Evolution 101 podcast

[Kylie]

OR if it is an interpretive narrative, aka. a mythology.

Well, yeah.

 

[Erik Nelson]

OR if it is an interpretive narrative, aka. a mythology.

well, just to say it once, "OR if those verses of the Bible were exaggerations"

According to scholar Richard Elliott Friedman, those most phenomenal descriptions all come from the Priestly P strand of the Bible, written by Jerusalem temple priests ("team Aaron") in about 700 BC, under king Hezekiah, as a response and rebuttal to the JE strand of the Levites ("team Moses") (whose ranks included Isaiah and Jeremiah and many refugees from fallen Israel)

At one point, 50-100 years later, under king Josiah, who favored the Levite party, Jeremiah quotes P and calls it "the lying pen of the scribes"

the JE accounts of the Flood, Exodus crossing, etc. are much less exaggerated than the more bombastic P versions (which show no signs of any prior oral transmission, e.g. alliteration & punning, but were apparently written de novo)

so I understand Dr. Friedman's arguments

(Temple Priestly P also gives us the "fixed earth on pillars" picture, whereas all the quotes consistent with a globular earth come from the Mosaic Levitic JED strand)

 

[Erik Nelson]

Two things jump out at me here...

Firstly, the end point that is marked by the arrow on the map has an elevation of at least a kilometer according to this map. If the water level was one kilometer, wouldn't the flooding have covered a whole lot more area?

Secondly, a localised flood is entirely at odds with what is written in the Bible. The Bible clearly states, "6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." God wanted to wipe out ALL life on Earth except for Noah. Humanity had spread beyond the area shown in your map, so if God wanted to wipe out all the people, this flood wasn't going to do it. And if it was a local flood, why not simply tell Noah to get out of there for a little while? According to Answers In Genesis, Noah had 55-75 years to build the ark. Surely he could have walked out of the flood area in that time! And why the need to gather all the animals? If the flood was a localised one, then there was little risk of extinction. Cattle would have survived, as would most other species, since they were not confined to that single area of land.

In short, claiming the flood was local means a lot of what God did - instructing Noah to build the ark, gathering all the animals, etc - simply makes no sense. The Biblical story ONLY makes sense if it was indeed a truly global flood - and there is no evidence to support that, and plenty of evidence against it. Your 90% accurate claim seems very difficult to justify.

my best current guess is that is an exaggeration -- I favor the interpretation of "isolated hillock" over any of the "far northern Ararat like mountains" interpretations

still, do recall, that Sumer was a Cradle of Human Civilization... the population density therein was much higher than in the surrounding rural areas... most of the population of the ME was plausibly affected

like today, if global sea level rises a few meters, 90% of humanity will be affected

so I guess that's what I mean by "90%" -- some ultra-devastating flood which affected the vast majority of people in the region

Conversely, say, like the Chinese & Indians, would remember such a flood if they had also been affected? Evidently those Cradles of Human Civilization were not directly affected... neither was Egypt for that matter

I'm currently arguing in favor of a regional, Sumerian Iraqi only flood

According to the Sumerian Iraqis themselves... "Utnapishtim" built the barge in a week

He laid down a square base of wood over his farm field and constructed a squarish, cubical-ish "preserver of life" (cp. New Jerusalem in Rev 21-22?) enclosed vessel

So, if it was raining for weeks on end, Monsoon like, and he saw the rivers rising & rising... eventually he gets it in his head (one way or another) to slap together a barge, loads his family, friends, valuables, estate aboard... in the nick of time... to float off adrift on a flood-zone nearly as large as the Persian Gulf... he's at sea for nearly two weeks before the waters subside... he runs aground atop a local isolated hillock...

more plausible picture?

 

[Kylie]

my best current guess is that is an exaggeration -- I favor the interpretation of "isolated hillock" over any of the "far northern Ararat like mountains" interpretations

still, do recall, that Sumer was a Cradle of Human Civilization... the population density therein was much higher than in the surrounding rural areas... most of the population of the ME was plausibly affected

like today, if global sea level rises a few meters, 90% of humanity will be affected

Actually, this interactive map shows that even a rise of 10 feet will not affect the majority of the US. Sea Level Rise Viewer

In any case, the map of the Fertile Crescent on THIS page shows that much of it is at an elevation of more than 100 meters. Not that much, true, but there would need to be a sustained flood of a massive size to cover land of that elevation. Can you produce any real-world evidence to show that a flood of that size ever occured?

so I guess that's what I mean by "90%" -- some ultra-devastating flood which affected the vast majority of people in the region

And it would render much in the Biblical story unwarranted, so I don't see how you can claim it is 90% accurate. Seems to me that your logic is the same thing as saying Star Trek: The Next Generation and Red Dwarf are the same basic show, because they both have a spaceship with a talking computer and an android.

Conversely, say, like the Chinese & Indians, would remember such a flood if they had also been affected? Evidently those Cradles of Human Civilization were not directly affected... neither was Egypt for that matter

So a flood massive enough to flood land at an elevation of 100 meters above sea level, yet it doesn't affect Egypt?

I'm currently arguing in favor of a regional, Sumerian Iraqi only flood

The argument for a local flood does not mesh with the Biblical account of God deciding he wants to wipe out all the people and start over.

According to the Sumerian Iraqis themselves... "Utnapishtim" built the barge in a week

He laid down a square base of wood over his farm field and constructed a squarish, cubical-ish "preserver of life" (cp. New Jerusalem in Rev 21-22?) enclosed vessel

So, if it was raining for weeks on end, Monsoon like, and he saw the rivers rising & rising... eventually he gets it in his head (one way or another) to slap together a barge, loads his family, friends, valuables, estate aboard... in the nick of time... to float off adrift on a flood-zone nearly as large as the Persian Gulf... he's at sea for nearly two weeks before the waters subside... he runs aground atop a local isolated hillock...

more plausible picture?

Not really.

A local flood doesn't match the story described in the Bible of God wanting to wipe everything out and start again. And it is impossible to build any sort of reliable vessel in a week capable of supporting many people and all the animals that Noah is claimed to have taken and have it survive for the length of time the Bible claims.

So, to make the story plausible, you've had to ignore God's stated motivation, reduce the claimed extent of the flood, change the locations stated in the Bible, and you still claim it is 90% accurate?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Actually, this interactive map shows that even a rise of 10 feet will not affect the majority of the US. Sea Level Rise Viewer

In any case, the map of the Fertile Crescent on THIS page shows that much of it is at an elevation of more than 100 meters. Not that much, true, but there would need to be a sustained flood of a massive size to cover land of that elevation. Can you produce any real-world evidence to show that a flood of that size ever occured?



And it would render much in the Biblical story unwarranted, so I don't see how you can claim it is 90% accurate. Seems to me that your logic is the same thing as saying Star Trek: The Next Generation and Red Dwarf are the same basic show, because they both have a spaceship with a talking computer and an android.



So a flood massive enough to flood land at an elevation of 100 meters above sea level, yet it doesn't affect Egypt?



The argument for a local flood does not mesh with the Biblical account of God deciding he wants to wipe out all the people and start over.



Not really.

A local flood doesn't match the story described in the Bible of God wanting to wipe everything out and start again. And it is impossible to build any sort of reliable vessel in a week capable of supporting many people and all the animals that Noah is claimed to have taken and have it survive for the length of time the Bible claims.

So, to make the story plausible, you've had to ignore God's stated motivation, reduce the claimed extent of the flood, change the locations stated in the Bible, and you still claim it is 90% accurate?

you're assuming standing water

flood water is draining downhill but it's backed up, it does slope with the terrain

still, I haven't gotten very far into the list and already...

Despite the countermeasure efforts to open the important floodgates to control the rising water level by diverting it, the flood level continued to rise until it hits the historic high of a staggering 44.67 m in Jingzhou, Hubei and 29.73 m in Wuhan.

15 Biggest and Worst Floods Ever in History - RankRed​

 

[Kylie]

you're assuming standing water

flood water is draining downhill but it's backed up, it does slope with the terrain

still, I haven't gotten very far into the list and already...

Despite the countermeasure efforts to open the important floodgates to control the rising water level by diverting it, the flood level continued to rise until it hits the historic high of a staggering 44.67 m in Jingzhou, Hubei and 29.73 m in Wuhan.

15 Biggest and Worst Floods Ever in History - RankRed​

So the water started up high, then flowed down hill.

And you are suggesting that the ark started downhill, then went against the flow of water, despite not having any method of propulsion whatsoever, and went uphill somehow?

Now, how do you propose that happened?

Because I've brought this up several times and you've never mentioned any kind of solution.

Oh, and your example was in a river valley, so it was contained in a way that your proposed flood was not.

 

[Erik Nelson]

So the water started up high, then flowed down hill.

And you are suggesting that the ark started downhill, then went against the flow of water, despite not having any method of propulsion whatsoever, and went uphill somehow?

Now, how do you propose that happened?

Because I've brought this up several times and you've never mentioned any kind of solution.

Oh, and your example was in a river valley, so it was contained in a way that your proposed flood was not.

I would expect the current to carry things out to sea, eventually, as all the ancient accounts record

but at first the water backs up, and pushes out towards the sides...

if it wasn't a tsunami, then as I said, I prefer the alternative translation of "isolated hill"

I don't think he was pushed uphill but laterally towards the walls of the river valley

Perpendicular to the rivers (although as I also said wind is a powerful factor also)

NE or SW

all the accounts agree on NW, NE, on north

so I would guess on second thought maybe NE towards the Zagros mountains say somewhere around the edge of the bulge under the letters AGR in the following figure

 

[Kylie]

I would expect the current to carry things out to sea, eventually, as all the ancient accounts record

but at first the water backs up, and pushes out towards the sides...

if it wasn't a tsunami, then as I said, I prefer the alternative translation of "isolated hill"

I don't think he was pushed uphill but laterally towards the walls of the river valley

Perpendicular to the rivers (although as I also said wind is a powerful factor also)

NE or SW

all the accounts agree on NW, NE, on north

so I would guess on second thought maybe NE towards the Zagros mountains say somewhere around the edge of the bulge under the letters AGR in the following figure

You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying.

If you have a barge at the bottom of a hill, and a bunch of water comes from further up the hill and is flowing downwards, there is literally no way the barge is going to go uphill against the flow of the water.