The flood mystery solved, at last.

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

The flood mystery solved, at last.

For many years I have accepted YECs claims about a global flood. Recently I have done some research on the matter and conclude that a global flood as described in the genesis account is impossible. The main reason I have believed all that for so long is because of David Fasold’s book about the ark being found on a hill in eastern turkey. After having realised that a global flood is impossible, I decided to see if there is any refutation of David Fasold and Ron Wyatt’s claims. There is a complete debunk given in the answers in genesis website…

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/special-report-amazing-ark-expose

And like a gullible idiot I believed it. So what I believe now, is that the genesis flood account originated with the Sumerians, and was recorded in their epic of Gilgamesh. Noah was actually Utnapishtim, a ruler or wealthy merchant of the city of Surrupak in Mesopotamia. The flood happened because there was the summer maximum of water flow down the river Euphrates, combined with a severe tropical storm. The flood plain flooded, and the cities all along the Euphrates River were flooded.

The ark was actually a number of river barges linked together to form a cube shaped platform, just like described in the epic of Gilgamesh. Utnapishtim and his family escaped the flood, with some animals, and drifted out to sea. They ended up in Bahrain, where they then lived. The account was preserved all along the Euphrates, including Nineveh in the north, where the tablets were found. Leonard Woolly, a British archaeologist, found evidence of a major flood, in the city of Ur in the south, confirming that there was such a flood in reality.

When the Israelites were exiled in Babylon, they picked up the flood legend, and they made up their own version of it, making it more dramatic and all of that. Instead of having the gods being fed up with the noise of the human population, they had it that everyone was evil. So God allegedly killed everyone, indiscriminately, children, animals, and the whole lot. The epic of Gilgamesh has so many similarities in it, to the biblical account, that it is obvious that the biblical account has been lifted from the Sumerian epic.

David Fasold ended up as an unbeliever in the bible, after starting out as a fundy. Ron Wyatt appears to have been much as everyone says about him, a fraud.

 

[juvenissun]

The flood mystery solved, at last.

For many years I have accepted YECs claims about a global flood. Recently I have done some research on the matter and conclude that a global flood as described in the genesis account is impossible. The main reason I have believed all that for so long is because of David Fasold’s book about the ark being found on a hill in eastern turkey. After having realised that a global flood is impossible, I decided to see if there is any refutation of David Fasold and Ron Wyatt’s claims. There is a complete debunk given in the answers in genesis website…

And like a gullible idiot I believed it. So what I believe now, is that the genesis flood account originated with the Sumerians, and was recorded in their epic of Gilgamesh. Noah was actually Utnapishtim, a ruler or wealthy merchant of the city of Surrupak in Mesopotamia. The flood happened because there was the summer maximum of water flow down the river Euphrates, combined with a severe tropical storm. The flood plain flooded, and the cities all along the Euphrates River were flooded.

There is nothing wrong with that even it were true. Sumerians are descendant of Adam and Noah. Their legends could be Biblical too.

 

[cow451]

Ron Wyatt appears to have been much as everyone says about him, a fraud.

I actually got to see Ron Wyatt make a presentation to a small group. Not only had he claimed to have found the Ark, he claimed to have found nearly every sacred place/ artifact one might want.

Although he may simply have been a fraud, he might also simply have been deluded. In any case, he was wrong and many were misled.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I actually got to see Ron Wyatt make a presentation to a small group. Not only had he claimed to have found the Ark, he claimed to have found nearly every sacred place/ artifact one might want.

Although he may simply have been a fraud, he might also simply have been deluded. In any case, he was wrong and many were misled.

yes, i think he was sincere but deluded.

 

[Aman777]

His:>>For many years I have accepted YECs claims about a global flood. Recently I have done some research on the matter and conclude that a global flood as described in the genesis account is impossible.

Dear His, Such a conclusion would mean that God did NOT author the Bible, so NONE of it can be believed. The Flood story is real and is 100% correct IF you have the correct interpretation. The problem is trying to get the flood story to agree with the traditional religious account, which is obviously in error.

Genesis 1:6-8 shows that a firmament was made and placed in the midst or middle of the water. ll Peter 3:5 shows that the firmament was "in the water, and out of the water." It floated, which is confirmed by the fact that God called it heaven which shows that it was also filled with air. Genesis 1:8

The firmament could have been in Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat. Genesis 7 tells us that the Ark was 22 1/2 feet above the highest mountains contained in the firmament, on the 150th day AFTER the Flood began. Genesis 8 tells us that the Ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat on the SAME 150th day after the flood began.

The firmament obviously filled with water and sank releasing the Ark into our world where it was NOT above the highest mountains since the highest peak of Mt. Ararat is some 14k feet below Mt. Everest. Isaiah tells us the first earth was "clean dissolved" when the windows on high were opened, and the fountains of the deep released their water. This means that the remains of the firmament is at the bottom of the Lake.

This also explains WHY the Raven did NOT return to the Ark. It flew to the shore of the Lake. The mystery of HOW the Dove could have been released and returned to the Ark, and then was realeased 1 week later, and returned with an Olive leaf, is also explained. The Ark obviously moved closer to the shore of the Lake, since Olive trees do NOT germinate, grow and put forth limbs, and leaves, in just ONE week.

God's Holy Word is True and reveals HOW and WHEN we changed from animal to Human intelligence when Noah's grandsons, like Cain inside the firmament, married and produced children with the prehistoric people who were here when Noah came out of the firmament into our world. This fulfills the prophecy of Genesis 6:4 which tells us this happened on the first earth "and also after that" on our planet.

I know this is new to many and many prefer to believe the ancient view which we have been told for thousands of years. Read it for yourself and don't believe the views of ANY man unless they can support their views with God's Holy Word.

In Love,
Aman

 

[cow451]

Such a conclusion would mean that God did NOT author the Bible, so NONE of it can be believed. In Love,
Aman

I believe this is an example of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Such a conclusion would mean that God did NOT author the Bible, so NONE of it can be believed.

Cow:>>I believe this is an example of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Dear Cow, Believe what you wish, but it's not true to Scripture. My view is, and is supported by many witnesses from the Old and New Testaments. I notice that you didn't offer any Bible verses which support your negative opinion. Is that because you cannot?

In Love,
Aman
​

 

[ebia]

His:>>For many years I have accepted YECs claims about a global flood. Recently I have done some research on the matter and conclude that a global flood as described in the genesis account is impossible.

Dear His, Such a conclusion would mean that God did NOT author the Bible,

No it wouldnt

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

No it wouldnt

i think it would. if the hebrews of the exile can't be trusted to be honest, then what else might they be untrustworthy about? so far i have done enough investigation to have concluded that the genesis account of creation is sumerian cosmology, and is false. i heard the astronauts quoting genesis creation at length, and i thought, 'what are they doing that for'? and god separated the waters from the waters... what's that supposed to mean?
and then there's the fall story of adam and eve, yet another myth taken from the sumerian religion.

so i now agree with all the theistic evolutionists, who believe that the ancestor list back to adam is made up rubbish. the hebrews had no memories of all these people before the supposed flood. one person was good on the flute, another was an iron worker, and that's it... nothing about where they lived, the cities or history.

 

[Papias]

His wrote:

so i now agree with all the theistic evolutionists, who believe that the ancestor list back to adam is made up rubbish. the hebrews had no memories of all these people before the supposed flood. one person was good on the flute, another was an iron worker, and that's it... nothing about where they lived, the cities or history.

Yes, but I woudn't use the term "rubbish" to describe something that has been misinterpreted.

For instance, imagine that someone took Jesus' parable of the sower (Mk 4), and argued that because Jesus said it, there must have been a literal sower, who lived around 20 AD, and so was probably born around 15-10 BC, and who left us his sandals, which we have here, and look! There is even a seed stuck between the straps! No. Mk 4 is not meant to be taken literally.

Such a person would be misinterpreting the verse. His interpretation is rubbish, but Mk 4 certainly isn't rubbish. Similarly, there are lots of reasons to agree with Hiscosmicgoldfish that the name list is not to be taken literally, after all, they are contradicted by the Gospels, suggesting that they are symbolic.

Adam may or may not be a literal real person, either way can be consistent with the real world as well as scripture. For instance, Adam may have been the first being in the transition from ape to human to be given a soul, and who brought original sin by rebelling against God. That's a common view, along with the idea that Adam is a symbol for all humans.

Either way, hiscosmicgoldfish is right that the ancestor list isn't to be taken literally, while all orthodox doctrines are fine.

Papias

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

i suppose you could say, that when Jesus said that the latter days would be like the days of noah, he was thinking that the noah story was historically true, when in fact it was a story about someone else, from a totally non-hebrew society, someone who was a pantheist; utnapishtim, and it wasn't yahewh that caused the great flood because of the evil of man, but was a very big flood caused by the weather.

Jesus used a lot of parables to teach religious truths, but i think that Jesus also believed that the various stories in the OT, like adam and eve and the fall, were historical events, and he probably would have accepted the creation account in genesis as well. that is what he would have been schooled in and there wasn't any alternative at that time, not for him anyway.

perhaps if Jesus had thought 'i don't believe any of that' he might have been sinning? and he wouldn't have continued in his mission, if he had any doubts that the OT was reliable.

for me all this started with eschatology, and revelation and daniel. after studying that for five years, i came to an understanding which would be upsetting for almost all orthodox christians, so i won't say what it was.
but one example of this critical understanding, is when the angel of yahweh kills 185,000 assyrian soldiers. and then you read that there is an account, actually by senacherib, which says that the hebrews payed tribute, and then the assyrian army cleared off.
it's gets so you start to wonder, can any of it be trusted, or was is all just propaganda?

people say that the 11th chapter of daniel is about the antichrist. and recently i had a look at my old jerusalem bible, and there as a title it says 'antiochus epiphanies'. and it was there all along, and they were correct, that it was all about antiochus 4th, and has nothing to do with any imaginary antichrist, which these fundy protestants in america keep going on about.

 

[cow451]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Such a conclusion would mean that God did NOT author the Bible, so NONE of it can be believed.

Cow:>>I believe this is an example of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Dear Cow, Believe what you wish, but it's not true to Scripture. My view is, and is supported by many witnesses from the Old and New Testaments. I notice that you didn't offer any Bible verses which support your negative opinion. Is that because you cannot?

In Love,
Aman
​

Because your argument is illogical, there is no possibility for debate.

 

[Aman777]

His:>>For many years I have accepted YECs claims about a global flood. Recently I have done some research on the matter and conclude that a global flood as described in the genesis account is impossible.

Aman:>>Dear His, Such a conclusion would mean that God did NOT author the Bible,
​

Ebia:>>No it wouldnt

Dear Ebia, The flood story is a SNARE. It is a TRAP to catch theistic evolutionists and other people who CANNOT explain how and when we changed from animal to human intelligence. When you understand this trap, which was set by God, you will understand that God's Truth is the Truth in EVERY way.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Frenchfrye]

Because your argument is illogical, there is no possibility for debate.

he's right though God says the whole bible is God breathed so its true if anything is not true God is a liar and we have no hope

 

[cow451]

he's right though God says the whole bible is God breathed so its true if anything is not true God is a liar and we have no hope

Again circular reasoning. The Bible says X (according to your particular interpretation). Therefore X must be true. If X is not 100% literally true, then the whole Bible is not true.

The "literal" interpretation of Genesis ignores the fact that the original language is lost to mankind and the earliest manuscripts themselves are translations made by humans and humans cannot be perfect (the lone exception being Christ). It also ignores what is known about ancient Jewish thinking and tradition. It looks at scripture through modern eyes, not those of the time. The world was not known to be round and the ancient Hebrews, like all peoples knew the "whole world" only to an extent. Therefore an emormous regional flood would've been "the world" as they knew it, not as we now know it.

To say that scripture must be literally all true or all false based on interpretation from thousands of years after the writing is not logical and makes poor theological sense as well.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Dear Cow, Believe what you wish, but it's not true to Scripture. My view is, and is supported by many witnesses from the Old and New Testaments. I notice that you didn't offer any Bible verses which support your negative opinion. Is that because you cannot?

Cow:>>Because your argument is illogical, there is no possibility for debate.

Dear Cow, It's illogical to you because you must think men authored the Bible. I believe God breathed it to the men who wrote it down. Want Scripture?

In Love,
Aman

 

[cow451]

Aman:>>Dear Cow, Believe what you wish, but it's not true to Scripture. My view is, and is supported by many witnesses from the Old and New Testaments. I notice that you didn't offer any Bible verses which support your negative opinion. Is that because you cannot?

Cow:>>Because your argument is illogical, there is no possibility for debate.

Dear Cow, It's illogical to you because you must think men authored the Bible. I believe God breathed it to the men who wrote it down. Want Scripture?

In Love,
Aman

I'm plenty familiar with the scripture. I, too believe it was inspired. What I don't believe is that a "literal" interpretation of historical events soley based on scripture makes sense. The term "breathed" is not a literal interpretation since God does not have a respiratory system. But it's the best that can be done with earthly language used by fallable humans.

 

[Aman777]

Cow:>>I'm plenty familiar with the scripture. I, too believe it was inspired. What I don't believe is that a "literal" interpretation of historical events soley based on scripture makes sense. The term "breathed" is not a literal interpretation since God does not have a respiratory system. But it's the best that can be done with earthly language used by fallable humans.

Dear Cow, God breathed His Holy Word from inside the men who wrote it down. He doesn't need a respiratory system, since He spoke the worlds into being without one. He also said, This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.. God's Truth is literally, figuratively, poetically, and in every other way, the one Truth.

Genesis tells us of the day of the Big Bang, the fact that every living creature was brought forth from the water, that humans and natural man are NOT the same, that you can make other humans from the tissue of one, that we live in a Multiverse, the formula for making humans, how and when we changed from animal to human intelligence, and He explains WHY human civilization on this planet can be traced to Noah. The problem with most people is they cannot understand Scripture because they have too many pre-conceived notions which prevent their minds from understanding what is actually written.

In Love,
Aman

 

[cow451]

Cow:>>I'm plenty familiar with the scripture. I, too believe it was inspired. What I don't believe is that a "literal" interpretation of historical events soley based on scripture makes sense. The term "breathed" is not a literal interpretation since God does not have a respiratory system. But it's the best that can be done with earthly language used by fallable humans.

Dear Cow, God breathed His Holy Word from inside the men who wrote it down. He doesn't need a respiratory system, since He spoke the worlds into being without one. He also said, This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.. God's Truth is literally, figuratively, poetically, and in every other way, the one Truth.

Genesis tells us of the day of the Big Bang, the fact that every living creature was brought forth from the water, that humans and natural man are NOT the same, that you can make other humans from the tissue of one, that we live in a Multiverse, the formula for making humans, how and when we changed from animal to human intelligence, and He explains WHY human civilization on this planet can be traced to Noah. The problem with most people is they cannot understand Scripture because they have too many pre-conceived notions which prevent their minds from understanding what is actually written.

In Love,
Aman

So, scripture is literal, except when it is poetic or figurative. In order to accept the Flood story as it is in the Bible, then it can be neither poetic nor figurative.

So, one must make a human judgement as to whether it is literal. If I were living in the First century, I would accept this as historical fact because I would have no way to know any other explanation. But in the 21st Century, I have other information that leads me to see it as not literal historical fact. Does it really matter if it was a regional or global flood? Does it diminish the message if evry detail is not historically or literally accurate? Not to me.

 

[Frenchfrye]

Again circular reasoning. The Bible says X (according to your particular interpretation). Therefore X must be true. If X is not 100% literally true, then the whole Bible is not true.

The "literal" interpretation of Genesis ignores the fact that the original language is lost to mankind and the earliest manuscripts themselves are translations made by humans and humans cannot be perfect (the lone exception being Christ). It also ignores what is known about ancient Jewish thinking and tradition. It looks at scripture through modern eyes, not those of the time. The world was not known to be round and the ancient Hebrews, like all peoples knew the "whole world" only to an extent. Therefore an emormous regional flood would've been "the world" as they knew it, not as we now know it.

To say that scripture must be literally all true or all false based on interpretation from thousands of years after the writing is not logical and makes poor theological sense as well.

that's because God himself says X is true so if it isn't that makes him a liar which is a sin and God cant sin. So X has to be true