Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Monty]

It referred to Mount Ariat, which is high enough. The text refers to 'ALL the mountains' and the whole world. and all life perished except what was on the Ark..

Wrong. All the versions I've seen refer to "the mountains of Ararat" where ever they are, and not to Mount Ariat or even Mt Ararat.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does the quality of soil 15 cubics below the floating branch have to do with it?

Because it could impact on how fast a branch could get in the soil and grow. As the waters receded and a branch is deposited on the soil not under water as the waters receded.

 

[Monty]

Ok yeah I said good night but here I am again. Really not arguing about 15 or 17 cubits although a point to consider but not now. I do not think now that an olive tree can survive being submerged in water but I don't know for how long and I consider it was a branch that got planted as the waters subsided. Thank you for the discussion.

Were you there, given the bible says the flood was only 15 cubits high?

 

[Monty]

Because it could impact on how fast a branch could get in the soil and grow. As the waters receded and a branch is deposited on the soil not under water as the waters receded.

Did Noah deposit the dead branch or the fairies?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Were you there, given the bible says the flood was only 15 cubits high?

This isnt the correct representation of the biblical ststement...

The bible says...

15 CUBITS ABOVE THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN!

unless there is some other bible you are quoting that doesn't say this. If so, please reference the translation.

Therefore the total depth of flood waters would have likely been far greater than 15 cubits.

 

[McBell]

So what is a cubic, or are you referring to cubic metres or cubic cubits?
And have you seen any translations?

My apologies.
I mean cubit.
And I have seen a great many translations.

 

[Monty]

This isnt the correct representation of the biblical ststement...

The bible says...

15 CUBITS ABOVE THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN!

unless there is some other bible you are quoting that doesn't say this. If so, please reference the translation.

Therefore the total depth of flood waters would have likely been far greater than 15 cubits.

The Orthodox Jewish Bible and Young's Literal Translation and the KJV and the Hebrew Text etc, say that the flood was only 15 cubits high, and DO NOT say that Mt Everest or any mountain was covered by over 15 cubits when the ocean magically rose at the rate of nine metres per hour for 40 days when an extra 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water magically appeared and disappeared, given that there is only about 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of water on Earth.

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)

 

[Kenny]

But not to the point of complete ignorance or to accept a very wild claim with no evidence at all.

It is my understanding that racing continents, miles of water and consequent release of energy would be very, very catastrophic.'

In a way I agree, given we don't know of any event like that or how the Earth would survive it, let alone anything living on the Earth.


I don't use emojis much and am trying something. It is to show acknowledgement. I hope that it was successful.

At this point, we will never know about the continental divide.

Let’s go back to the flood.

What we do know is that every major religion speaks of a flood which gives credence to a major world covering flood.

Let’s assume that the statement that the flood covered the whole of the earth is analogous that the flood hit the whole earth. Let us also assume that the current mountains (Himalayas et al) were in existence and the flood did not reach the height of those mountains.

Where would people live? Populations were very small in comparison of today. Fishing and agriculture were the main sources of income. Where are these things done? In low elevations where there was fertile land and close to rivers and oceans where fish were abundant.

So (potentially) a major world flood did occur. Maybe not to the highest peaks where no one lived anyways. In the major flood, every population could have been extinguished because of where people would live in those days - perhaps 15 cubits higher than the known places where people lived.

As I see it, still a possibility.

A cubit is the distance between the elbow and the tip of the finger. 15 cubits isn’t that high. Japan’s tsunami reached 30 feet high. A major catastrophe in many places at once would give it a “known world” - world flood. It is within the realm of reason.

 

[shunyadragon]

um...
So what was the purpose of the Ark?

The Ark never existed. Rabbis do consider the authors who compiled Genesis to believe it was a world flood. They do consider it to have symbolic meaning today in the relationship between God and humanity and among humans as cited, and not as truly a literal world flood..

 

[shunyadragon]

Wrong. All the versions I've seen refer to "the mountains of Ararat" where ever they are, and not to Mount Ariat or even Mt Ararat.

Mountains or mountain does not change the fact that they or it was covered with water by a plain understanding of the text without your dishonest interpretation.

None of the Biblical translations describe a river flood. Actually, the Gilgamesh version does not either. The reason why it is considered a flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley is because geologically the catastrophic event can be dated to reflect the first written narrative.

ALL the translations describe a world flood and three different Rabbis agree,

 

[shunyadragon]

That still doesn't change the fact that the KJV & OJB & YLT say that the flood was only 15 cubits high and drained away like any river flood, and why Noah's pet bird could pluck a fresh leaf from an olive tree growing outside the flooded area.

None of the Biblical translations describe a river flood. Actually, the Gilgamesh version does not either. The reason why it is considered a flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley is because geologically the catastrophic event can be dated to reflect the first written narrative.

ALL the translations describe a world flood and three different Rabbis agree,

 

[Kenny]

It referred to Mount Ariat, which is high enough. The text refers to 'ALL the mountains' and the whole world. and all life perished except what was on the Ark..

But… if a major earthquake happened, could it have been smaller than today?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At this point, we will never know about the continental divide.

We already know much on that as well. But again, no knowledge of continents racing away in a single cataclysmic event.

Let’s go back to the flood.

What we do know is that every major religion speaks of a flood which gives credence to a major world covering flood.

We know the Abrahamic religions speak of it, since it is the same story carried into the subsequent religions. We know that ancient peoples often settled around water and that floods happen in those places on a regular basis and that mythologies developed from that. However, not all cultures have flood myths and not all flood myths are the same. There is also cultural contamination which seems to be the origin of the biblical myth coming from pre-existing cultures.

One can conclude floods are significant to people, they occurred where people lived and those people crafted stories about them, but we can't say more than that as a valid basis for a global flood.

Let’s assume that the statement that the flood covered the whole of the earth is analogous that the flood hit the whole earth. Let us also assume that the current mountains (Himalayas et al) were in existence and the flood did not reach the height of those mountains.

Where would people live? Populations were very small in comparison of today. Fishing and agriculture were the main sources of income. Where are these things done? In low elevations where there was fertile land and close to rivers and oceans where fish were abundant.

So (potentially) a major world flood did occur. Maybe not to the highest peaks where no one lived anyways. In the major flood, every population could have been extinguished because of where people would live in those days - perhaps 15 cubits higher than the known places where people lived.

As I see it, still a possibility.

Then it would be possible that all people and animals were not killed. They would have only have had to escape to high ground and we have evidence that some of that high ground was already occupied. I doubt you are suggesting that they would have remained in place while the waters rose up.

Again, based on all that is claimed about the flood coupled with the lack of evidence and the required contradiction of the laws of nature, the possibility of a massive, but slightly less massive flood than claimed remains unsubstantiated.

 

[Monty]

Mountains or mountain does not change the fact that they or it was covered with water by a plain understanding of the text without your dishonest interpretation.

None of the Biblical translations describe a river flood. Actually, the Gilgamesh version does not either. The reason why it is considered a flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley is because geologically the catastrophic event can be dated to reflect the first written narrative.

ALL the translations describe a world flood and three different Rabbis agree,

Nonsense. The story is obviously based on the many river floods and their effects on people and their animals, and not tidal floods or a tsunamis, and hundreds of rabbis agree. The description of Noah's boat is pure fantasy with no more credibility than living in yellow submarines.

 

[shunyadragon]

But… if a major earthquake happened, could it have been smaller than today?

Not sure what your point is here. Geologically the region North of Palestine particularly Turkey and Syria has a long history of earthquakes, especially catastrophic earthquakes due to continental drift with Africa pushing against Europe. These earthquakes have not changed the mountain ranges in recent geologic history. You have to go millions of years to get a perspective of the mountain uplift and erosion that formed the mountains of the Middle East.

 

[YoursTrue]

At this point, we will never know about the continental divide.

Let’s go back to the flood.

What we do know is that every major religion speaks of a flood which gives credence to a major world covering flood.

Let’s assume that the statement that the flood covered the whole of the earth is analogous that the flood hit the whole earth. Let us also assume that the current mountains (Himalayas et al) were in existence and the flood did not reach the height of those mountains.

Where would people live? Populations were very small in comparison of today. Fishing and agriculture were the main sources of income. Where are these things done? In low elevations where there was fertile land and close to rivers and oceans where fish were abundant.

So (potentially) a major world flood did occur. Maybe not to the highest peaks where no one lived anyways. In the major flood, every population could have been extinguished because of where people would live in those days - perhaps 15 cubits higher than the known places where people lived.

As I see it, still a possibility.

A cubit is the distance between the elbow and the tip of the finger. 15 cubits isn’t that high. Japan’s tsunami reached 30 feet high. A major catastrophe in many places at once would give it a “known world” - world flood. It is within the realm of reason.

Yes, I was wondering about how big is a cubit, thanks for mentioning that. I'm one person -- (smile) -- and can't figure everything out. So thanks for that explanation of how big is a cubit. And there were translations when so many Jews were in exile and were not speaking Hebrew much or at all, if I remember correctly.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense. It obviously describes a river flood which was only 15 cubits high, and not a tidal flood or a tsunami, and hundreds of rabbis agree.

Your dishonest nonsense concerning your interpretation of scripture is obvious.

Mountains or mountain does not change the fact that they or it was covered with water by a plain understanding of the text without your dishonest interpretation.

None of the Biblical translations describe a river flood. Actually, the Gilgamesh version does not either. The reason why it is considered a flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley is because geologically the catastrophic event can be dated to reflect the first written narrative.

ALL the translations describe a world flood and three different Rabbis agree,

To add there is no evidence of such a catastrophic river flood in Palestine and Syria in recent geologic history. The closest is the Tigris Euphrates flood which matches the Sumerian record.

 

[YoursTrue]

At this point, we will never know about the continental divide.

Let’s go back to the flood.

What we do know is that every major religion speaks of a flood which gives credence to a major world covering flood.

Let’s assume that the statement that the flood covered the whole of the earth is analogous that the flood hit the whole earth. Let us also assume that the current mountains (Himalayas et al) were in existence and the flood did not reach the height of those mountains.

Where would people live? Populations were very small in comparison of today. Fishing and agriculture were the main sources of income. Where are these things done? In low elevations where there was fertile land and close to rivers and oceans where fish were abundant.Yes

So (potentially) a major world flood did occur. Maybe not to the highest peaks where no one lived anyways. In the major flood, every population could have been extinguished because of where people would live in those days - perhaps 15 cubits higher than the known places where people lived.

As I see it, still a possibility.

A cubit is the distance between the elbow and the tip of the finger. 15 cubits isn’t that high. Japan’s tsunami reached 30 feet high. A major catastrophe in many places at once would give it a “known world” - world flood. It is within the realm of reason.

Yes, and not saying this is the cure, but I remember reading that a lot of junk (refuse and stuff broken off from the tsunami) was floating/rushing on the water.

 

[YoursTrue]

But… if a major earthquake happened, could it have been smaller than today?

One more thing, Kenny, in reference to debris+ -- Japan Tsunami Marine Debris: A Look Back Five Years Later.
This obviously affects the surface and surface soil and more shifting places. (Another subject perhaps though.)

 

[Monty]

Your dishonest nonsense concerning your interpretation of scripture is obvious.

Mountains or mountain does not change the fact that they or it was covered with water by a plain understanding of the text without your dishonest interpretation.

None of the Biblical translations describe a river flood. Actually, the Gilgamesh version does not either. The reason why it is considered a flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley is because geologically the catastrophic event can be dated to reflect the first written narrative.

ALL the translations describe a world flood and three different Rabbis agree,

To add there is no evidence of such a catastrophic river flood in Palestine and Syria in recent geologic history. The closest is the Tigris Euphrates flood which matches the Sumerian record.

None of that changes the fact that the KJV & OJB & YLT say the flood was only 15 cubits high and drained away like any river flood, and thousands of rabbis agree.
Your dishonest nonsense and interpretation of those texts is obvious.