Noah-Lots of Water in the Oceans and Subterranean Oceans

[Job 33:6]

You say that Genesis 6:5 is "clearly hyperbole", and it would be if it were taken out of context. That context includes Genesis 6:8:

“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” (Ge 6:8 NKJV)

Without the grace of God, Noah would have been just like the rest of humanity at the time.

It's not out of context.

The phrase "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" is an extreme way of describing the pervasive wickedness of humanity. Hyperbole is often used to emphasize a point, and this verse is employing exaggeration to stress the depth of human corruption at the time.

And by God's grace, Noah was a righteous man. Demonstrating that the prior verse is an exaggeration that isn't actually true (if read "literally").

The contradiction is only resolved by acknowledging hyperbole in the text.

And I gave several other examples of this. I'll just note again, other instances in Genesis. Genesis 41:57, native Americans were not traveling across the Atlantic to get grain from Joseph. The text is hyperbolic.

Genesis 41:56-57 ESV
[56] So when the famine had spread over all the land, Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe in the land of Egypt. [57] Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.

The mountains were revealed by the drying of the earth, yet the Bible also says that the waters covered the face of the whole earth.

You said something about the ground being muddy (which is completely made up), but the point is that, waters were not actually on the face of the whole earth.

Just read it:
Genesis 8:2-9 ESV
[2] The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, (remember the solid dome raqia of ANE cosmology here) [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.

It says " The waters were still on the face of the whole earth"

But in fact, they weren't. It states very clearly that the tops of the mountains were seen and that the raven went to and fro until the waters were dried up.

That's called "hyperbole". It has to be read literarily, because if you read it as a blunt literalist, you end up with bizarre contradiction.

This is common in Genesis and elsewhere throughout the Bible. Where "the whole earth" is plainly just referring to the local region and the text is speaking hyperbolically.

 

[HarleyER]

Of course they were created. In this regard I believe in Theistic Evolution because of the DNA evidence. If we look at Y-chromosomal Aaron or the Cohan gene, this seems to support the Bible in regard to Noah's brother.

The original scientific research was based on the hypothesis that a majority of present-day Jewish Kohanim share a pattern of values for six Y-STR markers, which researchers named the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH).[5] Subsequent research using twelve Y-STR markers indicated that nearly half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim shared Y-chromosomal J1 M267 (specifically haplogroup J-P58, also called J1c3), while other Kohanim share a different ancestry, such as haplogroup J2a (J-M410).[6] The latest studies using single nucleotide polymorphic markers have further narrowed the results down to a single sub-branch known as J1-B877 (also known as J1-Z18271).[3][4]

Jesus said Matthew 19 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

Science tells us that Recombination probably evolved ~ 3 billion years ago as a mechanism of DNA repair; sex evolved ~ 1-2 billion years ago in the early eukaryotes; the reason is unclear but it its likely that it is maintained in the current day by selection.

We know the reason because marriage is a type of Christ and His bride. I was very interested to do a study on WHY God made Adam and Eve male and female. If we look at pond scum or algee we see how male and female first evolved the way the Bible says where the female comes from the side of the male. The single celled organism split into two that we now call male and female or with Humans man and women.

I did the research into theistic evolution in this regard because I wanted to know. I do not think anyone else is interested in doing a study on how Science confirms that the Bible is true in this regard.

Given your definition, do you think women should be silent in the church when men can speak?

1 Corinthians 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

 

[Job 33:6]

Then you say, "Noah's ark is made of papyrus reeds and dried mud (bitumen).Basic gravity wouldn't even allow for a structure of such size to be made out of grass." Of course if the ark were made out of grass and mud, it would be no protection against even a local flood. But God's instructions to Noah began:

“"Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch.” (Ge 6:14 NKJV)

One bible dictionary says concerning gopherwood:

1) cypress?, gopher, gopher wood
1a) wood of which the ark was made
1b) meaning and exact type unknown

Smith's Revised Bible Dictionary has a longer entry:

"Only once in. [{Ge 6:14 }] The Hebrew עצי גפר, trees of Gopher, does not occur in the cognate dialects. The A. V. has made no attempt at translation: the LXX (ξυλατετραγωνα) and Vulgate [(ligna laevigata]) elicited by metathesis of ר and ף ( גפר = גרף), the former having reference to square blocks, cut by the axe, the latter to planks smoothed by the plane, have not found much favour with modern commentators.

The conjectures of [cedar] (Aben Ezra, Onk Jonath. and Rabbins generally), [wood most proper to float] (Kimchi), the Greek κεδρελατη (Jun Tremell.; Buxt.), [pine] (Avenar.; Munst.), [turpentine] (Castalio), are little better than gratuitous. The rendering [cedar] has been defended by Pelletier, who refers to the great abundance of this tree in Asia, and the durability of its timber."

I have looked in other bible dictionaries too, but have not found a single mention of the idea that the ark was made of reeds.

See "The Lost World of the Flood". Dr. Tremper Longman III and Dr. John Walton point out 3 akkadian loan words in Genesis 6:14. Gopher, kopher and qinnim, are derived from the akkadian gupru, kupru, and qinam.

These are the same words used in other flood epochs of the ancient near east, atrahasis and the epic of Gilgamesh. And their meanings are, koper (in Hebrew, this word means "bribes or to bribe") which in akkadian means "bitumen". Qinnim, in Hebrew means "birds nests", however in akkadian it's "stalks" or "reed stalks" as in Psalm 68:30, strongs 7070. And gopher (which in Hebrew isn't a word) is derived from the akkadian gupru, which means, reeds that are woven or are derived from reed huts.

And you'll note that these are also the same materials used to build the ark of baby Moses, who was also freed when the waters of the Nile (much like the waters of Noah's flood) were involved with the delivering of Moses/Noah from the hands of sin.

The story of Noah is repeating the story of the Exodus of Moses.

 

[David Lamb]

It's not out of context.

The phrase "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" is an extreme way of describing the pervasive wickedness of humanity. Hyperbole is often used to emphasize a point, and this verse is employing exaggeration to stress the depth of human corruption at the time.

And by God's grace, Noah was a righteous man. Demonstrating that the prior verse is an exaggeration that isn't actually true (if read "literally").

The contradiction is only resolved by acknowledging hyperbole in the text.

But verse 5 says:

“Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.” (Ge 6:5 NKJV)

The wickedness of man, generally. Then that little word "But":

“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” (Ge 6:8 NKJV).

I don't see that as hyperbole, because of "But".

 

[Job 33:6]

But verse 5 says:

“Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.” (Ge 6:5 NKJV)

The wickedness of man, generally. Then that little word "But":

“But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” (Ge 6:8 NKJV).

I don't see that as hyperbole, because of "But".

The point is that, there was one person, Noah, that was blameless. He had thoughts that were not always evil. Did he not?

Noah would not have received Gods grace, had Noah too has "every intent of the thoughts of his heart" being only evil.

Noah was never that extremely corrupt.

 

[David Lamb]

The point is that, there was one person, Noah, that was blameless. He had thoughts that were not always evil. Did he not?

Yes that is what the bible says, that all mankind was evil, but Noah found grace in God's sight, and he believed and obeyed God. Hyperbole tends to be far greater exaggeration for effect than everybody but one.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes that is what the bible says, that all mankind was evil, but Noah found grace in God's sight, and he believed and obeyed God.

You're missing the statement here. It says "every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually"

Taken literally, that's every, every single thought, every intent, continually.

It's extremely pervasive

But Noah is an exception. Noah has thoughts that are not evil. Hence why God didn't destroy him in the flood. Even if it were just 1% of Noah's thoughts that were not evil.

Noah was, as the text says, blameless and upright.
Genesis 6:9 ESV
[9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes that is what the bible says, that all mankind was evil, but Noah found grace in God's sight, and he believed and obeyed God.

And so, Noah, did not have thoughts and intents that were always evil continually.

Is really all it boils down to.

The verse could say something like, "99% of people were sinful, but Noah was righteous".

But it doesn't say that. It says,
Genesis 6:5 ESV
[5] The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Every intention.
Every thought.
Was *only* evil.
Continually.

This is all encompassing. For all humanity. Including Noah.

It's hyperbole because we know that it's not actually true because literally in the same chapter Noah is described as upright and righteous among his generation.

Yes, it's because he found grace with God, but that's beside the point.

The point is that, it wasn't actually true that every thought or intention of every human being, was evil, all the time.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes that is what the bible says, that all mankind was evil, but Noah found grace in God's sight, and he believed and obeyed God.

Or here, just keep reading:

Genesis 6:9, 11-12 ESV
[9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
[11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. [12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.


Wait a minute, "all flesh"? I thought it just said that Noah was righteous?

That's hyperbole. It's using literary wording to convey an exaggeration.

 

[Job 33:6]

Or here, just keep reading:

Genesis 6:9, 11-12 ESV
[9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
[11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. [12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.


Wait a minute, "all flesh"? I thought it just said that Noah was righteous?

That's hyperbole. It's using literary wording to convey an exaggeration.

Genesis 6:13 ESV
[13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Wait a minute, "all flesh", including Noah? Noah is flesh.

Oh wait, that's hyperbole too. God didn't actually make an end to "all flesh".

Is the Bible lying to us? No. It's hyperbole.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes that is what the bible says, that all mankind was evil, but Noah found grace in God's sight, and he believed and obeyed God. Hyperbole tends to be far greater exaggeration for effect than everybody but one.

I guess we could at least hopefully agree that what we're seeing in the text is a form of literary writing. It's rhetorical. It's exaggerated. It's generalized. It is written to sound all encompassing. However it isn't actually all encompassing.

God declared that He would destroy all flesh. Full stop. But God doesn't actually do that.

Genesis 6:9-13 ESV
[9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. [10] And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. [11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. [12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. [13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

So what we have, consistently throughout the flood narrative is this, rhetorical literary language. It's not actually saying "well, the Eskimos and native Americans and the Chinese whatever dynasty were also corrupt, so I'm going to flood them too".

Right? Like Josephs grain in Genesis 41:57, the text is writing with rhetorical language and it speaks in all encompassing ways, where in reality, we know that there are exceptions.

Native Americans were not gathering their boats to sail to Egypt during the famine. The narrative, thought written in a generalized way, in reality is limited in geographic scope.

And that in part is because, the authors of the original text, they don't even know that the earth is a sphere. When they say "kol eretz", they're not taking about Australia and China and South America etc. they don't even know that such continents or populations of those continents, even exist.

Which is why nobody ever remembers the global famine of Joseph. Because it wasn't actually global, it was regional.

 

[David Lamb]

I guess we could at least hopefully agree that what we're seeing in the text is a form of literary writing. It's rhetorical. It's exaggerated. It's generalized. It is written to sound all encompassing. However it isn't actually all encompassing.

God declared that He would destroy all flesh. Full stop. But God doesn't actually do that.

Genesis 6:9-13 ESV
[9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. [10] And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. [11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. [12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. [13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

So what we have, consistently throughout the flood narrative is this, rhetorical literary language. It's not actually saying "well, the Eskimos and native Americans and the Chinese whatever dynasty were also corrupt, so I'm going to flood them too".

Right? Like Josephs grain in Genesis 41:57, the text is writing with rhetorical language and it speaks in all encompassing ways, where in reality, we know that there are exceptions.

Native Americans were not gathering their boats to sail to Egypt during the famine. The narrative, thought written in a generalized way, in reality is limited in geographic scope.

And that in part is because, the authors of the original text, they don't even know that the earth is a sphere. When they say "kol eretz", they're not taking about Australia and China and South America etc. they don't even know that such continents or populations of those continents, even exist.

Which is why nobody ever remembers the global famine of Joseph. Because it wasn't actually global, it was regional.

Whether the human authors knew of the existence of China, South America, etc. or that the earth is a sphere matters not at all, if God Himself is the ultimate Author. If He's not, then we have no real reason for treating the bible any differently to the Gilgamesh Epic or any other human book. But God Himself said that He would destroy every animal and human not on the ark. Or are you saying that God didn't know about China and the rest?

 

[Job 33:6]

Whether the human authors knew of the existence of China, South America, etc. or that the earth is a sphere matters not at all, if God Himself is the ultimate Author. If He's not, then we have no real reason for treating the bible any differently to the Gilgamesh Epic or any other human book. But God Himself said that He would destroy every animal and human not on the ark. Or are you saying that God didn't know about China and the rest?

God inspired people..however, it is people that are the authors of scripture. The Bible didn't simply fall out of the sky.

Another example, consider numbers 13:33

Numbers 13:33 ESV
[33] And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

The nephelim? Wait a minute, I thought that God destroyed all flesh? What are they still doing here walking around?

The answer? This is rhetorical language describing a global flood. Were the nephelim on the ark? No.

Genesis 6:4 ESV
[4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

 

[The Barbarian]

Based on Paul's statement, it is rather hard to make a case that Adam evolved and then 100 million years later the primorial soup cough up Eve.

My observation is that all of us are created. Some people just don't approve of the way He does it. Apparently, some just make up weird new ideas about how He does it.

 

[The Barbarian]

God inspired people..however, it is people that are the authors of scripture. The Bible didn't simply fall out of the sky.

Another example, consider numbers 13:33

Numbers 13:33 ESV
[33] And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

The nephelim? Wait a minute, I thought that God destroyed all flesh? What are they still doing here walking around?

The answer? This is rhetorical language describing a global flood. We're the nephelim on the ark? No.

Well, that's pretty hard to explain in the context of a worldwide flood. I know! They were stowaways on the Ark! Yes, that's the ticket.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, that's pretty hard to explain in the context of a worldwide flood. I know! They were stowaways on the Ark! Yes, that's the ticket.

Haha. Well I think in Jewish tradition, there was speculation of this possibility. That or writings by rabbis on the possibility that Noah himself was a nephelim or nephelim offspring

 

[Job 33:6]

If He's not, then we have no real reason for treating the bible any differently to the Gilgamesh Epic or any other human book.

I think this is really a key issue. For many Christians today, we would look at these scriptures and say, God can still convey theological truths, without those theological truths needing to be scientifically concordant.

And what that means is that, the original authors of scripture, would not necessarily have to be enlightened with information that they themselves otherwise would not have known in terms of things like geography and science, in order to convey God's truth.

God did not need to teach Moses the spherical shape of the earth before approaching him with inspired truth.

Because the goal of scripture is not to inform people of scientifically accurate concepts.

And a lot of people have trouble with this, they confuse this with the idea of lying. But if I wrote a poem about a beautiful bird, and let's say it's wings stretched to the heavens. There are ways to convey truthful messages and truthful information and ideas that don't necessarily have to be scientific in nature.

The biblical authors, Moses and the Israelites. In particular, they were dealing with pagan deities, worship of idols, they were engrossed various forms of sin.

And God steps in. And is teaching them who the one true God is, the King of Kings. There's a message about our purposes on Earth. And there are many like theological truth embedded in the text. But the text need not describe things that would be scientifically futuristic in a sense.

And also we could consider the fact that the ancient audience would not have even understood futuristic scientific concepts anyway. Even if Moses somehow knew of his spherical Earth and talked about that, we would still end up in a situation where none of the original people that Moses spoke to would have had any idea what he was talking about.

So it's kind of multiplied issue where not only would Moses have had no idea what God was talking about, but also the audience would have had no idea what Moses was talking about.

Where is? Alternatively, if we recognize that the text isn't expressing scientifically concordant truths, but rather it's presenting and expressing theological truths, then we don't have to deal with all these weird contradictions and abnormal situations where Moses is talking about a spherical Earth and nobody knows what he's talking about.

Or we could consider the question of how it is that if Moses didn't know that the Earth was a sphere, how would he have written about it? It would somehow involve Moses. Maybe passing out unconscious, with his hand magically writing on its own without his control, and then he wakes up and looks over at the text that's fully written.

And that's actually how the religion of Islam presents its origins of scripture, the prophet Muhammad can't read or write, but a spirit takes control of him and he writes anyway.

But Christianity is different, the Bible itself is not on the level of perfection as Jesus Christ. The Bible itself is the inspired word of God, it is written by inspired people, But in itself is not written by God directly.

And this is what the whole science and Faith conflict boils down to, people have a lot of trouble with this idea that God can convey truths without it needing to be scientific in nature.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think this is really a key issue. For many Christians today, we would look at these scriptures and say, God can still convey theological truths, without those theological truths needing to be scientifically concordant.

And what that means is that, the original authors of scripture, would not necessarily have to be enlightened with information that they themselves otherwise would not have known in terms of things like geography and science, in order to convey God's truth.

God did not need to teach Moses the spherical shape of the earth before approaching him with inspired truth.

Because the goal of scripture is not to inform people of scientifically accurate concepts.

And a lot of people have trouble with this, they confuse this with the idea of lying. But if I wrote a poem about a beautiful bird, and let's say it's wings stretched to the heavens. There are ways to convey truthful messages and truthful information and ideas that don't necessarily have to be scientific in nature.

The biblical authors, Moses and the Israelites. In particular, they were dealing with pagan deities, worship of idols, they were engrossed various forms of sin.

And God steps in. And is teaching them who the one true God is, the King of Kings. There's a message about our purposes on Earth. And there are many like theological truth embedded in the text. But the text need not describe things that would be scientifically futuristic in a sense.

And also we could consider the fact that the ancient audience would not have even understood futuristic scientific concepts anyway. Even if Moses somehow knew of his spherical Earth and talked about that, we would still end up in a situation where none of the original people that Moses spoke to would have had any idea what he was talking about.

So it's kind of multiplied issue where not only would Moses have had no idea what God was talking about, but also the audience would have had no idea what Moses was talking about.

Where is? Alternatively, if we recognize that the text isn't expressing scientifically concordant truths, but rather it's presenting and expressing theological truths, then we don't have to deal with all these weird contradictions and abnormal situations where Moses is talking about a spherical Earth and nobody knows what he's talking about.

Or we could consider the question of how it is that if Moses didn't know that the Earth was a sphere, how would he have written about it? It would somehow involve Moses. Maybe passing out unconscious, with his hand magically writing on its own without his control, and then he wakes up and looks over at the text that's fully written.

And that's actually how the religion of Islam presents its origins of scripture, the prophet Muhammad can't read or write, but a spirit takes control of him and he writes anyway.

But Christianity is different, the Bible itself is not on the level of perfection as Jesus Christ. The Bible itself is the inspired word of God, it is written by inspired people, But in itself is not written by God directly.

And this is what the whole science and Faith conflict boils down to, people have a lot of trouble with this idea that God can convey truths without it needing to be scientific in nature.

And here's a good lecture that I found on the topic that I appreciate:

And this one:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[HarleyER]

Well, that's pretty hard to explain in the context of a worldwide flood. I know! They were stowaways on the Ark! Yes, that's the ticket.

Undoubtedly that's where mosquitos and ticks came from.

 

[The Barbarian]

Undoubtedly that's where mosquitos and ticks came from.

Mosquitos and ticks are more easily hidden than nephelim. How do you think they managed to hide on the ark?