Noah: myth or fact?

[sageowl]

Does the Christian world take this story as literal truth? The world wide flood, just about 4000 years ago, 2 of every single species on a boat etc etc?

I must say it seems very implausible. Am I missing something? Are there theories floating around (ha ha) to make this story seem more likely?

 

[Windwalker]

Shouldn't the question be what percentage of the Christian world believes these as literal facts, as opposed to symbolic in nature?

 

[jeager106]

First forget the ark looking like a boat with a bow and stern & rudder.
It was a rectangle according to the Bible and was intended to only float and not
for a very long time at that. Months, perhaps.
Then forget that ALL species existing at that time needed to fit on the ark.
Most all species of dog directly came from the wolf etc.
Is it possible?
Well there are many views on this and I don't know, wasn't there.
Here's one of dozens of links:
Noah's Ark: Was It Possible? | United Church of God

 

[Lyndon]

My mom researched this in college; A huge number of cultures and religions around the world including eskimos, sumerians etc etc have flood stories, some quite similar to the Bible. Add that to we know 10,000-15,000 years ago a huge 400 ft rise in the sea level at the end of the last ice age. Evolutionists like to tell us that the ice age ended slowly over hundreds of years and the sea level just gradually rose, however there is really no proof that the melting of the ice cap didn't occur quickly not slowly. And no proof the sea level didn't rise above the present level before it lowered down to the present sea level. Add that to the fact that maybe 95 % of the people live with in several hundred feet of the sea level. I for one believe there was a flood and that there was an ark, but that the occupants of the ark were definitely not the only survivors of the flood, some people were simply above the highest level of the flood, certainly Sherpas living at 15,000 feet on Mt Everest should have been above the flood.

Obviously the ark was not big enough to hold all the animal species of the time that survived the flood, but the flood could have wiped out all the inhabitants of Israel, Saudia Arabia, the middle East etc, as most of them are at lower elevations. Or maybe the ark landed way away from where its started, and the Middle East was not inhabited by humans prior to the flood. Obviously the flood did not occur only 4000 years ago, so that wipes out the whole 6000 year old world theory, even by reading the Bible, the 6000 year theory is full of holes, enough to sink an ark!!

 

[Shiranui117]

I think it was either a regional flood in the Middle East several thousand years ago, or something that caused a human population bottleneck. Apparently there was a population bottleneck across genus Homo a bit over a million years ago. No one knows what caused it. Maybe it was multiple floods that got engrained in the human collective conscious? Humans Might Have Faced Extinction - Scientific American

 

[Augustus]

Does the Christian world take this story as literal truth? The world wide flood, just about 4000 years ago, 2 of every single species on a boat etc etc?

I must say it seems very implausible. Am I missing something? Are there theories floating around (ha ha) to make this story seem more likely?

Yes, 2 of every animal is a myth. There were actually 14 of every clean animal.

"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" Genesis 7:2

 

[sageowl]

Yes, 2 of every animal is a myth. There were actually 14 of every clean animal.

"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" Genesis 7:2

lol. ok, mr. pedantic. So, let me make sure I have you right on this. It is LITERALLY true that a minimum of 2 critters of every species was aboard?

 

[Kurdish]

I believe that many many years ago, more than the 6000 the Bible mentions, something happened in the Middle East. There was a flood that destroyed almost everything in the area that was close to the sea level. I believe that it happened, but as there was no one who could write it down (At least not in a langauge/scrip we understand today or have found for that matter) we have no proof from anyone who went through it but it was something that was told from generation to generation until someone actually wrote it down and of course when this happens important details disappear and other things are added to spice it up.

I could be wrong but I cannot say the Bible is wrong about this, why would anyone write something like this if it´s not something that was known by everyone in the area?

 

[rusra02]

Does the Christian world take this story as literal truth? The world wide flood, just about 4000 years ago, 2 of every single species on a boat etc etc?

I must say it seems very implausible. Am I missing something? Are there theories floating around (ha ha) to make this story seem more likely?

True Christians accept the Flood account as historical. Jesus Christ spoke of it as an historical event, as did his apostles. (Matthew 24:37-39, 2 Peter 3:5-7) Noah is mentioned throughout the Scriptures as a real person. Why do you believe the Bible's record implausible?

 

[Lyndon]

True Christians???? That would be anyone that follows Jesus, not only people that believe in the Biblical flood and 6000 years, get real!!

 

[Windwalker]

True Christians accept the Flood account as historical. Jesus Christ spoke of it as an historical event, as did his apostles. (Matthew 24:37-39, 2 Peter 3:5-7) Noah is mentioned throughout the Scriptures as a real person. Why do you believe the Bible's record implausible?

I speak of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden all the time to make a point from the story. Do I believe they were historical persons? No, not literally. That's not the point of the story, nor my reasons for citing it. Do you believe the point Jesus or the Apostles citing Noah's ark was to teach about history? That they were science and history teachers? That's an odd view, and one that I think totally misses the point of what they were trying to say.

 

[rusra02]

True Christians???? That would be anyone that follows Jesus, not only people that believe in the Biblical flood and 6000 years, get real!!

If someone follows the Christ, they do not repudiate the teachings of the one they claim to follow, IMO. False "Christians" are many, even as Jesus said. (Matthew 7:21-23)

 

[rusra02]

I speak of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden all the time to make a point from the story. Do I believe they were historical persons? No, not literally. That's not the point of the story, nor my reasons for citing it. Do you believe the point Jesus or the Apostles citing Noah's ark was to teach about history? That they were science and history teachers? That's an odd view, and one that I think totally misses the point of what they were trying to say.

Yes,I believe the context shows they were referring to the historical significance of the Flood as a warning example that God will end wickedness in his due time. For example, 2 Peter 3:5-7 states: "For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people." Such a warning would be without force if the Flood was not a fact of history.

 

[savagewind]

I believe the Noah story is a teaching tool. I think it is for teaching something about what is true.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes,I believe the context shows they were referring to the historical significance of the Flood as a warning example that God will end wickedness in his due time.

Do you believe they thought of historical facts in the same light we do today? The purpose of a myth is to teach a lesson, a moral. It doesn't matter if it is historically factual or not, or whether they believe it, rather just assumed it since it didn't really matter or come to mind in the same way a question of historical facts matters to us today. It's how the story functions. Even if they took for granted it's facticity, it has no bearing on whether or not its message contains truth. That's what myth is all about.

For example, 2 Peter 3:5-7 states: "For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God;

And which version of the Bible are you finding the word "fact" inserted in that verse? But regardless of that, again, even if he believed it was a "fact" in the way we do today, does that change anything? Can't he have been a person of his day, a person of his culture and believed a lot of "factual" errors?

Such a warning would be without force if the Flood was not a fact of history.

So, your faith rests in scientific and historical proofs? I'm not sure that's what the Bible means when it speaks of faith. If so, your only option is to ignore and deny facts, which to me is a sin against God.

 

[jojom]

Mainline Protestants: 75 percent believe in the story of creation, 79 percent in the Red Sea account, and 73 percent in Noah and the Ark.

Evangelical Protestants: 87 percent believe in the creation story, 91 percent in the Red Sea, and 87 percent in Noah.

Roman Catholics: 51 percent think the story of the creation is literally true, while 50 percent believe in the Red Sea story and 44 percent in the flood.
WHO Says the Bible Is Literally True? - Netscape News​

What I find surprising is that 13% of evangelical protestants don't believe in Noah.

 

[Windwalker]

Mainline Protestants: 75 percent believe in the story of creation, 79 percent in the Red Sea account, and 73 percent in Noah and the Ark.

Evangelical Protestants: 87 percent believe in the creation story, 91 percent in the Red Sea, and 87 percent in Noah.

Roman Catholics: 51 percent think the story of the creation is literally true, while 50 percent believe in the Red Sea story and 44 percent in the flood.
WHO Says the Bible Is Literally True? - Netscape News​

What I find surprising is that 13% of evangelical protestants don't believe in Noah.

I think that's encouraging. Once something hits 10% or higher it's the tipping point where the rest will begin to follow.

 

[rusra02]

Do you believe they thought of historical facts in the same light we do today? The purpose of a myth is to teach a lesson, a moral. It doesn't matter if it is historically factual or not, or whether they believe it, rather just assumed it since it didn't really matter or come to mind in the same way a question of historical facts matters to us today. It's how the story functions. Even if they took for granted it's facticity, it has no bearing on whether or not its message contains truth. That's what myth is all about.


And which version of the Bible are you finding the word "fact" inserted in that verse? But regardless of that, again, even if he believed it was a "fact" in the way we do today, does that change anything? Can't he have been a person of his day, a person of his culture and believed a lot of "factual" errors?


So, your faith rests in scientific and historical proofs? I'm not sure that's what the Bible means when it speaks of faith. If so, your only option is to ignore and deny facts, which to me is a sin against God.

Myth is a polite word for a false story, a lie. Jesus did not base his teachings on false stories concocted to teach a moral lesson. He said regarding his disciples "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth." Jesus quoted from The Scriptures, including mentioning the Genesis account of the Flood, and accepted them as historical fact. The charge that true Christianity is based on myth is absolutely without merit or proof, IMO.

 

[Parsimony]

Jesus did not base his teachings on false stories concocted to teach a moral lesson.

Isn't that what his parables were?

 

[savagewind]

Myth is a polite word for a false story, a lie. Jesus did not base his teachings on false stories concocted to teach a moral lesson. He said regarding his disciples "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth." Jesus quoted from The Scriptures, including mentioning the Genesis account of the Flood, and accepted them as historical fact. The charge that true Christianity is based on myth is absolutely without merit or proof, IMO.

We are sanctified by means of Jesus Christ the promised messiah. Making a promise is called giving your word, "I will do it" said God and God did. Jesus Christ is The Word. Is he not?