The Sumerian Flood Narrative

[TLK Valentine]

Scientifically speaking, the flood did not disrupt the entire earth crust and redeposit it as early geologists assumed was the case. Given the sources of the flood and the volume needed, both volume and the properties of the liquid are likely to have been completely under direct divine guidance. There was an "experiment" conducted later by Jesus to see if His faith would allow Him to walk on the surface of water, and His results were difficult for others who attempted the same feat. Still, the ability for God to control "water" flow is found sprinkled throughout the scriptures. (Pun noted)

Water (4,571 Occurrences)
Bible Search: water

More ad hockery.

 

[Doveaman]

So if there is no evidence to support a worldwide flood, why believe it?

God’s inspired word said it happened, therefore it happened. It’s not that complicated.

 

[Doveaman]

Except that flood geology claims that sediment covered the entire earth creating the topography we see around us and in the geological record.

Flood geology also claims no man can walk on water or turn water into wine. So?

You can choose to be deluded by flood geology. I’ll believe God’s inspired word.

 

[Doveaman]

What makes Creationism less of a fallible man-made theory when compared to Evolution?

My version of creationism is based on the fact that "God created the heaves and the earth", whether it be 6 thousand or 13.7 billion years ago.

Evolution theory contradicts God's inspired word:

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth..." (Gen 2:7, Acts 17:26).

 

[Doveaman]

I think some bible scholars believe the actual translation describes a "sea of reeds" rather than the red see.

Why is that, is it because “red” and “reeds” look alike?

If God did not want to leave evidence then why Gen 9:13-14 & 16.

So is the rainbow evidence for the flood, in your opinion?

Quite the contrary, there is much evidence, and this evidence is contrary to a global flood.

You mean like the evidence that was contrary to the furnace fire?

“Then Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.” – (Dan 3:26-27).

Gen. 7:23 says all living substance was destroyed from the face of the earth except that which was on the Ark. How is it supposed to be taken?

Like this:

“And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” (Gen 7:21-23).

The purpose of the flood was to destroy animals and people, not trees.

Gen. 8:11 says a dove brought an olive leaf to Noah. Where did that life come from?

It came from the olive tree that was not destroyed by the flood.

Like I said, you are cherry-picking the verses.

Oh! I forgot to mention that part. There is zero evidence, historical or archeological, of Hebrew slaves being present in Egypt during the reign of Ramses or any time there about. Sorry, but that is a fact.

I can see now how you are deluding yourself: No evidence = Did not happen.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by RickG
I think some bible scholars believe the actual translation describes a "sea of reeds" rather than the red see.

Why is that, is it because “red” and “reeds” look alike?

Like I said, you are cherry-picking the verses.
I can see now how you are deluding yourself: No evidence = Did not happen.

Are there any translations that use the word "reeds" in both the NT and OT of the Bible.

NKJV) Acts 7:36 "He brought them out, after he had shown wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years.

NKJV) Hebrews 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry [land, whereas] the Egyptians, attempting [to do] so, were drowned.

Yam Suph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yam Suph is a phrase which occurs about 23 times in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) and has traditionally been understood to refer to the salt water inlet located between Africa and the Arabian peninsula, known in English as the Red Sea.
More recently, alternate western scholarly understandings of the term have been proposed for those passages where it refers to the Israelite Crossing of the Sea as told in Exodus 13-15. These proposals would mean that Yam Suph is better translated in these passages as Sea of Reeds or Sea of Seaweed; see Egyptian reed fields, also described as the ka of the Nile Delta. In Jewish sources I Kings 9:26 "yam suph" is translated as Sea of Reeds at Eilat on the Gulf of Eilat.

n the Biblical narrative of The Exodus the phrase Yam Suph refers to the body of water that the Israelites crossed following their exodus from Egypt. The appropriate translation of the phrase remains a matter of dispute, as does the exact location referred to. One possible translation of Yam Suph is "Sea of Reeds", (suph by itself means 'reed', e.g. in Exodus 2:3). This was pointed out as early as the 11th century, by Rashi.[1]

 

[TLK Valentine]

God’s inspired word said it happened, therefore it happened. It’s not that complicated.

Reality says it didn't happen, therefore it didn't happen. not complicated either.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Flood geology also claims no man can walk on water or turn water into wine. So?

You can choose to be deluded by flood geology. I’ll believe God’s inspired word.

Do you often argue against yourself thus -- or did you not realize that flood geology is supposed to support the Bible?

 

[RickG]

Why is that, is it because “red” and “reeds” look alike?

No, because "yam suph" is translated by Hebrews 23 times from the same text "sea of reeds". I think they know a bit more about their own language.

So is the rainbow evidence for the flood, in your opinion?
You mean like the evidence that was contrary to the furnace fire?

So God wants everyone to know that there was a global flood but removes all the evidence of it. yeah sure, that really makes sense.

“Then Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.”

– (Dan 3:26-27).
Like this:

The book of Daniel has nothing to do with the flood story.

“And

all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” (Gen 7:21-23).

The purpose of the flood was to destroy animals and people, not trees.
It came from the olive tree that was not destroyed by the flood.

By that reasoning, only the animals and plants specifically mentioned in Genesis are all that God created. He didn't mention Pandas, Kangroos, Aardvarks, etc..

I don't see how anyone can say plants and trees were excluded then the bible specifically states: "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground".

Like I said, you are cherry-picking the verses.

Not at all, I picked relevant verses from the flood story. Conversely you choose to pick a verse from Daniel that is totally non sequitur.

But just to keep everything in context I submit the following:

Genesis 6:9 - 8:22

I can see now how you are deluding yourself: No evidence = Did not happen.

No, I am saying no evidence of a global flood.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, because "yam suph" is translated by Hebrews 23 times from the same text "sea of reeds". I think they know a bit more about their own language.


No, I am saying no evidence of a global flood.

Did you happen to notice this previous post of mine?

http://www.christianforums.com/t1184197/#post61032322

 

[RickG]

Did you happen to notice this previous post of mine?

http://www.christianforums.com/t1184197/#post61032322

Yes I did.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Did you happen to notice this previous post of mine?

Yes I did.

Okie dokie

....

 

[Split Rock]

Correct.
Is this the kind of logic you apply to science?

No, I was using Creationist "logic." The type you guys use.

That's like saying Split Rock didn't type your posts, the keyboard did it.

Ridiculous analogy. Keybords don't type by themselves. Are you implying that men don't write by themselves? More Creationist "logic," I suppose....

The flood miracle achieved its purpose. That's all that mattered.

God was not trying to impress scientists by leaving evidence lying around for them to pick at.

But he was apparently trying to hide the evidence.. or "clean up" as AVET likes to say.

Well then it was a miracle that should not have left evidence and did not.

No, a global flood would leave evidence behind.

The purpose of the flood miracle was to cleanse the earth of human pollution, not leave evidence behind for scientists to pick at.

Even the dirty flood waters had to be purified afterwards.

It doesn't matter what the purpose was, all that matters is it should have left evidence behind, but did not.

Exactly. No evidence.

And that is why I have no problems with that miracle.

 

[Split Rock]

God’s inspired word said it happened, therefore it happened. It’s not that complicated.

Is this the inspired word that wrote itself?...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Doveaman God’s inspired word said it happened, therefore it happened. It’s not that complicated.

Is this the inspired word that wrote itself?...

That would be a neat trick.

....

 

[Split Rock]

That would be a neat trick.

....

Well, apparently, it wasn't written by men, or typewriters can write on their own. I'm not sure which is being Championed by Doveaman yet.

 

[Doveaman]

Ridiculous analogy. Keybords don't type by themselves. Are you implying that men don't write by themselves?

If you are being inspired to write by an external source, then you are not by yourself.

More Creationist "logic," I suppose....

Your keyboard would not type unless you gave it "inspiration". And if you were infallible there would be no errors in your typing.

But he was apparently trying to hide the evidence.. or "clean up" as AVET likes to say.

Would you have preferred that He leave dead people and dead animals lying around.

It doesn't matter what the purpose was, all that matters is it should have left evidence behind, but did not.

Those who were present saw the evidence and left us a record.

 

[Doveaman]

No, because "yam suph" is translated by Hebrews 23 times from the same text "sea of reeds". I think they know a bit more about their own language.

But whether it is called “red sea” or ‘sea of reeds” doesn’t change the facts as described in the Bible (the sea parted, the waters became a wall on both sides of the Israelites as they crossed, and the Egyptians drowned in the sea).

I guess there weren’t enough reeds in the sea for the Egyptians to cling to.

So God wants everyone to know that there was a global flood but removes all the evidence of it. yeah sure, that really makes sense.

It sure does.

Noah and his family knew about the evidence. They were there.

As for the rest of us, it makes perfect sense that we are to trust God enough to take Him at His word and not be slaves to scientific evidence. It’s called faith.

Here, let Jesus explain:

“Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” – (John 20:29).

“For we walk by faith, not by sight.” – (2 Cor 5:7).

The book of Daniel has nothing to do with the flood story.

The furnace event in Daniel shows us that events can and do happen leaving no scientific evidence or evidence to the contrary. This is why we shouldn’t be slaves to scientific evidence, it can be misleading. And this is also why there is no greater evidence than God’s inspired word.

God said it, therefore it is.

By that reasoning, only the animals and plants specifically mentioned in Genesis are all that God created. He didn't mention Pandas, Kangroos, Aardvarks, etc..

The passage explains itself:

“All flesh died that moved upon the earth…All in whose nostrils was the breath of life…” – (Gen 7:21-23).

I don't see how anyone can say plants and trees were excluded then the bible specifically states: " And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground".

This verse you quoted is qualified by the verses I quoted above. It takes more than one verse to get the message:

“Whom will He teach knowledge? And whom will He make to understand the message? …For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.” – (Isa 28:9-10).

Not at all, I picked relevant verses from the flood story. Conversely you choose to pick a verse from Daniel that is totally non sequitur.

The furnace event in Daniel was use to show that scientific evidence to the contrary does not necessarily prove an event did not happen.

But just to keep everything in context I submit the following:
Genesis 6:9 - 8:22

Sure, why not?

No, I am saying no evidence of a global flood.

Then perhaps all land life was living in one local area before the flood. The flood would still have destroyed all land life worldwide if this was the case.

 

[Doveaman]

Do you often argue against yourself thus -- or did you not realize that flood geology is supposed to support the Bible?

Chapter and verse please.

 

[RickG]

Then perhaps all land life was living in one local area before the flood. The flood would still have destroyed all land life worldwide if this was the case.

So your way to reconcile a biblical story that obviously is intended as an allegory and not a literal fact is to make stuff up. I prefer to recognize the story as an allegory so I don't have make things up that is known not to be true, like all plant and animal life being in one local area 4500 years ago.