Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
hundred year storm?I suspect multiple significant but not catastrophic floods of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are the historical origin for the Genesis and Gilgamesh narratives.
A hundred year storm could all but annihilate a bronze age culture if they were unlucky.
Then I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. What are these mental gymnastics for?
Why not learn something about the geological history of the Med instead of dreaming up a personal theory?
Robert Ballard
I am content with a universe which does not need an atheistic world view to explain everything in it. If this were, say, RationalWiki, that would be a different ball game, but remember that this is Christianforums and while the mods and admins here do allow people with a purely naturalistic worldview in some of the subforums, that’s not the worldview this site promotes.
We will have to agree to disagree here. My worldview and my philosophy is willing to accept a form of “last Thursdayism”, where “last Thursday” could be 100,000 years ago.
Whether it was the Black Sea deluge or if the Mediterranean Sea within human history is a pedantic difference—it doesn’t change the general nature of the story—but I have dutifully noted that it’s more feasible for the Black Sea to have flooded during human history. I’ve also fixed the Wikipedia article on the Black Sea deluge theory, since for some reason Robert Ballard’s expeditions in to the Black Sea were deleted from the article.
There isn’t broad consensus about whether the Black Sea flooded relatively recently (i.e. within human oral history), so it’s a “theory” in the sense it’s one plausible explanation of what happened. It could also have been, as pointed out by Shemjaza, a flood in the fertile crescent.
The argument used by Flavius Josephus is that the flood happened because it was a common element in many myths that existed, so there is very likely something which happened to cause the stories to spread among ancient humans.
My personal theory is that the Strait of Gibraltar broke in ancient times, and the Mediterranean Sea went from being farmland to being flooded, causing the flood story become part of ancient people’s oral history, one form of which became the Noah Story.
" More feasible"? Did you see when the Med refilled?
It was like quite a while ago.
As in, " why don't you learn a little before concocting
a specious theory's?
It's not a matter of pedantry to mention you put
zero thought or info into your " theory". It seems rather to
the point of how it reflects on other notions you may express.
Yes, it is a matter of pedantry, and yes I put some real thought in to the theory. Well, more like, I read about the Black Sea stuff and talked to a friend about it two decades ago, saw the remains at the bottom of the Black Sea, and decided it was plausible. I then heard years later from a friend it might had been the Mediterranean sea instead so put some weight in to the idea.
Do you or do you not agree it’s feasible for the flooding to have happened in the Black Sea, and for there to have been human settlements when it happened? To accuse me of putting no thought in to my reply because I said “Mediterranean sea” instead of “Black sea” when
a) It’s a plausible theory
b) There are, in fact, plausible theories that the Straight of Gibraltar has broken open, albeit before human history
is not going to lead to a productive conversation.
So, you don't believe the flood of Noah was a global one that covered "all the high mountains under the entire heavens" (Gn 7:19).
The theory you claimed and I referred to was
about the Mediterranean.
Grab goal posts and run.
The phrase generally means the kind of storm that happens only once in one hundred years. I've recently read some headlines about the flooding in Kentucky referring to a 1000 yr storm.hundred year storm?
Ah. Tnx.The phrase generally means the kind of storm that happens only once in one hundred years. I've recently read some headlines about the flooding in Kentucky referring to a 1000 yr storm.
That would be why you offered an absurd " theory" aboutYou have not made a single comment about the topic of this thread, which is the supposed repopulation after Noah’s family of eight people left the ark. Moving goal posts indeed.
The problem here is that you are saying "let's ignore what we already know about the time frames and physical impossibility of a global flood and also the impossibility of 8 people repopulating the world because of the lack of genetic diversity. Let's also ignore the lack of a planet wide genetic bottleneck in the post Noachian era. Then lets say that humans are reproducing perfectly at a rate that would outstrip the communities resources (and DO NOT DIE) and any inconsistencies are hand waved away with 'Goddidit'. Anyone who points out the errors in this are simply being pedantic".You have not made a single comment about the topic of this thread, which is the supposed repopulation after Noah’s family of eight people left the ark.
To believe the literal worldwide flood requires repopulating the entire world with only 8 people starting around 3000 BCE.
When God told Noah and his sons to replenish the earth, notice He blesses them with "fruitfulness" and "multiplicity."Agreed. However, that leads to my question. See, if you don't believe the flood of Noah was global in scale—and it seems that you do not—then there is no need to figure out how to repopulate the world starting with only eight people roughly 4,000 years ago. That is, you're proposing a solution in search of a problem.
And notice there were eight people after the Flood?
Good point.It follows that there were eight people in all the world only if the scale of the flood was global, and @samiam appears to believe otherwise. With a flood the scale of which was regional, there would be no need to repopulate the entire planet but rather just the affected region, perhaps the Levant or even the Fertile Crescent. In short, you wouldn't need to calculate how to get a population of 20 million people, as those living everywhere else on Earth would have carried on with their lives unaffected.
In short, you wouldn't need to calculate how to get a population of 20 million people
they would have made Nadya Suleman blush with envy
Anyone who points out the errors in this are simply being pedantic
No doubt you're familiar with the story of how God orchestrated Jacob's ringstraked, speckled, and spotted cattle into a formidable herd?Actually, my model only has a 5% chance that a given birth will be twins. That’s higher than the 0.94% (1980) or 1.67% (2009) chance of having twins, but consistent with the number of births which are twin births among the Yoruba people (4.5-5%). There is also a 0.05% chance a given birth will be triplets in the model.
Well, just because I don’t believe there’s a time traveler from Gallifrey who travels around in a spaceship which looks like a mid-20th-century blue British phone booth doesn’t mean I’m not interested in having some solution to the UNIT dating inconsistencies those stories have. There’s value in coming up with a “headcanon” which resolves the inconsistencies of a story, whether or not the story is fiction.
One thing I have learned as I grow older is that it’s really bad manners to mock or disrespect someone for believing something 40% of the people in the United States believe. It’s taken me a long time to accept that this number has been pretty consistent for four decades, and that Young Earth Creationists deserve my full respect, even if I don’t have those beliefs. They have my respect to the point I will, for a Bible study, come up with an entire “OK, supposing we have only eight people in the entire world in 3,000 BCE, how does the world get populated again?” thought experiment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?