• 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!

Is the biblical story of Noah’s Flood a true account?


The tale seems to be an unrealistic attempt to “shock and awe” with the power of a favorite super-human being. Conditions as described seem impossible, yet the tale is often presented and defended as being true.

If the flood account is exaggerated or merely a moralistic tale, it casts doubt upon all aspects of the literature of which it is part. If one or more parts of the text are not true, what parts (if any) are true? How can anyone distinguish with certainty the true from the false?
 

wwlb08

New Member
I believe that the account of the flood is entirely true. I don't doubt any of it. After all, 'with God, all things are possible' - Matthew 19:26.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
wwlb08 said:
I believe that the account of the flood is entirely true. I don't doubt any of it. After all, 'with God, all things are possible' - Matthew 19:26.

The Easter Bunny is possible too wwlb, though I doubt you believe in him.
I find it odd that many religious people require empirical evidence of most everyday phenomena, but except an entire class of events under the rubric of religious revelation.
What no-one would believe if they heard it from a neighbor or on the 10:00 news, the faithful will accept unquestioningly from ancient compilations of religious speculation.
 

wwlb08

New Member
the faithful will accept unquestioningly
I'm sorry that you seem to think people with faith just read a book and believe it, no questions asked.
I believe that there is evidence to prove the Bible true, and as the Bible says that God cannot lie and the Bible is the inspired Word of God, I believe all that is written in the Bible.
What evidence can you tell me about that the easter bunny exists?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You seem to be accepting as axiomatic that "the Bible is the inspired word of God." Supporting this with a statement like "God cannot lie" smacks of somewhat circular reasoning.
I could say something like "the Quran says it is the inspired word of God so, as the inspired word of God, I don't question its assertion." Clearly, that wouldn't make sense.

What I'm questioning is your axiomatic acceptance of the Bible as the infallible worrd of God.
 

wwlb08

New Member
I don't just accept it. As I said in my previous post 'I believe that there is evidence to prove the Bible true' and because I believe the Bible from the evidence which I know of,(e.g prophecies which have come true, the continual existance of the Jews (God's people), archealogical evidence, one main theme running throughout the Bible which fits perfectly throughout all the books of the Bible, even though there are 66 books in the Bible, with many different writers, etc etc) I believe what it says and it says that God does not lie. It also says that
'All scripture is given by inspiration of God...'. So if I believe that the Bible is true, then I must believe what it says. Therefore if it says there was a flood 4000 years ago which destroyed human kind (save 8 people) then that's what happened.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Buckle your seat belts....here we go again. Another long ride. If you need to go, go now. We won't be stopping for at least another 400 miles.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
LeMaverick said:
The tale seems to be an unrealistic attempt to “shock and awe” with the power of a favorite super-human being. Conditions as described seem impossible, yet the tale is often presented and defended as being true.

If the flood account is exaggerated or merely a moralistic tale, it casts doubt upon all aspects of the literature of which it is part. If one or more parts of the text are not true, what parts (if any) are true? How can anyone distinguish with certainty the true from the false?

There's no evidence other than faith to say that version of the flood story is true. However, that the earth was once flood seems to be true as evidenced by the number of unrelated cultures with a flood story.
 

kateyes

Active Member
There is some scientific evidence of catastrophic flooding in the Middle East (the known world at the time). Bob Ballard of Titanic fame--has done research under the sponsorship of National Geographic:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

And seems to have found evidence of a great flood. It is also not unbelievable that the survivors--attributed the flood to God's displeasure. I think in most of the Bible there are elements of historical events--some believe Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed by natural events--but the blame went to God because people had to feel they could prevent this from happening to them. If they were dutiful worshippers of thier God--catastophic events wouldn't happen to them. The Greek and Romans attributed many natural catastrophes to the wrath of one God or another. The Hawaiians made sacrifices to try and appease the angry volocano God.

There are those who believe the origanal concept of religion/God was to try to explain the otherwise unexplainable.
 

love

tri-polar optimist
It is hard to believe that Noah put all beast of the world in a boat. It is also hard to think what a world with giant reptiles would be like. Were the giant reptiles that bones and vossil have revealed more intelligent than man? Was the serpent in the garden a superior being to man? Is that when God condemned him to crawl on his belly through this life? Were these massive beast not welcome on the ark or did they go extinct earlier? From the fossil fuels in the desserts of the Middle East these creatures must have been more than abundant.
 
Collecting Animals: How did Noah and company collect a pair of every animal of every “kind” from everywhere on the Earth (and seven pairs of the “clean” animals)? Although “kind” is variously identified, it evidently corresponds approximately to the modern term “species”, which is loosely defined as: “Kind or sort”; and more properly defined as, “a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding,” [to which should be added: and “producing fertile offspring”]

Thus, horse and donkey are different “kinds” because they cannot produce fertile offspring while dogs, wolves and coyotes, etc constitute one “kind” because they can successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Even using “kind” in a broad sense, the task of collecting animals worldwide suggests an impossible task. Even with modern transportation and thousands of people the task of collecting EVERY “kind” of animal would at least be immensely difficult.

For eight (or any number of) people to accomplish the task with nothing more than rudimentary transportation defies credibility. They would have had to gather animals from pole to pole and from every continent – and according to the Bible they did it in seven days!

Many animals exist in only very small, very specific habitats, some only on one island. Yet a pair of each must, if the biblical account is accurate, have been collected and put aboard the ark or they would not exist today.

Every kind of insect, worm, bird, monkey, snake, tortoise, etc that is alive today would have had to be aboard the ark. Insects alone exist in hundreds of thousands of discrete species in every conceivable habitat. Were they all collected? They must have been if they were to survive.


100% survival is required: Every individual animal of every pair would be absolutely required to survive and reproduce or the species would become extinct immediately. In reality, when the population of any species declines to a few breeding pairs or a few hundred pairs the species is known to be on its way to extinction. Yet according to the ark story one pair was sufficient, every presently existing species survived starting from a single pair.


Animal feed must have been quite a problem. Large herbivores require great amounts of vegetative matter daily. Some are quite specific what vegetation they eat. Many of the Earth’s animals are carnivorous – they eat other animals exclusively. What did they eat for weeks or months?

Some animals will die rather than eat anything other than a specific food. The koala bear (an Australian marsupial), for example, feeds exclusively on eucalyptus leaves. Many species eat exclusively decaying organic matter, others feed only upon fresh fruit or vegetation. Were all the necessary specific foods collected for each animal, preserved in required condition and stored on the ark? Would eight people be sufficient to feed animals on schedule – some, like hummingbirds, which must eat very frequently?


Animal Habitat. Polar bears do not survive well in the tropics. Many desert animals do not survive well in humid climates. Some animals require a moist environment, others require a specific soil. How could all these habitat requirements be met aboard a single ship for weeks or months with a crew of eight, limited space and no climate control systems?

Microscopic life forms must also have been taken aboard since they obviously survived. Disease causing microorganism must have been preserved from destruction also. How was this accomplished by people without knowledge of microorganisms and without microscopes?
 

Free4all

It's all about the blood
The earth was different back then.
It never rained before the flood.
It was alot more temperate. The earth wasn't tilted on it's axis. The flood kocked it off it's axis.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
Free4all said:
The earth was different back then.
It never rained before the flood.
It was alot more temperate. The earth wasn't tilted on it's axis. The flood kocked it off it's axis.

Umm....and what exactly do you base this on?
 

Free4all

It's all about the blood
The AV of course - That study was a few years back, I need a little time for verses.
I don't remember anything about a poo room, but ya never know.:rainbow1: :rainbow1:
 

Free4all

It's all about the blood
Hmmm, turn around and the other post is gone. I had a really good comeback for that too. :sad4:
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
LeMaverick said:
The tale seems to be an unrealistic attempt to “shock and awe” with the power of a favorite super-human being. Conditions as described seem impossible, yet the tale is often presented and defended as being true.

If the flood account is exaggerated or merely a moralistic tale, it casts doubt upon all aspects of the literature of which it is part. If one or more parts of the text are not true, what parts (if any) are true? How can anyone distinguish with certainty the true from the false?
I think it was true from the perspective of those who experienced it. I'm sure it seemed to them as if the whole earth were covered by water. As far as whether Noah collected two of every kind of animal in the world, that too is probably relative. I'd say it was entirely possible that Noah did take animals aboard the ark, but that it's pretty unlikely he actually rounded up two of every species in existence at that time. Maybe he collected two of all of the animals he was familiar with. I don't know, and it doesn't really matter a whole lot to me. To me it's a story about obedience and trust.
 

wwlb08

New Member
LeMaverick said:
Collecting Animals: How did Noah and company collect a pair of every animal of every “kind” from everywhere on the Earth (and seven pairs of the “clean” animals)? Although “kind” is variously identified, it evidently corresponds approximately to the modern term “species”, which is loosely defined as: “Kind or sort”; and more properly defined as, “a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding,” [to which should be added: and “producing fertile offspring”]

Thus, horse and donkey are different “kinds” because they cannot produce fertile offspring while dogs, wolves and coyotes, etc constitute one “kind” because they can successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Even using “kind” in a broad sense, the task of collecting animals worldwide suggests an impossible task. Even with modern transportation and thousands of people the task of collecting EVERY “kind” of animal would at least be immensely difficult.

For eight (or any number of) people to accomplish the task with nothing more than rudimentary transportation defies credibility. They would have had to gather animals from pole to pole and from every continent – and according to the Bible they did it in seven days!

Many animals exist in only very small, very specific habitats, some only on one island. Yet a pair of each must, if the biblical account is accurate, have been collected and put aboard the ark or they would not exist today.

Every kind of insect, worm, bird, monkey, snake, tortoise, etc that is alive today would have had to be aboard the ark. Insects alone exist in hundreds of thousands of discrete species in every conceivable habitat. Were they all collected? They must have been if they were to survive.


100% survival is required: Every individual animal of every pair would be absolutely required to survive and reproduce or the species would become extinct immediately. In reality, when the population of any species declines to a few breeding pairs or a few hundred pairs the species is known to be on its way to extinction. Yet according to the ark story one pair was sufficient, every presently existing species survived starting from a single pair.


Animal feed must have been quite a problem. Large herbivores require great amounts of vegetative matter daily. Some are quite specific what vegetation they eat. Many of the Earth’s animals are carnivorous – they eat other animals exclusively. What did they eat for weeks or months?

Some animals will die rather than eat anything other than a specific food. The koala bear (an Australian marsupial), for example, feeds exclusively on eucalyptus leaves. Many species eat exclusively decaying organic matter, others feed only upon fresh fruit or vegetation. Were all the necessary specific foods collected for each animal, preserved in required condition and stored on the ark? Would eight people be sufficient to feed animals on schedule – some, like hummingbirds, which must eat very frequently?


Animal Habitat. Polar bears do not survive well in the tropics. Many desert animals do not survive well in humid climates. Some animals require a moist environment, others require a specific soil. How could all these habitat requirements be met aboard a single ship for weeks or months with a crew of eight, limited space and no climate control systems?

Microscopic life forms must also have been taken aboard since they obviously survived. Disease causing microorganism must have been preserved from destruction also. How was this accomplished by people without knowledge of microorganisms and without microscopes?

Firstly you have to remember that God - the great creator with whom nothing is impossible - carried out this flood. Do you not think it possible that God could have helped gather the animals to the ark?

Another point that you got wrong is that actually of the clean animals (Gen 2:2) they went in 'by sevens, the male and his female' - meaning that 7 female of one kind and 7 male of the same kind went into the ark. Also of the unclean animals they went in 'by two, the male and his female'. So 2 male and 2 female of the same kind. So that solves the question of survival don't you think?

About the lack of rain before the flood - in Gen 2:5-6 it says '...for the LORD God had not caused it rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.' So it is possible that this mist continued until the flood to water the ground. This would also explain why so many people just ignored Noah when he told them that God said he was going to flood the earth. If they had never even had rain before imagine how they would view the idea of enough rain falling to flood the earth!

The ark that they made was huge. It was huge for a reason...to fit thousands/millions of animals into it! God knew how many animals were to go into the ark, that is why he could give Noah the specific directions how he should build it so they would fit!

I know it can seem something difficult to comprehend but I still believe that with the most powerful being behind the flood, how can we doubt that it is possible?
 
Top