The world flood fairy tale

[ninerbuff]

Although many cultures wrote of a flood of great magnitude, the story of noah's ark is the most laughable. A 900 year old guy (or was it 600?) and his family repopulates the Earth (wonder how the different cultures fit in her and how incest didn't happen) and apparently all the species of animals were aboard a ship smaller than most of today's cruise liners.
Somehow after landing on some mountain, these animals swam to Australia, North and South America, Japan etc. Kinda hard to believe that koalas and kangaroos made that trek.
Or how about feeding 35,000 animals, some only carnivores (which would blow the 2 of each kind only theory). Heck if it took 1 minute to feed one 2 animals, that would take 291 hours. At that rate it would take 12 days for 1 feeding! Not to mention the "feeders" would still have to eat and sleep for themselves.
What a great fairy tale.

 

[ChristineES]

I know you have an imagination.

There are many ideas of how this could be taken. 1. It was a symbolic story about the separation man and God. 2. That Noah wasn't really 900; I divided Noah's age by 12 and came up with a more real age (in his 60s, I think, but I don't remember; I was thinking a lunar calender)) 3. That it was only the world "as the people knew it". Only that part of the world and not the entire earth (I got sneered at at a Christian forum for bringing that one up once, but I thought I would risk it here, )

If you think about it in these ways or others, then it would not be so "laughable"(your words).

 

[JustWondering]

I know you have an imagination.

There are many ideas of how this could be taken. 1. It was a symbolic story about the separation man and God. 2. That Noah wasn't really 900; I divided Noah's age by 12 and came up with a more real age (in his 60s, I think, but I don't remember; I was thinking a lunar calender)) 3. That it was only the world "as the people knew it". Only that part of the world and not the entire earth (I got sneered at at a Christian forum for bringing that one up once, but I thought I would risk it here, )

If you think about it in these ways or others, then it would not be so "laughable"(your words).

If you could go back in time a thousand years or so and said the tales in the bible were just symbolic or that the flood was not global you would probably be burned as a heretic. I do not believe that Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the tower of Babel and similar stories were considered symbolic when they were first taught. People can say that now to try sidestepping how embarrassingly ridiculous and improbable these stories are if taken literally. But back in the day and even today by some groups these stories were/are taken literally.

 

[DeitySlayer]

The Flood cannot have been local, else there would have been absolutely no need for an Ark or collection of animals. Noah had 40 days to shift to another region of the world. If he could build a titanic boat in 40 days, he could have just built a small one and moved onto India or somewhere.

 

[ninerbuff]

I know you have an imagination.

There are many ideas of how this could be taken. 1. It was a symbolic story about the separation man and God. 2. That Noah wasn't really 900; I divided Noah's age by 12 and came up with a more real age (in his 60s, I think, but I don't remember; I was thinking a lunar calender)) 3. That it was only the world "as the people knew it". Only that part of the world and not the entire earth (I got sneered at at a Christian forum for bringing that one up once, but I thought I would risk it here, )

If you think about it in these ways or others, then it would not be so "laughable"(your words).

Yes I agree that it was a symbolic story. If noah's wasn't 900 then it shouldn't have said he was. And yes it was perceived as a "world" flood from authors point of view. What I find laughable is that people actually believe that the ENTIRE story is true.

 

[Strength & Honor]

What I find laughable is that people actually believe that the ENTIRE story is true.

I have heard this many times before. The only problem is that, whether you take the Noah story literally or not, there is no way to discredit it in the mind of the believer. The reason being that no matter how impossible this situation may seem, a theist can always claim that God was behind it all anyway.Therefore, it is not subject to ordinary scientific analysis. Being an act of an omnipotent God, Noah could have received help in any number of ways with the task. Everything from construction, to maintenance and upkeep, to feeding the animals, to earth’s repopulation are subject to the possibility of divine aid. In other words, God, in the believer's mind, operates outside the bounds of science. So, if God wanted it to happen, He is powerful enough to make it happen. And there is no way any detractor can take that out of the equasion.

So, for the believer who happens to interpret this story literally, there is probably nothing that could change their belief about that barring God Himself coming down from heaven to explain it as some analogy or symbol.

 

[ninerbuff]

I have heard this many times before. The only problem is that, whether you take the Noah story literally or not, there is no way to discredit it in the mind of the believer. The reason being that no matter how impossible this situation may seem, a theist can always claim that God was behind it all anyway.Therefore, it is not subject to ordinary scientific analysis. Being an act of an omnipotent God, Noah could have received help in any number of ways with the task. Everything from construction, to maintenance and upkeep, to feeding the animals, to earth’s repopulation are subject to the possibility of divine aid. In other words, God, in the believer's mind, operates outside the bounds of science. So, if God wanted it to happen, He is powerful enough to make it happen. And there is no way any detractor can take that out of the equasion.

So, for the believer who happens to interpret this story literally, there is probably nothing that could change their belief about that barring God Himself coming down from heaven to explain it as some analogy or symbol.

I've had believers even try to logically explain how it was possible to justify the legitamacy of the story. One told me that the carnivores were fed dolphin meat (which was caught and hauled into the carnivore cages). Or that the cages were "self feeding". But you're right....a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

 

[fallingblood]

Although many cultures wrote of a flood of great magnitude, the story of noah's ark is the most laughable. A 900 year old guy (or was it 600?) and his family repopulates the Earth (wonder how the different cultures fit in her and how incest didn't happen) and apparently all the species of animals were aboard a ship smaller than most of today's cruise liners.
Somehow after landing on some mountain, these animals swam to Australia, North and South America, Japan etc. Kinda hard to believe that koalas and kangaroos made that trek.
Or how about feeding 35,000 animals, some only carnivores (which would blow the 2 of each kind only theory). Heck if it took 1 minute to feed one 2 animals, that would take 291 hours. At that rate it would take 12 days for 1 feeding! Not to mention the "feeders" would still have to eat and sleep for themselves.
What a great fairy tale.

What's your debate? Why not take the Noah flood story in the same genre as the other flood stories; as a mythological or even metaphorical story. Sure, some are uninformed and were taught this story as factual. However, your attempt at discrediting it is laughable in my opinion.


There are logical ideas that could be behind the story. First, if you notice, there are actually two accounts of the flood. They are written by different sources within the Torah. The first says two of every animal, the second says 7 of the clean, and 2 of the dirty. Both are actually logical if we consider the list of clean and dirty animals in the Bible. Keep that in mind for just a minute.

At the same time, the story could logically be referring to a local flood that had happened some time past. The reason why this is possible is because we are talking about a group of people who did not have a grasp on just how large the world was. Everything they see is flooded, thus it would be logical for them to assume the world was flooded. More so, it must be remembered that these stories were not written right after the event; that they were passed along in an oral culture. Thus, exaggerations are included and expected. That is what happens with an oral culture.

Going back to the animals, it is then logical to assume there was some exaggeration there as well. We are again talking of an oral culture. That is something you should think about before posting an argument against the flood. Maybe look at it from a possible historical sense, or maybe not completely close-minded. Just calling it dumb and dismissing it does very little. It just upsets people and there is thus no learning.

 

[ninerbuff]

What's your debate? Why not take the Noah flood story in the same genre as the other flood stories; as a mythological or even metaphorical story. Sure, some are uninformed and were taught this story as factual. However, your attempt at discrediting it is laughable in my opinion.

I do take the noah story as mythological. I don't DOUBT that there was a world flood because there are references to it from other parts of the world approximately coinciding with the bible's version of it.

There are logical ideas that could be behind the story. First, if you notice, there are actually two accounts of the flood. They are written by different sources within the Torah. The first says two of every animal, the second says 7 of the clean, and 2 of the dirty. Both are actually logical if we consider the list of clean and dirty animals in the Bible. Keep that in mind for just a minute.

At the same time, the story could logically be referring to a local flood that had happened some time past. The reason why this is possible is because we are talking about a group of people who did not have a grasp on just how large the world was. Everything they see is flooded, thus it would be logical for them to assume the world was flooded. More so, it must be remembered that these stories were not written right after the event; that they were passed along in an oral culture. Thus, exaggerations are included and expected. That is what happens with an oral culture.

Going back to the animals, it is then logical to assume there was some exaggeration there as well. We are again talking of an oral culture. That is something you should think about before posting an argument against the flood. Maybe look at it from a possible historical sense, or maybe not completely close-minded. Just calling it dumb and dismissing it does very little. It just upsets people and there is thus no learning.

I don't disagree with your logical explanation. There is good proof that a world flood possible happened. I laugh at the exaggerations and still roll my eyes when believers tell me the exaggerated noah story in it's entirety is absolutely true.

 

[Atomist]

I do take the noah story as mythological. I don't DOUBT that there was a world flood because there are references to it from other parts of the world approximately coinciding with the bible's version of it.

Lol for a minute there I thought you were arguing noah's story was real because there was an accounts of a global flood in other parts of the world... boy that would have been a funny mistake

 

[ninerbuff]

Lol for a minute there I thought you were arguing noah's story was real because there was an accounts of a global flood in other parts of the world... boy that would have been a funny mistake

Lol, that would have been funny. But yeah, the bible (or any other religious book for that matter) are just folklore to me.

 

[fallingblood]

I do take the noah story as mythological. I don't DOUBT that there was a world flood because there are references to it from other parts of the world approximately coinciding with the bible's version of it.


I don't disagree with your logical explanation. There is good proof that a world flood possible happened. I laugh at the exaggerations and still roll my eyes when believers tell me the exaggerated noah story in it's entirety is absolutely true.

So you laugh at the exaggeration of the noah story, yet believe there is was a world wide flood?

There is no credible evidence that there was a worldwide flood. There is no geological markings, which is what we would expect. There isn't enough water for a global flood. And there is no gap in our civilization that we can actually see that would allow for such a large flood.

I have to say that is the first time I ever encountered someone who doesn't believe the Noah story, yet think that there may have been a world flood.

 

[fallingblood]

Lol, that would have been funny. But yeah, the bible (or any other religious book for that matter) are just folklore to me.

Could that be because you really haven't researched it out?

 

[ninerbuff]

So you laugh at the exaggeration of the noah story, yet believe there is was a world wide flood?

There is no credible evidence that there was a worldwide flood. There is no geological markings, which is what we would expect. There isn't enough water for a global flood. And there is no gap in our civilization that we can actually see that would allow for such a large flood.

I have to say that is the first time I ever encountered someone who doesn't believe the Noah story, yet think that there may have been a world flood.

I do take the noah story as mythological. I don't DOUBT that there was a world flooding because there are references to it from other parts of the world approximately coinciding with the bible's version of it.


I don't disagree with your logical explanation. There is good proof that a world flooding possible happened. I laugh at the exaggerations and still roll my eyes when believers tell me the exaggerated noah story in it's entirety is absolutely true.

There fixed it.

Tsunami's happen. We've seen actual footage of it. Since we have no records of how quake activity magnitudes happened during those times, it's possible that large earthquakes caused flooding is several areas around the world simultaneously.
Stories are written about it from different cultures. It's the exaggerated claims of the "end of the world" flood (no ing) from the story of noah that I don't believe.

 

[ninerbuff]

Could that be because you really haven't researched it out?

I don't devote precious time researching "One thousand and one nights" for the same reason. It's storytelling.

 

[fallingblood]

There fixed it.

Tsunami's happen. We've seen actual footage of it. Since we have no records of how quake activity magnitudes happened during those times, it's possible that large earthquakes caused flooding is several areas around the world simultaneously.
Stories are written about it from different cultures. It's the exaggerated claims of the "end of the world" flood (no ing) from the story of noah that I don't believe.

Yes, we have had flooding around the world at different times. There is no evidence that we all of a sudden had flooding all over the world at the same time though as you are suggesting.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't devote precious time researching "One thousand and one nights" for the same reason. It's storytelling.

Except with the Bible, we do have a good source that we can use in addition to historical records. And the Bible also contains books that are meant to be history, such as Acts.

The thing you need to realize is that the Bible is a collection of books that cover a great spectrum of genres.

 

[ninerbuff]

Except with the Bible, we do have a good source that we can use in addition to historical records. And the Bible also contains books that are meant to be history, such as Acts.

The thing you need to realize is that the Bible is a collection of books that cover a great spectrum of genres.

But all the while the literal scriptures can't be taken literally. I accept that the bible was written from a collection of selected authors. For history purposes, as in time lines and possible life and and death of some individuals that are said to have existed, when combined with other historical documentation verifying it, I can see it being helpful. But for proof as to the existence of a diety.......uh no.

 

[fallingblood]

But all the while the literal scriptures can't be taken literally. I accept that the bible was written from a collection of selected authors. For history purposes, as in time lines and possible life and and death of some individuals that are said to have existed, when combined with other historical documentation verifying it, I can see it being helpful. But for proof as to the existence of a diety.......uh no.

I agree with you on that point.

I see no proof from the Bible that a deity exists. I would actually suggest if a deity was behind the Bible, they are greatly incompetent. But as you said, in the combination of other works, they can be helpful.

In this, we do agree.