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

[may]

Er...where did the ancient stories come from, if everyone drowned?

not everyone drowned, the later offspring of the survivers spread out
MANY years passed. Noah’s sons had lots of children. And their children grew up and had more children. Soon there were many people on the earth.
All the people at that time spoke one language.
God wanted the people to move out and live all over the earth. But the people said: ‘Come on! Let’s build a city and a tower so high that its top will reach into the heavens. Then we will be famous!’ The people wanted honor for themselves, not for God.

So God made the people stop building the tower. Do you know how he did it? By suddenly causing people to speak different languages, instead of just one. No longer did the builders understand one another. This is why their city came to be called Ba´bel, or Babylon, meaning "Confusion."​

The people now began to move away from Ba´bel. Groups of persons who spoke the same language went to live together in other parts of the earth. and they took the flood story with them , and now we have stories all over the world

 

[UnTheist]

Absolutely no evidence against it. I thought you knew.

Wrong again. There is definitely evidence against what the Bible claims happened.

And besides, saying it can't be disproven does not prove it's existence. That's a logical fallacy

 

[Mr. Hair]

*shrugs*

Define 'true'.

Definition of True: being in accordance with the actual state of affairs: conformable to an essential reality: fully realized or fulfilled: being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed.

Definition of Untrue: not according with a standard of correctness: not according with the facts: FALSE.

An interesting definition, though not one which I can personally share. I'm not sure that 'truth' can be so easily divined, defined and divided, at least not fully. For one angle, such 'truth' would still require translation as it moved from perception to interpretation and evaluation, and back again, for it to be understandable, and such a process is far from simple in itself.

(There is, for example, growing scientific evidence that our brain 'fills in' for blind spots in our sight by extrapolating from past memories, current surroundings and future potentialities, and that is what we see. It appears that sight is a continuous two-way process between perception and interpretation)

How, using your criteria, can we authoritatively and authentically verify the 'truthfulness' of, say, metaphysical poetry? Is the art of Dali and Picasso false? After all, most (if not all) of their work dealt with matters that are most certainly "not according with a standard of correctness: not according with the fact", but that do, on a more intuitive and personal level, seem to echo something within the common perception and psyche of people.

Perhaps this 'intuitive echo' is another aspect of truth, along with the aspect of 'measurable actuality'. Perhaps not. As the previous shrug indicated, I don't know.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Late to this discussion, but that never stopped me before!

I would suggest that the story of the flood is as much about PERSPECTIVE as it is anything else. We see the WORLD as all of terra firma because we have a rather broad perspective. However, to many back then the WORLD really meant civilization as they knew it. The history channel did a wonderful explanation of this not so long ago. They theorized that the Biblical flood was probably a 500 year event that inundated the Tigress and Euphrates basins for at least 40 days. The loss of livestock and human life was immense. Was there a Noah and did God give him detailed instructions? I'll be sure to put that on my "Questions for God" list. I hope he has alloted me a hundred years or more to get all caught up on these things.

 

[Free4all]

Wrong again. There is definitely evidence against what the Bible claims happened.

And besides, saying it can't be disproven does not prove it's existence. That's a logical fallacy

Lets stick to proof - evidence can point to a wrong conclusion, but proof is evidence which demands a singular conclusion. You don't have it and I don't have it, but there is a heck of alot of evidence FOR the flood and more showing up all the time.

And besides, saying it can be disproven does not prove it's non-existence. That's logically the wrong conclusion.

 

[uumckk16]

not everyone drowned, the later offspring of the survivers spread out
MANY years passed. Noah’s sons had lots of children. And their children grew up and had more children. Soon there were many people on the earth.
All the people at that time spoke one language.
God wanted the people to move out and live all over the earth. But the people said: ‘Come on! Let’s build a city and a tower so high that its top will reach into the heavens. Then we will be famous!’ The people wanted honor for themselves, not for God.

So God made the people stop building the tower. Do you know how he did it? By suddenly causing people to speak different languages, instead of just one. No longer did the builders understand one another. This is why their city came to be called Ba´bel, or Babylon, meaning "Confusion."​

The people now began to move away from Ba´bel. Groups of persons who spoke the same language went to live together in other parts of the earth. and they took the flood story with them , and now we have stories all over the world

All this happened in a few thousand years?

That discredits so many different scientific fields, I don't even know where to begin...

 

[UnTheist]

Lets stick to proof - evidence can point to a wrong conclusion, but proof is evidence which demands a singular conclusion. You don't have it and I don't have it, but there is a heck of alot of evidence FOR the flood and more showing up all the time.

Lying won't get you anywhere. The evidence is simply nonexistent

And besides, saying it can be disproven does not prove it's non-existence. That's logically the wrong conclusion.

It's a good reason not to believe it. It actually is logical to think something didn't happen because the evidence doesn't show it.

 

[Bick]

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?

For a start, look at all the geographical and historical descriptions in the Bible. Could they be merely the tales handed down by generations and subject to error?

Well, the last I read, archeologists in all their diggings and descipherings have yet to prove one thing wrong in the Bible. In fact, some archeologists use the OT to help them in their searcings.

Would you take Jesus words as the truth?

In Matt. 19:4-6 and Mark 10:9, Jesus confirms the truth of Genesis when He quotes Gen. 1:27 and 2:24:

Matt. 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?' "

Also, in the Olivet Discourse, he affirms there was the flood: Matt. 24:37ff, "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away."

Jesus' words are good enough for me. Bick

 

[gnostic]

For a start, look at all the geographical and historical descriptions in the Bible. Could they be merely the tales handed down by generations and subject to error?

Well, the last I read, archeologists in all their diggings and descipherings have yet to prove one thing wrong in the Bible. In fact, some archeologists use the OT to help them in their searcings.

That doesn't prove what is written in the bible to be historically or archaeologically accurate and true, Bick.

If you read literature on mythology of many other civilisations, you would find people have used real places, to set their stories. Proving that the places existed in the Bible, is one thing. Proving that it happened the way it was written is an altogether different proposition.

Actually, the archaeologists have proven a lot of things wrong in regarding to the bible.

It has been proven that the city of Jersusalem of David and Solomon is not a mighty and great capital of Judah until a much later date. They have proven that the city didn't become prosperous until the reign of Joash (835-796 BCE). There are evidence of the area being inhabited since the Bronze Age (5000 years ago), but there are no evidence of great rampart or even a great temple, until Joash's time. Jerusalem was not a great place, in David's time or even in Solomon's time.

Compared to Samara around the same time, Jerusalem was a minor city.

The biblical writers have been known to exaggerate certain events.

 

[NZAmish]

Okay all you non believers.
Here's something to think about: Have you ever thought that all the fossils that are found could have been caused by the massive amount of mud/silt, that the flood would have moved, which covered the animals and fossilized them?
And another thing: Frozen wolly mammoths found that are found in Arctic tundra have been found in a layer of silt not ice.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Uh, as a believer I need to point out that fossils date way, way, way earlier than the flood. There is no need to twist science or the scriptures to make them fit. Just accept that you don't know why and move on.

Okay all you non believers.
Here's something to think about: Have you ever thought that all the fossils that are found could have been caused by the massive amount of mud/silt, that the flood would have moved, which covered the animals and fossilized them?
And another thing: Frozen wolly mammoths found that are found in Arctic tundra have been found in a layer of silt not ice.

 

[gnostic]

Here's something to think about: Have you ever thought that all the fossils that are found could have been caused by the massive amount of mud/silt, that the flood would have moved, which covered the animals and fossilized them?
And another thing: Frozen wolly mammoths found that are found in Arctic tundra have been found in a layer of silt not ice.

Did you know that the mammoth also lived in not only the Pleistocene epoch, ie Ice Age?

They existed in warmer climate, during late half Tertiary period (Pliocene and Miocene periods). Anyway, the mammoth fossils found, as Scuba had already pointed out to you, are far too old to be in Noah's period in the late 3rd millennium BC (a little over 4000 years ago), compared to 30,000 years or more.

That's hell of a huge gap in time, Amish.

Also, many of the best find, is found in Russia, or Siberian tundra, where it is not just frozen or icy soil; there is lot of marshes out there. I am not sure about the finding in the North America.

 

[joeboonda]

2 Peter 3

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

 

[camanintx]

Lets stick to proof - evidence can point to a wrong conclusion, but proof is evidence which demands a singular conclusion. You don't have it and I don't have it, but there is a heck of alot of evidence FOR the flood and more showing up all the time.

There is evidence of numerous floods in ancient times but none of it supports the story of Noah and the ark described in the Bible.

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

explorer Robert Ballard (discoverer of the Titanic) led a team to the Black Sea in search of evidence for Noah’s Flood. About 550 feet below the surface, they found evidence of a ‘sudden, catastrophic flood around 7,500 years ago—the possible source of the Old Testament story of Noah.’

And to have faith is to Believe.. So yes i Belive it true Regardless of Recent Scientific discoveries

 

[gnostic]

explorer Robert Ballard (discoverer of the Titanic) led a team to the Black Sea in search of evidence for Noah’s Flood. About 550 feet below the surface, they found evidence of a ‘sudden, catastrophic flood around 7,500 years ago—the possible source of the Old Testament story of Noah.’

7,500 years ago (5500 BCE) is too early to be Noah's flood. Noah's Flood happened between 4100-4200 years ago. My calculation is 2104 BCE (ie a little over 4100 years ago). And there is no evidence of this (Noah's) flood happening at this time, because there are no break in civilisation

But yes, such flood (as that of Black Sea) could have account for "influencing" later generations into coming out with their own versions of what had happened and It would indeed be the sources for Noah's Flood, but not the Noah's Flood, but I am very doubtful of this. I am very doubtful that the Neolitic people would have store their oral tradition of the Black Sea flood to Noah's time, 3400 years later.

If Noah's flood happened 7500 years ago, then the current datings of Abraham, David-Solomon, and the fall of Jerusalem (587-586 BCE) would be terribly out of synch.

• The Exodus couldn't have happened during the New Kingdom Egypt.
• The Assyrians couldn't have taken Samaria, since it would have not existed.
• And there would be no Babylonians to take Jerusalem, and this city would have not exist too.
• Jesus's birth would have not existed in Augustus or Herod's time, if we use the Black Sea's dating; Jesus would have lived in the Bronze Age.
• And Paul could not possible done his missions in Roman empire, because there would have been no Rome.

 

[NZAmish]

Heathen
You shall burn in the fires of hell for those words you speak.
I pray you repent and see the error of your ways.

 

[gnostic]

Heathen
You shall burn in the fires of hell for those words you speak.
I pray you repent and see the error of your ways.

*sigh*

 

[NZAmish]

Ah, another fool who ignores the Lords word in favour for a immoral, evil pagan religion.
I pity you my friend.
How disappointed you will be on Judgement Day.

 

[gnostic]

*sigh*

Are you going to start burning books and people, NZAmish, if we don't believe?