• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Noah's flood story, did it happen?

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
I disagree. There is no evidence supporting the existence of Adam and Eve and a lot of things that do not support a single pair of human progenitors. For all intents and purposes, it is allegory. Even if it were true how could we really know? Either way, that does not mean that man is without sin and in need of salvation from that sin.

Your logic in this is pretty shaky.
If you can explain away the Fall of Mankind then you can explain away the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind - for they rely on each other.

If Man did not choose to Fall - then you are claiming that God is responsible for the sins of the world - and therefore - the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ is not an act of mercy - because He would have been responsible for our plight.

If Man did not choose to Fall - but was forced into it by God - then the Law is of none effect - for Man would be viewed as victims - therefore there would be no condemnation of Man before the Law - meaning that we never required Redemption and Salvation.

If there was no Adam and Eve and a willful Fall of Man - there is no need for the Lord Jesus Christ and He and His Father would be villains - knocking us down in order to pick us up. They would be the source of all misery and woe.

Needless misery and woe - since the Law would have no effect upon us.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If you can explain away the Fall of Mankind then you can explain away the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind - for they rely on each other.

If Man did not choose to Fall - then you are claiming that God is responsible for the sins of the world - and therefore - the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ is not an act of mercy - because He would have been responsible for our plight.

If Man did not choose to Fall - but was forced into it by God - then the Law is of none effect - for Man would be viewed as victims - therefore there would be no condemnation of Man before the Law - meaning that we never required Redemption and Salvation.

If there was no Adam and Eve and a willful Fall of Man - there is no need for the Lord Jesus Christ and He and His Father would be villains - knocking us down in order to pick us up. They would be the source of all misery and woe.

Needless misery and woe - since the Law would have no effect upon us.
If you understood the Adam and Eve myth you would see that God still is to blame. Have you even read it?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You mean besides the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Popul Vuh - two sources mentioned in this thread - one from ancient Mesopotamia and the other ancient Mesoamerica.

And I know various Native American tribes have versions of Floods in their myths too and more than likely many others.
The Sumerians lived between main rivers, and Gilgamesh ruled Uruk, which Genesis 10 sometimes translated as Erech. Uruk along with other 3rd millennium BCE city-states were built on either the river courses of Euphrates or Tigris.

The points is that OFTEN during the 3rd millennium BCE, there are annual floods, but such floods weren’t bad things, because the Sumerians and the Neolithic people before the Sumerians, have learned to use these floods, to irrigate the farmlands, which allow them to grow crops.

But to understand why such annual floods are good, you also need to understand the sources of these water, and the benefits that come from such floods.

As you may possibly know, the areas around outside the Mesopotamia is arid and desert like, so there are valleys along these rivers that support farming, but farming wouldn’t be possible without rises of the water during annual floods.

The sources of both rivers come from the Armenian highlands. There are more rain here, but even more importantly, there are glaciers among the mountains of Armenian highlands, and annually parts of the glaciers, and the tributaries feed both rivers, hence causing the floods.

More importantly, the flood caused erosion in the fertile Armenian highlands, and the water would carry away the rich and fertile loams downstreams to Assyria and Sumer, thereby depositing soils needed to the cities along the valleys of Euphrates and Tigris, which allow them to grow crops.

Actually the same things occur in Egypt’s Nile. The annual flooding carry rich soils or loams to he Nile Valleys in Egypt from ancient Nubia (Sudan) and from even further upstream of the White Nile and the Victoria Lake. The annual flooding provide both loams and irrigation water to Egypt.

So the annual floods in Mesopotamia, have two benefits, fertile loams for crop growing and farming and the necessary water to irrigate the farms, and that’s how the Sumerians were able to feed populations living in those city-states.

But farming in these regions, predated the 3rd millennium BCE, by the Neolithic cultures of Hassuna culture (early 6th millennium BCE) and Samarra culture (mid-6th to early 5th millennia BCE) in northern Mesopotamia.

The villages of the Hassuna people were the first farmers in Mesopotamia. But it was Samarra Neolithic people who first started irrigating farmlands.

But of course, some flooding can be more devastating. There is one particular bad flood, that cause far more damage to Shuruppak. Archaeology have dated the flood damages to Shuruppak around 2900 BCE. It was most devastating flood during the 3rd millennium BCE, too early to be Genesis Flood, and it was never a global flood.

Shuruppak happened to be city that Ziusudra lived in, hence the source of the Flood legend among the Sumerians, and later to Akkadians, and to 2nd-1st millennia BCE Babylonians and Assyrians.

Ziusudra in some Sumerian texts in the later half of 3rd millennium BCE, including The Instructions of Shuruppak, Eridu Genesis, and briefly mentioned in The Death of Bilgames and in one of the Sumerian King Lists.

The Eridu Genesis was too fragmented so a large part of details about the flood is missing in the Ziusudra myth, but it was the sources to later epics of the 2nd century BCE, written in Old Babylonian, like the Epic of Atrahasis (17th century BCE) and Epic of Gilgamesh (19th century BCE). Ziusudra and Atrahasis are the same hero of the Deluge.

No evidence Genesis or any Hebrew oral traditions exist in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE Bronze Age. Genesis and other books attributed to Moses were only found in the mid-1st millennium BCE and later.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
The Sumerians lived between main rivers, and Gilgamesh ruled Uruk, which Genesis 10 sometimes translated as Erech. Uruk along with other 3rd millennium BCE city-states were built on either the river courses of Euphrates or Tigris.

The points is that OFTEN during the 3rd millennium BCE, there are annual floods, but such floods weren’t bad things, because the Sumerians and the Neolithic people before the Sumerians, have learned to use these floods, to irrigate the farmlands, which allow them to grow crops.

But to understand why such annual floods are good, you also need to understand the sources of these water, and the benefits that come from such floods.

As you may possibly know, the areas around outside the Mesopotamia is arid and desert like, so there are valleys along these rivers that support farming, but farming wouldn’t be possible without rises of the water during annual floods.

The sources of both rivers come from the Armenian highlands. There are more rain here, but even more importantly, there are glaciers among the mountains of Armenian highlands, and annually parts of the glaciers, and the tributaries feed both rivers, hence causing the floods.

More importantly, the flood caused erosion in the fertile Armenian highlands, and the water would carry away the rich and fertile loams downstreams to Assyria and Sumer, thereby depositing soils needed to the cities along the valleys of Euphrates and Tigris, which allow them to grow crops.

Actually the same things occur in Egypt’s Nile. The annual flooding carry rich soils or loams to he Nile Valleys in Egypt from ancient Nubia (Sudan) and from even further upstream of the White Nile and the Victoria Lake. The annual flooding provide both loams and irrigation water to Egypt.

So the annual floods in Mesopotamia, have two benefits, fertile loams for crop growing and farming and the necessary water to irrigate the farms, and that’s how the Sumerians were able to feed populations living in those city-states.

But farming in these regions, predated the 3rd millennium BCE, by the Neolithic cultures of Hassuna culture (early 6th millennium BCE) and Samarra culture (mid-6th to early 5th millennia BCE) in northern Mesopotamia.

The villages of the Hassuna people were the first farmers in Mesopotamia. But it was Samarra Neolithic people who first started irrigating farmlands.

But of course, some flooding can be more devastating. There is one particular bad flood, that cause far more damage to Shuruppak. Archaeology have dated the flood damages to Shuruppak around 2900 BCE. It was most devastating flood during the 3rd millennium BCE, too early to be Genesis Flood, and it was never a global flood.

Shuruppak happened to be city that Ziusudra lived in, hence the source of the Flood legend among the Sumerians, and later to Akkadians, and to 2nd-1st millennia BCE Babylonians and Assyrians.

Ziusudra in some Sumerian texts in the later half of 3rd millennium BCE, including The Instructions of Shuruppak, Eridu Genesis, and briefly mentioned in The Death of Bilgames and in one of the Sumerian King Lists.

The Eridu Genesis was too fragmented so a large part of details about the flood is missing in the Ziusudra myth, but it was the sources to later epics of the 2nd century BCE, written in Old Babylonian, like the Epic of Atrahasis (17th century BCE) and Epic of Gilgamesh (19th century BCE). Ziusudra and Atrahasis are the same hero of the Deluge.

No evidence Genesis or any Hebrew oral traditions exist in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE Bronze Age. Genesis and other books attributed to Moses were only found in the mid-1st millennium BCE and later.
Forgive me - but why did you share all of this?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
If you can explain away the Fall of Mankind then you can explain away the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind - for they rely on each other.

If Man did not choose to Fall - then you are claiming that God is responsible for the sins of the world - and therefore - the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ is not an act of mercy - because He would have been responsible for our plight.

If Man did not choose to Fall - but was forced into it by God - then the Law is of none effect - for Man would be viewed as victims - therefore there would be no condemnation of Man before the Law - meaning that we never required Redemption and Salvation.

If there was no Adam and Eve and a willful Fall of Man - there is no need for the Lord Jesus Christ and He and His Father would be villains - knocking us down in order to pick us up. They would be the source of all misery and woe.

Needless misery and woe - since the Law would have no effect upon us.
You seem to be a little off track here. You really are reading a lot that is not there. I am not explaining away the sin of mankind. Saying that the particular story is best viewed as an allegory, because it is unverifiable and flies in the face of facts we can verify does none of what you claim.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Forgive me - but why did you share all of this?
Flood occurred around lakes, rivers, any where cities, towns or villages were built, including valleys, basins, etc.

Flooding up bound to happen in these areas, so archaeological evidence are left behind, and so do written records and stories and oral traditions.

And stories, whether they be written or passed down orally, get distorted, embellished, that what happened historically, become legends and legends become myths.

It is what happened in Shuruppak, a real flood. But over times, through oral traditions, about half a millennium later, this flood is tied to Ziusudra, a legendary figure (eg The Instructions of Shuruppak and the Sumerian King List).

From there, a fuller story developed (Eridu Genesis) where Ziusudra built a vessel from his house to save his family and some animals, release some birds to find land, and with water receded, sacrificed to the gods, who came because of the sweet smell of burnt offerings.

Ziusudra is mentioned again, in the Death of Bilgames (Gilgamesh), Bilgames claiming he met Ziusudra, and brought back the customs of hand washing. That’s how Ziusudra became linked to Gilgamesh in Babylonian and Assyrian literature in the next 2 millennia.

Ziusudra became the Babylonian Atrahasis and Utnapishtim, and newer epics was developed the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh.

Epic of Gilgamesh was so popular, that tablets were found outside of Mesopotamia, including Susa in Elam, Hittite capital Hattusa, Amarna in Egypt, Ugarit in northwest Syria, and Megiddo in Canaan, all dated between 15th and 14th centuries BCE.

That’s how the Canaanites became aware of the Utnapishtim and the Flood story.

And the Epic of Gilgamesh remained popular during the Iron Age of the 1st millennium BCE. The kingdoms of Israel and Judah must have known about the myths of Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim, most likely from contacts with the Neo-Assyrian empire and the Neo-Babylonian empire.

Building a vessel to save the family and some animals, releasing of birds to find land, and the burnt offerings that are found in the Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian literature, would have inspired the Hebrews to write their own versions, but embellished even more with global flood instead of river flood.

Knowing history of the Sumerian and Babylonian and their evolving literature/myths, provide insights where the Jews got their story from, adapting myths that predated Judah and Israel by a couple of millennia, don’t you think?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Ps

If Native Americans and the Mayans lived in rivers or lakes or along the coastal areas, of course they may experience floods, but that don’t mean a global flood, like the one narrated in Genesis.

Second, they don’t have great record keeping, so you wouldn’t know when their floods occurred.

So trying to equate flood legends to Genesis Flood, is nothing more than desperate and false equivalence.

Creationists are horrible at being honest and impartial.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
You seem to be a little off track here. You really are reading a lot that is not there. I am not explaining away the sin of mankind. Saying that the particular story is best viewed as an allegory, because it is unverifiable and flies in the face of facts we can verify does none of what you claim.
Again - you explaining away the Fall of Mankind can and will explain away the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind.

Depending on who you ask - the story of the Lord Jesus Christ is unverifiable and flies in the ace of facts.

Without the Fall of Adam and Eve - none of it makes any sense.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Again - you explaining away the Fall of Mankind can and will explain away the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind.

Depending on who you ask - the story of the Lord Jesus Christ is unverifiable and flies in the ace of facts.

Without the Fall of Adam and Eve - none of it makes any sense.
To you it does not make any sense. And this is where critical thinking comes in. You do remember that thread I hope. Since we know that like the Noah's ark myth that there never were only two people the Adam and Eve story has to be mythical as well. Your understanding of Christianity is self refuting. You are claiming that your God can not exist when you insist that without that myth Christianity is meaningless.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Makes sense - its the sick that need the physician - as the Lord Jesus Christ was known for saying.
I can remember one time when, as I was listening to all the prayer requests folks were making to the pastor, I thought to myself "Wow...everyone here is pretty messed up". Sadly, I don't think any of their problems were ever resolved (some got much, much worse).

And that puts me in mind of another issue I had with Christianity and religion. As I was growing up and going through all the usual middle school social issues, whenever I would ask my parents, church leaders, or relatives how to deal with them, invariably the response was something like "Pray about it", or "Give it to God". I actually tried doing those things, very earnestly at times, but nothing ever came of it. So one day as I prayed in my bedroom, I'd basically had enough and said out loud to myself, "This is pointless. I'm just talking to a wall, and if anything is going to change I'm going to have to do it myself."

To this day I look back on that as one of the most important realizations I've ever had.

I believe that before the sacrifice of the Son of God - faithful Priesthood holders were commanded to perform animal sacrifices - as a symbol of the eventual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I meant more in terms of how sacrificing things to the gods is so common in religions. Do you think it's reasonable to conclude that Christianity's story is a variation on that theme?

I do not believe that the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ was to "appease the gods" - but rather to satisfy the demands of the Law - which required justice to be executed upon those guilty of breaking it - which was all of Mankind.

That may not sound like much of a difference - but it's a worlds difference to me.
Yeah, that's pretty much a distinction without a difference to me. When you say it's not to appease the gods, but to "satisfy the demands of the law", given that it's God's law in the first place, I don't see much of a meaningful difference.

His willing sacrifice - which satisfied the demands of justice - placed Him in the position as the creditor of Mankind - which allowed Him to set the terms of our contract - so instead of perfection (which was the requirement of the Law) - He asks for faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost and us doing our best to keep His commandments.
And the best way he could come up with to accomplish this was to become human and commit suicide? Weird.

And in return - He offers us forgiveness - which would have been impossible without Him paying our debt.
Why is it impossible? God can do anything, right?

I don't know. Depends on how you define it.
It's not really important.

I cannot confirm or deny this - but I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

I mean - just taking into account Abrahamic religions - there is so much depth involving the needs for salvation and the hope of a Resurrection.

These same concepts pervade too many cultures - from ancient Mayans, Babylonians, Egyptians - I just don't think it's that random.
I don't think it's random either. I think they're all variations on the same general themes, which stem from fundamental traits and tendencies of humans, such as pattern recognition and anthropomorphism.

I disagree.

I believe that if everyone in the world had the same desire to believe, amount of experience and prayed with the same amount of faith, sincerity and humility - they would all receive answers.

Not the same answers - but answers.
Do you understand how that's rather insulting to all the people who have sought out gods and/or divine guidance but got nothing? You're effectively telling them "Well, you just weren't sincere and humble enough...like I was".

I've had people try and pull that crap on me when I shared my experiences, and the first thing I ask is, "How exactly do you know what my mental state was at the time? How do you know how sincere or humble I was". Usually the reply is something like, since I didn't get anything out of it, then I couldn't have done it right, which I immediately point out as circular reasoning and assumes its own conclusion. Then I ask the person if they've ever tried to pray to Allah, and if they didn't hear or feel anything, well that just means they didn't do it right.....right?

Oddly enough, most Christians never grasp the point.

Mechanism? I suppose some people are just more technical than others.
That's the scientist in me. ;)

Prayer is not like making a wish - it's a conversation between a Father and child. Most of any prayer should consist of expressing gratitude and asking Him what you should pray for - because He knows what you need better than you do.

Obviously - most people tend to only pray when they need something - which is a component of prayer - but it is not the main reason.

You feel the difference when you make prayer a daily part of your life. It's like working a muscle.
But not everyone feels that, which makes it entirely unlike flipping a light switch.

And if you are being sincere and humble enough - you should feel the Holy Spirit stir in your mind and heart.
Making a light come on by flipping a switch is nothing like that (it doesn't require one to be in an unspecified, vague state of mind to work).

As you gain more experience with the Holy Spirit - you can feel it swell in you - pressing you to pray for or about things - and giving you impressions.

These impression are usually feelings - but they can come as solid ideas (like images or scenes playing in your head), or you can hear a voice (usually your own voice conveying an idea) - yet there are some times when you hear a voice that is not your own.

You may even be visited.

There are spiritual Beings all around us at all times that are waiting to act on our behalf - they just need us to ask.
And when one asks over, and over, and over and gets nothing....what then?

I've had a few experiences I'd be willing to share sometime - as long as you don't turn around and "rend" me. ;)
If you'd like. I'm not the kind of person who tries to argue against someone's personal experiences though. If you experienced something meaningful, who am I to try and take that away? I say, go forth and be at peace.:)

I see that - so it's less like a light switch and more like performing a pull up.

And not those wussy "chin ups" - a real pull up.

Depending on your own personal level of fitness - performing a pull up can be a certainty, an act of "faith" or a soup sandwich.

If you are someone who never works out - you ain't going to be able to do it.
Again, that can be rather insulting to some folks. Here you're just telling them that they're spiritually weak and underdeveloped.

I try it with any new idea I find compelling - but I obtained a testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and His roles as Redeemer of the world, Savior of Mankind and Son of God early on - so that kinda ruined non-Christian religions for me.

I was at a point in my life where I needed to know that before continuing down the path I was on - and I came from a position where I did not want it to be true - but I believe it was confirmed to me and I could not deny it.
That's interesting and is rather a common dynamic, don't you think? People seeking religious insight/guidance tend to gravitate to the faith of the culture in which they live, with many finding exactly what they were looking for. So had you been in a Muslim part of the world, your experiences and such likely would have been interpreted through that lens and you might now be a Muslim, right?

I know a thing or two about them - I was just wondering what made you think they weren't Christian.
Oh I didn't mean to imply that. That's not for me to say.

Of course it is a matter of opinion - it takes experience - which is built on obedience - that can confirm these things or not.
Which again, makes it entirely unlike flipping a light switch (which is not a matter of opinion).

As to its "utility" - some of the most helpful things we have in our lives cannot be proven true or false.
I guess it depends on what specifically we're talking about.

The vast majority of human conflicts do not have religion as their primary motivator.

Humans are creatures of conflict.
My point is not quantitative. People kill each other over religion, that much is a fact.

Well - consider this thread - people claiming that there is no evidence of a global Flood event - and even claiming that there is evidence against the idea.

They claim that this evidence is grounds to claim that Noah never existed, that there was no Ark, the Bible is a lie and that there is no God.

That leads me to point out that the Genesis account is not necessarily describing a global Flood event.

Which led to my questions about who wrote the Genesis account and how they were able to give a testimony on the status of the entire planet.

If the writer of the Genesis account has no ability to view the entire world - and is therefore unable to accurately claim that the entire planet was covered in water - then none of the "evidence" proves those things.

Basically - people often offer "evidence" that supposedly disproves claims that the Bible itself never made - and pointing that out makes the "evidence" ineffectual.
So you're basically saying that arguing against a global flood is a straw man fallacy, which negates the arguments against such a flood and the larger conclusions about the Bible and God people reach as a result.

I get your point, but IIRC the Bible depicts God Himself describing the flood as global, at least indirectly (e.g., God saying that the point is to destroy all that He created). So if the Bible isn't accurate about what God said regarding the flood, how can one say it's accurate in other such instances?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Again - you explaining away the Fall of Mankind can and will explain away the Redemption and Salvation of Mankind.

Depending on who you ask - the story of the Lord Jesus Christ is unverifiable and flies in the ace of facts.

Without the Fall of Adam and Eve - none of it makes any sense.
You are reading things in what I say that are not there. I have not explained away the fall of mankind.

Perhaps it is just you that it does not make sense to and you are projecting that onto me.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Flood occurred around lakes, rivers, any where cities, towns or villages were built, including valleys, basins, etc.

Flooding up bound to happen in these areas, so archaeological evidence are left behind, and so do written records and stories and oral traditions.

And stories, whether they be written or passed down orally, get distorted, embellished, that what happened historically, become legends and legends become myths.

It is what happened in Shuruppak, a real flood. But over times, through oral traditions, about half a millennium later, this flood is tied to Ziusudra, a legendary figure (eg The Instructions of Shuruppak and the Sumerian King List).

From there, a fuller story developed (Eridu Genesis) where Ziusudra built a vessel from his house to save his family and some animals, release some birds to find land, and with water receded, sacrificed to the gods, who came because of the sweet smell of burnt offerings.

Ziusudra is mentioned again, in the Death of Bilgames (Gilgamesh), Bilgames claiming he met Ziusudra, and brought back the customs of hand washing. That’s how Ziusudra became linked to Gilgamesh in Babylonian and Assyrian literature in the next 2 millennia.

Ziusudra became the Babylonian Atrahasis and Utnapishtim, and newer epics was developed the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh.

Epic of Gilgamesh was so popular, that tablets were found outside of Mesopotamia, including Susa in Elam, Hittite capital Hattusa, Amarna in Egypt, Ugarit in northwest Syria, and Megiddo in Canaan, all dated between 15th and 14th centuries BCE.

That’s how the Canaanites became aware of the Utnapishtim and the Flood story.

And the Epic of Gilgamesh remained popular during the Iron Age of the 1st millennium BCE. The kingdoms of Israel and Judah must have known about the myths of Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim, most likely from contacts with the Neo-Assyrian empire and the Neo-Babylonian empire.

Building a vessel to save the family and some animals, releasing of birds to find land, and the burnt offerings that are found in the Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian literature, would have inspired the Hebrews to write their own versions, but embellished even more with global flood instead of river flood.

Knowing history of the Sumerian and Babylonian and their evolving literature/myths, provide insights where the Jews got their story from, adapting myths that predated Judah and Israel by a couple of millennia, don’t you think?
No - but thank you.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
His willing sacrifice -


What sacrifice?

Spending 30 years on earth as a mortal? Was that the sacrifice? Thirty years to an eternal god is the blink of an eye. That's no sacrifice.

Are you talking about the crucifixion? That's no big deal either. He ended his thirty-year blink of an eye with a much shorter blink. That's no big deal.

And Jesus, as part of the eternal, omniscient godhead, knew for all of eternity before the earth was created that he would have to endure a brief moment as a mortal. Wow! How brave.


In order for there to be a literal Savior of Mankind - the Lord Jesus Christ - there needed to be a literal Fall of Mankind.

As the omniscient tri-part godhead knew for eternity. To ensure it, god made certain Adam would disobey. God built him to disobey.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
No - but thank you.
No, to what?

No to ancient people built their cities or towns near bodies of water, or where there are natural basins or valleys, tends to flood?

Or no to floods can inspire people to embellish stories of past flood?

Or no to the ancient Hebrew borrowed heavily from Babylonian flood story, adapting and modifying for their own people?
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
You are reading things in what I say that are not there. I have not explained away the fall of mankind.

Perhaps it is just you that it does not make sense to and you are projecting that onto me.
Your claim that the story of Adam and Eve and their Fall is a mere allegory is a claim that there was no Fall of Mankind.

Man first needed to have existed in an innocent state - without Knowledge of Good and Evil - and willfully chose to gain that Knowledge in violation of God's commanded in order to have Fallen - thereby bringing sin into the world and requiring to be both Redeemed and Saved.

Otherwise - Mankind is a victim and God has committed a heinous crime.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
No, to what?

No to ancient people built their cities or towns near bodies of water, or where there are natural basins or valleys, tends to flood?

Or no to floods can inspire people to embellish stories of past flood?

Or no to the ancient Hebrew borrowed heavily from Babylonian flood story, adapting and modifying for their own people?
The last one.

What you have shared has already been shared multiple times on this thread and I have responded to it in kind.

I am still not convinced.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
What sacrifice?
I don't believe that you know what you are talking about.
Spending 30 years on earth as a mortal? Was that the sacrifice? Thirty years to an eternal god is the blink of an eye. That's no sacrifice.
I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the God of Israel. Have you ever given up being God - ever? Wait - you're not God - He is - so no - you don't.

What did He have to sacrifice to be a mortal? I mean - other than omnipotence and omniscience?

Well - He gave up His freedom. He is the only mortal who chose to submit His will to the will of the Father.

He gave up His peace - to come into world of pain and suffering.

And given the fact that there was no reason for Him to become a mortal at all - save for His love for us - it's a sacrifice.

And He wanted to - He could have refused to come down and save us - and He would have been completely justified in doing so.
Are you talking about the crucifixion? That's no big deal either. He ended his thirty-year blink of an eye with a much shorter blink. That's no big deal.
So - you wouldn't consider your choosing to be crucified on behalf of a loved one - who you knew was guilty - a sacrifice?

And who said that His crucifixion was all that His Atonement entailed?

I believe that He has been our Advocate with the Father since before the Earth was formed. Even though He was perfect - and needed no one - He took it upon Himself to orchestrate the Plan of God - from Creation to the Final Judgment.

And while on Earth - He suffered the punishments of every single person's sins - which I believe began in the Garden of Gethsemane - when He begged His friends to stay with Him, and He fell on His face and sweat drops of blood.

This agony - which was beyond what any normal mortal could have suffered without dying - continued intermittently from that day on until the moment of His death - when He finally paid the price of all our sins.
And Jesus, as part of the eternal, omniscient godhead, knew for all of eternity before the earth was created that he would have to endure a brief moment as a mortal. Wow! How brave.
It's not a "brief moment" when you are in the process of living it.

You and I are eternal Beings who are currently undergoing a mortal experience - does it feel like a "brief moment" to you?

It would be easy to claim that it was a "brief moment" when you are on the outside looking in - but while He was here - He was not on the outside.

He experienced mortality in all the same ways that we do. He received no special treatment.
As the omniscient tri-part godhead knew for eternity. To ensure it, god made certain Adam would disobey. God built him to disobey.
I do not believe that God designed Adam to disobey - but He did give Adam free will - which allowed the possibility.

I really think you should stop talking about these things.

What you are saying is very ignorant and offensive.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your claim that the story of Adam and Eve and their Fall is a mere allegory is a claim that there was no Fall of Mankind.

Man first needed to have existed in an innocent state - without Knowledge of Good and Evil - and willfully chose to gain that Knowledge in violation of God's commanded in order to have Fallen - thereby bringing sin into the world and requiring to be both Redeemed and Saved.

Otherwise - Mankind is a victim and God has committed a heinous crime.
Sorry, but that is a non sequitur on your part. We know that man is a product of evolution. You are in effect claiming that Christianity has been refuted.
 

John1.12

Free gift
A few months ago I opened a thread about the Biblical description of Creation, and whether science disproved the Bible on its description.
It was a very nice debate with some very intellectual members, and I must admit, that there were quite a few new arguments that came to the front, which I never seen before. Be as it may, my conclusion on the discussion is that there are no evidence in science to disprove the creation narrative, but just as scientists makes assumptions about how eveerything came into being, it is very easy for the Biblical apologist to be ready with other assumptions which is equally sound and not easily debunked.
Therefore, I have yet to see any evidence in science in contradiction with the Bible.

However, there were quite a few members that continiously arrived at another argument, to validate their viewpoint that the Bible is a compilation of mythology, and not scientific at all.
That argument is...the Noah's flood story...

Again, if one were to read the story of this global flood, and dont want to take many, or as much factors, into consideration to allow the Biblical narative to explain itself, then with a superficial bias are able to discard the story as far fetched made up.

What do I mean with superficial?
Well, a "Global flood"?
One filling the earth to about 20 meters above the highest mountains?
"Are you serious?", the question normally goes, " 20 meters above Everest?
Everest is what, 8850 meters high! If the earth was covered with 8850 meters of water...
"Where did the Water come from, and where did it go?"

Questions such as the one above is not asked by simply normal joes such as you and I, nope, this is asked by highly educated scientists.
And guess what?
This simple question is actually a statement, by mostly bias thought, not as a question, but as a statement:
And that statement is: "Are you serious? you dont understand a simple logical statement which your Bible speaks about. Only a very stupid uneducated person will believe that there was billions of cubic miles of water covering Everest and the rest of the Earth, without even considering that this water had to come from somewhare, and we dont see that volume everywhere at all today! So where is that water!

If I remember, Carl Sagan asked the exact same question.

From my point of view, I was amased that such highly educated scientists would be so superficial on their observation. let me demonstrate how this strawpuppet they created simply burns out once we take everything into consideration.

When the Earth took shape in the Nebular cloud, and collected ice, gas and other materials, it grew bigger and eventually reached the aproximate size it has today. However, there are many things to consider.
1. The Earth would be much smoother, for there was no continental plate movement in its infancy, therefore when this icy collection warmed up on the surface of the Earth, water appeared, and flowed to areas which was lower than the rest.
2. The crust of this Earth would also thaw out, and would start to "shrink" into itself. As it shrinked, it built up preasure beneath the crust, which had a lot of water in its enterior. (Think of the Russian Cola deep which discovered more water in the rocks that scientists ever thought possible, and the oceans of water collected beneath China in woodite that contains more water than the oceans of the Earth put together.)
3. There must also have been huge quantities of water and ice in and beyond the Earth's atmosphere, which scientists today find very viable after their discoveries of cie rings on moons and planets in our solar system we never previously knew about.

Now that we have the foundations correct on what the Earth looked like after it took shape to before the flood, lets see what happened.

The Earth was a wet and soggy entity. The inland continent was hugh marsh lands and swamps. Evidence that dinosaurs could never have walked on land with their huge boddies, is evidence that they were either reptillian or amphibian. Therefore, taken the above into account, the continents did not appear as it does today.

If the Bible spaeks about high mountains, it speaks of mountains that appeared after the flood, which was perhaps less than 500 meters above sea level before the event.

Good, then for some or other reason, the Earth's crust collapsed into itself, creating a huge crack curcumventing the Earth twice, pushing this water out from below 50 miles of surface, gushing this water out at supersonic speeds, into and way passed the atmosphere.

We have to consider the following factor.
It the Earth's crust fell in upon itself, DUE TO THE INCREASE OF GRAVITY, then the icy ring around the Earth was drawn in from space and rained down on the Earth in water and Ice. Heat generated in this event would turn into snow at the poles, and created one huge Ice age.
As the earth changed from the shape of a nice smooth passionfruit, into a contracted shape of a dried pasionfruit, mountains formed with the earth crust contracting.

This was when mountains took shape.
Another factor to keep in mind is the description of the atmosphere from the Bible.
The Bible says that before the flood, it did not rain but a mist rose from the Earth and wet the land. This will be understandable if we take into consideration that the Earth shaped from solids liquid and Gas as per the understanding from the Nebular theory.

However, after the flood A RAINBOW APPEARED FOR THE FIRST TIME!
which means in scientific terms that for the first time the atmosphere was cleared from all its water, and refraction of light was observed.

Now, this had its consequences too. A clear atmosphere will now allow ultraviolet and cosmic radiation, which will on turn, reduce the lifespan of humans. Exactly what we saw happened.

Anyhow, I hope this will be a nice discussion going forward, and I urge anyone who would like to join in, to please take one step at a time.
Nothing is so frustrating as someone coppying and pasting a lot of claims, not expecting any answer.

Greetings
God creates and sustains the entire universe according to the bible. " How was it possible that the water .." What does the narrative say ?
 

John1.12

Free gift
A few months ago I opened a thread about the Biblical description of Creation, and whether science disproved the Bible on its description.
It was a very nice debate with some very intellectual members, and I must admit, that there were quite a few new arguments that came to the front, which I never seen before. Be as it may, my conclusion on the discussion is that there are no evidence in science to disprove the creation narrative, but just as scientists makes assumptions about how eveerything came into being, it is very easy for the Biblical apologist to be ready with other assumptions which is equally sound and not easily debunked.
Therefore, I have yet to see any evidence in science in contradiction with the Bible.

However, there were quite a few members that continiously arrived at another argument, to validate their viewpoint that the Bible is a compilation of mythology, and not scientific at all.
That argument is...the Noah's flood story...

Again, if one were to read the story of this global flood, and dont want to take many, or as much factors, into consideration to allow the Biblical narative to explain itself, then with a superficial bias are able to discard the story as far fetched made up.

What do I mean with superficial?
Well, a "Global flood"?
One filling the earth to about 20 meters above the highest mountains?
"Are you serious?", the question normally goes, " 20 meters above Everest?
Everest is what, 8850 meters high! If the earth was covered with 8850 meters of water...
"Where did the Water come from, and where did it go?"

Questions such as the one above is not asked by simply normal joes such as you and I, nope, this is asked by highly educated scientists.
And guess what?
This simple question is actually a statement, by mostly bias thought, not as a question, but as a statement:
And that statement is: "Are you serious? you dont understand a simple logical statement which your Bible speaks about. Only a very stupid uneducated person will believe that there was billions of cubic miles of water covering Everest and the rest of the Earth, without even considering that this water had to come from somewhare, and we dont see that volume everywhere at all today! So where is that water!

If I remember, Carl Sagan asked the exact same question.

From my point of view, I was amased that such highly educated scientists would be so superficial on their observation. let me demonstrate how this strawpuppet they created simply burns out once we take everything into consideration.

When the Earth took shape in the Nebular cloud, and collected ice, gas and other materials, it grew bigger and eventually reached the aproximate size it has today. However, there are many things to consider.
1. The Earth would be much smoother, for there was no continental plate movement in its infancy, therefore when this icy collection warmed up on the surface of the Earth, water appeared, and flowed to areas which was lower than the rest.
2. The crust of this Earth would also thaw out, and would start to "shrink" into itself. As it shrinked, it built up preasure beneath the crust, which had a lot of water in its enterior. (Think of the Russian Cola deep which discovered more water in the rocks that scientists ever thought possible, and the oceans of water collected beneath China in woodite that contains more water than the oceans of the Earth put together.)
3. There must also have been huge quantities of water and ice in and beyond the Earth's atmosphere, which scientists today find very viable after their discoveries of cie rings on moons and planets in our solar system we never previously knew about.

Now that we have the foundations correct on what the Earth looked like after it took shape to before the flood, lets see what happened.

The Earth was a wet and soggy entity. The inland continent was hugh marsh lands and swamps. Evidence that dinosaurs could never have walked on land with their huge boddies, is evidence that they were either reptillian or amphibian. Therefore, taken the above into account, the continents did not appear as it does today.

If the Bible spaeks about high mountains, it speaks of mountains that appeared after the flood, which was perhaps less than 500 meters above sea level before the event.

Good, then for some or other reason, the Earth's crust collapsed into itself, creating a huge crack curcumventing the Earth twice, pushing this water out from below 50 miles of surface, gushing this water out at supersonic speeds, into and way passed the atmosphere.

We have to consider the following factor.
It the Earth's crust fell in upon itself, DUE TO THE INCREASE OF GRAVITY, then the icy ring around the Earth was drawn in from space and rained down on the Earth in water and Ice. Heat generated in this event would turn into snow at the poles, and created one huge Ice age.
As the earth changed from the shape of a nice smooth passionfruit, into a contracted shape of a dried pasionfruit, mountains formed with the earth crust contracting.

This was when mountains took shape.
Another factor to keep in mind is the description of the atmosphere from the Bible.
The Bible says that before the flood, it did not rain but a mist rose from the Earth and wet the land. This will be understandable if we take into consideration that the Earth shaped from solids liquid and Gas as per the understanding from the Nebular theory.

However, after the flood A RAINBOW APPEARED FOR THE FIRST TIME!
which means in scientific terms that for the first time the atmosphere was cleared from all its water, and refraction of light was observed.

Now, this had its consequences too. A clear atmosphere will now allow ultraviolet and cosmic radiation, which will on turn, reduce the lifespan of humans. Exactly what we saw happened.

Anyhow, I hope this will be a nice discussion going forward, and I urge anyone who would like to join in, to please take one step at a time.
Nothing is so frustrating as someone coppying and pasting a lot of claims, not expecting any answer.

Greetings
Narrative in question.
Gen 7
10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

13¶In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

14They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

16And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

17¶And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Gen 8

¶And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;

2The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

3And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

4And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

5And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

6¶And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

7And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

9But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

10And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

11And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

12And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

13¶And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

14And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

15¶And God spake unto Noah, saying,

16Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.

17Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
 
Top