Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Worldwide Flood


KT45

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if anyone here does this but I know a few atheist who try to use Noah's story to show the bible is false. Noah's story as many of you know is about a worldwide flood that occured in the bible. Science has shown that a worldwide flood didn't happen so the bible must be false right?

 

I admit as a child I did believe that Noah did build an ark and that it rained all over the earth and that the earth was covered in water. But later when I started world history in school I discovered that the word "world" didn't always mean the planet earth. Like when Christopher Colombus traveled to america he said he discovered a new world. Now he didn't discover a new planet but a new area of land. Also as many of you know the word earth doesn't always mean the planet. When I say he dug up the earth he didn't dig up the planet he dug up dirt and soil. If earth and world don't always mean planet then why assume that the biblical bible story dealt with a worldwide flood.

 

There was never a worldwide flood but the earth was flooded. In other word it was just a flood over a large area of land.

 

Using Strong's Concordance the word earth in those scripture meant this

"In the King James Version, Strong #127 (Hebrew ‘ad-aw-maw’ – relating to ‘soil’) is translated as “ground” 4 times between Genesis chapter 6 and 8 in Gen 7:23 and in Gen 8:8, 13 and 21 (and 5 times as “earth”). And if one studies the 43 translations of this word in the book of Genesis and the 225 times used in all the OT books - land(s)-125, earth-53, ground-43, country-1, husbandman-2, husbandry-1 – we could see that it was translated to ‘land’ and ‘ground’ 3 times more often than to “earth”. It does give a better rendering if translated as “ground” or “land” (‘a large piece of ground’) most of the times as their context require it."

 

The other word used in the Noah text for earth is Strong’s #776 or ‘eh-ret’. This can mean planet (I don't know what they consider a planet back then since they thought the world was flat but whatever) but in the context of the story it means large area of land since it is used inchangeably with Strong #127 in the Noah story.

 

But why did God create a Rainbow covenant which said I won't kill any person with a flood or any creature with a flood like this. Most people believe that he would never have another global flood and that was the covenant he made. In reality it was just a covanent with Noah and his family and the creatures with him. Basically thet covanent was that Noah and his family and many of the generations to follow wouldn't be killed by a flood and neither would the animals he brought.

 

There are many arguments against the bible that can be made and have plenty of truth behind them. But the Noah story isn't the best one to make.

 

Here is a source if you want one. http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/cheo-ms_p_03.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodbye Jesus
:Doh: Or before anyone flames me I just mean the worldwide flood part of the argument. Noah building a huge boat at the age of 500 sounds like BS to me too. You can argue that point if you want :grin:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If earth and world don't always mean planet then why assume that the biblical bible story dealt with a worldwide flood.

 

agappe!!!! :lmao:

Actually i have heard of the theory that only the middle east was flooded, but if that was the case then Noah wouldve packed up and moved, and he wouldnt need to save *every* creature. From my understanding, even many xian theologists have a problem with the local flooding theory. :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the story of Noah is used as an argument, just because plenty of Christians claim a worldwide flood. Most likely the story is a variation of a true event, a local flood in the are around Tigris. The story is told in so many versions, and each one claim it was that particular religions god that did the flooding.

 

If you consider the flood to be a local one, and that Noah (or whoever it was) didn't gather all animals on the planet, and he didn't land high up on the mountain Ararat (sp?), then it's fine with me. It's not as big of a wonder or miracle anymore.

 

One thing you say about the rainbow and god's promise doesn't match to history though. The hurricane Katrina killed people in a flood, and plenty of people have been killed in huge floods in history. So if god kept his promise, those events where not by him, and then the question is did he even make the first one? Maybe it was just a natural catastrophy and a person with his family luckily happened to survive? (I know you like to think about these questions! :grin: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing you say about the rainbow and god's promise doesn't match to history though. The hurricane Katrina killed people in a flood, and plenty of people have been killed in huge floods in history.

 

Oh but New Orleans was a land of *sinners* and u know what god does to sinful cities :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the question about the 'covenant' claim and Katrina, I think what the text actually says is that "there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh" not that there would be no more casualties from floods.

 

As to the feasibility of a flood that lands a boat at the top of Mount Ararat, I also wonder where all the water could have come from/gone to. But interestingly enough there is a strange, boat-shaped item of roughly the biblical dimensions buried in a glacier at the top of Mount Ararat. Possibly just a rock formation; we won't know one way or the other until a party of climbers can make it up there since it's too high for helicopters to venture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing you say about the rainbow and god's promise doesn't match to history though. The hurricane Katrina killed people in a flood, and plenty of people have been killed in huge floods in history. So if god kept his promise, those events where not by him, and then the question is did he even make the first one? Maybe it was just a natural catastrophy and a person with his family luckily happened to survive? (I know you like to think about these questions! :grin: )

 

I'm a little confused. I thought I said that God made a covent with Noah and his family only. If the flood was a local flood like I suggest then floods could come and destroy other parts of the globe as long as it didn't mess with Noah's lineage. here is an except from the site I cited earlier

Let take a closer look at the Rainbow Covenant. First, it was a covenant with Noah and his seed, just like the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 17:7 – “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee…”) and the Mosaic Covenant was with the people of Israel during the time of Moses. It was a covenant with “every beast of the land with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the land”. It was a “covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you (in the region), for perpetual generations” – an assurance by God that Noah and his seed and “every living creature” with Noah, will not be wiped out again by flood, unlike the many lineage that had just perished. Flood had continued to destroy life since Noah’s day, but none of Noah’s line and the animals will be wipe out (get extinct) by flood. That is all there to it.

 

In my view all the so called miracles in the bible were just natural events. Maybe God just slightly intervened but that's all.

God: Yo Noah, flood gonna come one day. Might wanna build a boat.

Noah: Okay!

 

 

 

As to the question about the 'covenant' claim and Katrina, I think what the text actually says is that "there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh" not that there would be no more casualties from floods.

 

As to the feasibility of a flood that lands a boat at the top of Mount Ararat, I also wonder where all the water could have come from/gone to. But interestingly enough there is a strange, boat-shaped item of roughly the biblical dimensions buried in a glacier at the top of Mount Ararat. Possibly just a rock formation; we won't know one way or the other until a party of climbers can make it up there since it's too high for helicopters to venture.

 

That's a discovery made by a team followed by a man named Wyatt. He was an amatuer archeologist how claimed to have found Noah's Ark as well as evidence suppoting the Exodus stories. He was revealed to be a fraud since he planted chariot wheels in the Red sea (his wife said it) and that he kept no evidence of his findings. He died but he still has followers who are still digging around that area though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If earth and world don't always mean planet then why assume that the biblical bible story dealt with a worldwide flood.

Actually i have heard of the theory that only the middle east was flooded, but if that was the case then Noah wouldve packed up and moved, and he wouldnt need to save *every* creature. From my understanding, even many xian theologists have a problem with the local flooding theory. :scratch:

 

Well just look at Katrina (yeah I have to go back to that example). The people in New Orleans wanted to stay in that land and the flood was already there. So I guess to Moses just getting up and leaving wasn't an option since he probably need to stay in that land.

 

as far as saving every creature it was just the animals in that area. Noah even scarificed some to God so getting the animals obviously wasn't to save the species since there was only two of each kind.

here's another quote from the site

God may also have intended for all the animals from the region in the Ark to keep Noah’s and his family company, to keep them occupied with works, and to make them grow in knowledge of His creation. At the end of it, it was also to ensure a much faster repopulation of the destroyed region too. The Flood served as an example for us, in which both Jesus and Peter had used as reference. Hence, it poses no problem at all if Noah had indeed sacrificed all clean animals and fowls from the Ark as might be hinted in Gen 8:20, or that God allowed Noah and his family to eat of the animals immediately after the flood, as declared in Gen 9:3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the flood was a local flood like I suggest

Let me point out that a flood that covers the top of Mount Ararat with meters to spare for forthy days, as described in the text, can't possibly be less than a global flood. Water levels equilibrate much faster than that.

 

That's a discovery made by a team followed by a man named Wyatt. ..He died but he still has followers who are still digging around that area though.

No, actually if you read the link in my first comment it's a series of images captured by several commercial and intelligence satellites and analyzed by a group led by Porcher Taylor, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The linked story also shows a satellite photo taken by DigitalGlobe's Quickbird satellite. The report makes clear that the image may be due to nothing more than shadows, rock, or ice features, but nonetheless it's an unusual feature in an unusual place and it happens to match the biblical dimensions pretty closely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ten years ago or so there were reports of remains of settlements found beneath the Black Sea. They were speculated to be from maybe 8000 BC. or somewhat earlier. Some people theorized that ancient stories of a flood may have come from the inundation of the floor of what is now the Black Sea. The theory is that there was a land bridge where the Bosporus is now located. What is now the Black Sea was then arable farmland. When the land bridge broke through as sea levels were rising, the Mediterranean poured into the basin, flooded everything, including the settlements there, and created the Black Sea (or enlarged it). The story is found in Greek and middle eastern legends, earliest attestation in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's a far cry from the worldwide flood depicted in most of the legends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the flood was a local flood like I suggest

Let me point out that a flood that covers the top of Mount Ararat with meters to spare for forthy days, as described in the text, can't possibly be less than a global flood. Water levels equilibrate much faster than that.

The flood didn't have to cover the tops of Mount Ararat. Noah just saw the tops of the Mountains.

Gen 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.

 

73 days after the water started receding, the fog and mist cleared enough to have the tops of mountains surrounding the region to be visible again to Noah. The Ark was not resting 17,000 up on Mount Ararat. It was probably around some much lower hills or plains among the mountains of Ararat. Note that on the first of the 10th month, many “tops” (plural) become visible on that one same day. Receding waters would not give that scenario. This correspond very well with Gen 7:19,20 when the heavy rain (and fog) caused the all mountains to be covered (from view almost at the same time). Now, with the fog disappearing, the mountains’ tops became visible again to all on the plains.

 

That's a discovery made by a team followed by a man named Wyatt. ..He died but he still has followers who are still digging around that area though.

No, actually if you read the link in my first comment it's a series of images captured by several commercial and intelligence satellites and analyzed by a group led by Porcher Taylor, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The linked story also shows a satellite photo taken by DigitalGlobe's Quickbird satellite. The report makes clear that the image may be due to nothing more than shadows, rock, or ice features, but nonetheless it's an unusual feature in an unusual place and it happens to match the biblical dimensions pretty closely.

Here you go. Link to show it's just a normal mountain formation. http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the flood was a local flood like I suggest

Let me point out that a flood that covers the top of Mount Ararat with meters to spare for forthy days, as described in the text, can't possibly be less than a global flood. Water levels equilibrate much faster than that.

 

That's a discovery made by a team followed by a man named Wyatt. ..He died but he still has followers who are still digging around that area though.

No, actually if you read the link in my first comment it's a series of images captured by several commercial and intelligence satellites and analyzed by a group led by Porcher Taylor, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The linked story also shows a satellite photo taken by DigitalGlobe's Quickbird satellite. The report makes clear that the image may be due to nothing more than shadows, rock, or ice features, but nonetheless it's an unusual feature in an unusual place and it happens to match the biblical dimensions pretty closely.

 

Sorry I haven't studied your articles yet I'll come back with more from the new photos and not Wyatt's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flood didn't have to cover the tops of Mount Ararat. Noah just saw the tops of the Mountains.

Actually the text claims this: "7:20. The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered." and also this "7:19. And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered."

Whether or not it's believable is another question, but the text claims that the flood covered the mountains with meters to spare. That's a global flood. To put this in context, Mount Ararat is over 15000 feet high whereas a mere 100 foot rise in the global sea level would wipe out every modern coastal city.

 

Here you go. Link to show it's just a normal mountain formation

If you read the report, you'll notice they're talking about a different formation. The one in your link is listed as being at an altitude of 7000 feet while the one in the USA Today story I linked is at 15300 feet and has not been explored by a team on the ground as yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone here does this but I know a few atheist who try to use Noah's story to show the bible is false. Noah's story as many of you know is about a worldwide flood that occured in the bible. Science has shown that a worldwide flood didn't happen so the bible must be false right?

 

:twitch:

 

Do you actually believe the people who are atheists and those here who have abandoned religion did so because ONE Bible story is false? :twitch: Do you think we are that stupid and or flaky that we would not have considerably more evidence regarding most or all of the the bible stories as our basis for altering or leaving our former belief systems?

 

I just wanted to check this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flood didn't have to cover the tops of Mount Ararat. Noah just saw the tops of the Mountains.

Actually the text claims this: "7:20. The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered." and also this "7:19. And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered."

Whether or not it's believable is another question, but the text claims that the flood covered the mountains with meters to spare. That's a global flood. To put this in context, Mount Ararat is over 15000 feet high whereas a mere 100 foot rise in the global sea level would wipe out every modern coastal city.

 

Here you go. Link to show it's just a normal mountain formation

If you read the report, you'll notice they're talking about a different formation. The one in your link is listed as being at an altitude of 7000 feet while the one in the USA Today story I linked is at 15300 feet and has not been explored by a team on the ground as yet.

 

Yeah I noticed that and apologize. Even with the information about Mt. Ararat I still believe the flood in the bible was about a local flood not a worldwide flood. You may say that the mountain is 15000 ft high so it had to be a worldwide flood but the flood waters never had to be on top of a mountain. The bible said Noah only had to see the mountain tops. Here is a quote from the very first site I showed.

"The flood didn't have to cover the tops of Mount Ararat. Noah just saw the tops of the Mountains.

Gen 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.

 

73 days after the water started receding, the fog and mist cleared enough to have the tops of mountains surrounding the region to be visible again to Noah. The Ark was not resting 17,000 up on Mount Ararat. It was probably around some much lower hills or plains among the mountains of Ararat. Note that on the first of the 10th month, many “tops” (plural) become visible on that one same day. Receding waters would not give that scenario. This correspond very well with Gen 7:19,20 when the heavy rain (and fog) caused the all mountains to be covered (from view almost at the same time). Now, with the fog disappearing, the mountains’ tops became visible again to all on the plains."

 

I'm not sure if anyone here does this but I know a few atheist who try to use Noah's story to show the bible is false. Noah's story as many of you know is about a worldwide flood that occured in the bible. Science has shown that a worldwide flood didn't happen so the bible must be false right?

 

:twitch:

 

Do you actually believe the people who are atheists and those here who have abandoned religion did so because ONE Bible story is false? :twitch: Do you think we are that stupid and or flaky that we would not have considerably more evidence regarding most or all of the the bible stories as our basis for altering or leaving our former belief systems?

 

I just wanted to check this.

 

No no no. I know that atheist and others who have left the faith have many reasons why they did so. I even said in my very first post that "There are many arguments against the bible that can be made and have plenty of truth behind them. But the Noah story isn't the best one to make."

I just want to warn people to not use this particular story about the worldwide flood to do debate their biblical stance since it's not a good one. Believe me I know a quite a few problems with the christianity in general myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my issue with the flood, isn't whether it happened or not...a worldwide flood obviously didn't happen. But lets assume some local flood involving the noah family happened, and for some reason these people felt compelled to start a zoo...

 

my issue with the flood story was, and always has been the immorality of drowning people and animals because of sin. That's retarded. ALL the people were evil? Pregnant women? babies? old people? very young children? Evil and rotten to the core? ONLY the noah family was good?

 

And what about the animals? Yep...those evil evil kittens...gotta drown those. :Wendywhatever:

 

You can contort bible stories however you want to make them appear more "logical" and "rational" but what you can't do, with most of them, is make them appear more moral.

 

It doesn't have to be made moral. People just used the bible to explain different events. Like with Noah's story, a flood happens and noah happens to have a boat. saving his family and himself. "Well God must have loved noah and told him the flood was going to happen". But what about the other people "Well God must have been mad at them". Usually in the bible when something good happens like winning a battle (where women and children are killed in the process) it's because God was with them. When something bad happens God must have obviously been mad at them. This is how I usually look at the bible especially the old testament. When I get my morals I look at the parables or wisdom literature and examples of jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone here does this but I know a few atheist who try to use Noah's story to show the bible is false. Noah's story as many of you know is about a worldwide flood that occured in the bible. Science has shown that a worldwide flood didn't happen so the bible must be false right?

 

Uh...no. I don't know of anyone who uses it to show the bible is false.

 

Maybe that a literal biblical reading is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the feasibility of a flood that lands a boat at the top of Mount Ararat, I also wonder where all the water could have come from/gone to. But interestingly enough there is a strange, boat-shaped item of roughly the biblical dimensions buried in a glacier at the top of Mount Ararat. Possibly just a rock formation; we won't know one way or the other until a party of climbers can make it up there since it's too high for helicopters to venture.

One problem that strikes me immediately is the shape. I thought (maybe it's just a traditional opinion) that the ark was more like a box, but that image looks like a huge canoe. What was the measures of the supposed ark, and the proportions?

 

Ooops! I just saw the number in the text.

 

And what about the animals? Yep...those evil evil kittens...gotta drown those. :Wendywhatever:

And bunnies. You forgot cute bunnies. That's why Cute Bunny is out for revenge on the evil Christian god! C-God killed millions of bunnies!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone here does this but I know a few atheist who try to use Noah's story to show the bible is false. Noah's story as many of you know is about a worldwide flood that occured in the bible. Science has shown that a worldwide flood didn't happen so the bible must be false right?

 

Uh...no. I don't know of anyone who uses it to show the bible is false.

 

Maybe that a literal biblical reading is false.

 

right no one uses this specific example exclusively but includes it with a bunch of other examples that most would consider either historically inaccurate or illogical. I'm just saying that in this huge list of examples this one shouldn't be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely can't fault you for being decent and nonjudgmental. I bet you've read the book comparing buddha and Jesus by Marcus Borg? yes?

 

No I haven't read that particular book. I didn't really know where to start when studying the buddhist religion since there really isn't a centralized text (correct me if I'm wrong). I was thinking about starting off with the Dhammapada but I'm not sure. Is the book you recommend worth the read? Which would you recommend reading first the different teachings of buddha (darma) or this book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the question about the 'covenant' claim and Katrina, I think what the text actually says is that "there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh" not that there would be no more casualties from floods.

 

As to the feasibility of a flood that lands a boat at the top of Mount Ararat, I also wonder where all the water could have come from/gone to. But interestingly enough there is a strange, boat-shaped item of roughly the biblical dimensions buried in a glacier at the top of Mount Ararat. Possibly just a rock formation; we won't know one way or the other until a party of climbers can make it up there since it's too high for helicopters to venture.

 

:ugh: "ALL" Flesh wasn't destroyed in the first flood, save Noah, family and in-laws. So the promise of "ALL FLESH" is stupid as it never happened to begin with according to the story. Also, the argument of the rainbow meaning the bloodline of Noah is also redundant as his family was saved and not killed the first time.

 

 

Secondly, 500 years old, and still strong enough to build a boat that's greater the size of the titanic? Sure...uhh okay. Taking the age of 500 years old, and you figure a span of more then 2 or 3 generations per 100 years You have more then a handful of people building the boat and being saved. Or do the supporters of the ark story actually believe that Hem and shem gave birth to the first generation of children while they were were 400-500 years old?

 

Third, What about all the food... How much food would have to be on board to feed this zoo for more then a year? Contacting a Large size zoo for feeding their animals for one day or one week would give one some sort of inclination. Not to mention all the carnivores how were they fed? I wont even get into the amount of Fresh water needed aboard this boat to keep fresh water or salt water sea/river/ ocean Animals alive. and regular animals properly watered. One would need pools the size of more then 4 football fields on this boat for the water alone.

 

Alligators, Komodo dragons, and a host of other cold blooded animals had to have some temperature controls, Sun plays a major part in this, Tropical animals need tropical climates, Desert animals need Dry hot climates, Polar bears, grizzly bears, penguins and what not need extremely cold environments. How was this done?

 

The story is out and out false when you break it down to simple questions. No amount of twisting the words of earth means grounds and what not will give it the legitimacy the story needs to float.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:ugh: "ALL" Flesh wasn't destroyed in the first flood, save Noah, family and in-laws. So the promise of "ALL FLESH" is stupid as it never happened to begin with according to the story. Also, the argument of the rainbow meaning the bloodline of Noah is also redundant as his family was saved and not killed the first time.

:lmao: I missed that! Thanks Japedo. If Noah and family were the only survivors, then the humans that populate this planet are all descendents of Noah. So God's promise was to us all to not kill anyone of us again in a flood. Or?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TaylorK,

 

I see you are referencing a Preterist site - are you a Preterist? I actually have Preterism to thank for my Atheism as it allowed me to reframe my entire theological position on the Bible and open my mind to the possibility of different interpretations. But while I was busy shifting my eschatological position I ended up opening up a large can of worms.

 

You can see a bit of a debate I had regarding global vs. local flood theories here:

 

my limited debate

 

As you can see from that discussion I believe that a global flood is so mathematically unworkable as to be outright laughable, but that a local flood theory has just as many problems. But as is seen in the link I provided, in order to support a local flood you have to take the absurd position that both the victims of the flood AND Noah and his family AND all the animals all could have escaped by just walking out of the area -- BUT -- God somehow prevented this and had Noah build a boat instead just to set up a foreshadowing of Christ and the resurrection!

 

If this truly was foreshadowing, then it says that both redemption and punishment are not universal!

 

This story is foundational to any sort of literal interpretation of the Bible and was key to my eventual abandonment of belief in any sort of supernatural entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZoeGrace:

"...a worldwide flood obviously didn't happen."

How do you know that? It's not obvious to me.

 

"...my issue with the flood story was, and always has been the immorality of drowning people and animals because of sin."

Now this is a good question, but you're assuming that a deity would have to obey the same moral laws that we do. Since the defintion of moral conduct depends on cirucmstances, particularly on one's authority, this doesn't follow. For example: it's wrong for me to break into a bank. But it's not wrong for a SWAT team to break into a bank during a hostage situation. Moral conduct depends on who you are and what your role is.

Now, if we assume that a deity gave life to all creatures, and then many of them offended said deity, then it's arguable that the deity has the moral right to withdraw the privilege of life. An analogy might be the bus company in my town, which will likely soon remove its bus shelters because drunk students keep vandalizing them. Then no one, including pregnant women and young children will have bus shelters, but the bus company has that right.

 

 

Japedo:

(1) I think it's clear from the text that what is promised is that there will be no more worldwide floods that kill everyone who isn't specifically singled out to be saved.

(2) The age issue (500 years) is definitely beyond modern experience, but how are we to know whether in ancient times lifespans weren't longer? If one believes the bible story about Adam and Eve, who were supposedly originally immortal, then it would not be implausible that succeeding generations had long lifespans which gradually decreased to the ~120 years we now know.

(3) Regarding the water, keep in mind that the flood was supposedly caused by rain water, which necessarily would be fresh water. Even if the oceans were salt at that time, the whole flood would have been so dilute as to be drinkable if one believes the biblical account.

(4) Regarding the food, animals (including humans) can subsist for 10 months on a fraction of their normal intake, particularly if they have plentiful water. There is no assurance in the text that everyone was healthy when they came out.

(5) Regarding thermal control, if we assume median temperatures of about 60F, most animals would survive. Also, one could speculate that many of the sub-species (e.g. polar bears vs black bears) came about through microevolution in the ensuing millenia whereas perhaps only 'bears' were on board the ark itself, so alleviating space, food, and thermal constraints.

(6) Also, the argument of the rainbow meaning the bloodline of Noah is also redundant as his family was saved and not killed the first time.

I think that's the point: the text is saying that the whole human race is supposed to have this covenant with the deity in which there will never be a massive wipeout like the deluge. In fact, in the text I have it specifically says so: "17 And God said to Noe: This shall be the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh upon the earth."

 

There are a lot of unknowns in this story. It's an unusual story but I haven't seen any compelling arguments yet to show conclusively that the story is nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(3) Regarding the water, keep in mind that the flood was supposedly caused by rain water, which necessarily would be fresh water. Even if the oceans were salt at that time, the whole flood would have been so dilute as to be drinkable if one believes the biblical account.

Which would have killed pretty much every plant or animal that lives in the ocean. But yet the ocean is full of life. That one's kinda hard to explain, isn't it? Not to mention all of the plant life on land. How did all the trees and plants survive total immersion for that long? No oxygen, no sun. Did Noah take all known seeds on board the ark? And how did the olive tree stay alive so the bird could bring an olive branch back to Noah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.