New series by Aron Ra: Why there was no Noachian Flood

[Speedwell]

Why not?

As I said before:

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.
...
and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

It seems to me the story of the flood only makes sense if all humans (apart from the ark's inhabitants) died.

Was the Lord only angry with the wickedness of people who lived in the land the author(s) of the story knew about?
Did the Lord kill 'large numbers' of people, or everyone apart from Noah's family?

I sense some confusion between a real event which may have formed the basis for the Noah story and the story itself. The story makes perfect sense if the event which gave rise to it was generally known to have covered all the land within the ken of the audience and killed virtually everyone who lived there. If the Hebrew description of the flood is examined it really doesn't say any more than that. What God is reported to have said about it is part of the story, not part of the event itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Black Sea flood would have killed large numbers of people and completely inundated all the land the author(s) of the story knew about.

Australia doesn't come into it.

If you run the numbers on that one you will find that it would not have killed large numbers of people. Yes, towns would have been inundated, but the people could have easily walked away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes.

That would be quite amazing.

Seeing as how the Egyptians didn't exist yet.

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Mizraim = Egypt

SOURCE

Not a valid source, try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I sense some confusion between a real event which may have formed the basis for the Noah story and the story itself. The story makes perfect sense if the event which gave rise to it was generally known to have covered all the land within the ken of the audience and killed virtually everyone who lived there. If the Hebrew description of the flood is examined it really doesn't say any more than that. What God is reported to have said about it is part of the story, not part of the event itself.

I have to find the article on the flood of the Tigris and Euphrates. It would do that. And it would have been a rapid flood that did kill quite a few people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not a valid source,

It's two more than you provided.

0 + 2 = 2

 

[Strathos]

Why not?

As I said before:

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.
...
and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

It seems to me the story of the flood only makes sense if all humans (apart from the ark's inhabitants) died.

Was the Lord only angry with the wickedness of people who lived in the land the author(s) of the story knew about?
Did the Lord kill 'large numbers' of people, or everyone apart from Noah's family?

The narrative was based on a real event, but it is also intended as a moral allegory.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The narrative was based on a real event, but it is also intended as a moral allegory.

Speedwell: "I sense some confusion between a real event which may have formed the basis for the Noah story and the story itself."

The Noah story is a mythologization of a real event?

Was there a Noah? an Ark? Animals two-by-two?

If not, then I think the title of the OP is valid. There may have been a flood (I mean obviously there have been floods that killed people) but there was no Noachian flood.

 

[Speedwell]

The Noah story is a mythologization of a real event?

That is my opinion. It seems more likely than being made up out of whole cloth.

Was there a Noah? an Ark? Animals two-by-two?

How about a "Noah" who rescued his family, his livestock and a reasonable selection of local wild fauna on a barge or raft of his own construction?

If not, then I think the title of the OP is valid. There may have been a flood (I mean obviously there have been floods that killed people) but there was no Noachian flood.

You mean, did it happen exactly as described in the Bible? Is the biblical account 100% accurate literal history? I don't even think those are important questions to ask about such a good story. Certainly, the notion that there was a worldwide flood in 2400 BC of sufficient violence to account for all of the geological evidence that would otherwise indicate an ancient Earth is fatuous and unbiblical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually he didn't.

Actually He did.

Every drop of Flood water was a miracle from God.

And as pertaining to the creation week, how many stars are there in the universe?

Each one is a miracle.

So the argument that God had to perform many, many miracles during the Flood is a weak one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's two more than you provided.

0 + 2 = 2

Why do you always make such obviously false posts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually He did.

Every drop of Flood water was a miracle from God.

And as pertaining to the creation week, how many stars are there in the universe?

Each one is a miracle.

So the argument that God had to perform many, many miracles during the Flood is a weak one.

Once again all you can do is to wave your hands and say "magic". Of course the problem is that you are in effect claiming that your version of God lied. The evidence says there was no flood. If your version is true then your version of God had to make the evidence that tells us that there was no flood. Even when I was a Christian I could not believe in a lying God. It is much more obvious that a work of man is not perfect. If the Bible is not perfect you could still believe in Jesus, and you would not have to deny reality by seeing that parts of the Bible never happened as told.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I sense some confusion between a real event which may have formed the basis for the Noah story and the story itself. The story makes perfect sense if the event which gave rise to it was generally known to have covered all the land within the ken of the audience and killed virtually everyone who lived there. If the Hebrew description of the flood is examined it really doesn't say any more than that. What God is reported to have said about it is part of the story, not part of the event itself.

I found the article I was looking for:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | NCSE

Here is a small excerpt that explains how that flood could have made it seem as if the whole world was under water:

"Effects of the Curvature of the Earth
Because of the curvature of the earth, the horizon drops from where the viewer is standing. However, the drop is proportional to the square of the distance between the viewer and an object on the horizon (Young nd). From these relationships, it can be seen that a tribal chief (or Noah) standing on the deck of a large boat (Ark), perhaps 7.8 meters above the water,would not be able to see the tops of any hills as high as 15 m from as little as 24 km away across flood plains covered with water because the curvature of the earth prevents it (See the Appendix for examples of calculations). Most hills in this region that are as much as 15 m high are more than 95 km away from the river levees. Therefore, the survivors of the Flood could see only water in all directions while they were floating down the Tigris River and over the flood plains. Many of these hills would also be partly covered with water which would make their tops project less above the water level, and therefore, the curvature of the earth would make them disappear from the line of sight in even a shorter distance than 24 km.

Northeast and southwest of the nearly flat surface that contains the two rivers, the topography rises to more than 455 m in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. Calculations show that elevations of 455 m high cannot be seen beyond 86 km away, and these places are more than 160 km from the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers. Therefore, none of the high country in Saudi Arabia or Iran would be visible to a tribal chief (or Noah). On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time."

 

[AV1611VET]

I found the article I was looking for:

Is this article serious?

Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
Genesis 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

The Ark wasn't 24 km away, it was on top of one of the mountains.

In addition, the article assumes this "tribal chief" lived in the Mesopotamian region, when he probably lived some two or three thousand miles away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this article serious?

Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
Genesis 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

The Ark wasn't 24 km away, it was on top of one of the mountains.

In addition, the article assumes this "tribal chief" lived in the Mesopotamian region, when he probably lived some two or three thousand miles away.

As Speedwell pointed out already, Ararat is a recent name. The Ark story probably began in the flood that they are discussing. It fits many of the Bible stories descriptions. And the article made no assumptions. You don't seem to understand what that word means.

 

[AV1611VET]

As Speedwell pointed out already, Ararat is a recent name.

Compared to the philosophy of evolution, everything is recent.

After all, evolution says the universe started in 13,700,000,000 BC; and the Bible has the universe being created in 4004 BC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Compared to the philosophy of evolution, everything is recent.

What do you mean by the "philosophy of evolution"? And no, since life began billions of years ago everything is not recent.

After all, evolution says the universe started in 13,700,000,000 BC; and the Bible has the universe being created in 4004 BC.

Wrong again "evolution" does not say that. Sadly creationists do not appear to understand what they are arguing against at all.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How about a "Noah" who rescued his family, his livestock and a reasonable selection of local wild fauna on a barge or raft of his own construction?

This is genuinely fascinating. I appreciate that you have discarded nonsense. But in this mythologizing, does it mean that 'Noah' was not directed by communications from the Lord? Previously, you said that the Lord's words were part of the story-izing of this event. It seems to me that one feature, so to speak, of the OT is the direct communications vouchsafed to humans from the Lord. Are any of these valid? If not Noah, then certainly not Adam. And everyone would be happier, I think, if we acknowledge that the Lord's commands to slay women and children and infants and animals are just some story-telling. But what is left of 'the word of God' if you discount the words of the Lord?

 

[juvenissun]

Indeed. Creationist claims about the flood are neither scientific nor biblical.

But, they have their important function specified by God. I am very grateful that they are playing such an important role. Not everybody can appreciate the details of science.

 

[juvenissun]

You seem to be confused. Aron Ra never attacked the "word of God".

Everything he said is trying to attack the word of God. He simply misaimed. Very incapable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everything he said is trying to attack the word of God. He simply misaimed. Very incapable.

Nope, he never attacked the word of God, where did you get that idea from?

And I doubt if you could find one single error in his work.

It appears that you are angry because he refuted your personal interpretation of the Bible. That only shows that your interpretation is wrong.