• 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!

Localized Flood

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I believe they are multiple reasons to believe in a localized flood, including:
A localized flood would also mean that the ark would have to carry significantly less species of animals, predators from the ark would be able to eat animals from other regions, and the inhabitants of the ark would not have to survive entirely by themselves after landing.

Random Viewer: But IsaiahX, the bible says that the waters covered the whole earth!

Me: The Hebrew word translated world (אֶרֶץ) means land or country (Strong's Hebrew: 776. אָ֫רֶץ (erets) -- earth, land) If someone says that one farmed the land, for instance, they usually don't mean that they planted on every location around the globe, including Antartica and separate continents. They just mean the immediate area, at least most of the time.
If the flood is only localized, then the meaning that the Bible assigns to the flood doesn't make sense:

Genesis 6:5-8:
5 But the Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind had become great on the earth. Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was highly offended. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.”

8 But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord.
If the flood was only localized, then the message behind it can't be "God thought humanity was so wicked that he decided to wipe it from the Earth." Instead, the message becomes something like "God thought that most of humanity was worth saving, so he decided to scare them a bit to bring them back in line."

This reminds me of the people claiming to have found the bones of Jesus. Like these "localized flood" claims, the people making them really haven't thought things through if they think the claim supports their religion.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
… If you wish to lean why we know that you are wrong I will gladly help you…

I don’t think you have anything, but please help me. But don’t bother to show assumptions and circular reasoning.

And remember, creationists are banned from using the word "assumption" unless they can demonstrate the assumption. It amounts to a breaking of the Ninth Commandment if you can't support your claims.

Please explain.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
The Sumerian Flood story is actually already based on centuries older oral tradition of Ziusudra, before it was written down 24th-22nd centuries BCE…. …What you don’t seemed to understand 1213, is that many of Sumerian cities predated Sargon, and some even predated the Sumerian civilization (3050 BCE), like Ur and Uruk, both of which existed 2000 years earlier…

Nice story. The problem is, I have no way to confirm it.

…Furthermore, if there were Noah’s flood around 2350 or 2300 BCE, then there should be evidences of flood stratum and debris in Uruk, Ur, Kish and other cities, dated to the same time. There are not.

I think the flood could have been earlier. But about the debris and stratum. It could have been eroded and by how the flood happened, it didn’t transfer stratum and debris equally, but by directions that were determined by how the original continent collapsed and how the water currents went.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I don’t think you have anything, but please help me. But don’t bother to show assumptions and circular reasoning.

It is ironic that you accuse others of circular reasoning when what you have is even less than that. Be polite. Don't make false accusations against others. If you violate the Ninth I will point it out to you.


Please explain.

When you claim that someone made an assumption that is a claim that you have to be able to support. I have never seen a creationist that could support the claims of "assumptions". Assumptions of the sort that creationists talk about are not allowed in the sciences. What you are doing is bearing false witness against others when you claim "assumptions" and there are not any as shown by the inability of creationists to name the specific assumptions.

Alright let's begin. Do you accept the scientific method as a proper way to solve problems?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nice story. The problem is, I have no way to confirm it.



I think the flood could have been earlier. But about the debris and stratum. It could have been eroded and by how the flood happened, it didn’t transfer stratum and debris equally, but by directions that were determined by how the original continent collapsed and how the water currents went.


You keep contradicting yourself. You do not realize it, but that is because you are spinning yarns about a subject that you have no knowledge of. Here is an article on the flood that probably inspired the myth that eventually became the Noah's Ark myth after the early Hebrews copied it from the Epic of Gilgamesh:

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

That was a large flood. It was nowhere near large enough to threaten humanity or all of the animals on the Earth. It makes the Ark superfluous.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You keep contradicting yourself. You do not realize it, but that is because you are spinning yarns about a subject that you have no knowledge of. Here is an article on the flood that probably inspired the myth that eventually became the Noah's Ark myth after the early Hebrews copied it from the Epic of Gilgamesh:

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

That was a large flood. It was nowhere near large enough to threaten humanity or all of the animals on the Earth. It makes the Ark superfluous.

Excellent reference!!
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Sorry, you understood wrongly. If person doesn’t make own interpretations, but reads the text truthfully as it is written and lets Bible explain, then there are no contradictions. When people add own meanings, then they get lost.

The Bible, particularly Genesis never explain a thing.

  1. It has only very rudimentary understanding of astronomy, so Genesis never explain what are the sun, moon, stars and planets are and how they all work. And it never the explain what is the Earth and how it work in relation to the sun and moon.
  2. It doesn’t explain the geological history of the regions Genesis supposed set (eg Eden), nor does it explain the climate variations (eg polar, tundra, temperate, tropical, arid, etc, zones) of different geographical regions (mountains, highlands or plateau, valleys, jungles, steppes, deserts, etc).
  3. The mentions of animals being created in Genesis 1 & 2, it is very broad in categories, marine lines and fishes, birds, land animals of those that are wild or domesticated (eg cattle), and those that walk on feet or those that crawl. It so general that even children in elementary schools would know all that. There are no explanations to their anatomy, physiology, nothing about genetics and other biological functions of tissues, organs, bones, etc. Nothing about their dietary requirements, .
  4. The description of creation of humans, are also seriously lack, like in point 3 about animals. Describing man being made from dust or soil, is a myth, not explanation of human biology. The only body part mentioned in the creation, is Adam’s rib, used to create Eve, which again is more myth than biology.
In term of science, the Genesis is a book for the ignorants and naïve.

I find that creationists are bloody hypocrites, because they complained about evolution and abiogenesis, but they relied on the Bible as their only source for information, that have no testable explanatory powers.

For example, they (creationists) want us to accept dust can be transformed into a fully grown adult human being. The only way this dust-to-human transformation being possible is through supernatural magic. They find this myth more plausible than understanding chemistry and biochemistry, where science are trying to bridge the gap between inorganic chemistry and organic chemistry.

And you are wrong. The Genesis do require a lot of interpretations, because the damn book never explain. The creation is not self-explanatory events.

Tell me, 1213, I will pick one object in Genesis 1, and you will give me honest answer, if this object require no further explanation.

Just by reading Genesis 1 alone, does it explain everything about the Sun (Genesis 1:14-19)? Does this passage explain what is the sun and how it work? Where does the light and heat come from? Does the sun really move, while the Earth is fixed or stationary?​

You think the Genesis is a genius book, that it require no explanation and no interpretations, then demonstrate that this passage is all that is require to know everything about the sun.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Nice story. The problem is, I have no way to confirm it.
If you were do a little research on the Internet, like typing “Uruk, archaeology”, and read a bit, you will find bundle of information regarding to the history of this city.

That you will give more than enough information about the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Uruk.

Note that the “Chalcolithic” period is the time when they were using both stone and copper tools, and usually denote the second half of the Neolithic period, which started in the Near East (eg Egypt, Levant, what is now Iraq (Mesopotamia) and Iran (Elam and/or Persia), around 5000 BCE to around 3100 or 3050 BCE.

You need to understand that Uruk, is like Jericho, where people in prehistorical (Neolithic period) and ancient times, would often built newer settlement on top of older settlement.

Uruk has 18 datable layers of Uruk, the oldest settlement being Uruk XVIII, built around 5000 BCE. Jericho has over 20 layers, the oldest being 9500 BCE, which is roughly around the time when the Ice Age ended and the beginning of the Neolithic period.

Look up Uruk. Look up Jericho.

It is not merely a story. It is history with archaeological evidences of structures and objects that can be dated. Each layer at Uruk, have been dated. Temples at Uruk have been dated as early as 3600/3500 BCE, several centuries before people learn how to make bronze tools and weapons.

Noah, if he did exist, his ark and flood would have supposedly occurred around 2340 BCE, based on my calculation of Genesis, Exodus 12:40-41 and 1 Kings 6:1. The problem is that there were no major flood in Mesopotamia at that time, and Uruk have already existed a couple of thousands of years already.

No, 1213. Genesis 10 is wrong about Nimrod building Uruk, Babylon (or Babel, as some translations referred Babylon to), Akkad, Assur, Nineveh, etc.

Genesis claimed that Nimrod built the cities of Assur, Nineveh and Calah around the same time,except that these cities were actually began at different times. The evidences showed that Assur is dated to about 2600 BCE, while Calah is only about 1350 BCE. Nineveh is even older, at 6000 BCE, but didn’t become important until 3000 BCE.

Genesis 10 also stated that Egypt didn’t exist until Noah’s grandson Mizraim or Egypt was born, except that the first pyramid, the Step Pyramid of Djoser was built in Saqqara in early 27th century BCE, while the great pyramid of Khufu in Giza, was built built in early 26th century BCE.

Egyptian history actually predated these pyramids, as early as 4000 BCE, and Egyptian writings, hieroglyphs, were invented around 3100 BCE.

All these can be found if you can bother to look them up. I seriously don’t think understand that much about the history of the Near East.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...Uruk has 18 datable layers of Uruk, the oldest settlement being Uruk XVIII, built around 5000 BCE. Jericho has over 20 layers, the oldest being 9500 BCE, which is roughly around the time when the Ice Age ended and the beginning of the Neolithic period...

Thank you, that is interesting information. The problem is, I think we have no way to date those accurately. We can know that old is in the bottom layer, but the age is not really known.

...Noah, if he did exist, his ark and flood would have supposedly occurred around 2340 BCE, based on my calculation of Genesis, Exodus 12:40-41 and 1 Kings 6:1. The problem is that there were no major flood in Mesopotamia at that time, and Uruk have already existed a couple of thousands of years already...

I think your calculation can be wrong and also your knowledge about when there was flood can be wrong. There is no way to really confirm them and that is the problem.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...
Tell me, 1213, I will pick one object in Genesis 1, and you will give me honest answer, if this object require no further explanation.

Just by reading Genesis 1 alone, does it explain everything about the Sun ()? Does this passage explain what is the sun and how it work? Where does the light and heat come from? Does the sun really move, while the Earth is fixed or stationary?​

You think the Genesis is a genius book, that it require no explanation and no interpretations, then demonstrate that this passage is all that is require to know everything about the sun.

Firstly, I meant, Bible explains itself, what it means. But I didn’t mean it explains everything and I think it doesn’t have to. And I think it should be read like normal book, or do you make own interpretations also from other books? For example, if you would read Darwin’s book, would you make own interpretations, or would you allow Darwin to explain what he means with what he is saying?

And now, if we look the Genesis, what I meant is, when it says:


God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth," and it was so. God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:14-19

That is just what it says, unless Bible in some part explains what those mean more accurately. And for example, “God made two great lights”, we have no reason to think it means something else than sun and moon. But for example, “day”, that is vaguer thing, because Bible tells in other part that God’s day is not same as our day.


But don't forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Pet. 3:8

That means, the day in Genesis is not necessary 24 h. And that I meant by, Bible explains itself. We don’t have any reason to make own interpretations and claim Bible means actually something else than what it says.

However, I didn’t mean it explains everything. For example, the structure of sun is not told and I think it is not necessary, because the point is to teach what is good and right and short history.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Thank you, that is interesting information. The problem is, I think we have no way to date those accurately. We can know that old is in the bottom layer, but the age is not really known.

What makes you say that? Making claims without any support only makes people ignore your complaints.

I think your calculation can be wrong and also your knowledge about when there was flood can be wrong. There is no way to really confirm them and that is the problem.

Calculations can be wrong, but there are ways of checking them. And yes, we have ways to confirm our knowledge. You may lack the ability and that is making you think that others lack that ability as well.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Firstly, I meant, Bible explains itself, what it means. But I didn’t mean it explains everything and I think it doesn’t have to. And I think it should be read like normal book, or do you make own interpretations also from other books? For example, if you would read Darwin’s book, would you make own interpretations, or would you allow Darwin to explain what he means with what he is saying?

And now, if we look the Genesis, what I meant is, when it says:


God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth," and it was so. God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:14-19

That is just what it says, unless Bible in some part explains what those mean more accurately. And for example, “God made two great lights”, we have no reason to think it means something else than sun and moon. But for example, “day”, that is vaguer thing, because Bible tells in other part that God’s day is not same as our day.


But don't forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Pet. 3:8

That means, the day in Genesis is not necessary 24 h. And that I meant by, Bible explains itself. We don’t have any reason to make own interpretations and claim Bible means actually something else than what it says.

However, I didn’t mean it explains everything. For example, the structure of sun is not told and I think it is not necessary, because the point is to teach what is good and right and short history.
If you read the Bible as a book then you should believe in a Flat Earth. The Bible only describes the Earth as being flat with a hard lid over it with water above the lid (firmament).
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Thank you, that is interesting information. The problem is, I think we have no way to date those accurately. We can know that old is in the bottom layer, but the age is not really known.

I think your calculation can be wrong and also your knowledge about when there was flood can be wrong. There is no way to really confirm them and that is the problem.

I am a geologist and geomorphologist, and yes there are a number of ways to accurately date the unconsolidated sediment, sedimentary rock, volcanic, and metamorphic formations through the whole thousands of feet of the surface of the earth. I have worked for more than fifty years and education in this field. What are your qualification that give you the ability to make the statements you are making. other than your Creationist agenda?

No the geologists and other scientists cannot be that wrong.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Firstly, I meant, Bible explains itself, what it means. But I didn’t mean it explains everything and I think it doesn’t have to. And I think it should be read like normal book, or do you make own interpretations also from other books? For example, if you would read Darwin’s book, would you make own interpretations, or would you allow Darwin to explain what he means with what he is saying?

If read? I have read Darwin's book several times, and related works I would put it in the context of the limited scientific knowledge of the time, and the limitations of his work, but nonetheless his revolutionary hypothesis and predictions for evolution has been confirmed many times over despite his errors.

And now, if we look the Genesis, what I meant is, when it says:


God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth," and it was so. God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:14-19

That is just what it says, unless Bible in some part explains what those mean more accurately. And for example, “God made two great lights”, we have no reason to think it means something else than sun and moon. But for example, “day”, that is vaguer thing, because Bible tells in other part that God’s day is not same as our day.


But don't forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Pet. 3:8

That means, the day in Genesis is not necessary 24 h. And that I meant by, Bible explains itself. We don’t have any reason to make own interpretations and claim Bible means actually something else than what it says.

I have read Genesis and the Bible a number of times and studied the books in college level classes. I put it in the context of the world view and limited knowledge of the time, and put it in the context of the limits of their knowledge of the history of the earth, life and humanity.

However, I didn’t mean it explains everything. For example, the structure of sun is not told and I think it is not necessary, because the point is to teach what is good and right and short history.

It is only the set in ancient history, and not a history of the universe, earth, life, and humanity from the perspective of their very limited knowledge of those that edited, redacted and compiled the Bible..
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Firstly, I meant, Bible explains itself, what it means. But I didn’t mean it explains everything and I think it doesn’t have to. And I think it should be read like normal book, or do you make own interpretations also from other books? For example, if you would read Darwin’s book, would you make own interpretations, or would you allow Darwin to explain what he means with what he is saying?

And now, if we look the Genesis, what I meant is, when it says:


God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth," and it was so. God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:14-19

That is just what it says, unless Bible in some part explains what those mean more accurately. And for example, “God made two great lights”, we have no reason to think it means something else than sun and moon. But for example, “day”, that is vaguer thing, because Bible tells in other part that God’s day is not same as our day.
Regardless of how long a day is, you do agree with the order of things in Genesis, right?

For instance, Genesis has the land and water being separated on the second day and plants being created on the third day... both before the day you say the Sun and Moon were created.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Since I consider ALL of those figures to be mythical, I'm not expecting anything substantial.

Instead, how about looking at the archeology?

It depends upon interpretation a lot but Wooley's findings put a flood at 3100 BC or earlier. As I said before the best guess at Biblical time line puts it around 3800 BC. One source said Wooley's finding were for 3500 BC. There are archelogical findings for later floods but I view them as problematical because there was not a concurrent disruption in culture.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It depends upon interpretation a lot but Wooley's findings put a flood at 3100 BC or earlier. As I said before the best guess at Biblical time line puts it around 3800 BC. One source said Wooley's finding were for 3500 BC. There are archelogical findings for later floods but I view them as problematical because there was not a concurrent disruption in culture.
I have no reason to consider the Biblical time line to be reliable. The best time line is the archaeological evidence for the Sumerian history and the cuneiform tablets that recorded the original flood stories used to compile Genesis. The best evidence for the Biblical flood is the Tigris Euphrates Valley regional flood is 2900 BCE. There is absolutely no evidence of extensive floods in the region beyond the Tigris Euphrates Valley
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
So you are claiming a worldwide flood.

There would be evidence of such an event and there is none. A local flood would have been very limited in scope.

No. I believe the reference to all the land being covered is that of all the land in Mesopotamia.

I believe the limits are natural ones. Floods cover low lands. The more water there is the more land it covers.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I have no reason to consider the Biblical time line to be reliable. The best time line is the archaeological evidence for the Sumerian history and the cuneiform tablets that recorded the original flood stories used to compile Genesis. The best evidence for the Biblical flood is the Tigris Euphrates Valley regional flood is 2900 BCE. There is absolutely no evidence of extensive floods in the region beyond the Tigris Euphrates Valley

The entire Early Dynastic period is generally dated to 2900–2350 BC according to the Middle Chronology, - Wikipedia: The History of Mesopotamia.

Since people were wiped out by the flood one would not expect a dynastic period following the 2900 BC flood.
 
Top