The story of Noah's Ark, fiction?

[sampson x]

Oh we don't do hate here sampson. Just heated disagreement. OK?

I figured on that.

The real problem with the flood is not that there is no factual evidence in its favour. It is that there is hard evidence that it could not be a global flood.

Okay, at least someone admits that there is evidence the flood happened (Fossils, Trans-strata trees, Fault-block mountains). So, what's the hard evidence that it couldn't be a global flood? Just really curious. Please, tell me.

You are on the right track. Just because we see no evidence that something exists or that something happened, doesn't mean that it does not exist or that it did not happen.

But that's not the problem with the flood. In that case we do have evidence which makes it clear that a global flood never occurred. This is different from not having evidence that it did occur. If we just did not have evidence, we could say, well it still could have happened. But the evidence we have just could not exist at all if the flood had been global. So we have to conclude that it was not.

Again, what evidence? But, I'm glad you agree with me that I was on the right track.

Amen. And i must get that book. Everyone I know recommends it.

It's hilarious.

Right. And no one is suggesting a flood did not happen. Only that it did not cover the whole planet.

Oh, I wish someone would have told this to me earlier. I don't know if it covered the entire world, but I have some good evidence that it could have been. Just give me until tomorrow, and I'll compile a bit of what I know.

What you need to show for that is a way for the contra-evidence to exist when it could not exist through a global flood. To take just one example: how were spider tracks in desert dust made and preserved in the middle of a flood?

Good evidence, but then God is pretty amazing. And, water was gushing around everywhere moving sediment pretty quickly. All it took was for a bunch of the different sediment to land on those spider tracks and apply a lot of pressure all at once. And then, oila (sp?)! Preserved spider tracks.

Most people forget that this flood was no ordinary "rain came down and flooded the earth" flood. There was more than just rain. Genesis 7:11b on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Yeah, a lot of water. More than enough to move a ton of sediment and preserve a spider's tracks in the desert.

There are other reasons I think the Flood was worldwide, but I need some time to gather them all together and write them down. I also need to go get a book that had some of the stuff I want to tell you guys.

 

[gluadys]

Okay, at least someone admits that there is evidence the flood happened (Fossils, Trans-strata trees, Fault-block mountains). So, what's the hard evidence that it couldn't be a global flood? Just really curious. Please, tell me.

Actually all of this evidence is better explained without a flood.

Good evidence, but then God is pretty amazing. And, water was gushing around everywhere moving sediment pretty quickly. All it took was for a bunch of the different sediment to land on those spider tracks and apply a lot of pressure all at once. And then, oila (sp?)! Preserved spider tracks.

Unhh-unhh. The first thing water from any source will do is wipe out the tracks. Unless they have already been preserved and lithified (turned into stone).

There are other reasons I think the Flood was worldwide, but I need some time to gather them all together and write them down. I also need to go get a book that had some of the stuff I want to tell you guys.

While you are looking up some sources, you should check out earlier threads on the flood here. Begin at the second post on this thread in the section labelled Global Flood vs. Modern Geology. Look especially for the threads authored by Frumious Bandersnatch and grmorton. grmorton, btw, is a Christian who used to support Young-Earth Creationism. He is also a professional geologist. I don't know what faith if any Frumious professes. But his knowledge of geology is very extensive.

 

[Mathematician]

Sam,

Okay, at least someone admits that there is evidence the flood happened (Fossils, Trans-strata trees, Fault-block mountains). So, what's the hard evidence that it couldn't be a global flood? Just really curious. Please, tell me.

It's quite simple. Gen. 1:2 claims that the entire earth was originally covered with water. Any archeologist will show you everything you need to see that Gen. 1:2 is perfectly accurate. Let's call this the primordial flood.

They can also show you by the same evidence that there has never been a point in time since where the entire earth was covered at the same time.

If you accept the first, you have to accept that the more recent stuff is better known and easier to confirm. So science confirms Gen. 1:2 with good reliability, but denies a global Noah's Flood.

Either Noah's Flood was not global (trust the science) or there is no evidence for a primordial flood (deny the science).

Maybe you should look at your reasons for assuming Noah's Flood was global. Cain was driven from "the face of the earth." That is, Cain was driven from the same place God promised Noah he would destroy.

Cain named the city he founded and ruled Enoch, which is Unuk in Aramaic which is Uruk in Sumerian. The Shuruppak Flood (Epic of Gilgamesh Flood) left 4 feet of mud in a single layer over Shuruppak and even more mud from there to the sea. It completely wiped out the Aramaic-speaking Ubaid culture but left the adjoining Sumerian-speaking Ubaid culture including Uruk unscathed.

There are various dates given for this flood from before 4000 BC to around 2800 BC. I follow Fischer (The Origins Solution) and use a date of 3200 BC.

 

[PaladinValer]

It has nothing to do with science; it has to do with the evidence. The physical evidence proves there was no Great Deluge as per the Noahide account. No science needed; just dig holes all around the Earth; you won't find a global flood layer.

Sorry, but no Deluge. That means that the Flood story is a myth; a story to teach moral and spiritual truths. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Mathematician]

Sorry, but no Deluge. That means that the Flood story is a myth; a story to teach moral and spiritual truths. Nothing more, nothing less.

Logical error. Does not follow.

The only thing that follows from the evidence is that there was no global flood. There are plenty of local floods in the geologic data, any one of which could have been Noah's Flood. One of these has been identified as the Flood of the Gilgamesh Epic and is an excellent candidate for Noah's Flood.

Until you've tested every flood, you can't claim that Noah's Flood is a myth. You can only claim that YECs with their false literalism have made Noah's Flood into a modern myth.

 

[PaladinValer]

Logical error. Does not follow.

The only thing that follows from the evidence is that there was no global flood. There are plenty of local floods in the geologic data, any one of which could have been Noah's Flood. One of these has been identified as the Flood of the Gilgamesh Epic and is an excellent candidate for Noah's Flood.

If you were to actually read through this thread, you will have known what I meant here by "Deluge."

Until you've tested every flood, you can't claim that Noah's Flood is a myth. You can only claim that YECs with their false literalism have made Noah's Flood into a modern myth.

Ah, but the problem is, there was no such massive flood during that time. So, it still remains a myth, lock, stock, and barrel.

**Wonders why people are so afraid of myths **

 

[sampson x]

OK, I looked up on my sources, and don't know what I was thinking anymore. I thought it said other things than what it did. I should be more opened minded. What I should have said was that there was a flood (quite possibly, but maybe not, a world-wide one) that affected Noah and a lot of people. And, I'm dead certain that there was a flood. How else do you explain the loads of flood stories in other cultures such as the Gilgamesh Stories and Native American ones? I've read them, and they actually have a lot of similarity, and since these cultures weren't exactly what you'd call close, I'd have to assume they came from a much older, similar source.

Anyways, here's my stance I should have made more clear and did not come out with: I say there was a flood.

Oh, and Paladin Valer, why is it that in one thread you continuously say that others accuse Jesus of lying in the Holy Word, yet in this thread you yourself say that God's own word is just a myth, nothing more and nothing less? Then couldn't the story of Jesus' life be just a myth as well? Just a thought.

 

[PaladinValer]

Oh, and Paladin Valer, why is it that in one thread you continuously say that others accuse Jesus of lying in the Holy Word, yet in this thread you yourself say that God's own word is just a myth, nothing more and nothing less? Then couldn't the story of Jesus' life be just a myth as well? Just a thought.

Lets read what a myth is again: "A legendary or fictional story that teaches moral or spiritual truths"

Is that other thread a story? No, its a statement, not a story.

"Just a myth" is the biggest copout in Origins Theology aside from "Just a theory."

Do you even know the difference between science and miracles? I posted it earlier in the thread. Please read whole threads first, then reply.

 

[sampson x]

Is that other thread a story? No, its a statement, not a story.

Actually, the other thread is part of a story; Jesus' story of our redemption.

But, back to what you were saying. I just need one question answered. If its a statement from God, will it always be true? (I say yes, myself).

And sorry about bringing about the myth thing again. I have read this whole thead, but it was very far along and I didn't have much time to read it. I tried to remember everything, but I'm not perfect.

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually, the other thread is part of a story; Jesus' story of our redemption.

A whole may imply a part; that's true, but only when it is of the part.

A statement isn't a story, though it can be a part of a story. It doesn't make a statement a story however.

Try again.

But, back to what you were saying. I just need one question answered. If its a statement from God, will it always be true? (I say yes, myself).

If it is a statement that isn't depended on a physical proof (ie: is purely theological), then yes.

 

[Mathematician]

Sam,

And, I'm dead certain that there was a flood. How else do you explain the loads of flood stories in other cultures such as the Gilgamesh Stories and Native American ones? I've read them, and they actually have a lot of similarity, and since these cultures weren't exactly what you'd call close, I'd have to assume they came from a much older, similar source.

Carl Sagan had an article in Omni magazine sometime around 1978-1981 about oral traditions. As I vaguely remember, many years ago, Sirius' dark companion star was discovered. It was postulated to have burned out hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of years ago. Less than 10 years later, anthropologists made the first contact ever between "white man" and some particular African tribe. That tribe was asked about their history, legends, and myths. The very first story they told was about death of Sirius' wife and how her ghost still followed Sirius in the sky.

Think of the implications. How did these "primitives" know about something that happened before man existed. How could they have known what scientists had only recently discovered?

 

[Mathematician]

Val,

If you were to actually read through this thread, you will have known what I meant here by "Deluge."

I've read through this thread. It started with PlanetTraveler claiming that Noah's Ark was fiction. He said nothing about the scope of the Flood.

If you want to make a statement that the Flood didn't happen in a certain manner, you need to qualify it better. From what I read, you seemed to be saying, because the Flood didn't happen the way the YEC's claim, it didn't happen at all.

Ah, but the problem is, there was no such massive flood during that time. So, it still remains a myth, lock, stock, and barrel.

False. Cain was driven off "the face of the earth." He built and ruled the city of Enoch. This is Unuk in Aramaic and Akkadian and it is Uruk in Sumerian.

Noah's Flood destroyed "the face of the earth." That is, it destroyed the area Cain left and not where Cain went to. The consistent use of the Hebrew "eretz" (inconsistently translated earh, land, country, and a few other things) shows that the Hebrew narrative discusses a flood that wiped out a group of people and left the rest of the world unscathed.

The Shuruppak Flood destroyed Shuruppak, Ur of the Akkadians, and everything in between. Fischer gives the date 3200 BC. I've seen dates from 4400 BC to 2800 BC for this flood. This is the Flood identified in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. This flood destroyed the Akkadians (the "white heads") and their entire Akkadian (early Aramaic speaking) culture. It left the Sumerian cities (the "black heads") untouched.

The Sumerian Epic, specifically claims that "earth" was destroyed but that the city of Uruk, and Gilgamesh's people, the Sumerians, were unharmed.

Archeologists have discovered that after this flood, the surviving Akkadians moved into the Sumerian culture, kept a separate identity, and eventually replaced the Sumerian language with the Akkadian language. Babylon and Assyria spoke and wrote different forms of Aramaic, not Sumerian which was fully dead by the time of Abraham.

The Flood happened. It left 4-plus feet of mud in a single layer over what Genesis says the flood destroyed. It left untouched what Genesis says it left untouched. This is not fiction. This is not myth. This is fact.

 

[PaladinValer]

If you want to make a statement that the Flood didn't happen in a certain manner, you need to qualify it better.

No, I did that already.

From what I read, you seemed to be saying, because the Flood didn't happen the way the YEC's claim, it didn't happen at all.

Try again.

And all you've given is circular reasoning. I do not accept circular reasoning; I accept logic.

 

[ManofWar]

I enter this conversation somewhat ignorant. I did not read the previous pages discussing this topic, though I find it very interesting myself.

I believe the flood occurred just like the Bible states. I believe that the whole earth was covered with water, that Noah really did build an ark, and that everything died that was not on the ark.

I suppose it could have been local, but this certainly contradicts what the Bible states. I do not believe it was myth because I believe the Bible is absolutely perfect(Psalm 12:6). The Flood is refered to at least twice in the New Testament, but I certainly do not believe that the New Testament is myth.

This is my two cents worth. It could have been local or global. I think it was most likely global however, because that is what the Bible seems to say, and I don't see any problems with it (scientifically or biblically).

Hold the fort.

 

[Donkeytron]

I enter this conversation somewhat ignorant. I did not read the previous pages discussing this topic, though I find it very interesting myself.

I believe the flood occurred just like the Bible states. I believe that the whole earth was covered with water, that Noah really did build an ark, and that everything died that was not on the ark.

I suppose it could have been local, but this certainly contradicts what the Bible states. I do not believe it was myth because I believe the Bible is absolutely perfect(Psalm 12:6). The Flood is refered to at least twice in the New Testament, but I certainly do not believe that the New Testament is myth.

This is my two cents worth. It could have been local or global. I think it was most likely global however, because that is what the Bible seems to say, and I don't see any problems with it (scientifically or biblically).

Hold the fort.

If you don't see any scientific problems with a global flood in 2000 BC, you haven't been looking.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

[gluadys]

This is my two cents worth. It could have been local or global. I think it was most likely global however, because that is what the Bible seems to say, and I don't see any problems with it (scientifically or biblically).

Hold the fort.

Better go for local. Scientifically there are many, many problems with a global flood.

 

[ebia]

I enter this conversation somewhat ignorant. I did not read the previous pages discussing this topic, though I find it very interesting myself.

Perhaps you should, instead of going over the same ground again.

I do not believe it was myth because I believe the Bible is absolutely perfect(Psalm 12:6).

If anything myth is more perfect than an historical document, not less.
Myth does not equal falsehood.

As an historical document the Noah story certainly wouldn't be perfect, as it is rather confused, ambiguous, and even self contradictory. However, as myth those aren't imperfections.

The Flood is refered to at least twice in the New Testament, but I certainly do not believe that the New Testament is myth.

Real people refer to myths all the time. The NT references to the Noah story are entirely compatible with the Noah story being myth.

This is my two cents worth. It could have been local or global. I think it was most likely global however, because that is what the Bible seems to say, and I don't see any problems with it (scientifically or biblically).

Then you don't understand the science.

 

[sampson x]

And all you've given is circular reasoning. I do not accept circular reasoning; I accept logic.

Be carefull on how much you accept logic. I still hold that Reason is better than logic. Logic can get you dangerous places. Don't click on this link if logic can turn you from the Lord. If it can't, than do. I'm not an expert in logic, and I didn't take time to read this carefully, so it might have a mistake I didn't notice. I found it when I was looking stuff up on how exactly Formal Logic worked: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/logic.html

So, don't completely trust logic.

 

[PaladinValer]

Be carefull on how much you accept logic. I still hold that Reason is better than logic. Logic can get you dangerous places. Don't click on this link if logic can turn you from the Lord. If it can't, than do. I'm not an expert in logic, and I didn't take time to read this carefully, so it might have a mistake I didn't notice. I found it when I was looking stuff up on how exactly Formal Logic worked: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/logic.html

So, don't completely trust logic.

REASON IS LOGIC!

And just because Atheists use it doesn't mean it is Atheistic.

I cannot believe a non-Anglican is telling an Anglican what Reason is, since the Anglican "credo" is Scripture, Tradition, Reason. Unbelievable!

 

[depthdeception]

I cannot believe a non-Anglican is telling an Anglican what Reason is, since the Anglican "credo" is Scripture, Tradition, Reason. Unbelievable!

You should go full-on Wesley and add "Experience." It feels pretty good.