Noah's flood story, did it happen?

[McBell]

Intelligent Falling is clearly better than Unintelligent Falling. Think how dangerous it would be going outside if things could fall without intelligence. You could be walking and SPLAT!! You just got hit by a giraffe.

Holy moly!
I have so changed my world view of everything
Than you so much!

As the newly crowned leader, what title do you demand of your slav....err devoted followers?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Holy moly!
I have so changed my world view of everything
Than you so much!

As the newly crowned leader, what title do you demand of your slav....err devoted followers?

Let me think. Well obviously one must always work under the assumption that one may be wrong so I require my followers to make me an umbrella. A very very strong umbrella.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

What? You have to be kidding. The flood was real because the world was wet over 4 billion years ago. Are you serious?

The OP could not even give his version of the Flood. Perhaps you are a bit bolder than he was.

Tell us your version of the Noah's Ark story please.

Not possible - since I there is no concrete version I subscribe to.

 

[McBell]

Let me think. Well obviously one must always work under the assumption that one may be wrong so I require my followers to make me an umbrella. A very very strong umbrella.

Ok.
Any suggestions on how to induce the Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not possible - since I there is no concrete version I subscribe to.

Do you understand how badly the OP's "version" fails. He will not even explain it. He tried to claim that the Earth was once wet. That was over 4 billion years before people were here. It is pretty hard to have a Noah's Ark story when there was no Noah.

You must have some basic requirements for your version of the myth.

Was the whole Earth covered with water, as it says in Genesis?

Did everyone but Noah and his family die? As it says in Genesis.

Did all of the land animals die, as in the Genesis myth. Well except for those on the ark of course.

Not willing to clearly state one's beliefs indicate that one does not really believe the myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok.
Any suggestions on how to induce the Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva?

Interesting question. I was just thinking of spending an extra hour or two at the gym pumping iron would do the trick. I might need to rethink that.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Do you understand how badly the OP's "version" fails. He will not even explain it. He tried to claim that the Earth was once wet. That was over 4 billion years before people were here. It is pretty hard to have a Noah's Ark story when there was no Noah.

You must have some basic requirements for your version of the myth.

Was the whole Earth covered with water, as it says in Genesis?

Did everyone but Noah and his family die? As it says in Genesis.

Did all of the land animals die, as in the Genesis myth. Well except for those on the ark of course.

Not willing to clearly state one's beliefs indicate that one does not really believe the myth.

Perhaps I don't believe it as written - or at least as interpreted - because I have questions.

For example - how could the author of Genesis - whoever that was - possibly claim that water had covered the whole Earth, or that there were no more survivors or that all other animals died?

I mean - unless they had temporary omniscience - how could they make that testimony?

I'm inclined to believe that what was recorded is what the author "believed" was happening - not exactly what did happen.

All I know is that something happened that caused a great loss of life.

You understand that not all beliefs are completely solidified in peoples minds?

That they may still be working things out?

Just because someone isn't willing to commit 100% to an idea - that doesn't mean they don't believe or that they don't have a willingness to believe.

Believing in something means you don't know everything - which is why you believe it.

 

[Jose Fly]

WOO HOO!!

It's your turn to bring the snacks btw.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps I don't believe it as written - or at least as interpreted - because I have questions.

For example - how could the author of Genesis - whoever that was - possibly claim that water had covered the whole Earth, or that there were no more survivors or that all other animals died?

I mean - unless they had temporary omniscience - how could they make that testimony?

I'm inclined to believe that what was recorded is what the author "believed" was happening - not exactly what did happen.

All I know is that something happened that caused a great loss of life.

You understand that not all beliefs are completely solidified in peoples minds?

That they may still be working things out?

Just because someone isn't willing to commit 100% to an idea - that doesn't mean they don't believe or that they don't have a willingness to believe.

Believing in something means you don't know everything - which is why you believe it.

The story becomes an incoherent mess the more lax one in the version that one uses. The need for an "Ark" goes away. It eventually becomes just a story about a man on a boat that survived a large flood.

Rather than believe it there is another approach. The Bible at no point says or even implies that everything in it is factual. It works as a morality tale. It does not work as an actual event. The story itself may have been inspired by a large flood, but that is the "man on a boat" story. Not the Noah's Ark story.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The story becomes an incoherent mess the more lax one in the version that one uses. The need for an "Ark" goes away. It eventually becomes just a story about a man on a boat that survived a large flood.

Rather than believe it there is another approach. The Bible at no point says or even implies that everything in it is factual. It works as a morality tale. It does not work as an actual event. The story itself may have been inspired by a large flood, but that is the "man on a boat" story. Not the Noah's Ark story.

I can neither confirm or deny any of this.

Yet I have reasons to believe in the deliberate preservation of Noah and his family and the Ark narrative.

It jives with other doctrines and books of scripture I believe in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can neither confirm or deny any of this.

Yet I have reasons to believe in the deliberate preservation of Noah and his family and the Ark narrative.

It jives with other doctrines and books of scripture I believe in.

It does not jive with reality. And you appear to know it which is why you won't go out on a limb to defend the myth. If it happened at all the story is incredibly inaccurate.

 

[gnostic]

So from which apologetic con-man did you get all this nonsense?
Kent Hovind or alike?

Or Ken Ham?

 

[sun rise]

Many cultures all over the world - supposedly not linked to Israel - also claim that there was a Flood event of some kind in their ancient past.

The Aztecs - for example - have a few global Flood event accounts - where either all human life perished or there were a few survivors.

I just don't believe that this story is isolated only to the ancient Hebrews.

Also - I don't understand how God wanting to destroy a wicked generation of people is "ridiculous".

It's almost as if there was a real flood event of some sort that almost wiped out a local community with a few survivors and which then spread around the world and wound up being fitted into the local mythology and theology.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

It does not jive with reality. And you appear to know it which is why you won't go out on a limb to defend the myth. If it happened at all the story is incredibly inaccurate.

How can I defend what I don't know?

The "story" was not written by God - so don't assume that it contains all the relevant facts needed to either prove or disprove it.

Did the writer of Genesis literally mean all the mountains on the Earth were covered? If so - how could he determine that? He had a good look at every single mountain on Earth?

Or - was it only the "mountains" that he could see?

I'm not going to let what I don't know cause me to throw out what I do know.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

It's almost as if there was a real flood event of some sort that almost wiped out a local community with a few survivors and which then spread around the world and wound up being fitted into the local mythology and theology.

That's a possibility - which makes me reject the idea that ancient Hebrews just made it up.

 

[gnostic]

Noah's flood story, did it happen?

Global flood? No.

Or localized large regional flood? Possible. There are always large floods, on regional scales...but read the next Q&A:

Was flood (global or local) large enough to put the Ark in Mount Ararat’s peak? No...myth.

Did the Ark ever exist? No...more myths.

Did Noah and his sons ever exist? No. They are all made myths. Noah is based on Neo-Babylonian Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Utnapishtim is based on much older Old Babylonian Atrahasis from the 17th century BCE Epic of Atrahasis. And Atrahasis is based on even older mid to late 3rd millennium BCE Sumerian Ziusudra myth, whose name mentioned only in Death of Bilgames tablet and is the chief character in Eridu Genesis. Unfortunately, clay tablets of Eridu Genesis are badly fragmented, so partial parts of story survive.

Did the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) ever occur, descendants of Noah’s sons, eg Nimrod? No, Genesis 10 isn’t history.

The things it say about Egypt and Babylonia (Shinar) & Assyria not exist until after the Flood according to Genesis 10, are not only inaccurate historically and archaeologically, Genesis 10 is also blatantly false.

Both Uruk (called Erech in some translations) and Nineveh archaeologically predated the Bronze Age, as do Egypt, but Calch (known as Kalhu in Assyrian) is dated to the reign of Shalmanesser I from mid-13th century BCE. So unless Nimrod had lived for several thousand of years, Nimrod is therefore a purely an invented fictional or mythological character.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can I defend what I don't know?

The "story" was not written by God - so don't assume that it contains all the relevant facts needed to either prove or disprove it.

Did the writer of Genesis literally mean all the mountains on the Earth were covered? If so - how could he determine that? He had a good look at every single mountain on Earth?

Or - was it only the "mountains" that he could see?

I'm not going to let what I don't know cause me to throw out what I do know.

So you can't support the myth at all. You are not even approaching this using critical thinking. You are blindly accepting the Bible story even though you know it can't be true as told or anywhere near it. I think that other post struck a nerve with you for a very good reason.

 

[gnostic]

How can I defend what I don't know?

The "story" was not written by God - so don't assume that it contains all the relevant facts needed to either prove or disprove it.

Did the writer of Genesis literally mean all the mountains on the Earth were covered? If so - how could he determine that? He had a good look at every single mountain on Earth?

Or - was it only the "mountains" that he could see?

I'm not going to let what I don't know cause me to throw out what I do know.

According to Genesis 8, only the mountains of Ararat are mentioned, and it say the Ark landed on one of the peaks.

There are 2 peaks, Lesser Ararat over 3000 m high, Greater Ararat just over 5000 m elevation. A localized Flood could not have deposited the Ark on either peaks, and global flood never happened.

It doesn’t matter if @SA Huguenot support global or localized Flood, because if the ark landed on one of those 2 peaks, then Genesis Flood is a myth.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

According to Genesis 8, only the mountains of Ararat are mentioned, and it say the Ark landed on one of the peaks.

There are 2 peaks, Lesser Ararat over 3000 m high, Greater Ararat just over 5000 m elevation. A localized Flood could not have deposited the Ark on either peaks, and global flood never happened.

It doesn’t matter if @SA Huguenot support global or localized Flood, because if the ark landed on one of those 2 peaks, then Genesis Flood is a myth.

Why do you assume that the mountains of Ararat we know today are the same ones described in the Genesis account?

Is it not possible that those mountains were named after the mountain mentioned in the Genesis account?

Do you also assume that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers we know today are the same that the Genesis account claimed was in Eden?

There is no reason to assume that the places we know by these names today are the same as those recorded in the Genesis account.

 

[McBell]

I'm not going to let what I don't know cause me to throw out what I do know.

And yet you are unable to reveal what you do know?