Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[shunyadragon]

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.)

It should be made clear the flood of Noah is claimed to be a divinely caused world flood to punish humanity. The natural local and regional floods that occurred in recent geologic history at different times like Tsunamis and river floods are documented as having natural causes. There is absolutely no evidence of such a local or regional catastrophic flood in the Palestine region,

 

[shunyadragon]

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 interpretation of those texts 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. You are the one that asked me to consult Rabbis as the authority. Good recommendation, because they are the authorities of the understanding of the Hebrew Torah not you.

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.

Where is the evidence of a major river flood in the Palestine region?

 

[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,

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.

Where is the evidence of a major river flood in the Palestine region?

None of that changes the fact that the OJB & KJB & YLT say the flood was only 15 cubits high and drained away like any river flood. And the texts don't describe a global flood, and millions of people agree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I see you added a comment at the end since I first responded.

I wanted to add that I already assume the mountains of today were pretty much as they were thousands of years ago. Other than the measured growth that is observed and which would not amount to any significant height difference on the scale claimed, I don't know of any reason to consider they were different in general height.

I remember learning about cubits as a child in church. I always assumed this was just something Christians learned. Of course my cubits were much smaller then.

After doing a little review, yours is not the first attempt to speculate so. But the final word from Christians that believe in the flood is that such speculation is meaningless since the Bible says all the mountains were covered.

The lack of evidence still remains and the ability to accept the flood despite that lack remains belief.

I don't disagree that the origin of the story arose from massive local floods of those places where some people lived and experienced what must have seemed to them to be the end of the world at the time.

 

[shunyadragon]

None of that changes the fact that the OJB & KJB & YLT say the flood was only 15 cubits high and drained away like any river flood.

Please respond to these key points. You basically only parrot the same lines.

Where is the evidence of a major river flood in the Palestine region?

You are the one who asked me to consult Rabbis as the authority. Good recommendation, because they are the authorities of the understanding of the Hebrew Torah not you.

 

[Monty]

Please respond to these key points. You basically only parrot the same lines.

Where is the evidence of a major river flood in the Palestine region?

You are the one who asked me to consult Rabbis as the authority. Good recommendation, because they are the authorities of the understanding of the Hebrew Torah not you.

There have been plenty of major river floods on the Tigris & Euphrates rivers and other rivers around the world which have drowned people and their animals and the flood heights have often been much more than 15 cubits. And billions of people agree. And the biblical story is obviously just based on those floods and not tidal floods or tsunamis. And thousands of rabbis agree.

And it's your choice if you want to believe the story is purely fictional, or whether it was based on a particular flood event which drowned most of the members of a family and their community and most of their animals.

 

[McBell]

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..

I am confused.

You claimed:

ALL the translations clearly state that ALL people and life died in a world flood.

So how is there any life on the planet now?

In the context of the Biblical World Wide flood, which I have assumed you were talking about given the "world flood" part at the end of your claim, the purpose of the Ark was to save specific life God felt should be saved.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I'm sure somewhere there are explanations. I personally don't have the time now to go into it, but it's certainly worth a bit of investigation. (However, and I'm not kidding about this -- a couple of cubits won't make a big difference, would they?) But I'm sure somewhere there is an explanation.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see you added a comment at the end since I first responded.

I wanted to add that I already assume the mountains of today were pretty much as they were thousands of years ago. Other than the measured growth that is observed and which would not amount to any significant height difference on the scale claimed, I don't know of any reason to consider they were different in general height.

I remember learning about cubits as a child in church. I always assumed this was just something Christians learned. Of course my cubits were much smaller then.

After doing a little review, yours is not the first attempt to speculate so. But the final word from Christians that believe in the flood is that such speculation is meaningless since the Bible says all the mountains were covered.

The lack of evidence still remains and the ability to accept the flood despite that lack remains belief.

I don't disagree that the origin of the story arose from massive local floods of those places where some people lived and experienced what must have seemed to them to be the end of the world at the time.

If someone claims to be a Christian but figures much of the Bible is myth...all I can say is glad I'm not going along with that. Now as to agree with them. I'll let God be the judge. I am thankfully awaiting future blessings as foretold. No more war. No more sickness. No more proscribed death without redemption. Thankfully I learned that. Also @Kenny to read.

 

[Kenny]

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

Using the best of our knowledge which is limited in this area.

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.

Of course, this is your view vs my view. Not necessarily wrong but definitely different. My position certainly has some points that are valid in my position.

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.

Yes, possible. IMV - improbable. We escape to high ground today because we know. In those days, you would never know to run until it was too late. So I’m not sure there is a point here.

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.

Nothing has been contradictory.

 

[Kenny]

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.

Hmmm…. I don’t think we can go back millions of years and actually establish which earthquakes happened. I doubt if we could go back 4000 years either

 

[Kenny]

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.)

Quite amazing!!

 

[Kenny]

I see you added a comment at the end since I first responded.

I wanted to add that I already assume the mountains of today were pretty much as they were thousands of years ago. Other than the measured growth that is observed and which would not amount to any significant height difference on the scale claimed, I don't know of any reason to consider they were different in general height.

I remember learning about cubits as a child in church. I always assumed this was just something Christians learned. Of course my cubits were much smaller then.

After doing a little review, yours is not the first attempt to speculate so. But the final word from Christians that believe in the flood is that such speculation is meaningless since the Bible says all the mountains were covered.

The lack of evidence still remains and the ability to accept the flood despite that lack remains belief.

I don't disagree that the origin of the story arose from massive local floods of those places where some people lived and experienced what must have seemed to them to be the end of the world at the time.

I believe the distance of a cubit has been done by experts with the difference being about 2 inches (Babylonian/Egyptian/Hebraic).

Obviously one can call that speculation… as is so much of everything from back then. Even today that are enumerating a new speculation of what happened to the dinosaurs.

The issue is whether one takes it literally or as an analogy and thus the great discussion. Like I said before, that isn’t what I major in since my focus is on Jesus, his resurrection and his coming back.

As far as the flood, I would still hold onto that a catastrophic event happened that impacted the known world. IF it was above each and every peak, I would hold to that the mountains were smaller and multiple earthquakes happened and we have the new jagged mountains of today. If it was analogous, then it simple covered the mountains know to man at that time.

Ancient Flood Legends and Stories from Around the World

Although the biblical story of Noah’s Ark is the best known, numerous cultures all around the globe and throughout history have developed their own versions of...

www.worldhistory.org

I think something did happen but I’m not going to fight someone who doesn’t believe it.

 

[Monty]

I believe the distance of a cubit has been done by experts with the difference being about 2 inches (Babylonian/Egyptian/Hebraic).

And either way, the Hebrew text still says that the flood height was only 15 cubits.
Genesis 7:20 Hebrew Text Analysis

Text Analysis Go to Parallel Hebrew Strong's Hebrew English Morphology 2568 [e] חֲמֵ֨שׁ ḥă-mêš Five Number-fsc 6240 [e] עֶשְׂרֵ֤ה ‘eś-rêh [and] ten Number-fsc 520 [e] אַמָּה֙ ’am-māh cubits N-fs 4605 [e] מִלְמַ֔עְלָה mil-ma‘-lāh, upward Prep-m, Prep-l | Adv | 3fs 1396 [e] גָּבְר֖וּ gā-ḇə-rū prevailed V-Qal-Perf-3cp 4325 [e] הַמָּ֑יִם ham-mā-yim; the waters Art | N-mp 3680 [e] וַיְכֻסּ֖וּ way-ḵus-sū and were covered Conj-w | V-Pual-ConsecImperf-3mp 2022 [e] הֶהָרִֽים׃ he-hā-rîm. the mountains Art | N-mp

 

[Subduction Zone]

Using the best of our knowledge which is limited in this area.

Not nearly as limited as you think that it is. We have records of where the continents were and when.

Nothing has been contradictory.

No, the flood myth contradicts all of the sciences. It was first refuted by early Christian geologists but since then all of them have joined the party.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

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.

thank you for providing a reference so we know your statement is verified in writings.

I am somewhat concerned about your translation however...here is what the Hebrew says according to Westminster Lenigrad Codex

Genesis 7:19​

וְהַמַּ֗יִם גָּ֥בְר֛וּ מְאֹ֥ד מְאֹ֖ד עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיְכֻסּ֗וּ כָּל־הֶֽהָרִים֙ הַגְּבֹהִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־תַּ֖חַת כָּל־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃​

I do not read Hebrew (although my father does) however, when i cross reference the above in English it says...

And the waters prevailed more exceedingly on the earth and were covered all the hills high that under whole the heaven​

and when we look at the next verse, i agree that it could be read either that the flood was 15 cubits above the highest mountain or, that it was only 15 cubits high.

However,

Even if the second is true, the logical reading even from the Hebrew would be that the highest mountain at the time of the flood was lower than 15 cubits in height because even in the Hebrew it clearly says "covered all the hills high that under the whole heaven"!

Either way your interpretation is inconsistent with the reading of even the Hebrew text.

Do you have other cross-referencing in the Hebrew that sheds more light on how to resolve your inconsistency?

(EDIT Oh ...I didnt see the your post above Monty, where you referenced the same bible hub page. it doesnt change my point however as you are misinterpreting the very reference in bible hub you are using)

 

[AdamjEdgar]

It was first refuted by early Christian geologists but since then all of them have joined the party.

why do you continue to make these kinds of comments without referencing? Whether or not what you claim is true, if people are to believe your claims, at least provide them with an avenue of checking your claims to determine if in fact what you say is accurate, and to help resolve the second part of your claim "since then all of them have joined the party".

Do you not consider WHY "since then all of them have joined the party"? Would that not be evidence even from your own comment that it is self defeating in that those individuals realized they were wrong and changed their minds?

Its like you just pull this bull**** out of thin air without even considering it kills your own argument "in one fell swoop"! Its ok to do this occasionally, but for you...its like 90% of the time.

 

[Monty]

thank you for providing a reference so we know your statement is verified in writings.

I am somewhat concerned about your translation however...here is what the Hebrew says according to Westminster Lenigrad Codex

Genesis 7:19

וְהַמַּ֗יִם גָּ֥בְר֛וּ מְאֹ֥ד מְאֹ֖ד עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיְכֻסּ֗וּ כָּל־הֶֽהָרִים֙ הַגְּבֹהִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־תַּ֖חַת כָּל־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃

I do not read Hebrew (although my father does) however, when i cross reference the above in English it says...

And the waters prevailed more exceedingly on the earth and were covered all the hills high that under whole the heaven

and when we look at the next verse, i agree that it could be read either that the flood was 15 cubits above the highest mountain or, that it was only 15 cubts high.

However,

Even if the second is true, the logical reading even from the Hebrew would be that the highest mountain at the time of the flood was lower than 15 cubits in height because even in the Hebrew it clearly says "covered all the hills high that under the whole heaven"!

Either way your interpretation is inconsistent with the reading of even the Hebrew text.

Do you have other cross-referencing in the Hebrew that sheds more light on how to resolve your inconsistency?

That's just their personal opinion, but any commonsense translation such as the KJV & OJB & YLT etc says that the total flood height was only 15 cubits, and that it obviously doesn't say that the mountains were covered by 15 cubits, which is totally nonsensical since it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the actual height of the flood as measured by the original writer using a flood level gauge.

The story just describes a local event on a riverine flood plain which affected a family and their little world, but had no effect on the rest of the planet.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Any commonsense translation such as the KJV & OJB & YLT etc says that the total flood height was only 15 cubits, and that it obviously doesn't say that the mountains were covered by 15 cubits, which is totally nonsensical since it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the actual height of the flood as measured by the original writer using a flood level gauge.

that is not an answer...you have just repeated the same position you have already made.

A logical reading of even the Hebrew says you are wrong in either way you are interpreting it. Either Genesis 7:19 means:

1. none of the hills under the heaven were higher than 15 cubts (according to Westminster Hebrew) or,

2. the waters covered the highest hills under the heavens by 15 cubits (according to Berean study bible translation for example...and many others)

For YEC and the traditional belief (ie literal reading of Genesis) to be a valid conclusion,

THE ONLY support that YEC requires to prove its position, is that all life on the earth was killed by the flood because the highest hills/mountains were lower than the flood height. Whether 15 cubts in total or above the highest hill makes little difference to YEC view.

BTW the latin vulgate uses the above interpretation so there is even among very early translations debate about the exact writings, however, it seems to me that they all are unanimous in the claim that all the mountains were covered in the whole earth during the flood. A localised flood is not a supported interpretation from any of the writings we have discussed here.

20	quindecim cubitis altior fuit aqua super montes quos operuerat The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.

 

[Monty]

that is not an answer...you have just repeated the same position you have already made.

A logical reading of even the Hebrew says you are wrong in either way you are interpreting it. Either Genesis 7:19 means:

1. none of the hills under the heaven were higher than 15 cubts (according to Westminster Hebrew) or,

2. the waters covered the highest hills under the heavens by 15 cubits (according to Berean study bible translation for example...and many others)

For YEC and the traditional belief (ie literal reading of Genesis) to be a valid conclusion,

THE ONLY support that YEC requires to prove its position, is that all life on the earth was killed by the flood because the highest hills/mountains were lower than the flood height. Whether 15 cubts in total or above the highest hill makes little difference to YEC view.

BTW the latin vulgate uses the above interpretation so there is even among very early translations debate about the exact writings, however, it seems to me that they all are unanimous in the claim that all the mountains were covered in the whole earth during the flood. A localised flood is not a supported interpretation from any of the writings we have discussed here.

20	quindecim cubitis altior fuit aqua super montes quos operuerat The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.

That's just your personal opinion.

The story in the KJV & OJB & YLT obviously only describes a local flood event on a riverine flood plain which affected Noah's family and their little world which was defined by the ring of the horizon to which was attached the dome shaped heavens which the bible describes as being like a tent (Isaiah 40:22). And the highest hills in the flooded area (ie within the horizon) were therefore less than 15 cubits high. And the story doesn't say that the flood was a global event.

Any other interpretation of the Hebrew text is pure fantasy with not a skerrick of scientific evidence to support it.