Noah's Ark and Other Survivors

[Skwim]

Gen 7:20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

The Sumerian cubit was 20.42 inches meaning the water went up about 25 feet. A little shy I'd say.

And, what do you do with the "mountains were covered" part?

 

[rusra02]

There probably was a great flood, as you point out many cultures have reported a variation of this story so it probably has some basis in fact. But it certainly didn't go down the way it was recorded in the Genesis account. The account is way too implausible to be taken literally.

Thanks for your comments. What do you find implausible in the Bible account?

 

[rusra02]

Where can I find a Flood Story with the uncorrupted facts? I would like to read it.

Genesis 6-9 in any Bible.

 

[outhouse]

Thanks for your comments. What do you find implausible in the Bible account?

Every aspect

 

[outhouse]

Genesis 6-9 in any Bible.

Those are not facts though.

 

[nazz]

And, what do you do with the "mountains were covered" part?

*I* don't do anything with it as I take it as myth. That remains for the literalist to explain. But if I took a stab at it I'd point out that the Hebrew word har, translated as "mountain" can also just mean "hill". In the desert a 25 foot hill might be considered a mountain.

 

[outhouse]

*I* don't do anything with it as I take it as myth. That remains for the literalist to explain. But if I took a stab at it I'd point out that the Hebrew word har, translated as "mountain" can also just mean "hill". In the desert a 25 foot hill might be considered a mountain.

Yet literally it makes no bones about it being a global deluge that kills every dang thing.

Water X amount over the highest hill or mountain.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Genesis 6-9 in any Bible.

Which version of the Bible? I assume you mean an English-language Bible, so can you tell me which version or translation you believe to have only facts about the Flood?

 

[Skwim]

*I* don't do anything with it as I take it as myth. That remains for the literalist to explain. But if I took a stab at it I'd point out that the Hebrew word har, translated as "mountain" can also just mean "hill". In the desert a 25 foot hill might be considered a mountain.

Highly doubtful.

 

[nazz]

Highly doubtful.

then how would you explain it. People thought 25 feet of water could cover mount everest? highly doubtful.

 

[Skwim]

then how would you explain it. People thought 25 feet of water could cover mount everest? highly doubtful.

I can't. I leave the explanation of such inconsistencies to the Biblical literalists. As I see it these are the three possibilities. Take your pick

​

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not sure what the point of the OP is. They obviously didn't think about people on the other side of the planet because they were aware of them. The flood myth is just a rewrite of earlier Semitic flood myths going back to the Sumerians. The Greeks also had pretty much the same myth, with Zeus in the place of Yahweh as the punishing deity and Prometheus making an "ark" for a man and woman so that humanity wouldn't be wiped out.

But anyway, of course they didn't include native Australians and other people living in far-off areas in their thinking because they didn't know they existed. To the ancient people, the "world" was just their local area and the peoples around them. Trying to read more into the text is just to stretch it beyond boundaries it wasn't meant to go past.

 

[outhouse]

then how would you explain it. People thought 25 feet of water could cover mount everest? highly doubtful.

Mountain is the proper translation. It is why it is writen in English that way.


They were very clear about the flood covering everything.

 

[Tumah]

then how would you explain it. People thought 25 feet of water could cover mount everest? highly doubtful.

How about 25 feet over the mountain rather than from sea level? It's just a question of a colon:

Fifteen cubits from above, the waters prevailed; and [they] covered the mountains.

Fifteen cubits from above the waters prevailed and covered the mountains.

 

[nazz]

How about 25 feet over the mountain rather than from sea level? It's just a question of a colon:

Fifteen cubits from above, the waters prevailed; and [they] covered the mountains.

Fifteen cubits from above the waters prevailed and covered the mountains.

Even expressed that way that would not appear to be the meaning

 

[Tumah]

Even expressed that way that would not appear to be the meaning

I don't see why not.

 

[rusra02]

Which version of the Bible? I assume you mean an English-language Bible, so can you tell me which version or translation you believe to have only facts about the Flood?

Any literal translation that doesn't take liberties in translating. I recommend the New World Translation -2013 revision, but there are many others, including the King James Version.

 

[rusra02]

How about 25 feet over the mountain rather than from sea level? It's just a question of a colon:

Fifteen cubits from above, the waters prevailed; and [they] covered the mountains.

Fifteen cubits from above the waters prevailed and covered the mountains.

I'm not sure what the question is. Here is the account right from the Bible: "The waters became overwhelming and kept increasing greatly upon the earth, but the ark floated on the surface of the waters. The waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains under the whole heavens were covered. *The waters rose up to 15 cubits above the mountains." (Genesis 7:18-20) So the tallest mountains were under at least 15 cubits of water. The Flood changed earth's topography greatly. These changes doubtless resulted in much deeper oceans and higher mountains then in the preflood earth.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Any literal translation that doesn't take liberties in translating.

I really don't know what that means. Are you so familiar with the ancient languages that you can tell a 'literal' translation from one which takes liberties?

I'm asking these questions because -- as Tumah has noted -- a single punctuation mark can radically change the meaning of a statement. So I need to know which Flood account you believe to be factual.

Really, I would need to know what you personally believe the Flood facts to be. You seem busy with others, but if you'd like to engage me directly about your Flood Theory, I'll be glad to do that.

 

[rusra02]

I really don't know what that means. Are you so familiar with the ancient languages that you can tell a 'literal' translation from one which takes liberties?

I'm asking these questions because -- as Tumah has noted -- a single punctuation mark can radically change the meaning of a statement. So I need to know which Flood account you believe to be factual.

Really, I would need to know what you personally believe the Flood facts to be. You seem busy with others, but if you'd like to engage me directly about your Flood Theory, I'll be glad to do that.

I really don't think it necessary to go back to ancient manuscripts to have confidence in modern translations. There are no known original manuscripts of any Bible book. Nor need there be. The Bible itself assures us that God would preserve his Word and he has done so. (Isaiah 40:8) The Flood account in any literal translation does not differ significantly from any other translation. If you doubt this just compare the accounts in various translations.
I do not have a Flood theory. I believe what the Bible says, "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.." (2 Peter 3:5,6)