Flood, literal or not?

[pyro214]

Athiests like to try prove the Bible wrong by saying the world does not contain any evidence of a flood ever taking place. This is not what this thread is for, but more or less the discusion of if we should even spend are time arguing against that. Is Noahs Flood a literal happening, or a mere parable that was written to teach us a lesson?


As much as id like to be able to take this non-literaly, i feel the need to argue against this to reasure myself that this is the case:

First off id like to point out how odd it is that the Bible goes into such depth about how the story takes place. Im refering to measurements of the size of the boat, type of wood used, location. Why would the Bible go into such depth about a parable? It is true that this could all just be taken in context of the story, but why? This "why" is what makes us think that the story should be taken for more then just a parable...is this true?

Noah is a real person, outside the context of the story we are told about his family. I dont want to make this to long or no one will take the time to read it, heres one verse today that i read....it got me thinking about the topic:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes batpism that now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who was gone into heaven and is at God's right hand - with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

The bolded part shows us that the story is a chronological happening. "In the days of Noah", shows a real life time period that took place. "God waited....while the ark was being built", the fact that God was waiting for somthing suggests it was not a story...but a real life happening. The Bible also explains the location on Earth where the Ark was placed, its on a mountain in Turkey (probly under a glacier).

Comments?

 

[aerophagicbricolage]

It never happened. A flood of that size would have caused an extinction of everything, not only land animals. Every fish in the sea would die completely, not to mention every single plant on the planet. The world would be a barren, lifeless swamp if the flood occured, and no amount of animal that he took aboard the ark could have repopulated the earth after such a total ecological breakdown.

Interpret it non-literally. There is no way it could possibly have occurred.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Flood, literal or not?

I vote not. Now, let's continue:

Athiests like to try prove the Bible wrong by saying the world does not contain any evidence of a flood ever taking place. This is not what this thread is for, but more or less the discusion of if we should even spend are time arguing against that. Is Noahs Flood a literal happening, or a mere parable that was written to teach us a lesson?

I'd categorize it more as a myth than a parable. There's really no singularly clear moral lesson to be learned from the story of Noah.

If it was intended as a parable, it's an extremely poorly-written one.

As much as id like to be able to take this non-literaly, i feel the need to argue against this to reasure myself that this is the case:

Why do you feel this need? How would the literalness or lack thereof of this story affect your personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

First off id like to point out how odd it is that the Bible goes into such depth about how the story takes place. Im refering to measurements of the size of the boat, type of wood used, location. Why would the Bible go into such depth about a parable? It is true that this could all just be taken in context of the story, but why? This "why" is what makes us think that the story should be taken for more then just a parable...is this true?

Not true at all. The story of Noah was lifted from previous flood stories, msot conspicuously the tale of Utnapishtim, chronicled in The Epic of Gilgamesh. The earlier stories are also exacting about the size and dimensions of the boat, so it's would be reasonable that the Hebrews would include a similar detail when crafting their own tale.

Noah is a real person, outside the context of the story we are told about his family.

I could give you a complete geneology and family tree of the Greek, Egyptian, or Norse pantheons if you'd like. Giving a character a family might make them more realistic, but it doesn't make them real.

I dont want to make this to long or no one will take the time to read it, heres one verse today that i read....it got me thinking about the topic:



The bolded part shows us that the story is a chronological happening. "In the days of Noah", shows a real life time period that took place.

Or it could just be the ancient version of "Once upon a time..."

"God waited....while the ark was being built", the fact that God was waiting for somthing suggests it was not a story...but a real life happening.

Hmmm? God being mentioned in a story automatically makes it true?

The Bible also explains the location on Earth where the Ark was placed, its on a mountain in Turkey (probly under a glacier).

Real locations make stories more interesting. But just because Kansas is a real place doesn't mean that Oz is.

Comments?

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything particularly convincing.

We know that the Tigris-Euphrates river valley was prone to flooding, and we know that sometime around 3000 BC, a particularly nasty one devestated the region.

Was it global? No, but all floods look global when you're floating in the middle of one.

Factor in ancient civilizations' tendencies for A) hyperbole, B) conflating history and mythology, and C) borrowing stories and character from other cultures and making them their own, and you've got a recipie for Noah.

 

[AV1611VET]

Literal.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The Flood story was likely plagerized from the earlier Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh. So even if it was literal, it's not original to the Bible.

 

[rambot]

Short answer: No.

(As) Long (an) Answer (as I want to give):
There is no physical evidence for a world wide flood.
Upon a thorough interpretation of Biblical evidence, there is no evidence for a world wide flood.

It never happened. A flood of that size would have caused an extinction of everything, not only land animals. Every fish in the sea would die completely, not to mention every single plant on the planet. The world would be a barren, lifeless swamp if the flood occured, and no amount of animal that he took aboard the ark could have repopulated the earth after such a total ecological breakdown.

It would look EXACTLY like the Mesopotamian Flood plains.

There's really no singularly clear moral lesson to be learned from the story of Noah.
If it was intended as a parable, it's an extremely poorly-written one.

I'd agree there is no real parable but one of the outcomes of the flood was that God was to have never devasted the world in the same way.

Factor in ancient civilizations' tendencies for A) hyperbole, B) conflating history and mythology, and C) borrowing stories and character from other cultures and making them their own, and you've got a recipie for Noah.

or consider a timeline that differs from what literalists claim as set in stone and perhaps The Black Sea Deluge Theory could be an alternate theory.

e could be an incredibly fitting story.

 

[pyro214]

The Flood story was likely plagerized from the earlier Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh. So even if it was literal, it's not original to the Bible.

just cuz 2 stories are similar doesnt mean they were copied.
one could even say the same flood produced both stories.

 

[pyro214]

I'd categorize it more as a myth than a parable. There's really no singularly clear moral lesson to be learned from the story of Noah.

just one example of how it can be viewed as a parable (though i do see ur point):

"God is very, very powerful.
People can be very, very, bad.
Some people do wish to follow God, and it is through them that God works his purposes.
God wishes to wash away sin (looks forward to baptism).
God makes and keeps his promises (the rainbow)

The flood,is also told in other religions,so it most likely was a local one,
the story being changed over time,with each religion adding to it,to fit thier world view.

The Ark,symbolizes the Goddess,,Noah,the God,the Ark is the womb,
and from the womb came the God,and all life on earth issued forth from her.

The water outside,was the chaos.

But,if God is who he claims to be,then he is able to do as he said,
even if it cant be explained with science.

If you could explain everything God could,and has done with science,,then ,,
he wouldnt be God,,but a mere scientist.
"

If it was intended as a parable, it's an extremely poorly-written one.

not everything in the Bible is easy to interpitate (just think back to reading revolations your first time).

Why do you feel this need? How would the literalness or lack thereof of this story affect your personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

really it doesnt. However i do enjoy debating topics with athiests, so to know how the Bible works is a good place to start.

Not true at all. The story of Noah was lifted from previous flood stories, msot conspicuously the tale of Utnapishtim, chronicled in The Epic of Gilgamesh. The earlier stories are also exacting about the size and dimensions of the boat, so it's would be reasonable that the Hebrews would include a similar detail when crafting their own tale.

it happens

I could give you a complete geneology and family tree of the Greek, Egyptian, or Norse pantheons if you'd like. Giving a character a family might make them more realistic, but it doesn't make them real.

God refers to Noah many many times in the Bible as a real person.

Hmmm? God being mentioned in a story automatically makes it true?

he did more then mention it. He said he HAD TO WAIT while the ARK WAS BEING BUILT. Also when the Bible refers to the flood, it places it in a chronological order with other events (this alone is facinating, not to mention that no other parable has this happen?)

Real locations make stories more interesting. But just because Kansas is a real place doesn't mean that Oz is.

fair enough

 

[pyro214]

There is no physical evidence for a world wide flood.

is this really the best reason to say its not real. When athiests finally prove somthing in the Bible wrong we then decide its no longer literal, so we dont have to deal with arguing against it?


side question: are we sure were 100% accurate on the date of this flood?
(begats, "days", all can be misunderstood to some degree as some of us may have noticed when studying Genesis 1:1).

 

[AV1611VET]

If the Flood was just a local one, why was Noah and his family on the Ark for over a year?

 

[pyro214]

If the Flood was just a local one, why was Noah and his family on the Ark for over a year?

the question is how local,
if it covered the entire earth then why didnt the ice caps melt (or maybe the water/ice shared a symbolic relationship at 0C at that depth)?

 

[lemmings]

If the Flood was just a local one, why was Noah and his family on the Ark for over a year?

Lets say the Flood was really a storm. If Noah’s Ark was a large merchant vessel that he was on then it would have been swept down stream into the Indian Ocean. The boat could easily have been adrift for months before they found land.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If the Flood was just a local one, why was Noah and his family on the Ark for over a year?

Because the flood lasted a year? Or the flood washed them out to sea (which, from their perspective, would be indistinguishable from a global flood)? I'm not really sure how the two points are related, to be honest.

As to the OP, I say that any myth of a global flood is just that: a myth. Besides the physical impossibilities, there simply isn't any evidence. The Bible's a nice story, but literal interpretations annoy me to no end.

 

[RedAndy]

As to the OP, I say that any myth of a global flood is just that: a myth. Besides the physical impossibilities, there simply isn't any evidence. The Bible's a nice story, but literal interpretations annoy me to no end.

Seconded.

 

[tocis]

Comments?

Yes the story is rather rich in detail. But then, that doesn't mean it's true. On the contrary, the author(s) could have thought up much detail for this exact purpose - to make it more easily believable.

Compare, for example, with H. P. Lovecraft's "Cthulhu Mythos" stories, where he - among other things - invents things like an imaginary Koran sura "Mankind's satan is Khadulu" or the Chinese term for "old evil sea demon" being "Kui Tai Lao Hai" to "prove" that just about every ancient culture knew about Cthulhu... makes you shiver, but not a word of it is true (fortunately! ).

 

[pyro214]

what about this (and 10+ more) verses that make chronological references to the flood?

This one has yet to be answered:
"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

 

[JohnR7]

Is Noahs Flood a literal happening, or a mere parable that was written to teach us a lesson?

Actually, the question is which flood was Noah's flood. There have been so many it is difficult to determine which one was the one that the Bible is talking about.

There is no question that the Bible is literal and the Bible is true. Also the Bible was written to teach us a lesson. Recently science has come up with some new information that helps us to better understand the Bible and God's message for us today.

 

[JohnR7]

The Bible's a nice story, but literal interpretations annoy me to no end.

Actually, the literal interpretation would indicate a local flood. We are told that "Adamah" or basicly the Land of Eden was flooded. The word that the Bible would have used if the whole earth was flooded would have been "erets".

Right now the indication is that the flood was caused by the melting of the glacers. We know that the level of the ocean went up at least 300 feet. Often, when glacers melts a lake of water is created in the middle and at some point in time the edges give way and that results in a flood. We still see this today where there are areas that could flood at any time. In some cases they go in and try to drain off the water in a gradual way to avoid flooding.

There was also massive extinction followed by population explosions. As the earth was going though a time of transion. A better theory would have to do with remenant theology rather then the theory of total annilation. Science does not support the theory of total world wide annilation as a explaination for Noah's flood.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

what about this (and 10+ more) verses that make chronological references to the flood?

This one has yet to be answered:
"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

Chronological references are in every narrative, story, myht, and parable. I'd like to see you telling a story without using time and the past, present, and future tenses (without resorting to Chinese, of course).

The 'days of Noah' is simply a way to show that Noah and his Ark are the most important events of the era (in the fictional setting, of course). Or, it could further indicate the long lifespan of Noah and his kin.

In any case, this doesn't imply a global or a literal flood. It simply implies that, in the fictional setting, the Ark took some time to build (as opposed to god simply popping it into existance).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, the literal interpretation would indicate a local flood. We are told that "Adamah" or basicly the Land of Eden was flooded. The word that the Bible would have used if the whole earth was flooded would have been "erets".

Source? This could be useful in future debates

There was also massive extinction followed by population explosions.

Source? As far as I am aware, there is no palaeontological evidence for mass extinctions ~4000 years ago.

As the earth was going though a time of transion.

Again, source? The Earth was relatively docile at the time.

A better theory would have to do with remenant theology rather then the theory of total annilation. Science does not support the theory of total world wide annilation as a explaination for Noah's flood.

Science does not conclude a flood at all (at least, no flood worth all this song and dance; there were likely hundreds of floods four k years ago).