Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Monty]

You may be having some problems with reading comprehension because in context it does not appear to support you. Do you think that there really was a flood of Noah and are you trying to make it reasonable? I do not think that can be done.

No, it's not me that has problems with reading comprehension after publishing and reading refereed scientific research papers on plant physiology for over 22 years.

The only context is what verse 20 actually says and means. Which is that the final flood height was 15 cubits as correctly stated in the KJV & OJB & YLT, which match the sequence of symbols and their meaning in the Hebrew text. Verses 18 & 19 simply say that there was a flood which covered the hills in the area, and is also repeated in verse 20. Commonsense says the writer was only referring to the actual flood height, as perhaps estimated from the flood marks on a tree, and that the depth of the highest hill is irrelevant.
The story may be a fictional telling of an actual event, or just a purely fictonal story, or a retelling of an earlier story, but I'm sure the writer was only referring to a realistic event and not to a pure fantasy with a flood height of over 15,000 cubits. And why would the writer only say that the highest hills were covered by 15 cubits, without also meaningfully saying what the actual flood height was, and/or saying what the height of the highest hill was - logically it makes no sense since parts of the equation are missing.

 

[Monty]

It could be for the flood. But Israel is too far away from the Greek isle that you brought up for it to do any serious damage. There could have been some light ash falls, but that is probably about it. You should compare the distance of that island to Israel and then see how much damage Mt. St. Helens did at that distance.

I'm sure people were able to sail to and from the Greek islands and exchange their historical stories which were perhaps then embellished and rewritten to include their own historical or fictional characters, just like any entertaining movie maker, and as suggested for the biblical retelling of an earlier flood story in Mesopotamia with different characters.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The true flood story is here: Ahura-Mazda`s warning of winter and great Flood ► Advocatetanmoy Law Library

It is a flood by snow. It is a description from the ice-age. The Mesopotamians changed it to a flood by water.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The true flood story is here: Ahura-Mazda`s warning of winter and great Flood ► Advocatetanmoy Law Library

It is a flood by snow. It is a description from the ice-age. The Mesopotamians changed it to a flood by water.

The true record of the worldwide flood is found in Genesis 6-8 in the Bible,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope. The fictional story is obviously based on a volcanic eruption such as Santorini about 3500 years ago which destroyed the Minoan settlements there, and is probably also the source of the Atlantis legend.
Volcanic eruptions often eject brimstone (Gen 19:24) and Lot's wife (probably his sister like Abraham's wife) was encased in volcanic ash (Gen 19:26) like the Pompeii victims.

No. Meteor.

 

[Monty]

No. Meteor.

Meteors or shooting stars never reach the ground and are just specks which burn up in the upper atmosphere. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/05/...eteor-shower-november-fireball-scn/index.html

Brimstone is an old name for sulphur and often associated with volcanoes particularly if they emit sulphurous gases, hence the term "fire and brimstone" for a volcanic eruption, particularly if it's coming out of a mountain god's mouth. Fire and Brimstone

Sodom and Gomorrah are just fictitious names in a fictitious story, when a god had a face to face chat with Abraham and shared a non-kosher meal and then walked down to Gomorrah to count the number of righteous children, before the volcano erupted.

 

[gnostic]

If you are not familiar with the English language I suggest you ask someone to explain that verse to you and the use and meaning of a semicolon, which says that the flood height was 15 cubits (SEMICOLON), and that the mountains were covered by at least a millimetre of water, and clearly DOES NOT say that the mountains were covered by 15 cubits, and that the actual flood height was therefore unknown.

you don’t know anything.

Ancient Hebrew were written without punctuation marks, and things like semicolons didn’t exist.

The ancient Greek language didn’t include punctuation in their writings until the late 5th century BCE.

Beside that, I quoted from two different translations that use comma, not semicolon. The use of comma or semicolon is up to discretion of the translators.

there are not just 3 English translations in the world; there are more than 50 in English.

The NASB (New American Standard Bible) has also used comma, while another popular translation, the NIV (New International Version) didn’t use either punctuations:

Genesis 7:20 (NIV) 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

But as I have mentioned before, there would be no punctuations in the earlier Hebrew.

But regardless of using comma or semicolon or none of these two, verses 19 & 20 are about “all the mountains” being covered in water by 15 cubits.

But as @Subduction Zone have pointed out, no two mountains are of the same heights, because the authors have no clues of the heights of mountains. But in any case, the authors of Genesis are not logical people as they have never measured the elevation of each mountains around the world.

 

[Monty]

you don’t know anything.

Ancient Hebrew were written without punctuation marks, and things like semicolons didn’t exist.

The ancient Greek language didn’t include punctuation in their writings until the late 5th century BCE.

Beside that, I quoted from two different translations that use comma, not semicolon. The use of comma or semicolon is up to discretion of the translators.

there are not just 3 English translations in the world; there are more than 50 in English.

The NASB (New American Standard Bible) has also used comma, while another popular translation, the NIV (New International Version) didn’t use either punctuations:



But as I have mentioned before, there would be no punctuations in the earlier Hebrew.

But regardless of using comma or semicolon or none of these two, verses 19 & 20 are about “all the mountains” being covered in water by 15 cubits.

But as @Subduction Zone have pointed out, no two mountains are of the same heights, because the authors have no clues of the heights of mountains. But in any case, the authors of Genesis are not logical people as they have never measured the elevation of each mountains around the world.

You're just wasting your time, since the KJB & OJB & YLT clearly say the flood height was 15 cubits and, unlike the fake NASB and NIV written and sold by evangelicals, don't say that Mt Everest was covered by 15 cubits and that the flood height was therefore more than 15,000 cubits.

And FYI the original biblical story was probably written in ancient Hebrew not Greek.

But it's your personal choice if you prefer to read a story about an imaginative fantasy flood which was over 15,000 cubits high, or to read a more realistic story about a river flood which was 15 cubits high as also obvious in the Hebrew text. And either way, they're still just imaginative stories in a book and not as entertaining as other fantasies such as the Lord of the Rings stories or the Harry Potter stories. Personally I prefer Tolkien's stories.

 

[gnostic]

You're just wasting your time, since the KJB & OJB & YLT clearly say the flood height was 15 cubits and unlike the fake NASB and NIV don't say that Mt Everest was covered by 15 cubits and that the flood height was therefore more than 15,000 cubits.

And FYI the original biblical story was probably written in ancient Hebrew not Greek.

But it's your personal choice if you choose to believe that the story describes an imaginative fantasy flood which was over 15,000 cubits high, or a more realistic story about a river flood which was 15 cubits high as also obvious in the Hebrew text.

you are illiterate.

you don’t understand that Genesis weren’t originally in English. KJB & OJB & YLT also don’t mention Everest.


genesis 7:19-20 mention no specific mountains by name, only that “…all the high mountains…” were covered.

plus using semicolon don’t mean the verse were different subject matter.

and beside that, Hebrew written in antiquity, there were no comma and no semicolon punctuations.

Punctuation marks in Hebrew was a later introduction…I don’t know when exactly, but prior to Jesus time, they were used. Possibly used in the middle of the Middle Ages.

Examples, the Dead Sea scrolls have no commas and semicolons. So your point about semicolons being used in some English translations are not really relevant, as the verse in Genesis 7:20 is one sentence…not two sentences.

 

[Monty]

you are illiterate

At least, unlike you, I am literate in the English language even if I'm not literate in ancient Hebrew. Is your first language Hebrew or ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek?

And it's your personal choice if you prefer to read a story in the NASB or NIV about an imaginative fantasy flood which was over 15,000 cubits high, or to read a more realistic story in the KJV or OJB or YLT about a river flood which was 15 cubits high as also described in the Hebrew text. But either way, they're still just imaginative stories in a book and not as entertaining as other fantasies such as the Lord of the Rings stories or the Harry Potter stories. Personally I prefer Tolkien's stories.

 

[gnostic]

@Monty

When people translate some texts to English, some translations might use semicolons, while others may use commas, but that’s really up to translators. There are no golden rules to use one or the other.

And as I have shown, translations can use comma instead of semicolon. But as I have also shown, you can leave them out altogether, as I did with NIV quote.

But as the verse is only a single sentence, then the height above was about above the mountains.

 

[gnostic]

And it's your personal choice if you prefer to read a story about an imaginative fantasy flood which was over 15,000 cubits high, or to read a more realistic story about a river flood which was 15 cubits high as also described in the Hebrew text. And either way, they're still just imaginative stories in a book and not as entertaining as other fantasies such as the Lord of the Rings stories or the Harry Potter stories. Personally I prefer Tolkien's stories.

are you really this ignorant?

if it was “river flood” as you say, then the Ark would still float DOWN THE SLOPE, and not going up towards the mountains of Ararat, where the Ark supposedly rest upon (8:4).

The Ark would have ended up in the Black Sea or the Persian Gulf, if it was river flood. But even if it didn’t end up in either bodies of water, it would still might have ended in bottom of flood plain or basin.

you really don’t understand science, like physics, do you?

unless the Ark have powerful engines, it wouldn’t go upstream during a river flood. Even glaciers would move downwards, not upwards.

even high school kids would understand that.

 

[Monty]

@Monty

When people translate some texts to English, some translations might use semicolons, while others may use commas, but that’s really up to translators. There are no golden rules to use one or the other.

And as I have shown, translations can use comma instead of semicolon. But as I have also shown, you can leave them out altogether, as I did with NIV quote.

But as the verse is only a single sentence, then the height above was about above the mountains.

That's still your personal choice if you prefer to read a story in the NASB or NIV about an imaginative fantasy flood which was over 15,000 cubits high, or to read a more realistic story in the KJV or OJB or YLT about a river flood which was 15 cubits high as also described in the Hebrew text. But either way, they're still just imaginative stories in a book and not as entertaining as other fantasies such as the Lord of the Rings stories or the Harry Potter stories. Personally I prefer Tolkien's stories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least, unlike you, I am literate in the English language even if I'm not literate in ancient Hebrew. Is your first language Hebrew or ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek?

And it's your personal choice if you prefer to read a story in the NASB or NIV about an imaginative fantasy flood which was over 15,000 cubits high, or to read a more realistic story in the KJV or OJB or YLT about a river flood which was 15 cubits high as also described in the Hebrew text. But either way, they're still just imaginative stories in a book and not as entertaining as other fantasies such as the Lord of the Rings stories or the Harry Potter stories. Personally I prefer Tolkien's stories.

You are trying to make the verses realistic. That is an error. You need to read the whole story in context. They were on the boat for a year. Every living thing on the the Earth supposedly died which is why the animals were loaded up in the first place. A local river valley flood, even if it was a very very large river valley, makes the loading of animals totally unnecessary. You are trying to add context that is not there.

 

[gnostic]

And it's your personal choice if you prefer to read a story in the NASB or NIV about an imaginative fantasy flood which was over 15,000 cubits high, or to read a more realistic story in the KJV or OJB or YLT about a river flood which was 15 cubits high as also described in the Hebrew text.

no, my personal choice when reading the Old Testament would be the NJPS translation or the New Jewish Publication Society, first printed in 1985.

it was translated by a team of Jewish scholars and experts in the Hebrew language. Like every other modern English translations, the main source for translations were the Masoretic Text, and the NJPS excluded the Greek Septuagint as a source.

The original JPS wasn’t a translation at all, it was merely paraphrasing the KJV. NJPS is far superior to the OJB.

 

[blü 2]

The true record of the worldwide flood is found in Genesis 6-8 in the Bible,

The true record of the Genesis flood is found in the total and specific absence of ─

a universal geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the sea floor (even without the requirement that it be dated to within the past 10,000 years),​

​

a genetic bottleneck in every species of land animal, all the bottlenecks dating to the same date in the past 10,000 years​

and

a billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth,​

all of which MUST be present if ever there had been such a flood, BUT nothing even vaguely resembling the kind is found in reality.

The bible is reporting a folktale, perhaps based on a real flood in ancient Mesopotamia, perhaps not.

The bible also says that the earth is flat, and immovably fixed, and that the sun goes round it.

And that the sky is a hard dome you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

I set out some of the relevant bible quotes in an earlier post which you can read >here<.

It's good to learn new things! Enjoy!

Or are you an incorrigible Flat-Earther?

 

[Monty]

no, my personal choice when reading the Old Testament would be the NJPS translation or the New Jewish Publication Society, first printed in 1985.

it was translated by a team of Jewish scholars and experts in the Hebrew language. Like every other modern English translations, the main source for translations were the Masoretic Text, and the NJPS excluded the Greek Septuagint as a source.

The original JPS wasn’t a translation at all, it was merely paraphrasing the KJV. NJPS is far superior to the OJB.

That's your choice if you prefer to read fantasies or more realistic stories, but they're still just rewritten stories of earlier fictional stories, and just the personal opinions of the writers. In the same way that the biblical flood story is probably the retelling of an earlier story about a river flood on the Tigris and/or Euphrates.

 

[Monty]

are you really this ignorant?

if it was “river flood” as you say, then the Ark would still float DOWN THE SLOPE, and not going up towards the mountains of Ararat, where the Ark supposedly rest upon (8:4).

The Ark would have ended up in the Black Sea or the Persian Gulf, if it was river flood. But even if it didn’t end up in either bodies of water, it would still might have ended in bottom of flood plain or basin.

you really don’t understand science, like physics, do you?

unless the Ark have powerful engines, it wouldn’t go upstream during a river flood. Even glaciers would move downwards, not upwards.

even high school kids would understand that.

So where are the "mountains of Ararat", and are they near the rivers of Babylon in Mesopotamia or near Ararat in Victoria? Ararat, Victoria - Wikipedia
And why aren't kangaroos native to Mesopotamia?

 

[Monty]

You are trying to make the verses realistic. That is an error. You need to read the whole story in context. They were on the boat for a year. Every living thing on the the Earth supposedly died which is why the animals were loaded up in the first place. A local river valley flood, even if it was a very very large river valley, makes the loading of animals totally unnecessary. You are trying to add context that is not there.

But it still doesn't change the fact that the KJV & OJB & YLT say that the flood was only 15 cubits high, whereas the personal opinions in the NASB & NIV etc don't even tell us how high the flood was.
And if the story isn't realistic then it's just another fantasy, but not as well written as Tolkien's stories.
And how long were they actually on the boat, given that Noah was about 40 years old when his sister Naamah gave birth to triplets (Gen 5:32) and about 48 when most of his family were drowned, or was that just poetic licence?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Meteors or shooting stars never reach the ground and are just specks which burn up in the upper atmosphere. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/05/...eteor-shower-november-fireball-scn/index.html

Brimstone is an old name for sulphur and often associated with volcanoes particularly if they emit sulphurous gases, hence the term "fire and brimstone" for a volcanic eruption, particularly if it's coming out of a mountain god's mouth. Fire and Brimstone

Sodom and Gomorrah are just fictitious names in a fictitious story, when a god had a face to face chat with Abraham and shared a non-kosher meal and then walked down to Gomorrah to count the number of righteous children, before the volcano erupted.

Nope. Meteor.