• 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!

What happened to the plants during Noah’s flood?

des

Active Member
I think it is conceivable that there were large floods, there still are (think tsunami rather than flood). But I think it is more likely that this is a "reanctment" of Gildemesh. Still there may have been an original flood event. I don't think it was the "entire world". It might have been the known world, so it didn't involve all animals, just animals known to the peoples of that area at that time. However, I don't believe in a literal ark, and I think this was maybe my second big crash with some sort of literalism (perhaps the first was Jonah). It think this was a myth (read legend not lie) that was told to discuss the history of the Jewish people. This history was likely not the more literalist type history that we discuss but a history that was stories, legends, metaphors, etc. of the life of the Jewish people. This was actually part of a creation myth wherein there is an explanation of how there are the particular plants and animals that existed at that time. Perhaps they found large bones of dinosaurs, so they explained how these animals didn't make it, perhaps they didn't get on the ark. They don't KNOW how they evolved and that sort of thing, this was a pre-scientific way of talking about events. Perhaps it was also an explanation of how God would protect you if you lived a good life and punish if you didn't.

--des
 
The level of salt in the flood would have spread and destroyed everything.

Where did all the salt go?

For that matter, where did all the water go?

Can you possibly imagine that Flood covered Everest, if you are to believe that Bible covering even the highest mountain? It would have taken millennium or two before the water receded that life could be possible in Mesopotamia.

Gnostic,

I agree with much of what you say and would like to add a few comments.

Meeting the biblical claim of “flooded to the tops of mountains” would have required water surface to be 28,035 feet above present sea level. Any claim that flooding the world in biblical terms meant just a local area is illogical. Surely a god, the purported divine inspiration behind the bible and purported creator of the Earth, would have known about the Himalayas. Right?

To meet requirements set forth in biblical tales, it would take One Billion Cubic Miles of water in addition to all the Earth’s water. To have that amount of flooding in 960 hours requires a rainfall rate of Thirty Feet per Hour (nearly as much in one hour everywhere on the entire Earth surface simultaneously and continuously than any place on Earth receives in a year).

With that much additional (imaginary) water, it might be somewhat brackish, but not salty as in present oceans and inland seas. The real problem to be addressed is that flooding of all vegetation under thousands of feet of water (deeper even than sunlight can penetrate) for weeks or months in brackish water insures that most plant species will not survive.

Claiming that seeds were preserved somehow and then redistributed to their native habitat is about as logical as claiming that all animals from all over the globe could be collected by eight people in one week without efficient transportation – then redistributed as needed. The whole thing is something that I would expect only children to accept as being a true story. In fact, I rejected the preposterous tales as a child even though pressured by adults to “believe what you are told without asking questions”.

Another issue becomes, where did One Billion Cubic Miles of water come from and where did it go after fulfilling biblical purposes? The old GCDA myth (“god can do anything”) that is hauled out to explain “inconsistencies” is the only recourse because the whole thing is so preposterous.

If we say biblical authors (whoever they might have been, and whenever they may have been writing) were limited to what people in their region knew at the time is an admission that the bible is of human origin – and not “the word of god” as claimed by many. If god can’t get it right about basic geography and biology, what of the bible can be trusted?

It might most rational to conclude that the bible consists of legends and fables. However, doing so is staunchly resisted by literalists who evidently find it impossible to let go of the ark even though it is sinking in a sea of knowledge that was not available to biblical authors.

In lieu of reason and logic, literalists come up with “explanations” for tales of giants, of a person “living for three days in the belly of a fish (or whale), of virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water, the Earth stopping rotation, of people living hundreds of years, and of all sorts of impossible claims. But of course, GCDA is thrown over the scene to disguise the obviously false or exaggerated legends and fables – to protect the supposed infallibility of the bible.

If (since) the bible is not infallible, one can simply choose which words to accept and which to reject. Any word or phrase can mean anything at all and everything is subject to “interpretation” (giving whatever meaning a person chooses). I have chosen a few items from the bible that seem like a realistic guide to living and have rejected the rest. My “bible” is very short and deals with ethics. It contains no fairytales.

What others do or do not believe or accept is not my concern – provided that following of their belief does not cause them to attempt to infringe upon or limit my life.
 

Apple Pie

Active Member
If your town floods tomorrow would you blame God and believe that He was extinguishing man there? Of course not.

The Holy Bible tells us that mankind will never be eliminated by another great flood....so no, there would be no reason to blame God...



Floods happen. Storms happen. Firey rocks fall from the sky all the time, they are not fireballs from heaven, they're meteors!

And....?



In it's history the earth has changed many times. It's entire surface was pelted with asteroids, covered with ash and volcanic soot, it was almost entirely covered in ice a number of times, it was submerged under water (but not entirely as the bible says), and not a single one of these events was caused by God.

Actually, the Holy Bible states that the entire earth's surface was covered in water...same as modern science is now also confirming...and yes...all at the hand of the creator God as revealed to us within the pages of the Holy Bible...



The ancient ignorant writers of the bible could not understand how these things could happen if not from God.

Seems that the Biblical creation accounts have it right....thousands of years before modern science caught up to it...coincidence?....not hardly...
 

gnostic

The Lost One
ApplePie said:
A careful reading of the Genesis flood account (and others) leads us to believe that the flood was local, and not global, in extent.

The purpose of the great flood was to extinguish reprobate mankind...and since mankind was localized within a relatively small area, there would have been no need to flood the entire globe...

The bible doesn't indicate it was local, if you believe not only the bible, but what God said directly said to Noah.

That would be correct, however, if you read the beginning of Genesis 6, it states that -
Genesis 6:1 said:
When mankind had spread all over the world, and girls were being born... (Good News Bible)

or

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them... (KJV)

or

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them... (JPS)

And then we have God saying to Noah:

Genesis 6:17 said:
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. (KJV)

or

For My part, I am about to bring the Flood - waters upon the earth - to destroy all flesh under the sky in which is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish. (JPS)

Do you take what God Himself have to say about destroying everything living on earth (with the exception of Noah and his family) literally or do you interpret it as only being local.

And do you ignore it description of the Flood, where it rain for 40 days and nights and the floodgates burst open.

Genesis 7:19-20 said:
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (KJV)

When the waters had swelled much more upon the earth, all the highest mountains everywhere under the covered. Fifteen cubits higher did the water swell, as the mountains were covered. (JPS)

Even to cover the mountains of Ararat if not those in the Himalayas, the water level need to exceed 1000 metres above sea level. Can you imagine that much water?

And where did the water go?

It would take more than just few months to dry out the land even if we only take Mounts Ararat as the height of the water level.

According to the Genesis, it rained for 40 days/nights (beginning on 17th day of 2nd month), and remained at this level for 150 days (which is around 5 months). Only then it resided. On the 17th day of 7th month, the Ark was resting on Mount Ararat. It was when Noah was 601, on the 1st day of the 1st month that the water was gone!!!

Water level of that magnitude would not just disappear in mere 5 months, even if it took 5 months to rain and flood that much.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Apple Pie said:
Actually, the Holy Bible states that the entire earth's surface was covered in water...same as modern science is now also confirming...and yes...

Er...what modern science are you talking about, and who are the scientists? I need more than just mouthing of "modern science", to indicate proof of global flood. There are many charlatans, who claimed to be scientists, especially those from Young Earth Science and the Earth Science Associates. These people are nothing more than creationists with phony PhDs.
 

des

Active Member
Well yes, legitimate scientists do say the world was covered with water, but that was before any people or indeed any complex life forms were on the earth. Noah and company would certainly qualify as complex life forms.
So this person is mixing legitimate science with ancient myth. Not saying Noah isn't true (as myth) but just that it is not true as science.

I think also the young earth gang take this and talk about it as if it happened in the past few thousand years. There is zero evidence of a major (world wide) flood in the last few thousand years. There might have been flooding in the area. I don't know that anyone has proved that one way or another.


--des




Er...what modern science are you talking about, and who are the scientists? I need more than just mouthing of "modern science", to indicate proof of global flood. There are many charlatans, who claimed to be scientists, especially those from Young Earth Science and the Earth Science Associates. These people are nothing more than creationists with phony PhDs.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
The Holy Bible tells us that mankind will never be eliminated by another great flood....so no, there would be no reason to blame God...

And....?

Actually, the Holy Bible states that the entire earth's surface was covered in water...same as modern science is now also confirming...and yes...all at the hand of the creator God as revealed to us within the pages of the Holy Bible...

Seems that the Biblical creation accounts have it right....thousands of years before modern science caught up to it...coincidence?....not hardly...

Mankind will never be eliminated in another great flood? Tell that to the 300,000 people killed in the Indonesian tsunami. Still it is not God's doing and never was.

The bible may state that the entire surface of the earth was covered in water but LeMaverick points out in the post above yours that this is quite impossible.

It's kind of like the universe being put together in seven days, it's just another lie told by ancient priests and written in their books because the priests were quite ignorant of the sciences.

Also those priests lied about Adam and Eve, Soddom and Gamorrah, Job, paying a ransom on the census, animal sacrifice, Lucifer/Satan, Moses parting the Red Sea, God hardening men's hearts, God tempting, God torturing, God being jealous, and the worst blasphemy of all - God murdering people.

When you are faced with the choice of defending God or defending your religion, like so many others you choose religion.
 
Super Universe said:
When you are faced with the choice of defending God or defending your religion, like so many others you choose religion.
I (finally) understand the significance (I think) of what you are saying when you make the distinction between religion and god.

Being a Non-Religious person, I lump the two together; however, it is actually religion that I oppose -- particularly organized, commercial religion that exists {b]not[/b] to worship gods but to produce influence and income for those who claim special knowledge or special standing with gods.

If religion does not interfere, a person is free to honor or respect a "force" or "intelligence" (for want of a better word) that is beyond the self. Is that your concept?

Now, must "god" be the Christian concept of god, the biblical god, or is a person entitled to develop their own concept of god?

And, must a person accept and acknowledge the god in order to obtain "eternal life"? If so, why?
 
I have a suggested answer to the question of what happened to plants during the time of the supposed flood.

Nothing happened to the plants (or the animals, including humans) because the flood is a fable. The story was made up by earlier religionists for their own purposes and was incorporated into a book that is obviously not "the word of god", but a selection of early legends and fables that has been written, translated, transcribed, revised, rewritten and modified by unknown persons with various motives.

Those early religionists had very limited understanding of the world and nature, and the tales they told reflected that ignorance. More information is available two thousand years later – for those who choose to accept modern understanding of nature instead of restricting themselves to ancient “knowledge”.
 

Apple Pie

Active Member
The bible doesn't indicate it was local, if you believe not only the bible, but what God said directly said to Noah.

That would be correct, however, if you read the beginning of Genesis 6, it states that -


And then we have God saying to Noah:



Do you take what God Himself have to say about destroying everything living on earth (with the exception of Noah and his family) literally or do you interpret it as only being local.

In numerous Biblical instances, the Hebrew "Kol erets" indicates a local vicinity...



And do you ignore it description of the Flood, where it rain for 40 days and nights and the floodgates burst open.

Not even close to covering the globe...




Even to cover the mountains of Ararat if not those in the Himalayas, the water level need to exceed 1000 metres above sea level. Can you imagine that much water?

Who ever siad that it did...?



And where did the water go?

It came from the earth...and went back to the earth...

Hence it was a local flood...and not a global one...not enough water for a global event...
 

Apple Pie

Active Member
Er...what modern science are you talking about, and who are the scientists? I need more than just mouthing of "modern science", to indicate proof of global flood. There are many charlatans, who claimed to be scientists, especially those from Young Earth Science and the Earth Science Associates. These people are nothing more than creationists with phony PhDs.

We are not promoting a global flood....but a local flood.

The water covering the earth's surface occured during its formation....this is not part of the genesis great flood...
 

Apple Pie

Active Member
The bible may state that the entire surface of the earth was covered in water but LeMaverick points out in the post above yours that this is quite impossible.


Not only is it possible...but it was...this is part of planetary formation...



It's kind of like the universe being put together in seven days, it's just another lie told by ancient priests and written in their books because the priests were quite ignorant of the sciences.

The Hebrew word for "eon" is also the word for "day"...
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
I (finally) understand the significance (I think) of what you are saying when you make the distinction between religion and god.

Being a Non-Religious person, I lump the two together; however, it is actually religion that I oppose -- particularly organized, commercial religion that exists {b]not[/b] to worship gods but to produce influence and income for those who claim special knowledge or special standing with gods.

If religion does not interfere, a person is free to honor or respect a "force" or "intelligence" (for want of a better word) that is beyond the self. Is that your concept?

Now, must "god" be the Christian concept of god, the biblical god, or is a person entitled to develop their own concept of god?

And, must a person accept and acknowledge the god in order to obtain "eternal life"? If so, why?

Choice is incredibly important. It's God's gift to you and it's the whole purpose of the 3rd dimension material universe. Humans love to remove their own choice and the choice of others. That's why they create so many rules and organizations, borders, fences, and walls that divide and separate. But here, we're all the same to the universe.

A mature person is responsible for what they believe. If one chooses to NOT decide for themselves what to believe and do and instead adopts a religion they are still responsible for everything they think and do.

When you die and go to your adjudication and they ask you why you believed that God did all these terrible things that others lie'd and said He did, are you going to reply "It was in the bible". They are going to reply "But why did you choose to believe it?"

The old stories of the bible are legends written down but not for various motives. The motive was power. By writing in stories of an angry god who tortures people with terrible storms and floods, and plagues, locust, whatever, it gives power to the priests because the people look to the priests for an explanation.

But the priests were ignorant of the sciences, so they made it up. "God is angry because you did not give enough offering", they'd say and the gold would come flowing into their pockets. "God is angry at the homosexual's" they'd shout.

And then these lies were written down as if from God Himself.
 
Sandy,

I agree that if there had been a flood as described in biblical tales most, if not all, land plants must have died a few thousand years ago. However, I observe that there are abundant plants now on all continents and at least most islands. How can that be possible given the time constraints assumed in literal interpretation of the bible?
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Gen 5 said:
29 He named him Noah [c] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."

Isn't the more important question 'what does this story teach us?' It's a story of faith and restoration, of God's might and God's mercy.

Another example of literalism killing the spirit of the scripture.

It may not be one of the more comfortable characteristics of God found in the Bible, but 'them were different times' when this was written.
 
lunamoth said:
Isn't the more important question 'what does this story teach us?' It's a story of faith and restoration, of God's might and God's mercy.

If the flood were a true story it would represent the greatest genocide ever known -- eight people supposedly survived from all of mankind -- and that is an example of "God's Mercy"?????? Very merciful god. Very kind. Very good.

All the rest of humanity must have been "wicked" or "evil" (meaning they refused to worship the angry, murderous god) so they were killed -- including the "wicked" and "evil" infants and unborn.

I don't think I care much for even the idea of such a god.

lunamoth said:
Another example of literalism killing the spirit of the scripture.

Scripture kills the spirit of scripture -- if one reads more than just a few favored passages.
 
Top