• 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!

For Christians. Was the flood real or just a myth?

Muffled

Jesus in me
Why? They are still mostly Christian. Most Christians do not believe all of the myths of the Bible.

I believe then you should tell me if a person says he believes in obeying the law but believes in running red lights, does he really believe in obeying the law?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe I fail to see your logic if there is any. Why can't the flood be local? There is no mention of extinction. There is no mention of other survivors but that could simply be because it wasn't important enough to mention. As for a boat, I believe I have seen people traverse through their neighborhoods in boats in floods in this country and it didn't rain for forty days to produce those minor floods.

Actually there is. Have you not read the story?

From Genesis 6:

"21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

Or do you like a different translation? If you wipe out everything but Noah and those on the Ark you are proposing massive global extinction.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe then you should tell me if a person says he believes in obeying the law but believes in running red lights, does he really believe in obeying the law?

Bad analogy. You are assuming that Christians that do not believe the myths of the Bible are breaking some law.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Actually there is. Have you not read the story?

From Genesis 6:

"21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

Or do you like a different translation? If you wipe out everything but Noah and those on the Ark you are proposing massive global extinction.

I believe I found it in Chapter 7 not 6 but I stand corrected. There were no survivors of the local flood.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Bad analogy. You are assuming that Christians that do not believe the myths of the Bible are breaking some law.

I believe a person can't say they believe in God on one thing and then not believe in Him in another. Once they stopped believing in Him for anything they stopped believing in Him.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe a person can't say they believe in God on one thing and then not believe in Him in another. Once they stopped believing in Him for anything they stopped believing in Him.

This makes no sense. How are they doing that? By the way, there is a good argument that you are calling God a liar when you claim that there was an Adam and Eve.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
If you think the Flood was a local one, then Genesis as narrated, wouldn’t make much sense.

  • If it is only a local or regional, then why built the ark at all?
  • Why collect all types of animals they don’t use or eat?

It doesn’t make sense that the Flood being not global, to save all those unclean animals and wild animals. All they need to do is save only animals that they would raise, use or eat. All they would need are some cattle, sheep, goats, fowls, etc, some working animals, such as horses, donkeys, camels, dogs, etc.

And if it is only local or regional flood, why even built an Ark.

Noah is a prophet, isn’t he?

If yes, then all Noah had to do was move to region, not affected by flood. He could have easily move out of the region, since he had 100 years between receiving revelation and early warning about the Flood, when he was 500 years old (Genesis 6) and when the rain came (Genesis 7).

Noah had plenty of time to move himself and his family and animals a safe location, away from people whom God intending to drown. It make far more sense, to migrate to area, not affected by floodwater, and build new home there.

I believe a boat ensures one is above water rather than underneath it.

I believe there are species that are local but even so it is better for the environment for animals to exist in the land.

I believe what you mean is that you do not know how to reach a reasonable conclusion.

I believe so. Of course but God did not instruct him to do that.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
It says "the entire Earth". How do you get local from that?

I live in my entire house but right now I am only in the bedroom. How do you assess what entire means: one persons lot a whole city, an area? I believe it simply means in that area all the earth was covered ie there were no mountains sticking up out of the water. (after all it is pretty flat).
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I live in my entire house but right now I am only in the bedroom. How do you assess what entire means: one persons lot a whole city, an area? I believe it simply means in that area all the earth was covered ie there were no mountains sticking up out of the water. (after all it is pretty flat).
If I meant to say that my entire house was flooded I would say "My entire house" I would not say "the entire world".

Of course even the word "mountain" makes the claim bogus. Also if it was local then the Ark was superfluous. There would be no need to gather animals, and Noah and family would not be the only humans left on the Earth. To argue the flood down to a reasonable local flood you make the story fail on the level that it would not have killed everyone on the surface of the Earth. It would have only killed a few people in a limited area at worst.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
A poorly worded tautology to cover up the departure from what the Bible clearly says. I debated once with a believer that misinterpreted the KJV and thought that the flood was only fifteen cubits deep. When faced with reality flood believers go through all sorts of cognitive dissonance at times.

Gen. 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

I believe according to Wikipedia the shortest cubit was about two feet which would make the depth of the water 30 feet. Obvously there are mountains in the world higher than 30 feet.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Gen. 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

I believe according to Wikipedia the shortest cubit was about two feet which would make the depth of the water 30 feet. Obvously there are mountains in the world higher than 30 feet.
You mistranslated that. You took a verse of the KJV out of context. It is claiming that the highest mountains were covered by a depth of about 30 feet, using your rather generous cubit, it does not say that the mountains were thirty feet tall. And no, a hill that is only thirty feet tall is not a "mountain".

Perhaps you should use a more modern translation. You will not get confused so easily if you do that. A cubit is closer to a foot and a half rather than two feet. Measure from your elbow to your extended fingertips. That is a cubit.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
If I meant to say that my entire house was flooded I would say "My entire house" I would not say "the entire world".

Of course even the word "mountain" makes the claim bogus. Also if it was local then the Ark was superfluous. There would be no need to gather animals, and Noah and family would not be the only humans left on the Earth. To argue the flood down to a reasonable local flood you make the story fail on the level that it would not have killed everyone on the surface of the Earth. It would have only killed a few people in a limited area at worst.

Of course but the word earth is relative. one may have a handful of it or all of it but if I have a handful of it and cover it entirely with water the entire earth (that handful) was covered in water. God doesn't even tell us the location but it isn't hard to figure out.

I believe God is referring to His Adamic creation which is not every race on earth. This takes context. God created a people for Himself. The other people He isn't working with. He is only working with the Adamic people.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Of course but the word earth is relative. one may have a handful of it or all of it but if I have a handful of it and cover it entirely with water the entire earth (that handful) was covered in water. God doesn't even tell us the location but it isn't hard to figure out.

I believe God is referring to His Adamic creation which is not every race on earth. This takes context. God created a people for Himself. The other people He isn't working with. He is only working with the Adamic people.
Okay, so reinterpreting the Bible after the fact.

The problem is that the Ark is still mostly superfluous. Why gather so many animals for a flood that was local? They were not threatened. You know that the worldwide story is ridiculous. Even a flood that covers actual high hills, much less mountains, is ridiculous. There was no need for the animals on the Ark.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
You mistranslated that. You took a verse of the KJV out of context. It is claiming that the highest mountains were covered by a depth of about 30 feet, using your rather generous cubit, it does not say that the mountains were thirty feet tall. And no, a hill that is only thirty feet tall is not a "mountain".

Perhaps you should use a more modern translation. You will not get confused so easily if you do that. A cubit is closer to a foot and a half rather than two feet. Measure from your elbow to your extended fingertips. That is a cubit.

I will buy that. Adamic people probably had sort arms. So I believe I will grant you 22 feet instead of 30.

I believe I would like to see you prove that one logically.

I believe the translation as mountain appears to be out of context. Hill makes more sense for the area where the flood most likely took place. Have you ever been in Kansas? If a hill is fifteen feet high it seems like a mountain, lol.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Okay, so reinterpreting the Bible after the fact.

The problem is that the Ark is still mostly superfluous. Why gather so many animals for a flood that was local? They were not threatened. You know that the worldwide story is ridiculous. Even a flood that covers actual high hills, much less mountains, is ridiculous. There was no need for the animals on the Ark.

I believe by local I mean the whole Mesopotamian valley that naturally gathers water in its major rivers and allowing for those rivers to overflow if there is too much rain,

Iraq_Topography.png
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe by local I mean the whole Mesopotamian valley that naturally gathers water in its major rivers and allowing for those rivers to overflow if there is too much rain,

Iraq_Topography.png
The flood myth, as many myths are, probably had some basis in fact. If you were aware of the history of the Noah's Ark story you would know that the Hebrews copied it from Babylonians who copied it from an earlier people. This is a paper on what may have been an inspiration for the story:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The flood myth, as many myths are, probably had some basis in fact. If you were aware of the history of the Noah's Ark story you would know that the Hebrews copied it from Babylonians who copied it from an earlier people. This is a paper on what may have been an inspiration for the story:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

And there's reason to believe that the creation accounts were drawn from the same Babylonian epic that also contains the Gilgamesh narrative but was also adjusted to teach traditional Jewish values and mores. I think you'll agree that it's these lessons that are most important for us today, not whether the Flood account actually happened as a historical event.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Adam simply could choose to either obey Eve or obey God.
In other words, Adam could choose who he loved more.
Adam simply chose Eve over his Creator and Father.
Seems more like Eve, so to speak, was 'without' obvious flaws since Adam loved her so much.
Kind of like a Romeo and Juliet.

Eh... if Eve was without obvious flaws why exactly then did God force Adam from Eden just because he loved her? It sounds as if you're suggesting it's God who is flawed.
 
Top