Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

sooda said:

The problem with the Black Sea flood is that it was slow moving and there was plenty of time to move family and livestock to higher ground. The timetable also supports the rapid dispersal of farming and farming technology into other places.

Geologists Link Black Sea Deluge To Farming's Rise - The ...
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/science/geologists-link-black-sea-deluge-to-farming...
Dec 17, 1996 · Geologists Link Black Sea Deluge To Farming's Rise. The relentless waters encroached on the land at a rate of half a mile to a mile a day. More than 60,000 square miles of land were soon submerged, a 30 percent expansion in the Black Sea's size, which essentially gave the body of water its modern configuration.

Click to expand...

Bob the Unbeliever said:

Actually? That only makes the hypothesis more likely-- a sudden deluge would have killed pretty much anyone involved, and who would be left to tell the story?

Whereas a relatively gradual flooding -- one that forced a constant re-location every few months or so -- is ripe and fertile ground for Story Making.

I think a slow encroachment is far more likely a source, than a single catastrophic event. The slow unfolding would permit far greater participation and survival, which would mean a higher chance of the story becoming a part of the culture.

Click to expand...

Faithofchristian said:

And not only that, the flood of Noah's didn't cover the whole earth, as people try to say it did and think it did.
As there is no where in the Bible that supports that the flood of Noah's as covering the whole earth.

Click to expand...

• all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered
• All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Faithofchristian said:

Now that's amazing, how you came up with all that
Seeing that there is quite a distance between the Euphrates river and where Noah lived
And not only that, the flood of Noah's didn't cover the whole earth, as people try to say it did and think it did.
As there is no where in the Bible that supports that the flood of Noah's as covering the whole earth.

If the flood of Noah's was to cover the whole earth as people try to say it did,

The question is, Where did the Gentiles come from in Genesis 10:1-5, Take note this is after the flood of Noah's,
So if the flood of Noah's was to cover the whole earth, Where did the Gentiles come from in verse 5?
Genesis 10:1-5
1--" Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood"

2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations"

Notice here in Verse 5, the Gentiles, so if the flood of Noah's was to cover the whole earth, As to where did the Gentiles come from?

Click to expand...

nPeace said:

For one thing, the Bible says this...
Genesis 6:17 And behold, I will bring floodwaters upon the earth, to destroy every creature under the heavens that has the breath of life. Everything on the earth will perish.
So if you are arguing that they were Gentiles that were alive after the flood, then you need to explain where they came from. Surely you are not saying they came from heaven.
Everything on the earth, means just that. See Genesis 7:21-24

For another, the scriptures say...
Genesis 7:19 Finally, the waters completely inundated the earth, so that all the high mountains under all the heavens were covered.
So if all the mountains were covered, anyone surviving would have to be above the mountains, and the only thing (where any man was), the Bible says was above the mountains, was the ark which Noah built.

Where did the Gentiles come from. I think you read it,
Verse 5 obviously is saying where they came from. They were from the offspring of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which later spread out into the earth.
When we read verse one, it says clearly... This is the history of Noah’s sons...
So you are reading a historical account, not an initial event.

Click to expand...

RedhorseWoman said:

I've frequently suggested a test that Flood apologists could try that, if successful, would give them (I believe) a very good argument to use to support their beliefs, but for some reason, none of them has ever attempted it or even acknowledged it. I guess they know exactly how things would turn out and it would not help their case at all.

I've suggested that they take a plant and put it in a large bucket that they should then fill with briny water and place the bucket in a dark place (simulating the conditions plants would face if covered by briny water deep enough to cover mountains, which would be dark, indeed) and leave it there for about a year. Then they should take that plant out of the bucket and let us know its condition. Somehow, I highly doubt that any plant would survive submersion in briny water for even a day or two, and it certainly wouldn't be producing either fruit or flowers immediately after being removed from its dark, watery prison.

Click to expand...

Audie said:

Think of the gradual rise of sealevel in the mediterranean
as glaciers melted, and the first trickle getting through the
Bosporus during a high high tide.

Click to expand...

Dan From Smithville said:

I can imagine why there would be reluctance to carry out such an experiment. Given that it would be difficult to see how plants could survive flooding, burial in sediment, extended submersion and prolonged absence of light, the extensive and diverse existence of plants today is evidence against a global flood so recently in the past.

Click to expand...

sooda said:

Hard to imagine that any adult would be struggling with the story of Noah's Ark.

Click to expand...

Bob the Unbeliever said:

Actually? That only makes the hypothesis more likely-- a sudden deluge would have killed pretty much anyone involved, and who would be left to tell the story?

Whereas a relatively gradual flooding -- one that forced a constant re-location every few months or so -- is ripe and fertile ground for Story Making.

I think a slow encroachment is far more likely a source, than a single catastrophic event. The slow unfolding would permit far greater participation and survival, which would mean a higher chance of the story becoming a part of the culture.

Click to expand...

Faithofchristian said:

It's not hard to figure it out, seeing that in the first flood nothing was saved alive.

Unlike the flood of Noah's there were 8 people and animals saved alive.

But in the first flood of water nothing survived everything was destroyed.

Click to expand...

Dan From Smithville said:

My doubts about it arose when I was 10 and, like belief in Santa, the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, my belief in the flood drifted away from that time forward. The ideas the story conveyed however, are still present in my mind.

Click to expand...

sooda said:

That's how it was for me and my siblings as well.

Click to expand...

Dan From Smithville said:

I recall coming up with questions that the adults in Church could not seem to answer properly and would spurn my interest in finding answers. Fortunately, my parents would answer my questions or at least discuss them.

Click to expand...

sooda said:

There were NO Philistines until 1200 BC.. and Peter is talking about the end times not a global flood a million years earlier.

Click to expand...

ecco said:

No where?

How about in Genesis 7...

17And 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 wasthe 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.
​

• all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered
• All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

If you wish to argue that the Bible story is false, we can take that up.

Click to expand...

nPeace said:

For one thing, the Bible says this...
Genesis 6:17 And behold, I will bring floodwaters upon the earth, to destroy every creature under the heavens that has the breath of life. Everything on the earth will perish.
So if you are arguing that they were Gentiles that were alive after the flood, then you need to explain where they came from. Surely you are not saying they came from heaven.
Everything on the earth, means just that. See Genesis 7:21-24

For another, the scriptures say...
Genesis 7:19 Finally, the waters completely inundated the earth, so that all the high mountains under all the heavens were covered.
So if all the mountains were covered, anyone surviving would have to be above the mountains, and the only thing (where any man was), the Bible says was above the mountains, was the ark which Noah built.

Where did the Gentiles come from. I think you read it,
Verse 5 obviously is saying where they came from. They were from the offspring of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which later spread out into the earth.
When we read verse one, it says clearly... This is the history of Noah’s sons...
So you are reading a historical account, not an initial event.

Click to expand...

Faithofchristian said:

So you say, but it doesn't change a thing.

Click to expand...

Dan From Smithville said:

So now there are at least two global floods in the Bible and one destroyed everything and yet life and people were able to start over. So why do you think God needed a boat full of critters and 8 people the second time around? How do you know this flood was millions of years in the past? So many questions, so few answers.

Click to expand...

sooda said:

Sure it does. You misunderstand Jeremiah.. and have invented a previous flood.

Just go with the bare bones of scripture even if its difficult to understand sometimes.

It is what it is.

The only global flood myth in the Bible is Noah's flood.

Its didactic literature ... meaning its a teaching narrative. Once you become an adult, it important to look deeper into the message..

Click to expand...