Do you believe that the flood actually happened

[Quiddity]

I believe it was local. Every society that existed on floodable rivers has flood stories...

I suppose one could say that this is yet another sign that the whole earth did flood. Or maybe everybody and there mother lived by a river.

I am a creationist, but perhaps not your typical creationist your used to confronting. Great topic. Will be joining in more often.

~Victor

 

[Druidus]

I suppose one could say that this is yet another sign that the whole earth did flood. Or maybe everybody and there mother lived by a river.

Most early civilizations did live by rivers. You need water for survival, and running water is cleaner than standing water.

 

[Quiddity]

Most early civilizations did live by rivers. You need water for survival, and running water is cleaner than standing water.

True, but most rivers were not even remotely capable of such a flood that inspires them to make a story. My grandmother in Mexico lives by a small river and so do many thousands of people in Mexico. Not many flood stories over there. Interesting....hmmm

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

True, but most rivers were not even remotely capable of such a flood that inspires them to make a story. My grandmother in Mexico lives by a small river and so do many thousands of people in Mexico. Not many flood stories over there. Interesting....hmmm

No, not at all interesting.

Small rivers don't generate flood stories. There are lots of flood stories. Therefore the Biblical narrative is true. What kind of joke is this?

Talk to us about those great rivers that hosted civilization: the Tigres and Euphrates, the Yangtze, the Ganges, the Nile - or, better yet, read something and talk later.

 

[Pah]

You are looking at it from a modern perspective, Pah. Without the cleanliness laws, the Isrealites may not have made it through the desert. Without the Isrealites, we would indeed be lost.

Nah, I don't think so.

I'm thinking along the lines of why wasn't there a concept of the universe or even the galaxy taught instead of the firmament. Why wasn't Jesus taken by Satan into space with an orbit around the earth instead of going to a high mountain. Why wasn't the whole of theology laid out in clear unequivical terms. Why wasn't evolution taught. Why was it understood that the firmament opened up and water from above the earth poured onto the earth. (this last to try to include the topic)

It is likely that the knowledge of the day was written into the Bible by men and not from the inspired omnipotence of God. He has enough troubles without bring forth the phrase "You can't handle it". Why would he create his chosen creature that "can't handle it"?

There really hasn't been any increase in brain capacity since the first man of his YEC creation - has there? I'll give ya that some will believe an OEC cojoined with evolution. But the active God of the Old Testament and the active Christ of the New, were still many thousands of years later after humanity aquired its current mental capability. Such an empty slate left virtually empty for so long.

It only takes about 21 years to gain the knowledge of a university graduate - seems it should be an easy task for the omnipotent over the so many decades both before and while the Bible was written.

 

[Quiddity]

No, not at all interesting.

Small rivers don't generate flood stories. There are lots of flood stories. Therefore the Biblical narrative is true. What kind of joke is this?

Talk to us about those great rivers that hosted civilization: the Tigres and Euphrates, the Yangtze, the Ganges, the Nile - or, better yet, read something and talk later.

Wow, where that come from? I'm assiming then that most stories came from only civilizations that had large rivers? But why stories from people that have small rivers?

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But why stories from people that have small rivers?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe if we took a current snapshot and then projected it over a couple of millennium, we might come to realize that most, if not all, areas near moving fresh water sources are subject to flood disasters.

 

[chuck010342]

I believe that it happened the way the bible says it did

 

[Ceridwen018]

There is MUCH about the earth that I do not understand. Like the human artifacts found in caves in the Gulf of Mexico a hundred feet deep. The same applies for those on the Mexican side of the Gulf and on the Pacific side of Mexico.

There are people out there who have dedicated a lifetime worth of work and study to dealing with those artifacts in Mexico, etc. If you wanted to learn about them, you could go talk to those people and get the most accurate information available.

The same goes for your "flood story". Don't let your "lack of knowledge about the earth" act as an excuse. If you are interested in earth history and any possible evidence for a mythological story about a great flood, don't speculate about what you think could have happened--go talk to the people who DO know, and listen to what they say.

As for fossilization... it is incredibly rare when we think of just how many organisms DIED and left no record whatsoever. Not only a year, but hundreds of thousands of year gaps exist in the record. A flood less than a year long would not leave an appreciable blip on the fossil scene. Fossilization takes more than a year, so the water would have little time to do it's thing.

But the water DID do its thing. It killed all of the animals. The length of the flood is irrelevent. What's relevent is that the massacre of all organisms except for two of every species would leave such an incredible amount of dead bodies that the fossil record wouldn't be able to keep from showing it--especially because the period of so many fossils would be directly followed by a period with no fossils as at all, as the animals tried, unrealistically, to repopulate entire regions of the globe with just one male and one female.

If you believe in the flood story presented in the Bible because it is the Bible that presents it, and you believe it to be a supernatural phenomenon from God that does not need to be explained due to its miraculous nature, then so be it--I can't argue with that. If that be the case, however, please cut the crap with these ridiculous excuses for scientific arguments. They are unecessary and insincere.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Now Pah,

Why would you expect God to reveal the superfluous, when we have a hard time comprehending the important stuff?

Dear Ceridwen,

I dove some of the sites... they are incredible. Most don't go that far. I think they are incredibly keen. Their existence has only been recently brought to light, and those who know the most admit that they know next to nothing as of yet. Humility such as this is as awesome as the finds.

As for the fossils, surely you have some evidence of this. Water, especially sea water is not conducive to creating fossils. They need to be covered immediately with silt, and a lot of it, to stop the normal recycling. Since the earth is already 2/3s water, absorbing the remaining land masses would not be that hard. As for the fossil records, again please research and you will see that the gaps are not measured in "years" but in thousands of years.

As for my alleged insincerety, I was hoping that at least you would not assign motives to me.

 

[BUDDY]

please cut the crap with these ridiculous excuses for scientific arguments. They are unecessary and insincere.

I can certainly understand the need to be informed about a subject before trying to debate it. Lord knows that I have been put in my place on more than one occasion for trying to talk about something that I was less than totally informed about. However, to tell someone that thay are not allowed to attempt to make an argument, or share their opinion, until they are completely informed and have talked to the experts, while probably being good advice, is more than a little arrogant. However, in the future I will make more of an effort to be more informed about the topic at hand, before trying to make an argument for it.

Having said that, I am willing to change my view of the flood in the Bible. Having done some research here lately, I think that the physical evidence, in conjunction with the numerous flood accounts from different groups in the Tigris and Euphrates areas, points more to a very large regional event. The animals in the ark, would have more likely been preserved to protect certain species, and to give the occupants of the ark some livestock to start a new once the event ended. Also, according to the Biblical account, all the humans lived in the same area. So, to "destroy all of the earth" as the account says, may mean to destroy all of mankind. The term "earth" is used to describe humans in several instances, such as God's promise to Abraham, "through your seed all the EARTH will be blessed." The term here of course describes humankind being blessed by the appearance of the Messiah. I think the Regional flood also goes very well with the floodlayers found in Iraq by Woolley, and the research done by Ryan and Pitman, which was mentioned earlier. Since I also believe in the young earth theory (you know being a creationist and all), this would also explain the relatively small amount of fossil evidence for the event, since the total animal population would have still been relatively small. Just some thoughts. Anybody want to rip me apart? Be gentle...I'm sensative.

 

[Quiddity]

I have no idea, that's why I asked most people in Mexico if they had any floods. Not one even said a story. Although most rivers there are quite small and not subject the type of flood spoken of in the Bible. Besides, enough rain and the wrong location can cause major flooding. This is the case in a certain part of Argentina. No river around but they get major flooding. I'm sure you'll have plenty of stories there.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

I agree with EH... God had to relate to us as a society. For the "simpler" societies, he used "simpler" words... words that were in their vocabulary. I don't think that the time frames were that important to God... at least they really don't seem to be.

You even went further and showed an example of speaking to children. The adults of the times weren't children

Now Pah,

Why would you expect God to reveal the superfluous, when we have a hard time comprehending the important stuff?

Why would I expect anything but an avoidance. Come on, Doc, show your mettle and answer the point given by the examples. It would seem that a challenge to omniscience, a piece of "important stuff", would not be overlooked. Why would God "talk down" to supposedly "simple" people. Ignorant yes but not stupid - or are you thinking simple equates to stupid or children or both?

Just so you don't have to go looking, here the examples are again

I'm thinking along the lines of why wasn't there a concept of the universe or even the galaxy taught instead of the firmament. Why wasn't Jesus taken by Satan into space with an orbit around the earth instead of going to a high mountain. Why wasn't the whole of theology laid out in clear unequivical terms. Why wasn't evolution taught. Why was it understood that the firmament opened up and water from above the earth poured onto the earth. (this last to try to include the topic)

Here is the commentary.

It is likely that the knowledge of the day was written into the Bible by men and not from the inspired omnipotence of God. He has enough troubles without bring forth the phrase "You can't handle it". Why would he create his chosen creature that "can't handle it"?

There really hasn't been any increase in brain capacity since the first man of his YEC creation - has there? I'll give ya that some will believe an OEC cojoined with evolution. But the active God of the Old Testament and the active Christ of the New, were still many thousands of years later after humanity aquired its current mental capability. Such an empty slate left virtually empty for so long.

It only takes about 21 years to gain the knowledge of a university graduate - seems it should be an easy task for the omnipotent over the so many decades both before and while the Bible was written.

Anyone? - just in case NetDoc brushes me off again.

Anyone going to say that God wants us to struggle to cope with the world he created? It's no spiritual hurdle he's placing in the way of salvation, just a way of amoral living.

Now I might buy an answer that involes deism - a creator that doesn't interact but then there would be no reason for the "righteous Noah" to launch a boat.

Ya just can't talk about the flood without coming back to the question of the existence of God and whether the Bible is his word if he does exist.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Now Pah,

Why does God "owe" us an explanation? Part of the great part of being human is "discovery". Whether it's a new continent, a new species or a new concept, we are DRIVEN to discover new things. The concept drives our history and shapes our future. Why should God deprive us of all of that? Other than to mollify you and your need to have everything handed to you on a silver platter with a golden spoon! Yeah, God wants us to struggle... and perhaps build a little character!

Look how much society has changed just in the past few decades. Things that would have been scandalous in the 50s are pretty common place nowadays. You could not talk to them about the internet without appearing to be a loon. Now you want God to explain evolution to a people who don't even understand what an element is? Preposterous! You want him to carefully instruct a subsistance farmer in the ins and outs of astro physics, and he is still using a simple stone tiped dingle stick to plant these cool things that grow into more food? Oh yeah... he's gonna listen.

You want reality? Go ask someone who has been involved in the Peace Corps how hard it is to train adults how to farm, much less to understand why they should farm that way.
Society grows up, just as humans do. Every society that has existed on this earth can be seen to go through transitions. That's just part of being a human, and understanding this history is part of what sets me apart from the cat purring beside me.

Now call this a "brush off" if you will... I really don't care. I have been villified enough for what I believe that I have grown rather used to it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anyone going to say that God wants us to struggle to cope with the world he created?

NetDoc's God owes us nothing. He created creatures who deserve nothing. He does not so much want them to struggle, but to suffer. Adam and Eve sinned, and NetDoc's omniscient and omnipotent God determined that this undeserving species, the one He created in His image, must therefore struggle and suffer until the biocide and beyond - with every ounce of hardship, pain and death fully deserved. Amen.

 

[Pah]

NetDoc,

I've taken our exchange to Religious Debates under the title "Why did God treat the people of the Old Testament as "simple" people"

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15027

It was off topic here.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You know Deut,

I imagining you saying that with a Churchill accent and ending with "This is our finest hour!" Oh the drama!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The fact that the bible has survived all this time despite all the persecution against it, allows me to give it some merit.

Unlike all those non-Christian works which were burned in the Library of Alexandria....they must have had very little merit.

We can't always understand things all in one go. The Isrealites were the same way. Did God tell them that they were in the middle of a Global warming? How would they understand that? God kept it pretty simple for a reason.

Though it's pointless to argue, as any inconsistency or lack of evidence will be chalked up to God's mysterious ways, I will say that children have no idea how to count when they are first born, yet we are able to teach them calculus by age 18. Israelite children would have been able to do the same, as human brain capacity has changed very little in the last 6,000 years (since the Earth was created).

As for the fossils, surely you have some evidence of this. Water, especially sea water is not conducive to creating fossils. They need to be covered immediately with silt, and a lot of it, to stop the normal recycling. Since the earth is already 2/3s water, absorbing the remaining land masses would not be that hard.

So you're saying there would be very few fossils? Okay....so then there should be a huge dip in the number of fossils we see in the fossil record when the supposed global flood occurred. In fact, the fossil record should show what appears to be a mass extinction event of every single species on the planet....followed by a very slow climb for all species back up to the normal levels.

Oh wait, I forgot, all this discussion about evidence is pointless....even if the evidence does refute a global flood, that just means that the event was miraculous (as in the discussion about the existence of modern freshwater sources). The global flood happened because the Bible says so: if we can twist the evidence into supporting a flood, great; if not, we'll reject the evidence and chalk up the physical impossibility of the story to the supernatural in order to harmonize our belief with the facts. There can be no meaningful discussion with anyone who holds this attitude, as the discussion was over before it began.

Society grows up, just as humans do.

Notice that, as it does so, fewer and fewer people take the flood story seriously.

 

[Stormygale]

I have discussed this in another thread, oddly enough. There is scientific evidence that there was a flood, however, it was not a flood that covered the whole earth. It was a major flood that consumed only the area that Noah lived in, and him, having a simple mind of that time, figured it to be the whole world getting wiped out because everyone did not live exactly as he thought they should have.

This is a 'story' that was passed down from word of mouth for generations, before it was finally being put into text. CAN you only imagine how much of the story was actually added in to make it more exciting for the storytellers of history..lol. Not even a credible history...

 

[michel]

[PART QUOTE=Mr_Spinkles]
............."So you're saying there would be very few fossils?".................
[/PART QUOTE]


You really ought'nt to talk about TVOR like that, Mr_Spinkles.........