewhere, because water would run down the slopes, so the Ark should have ended up either in the Black Sea or in the Persian Gulf.

not only misreading & misinterpreting the whole 15 cubits…which suggest either you have poor reading comprehension or you are dishonestly twisting the passages…and that it cannot be river flood, you have poor understanding of science and logic.

So how high was the flood, and was it more than 15,000 cubits, given that the Hebrew text and the KJV & OJB & YLT say that it was only 15 cubits, and the 24 verses DON'T SAY that the mountains were covered by 15 cubits?

 

[shunyadragon]

IOW you can't tell us anything about the flood and the flood height the writer was describing, except that a god waved it's magic wand after throwing a tantrum.

The plain text is clear and described a world flood that covered the mountains by 15 cubits, and the Hebrew scholars I cited agree.

And none of that silly obfuscation changes the fact that the Hebrew text says the flood was only 15 cubits high, and as confirmed by the KJB & OJB & YLT Hebrew scholars and thousands of other Hebrew scholars.

You have not cited any Hebrew scholars that support your agenda that is contrary to the plain wording of Genesis in Hebrew

And that's your personal choice if you want to believe that the writer of the flood story claimed that the flood height was over 15,000 cubits.
And how high did your Hebrew scholars say the flood was, and was it more than 15,000 cubits too?

It is not my choice as to what the plain reading of the Hebrew text described as 15 cubits over the mountains in a world flood as agreed by the Hebrew Rabbi scholars. Nothing in the plain text says anything about 15,000 cubits, because the authors did not know the actual height of the mountains. Again the Hebrew Rabbi scholars only agree to the plain reading of the text as a God ordained world flood that covered the mountains by 15 cubits. Your rationalization of river floods, and the height of the mountains does not exist in the plain reading of the text. It is an artifical rationalization effort to make the text fit your agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

So how high was the flood, and was it more than 15,000 cubits, given that the Hebrew text and the KJV & OJB & YLT say that it was only 15 cubits, and DON'T SAY that the mountains were covered by 15 cubits?

According to the Hebrew Rabbi scholars considering the plain reading of the Genesis Hebrew text it was indeed a world flood ordained by God to punish hu,amity and kill all humans and animals not on the Ark, You have offered not Hebrew Rabbi scholars that offer any other plain reading of Genesis.

Actually most Hebrew Rabbi scholars I sheck did not not outright say the Noah flood story was myth, but one did. They simply described the plain reading of the text as a world flood ordained by God, and went into possible symbolic, anecdotal and deeper meanings in human relationships and God's relationship to humanity.

 

[Monty]

The plain text is clear and described a world flood that covered the mountains by 15 cubits, and the Hebrew scholars I cited agree.

You have not cited any Hebrew scholars that support your agenda that is contrary to the plain wording of Genesis in Hebrew


It is not my choice as to what the plain reading of the Hebrew text described as 15 cubits over the mountains in a world flood as agreed by the Hebrew Rabbi scholars. Nothing in the plain text says anything about 15,000 cubits, because the authors did not know the actual height of the mountains. Again the Hebrew Rabbi scholars only agree to the plain reading of the text as a God ordained world flood that covered the mountains by 15 cubits. Your rationalization of river floods, and the height of the mountains does not exist in the plain reading of the text. It is an artifical rationalization effort to make the text fit your agenda.

IOW your personal interpretation and your Hebrew Rabbi Scholars' personal opinions can't even tell us how high the flood was.

COOL

In contrast, the Hebrew text and the KJV & OJB & YLT clearly say that the flood height was only 15 cubits.

Are you familiar with the English language as spoken by the English people and defined by the Oxford English Dictionary?

 

[shunyadragon]

IOW your personal interpretation and your Hebrew Rabbi Scholars' personal opinions can't even tell us how high the flood was.

COOL

My personal opinion has nothing to do with the Hebrew Rabbi scholars conclusions as to the plain reading of the text, except I agree with their plain reading of the text and some Reform Jewish Rabbis that believe it is a myth.

The Hebrew scholars do not 'tell us how high the flood was.' Most did not rationalize the circumstances of the flood beyond the plain reading of the text, One did conclude as I do that the flood never happened and Noah's Ark did not exist, which is the factual conclusion based on the known evidence. It is also a fact that there has not been any significant river floods in recent geologic history in the Palestine region.

In my history of researching the most Hebrew scholars plain reading of the Torah text is the foundation of belief, and they do not try to rationalize the text beyond that except among some Reform Jewish scholars, Beyond this Midrash gives meaning to the text by the Rabbi and the faithful.

 

[Monty]

According to the Hebrew Rabbi scholars considering the plain reading of the Genesis Hebrew text it was indeed a world flood ordained by God to punish hu,amity and kill all humans and animals not on the Ark, You have offered not Hebrew Rabbi scholars that offer any other plain reading of Genesis.

Actually most Hebrew Rabbi scholars I sheck did not not outright say the Noah flood story was myth, but one did. They simply described the plain reading of the text as a world flood ordained by God, and went into possible symbolic, anecdotal and deeper meanings in human relationships and God's relationship to humanity.

What on Earth has that obfuscation got to do with what the writer of the story said the total flood height was?

 

[Monty]

The Hebrew scholars do not 'tell us how high the flood was.' .

IOW their personal opinions are not worth the paper they're printed on. And they believe that the bible stories aren't worth the paper they're printed on either

 

[shunyadragon]

IOW their personal opinions are not worth the paper they're printed on.

Not a meaningful response ignoring and rejecting the plain reading of Genesis supported by far all Hebrew Rabbi scholars. All you have claimed is to be able to read the translations in English, which is questionable, because they all agree with the Hebrew scholars.

 

[shunyadragon]

What on Earth has that obfuscation got to do with what the writer of the story said the total flood height was?

Actually nothing. It is the plain reading of the Genesis Hebrew Rabbi scholars concerning the Genesis text that is the bottomline in this argument.

 

[Monty]

It is also a fact that there has not been any significant river floods in recent geologic history in the Palestine region.

So what? There have been plenty of floods on the Tigris & Euphrates and other rivers, and many are far higher than 15 cubits. And afterall, didn't the Jews go to Babylon and sing about remembering Zion.

 

[Monty]

Actually nothing. It is the plain reading of the Genesis Hebrew Rabbi scholars concerning the Genesis text that is the bottomline in this argument.

That's just their personal opinions, and everyone knows if you put two Hebrew Rabbi Scholars together you'll get 10 different personal opinions.
And the bottom line of that text is the actual height of the flood and whether it was 15 cubits or over 15,000 cubits.