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.
The Bible does say that after the flood, people moved east into the land of Shinar. Shinar is a good transliteration of Sumer (compare Peiking and Beijing) and Sumer was empty after the flood, but the semites lived to the NW.
Already did. I think we have already mentioned Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish, Atrahasis--there are many more as well.
Cosmos refers to "world" not just heaven. Earth is part of the cosmos.
Sure there is: archeology and paleontology. We know humanity originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago and there have always been human populations in Africa ever since. We know they began spreading beyond Africa no later than 60,000 years ago, reached Australia over 30,000 years ago and began settling in the Americas around 20,000 years ago.
But the earliest civilizations with major monuments can only be traced to about 10-15 thousand years ago. I don't know what date you propose for the flood, but it is a certainty that humans lived in all parts of the world at that time and most of them would not trace their ancestry back to Noah and his sons.
Show the texts so we can compare them with the story in Genesis.
That account of human origins cannot be demonstrated as the real story.
It is based on evidence that does not clearly amount to a particular history,
and it is influenced by evolution theory,which cannot be demonstrated for the same reason.
I would place it before the earliest civilizations.
Hi...
Just wondering how many fellow TE'ers out there have moved away from the idea of a flood all together.
I recognise it as nothing but "true myth", to borrow the term from CS Lewis.
If I understand A.N.E. cosmology, the dome was solid, and there were waters above it. When the noahic flood happened, this dome literally broke (in other words, their entire universe shattered) and there was a global flood.
I think in proper context, that the way the bible describes the flood cannot be taken literally, and a "local flood" is just a wishy washy toned down literalism... and doesn't go far enough to solve the problems we have biblically with a large scale flood.
Can we just accept it as mythology and move on from here?
One also has to consider the possibility (at least) that from creation, the story of Adam & Eve, to the building of the ark and the flood (and a starting over with Noah and his family (before this) what was happening on earth was a direct reflection of everything that was happening in heaven, that what was happening (it's possible) was a tale of not only what was happening on earth, but what was actually directly what was also happening in Heaven, and that the story of the flood and a family being preserved in the "ark", the first one, was a story of a destroying and recreation and preserving of what was directly happening in heaven, which exists right here along side of or above or beneath (however you want to look at it) but the story could have been a story of what was happening (going on) in heaven and not just the earth...
This/these "stories" could have been "tales of heaven" the first time their was a recreation of a "new" heavens, and new earth, the first time God destroyed and recreated both. During those times (of our past) heaven and earth were so intricately connected in such a way, that what was happening occuring "here" was also happening/occuring "there" or perhaps, put more appropriately what was happening "there" was also what was happening "here" and I "propose" that the story of the flood was the first time God, the Father, destroyed and recreated both (worlds) and could have been a story of the heavens, not only just the earth
Oftentimes we underestimate how intricately both our worlds are intricately "connected" so that what happens "here", happens "there" or vise-versa, and I think we all need to "keep that in mind"
This is why I believe Jesus told peter (and really "all" of his apostles/disciples) "whatever you bind on earth, will also be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will also be the thing loosed in heaven" because I believe It's wholly "true", Heaven and earth are intricately "connected, and Heaven is very much "closer" than most of us think.
I am asking you (all of you) to be "open" and not "closed" to all the possibilities, for example I am "open" to the possibility (but I am also not going to "cling" to only this one and only "possibility") that During the flood and when Noah and his family were in the ark, that I am open to the possibility that (like in a popular Star Trek episode I saw) that Noah and his family were possibly "tranported" to a totally new, different "Earth" but as I said while I am "open" to this possibility (because I believe "all" things are "possible" with God) I am not going to "cling" to that one possibility, for one, because I can think of many others, and for two, I want to keep an "open" mind to "all" possibilities, especially when it comes to God, so... Think freely and openly for yourselves, (especially when it comes to God) and do not seek to "close off" possibilities, but keep yourselves "open" is my suggestion, and advice, if anyone cares, if not, then just disregard me and what I say, but only, please "keep" an "open" mind...
One also has to consider the possibility (at least) that from creation, the story of Adam & Eve, to the building of the ark and the flood (and a starting over with Noah and his family (before this) what was happening on earth was a direct reflection of everything that was happening in heaven, that what was happening (it's possible) was a tale of not only what was happening on earth, but what was actually directly what was also happening in Heaven, and that the story of the flood and a family being preserved in the "ark", the first one, was a story of a destroying and recreation and preserving of what was directly happening in heaven, which exists right here along side of or above or beneath (however you want to look at it) but the story could have been a story of what was happening (going on) in heaven and not just the earth...
This/these "stories" could have been "tales of heaven" the first time their was a recreation of a "new" heavens, and new earth, the first time God destroyed and recreated both. During those times (of our past) heaven and earth were so intricately connected in such a way, that what was happening occuring "here" was also happening/occuring "there" or perhaps, put more appropriately what was happening "there" was also what was happening "here" and I "propose" that the story of the flood was the first time God, the Father, destroyed and recreated both (worlds) and could have been a story of the heavens, not only just the earth
Oftentimes we underestimate how intricately both our worlds are intricately "connected" so that what happens "here", happens "there" or vise-versa, and I think we all need to "keep that in mind"
This is why I believe Jesus told peter (and really "all" of his apostles/disciples) "whatever you bind on earth, will also be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, will also be the thing loosed in heaven" because I believe It's wholly "true", Heaven and earth are intricately "connected, and Heaven is very much "closer" than most of us think.
I am asking you (all of you) to be "open" and not "closed" to all the possibilities, for example I am "open" to the possibility (but I am also not going to "cling" to only this one and only "possibility") that During the flood and when Noah and his family were in the ark, that I am open to the possibility that (like in a popular Star Trek episode I saw) that Noah and his family were possibly "tranported" to a totally new, different "Earth" but as I said while I am "open" to this possibility (because I believe "all" things are "possible" with God) I am not going to "cling" to that one possibility, for one, because I can think of many others, and for two, I want to keep an "open" mind to "all" possibilities, especially when it comes to God, so... Think freely and openly for yourselves, (especially when it comes to God) and do not seek to "close off" possibilities, but keep yourselves "open" is my suggestion, and advice, if anyone cares, if not, then just disregard me and what I say, but only, please "keep" an "open" mind...
Hmmm. So the flood could have been on a different planet altogether. That would certainly explain the lack of evidence for one (at least a global flood) on this planet.
Here's another thought. Maybe it also explains those extra-ordinary long lifetimes of the pre-flood peoples. Those were not our years, but the years of the planet Noah, et al originally came from. Due to different rotation and orbiting times, their "years" were a lot shorter than ours.
It's a neat possibility, but still the geological, fossil and genetic evidence tell against it. Too bad.
Oh? You are just going to wave away every human fossil and every artifact uncovered as of no moment at all? That is certainly far more demonstration than anything connected to the flood story.
Particular history or not, it is conclusive evidence of the geographic location of humans over the last 200,000 years. One cannot say that any part of the world other than Antarctica and perhaps some South Sea islands, was devoid of human settlement within the last 20,000 years.
Two misconceptions here. No, the evidence of the spread of human settlement cited refers only to our own species H. sapiens and not to any other to which we may have an evolutionary relationship--so evolutionary theory has no bearing on it.
If we were to include H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus as well as H. sapiens, the dating would go back much further. H. erectus fossils as much as 500,000 years old have been found in Europe and China as well as Africa. So have their artifacts (stone implements).
Secondly, evolutionary theory has been abundantly demonstrated as consistent with biological and geological fact.
Then you either place the flood well before Noah or you set Noah and all his predecessors in Paleolithic times. However, the Biblical text would be more supportive of Neolithic or even early Bronze age time. For clear pre-flood references are made to agriculture, domestic animals, cities and metal working.
Neolithic culture is generally held to have begun around 12,000 years ago.
And, as noted earlier, there is clear evidence of human settlement through Africa, Europe, Asia and the Americas by then.
The human remains and artifacts do not themselves point to the conclusions of evolution theory and archaeologists.
The scientific account of origins is not something demonstrable like a law of physics,and it is not something that follows as a logical necessity from the evidence.
I never said that there was. But I don't take seriously any claim of dating about things from before Sumerian civilization. The further back in time human remains and artifacts are before the earliest civilizations,the less they can be dated with certainty by comparison with what is known.
We have trustworthy knowledge about Sumeria,Egypt and Babylonia,which is not dependent upon speculation about scattered and fragmentary evidence,but is based upon an abundance of artifacts that clearly belong to those civilizations,and upon writings from those civilizations and about them by ancient historians.
Evolution theory includes speculation about the spread of humans throughout the world.
It dovetails into human history,and archaeologists who give accounts of early human settlements sometimes take evolution theory's account of human origins as the background story. In evolution theory,their is no clear divide between the early humans and animals that are supposed to have been the ancestors of humans.
They were either human or they were not.
Its consistent with evolutionary biology,which developed under the influence of the theory. But biological facts do not logically suggest the historical claims of evolution theory.
The theory only seems plausible if you think along the lines of naturalism and mechanism,and forget that reproduction is the only natural means of descent and is immediate creation of life-forms.
I would place it before Sumerian civilization. One city is mentioned in Genesis before the flood,but there is no mention of the peoples that are mentioned after the flood.
Sure they do. After all, the theory was developed in order to explain these phenomena and tested by additional phenomena. If the human remains and artifacts did not point to these conclusions the theory would not exist.
I don't want to intrude but I thought I would mention, a local flood is actually well received among evangelical Christians, even of the fundamentalist variety. No matter how you take it, literally global or some nebulous 'true myth' the basic question is does God interdict in human affairs by means of devastating wrath. Just some food for thought, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
Grace and peace,
Mark
That does not mean the theory logically follows from examination of the phenomena.
It is a naturalistic,mechanistic interpretation
that assumes common descent between species that have common or similar traits,
ignoring reproduction
and the impossibility of proving reproductive compatibility between species millions of years ago.
The theory of evolution is not logical,and does not judge justly,but judges on appearances.
I agree, that is the important point.
I think the text as we have it is a divinely inspired story possibly with some embedded memory of an historical but local flooding event.
I don't want to intrude but I thought I would mention, a local flood is actually well received among evangelical Christians, even of the fundamentalist variety. No matter how you take it, literally global or some nebulous 'true myth' the basic question is does God interdict in human affairs by means of devastating wrath. Just some food for thought, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Yes, that is exactly what it does mean. It is just like when you find footprints in the mud under a broken window and propose the theory that this was where the burgler entered the premises. That theory logically follows from the examination of the phenomena.
So does the theory of evolution.
And do you assume that God does not create and sustain natural mechanisms? If you believe that God does create and sustain natural mechanisms, what is wrong with developing knowledge about them?
Do you complain about the fact that scientists have worked out the natural mechanisms of the hydrological cycle? If not, what is the logic of complaining that scientists have worked out the natural mechanisms of introducing and sustaining biodiversity?
Incorrect. Common descent is a post hoc conclusion derived from evolutionary theory, not an a priori assumption. Common descent explains not only why species have common or similar traits, but also why those commonalities are distributed across species the way they are.
It explains why there are no vertebrates with six legs (or four legs + wings) for example. And why all mammals, no matter their size or the relative proportion of their neck to their body have 7 cervical vertebrae.
Are you kiddding!?! Reproduction and inheritance are very important to understanding evolution. The idea of evolution (the concept that species change and are related by common descent) won quick acceptance in the scientific world because it explained so many otherwise incomprehensible biological facts; but Darwin's theory of evolution (how does evolution happen) did not get traction until the process of reproduction and inheritance was worked out about 50 years later.
Almost every advance in understanding evolution has come with an advance in understanding reproduction--so there is no way any study of evolution can ignore reproduction.
Science doesn't aim for proof. It aims for supporting evidence.
One may not be able to prove two fossil species were or were not reproductively compatible, but one can determine what sort of evidence would be left in the fossil record in each case and decide from the evidence which is the most plausible scenario.
Your opinion carries little weight since it is clear you have little understanding of what you are talking about when it comes to evolution.
You say the theory is not logical. But can you even set out the theory of evolution correctly? I leave that for you as a challenge.
common structural and genetic traits and similar patterns of traits - does not logically point to common ancestry if there is no way to show reproductive links between species.
I used to get into debates with scientists on the TalkOrigins forum and they were not able to refute my objections.
Feel free to interrupt. It's true that these arguments boil down to a disagreement about whether or not God works punishment in the world and works extraordinary things in nature. People with faith in the Bible think he does,people with mere interest in the Bible as myth and moral guide doubt he does.
Feel free to interrupt. It's true that these arguments boil down to a disagreement about whether or not God works punishment in the world and works extraordinary things in nature. People with faith in the Bible think he does,people with mere interest in the Bible as myth and moral guide doubt he does.
No. The theory of evolution does not logically follow from the examination of the evidence. Unlike the example you gave of footprints in the mud,the evidence used for evolution theory - common structural and genetic traits and similar patterns of traits - does not logically point to common ancestry if there is no way to show reproductive links between species.
It is reproductive lines that matter in regard to ancestry and descent. That is what is meant by ancestry and descent.
Neither logic nor biology determines that the variety of species must have descended from one common ancestor or that many species with many traits in common could not have come into being separately.
But evolutionists want to connect everything with everything else according to "patterns" of commonalities and similarities,so that nature appears infinitely self-creative and malleable.
I don't call the workings of nature "mechanisms".
There are not many things in nature that can rightly be called mechanical,except bone structures and digestive systems. God does and sustain the workings of nature,and it is good to acquire knowledge of them,but the naturalism and mechanism of scientists leads them to misinterpret natural causation where the cause of effects is beyond detection,so that they attribute powers to nature or even to nothing that cannot exist.
And every single creature is itself a species in the original sense of form or kind.
Common descent was assumed by scientists from Linnaeus' taxonomy,which lumps together different species based on similar traits,even before Darwin developed his theory of natural selection.
Common descent doesn't give a reasonable explanation for that.
That is a question of why some things exist and others don't,which goes back to the will and creative action of God.
Evolutionists focus on natural selection,genetic reproduction and allele frequencies,not reproduction. When they talk about reproduction,they portray it as a mechanism of evolution,not as the very means of descent and inheritance,or descent and inheritance itself. If scientists focused on reproduction and all that it entails for the study of the origins of species,the theory of evolution would have to be converted into a theory of creation.
Scientists do ignore it in regard to the origination of species. They ignore the fact that species consist of individual creatures that begin to exist through reproduction,and they instead focus on gradual,non-creative processes to explain how species originate.
Scientists look for both. What is taken as supporting evidence is sometimes so convincing that it is taken for proof,sometimes rightly,sometimes wrongly.
What sort of fossil evidence do you mean,and how would it help to determine if two species were reproductively compatible? Even if a group of species is discovered which appear to form a transitional taxonomic pattern,this would not demonstrate reproductive relatedness,and it is only plausible if reproductive compatibility between the species is assumed. But that is just what needs to be known and cannot be known. If you can demonstrate reproductive compatibility between species,you have already proven that they have a common ancestry.
Can you prove that? I used to get into debates with scientists on the TalkOrigins forum and they were not able to refute my objections.
The theory holds that the variety of species developed over billions of years from a common ancestor through the processes of natural selection and genetic mutation. Natural selection led to the elimination of traits that were not helpful to survival and to the preservation of traits that were,while the gradual accumulation of genetic mutations led to the appearance of new physical characteristics and to increasing divergence in populations. Changes in allele frequency in populations led to the development of distinct species.
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?