Noah's Arc and the Flood?

[gnostic]

wow thank you that was cool!! You totally have zero clue about nature other than mechanical and you projected that right into my writing completely lacking self awareness of that exactly like church does!!!! It was like wow total transliteration into reductionism facinating to say the least. Paredolia it is also called, my writing must be getting better!! Thank you for that!!!

Sarcasms, aside. The Book of Job, where God rebuked Job, demonstrate that the author know absolutely nothing about nature, and certainly nothing that today's science can explain about nature.

Morning stars don't sing. And there are no storehouses to store dew, snow or hail. There are no gates to keep the sea at bay. Clouds are not swaddling cloth.

These are all metaphors and similes, and that God say he can do all these things, showed that he has no understanding of nature.

Metaphors, similes, allegories and parables are good for stories and for poetry, but highly inaccurate in science.

And from what I can tell from your past posts, you have very little, if any, education in science.

 

[Desert Snake]

Fossils are not soft.

As metis have pointed out, fossils are the minerals within bones and teeth that have turn into rock.

You are talking to our resident anthropologist, syncretic.

Metis is retired, but he has extensive experiences in the fields of archaeology and palaentology, so he would know better than you and I, about fossils and remains.

Have you studied palaentology or archaeology, syncretic?

I haven't. I did study geology, but that was only for my civil engineering course, so fossils and fossil process were not part of my course's syllabus.

Does what you listed next to religion, have any meaning?
I like to know from what perspective people are arguing from; otherwise I would just be arguing with trolls, etc, know what I mean?

 

[Desert Snake]

Fossils are not soft.

It's subjective to the subject. A hard boiled egg isn't very hard, either.

Lolllllll

 

[David T]

Please do not ramble, and address the subject of the thread. If you wish to ground the subject here in nature than the geologic and archaeological evidence cited is the best route, and not books like the Bible.

. Ok then good science would suggest that the story is about 15,000 13,000 years old long bed literacy. The bible story Is as written is just that story retold over about 12,000 to 10,000 years before the version we have. That passes through the various forms of literacy into the absractive form we have here. So this little squiggle thing called writing is first given a boost it becomes the squiggles of god!!! Bad science or pseudo science wants the story to be In reference to an actual event specifically independent of the geological history! You have given zero geologicAl evidence of a " modern" event that LaYs inside the zone of modern or written history. Which is what 6000 years? The text is a pre literate story written down thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years later. That itself is what is interesting actually not the pseudo science written down eyeball account it's in the bible and ancient texts nonsense.

 

[shunyadragon]

. Ok then good science would suggest that the story is about 15,000 13,000 years old long bed literacy. The bible story Is as written is just that story retold over about 12,000 to 10,000 years before the version we have. That passes through the various forms of literacy into the absractive form we have here. So this little squiggle thing called writing is first given a boost it becomes the squiggles of god!!! Bad science or pseudo science wants the story to be In reference to an actual event specifically independent of the geological history! You have given zero geologicAl evidence of a " modern" event that LaYs inside the zone of modern or written history. Which is what 6000 years? The text is a pre literate story written down thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years later. That itself is what is interesting actually not the pseudo science written down eyeball account it's in the bible and ancient texts nonsense.

Actually I would put the flood more recent flood or floods more recent than 13,000 to 15,000 years ago. The floods that are fairly well supported by the evidence as between ~8,000 and ~3,000 years ago, and may reflect the memories of more than one flood event in the Tigris Euphrates Valley. The geologic and archaeologic evidence does indicate catastrophic flood events in this time frame.

There are many many problems with an early date most significant is the archaeological evidence that the people at that time were very primitive Paleoneolithic cultures.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which planet are you talking about?

Anyways, if that is your argument, then it refutes the larger flood to myth idea. Just throwing paint at a wall and calling it an argument doesn't work.

The archaeological and geologic evidence refutes the larger flood without question.

The only paint on the wall is not archaeological and geologic evidence, but fundamentalist assertions based on ancient mythology without objective verifiable evidence beyond catastrophic local river valley flooding.

 

[Desert Snake]

The archaeological and geologic evidence refutes the larger flood without question.

The only paint on the wall is not archaeological and geologic evidence, but fundamentalist assertions based on ancient mythology without objective verifiable evidence beyond catastrophic local river valley flooding.

Ah, because it is so easy to mistake a local river flood, for a world wide flood. At that point, why not just theorize that it is completely made up, altogether?
There is no logic to the theory that people mistook a very localized flood, for a world flood.

 

[Desert Snake]

The only paint on the wall is not archaeological and geologic evidence, but fundamentalist assertions based on ancient mythology without objective verifiable evidence beyond catastrophic local river valley flooding.

Your premise references myths.

 

[Desert Snake]

Even though the Bible is not literal history there is a basis in history for may of the events of history. Even though the flood as described in the Bible did not happen there was likely a catastrophic event that the account was based on,

^

The event was clearly a local, not a global, event, however) and pre-dates the Biblical book of Genesis in the tale of the good Ziusudra who builds a great boat by the will of the gods and gathers inside two of every animal.

Actually many of the flood myths of different cultures are related to actual local catastrophic floods such as the catastrophic flood recording in Chinese ancient records. It has been documented to a specific catastrophic flood of the Yellow River.

^

First, not all cultures have a worldwide flood mythology.

There is no native Celtic flood myth.

Second, Catastrophic floods in ancient history can mostly be dated and described as regional or local floods for example: The catastrophic flood story in China is recorded as dated to a specific Yellow River Valley flood that can be dated by geologic and archaeological evidence.

From: Geologic Evidence May Support Chinese Flood Legend

"Nearly 4,000 years ago, a landslide sent boulders and sediment tumbling into a valley of the Yellow River. The carnage created a massive earthen dam some 660 feet (200 meters) tall, cutting off the river for months.

When that dam finally burst and the river broke free, a massive flood raged across the countryside—and potentially altered the course of Chinese history.

That’s the story told by sediments and archaeological remains described Thursday in a provocative new study published in Science. If correct, the geologic evidence provides a kernel of truth to one of the country’s most important legends: a great flood that paved the way for the Xia, China’s semi-mythical first dynasty.

“Its importance is just like the story of Noah’s flood in the Western world,” says study leader Qinglong Wu of China’s Peking University.

According to the legend, ancient China held a vast watery landscape that took decades to make livable, largely through the efforts of a hero named Yu. For his work, he was rewarded with political power, ultimately founding the Xia dynasty."

^

I know very well what Celtic means. There are no native Celtic world flood myths recorded by Celts. Later compilations recorded by Christian monks are not the original Celtic myths,

Likewise the Chinese stories of catastrophic floods do not represent world floods, and are not considered Divinely caused. They are stories of catastrophic river valley flood, and one ancient flood in particular which has been documented by geologic research.

^

No in this case. There is known record of Celts recording a world flood myth.

Again . . .

Likewise the Chinese stories of catastrophic floods do not represent world floods, and are not considered Divinely caused. They are stories of catastrophic river valley floods, and one ancient flood in particular which has been documented by geologic research.

Also, Japan mythology does not include a world flood myth, even though the Japanese Islands are subject frequent catastrophic tsunamis.

Notice the contradiction here as the argument changes from no celtic myths, to known celtic myths. Hmm

We will have to agree to disagree here, because in my view the Celts did not record a flood myth prior to the Christian domination of the British Isles and Europe

Again . . .

Likewise the Chinese stories of catastrophic floods do not represent world floods, and are not considered Divinely caused. They are stories of catastrophic river valley floods, and one ancient flood in particular which has been documented by geologic research.

Also, Japan mythology does not include a world flood myth, even though the Japanese Islands are subject frequent catastrophic tsunamis.

Argument changes back to no celtic myths

No contradictions whatsoever.

Except for the blatantly obvious

Again . . .

Likewise the Chinese stories of catastrophic floods do not represent world floods, and are not considered Divinely caused. They are stories of catastrophic river valley floods, and one ancient flood in particular which has been documented by geologic research.

Also, Japan mythology does not include a world flood myth, even though the Japanese Islands are subject frequent catastrophic tsunamis.

^
Back to this mantra

The Chinese flood events describe as a naturally occurring flood of the Yellow River and documented geologically documented river flood event, and nothing beyond that. The Chines record show that it was a river valley flood event associated with the Yellow River,

All these food events are not related to the Biblical account, and are geologically documented as regional and local events ONLY associated with Ice Age glacial events.

Mantra again, referencing myth as evidence

'Interesting local flood stories' is not very meaningful, considering the lack of evidence for anything more than local and regional catastrophic flood events with some recorded in ancient writings. There is no evidence these individual catastrophic events are connected to a larger world flood.

Then why keep trying to use them as an argument, premise?

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that natural local catastrophic floods, documented natural causes by archaeological and geologic evidence were then recorded in ancient writings.

Again . . .

Likewise the Chinese stories of catastrophic floods do not represent world floods, and are not considered Divinely caused. They are stories of catastrophic river valley floods, and one ancient flood in particular which has been documented by geologic research.

Also, Japan mythology does not include a world flood myth, even though the Japanese Islands are subject frequent catastrophic tsunamis.

Myth reference mantra...

The dominant interpretation of the Biblical text has been a 'world flood' up until recently, when the evidence for a world flood did not exist. The lack of evidence inspired Theologians to propose a regional event to account for the Biblical account.

Whatever this means

The referenced referred to in this thread describe natural catastrophic Tigris Euphrates river valley flooding much more recent then the Ice Age glacial floods that are not related to the Biblical account in the time frame and the local and regional events from natural causes.

...? Anyways

There is abundant evidence, as cited, that the Biblical account originated in more ancient Babylonian records of legends related to the documented catastrophic floods of the Tigris Euphrates Valley.

No there isn't. It's speculation.

There is no other archaeological nor geologic evidence for any other flood events that could be related to the Biblical flood either as a world flood event nor regional flood event.

According to your speculation.

Ironically?!?! I do not see how irony applies here. Opinion aside the objective evidence, and the nature of the flood narratives related to Genesis begins with the Epic of Gilgamesh. There is nothing older then the Dead Sea scrolls that document the Hebrew version of Genesis flood and Noah's Arc.

Nature of the flood narrative? That is called your theories and speculation.

The archaeological and geologic evidence refutes the larger flood without question.

The only paint on the wall is not archaeological and geologic evidence, but fundamentalist assertions based on ancient mythology without objective verifiable evidence beyond catastrophic local river valley flooding.

Rather those who don't agree with your mixed up theory.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your premise references myths.

No, my references support the premise of the archaeological and geologic evidence, which supports a natural explanation.

 

[shawn001]

You do know that this stuff has been addressed on these forums ad nauseam, right?

If one is arguing against inerrancy, the existence of inconsistencies is relevant. Here it appears to serve primarily as an opportunity to dump carefully selected and exhaustive (and, most likely, recently discovered) quotes.

"If one is arguing against inerrancy, the existence of inconsistencies is relevant."

They are relevant.

"Here it appears to serve primarily as an opportunity to dump carefully selected and exhaustive (and, most likely, recently discovered) quotes"

from the

"The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia"

FLOOD, THE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Recently discovered in 1906? How is that?

 

[shawn001]

Localized, larger, what exactly are you saying?

Wrong lol. Obvious to someone who is actually familiar with the Hebraic narrative. Since you arent familiar with it either, you're just adding to the mess.

Please enlighten me then, since that was from the

JewishEncyclopedia.com
The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

 

[David T]

Actually I would put the flood more recent flood or floods more recent than 13,000 to 15,000 years ago. The floods that are fairly well supported by the evidence as between ~8,000 and ~3,000 years ago, and may reflect the memories of more than one flood event in the Tigris Euphrates Valley. The geologic and archaeologic evidence does indicate catastrophic flood events in this time frame.

There are many many problems with an early date most significant is the archaeological evidence that the people at that time were very primitive Paleoneolithic cultures.

you need to homestly ask yourself why the deep seated need to fit this into written history time rather than what the archeology actually is showing? Are people in pre literate society too stupid to have been the basis of the story? And would you be embarased if your belief in God was really rooted in pre literate illiterate history? I happen to be an extremist in context to evolution you clearly have zero understanding the role evolution plays in human thought itself. Its in the Joseph narrative of you would take time to read it and think about it. That structure is much much older than literacy writing as well it wasn't invented by Jewish sages. Oh yea i am talking about literary strictures as well sorry, off topic.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, my references support the premise of the archaeological and geologic evidence, which supports a natural explanation.

Your premise is a hodge podge of suppositions and contradictory argument.

 

[gnostic]

To both David T and syncretic.

Your only sources to a global flood is the bible. Correct?

And you believe it did happen. Correct?

If you answer "yes" to both above questions, then - Do you know when this Flood occurred?

You can't talk about the global Flood as being fact, unless you have the possible dates of when this event (Flood) took place.

I can tell you of possible dates, but if I did, you would disagree with me, so I am asking you when it happened.

The two main sources used for modern translations of the Old Testament, are the Septuagint (Greek) and Masoretic Text (or MT, Hebrew). The possible dates for the Flood can be calculated, counting backward from known historical date - the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE. But these 2 sources differ to around a thousand years.

It cannot occur too far beyond the scopes of your Old Testament, because then it become undocumented and it would be pure speculation. It cannot be older than the dates in the Septuagint, but there are inconsistencies with the Genesis timeline, because two extant copies of Septuagint (Vaticanus and Alexandrinus) differed slightly, so which would you choose.

As I understand it, syncretic, you are Jehovah's Witnesses, which I believed your OT translation relied on mostly the MT as main source, but supplemented with the Septuagint for certain verses. So the date for the Flood would be later than the Septuagint's calculation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please enlighten me then, since that was from the

JewishEncyclopedia.com
The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

Your point?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah, because it is so easy to mistake a local river flood, for a world wide flood. At that point, why not just theorize that it is completely made up, altogether?
There is no logic to the theory that people mistook a very localized flood, for a world flood.

There is cultural differences between the West and the East. I believe that based on the anthropology of ancient cultures memories of catastrophic events, and things like plagues and disease are passed down first orally then written.

Well, ah , , , the ancient Chinese did not make that mistake. They knew that it was a catastrophic river flood, and did not blame Divine intervention. There stories center around the heroic efforts of the leaders and the people to overcome the disaster.

In the Middle East there is abundant evidence that the cultures believed strongly in a 'hands on God' invoking Divine retribution and punishment through catastrophic events, diseases, plagues, and crop failures. Even though not factually historically the disasters and plagues in Exodus are very possibly based actual events that were believed to be Divine retribution.

 

[metis]

Soft, as in not rock or hard consistency IN COMPARISON to some other fossils.

But a fossil is almost entirely "rock" as the minerals infuses into the hard tissue, solidified upon drying, and the tissue mostly or entirely decomposes. Realistically, the only difference in soft/solid would be which minerals were involved in that process.

Are you going to address the thread premise?

Sure.

There's no reason to believe that the flood narrative is anything other than allegory, but one should know that the use of allegory is very commonly used in early Jewish literature and is considered just as valid as if these were real historical events. It's the teachings (the morals and values) that really matter. It is likely that it's a reworking of the Babylonian narrative, altered to suit Jewish, not Babylonian, teachings.

This is what pretty much all cultures do, namely to learn from each other but then alter these myths (doesn't mean "falsehood") to teach what they believe. For another example, look up "Santa Clause" in Wikipedia, and see how that image was altered as it moved around the world.

There simply is not one iota of scientific evidence for a worldwide flood that covered the mountaintops-- matter of fact, quite the reverse. But this doesn't diminish in any way the moral and values taught within the flood narrative.

 

[Desert Snake]

But a fossil is almost entirely "rock" as the minerals infuses into the hard tissue, solidified upon drying, and the tissue mostly or entirely decomposes. Realistically, the only difference in soft/solid would be which minerals were involved in that process.

Yes? Would you rather I didnt describe the fossil hardness at all? Does that bother you? What would be the reason for not describing the fossils?

 

[metis]

Yes? Would you rather I didnt describe the fossil hardness at all? Does that bother you? What would be the reason for not describing the fossils?

Because I found it misleading in the context you had used it.

OK, let's move on.