Noah-Lots of Water in the Oceans and Subterranean Oceans

[Diamond72]

This is far afield from what the text actually states.

NOT the text but the translation of the text is confusing. There is no problem if you go back to the original language. I do not think the translators know what the passage means. I am actually a descendant of the Bible translator that was Bloody Mary's first martyr. So we are use to persecution for translating the Bible.

 

[DennisF]

I would say that is correct up to a point. Earlier you used Greek and Hebrew to support your view, just like some others here. The problem is why should I accept these views as well? According to your advice, I shouldn't trust it.

I referred to a few words in the source languages. I am not sure what your point is. The closer you can move to the source documents, the less filtering through the minds of translators and commentators you will get, and the more thinking you must do for yourself about the correct sense of the passage(s).

There are many tools one can look at to drive down to the right meaning of the text. Then there is the traditional interpretation which must be weighed and commentaries available. One of my pastors told me that an unorthodox view of a particular text most likely is a heretical view. So one has to look at the sources and make a determination. If people do not believe in the Nicene Creed, this is a indication they hold a heretical view.

The issue is not really how orthodox the honest student is but how well he can determine the intended meaning of the text. This is often not hard, but in enough cases it is not easy. Do not expect "traditional interpretation" to necessarily produce the correct meaning. Centuries ago, translators produced English Bibles and readers took the English translations to be the Word of God. However, later translators who have benefited from the last 180 years of ancient Near East archaeology and who have attempted to make corrections become accused of changing "the Word of God". More recent translators do not so quickly dare to fix errors because of such accusations. So original investigation and thinking are still required.

I saw in one of the post above that you feel that Elisha just poked around in the stream looking for the ax handle. This is far afield from what the text actually states. It seems apparent from your comments that you really don't believe in miracles despite the Scriptures being filled with them.

Someone else provided their description of what they thought happened. This is an example in scripture to which the Stargate translation scene clearly applies.

 

[David Lamb]

No, that's man's addition to His word. In fact, He specifically avoids using the world "world" (tebel).

And since Genesis 1 says they aren't literal 24 hour days, and since Genesis 2 says it happened in 1 "day", we can be sure that addition is not correct.


As you see, evidence and scripture agree; it wasn't literal six days the the entire world was not flooded.

Well, the account of the Flood includes these words:

“19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.” (Ge 7:19-20 NKJV)

How could it not cover the whole earth if all the high hills under the whole heaven and the mountains were covered? And what was the point of the ark, if there was dry land that Noah and his family could have escaped to? Then we are told the effects of the Flood:

“21 ¶ And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of the spirit of life, all that [was] on the dry [land], died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who [were] with him in the ark remained [alive].” (Ge 7:21-23 NKJV)

None of that would be true if there were people and animals still living in some supposed non-flooded areas.

Where does Genesis 1 "say they aren't literal 24 hour days"? It says over and over that each of the days had a morning and an evening.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, the account of the Flood includes these words:

“19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.” (Ge 7:19-20 NKJV)

How could it not cover the whole earth if all the high hills under the whole heaven and the mountains were covered? And what was the point of the ark, if there was dry land that Noah and his family could have escaped to? Then we are told the effects of the Flood:

“21 ¶ And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of the spirit of life, all that [was] on the dry [land], died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who [were] with him in the ark remained [alive].” (Ge 7:21-23 NKJV)

None of that would be true if there were people and animals still living in some supposed non-flooded areas.

Where does Genesis 1 "say they aren't literal 24 hour days"? It says over and over that each of the days had a morning and an evening.

The narrative includes hyperbolic language, and it is written in part, as polemic against the Mesopotamians flood epic with the apkallu, or the 7 sages.

It is similar to saying "my suitcase weights a ton!!!". And then 2,500 years later, someone comes around and asks "well how could the suitcase not weight over 2,000 points if it says "my suitcase weights a ton???" ".

For example, read closely here:

Genesis 8:3-9 ESV
[3] and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, [4] and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. [5] And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. [6] At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made [7] and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. [8] Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. [9] But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.

1. The waters receded from the earth.
2. The ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
3. The tops of the mountains were seen.
4. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.

Now think about these words above. Now read verse 9:

"But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth."

Wait a minute, the dove found no place to set her foot? But what about the verses that describe waters receded and dried from the earth, and the tops of mountains being seen?

The text can't actually be read in a bluntly literal way, or this produces lots of odd contradictions, such as this one.

Here is some background context for the flood narrative to help explain:

I would also recommend "The Lost World of the Flood" by Dr. John Walton and Dr. Tremper Longman III in which they give several direct parallels between the flood narratives of the epic of Gilgamesh and of the Genesis flood.

And, in order to understand the Genesis 6, reading the book of Enoch or the book of the giants, is mandatory for context.

 

[David Lamb]

The narrative includes hyperbolic language, and it is written in part, as polemic against the Mesopotamians flood epic with the apkallu, or the 7 sages.

It is similar to saying "my suitcase weights a ton!!!". And then 2,500 years later, someone comes around and asks "well how could the suitcase not weight over 2,000 points if it says "my suitcase weights a ton???" ".

For example, read closely here:

Genesis 8:3-9 ESV
[3] and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, [4] and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. [5] And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. [6] At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made [7] and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. [8] Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. [9] But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.

1. The waters receded from the earth.
2. The ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
3. The tops of the mountains were seen.
4. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.

Now think about these words above. Now read verse 9:

"But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth."

Wait a minute, the dove found no place to set her foot? But what about the verses that describe waters receded and dried from the earth, and the tops of mountains being seen?

The text can't actually be read in a bluntly literal way, or this produces lots of odd contradictions, such as this one.

How do you know that "the narrative includes hyperbolic language, and it is written in part, as polemic against the Mesopotamians flood epic with the apkallu, or the 7 sages"? As for you example of the dove, commentators give reasons why the tops of mountains were unsuitable for doves. For example, John Gill says:

"It being a creature that feeds upon seeds it picks off from the ground, and loving cleanness, it could find no place where it could alight, and have food to live upon, and retain its cleanness; for though the tops of the mountains were clear of the waters, yet they might be muddy and filthy with what the waters had raised up in them, or left upon them; and therefore it returned to Noah again, and not only like the raven unto the ark, but into it:"


Matthew Poole writes:

"The dove found no rest for the sole of her foot; because the tops of the hills which then appeared were either muddy and dirty, or unobserved by the dove, as not soaring so high; whence the doves are emphatically called [the doves of the valleys,] Eze 7:16."

 

[HarleyER]

Only Moses and Jesus used plain language. All the other books use mysteries and riddles'

Luke 24:25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

It isn't difficult nor is it a riddle to understand ax heads floating or any of the other miracles of scripture. What is really lacking is faith that the Word is true.

 

[David Lamb]

Only Moses and Jesus used plain language. All the other books use mysteries and riddles'. With Moses we can study the meaning of the Hebrew letters that make up the words.

David used plain language in Psalms. Ruth is plain language. We read of Jesus speaking to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus:

“And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” (Lu 24:27 NKJV)

"Moses and all the prophets" was a shorthand phrase for referring to the Old Testament.

 

[HarleyER]

NOT the text but the translation of the text is confusing. There is no problem if you go back to the original language. I do not think the translators know what the passage means. I am actually a descendant of the Bible translator that was Bloody Mary's first martyr. So we are use to persecution for translating the Bible.

I get rather uncomfortable around people who tell me that all the scholars that came before don't know what they were talking about and they alone have the true answer. This is nothing more than gnoesism. There is a long line of these people including Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddie, Jim Jones, etc.

And genealogy has little to do with one's beliefs. All one has to do is look at our Lord Jesus genealogies on both sides to understand the problem with trying to claim heritage from dead relatives.

 

[Diamond72]

David used plain language in Psalms.

What scriptures are you reading? I am talking about Numbers 12:8 "With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

There are two letters here in this word. One has to do with the mouth, God speaking to Moses. The other has to do with giving and receiving. The way God spoke with moses compared to the way God spoke with David and everyone else. Except for Jesus of course.

Deuteronomy 34:10
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

10Since that time, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face— 11no prophet who did all the signs and wonders that the LORD sent Moses to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and to all his officials and all his land,…

David says he speaks in riddles and proverbs.

Psalm 49:4
I will incline my ear to a proverb; I will express my riddle with the harp:

 

[Diamond72]

I get rather uncomfortable around people who tell me that all the scholars that came before don't know what they were talking about

I have always used Strong's. Now I look at the Hebrew letters to see what the meaning is of each and ever letter. For me I want to know what everyone everywhere has to say about a scripture. I do not trust the translators as much as you seem to trust them. You clearly do not want to study the resources available to you. That is fine if that is what works for you. The classic case has to do with Adam and Eve covering themselves with a leaf. That is absurd. Even you see art with Adam and Eve and a leaf. I did a little bit of study on clothing and we see clothing has been around long before Adam and Eve. Even they had sowing needles 30 and 40,000 years ago, made out of bone. The made clothing back then the same way they make clothing today, they spin the fiber into thread and weave the thread into material. Of course now we have machinery that does all of that automatically and not by hand as they did back then.

Wiki A needle made from bird bone and attributed to archaic humans, the Denisovans, estimated to be around 50,000 years-old, and was found in Denisova Cave. A bone needle, dated to the Aurignacian age (47,000 to 41,000 years ago), was discovered in Potok Cave (Slovene: Potočka zijalka) in the Eastern Karavanke, Slovenia.

 

[Job 33:6]

How do you know that "the narrative includes hyperbolic language, and it is written in part, as polemic against the Mesopotamians flood epic with the apkallu, or the 7 sages"? As for you example of the dove, commentators give reasons why the tops of mountains were unsuitable for doves. For example, John Gill says:

Because the story of the 7 sages, and the story of Noah's flood, are essentially the same story. In fact, Gilgamesh, is actually present in literature of the dead sea scrolls right there along Enoch of the book of Genesis in the book of the giants and 1 enoch. Enoch and Gilgamesh literally have a conversation with each other, preceding the flood and before Enoch is taken up by God, in the dead sea scrolls. And that's why Peter and Jude note:

2 Peter 2:4-5 ESV
[4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; [5] if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Jude 1:6-7, 14 ESV
[6] And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— [7] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
[14] It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

In fact, both Peter and Jude are both quoting 1 Enoch when speaking here about the angels of Genesis 6. Which immediately preceded the flood. The time in which Enoch and Gilgamesh meet. And thats in the dead sea scrolls, preserved along with the oldest manuscripts we have.

"It being a creature that feeds upon seeds it picks off from the ground, and loving cleanness, it could find no place where it could alight, and have food to live upon, and retain its cleanness; for though the tops of the mountains were clear of the waters, yet they might be muddy and filthy with what the waters had raised up in them, or left upon them; and therefore it returned to Noah again, and not only like the raven unto the ark, but into it:"


Matthew Poole writes:

"The dove found no rest for the sole of her foot; because the tops of the hills which then appeared were either muddy and dirty, or unobserved by the dove, as not soaring so high; whence the doves are emphatically called [the doves of the valleys,] Eze 7:16."

The Bible doesn't say anything about muddy or dirty hills.

I would recommend reading up on 1st Enoch to clarify the issue.

You have to read 1 Enoch to see what's going on. Or at least be familiar with what the story says. And you have to be at least lightly familiar with the epic of Gilgamesh as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

David used plain language in Psalms. Ruth is plain language. We read of Jesus speaking to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus:

“And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” (Lu 24:27 NKJV)

"Moses and all the prophets" was a shorthand phrase for referring to the Old Testament.

In addition to my last post. Do you know what other tradition also noted the ark landing on Ararat?

This is not mere coincidence, the Genesis flood is serving as polemic against earlier texts. Or it's a shared tradition. Because these story share the same details, literally right down to finer points of what the ark was made of. The ark was made of the same materials as the ark of the flood of Gilgamesh. To the extent that the Bible even uses some of the same akkadian words as the epic of Gilgamesh, that is koper, goper and qinam.

 

[David Lamb]

In addition to my last post. Do you know what other tradition also noted the ark landing on Ararat?

This is not mere coincidence, the Genesis flood is serving as polemic against earlier texts. Or it's a shared tradition. Because these story share the same details, literally right down to finer points of what the ark was made of. The ark was made of the same materials as the ark of the flood of Gilgamesh. To the extent that the Bible even uses some of the same akkadian words as the epic of Gilgamesh, that is koper, goper and qinam.

Yes, I have heard that there are similarities between the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis. You say that Gilgamesh is earlier than Genesis. As I understand it, the Gilgamesh Epic is by no means complete, and is based on a variety of manuscripts of different dates. If the bible is the very word of God, it is not that God had to "borrow" from the Gilgamesh Epic. In view of the world-wide flood, it would be surprising if other civilisations didn't have some kinds of records of the fact. I am no scholar enough to be in a position to take the argument further, except to say that neither Gilgamesh nor other sources hold any threat to belief in the inspired and inerrant Scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, I have heard that there are similarities between the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis. You say that Gilgamesh is earlier than Genesis. As I understand it, the Gilgamesh Epic is by no means complete, and is based on a variety of manuscripts of different dates. If the bible is the very word of God, it is not that God had to "borrow" from the Gilgamesh Epic. In view of the world-wide flood, it would be surprising if other civilisations didn't have some kinds of records of the fact. I am no scholar enough to be in a position to take the argument further, except to say that neither Gilgamesh nor other sources hold any threat to belief in the inspired and inerrant Scripture.

And what about Enoch, quoted by Peter and Jude in their own scriptures on the Genesis flood?

 

[David Lamb]

And what about Enoch, quoted by Peter and Jude in their own scriptures on the Genesis flood?

Enoch is not part of the bible, though mentioned in the bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

Enoch is not part of the bible, though mentioned in the bible.

Jude and Peter quote Enoch. Simply ignoring Enoch isn't reasonable, if that is your approach.

 

[Diamond72]

Gilgamesh Epic is by no means complete, and is based on a variety of manuscripts of different dates.

These stories were oral long before they were written down. If we study the dead sea scrolls we see the same thing.

The Epic of Gilgamesh does not mention Noah, but it does contain a flood myth that is similar to the biblical story of Noah:

• Angry deities: Both stories feature deities who decide to kill all of humanity.
• Boat: Both stories feature a devout man who is told to build a boat and fill it with animals.
• Birds: Birds are sent out from the boat to check if it is safe.
• Sacrifice: A sacrifice is offered after the flood.
• Divine powers: Divine powers promise never to do it again.
  
  Biblical authors are thought to have been familiar with Gilgamesh's story

 

[David Lamb]

Jude and Peter quote Enoch. Simply ignoring Enoch isn't reasonable, if that is your approach.

Not ignoring what Jude and Peter quote from Enoch, but the book of Enoch still isn't part of God's Word.

Jude quotes Enoch thus:

“Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,” (Jude 1:14 NKJV)

Peter quotes Enoch here:

“For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast [them] down to hell and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;” (2Pe 2:4 NKJV)

But neither Jude nor Peter quote Enoch about the Flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, I have heard that there are similarities between the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis. You say that Gilgamesh is earlier than Genesis. As I understand it, the Gilgamesh Epic is by no means complete, and is based on a variety of manuscripts of different dates. If the bible is the very word of God, it is not that God had to "borrow" from the Gilgamesh Epic. In view of the world-wide flood, it would be surprising if other civilisations didn't have some kinds of records of the fact. I am no scholar enough to be in a position to take the argument further, except to say that neither Gilgamesh nor other sources hold any threat to belief in the inspired and inerrant Scripture.

Think about it. Both Peter and Jude quote 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch tells the story of Enoch and Gilgamesh, and their experiences together preceding the flood. This story is described in 1 Peter 6-8 and 2 Peter 2:4-6. The flood tradition around Genesis 6 is directly linked to Enoch in the Bible. And this should be of no surprise to us, given that 1 Enoch was preserved in the dead sea scrolls caves of Qumran, right along side the oldest manuscripts of the Bible that we have.

And your response? Well 1 Enoch isn't part of our modern canon, therefore it isn't important.

 

[David Lamb]

Think about it. Both Peter and Jude quote 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch tells the story of Enoch and Gilgamesh, and their experiences together preceding the flood. This story is described in 1 Peter 6-8 and 2 Peter 2:4-6. The flood tradition around Genesis 6 is directly linked to Enoch in the Bible. And this should be of no surprise to us, given that 1 Enoch was preserved in the dead sea scrolls caves of Qumran, right along side the oldest manuscripts of the Bible that we have.

And your response? Well 1 Enoch isn't part of our modern canon, therefore it isn't important.

Never mind our modern canon. 1 Enoch was not part of the Old Testament used by the Jews.