• 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?

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I assume you're right - but I don't understand why that would be.
Probably a combination of fear and pride.

I'm sure you have an extensive list of thing that you think don't make sense - but I'd like to hear at least the top three.
It's the whole story. If you take the main plot points of the Bible and put them in order in an outline, it makes no sense as a coherent, logical way to go about things, especially for a "god".

However, when I considered it as a cobbled together series of stories, folklore, legends, myths, and some history, it made much more sense.

Also, it's always struck me as basically a variation on the common religious theme of blood sacrifice to appease the gods.

There are reasons to believe even if it cannot be proven. You agree with the lifestyle choices. You resonate with the doctrine. It makes you happy.
Certainly, and I don't begrudge anyone believing in something that makes them happy or helps them be a better person.

I mean - scientists are constantly striving and exploring - looking to answer the "big questions".

I don't know why people give up on the "big questions" when it comes to religion though.

I mean - I believe I know - but I don't know - you know?
Probably because religion hasn't actually answered any big questions.

Really? What's that like?

I'm not saying I take everything on faith - but there are many basic and important things that I - and I believe everyone - just needs to or they will never be satisfied with life.
Well usually at this point in the discussion, it's important to note that I'm talking specifically about "faith" in its religious sense. So yes I have "faith" that when I flip the light switch the light will come on, but that's more of a "confidence" stemming from repeated experience and an understanding of what's actually going on.

But when it comes to "faith" as in "believing something despite a lack of independently verifiable evidence", I don't do that. After all, if I'm going to just believe regardless of evidence or whether it even makes sense, why Christianity? Why not Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, or any other faith?

That doesn't prove that it is wrong though - nor does it negate the option of internal subjective ways.
Because it can't be proved wrong, no matter what. That's the nature of gods. Regardless of what we find, one can always say "Well that's just how God made it".
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Well - Christians are people that believe that the first man was made from dust, the first woman from that guy's rib, Moses parted the Red Sea, flaming chariots came down from Heaven ...

Some Christians, about half, believe that.

If God performed works at these times - then there is nothing stopping Him from doing it at any time - even during the Flood event.

I mean - the Flood event itself was a work from God - was it not?

The flood is alleged in the bible, no place else.

God is at the center of everything Christians believe in - so if there is something they cannot explain either they got it wrong, the "evidence" is wrong or God was somehow involved.

So we these people really don't need science. Pandemic - GodDidIt. Safety from the pandemic - no need for vaccines - God will save those he wants to save.

Want to fly to Europe, no worries, angels will lift you up and take you there. Oh, wait, that doesn't work. I guess you folks do need science. You also need to carefully pick and choose what parts of science you find acceptable and real. The answer always comes down to: "As long as it doesn't contradict what people wrote 2000 & 3000 years ago".

What makes you think they were "horrendous"?
Was this actual water we are talking about or something spiritual?

Genesis 7
...were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened​

Can you imagine the tsunamies caused by the breaking up of all the fountains of the deep. Can you imagine what happens when vast amounts of water from inside the earth suddenly mix with ocean waters that are all different temperatures? Can you imagine the impact on the weather if no sunshine reached the earth for forty days because it was raining harder than ever recorded. Yes, the seas would have been horrendous.


Have you ever seen footage of ships trying to turn into the waves to keep from capsizing - the ark had no means of propulsion.

Of course, you can say your God kept the ocean smooth as a small lake. You can say your God carefully moved the ark from its departure point to Ararat. You could say your God put an olive leaf in the mouth of the dove since after 150 days there would have been no olive trees left.

But then one must wonder - why bother? Why flood the earth and horrendously drown in water and bury alive in mudslides all women and children and fetuses. Why drag Noah's voyage out 150 days? It would have been far less cruel if your God had just zapped all the humans except Noah's family off the face of the earth. No little children would have suffered needlessly. No animals would have suffered needlessly.




Well - considering that the Bible claimed that Adam and Eve (two people) started this whole thing off and that these people were reported to have lived over 900 years each - I'm thinking they were just different and were capable.

Uh huh.



None of your questions you have asked disprove the story of Noah.

I don't need to disprove the flood myth with questions. Scientists far smarter and better educated than either of us, have disproved the flood myth with science. Especially geologists and biologists and physicists.

Considering that you don't know the specifics of the Ark construction - you cannot claim it wouldn't survive the "horrendous" seas.

But we do know. Don't you read your bible? Maybe you doubt your bible.
The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.​
Google
How big was the ark in today's measurements?​

"The Bible indicates the original Ark was 300 cubits, using the Hebrew royal cubit that calculates in modern-day terms to 510 feet long," says Mark Looey, a co-founder of Answers in Genesis​

The largest wooden ship, the Wyoming, was only 450 feet.
List of longest wooden ships - Wikipedia
This ship had a tendency to flex in heavy seas, causing the planks to twist and buckle due to their extreme length despite being fitted with metal bracing. Water was evacuated nearly constantly by steam pumps. It foundered in heavy seas with loss of all hands.



So, there are two possibilities:
  1. Your God caused the flood and calmed the waters and helped the ark and its inhabitants survive a nice calm ocean voyage. In the meantime, he horrendously killed all men, women, children, fetuses, lions, kittens, elephants, etc. except Noah's small group and two of each animal kind. Because he was pissed at how His creation turned out.
  2. The stories are complete myths written by a group of Jews three thousand years ago to make a point about good and evil. These stories were based on general knowledge of the times and stories passed on by other cultures.
Most rational people would choose #2 as the right answer.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
As a thinker. Human. I can look at my science brothers memories and history recorded.

He says in some lives he believes he is from out of space and alien. I ask him to think about an atmospheric status machines by his human design caused. As an effect on his mind.

As an encoded cooled memory of records about science. As science was never about man self. Man images. Nor man recordings.

That science theories as if no natural creation existed and only discussed a one of reaction in the cosmos.

Thought about universal causes from earth by that reactive status and how he more than likely tried to remove the planets God presence from earth science.

By theorising one reaction that did not include natural form actually existing.

Via that theory.

When you reason.

So I reasoned science arguing against science about Noah.

The documents said man caused it.

I looked at human behaviour in science with men saying I know everything yet study experiment saying I will know everything.

Thought that review of man said it all.

Not honest.

So if a human has an experience and writes about it I would say they were describing what they witnessed in some form of science idea.

To my life thinking clouds came from volcanic activity in space history. So the ark did not invent clouds. That science in mountains as buildings temples and on ground changed mountain cooling above our heads. And all phenomena then occurred above our heads.

Reason a pyramid is like a cut off mountain peak.

Reasoning. When I was attacked memory as a record was looking Up. Image of animal and human seen in clouds. Clouds amass and then cause flooding.

Due to atmospheric changes.

We know as humans that water oxygen is our life spirit. So a human says it gets abducted when they still exist then they are experiencing science causes.

Nuclear uses water to allow the reaction to be applied.

We aren't nuclear.

But if a Human compared our life to dust when man reacted dusts then he would claim the dust took our life source to react....water oxygen.

The supernatural spirit phenomena detailed how it affected life by its appearance.

The earth O as stone has to exist to detail dusts presence.

Why the term God was given to the presence of planets. The term God does not mean any other status.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
The question really isn't whether God could do them, but if these things actually happened or if they are a myth. There is no evidence that a global flood as described in the Bible ever happened. A regional flood could be the source of story, but that is not what Genesis claims.
And as I have said many times before - it is impossible for the Genesis account to make any claims about the status of the entire planet - since there is no way that they would be privy to that information.

If you were to view the Genesis account as more of a record - rather than a fictional story book - that idea may start to make some sense.
I view it as an allegory. But it is not my view that is in question here. It is the literal view that many people take. Many people literally believe the claims of Genesis to be a retelling of factual events as if it is a history book.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
They didn't teach it as doctrine, but just offered it as an answer to my question (one I don't think they were expecting).


I'm quite grateful for it, to be honest.


To be clear, that Q&A wasn't the reason I rejected Christianity. It was however among the first instances I can remember where I began to realize that what I was being taught didn't make sense. So it was sort of an early step in my walk away from the religion.


Very much like the scene in Life of Brian, where the guy yells at Brian...."He's making it up as he goes along!". ;)



For me, I finally realized that none of it really made sense.
I recall being shut down every time I asked questions that my Sunday school teachers couldn't answer. The questions seemed so obvious, I could never understand why they had not asked them and found answers.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I view it as an allegory. But it is not my view that is in question here. It is the literal view that many people take. Many people literally believe the claims of Genesis to be a retelling of factual events as if it is a history book.
But it's spoken of as literal in the NT. In one part Jesus claims to watch the flood from heaven? Luke also says it was a real event.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If we, as I proposed, take the Biblical description on how the atmosphere appeared from the creation to the Flood, and make a conclusion upon that, the following will have to be taken into consideration.

Now that we can see what the Bible described on how the atmosphere changed from a foggy to clear entity...
one can then think on what effects the C14 production would have had on the earth during this time, and there after.
It means that before the Flood, C14 production would have been very minimal, bit with a clear atmosphere, it would start to form as we expect it does today.
With further deduction, it would be another 1 000 years to have the atmosphere reach the equlibrium science needs to have to determine c14 / c12 values to determine the dates of animal and plant residues.
If any plant and animal samples living before 3500BC is dated, it will show that there is very little C14, not due to radio active decay, but because there were simply no c 14 in the plants that the organism ate!


"Evidence of past history of C-14 concentration in the atmosphere is now available through the past 22,000 years, using ages of lake sediments in which organic carbon compounds are preserved. Reporting before a 1976 conference on past climates, Professor Minze Stuiver of the University of Washington found that magnetic ages of the lake sediments remained within 500 years of the radiocarbon ages throughout the entire period. He reported that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere during that long interval did not vary by more than 10 percent (Stuiver, 1976, p. 835).

Thus, the available evidence is sufficient to validate the radiocarbon method of age determination with an error of about 10 percent for twice as long a period as the creation scenario calls for."

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating


Do you believe in evolution and how many animals do you believe were on the arc? Was it 2 or 7 of every "kind"?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
When life lives on the ground and animals and humans in life live paired for parental life continuance. Then you would quote and life was evicted from the earth garden as it is not two by two of. As a different statement.

As a scientific reason.

Life said science inferred carbon mass owned by garden as wood reason harmed life. Reasoned. Why images of animals and humans are found inside of wood in images.

As we're not wood. A pre formed substance.

Theory looking back in sciences inferred form to all be equal as the same energy. Just like the claim today.

Yet he said atmosphere was 12 and 12 and even its body of two is not the same.

Then you start to see who a human theist is. The Bible named destroyer.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Excuse me, but people have building settlements on top of one another, in the Middle East. The oldest settlement would be at the bottom, when excavated. Excavation of such sites would show settlements of progressive different periods, just as scientists are able to date tree rings in dendrochronology or dating ice core samples.

Tell es-Sultan, is the location of ancient Jericho with over 20 successive permanent settlements, dating all the way near the start of the Neolithic period. Carbon dating showed that the 1st settlement is dated to 9600 BCE, so about 11,600 years ago.

This settlement was so innovative that by , that in less than half, they actually high fortified wall around the town and even a watch tower.

If what you said were true, about there being no life before 5000 BCE or 7000 years, then did Jericho simply just magically pop into existence 11,600 years ago?

And Jericho wasn’t the only Neolithic sites that predated 7000 years ago. There are Damascus and Eridu and Nineveh, and lesser known sites, like Göbekli Tepe, Tell Aswad, Gesher and Mureybet, which are all older than the oldest layer of Uruk (Erech) of 5000 BCE.
Again. If the Atmosphere was not yet in equlibrium with the cuurent C14 levels due to the pre flood description, the levels between C12 and C14 would be giving a date looking much older than the real age.
It is easy to understand.
If Noah's flood was the starting point of C14 production in the upper atmosphere, it will take another 700 to 1000 years to reach equilibrium levels. The flood was 4400 years ago, therefore anything dating older than 3700 to 4 400 years, will give C14/C12 level dating in excess of 12 000 years.

Again, If you ignore the Biblical description that the Atmosphere was a wet collection of Mist, I agree, then people must have "POPPED" into existance at Jericho.
And, If you ignore this description, and move the Atmospheres' age to millions of years, Obviously the C14 dates will be evidence that the Biblical chronological dates is scientifically proven wrong.

But then again, Due to 250 years of archaeology and written history recorded only in the Bible, and confirmed after 2 000 to 4 000 years, It will be very ignorant to deny this little description mentioned in it.

Therefore, The only way C14 can be used to "Prove the Bible is scientifically wrong", will be to remove a few written descriptions from the Bible, which unfortunately for the Atheist, can not be done.

In conclusion,
it remains scriptural referencing between the Christian Bible believer, and Bias by the Atheist when we want to believe the ages science produces in RI dating.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
"Evidence of past history of C-14 concentration in the atmosphere is now available through the past 22,000 years, using ages of lake sediments in which organic carbon compounds are preserved. Reporting before a 1976 conference on past climates, Professor Minze Stuiver of the University of Washington found that magnetic ages of the lake sediments remained within 500 years of the radiocarbon ages throughout the entire period. He reported that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere during that long interval did not vary by more than 10 percent (Stuiver, 1976, p. 835).

Thus, the available evidence is sufficient to validate the radiocarbon method of age determination with an error of about 10 percent for twice as long a period as the creation scenario calls for."

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating


Do you believe in evolution and how many animals do you believe were on the arc? Was it 2 or 7 of every "kind"?
Again, I am not using Henry Morris' explanation at all.
I agree that science say C14 takes about 700 to 1000 years, or even less, to reach equilibrium.
I also agree with the C14 method to test the values between C14 and C12.
No problem.
I will also agree that sediment layers in lakes, and sea floors will show that the Atmosphere will prove that there was C14 levels which C14 levels over the ages of "22 000" years will show as equilibrium.

All I say is that the organic matter in the sediment layers which science claim will be at the lower strata, containing less C14, means there was less C14 in the atmosphere, and the layers was not created over 22 000 years, but over 4 000 years.
Again, it is a difference between an opinion where the scientist say,:
This layer was laid down 22 000 years ago, and this one 15 000 years ago because the Organic matter we find in those layers dates to such an age.
I will again say, the layer will show a date of 22 000 and 15 000 because the ammount of C14 still had to reach the levels of 1950 because the Atmosphere only started its producttion in 4500 BC.
and these layers did not have these thousands of years between them, but these sediments were layered down over only say 3 000 years.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Again, I am not using Henry Morris' explanation at all.
I agree that science say C14 takes about 700 to 1000 years, or even less, to reach equilibrium.
I also agree with the C14 method to test the values between C14 and C12.
No problem.
I will also agree that sediment layers in lakes, and sea floors will show that the Atmosphere will prove that there was C14 levels which C14 levels over the ages of "22 000" years will show as equilibrium.

All I say is that the organic matter in the sediment layers which science claim will be at the lower strata, containing less C14, means there was less C14 in the atmosphere, and the layers was not created over 22 000 years, but over 4 000 years.
Again, it is a difference between an opinion where the scientist say,:
This layer was laid down 22 000 years ago, and this one 15 000 years ago because the Organic matter we find in those layers dates to such an age.
I will again say, the layer will show a date of 22 000 and 15 000 because the ammount of C14 still had to reach the levels of 1950 because the Atmosphere only started its producttion in 4500 BC.
and these layers did not have these thousands of years between them, but these sediments were layered down over only say 3 000 years.

Why do you keep focusing on C14 levels? The observed levels do not support your beliefs. All that has happened is that your clock has been moved backwards to the point where C14 is no longer a very accurate dating tool.

Here is a simple refutation for your Flood myth:

Ice Floats.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Again. If the Atmosphere was not yet in equlibrium with the cuurent C14 levels due to the pre flood description, the levels between C12 and C14 would be giving a date looking much older than the real age.
It is easy to understand.
If Noah's flood was the starting point of C14 production in the upper atmosphere, it will take another 700 to 1000 years to reach equilibrium levels. The flood was 4400 years ago, therefore anything dating older than 3700 to 4 400 years, will give C14/C12 level dating in excess of 12 000 years.

But there have never been a flood on the Genesis scale.

There are no evidence for a global flood or flood that covered high mountains (7:19-20; 8:4-5), and there have never been evidence of flood that wiped out all life on Earth (7:4; 7:21-23).

Your claims that the atmosphere to reach equilibrium before measurable C-14 on the pretext that Genesis 7 & 8 Flood happened.

But the Genesis Flood is a myth, that never happened, and there were no Noah and no Ark, and there were no Moses to write that story that supposedly set about 1000 years earlier.

Both Noah and Moses are purely fiction.

Also fiction is what Genesis 10 say about Egypt (10:6 & 10:13) and about Nimrod (10:8-12) being the founder and builder of cities in Babylonia (10:10) and Assyria (10:11-12).

Accad or Akkad is a city never found, but based on 3rd millennium BCE Sumerian and Akkadian literature, the earliest mention is around about 2400 BCE.

Babylon exist around about the same time as Accad, but was a minor town for centuries, 19th century BCE, when the Amorites conquered Babylonia, and turned Babylon into their capital, hence the 1st dynasty of Babylon.

No ruler by the name, Nimrod, existed in Sumerian literature and Akkadian literature, and no one by that name in the Sumerian King List.

The earliest settlement in Nineveh, has been dated to about 6000 BCE, and Erech or Uruk was founded around 5000 BCE, and was the biggest city in the world during the 4th century BCE.

And Calch or the Assyrian Kalhu, was built by 13th century BCE Assyrian king named Shalmanesser I.

There is no way for Nimrod to build both Nineveh and Calch/Kalhu in Assyria, unless Nimrod lived thousands of years. So Nimrod is nothing but fabricated myth.

And in Egypt, the Old Kingdom pyramids predated this non-existing Noah and Flood, like the Step Pyramid of Djoser (3rd dynasty, early 27th century BCE) in Saqqara, and the Great Pyramid of Khufu (4th dynasty, early 26th century BCE) in Giza.

If the Flood has happened, they wouldn’t be continuing to build pyramids in the 5th and 6th dynasties, because there would have break in Egyptian culture, eg pre-Flood vs post-Flood, there would not a continuity of same customs, same type of government and the same type of writing systems (eg hieroglyphs and hieratic).

Genesis is a complete myth, including the Tower of Babel, which also never happened.

Archaeology evidence in both Egypt and Sumer during the 3rd millennium BCE, points to Genesis Flood being a false text, as well as being inaccurate and unreliable.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Again, I am not using Henry Morris' explanation at all.
I agree that science say C14 takes about 700 to 1000 years, or even less, to reach equilibrium.
I also agree with the C14 method to test the values between C14 and C12.
No problem.
I will also agree that sediment layers in lakes, and sea floors will show that the Atmosphere will prove that there was C14 levels which C14 levels over the ages of "22 000" years will show as equilibrium.

All I say is that the organic matter in the sediment layers which science claim will be at the lower strata, containing less C14, means there was less C14 in the atmosphere, and the layers was not created over 22 000 years, but over 4 000 years.
Again, it is a difference between an opinion where the scientist say,:
This layer was laid down 22 000 years ago, and this one 15 000 years ago because the Organic matter we find in those layers dates to such an age.
I will again say, the layer will show a date of 22 000 and 15 000 because the ammount of C14 still had to reach the levels of 1950 because the Atmosphere only started its producttion in 4500 BC.
and these layers did not have these thousands of years between them, but these sediments were layered down over only say 3 000 years.
What you say here rests on a complete misunderstanding of science and assertions that remain unfulfilled.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Again. If the Atmosphere was not yet in equlibrium with the cuurent C14 levels due to the pre flood description, the levels between C12 and C14 would be giving a date looking much older than the real age.
It is easy to understand.
If Noah's flood was the starting point of C14 production in the upper atmosphere, it will take another 700 to 1000 years to reach equilibrium levels. The flood was 4400 years ago, therefore anything dating older than 3700 to 4 400 years, will give C14/C12 level dating in excess of 12 000 years.

Again, If you ignore the Biblical description that the Atmosphere was a wet collection of Mist, I agree, then people must have "POPPED" into existance at Jericho.
And, If you ignore this description, and move the Atmospheres' age to millions of years, Obviously the C14 dates will be evidence that the Biblical chronological dates is scientifically proven wrong.

But then again, Due to 250 years of archaeology and written history recorded only in the Bible, and confirmed after 2 000 to 4 000 years, It will be very ignorant to deny this little description mentioned in it.

Therefore, The only way C14 can be used to "Prove the Bible is scientifically wrong", will be to remove a few written descriptions from the Bible, which unfortunately for the Atheist, can not be done.

In conclusion,
it remains scriptural referencing between the Christian Bible believer, and Bias by the Atheist when we want to believe the ages science produces in RI dating.
I see. This is all that Hovind nonsense. And Morris nonsense.

What history related to a flood has been confirmed? None that I know of.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Again, I am not using Henry Morris' explanation at all.
I agree that science say C14 takes about 700 to 1000 years, or even less, to reach equilibrium.
I also agree with the C14 method to test the values between C14 and C12.
No problem.
I will also agree that sediment layers in lakes, and sea floors will show that the Atmosphere will prove that there was C14 levels which C14 levels over the ages of "22 000" years will show as equilibrium.

All I say is that the organic matter in the sediment layers which science claim will be at the lower strata, containing less C14, means there was less C14 in the atmosphere, and the layers was not created over 22 000 years, but over 4 000 years.
Again, it is a difference between an opinion where the scientist say,:
This layer was laid down 22 000 years ago, and this one 15 000 years ago because the Organic matter we find in those layers dates to such an age.
I will again say, the layer will show a date of 22 000 and 15 000 because the ammount of C14 still had to reach the levels of 1950 because the Atmosphere only started its producttion in 4500 BC.
and these layers did not have these thousands of years between them, but these sediments were layered down over only say 3 000 years.
You do know that C14 is not produced at some regular, steady rate. That fact shoots your idea of predicting the age of the earth based on C14 equilibrium all to pieces.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I recall being shut down every time I asked questions that my Sunday school teachers couldn't answer. The questions seemed so obvious, I could never understand why they had not asked them and found answers.
How'd they shut it down? My Sunday School teachers never chastised me directly for asking questions, they just went to my mom.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
How'd they shut it down? My Sunday School teachers never chastised me directly for asking questions, they just went to my mom.
The usual stuff. "You just don't understand", misdirection, giving a half answer or coming to the point of not addressing my questions at all.
 
Top