Flood Conundrum

[Calminian]

Eventually, what it came down to is the fact that if there was a flood within the past 5000 years or so that there'd be some proof of that in many different areas of study. The simple fact is, there isn't, and multiple fields of study have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there wasn't. Not in genetics, linguistics, or any number of other fields of study.

This is one of the reasons I doubt science is the right tool for discerning actual history. We have countless flood legends around the world, from every continent. They all have very similar elements, but a global flood and a dispersion of people afterward seem to be common in just about all of them. Why would these pop up all over the world, if this event never happened?

Science is a great tool, but the methodology itself isn't perfect and its practitioners are even less perfect. Bias does come into play, as much as we would like to believe it doesn't. And I do dare say, scientists can be some of the poorest thinkers on the planet once they stray from their fields of expertise. Origins is much more than just a science. It is a deep philosophical question involving reasoning about world views, such as theism vs. deism, something science can never help us answer.

The biggest problem I have, being a history major, is the efforts by YEC's to rewrite earth's history by saying all the civilizations of the past arose after 2348 BC or so, at least those who hold to Ussher's flawed chronology.

Even apart from Ussher's calculations, all biblical chronologies would lead to a relatively young earth. Even if you accept the discrepancies in the septuagint and apply numerous other methods you're still well under 10000 years, but frankly, I don't see the need for a few thousand extra years, nor do I think the genealogies in the bible allow for it.

The book of Jasher is very interesting. It's an ancient book that confirms the genealogies of the hebrew text over the septuagint. Then of course historian Josephus also corroborates the historicity of the book of Genesis from sources he had access to.

Bill Cooper wrote an interesting book "After the Flood" in which he makes a very compelling case linking England to Japheth.

But regardless I do believe we all come from Noah and from his 3 sons. I do believe the table of nations is an accurate compilation of the early postdiluvian families.

Also how do you explain the pyramids? Aliens? These were amazing engineering feats that don't seem to fit within the evolution model. But biblically they are quite easy to understand. Egypt was the grandson of Noah through Ham, and would have had access to very advanced engineering technology that he could have passed on to his descendants. Just look what his grandfather built.

In fact, all the ancients all over the world seem to have possessed some very advanced technology. The more I look into it, the harder it is for me to doubt biblical history.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Bill Cooper wrote an interesting book "After the Flood" in which he makes a very compelling case linking England to Japheth.

i've got 'after the flood'. i might read it again, as it's a very good book. it took the author 20 years to research.
Where did the Indians come from? I mean the dravidians, not the northern people, who are from Japheth, so they say.

I'm reading a book by Hugh Ross, about Job. He thinks that the flood was not global, but only iraq, persia and arabia. He dosn't provide any evidence for that view.
I was looking at coal distribution around the world, as it might be a clue to the extent of the flood. South America and Africa don't have much coal deposits. Australia has some. Either that or it's another earlier flood, that is the cause of the coal deposits.

 

[Calminian]

i've got 'after the flood'. i might read it again, as it's a very good book. it took the author 20 years to research.
Where did the Indians come from? I mean the dravidians, not the northern people, who are from Japheth, so they say.

I'm reading a book by Hugh Ross, about Job. He thinks that the flood was not global, but only iraq, persia and arabia. He dosn't provide any evidence for that view.
I was looking at coal distribution around the world, as it might be a clue to the extent of the flood. South America and Africa don't have much coal deposits. Australia has some. Either that or it's another earlier flood, that is the cause of the coal deposits.

You may be better equipped to answer that specifically, but here are some general thoughts that may assist.

I would think the dravidians are a mixture of Shem and Ham, from what I've read. Those two lines mingled quite a bit in early history. I think we need to understand, that none of these lines remained pure. In fact, it's very likely, I would think, that the 16 grandsons of Noah mentioned in the table of nations may have all married their cousins, rather than sisters. Abraham took at least two concubines. Hagar was hamitic and I think it's likely Keturah was also.

And I'm not even sure the 16 mentioned grandsons of Noah are exhaustive. I mean Shem lived 500 years after the flood, outliving Abraham. I think there's some compelling evidence that he was Melchizedek (rightful or legitimate king) whom Abram paid tithes to. And as a king, he would have had many sons throughout the ages.

Either way, he and other early postdiluvian descendants lived longer lives than their descendants and often out lived them down to several generations. In fact, that is likely the basis for many of the mythological stories we have today about immortals who looked just like men. Just look at the greek gods. Very muscular, and they seemingly never died. This is what many of the early descendants of Noah would have experienced. I'm sure Shem and Eber and perhaps even Egypt (Misriam) and Ethiopia (Cush) outlived many countless descendants and maintained a very superior physical appearance. What affects would this have had on people and their beliefs? Could they have been worshipped?

I don't know if any of those thoughts help, but throwing them out there.

 

[Assyrian]

yes. but it's no doubt been debunked by evolutionists. I watched an entire lecture on the site last night on Youtube, by a YEC (with a PhD). He said that this hardcore, prized humanist, went so far as to go out to the river bed with an iron pole, trying to smash up the evidence, but they had taken casts etc. beforehand.

Here is the response from Glen Kuban the man accused of this act of vandalism.
Rebuttal to Unfounded Rumor That Glen Kuban Destroyed a Track
It might also be worth doing an internet search on your youtube lecturer's Ph.D.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Here is the response from Glen Kuban the man accused of this act of vandalism.
Rebuttal to Unfounded Rumor That Glen Kuban Destroyed a Track
It might also be worth doing an internet search on your youtube lecturer's Ph.D.

it seems like there might be a lot of quacks posing as doctors.

Dr Grady Mc Murtry has... Master’s in Environmental Sciences, General Sciences and Forestry, and got his PhD in religion, not science.
You get the impression that these 'Dr's are experts in astronomy, geology, religion and everything else.

 

[SkyWriting]

....But I can’t figure it out. There are different types of bat, specialized in hunting insects, or blossom bats which have a special snout and tongue, designed to sip nectar from flowers. How could Noah and crew feed these bats, even if they did hibernate?

Being completely dark, many animals naturally hibernate.
That means no eating. And God Himself brought
the animals to the Ark so that means no biting, or fighting
among the kids in the back seat. Because God Himself
brought the animals to the Ark, they would all sleep when
He tells them to sleep.

There is a pattern of God solving such problems.
(Greek man, manna; Latin man, manna). The food miraculously
sent to the Israelites during their forty years sojourn in
the desert (Exodus 16; Numbers 11:6-9)

 

[Assyrian]

Bats sleep in the dark?

 

[SkyWriting]

Bats sleep in the dark?

With God, all things are possible. Even that.

 

[SkyWriting]

.....Even apart from Ussher's calculations, all biblical chronologies would lead to a relatively young earth.....

But there are a multitude of descriptions and a 100's of conversations in scripture about the earth or the world and none of them even hint that the earth or the cosmos is "young". Not the Pope nor his cohorts can add anything of much value to God's word. Even the Garden had no young-ness to it. So Ussher was mistaken. He was too into details to read the big picture.

Never in my life have I had the urge to follow a lineage backwards, guesstimate how long each generation lived, and use my guesses to determine when some event happened. If God wanted us to know how many years ago some event happened, he would have put time-stamps in scripture with alignments of the planets and stars. Even today pundits sweat at finding some bright lights in the sky to pin down the birth of Jesus. Waste of time.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I would think the dravidians are a mixture of Shem and Ham...

They stem, mainly, from Abraham and Keturah. Keturah was a Canaanite woman, as the Book of Jasher states. Canaan was a son of Ham, but a brother of Mitsraim/Egypt. The Mitsraim branch ended up with the really isolated genes for the kinky black hair -as some tribes of Japheth ended up with the genes for really kinky red hair, but the Canaanites intermarried with the Shemites all along. The sons of Jacob took many Canaanite wives, as the book of Jasher notes, and in Egypt, they took Egyptian wives, also, as well as intermarrying when the numbers increased form the original 70 that went into Egypt. Joseph took an Egyptian wife.

Only after the division at Bab-El did the tribes begin to separate and genetic information got more isolated. It was not like that before the Tower affair.

Abraham sent his six sons by Keturah "to the east", and remember, in the Book of Jasher, the Tower of Babel happened when Abraham was 49 years old, and so the tribes began to scatter by tongue, at that time, and also the earth began to be divided -continents from continent- at that time; as Jasher also states in that the sons of Eber, Peleg and Yoktan made note of those facts by their names, and genetic information was more and more isolated, as they divided and scattered...

Anyway, since you mentioned Jasher, thought I'd throw in what it says about Keturah, and the settling of the sons of Abraham "to the east" with them being the ancestors of the Dravidians, and intermixed, there, and then later separating more from the Shemites who were intermarried with the Medes, descended form Japheth, and who came to be called the "Aryans"...they were all related.
But the Tower affair was not so long after the flood, and the scattering of the tribes began after the Tower, and what is now India was not so populated in the time of Abraham's sending his sons "to the east".
Also, sons of Canaan were ancestors of the Sinites/ Chinese, and also intermarried with the other tribes until they were more and more isolated genetically.

Also, FYI, Keturah was Abraham's third wife. The Hebrew is "Ishyah" and Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah were all "ishyahs/wives" to Abraham. I do not know why the translators do not translate that word properly, probably biased. Anyway, Abraham divorced Hagar.
And in the Book of Jasher, Hagar was daughter of Pharaoh, who gave her to Sarah and told her Abraham was a great prophet, and she would have a good life with them. -That is also in Jasher.

 

[Assyrian]

With God, all things are possible. Even that.

It is interesting how you wanted to propose a naturalistic answer to the feeding problem but end up having to resort back to miracles. In fact the bible does say the answer is a natural one. Gen 6:21 Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them. Maybe there simply weren't any blossom bats in the region that was flooded.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is interesting how you wanted to propose a naturalistic answer to the feeding problem but end up having to resort back to miracles. In fact the bible does say the answer is a natural one. Gen 6:21 Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them. Maybe there simply weren't any blossom bats in the region that was flooded.

I didn't realize a Bat sleeping in the dark required divine intervention. The ones I've seen had no problem in barns.

The Bible is fascinating, indeed. Only one Kind of Bat was needed. Not two of every "species", however you may choose to define it.
"A list of 26 Species “Concepts”"

There is nothing wrong with mixing and matching. Noah built the Ark, but God brought the animals, closed the door, and caused the rain. God could have accomplished the same end while all were sleeping without any rain. But it seems our reality is tied into the spirit world, and theological truth needs to be carried out on a physical plane of existence. You'd think that God could forgive us without His only Son dying on the Cross for our Sins. But clearly that is not the case.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

It is interesting how you wanted to propose a naturalistic answer to the feeding problem but end up having to resort back to miracles. In fact the bible does say the answer is a natural one. Gen 6:21 Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them. Maybe there simply weren't any blossom bats in the region that was flooded.

I'm working on a theory for the flood, based on coal deposits; that not all the globe was submerged (despite what it says in genesis). I can't see how insectivorous bats, and blossom bats could have been fed. How are the crew of the ark going to feed them live insects or sugar water? Dosn't seem likely to me.
Also, there are fossil marsupils unearthed in Australia, types extinct now. For me that means that marsupils evolved later in Australia (which i don't believe) or some marsupils survived in Western Australia or Papua.

 

[Aman777]

His:>>I'm working on a theory for the flood, based on coal deposits; that not all the globe was submerged (despite what it says in genesis).

Dear His, Our planet has NEVER suffered a Global flood, but the first world was totally destroyed by a flood. Genesis is absolutely correct, but the traditional view is wrong, and cannot be supported by Scripture. I have posted this before but everyone seems to be ignoring me because it goes against their religion.

In Love,
Aman

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

His:>>I'm working on a theory for the flood, based on coal deposits; that not all the globe was submerged (despite what it says in genesis).

Dear His, Our planet has NEVER suffered a Global flood, but the first world was totally destroyed by a flood. Genesis is absolutely correct, but the traditional view is wrong, and cannot be supported by Scripture. I have posted this before but everyone seems to be ignoring me because it goes against their religion.

In Love,
Aman

It's because I don't understand your theory. Where does your theory fit in with the genesis account of Noah's flood?

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Dear His, Our planet has NEVER suffered a Global flood, but the first world was totally destroyed by a flood. Genesis is absolutely correct, but the traditional view is wrong, and cannot be supported by Scripture. I have posted this before but everyone seems to be ignoring me because it goes against their religion.

His:>>It's because I don't understand your theory. Where does your theory fit in with the genesis account of Noah's flood?

Dear His, My view is totally supported by Scripture but the traditional view is not. Noah came from the first earth which was "clean dissolved" in the flood. He came to our earth and his grandsons married and produced children with the people who were already here when he arrived. Human civilization, on this planet, can be traced to Mesopotamia where Noah arrived and humans were scattered over the face of the whole earth from Babel, which was the FIRST human city on this planet and it was built by Noah's great grandson, Nimrod.

My view agrees with scripture, science, and history, while the traditional view does not agree with either. People have accepted the mistaken view of ancient man by FAITH, but the Scriptural view does not have to be accepted by faith, since it agrees in every way with every other discovered Truth.

The only thing in Scripture which MUST be accepted by Faith is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is His death, burial and resurrection, according to the Scriptures. Everything else is supported by empirical facts, IF you have the proper interpretation.

In Love,
Aman

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Aman:>>Dear His, Our planet has NEVER suffered a Global flood, but the first world was totally destroyed by a flood. Genesis is absolutely correct, but the traditional view is wrong, and cannot be supported by Scripture. I have posted this before but everyone seems to be ignoring me because it goes against their religion.

His:>>It's because I don't understand your theory. Where does your theory fit in with the genesis account of Noah's flood?

Dear His, My view is totally supported by Scripture but the traditional view is not. Noah came from the first earth which was "clean dissolved" in the flood. He came to our earth and his grandsons married and produced children with the people who were already here when he arrived. Human civilization, on this planet, can be traced to Mesopotamia where Noah arrived and humans were scattered over the face of the whole earth from Babel, which was the FIRST human city on this planet and it was built by Noah's great grandson, Nimrod.

My view agrees with scripture, science, and history, while the traditional view does not agree with either. People have accepted the mistaken view of ancient man by FAITH, but the Scriptural view does not have to be accepted by faith, since it agrees in every way with every other discovered Truth.

The only thing in Scripture which MUST be accepted by Faith is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is His death, burial and resurrection, according to the Scriptures. Everything else is supported by empirical facts, IF you have the proper interpretation.

In Love,
Aman

what you mean that noah came from another planet? it is said that nimrod built ninevah, and other places in assyria.
i posted some of my 'heretical thoughts' on another thread, about Babel and other things which i am trying to work out.

 

[Aman777]

His:>>what you mean that noah came from another planet?

Dear His, No. The first world was in the water and out of the water, but it was within the water of our earth. IOW, the firmament was in Lake Van, in the mountains of Ararat. It had to be since Noah was above the highest mountains of the first world...AND....resting upon the mountains of Ararat on the SAME 150th Day after the Flood began. Genesis 7 and 8

His:>>it is said that nimrod built ninevah, and other places in assyria.

Including Babel. Gen 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and

His:>>i posted some of my 'heretical thoughts' on another thread, about Babel and other things which i am trying to work out.

I hope this helps.

In Love,
Aman

 

[SkyWriting]

I can't see how insectivorous bats, and blossom bats could have been fed. How are the crew of the ark going to feed them live insects or sugar water?

God already brought them to the Ark Himself without them eating each other. Many animals still show a tendency to hibernate in the dark. This may have come from the influence God had on them as they hibernated on the Ark. So they would need little if any food for the journey. Plus the Ark did not hold one of each species. Only one of each Kind of creepy land animal and bird. And we have no list.

If your going to invent theories, (like my hibernation theory) invent ones that match the scriptures. It's way easier and requires much less imagination.

 

[SkyWriting]

....but the Scriptural view does not have to be accepted by faith, since it agrees in every way with every other discovered Truth.

Survival of the fittest is not taught by Jesus.
He taught survival of the meekest.

So you are wrong.

DNA is designed to correct all mutations and errors.
Science theory claims that mutations are good.

So you are wrong again. Mutant theory is not scriptural.