Do you believe that the flood actually happened

[Jayhawker Soule]

You say that as if you have closed your mind to any alernate possibility.

The "alternate possibility" to a local flood is a loco author. Irrespective of unconstrained wishful thinking on your part, the Biblcal narrative didn't happen.

 

[Dayv]

blunt and to the point, well put Deut

 

[Tawn]

Allow me to explain (previous posts of mine):

Let's use a simplified version of this scenario. We'll throw the measurements out the window, so we don't have to worry about them first. Assuming only elephants were on the ship, we can say there were two animals on the ship, excluding the humans and possible stowaways. This is only the two African Elephants. I'm not sure, but 118.7 metric tons, for just two of the required animals is to much for a paltry wooden ark to hold. The flooring might even break. 118.7 metric tons is equal to the weight of approximately 1493 people. Could his ark hold that many people?

Dont some creationists think he took along some dinosaurs too? :biglaugh:

Everyone is also forgetting the single most likely reason the story is false. Massive salinity changes would have destroyed fresh-water eco-systems, and, all plant-life would have died. Unless Noah took them on the Ark too, thus requiring even more space and weight limits (Sequioa?).

:jiggy:

 

[BUDDY]

It was a localized event if it occured. As has been said, many cultures have flood myths, and the bible is no different. What I find funny is, if it happened as it says in the bible, that being, every creature that walks the earth today, did then and two of each unclean and six (I think) of each clean animal was on the arch, and if evolution doesn't occur, than doesn't that mean that those, what, eight people, were carrying every bacterium and virus now know to man.

I didn't know bacteria and viruses could not live in water.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are over 600 accounts of a great flood. Flood Stories from Around the World

Outstanding! You have discovered strong (yet circumstantial) evidence that human culture developed near fresh-water sources. Again, truely outstanding!

 

[BUDDY]

The "alternate possibility" to a local flood is a loco author. Irrespective of unconstrained wishful thinking on your part, the Biblcal narrative didn't happen.

I have always respected your opinion and your intelligence Deut. I have never really liked the way you put things and seem to verbally abuse the beliefs of others in the name of your pursuit of truth. I have usually ignored the way you put things and tried to look beyond it to see what your point is. I have been very frustrated lately though at your "in your face" approach with me and others. So, welcome to the ignore list, and have a great stay.

 

[Druidus]

I have always respected your opinion and your intelligence Deut. I have never really liked the way you put things and seem to verbally abuse the beliefs of others in the name of your pursuit of truth. I have usually ignored the way you put things and tried to look beyond it to see what your point is. I have been very frustrated lately though at your "in your face" approach with me and others. So, welcome to the ignore list, and have a great stay.

I hope I'm never put on the ignore list. I do like to debate with you.

But go easy on Deut. Often, Deut and I have disagreed, often in a semi-hostile manner, with each other. Deut and I are the way we are. We cannot change our beliefs instantly. I don't know what other instances you speak of (meaning I haven't seen them, at least yet), but here, Deut was merely stating his opinion.

I didn't know bacteria and viruses could not live in water.

Certainly not all types can. Most need incubation within an animal or plant to survive, oftimes a specific type of animal or plant, and some of the time, a specific species.

I still don't understand how the ecosystem of the world survived, what with there being no plants anymore. Even the underwater plants would have died, because the light would never have reached the bottom of ocean, where the plants grew (they usually grow near coastlines, where the bottom isn't that deep). Most fish would have died (all freshwater fish). Sea turtles would die, crabs would die, pretty much everything would die.

The only plantlife left on Earth would have been the phyto-plankton present in the top of the ocean.

Also, examine the genetic diversity of all species. It varies. Inbreeding between two animals and their offspring, over and over again, would merely destroy the gene pool and exterminate the genetic line of that species. Cheetahs today are known to have a very small gene pool, because of a plague that wiped out most cheetahs in the past. The ones that survived were a limited bunch, the only ones with the genes for resistance or immunity to the plague. Under such constrained population numbers, inbreeding would have occurred, but not nearly so much as in the Ark scenario. It is largely inconcievable, when using modern logic, to believe that animals could have survived in such a post-flood world.

Besides this, the person who claimed there is geological evidence of a world-wide flood is incorrect. There were two times in Earth's history where the Earth was completely covered in ice (one just before the existence of oxygen breathers, and one just after). As the glaciars moved to meet on the equator, they brought along sediment and rocks from far away places.

 

[Pah]

Perhaps more interesting is to ask what the author of 2 Peter believed.

You made me read the whole thing - thanks!

So the flood story is a spring with no water? Makes sense to me if I were the author.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You made me read the whole thing - thanks!

Trust me, having seen what can happen to weaker minds, it's a task I would entrust only to the strong.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Outstanding! You have discovered strong (yet circumstantial) evidence that human culture developed near fresh-water sources. Again, truely outstanding!

Don't you talk to me in that tone of voice. I said I think this is a local event. I think that the world 'as they knew it' was under water. And they very well could have made a vessel that held the animals in their region.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't you talk to me in that tone of voice.

Superb hearing as well!

I said I think this is a local event.

I suspect that it almost certainly was not a local event, I know that you have zero evidence to support it being a local event, and I'm further aware that the flood narrative of Gilgamesh strongly suggests borrowed folklore.

I think that the world 'as they knew it' was under water.

Since you seem to be making wild assumptons about who "they" were, your speculation about what "they" knew is less than compelling.

And they very well could have made a vessel that held the animals in their region.

Would that include or exclude the local behemoths? Were the Nephilim on board or did they swim along side?

Attempts to rescue shreds of historicity from the flood narrative are simply comic.

 

[BUDDY]

Besides this, the person who claimed there is geological evidence of a world-wide flood is incorrect. There were two times in Earth's history where the Earth was completely covered in ice (one just before the existence of oxygen breathers, and one just after). As the glaciars moved to meet on the equator, they brought along sediment and rocks from far away places.

Okay, I certainly can buy that explanation. There have been excavations where the archeologist (admitted pro-biblical record) have stated that certain items were found under the flood layer (refering to the Genesis event). These are the instances I was refering to. If the Biblical record is to be believed, then the statement "never destroy the earth by flood" would have to be refering to a global flood. The only way for someone to believe that the Biblical account was a local flood, is to change that statement or to do some extensive research to ensure that the Hebrew was interpreted accurately. Also, I believe in an earlier post you said that the flood lasted for about a year, but the Biblical account states that it was for 40 days. This would change some of the items in your statement about what organisms would be able to survive.

 

[Druidus]

Also, I believe in an earlier post you said that the flood lasted for about a year, but the Biblical account states that it was for 40 days. This would change some of the items in your statement about what organisms would be able to survive.

No, the Bible states that it rained for forty days and forty nights, but that the water stayed above the mountains for a year.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth.

Genesis 7:11


Close enough to a year, no? Only one and a half months short.

 

[BUDDY]

But, NASA found the ark in the Mountains of western Turkey!!!:biglaugh:

I know, I saw it!!!

I got nothin'.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[post #14] ... I decided that the global flood explaination was the only one that made sense to me in combination with the Bible.

[post #32] ... I believe in an earlier post you said that the flood lasted for about a year, but the Biblical account states that it was for 40 days.

Few things are so frustrating or so revealing as watching someone in a debate forum arbitrarily coerce reality into some Biblical narrative that they barely know.

[post #15] ... ther is plenty of evidence in a massive flood, whose flood layer has been discovered in numerous digs around the globe, but particulary in excavations in the middle east.

[post #32] ... There have been excavations where the archeologist (admitted pro-biblical record) have stated that certain items were found under the flood layer (refering to the Genesis event).

One can explect the same discernment and attention to detail when it comes to the archaeological evidence and its implications. I smell Wyatt on the horizon.

 

[BUDDY]

Few things are so frustrating or so revealing as watching someone in a debate forum arbitrarily coerce reality into some Biblical narrative that they barely know.

Have you read it?
Genesis 7:
12: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
24: And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
We're still quite a bit away from a year. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I'll let you try to explain how 150 days equal a year.

One can explect the same discernment and attention to detail when it comes to the archaeological evidence and its implications. I smell Wyatt on the horizon.

No, but how about C. Leonard Woolley and Sir Max Mallowan. Then there is Dr. William Ryan and Dr. Walter Pitman from Columbia University, who wrote an interesting book on the Regional Flood theory. They date the flood at about 7000 years ago based upon a layer of sediment found in digs around the Black Sea and Upper Mesopotamia. Then there is The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris, they use both sedimentary evidence and anthropological evidences to support the universal flood. Or, you can look up Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. Steve Austin, Dr. John Bumgardner (Vapor Theory), Dr. Walter Brown, Dr. Art Chadwick, Dr. Leonard Brand and Dr. John Morriss. All of these men make additional arguments (many of them in different ways) to support the universal flood theory.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You know in reading the account, it appears that either the water covered the mountains by 20 ft, or that the waters merely rose 20 ft.

I think some of us are putting words in God's mouth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you read it?

<yawn>Yes.</yawn>

I'll let you try to explain how 150 days equal a year.

I'll let you try to explain why you ask the question. You've already demonstrated an issue with reading comprehension, so perhaps you think that I said something about a "a year".

No, but how about C. Leonard Woolley and Sir Max Mallowan. Then there is Dr. William Ryan and Dr. Walter Pitman from Columbia University, who wrote an interesting book on the Regional Flood theory. They date the flood at about 7000 years ago based upon a layer of sediment found in digs around the Black Sea and Upper Mesopotamia. Then there is The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris, they use both sedimentary evidence and anthropological evidences to support the universal flood. Or, you can look up Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. Steve Austin, Dr. John Bumgardner (Vapor Theory), Dr. Walter Brown, Dr. Art Chadwick, Dr. Leonard Brand and Dr. John Morriss. All of these men make additional arguments (many of them in different ways) to support the universal flood theory.

I'm little interested in a laundry list of people you've obviously never read. It is simply unethical and sophomoric to reference evidence for a local flood event in the same paragraph with so-called evidence for a global flood. I'll make you a deal: if and when you break down and actually read Ryan & Pittman, I'll be glad to take it down from my book shelf and discuss it with you.

Given how seriously you've studied the bible, I doubt it will ever come to that. But, on the oft chance that you actually choose to read something, you might want to consider:

We interpret the instantaneous submergence of a broad former land surface of 100,000 km2 as the consequence of Mediterranean waters invading an isolated inland lake whose surface had been drawn down beyond its shelf break by evaporation and reduced river input. Such a cascade, one underway, would possess the power to further enlarge its orifice through positive-feedback erosion. The bedrock cross-sections of the SOI- Bosporus and SOC-Dardanelles observed at dozens of points along their lengths present a flume capable [of] delivering a flux in excess of 50 km3 per day, initially filling the lake at a rate approaching 10's of cm/day.

- William B. F. Ryan et al, "An Abrupt Drowning of the Black Sea Shelf," Marine Geology, 138 (1997)​

Note: "approaching 10's of cm/day" - not to mention the fact that we're dealing with an event occurring some 7500 years ago (not 7000 - sloppy reading yet again) and, therefore, virtually worthless as a serious explanation for the Flood narrative.

Perhaps it would be best to put me on your ignore list. I have no problem being treated the same way you treat the evidence.

 

[Druidus]

I did say a year. And I will explain it again:

Genesis 7:11

11 In 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.

Genesis 8:13

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.

Obviously, from roughly one and a half months into the year, to the beginning of the next year, is close to a year, off by about 45 days.

Genesis 8:14

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

This adds close to a month and a half, making up for the earlier time, which was less by one and a half months.

Thus, we have a year, more or less exact.

I'll let you try to explain how 150 days equal a year.

I'd ask you to explain how a day can be 1000 years.

 

[BUDDY]

I'm little interested in a laundry list of people you've obviously never read. It is simply unethical and sophomoric to reference evidence for a local flood event in the same paragraph with so-called evidence for a global flood. I'll make you a deal: if and when you break down and actually read Ryan & Pittman, I'll be glad to take it down from my book shelf and discuss it with you.

Just because I don't agree with their conclusion, does not mean that I am not familiar with their findings and research. I guess you believe everything that you read though, which is your perogative. I don't have Ryan & Pittman in front of me, because 1) I don't own it, I read it in College, and 2) I'm at work. But, I could have sworn they dated it 7000 years. I will trust your statement though. They believed in a regional flood, but I thought that their findings of the fresh water mullusk layer under the salt water mullosk layer was quite intersting, and could be used as part of a theory for the Global Flood research as well. I look for evidence from everywhere, not just from those that I happen to agree with. I believe to narrow my search in that way, is to be narrow minded. If you would like to continue your bantering and bullying, then by all means be my guest. Just please do me a favor and don't pretend to think you know what I am and am not informed about, especially in regards to Bible knowledge. The next time you make a simple mistake, I will be sure to point it out to you and rub your face in it as well. I could have already, but I was trying to play nice.