World Flood???

Ligurian said:

If you believe the tower of Babel is the same thing as Babylon... maybe, but not if you think Babel wasn't built in a still-flooded land. I have reasons for thinking that neither place is the actual spot. Archaeologists go looking in spots where they're told what to find. This tragedy of errors happened to the Hittites, who were mistaken for their Persian overlords. Some people still think that the Mitanni built the chariots... but these overlords took Hurrian names, and are awarded the invention. Another oddity happened when they found the same herring-bone brick patterns in Sumer that they found in the Troad. Sure, some things are a matter of trade and the culture that came with it... but not everything is a coincidence.

Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel?

Answers in Genesis says Babel was on Hurrian land... well, they might not say it was Hurrian land, but that's who held it, back in the day. And if you go from there... where did the ark really land... supposing there was such a huge and high forest of trees somewhere in the Near East? Some say the Argos holds the clue to the story.

Click to expand...

Tower of Babel is addressed in a different thread this thread is for creationism vs theistic evolution so really dont have to go in depth on it

Ligurian said:

Look at the size of that ship they built in Kentucky based on the plan of the ark... and ask yourself if one man could have done all that work even if his family members helped. And while you're doing that, tell me where Babylon got trees and axes to cut them down? Or question where it is that the moutain-shaped temple with trees on it was inspired. Obviously they were pining-away for the tree-covered mountains of their homeland. Where was that homeland? Was it at Urartu of the god Khaldi? Or west of Anatolia which the Greeks called anatole and means East? We know that Cain was sent to the land of wandering... is that the Steppes? Did Steppe-land have the first metal-smiths? Some say Yes. In short, there are just too many unexplored questions about the place of Noah to even be able to think about a world flood.

Click to expand...

im interested do you affirm global flood or not and the ark in kentucky is 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high and
The Lord predicted that His judgment on the sinful civilization in the days of Noah would come in 120 years (Genesis 6:3). When He told Noah and instructed him to build the Ark (6:14-16) is unclear. But let's assume that Noah had the full 120 years warning.
Noah's three sons began to be born 100 years before the Flood (cf. 5:32 with 7:6) and within a few years were able to help. There may have been others to help as well, for grandfather Methusalah was alive during the entire construction period, dying the year of the Flood. There may have been others in a godly remnant of whom we know nothing. All we know now is that only eight people, Noah and his wife, their three sons, and their wives, constituted the faithful still living when the Flood finally came (7:13; II Peter 2:5). It may also have been that Noah hired construction workers to help. He must have been at least wealthy enough to abandon his livelihood during this period, but again we have no knowledge of these details.
Let's take the worst case scenario. Let's assume that only Noah and his three sons were available to help. Could they have done it all by themselves? To answer this we must first understand the magnitude of the job.
In Scripture we are only told the gross dimensions of the Ark—450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, assuming a cubit of 18" (6:15). We also know that the Ark had three decks (6:16). Thus the overall volume of the Ark was:
450 x 75 x 45 = 1.52 x 106 ft.3
But a structure consists mostly of open space. Most houses are over 95% open, less for large ships. In our worst case scenario, let's assume that 20% of the Ark's volume was worked lumber that the four men had to gather, transport to the construction site, do the necessary shaping and install.
1.52 x 106 x .2 = .304 x 106 ft.3
Remember, the Ark didn't have to win any beauty contests, or speed races, it just had to be strong and float. It probably more resembled a rough barn or stable in workmanship. The generations so soon after creation, living in an ideal environment with long life spans, were no doubt intelligent and capable. It hardly matters if the family were experienced in construction for within a year or so they would have been true professionals. An experienced crew of four could have installed, we assume, an average of 15 cubic feet of wood per day. If anything, this estimate seems low, but this is the worst case!
15 ft x 6 days x 52 wks = 4,680 ft3/year
It's now easy to calculate how long it would have taken.
0.304 x 106 ft3
= 65 years
4,680 ft3/year and
The Bible says the Ark was to be built of "gopher wood". "Gopher" is the actual Hebrew word. In early English translations the meaning of the word was unknown so it was left untranslated. The NIV translates it "cypress wood", however, this is only a guess. It was undoubtedly translated this way due to the fact that cypress wood is highly resistant to rot. What this material was is still a mystery. It could have been a pre-flood wood with which we are not familiar.
It is almost certain that Noah did not construct a standard wooden ship of the kind we are familiar. According to nautical engineers the longest wooden vessel ever built was 360 feet in length and was not seaworthy. Because of the wave action of the sea only wooden ships shorter than this will be seaworthy. Therefore, we must conclude that Noah used some other method of construction to overcome this problem.

One more question: Are the Pelasgians Peleg?

Ligurian said:

"One more word about Peleg: In the International Standard Biblical Encyclopedia reference is made to a Babylonian geographic fragment (80-6-17, 504) which has a series of ideographs tentatively read out as Pulukku, perhaps a modified form of Peleg. This is followed by the words "Sha ebirti," which could either signify "Pulukku who was of Eber," or it could be a composite phrase "Pulukku-of-the-Crossing." Conceivably a settlement of Pelegites was established on the river at a fordable point, this river afterwards receiving the name Hebrus. Whatever the truth of the matter, the word "Peleg" seems somehow to have come down to us also through Greek in the form "pelagos," meaning "sea." If there is a real connection this might suggest a further idea, namely, that the "division" took place when men began to migrate for the first time by water. The phrase "the earth was divided" would be interpreted to mean "the peoples of the earth were divided," i.e., by water.
--Custance ... A Study of the Names of Genesis 10
Noah (Vol.1) - Pt.II, CH.4

Click to expand...

There is little doubt that Greece was already inhabited prior to the Classical period, when the earliest known Greek historians were writing their histories. For instance, the first Greeks are said to be the Mycenaeans, as their script, known as Linear B, is the earliest attested form of Greek. Stories about the Mycenaeans were also told by later generations of Greeks, the Trojan War being the most famous example.
Moreover, there is ample archaeological evidence to support the existence of this civilization. These include palatial structures, fortifications, and monumental tombs. Furthermore, the rich grave goods from the tombs offer a unique insight into this lost civilization.
Although the Mycenaeans are believed to have brought an end to the Pelasgians, Greek mythology states that it was a flood that destroyed them. As mentioned earlier, one of the sons of Pelasgos was Lycaon, the king of Arcadia.
Surface finds recovered from the seabed, on the other hand, suggest that the site was already occupied long before the Mycenaean period, i.e. as early as the 3rd millennium BC. Some have suggested that Pavlopetri is a Pelasgian site, while others are more cautious, calling it an Early Bronze Age site.
Little archaeological work was done at the site after its initial discovery, but the site was investigated again between 2009 and 2013. In more recent years, effort has been made to protect the site from destruction.
The historian George Grote summarizes the theory as follows:
"There are, indeed, various names affirmed to designate the ante-Hellenic inhabitants of many parts of Greece — the Pelasgi, the Leleges, the Curetes, the Kaukones, the Aones, the Temmikes, the Hyantes, the Telchines, the Boeotian Thracians, the Teleboae, the Ephyri, the Phlegyae, &c. These are names belonging to legendary, not to historical Greece — extracted out of a variety of conflicting legends by the logographers and subsequent historians, who strung together out of them a supposed history of the past, at a time when the conditions of historical evidence were very little understood. That these names designated real nations may be true but here our knowledge ends."
The poet and mythologist Robert Graves asserts that certain elements of that mythology originate with the native Pelasgian people (namely the parts related to his concept of the White Goddess, an archetypical Earth Goddess) drawing additional support for his conclusion from his interpretations of other ancient literature: Irish, Welsh, Greek, Biblical, Gnostic, and medieval writings.
Ibero-Caucasian[edit]Some Georgian scholars (including R. V. Gordeziani and M. G. Abdushelishvili) connect the Pelasgians with the Ibero-Caucasian peoples of the prehistoric Caucasus, known to the Greeks as Colchians and Iberians.
Pelasgian as Indo-European[edit]Anatolian[edit]In western Anatolia, many toponyms with the "-ss-" infix derive from the adjectival suffix also seen in cuneiform Luwian and some Palaic; the classic example is Bronze Age Tarhuntassa (loosely, "City of the Storm God Tarhunta"), and later Parnassus may be related to the Hittite word parna- or "house". These elements have led to a second theory, that Pelasgian was to some degree an Anatolian language.
Thracian[edit]Vladimir I. Georgiev, a Bulgarian linguist, asserted that the Pelasgians were Indo-Europeans, with an Indo-European etymology of pelasgoi from pelagos, "sea" as the Sea People, the PRŚT of Egyptian inscriptions, and related them to the neighbouring Thracians. He proposed a soundshift model from Indo-European to Pelasgian.
Greek[edit]Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, an English writer and intellectual, argued that the Pelasgians spoke Greek based on the fact that areas traditionally inhabited by the "Pelasgi" (i.e. Arcadia and Attica) only spoke Greek and that the few surviving Pelasgian words and inscriptions (i.e. Lamina Borgiana) betray Greek linguistic features.
Peleg (Hebrew: פּלג, Pẹleḡ; Greek: Φάλεγ, Phaleg is the first named son of son of Eber. He had at least one known brother, brother of:Joktan. When he was age of parenthood::30 years old, he had a son named father of::Reu. He lived for another 209 years and had other sons and daughters. His total life span was thus life span::239 years, slightly more than half that of his father and the shortest life span to date in his line.
Some writers, such as Perry Edward Powell and Arthur C. Custance associate the Pelasgi or Pelasgians with Peleg; these were Indo-Europeans who claimed Pelasgus as their first king. Greek Orthodox tradition also affirms this connection. Strabo says in his Geography, "... the Pelasgi were by the Attic people called 'Pelargi,' the compilers add, because they were wanderers and, like birds, resorted to those places wither chance led them.Gamkrelidze and Ivanov claim that the Pelasgians settled the Peloponnesian peninsula "even before the arrival of the Greeks [Hellenes] proper."[10]Elsewhere Strabo cites Greek writers who claimed that the Pelasgians came from Thessaly,[11] and there a people whom Strabo calls Pelagonians are found,[12] so there may be some merit to this assertion. The Pelasgians are said to have "spread throughout the whole of Greece" in ancient times,[13]and when the Danaans came from Egypt, they were also called by that name.[14] The apparently peaceful reception of the Danaans in Greece may well be explained, if those inhabitants of Greece before the arrival of Dan were also Hebrews. The Pelasgians were a sea-faring people who sailed theMediterranean and were well known as traders. John Denison Baldwin suggests that acknowledgment of the Pelasgians was recorded in Sanskrit which mentions the Palangshu of Asia Minor (Placia and Mysia).[15] They also occupied a territory north of Greece between two rivers, one of which was called the Hebrus River, bearing a name reminiscent of and most likely named after their ancestor, Eber (Genesis 10:25 ).[16] Eventually they were pushed further south by the Thracians and they merged with the Mycenaean Greeks. They seem to be the only people ascribed to him.
Picture
Eber were born two sons: the first was called Peleg, because it was in his time that the earth was divided, and his brother was called Joktan. (Genesis 10:25)
And like i said from the very beginning the large spanned region can be affirmed and the timeframe of Genesis is a debated timeline unless you dont hold to Panagea

Ligurian said:

No, I don't believe there was a world wide flood. I also don't believe that Cain was kicked off the world, but only sent to another part of the world. Because the ancients all seemed to think that they were all that there was in the world, no matter where they lived. If there were giants after the flood, then one of Noah&sons must have married a giantess by mistake. But Cain must have survived since Jesus blames the Pharisees, via their ancestors, for killing Abel... just as Pharisees had killed the prophets via their ancestors. This seems always to be overlooked. Jesus is righteous, and would never have condemned them for some impossible thing.



I'm more of a Lyonesse person, than Panagea... the world in manageable chunks. The timeframe of Genesis seems made up to me. People lived a millennium, back in the day? It seems to have been contrived to make someone's history a solid mass. Those of us who've read what the Hurrians left in Nuzi and what Amorites said in Ugarit ask Which came first, the chicken or the egg? There is far too much Bible in ancient Pelasgian Legend than many are comfortable with. And yes, I'm saying Pelasgian Legend... because it's pretty certain that the Greeks only did what the Akkadians did to Sumerian writings... copying them into their own language. Zeus is Pelasgian Zeus. Which must make Zeus like the archangel Michael. And since we do see Zeus warring against Cronus the god of Babylon, Cronus must have been from another layer of small-g-gods. But the Greeks, when they showed up, didn't know what they had in their hands, so the Legends became mythologized... begetting lands became begetting children on human women... and all of the nonsense that spun-out from that. If we didn't know Pelasgian Legend, we wouldn't know that the beast will rise from the pit beneath Pontos, where the Titans are kept. And the angels haven't fallen yet, because Satan hasn't lost the war in Heaven (Rev.12) to Michael yet. What comes out of the pit must be the Titans.

Blegen--The Coming of the Greeks: The Geographical Distribution of Prehistoric
Remains in Greece
Haley--The Coming of the Greeks: The Geographical Distribution of Pre-Greek
Place Names
American Journal of Archaeology 1928: Vol 31 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Click to expand...

wow you have very interestin faith

AV1611VET said:

Could it be that what you are describing is a local flood that occurred after Noah's flood?

Click to expand...

No I am not there is no proof of multiple regional floods in Middle East.

AV1611VET said:

You just gave proof of one, didn't you?

Click to expand...

widescale regional is my position not just a regular local flood.

AV1611VET said:

Same question then:

Could it be that what you are describing is a wide scale regional flood that occurred after Noah's flood?

Click to expand...

No there wouldn't be a flood that great in Mesopotamia if it was a flood greater than that with no archaeological proof for it.