-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD
- Thread starter Little Nipper
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Actually it is astounding imo that there are those who may wear crosses and go to church, perhaps receive sacraments, yet say the flood of Noah's time never happened and Jesus was under the influence of a mythical Jewish teaching when he spoke of the flood. And told his listeners that something similar would happen again.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Nah, they are just educated, that's all - as are their priests and ministers.
But if you belong to a sect that discourages further education, it's not surprising you find this shocking. Ignorance does render one liable to shocks, in life
.
Astrophile
Active Member
Yes, but this was in the North Atlantic Ocean, not in Mesopotamia, and it was about 8200 years ago, nearly 4000 years before the traditional (Ussher's) date of Noah's flood. All it shows is that there have been massive inundations during the Earth's geological history, not that there was ever a global flood.
It takes a lot of water to submerge the world to a depth higher than the highest mountain. I once calculated the amount required (sorry i don't have my workings to hand* but i remember the answer).
it needs 80 times more water than is available on earth.
* its a simple calculation, subtract volume of earth at sea level from the volume of earth 22.5 feet above the height of mt Everest 4000 years ago
Then divide by the amount of existing water.
Voila
I have seen creationists assert that there were no significant mountains then, so there was less water needed to cover the whole planet. Of course, as usual, this is absurd, and it lacks the necessary evidence. It also ignores the tremendous instability of the highest mountains forming in just a few months, all by magic, and all inconsistent with geology. It amazes me how desperate creationists are to make their bad interpretation of Genesis fit their Christian dogma. Let's not forget the Jews don't even interpret Genesis literally, and it is their story. The arrogance of conservative Christians is astounding and so contrary to any ethic that Jesus taught.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I do not deny it is hard to verify according to scientific analysis and human reasoning. Nevertheless...I do not contradict the account.
According to what I understand, mountains are getting taller, so the mountains were likely not as tall as they are now.
And scientists are aware there is water under the earth's crust. Yes, it is called wormwood and the water is encapsulated rather than free-flowing, but there's lots of it and the Bible says that the waters were unleashed under the earth, too. So that makes sense to me.
"On the 17th day of the month, on that day all the springs of the vast watery deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. (Genesis chapter 7.)
Thus there were waters from above (the heavens) and below the earth (the vast watery deep which burst open.) So yes, while it is hard for science to verify as recorded, I am going along with the account.
Very incomplete and dishonestly selective as to what caused some cities to be underwater. There is a detailed explanation of the gradual rise in sea level since the melting of the glaciers from the last Ice Age that has resulted in coastal lands and cities being underwater. Also global warming in the evacuation of some islands and towns. The future threat of the inundation of lands and cities along the coast cannot be helped by building an Arc.
There is also well well-documented sudden subsidence of the land locally due to earthquakes where cities sank with the ground around them in the Mediterranean and the Orient.
All this is well documented with natural explanations and has absolutely no relationship to the ancient myth of a world flood.
That is taken into account, for example, mt Everest is growing at 4mm per year and has been growing at that rate since the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates collided.
And that too is taken into account. The total amount of water is all sea water, all surface fresh water included that locked in the ice caps and all in ground water.
The reason the belief in the mythology of Noah's flood has shifted is simply the overwhelming evidence it never happened. Yes, this represents a paradox of conflicts among Christians, and divisions between those who wake up and accept the evidence, and those who remain to have their minds buried in ancient tribal scripture.
It is not the only problem that plagues the divided Christianity. The fact that those who compiled, redacted, and edited the ancient scriptures actually believed the scripture was literally true is what the foundation beliefs of the NT are based on.
Over time since the 18th century, a Biblical literal scripture is illogical, and irrational based on the evidence that led to the Reformation in Europe and the USA, and a divided Christianity. This led many to endorse a dominant allegorical interpretation of Genesis to make things fit today. Yes allegory has always been a mechanism for understanding scripture, but prior to the Reformation the literal interpretation dominated Christianity, because that is the justification for the purpose of Jesus Christ and the coherent meaning of scripture as defined in the NT.
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
While I appreciate some efforts, I see that much description would blend into the description of the earth's being covered with water, from above and within. The water according to the account in the Bible insofar as I understand, came from above and within. And there is lots of moisture in the air as well. How Much Water is There on Earth? | U.S. Geological Survey
So while not all may be entirely in harmony now with the biblical account, I have faith (yes, faith) that the questions will be resolved some day -- soon, I hope.
As far as i am aware the question has been resolved via several independent lines of scientific endeavour.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That is your conclusion. It is not mine because I see many scientific reports about water being under the earth, in the atmosphere, and assertions that the earth was once (eons ago) entirely (possibly) covered with water. So until I have more information, I am going with the biblical account. 2 Peter chapter 3 really helps to outline this, plus augments what scientists say in reference to water...
verse 9 of 2 Peter chapter 3, "He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." This speaks of many things right in that verse, and I leave it there for now.
Dating of a few thousand years ago of differences do not matter to me much because yes, I question the dating process.
P.S. Can i say I understand everything about the account? (No, you guessed it.) But I go with it until I learn without question something different. And the science itself tells me that there are ponderings and recognitions that (1) the earth was once covered with water (ok, scientists do not say it was 5,000 years ago) but they also realize there is lots and lots of water within and without now. And that's basically where I'm leaving it. There is the account also of a great flood as you probably know re: Gilgamesh. Not sure about any other accounts of such a flood. But as far as the Bible goes, I'm not contesting it. That's how I see it.
Some water is trapped under the earth. Geological echo sounding through the entire earth has identified these ground water deposits and they are taken into account. It should be noted that ground water does not naturally rise to the surface, it would leave huge caverns underground that... Guess what... Will fill with the water displaced.
Yes there are clouds and humidity, really small amounts 0.001% of all water on earth.
Nope earth wasn't entirely covered with water. There was a supercontinent known as Pangaea. Todays continents formed from the breakup of Pangaea.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Have you even been in the Mountains during a heavy rain? The entire mountain can be covered in moving water as it cascade into streams and creeks to the valley below. The Mountain is not under water but covered with water. You may be visualizing wrong, unless you are talking about snow covered peaks, where 15 ft of snow can accumulate in a day, while the valley has rain and fast moving streams.
On earth we have the monsoon season, in the region, from India to South East Asia. The typical Indian Monsoon season lasts both 58 days and accounts for 80% of the annual rain. A shift further west, would cause the monsoon to stall closer to the Middle East. It may not last quite as long, but be in a place where the land is not used to so much rain. It will pool and rush down mountains and take longer to drain and sink into the sand.
Floods that are moving and take two weeks to drain, may not kill all the plants. The Mississippi River in the USA has flooded thousands of square mikes of farm land, which is back in business after if drains back. It is not a swimming pool being filled, but moving water working it was back to the oceans from where it came; monsoon.
Flood of March 1543
Hernando de Soto's party was passing through a village at the confluence of the Mississippi River and Arkansas River on March 18. The ensuing flood only allowed passage by canoe and inundated fields surrounding the town.[2]The flooding reportedly lasted for 40 days.[3][4]
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Compared to what it would take to flood the Earth the amount needed to flood a city is nothing. It takes only a few feet of water to flood most port cities. It takes about 5 miles of water to flood the Earth ala the Noah's Ark myth.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I have been in the mountains in heavy rainfall. Entire mountains are never covered in moving water. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a more "flood proof" place besides the side of a mountain. As long as one is not foolish enough to be in the bottom of a valley you will not be flooded.
I've found him useful:
"The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, 'Nothing. I'm a Christian.' Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
Probably not, Dan, but thanks for thinking of me. And no, I don't consider you ignorant for being a theist (from another thread): "By the way, as a theist, atheists already think my beliefs are irrational and that embracing them is ignorance."
From a previous post back in Topix days:
What volume of water must be added to the earth to flood all of its land. We do that by comparing the volume of the unflooded earth to the volume of the earth with ocean levels raised to above the highest mountain, Mt. Everest, which stands about five-and-a-half miles high.
[1] The mean radius of the unflooded earth is about 6370 km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius
[2] The volume of a sphere is =(4/3)(pi)( r^3)
[3] Thus the volume of the unflooded earth is =(4/3)(3.14)(6370) ^3 = 1.08214805 × 10^12 = 1,082,148,050,000 km3
[4] The height of Mt. Everest is 8.85 km (5.50 miles, 29029 feet) http://www.bharatonline.com/nepal/mount-everest/everest-height.html
[5] Volume of flooded earth =(4/3)(3.14)(6378. 85)^3 = 1.08666469 × 10^12 = 1,086,664,690,000 km3 [Notice that the radius has been increased from 6370 to 6378.85]
[6] The difference = about 4,500,000,000 km3 of water that must be added to the earth to cover Everest.
[7] “About 3,100 mi3 (12,900 km3) of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water.” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html Thus the atmosphere can provide about 12,900 of the 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of water needed, or about 1 inch of the five miles needed. What would happen to the marine life if you added this much fresh water to the oceans?
[8] The total amount of water on earth is about 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html So, the water needed to flood the land completely - about four times as much water as the earth presently holds in all forms including oceans, ice, lakes, rivers, ground water, atmospheric water, and the water in living things - could neither appear nor disappear without magic, could not be contained in the atmosphere and fall as rain, would fall like a waterfall (30 ft/hr*) everywhere at once destroying the ark and drowning its inhabitants if it did, and **would kill all non-freshwater living aquatic life to boot
[1] The mean radius of the unflooded earth is about 6370 km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius
[2] The volume of a sphere is =(4/3)(pi)( r^3)
[3] Thus the volume of the unflooded earth is =(4/3)(3.14)(6370) ^3 = 1.08214805 × 10^12 = 1,082,148,050,000 km3
[4] The height of Mt. Everest is 8.85 km (5.50 miles, 29029 feet) http://www.bharatonline.com/nepal/mount-everest/everest-height.html
[5] Volume of flooded earth =(4/3)(3.14)(6378. 85)^3 = 1.08666469 × 10^12 = 1,086,664,690,000 km3 [Notice that the radius has been increased from 6370 to 6378.85]
[6] The difference = about 4,500,000,000 km3 of water that must be added to the earth to cover Everest.
[7] “About 3,100 mi3 (12,900 km3) of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water.” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html Thus the atmosphere can provide about 12,900 of the 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of water needed, or about 1 inch of the five miles needed. What would happen to the marine life if you added this much fresh water to the oceans?
[8] The total amount of water on earth is about 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html So, the water needed to flood the land completely - about four times as much water as the earth presently holds in all forms including oceans, ice, lakes, rivers, ground water, atmospheric water, and the water in living things - could neither appear nor disappear without magic, could not be contained in the atmosphere and fall as rain, would fall like a waterfall (30 ft/hr*) everywhere at once destroying the ark and drowning its inhabitants if it did, and **would kill all non-freshwater living aquatic life to boot
*[Forty days is 960 hours. For the water to rise 29029 feet in 960 hours, 30.2 feet of water must fall ever hour over every square inch of the earth at once, or twice as much over half of the earth at once. Imagine a shower filling up a three story building in an hour.]
**[If you added another 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of fresh water - in excess of a quadrupling of the total - the salinity of the oceans would fall to about 22.4% of its present level, killing virtually all marine life]
No believer does. Some remain literalists. The rest redefine what the myths mean to comport with the science, but they NEVER say that the Bible is wrong, that is, they don't think they're contradicting it, either. They like to use words like allegory and metaphor as when they argue that a biblical day wasn't a literal day rather than accepting that as with all mythology, the stories were wrong guess debunked by subsequent science.
Those people have evaluated and understood the evidence, and simply won't ignore it. They're the same people who call the Genesis' myths allegory.
The problem is ALL the references you cited or described with dishonest slant have not presented any evidence for a world flood, In fact, I have countered every one with a natural explanation, The water on the earth is not remotely enough to flood the earth to any extent. The water tied up in the rocks of the interior remains relatively constant throughout the history of the earth since continental drift began.
Was that your working or mine?
One of my arguments when debating the flood, where were two blue whales kept and the around 10 tons of krill each whale eats per day.