Support for belief in Noah's flood, not evidence.

[davewhite04]

If your thesis - and your target audience - grants the existence of a God that can and does do magical things on a whim, then there is nothing that can be used to invalidate the Bible, since the answer is always "God made it that way".

Potentially God could of done anything yes, magic, dance on the water and that is enough to know for many believers.

 

[DaveC426913]

Potentially God could of done anything yes, magic, dance on the water and that is enough to know for many believers.

It's good enough for you too. You grant that God created light and the world, how do you not grant that he can create water?

There's a flaw in your thesis somewhere. It's not fully formed.

Consider:
"I wish to prove to forest rangers that redwood trees are physically impossible. (Capillary action limits their growth.)"
"OK, but what about those hundred foot redwoods outside the window?"
"Yes, I grant that there are redwoods, and that's good enough to a forest ranger, but I can still show that they're impossible."

 

[mathman]

It could mean God simply created light.

Genesis should not be taken literally.

 

[mathman]

From my Hebrew education: Yahweh was god's name while Elohim was our god.

 

[davewhite04]

Consider:
"I wish to prove to forest rangers that redwood trees are physically impossible. (Capillary action limits their growth.)"
"OK, but what about those hundred foot redwoods outside the window?"
"Yes, I grant that there are redwoods, and that's good enough to a forest ranger, but I can still show that they're impossible."

I don't think the flood is that cut and dry. But a good example of a theists typical position when debating evolution.

 

[davewhite04]

Genesis should not be taken literally.

If Jesus' genealogy goes back to Adam then Adam existed around 6000 years ago. Otherwise the new testament is in error.

Jesus referred to the flood in detail, was he wrong? Did he misunderstand his own book?

 

[davewhite04]

From my Hebrew education: Yahweh was god's name while Elohim was our god.

Just different words for God.

Thanks, I thought it was something like that.

 

[James R]

What evidence is there to dismiss worldwide flood from rational thinking?

The more important thing is the complete lack of evidence for a worldwide flood.

But seeing as you asked, there are some obvious objections, like:

• where did all the extra water come from?
• where did all the extra water go after the worldwide flood ended?
• why is the fossil record ordered in the way we would expect if there was no worldwide flood, instead of how we would expect it to look if there was a worldwide flood?
• Why is there not a single mass-extinction event in the fossil record that corresponds to the hypothesised worldwide flood?
• if the worldwide flood was caused by a vengeful god, why is there no evidence of the flood or of the god?

The flood has been recorded thru out history by various civilization and some civilizations have been lost to it.

Name one civilisation lost to a flood. Please link to evidence that confirms this.

The giants were destroyed by it.

What giants? Is there any evidence that giants ever existed? I mean, apart from recorded myths and legends.

For a reason it happen in history and we have lost history record.

You think the flood happened in historical times (i.e. after the invention of writing)?

When did the flood occur, according to you?

 

[davewhite04]

The more important thing is the complete lack of evidence for a worldwide flood.

But seeing as you asked, there are some obvious objections, like:

• where did all the extra water come from?
• where did all the extra water go after the worldwide flood ended?
• why is the fossil record ordered in the way we would expect if there was no worldwide flood, instead of how we would expect it to look if there was a worldwide flood?
• Why is there not a single mass-extinction event in the fossil record that corresponds to the hypothesised worldwide flood?
• if the worldwide flood was caused by a vengeful god, why is there no evidence of the flood or of the god?

I've read conflicting reports. It seems odd to me that most civilisations recorded a worldwide flood. Why?

 

[DaveC426913]

I've read conflicting reports. It seems odd to me that most civilisations recorded a worldwide flood. Why?

How would any civilization be able to record the state of things beyond their borders, let alone the whole world?

Thinks perhaps there's some apochryphy going on there?

 

[exchemist]

I've read conflicting reports. It seems odd to me that most civilisations recorded a worldwide flood. Why?

None of these ancient peoples had any way to know that a flood was worldwide. Just about any civilisation growing up near large rivers - which is most of them - would have experienced inundations. We regularly get serious floods today. They are among the commonest and most destructive of natural disasters.

But the crucial point is that if there had really been such a flood, there would be traces of it in the geological record - a layer of silt, remains of drowned animals etc., laid down universally at the same time in the record. There is no such evidence. And as James points out there are sound reasons for thinking such a thing could not have occurred - unless you are into the business of the water having been created miraculously and miraculously disappearing afterwards, with all the traces being also miraculously removed, for some reason known only to the deity responsible. Such a scenario wouldn't exactly fit the principle of Ockham's Razor .

 

[billvon]

If Jesus' genealogy goes back to Adam then Adam existed around 6000 years ago. Otherwise the new testament is in error.

Well, we know for certain that the Bible is in error if you read it literally. Fortunately most people do not.

Jesus referred to the flood in detail, was he wrong? Did he misunderstand his own book?

He read the same errors everyone else did. The Pentateuch was around back then.

 

[davewhite04]

Epic of Gilgamesh vs Noah's flood.

How would any civilization be able to record the state of things beyond their borders, let alone the whole world?

Abraham came from Sumer(later Babylon to modern day Iraq), maybe that is why Genesis is very similar to Sumerian myths. The Sumerians worldwide flood myth is the same, with modifications. According to the flood account in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim overheard the gods(they used to visit Earth) planning the flood, a god called EA catches him and tells him to build an Ark, and get as many people and animals as possible in the Ark. So Utnapishtim was tasked to build what seemed like an almost cube like Ark which held many people and many animals, who all survived. This was recorded before the bible.

Thinks perhaps there's some apochryphy going on there?

Most certainly with Genesis and Sumerian accounts, very similar. But Chinese accounts have appeared, all round the world accounts are there, the Norse mythology etc. Why copy if it didn't happen?

 

[exchemist]

If Jesus' genealogy goes back to Adam then Adam existed around 6000 years ago. Otherwise the new testament is in error.

Jesus referred to the flood in detail, was he wrong? Did he misunderstand his own book?

Only if you are naïve enough to read it all literally. Christian thinkers have not done that since about 300AD - until the c.19th, when some silly sects arose that decided everything had to be literal or it was "untrue".

 

[exchemist]

Epic of Gilgamesh vs Noah's flood.


Abraham came from Sumer, maybe that is why Genesis is very similar to Sumerian myths. The Sumerians worldwide flood myth is the same, with modifications. According to the flood account in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim overheard the gods(they used to visit Earth) planning the flood, a god called EA catches him and tells him to build an Ark, and get as many people and animals as possible in the Ark. So Utnapishtim was tasked to build what seemed like an almost cube like Ark which held many people and many animals, who all survived. This was recorded before the bible.


Most certainly with Genesis and Sumerian accounts, very similar. But Chinese accounts have appeared, all round the world accounts are there, the Norse mythology etc. Why copy if it didn't happen?

There's no evidence of copying. The Chinese had their own rivers, which regularly flooded.

 

[davewhite04]

exchemist:

None of these ancient peoples had any way to know that a flood was worldwide. Just about any civilisation growing up near large rivers - which is most of them - would have experienced inundations. We regularly get serious floods today. They are among the commonest and most destructive of natural disasters.

God or gods would know, hence a select person was chosen to survive it, survive it they did then recorded it. This wasn't a short cruise, they were on the water for months.

But the crucial point is that if there had really been such a flood, there would be traces of it in the geological record - a layer of silt, remains of drowned animals etc., laid down universally at the same time in the record. There is no such evidence. And as James points out there are sound reasons for thinking such a thing could not have occurred - unless you are into the business of the water having been created miraculously and miraculously disappearing afterwards, with all the traces being also miraculously removed, for some reason known only to the deity responsible. Such a scenario wouldn't exactly fit the principle of Ockham's Razor .

I find it difficult to imagine I must admit, what I'm pointing out is that it had to happen to satisfy Jesus' claims, otherwise he was wrong. Or maybe he referred to it as you'd refer to another lesson that didn't actually happen.

 

[davewhite04]

billvon: Well, we know for certain that the Bible is in error if you read it literally. Fortunately most people do not.

We don't know anything for certain, we just get probabilities.

Fortunately most Christians don't read the Old Testament, they just believe.

He read the same errors everyone else did. The Pentateuch was around back then.

What errors?

 

[Tiassa]

I would invoke Poe's Law, but it's hard to figure who all thinks they're in on the performance compared to who might be falling for it.

 

[exchemist]

exchemist:

None of these ancient peoples had any way to know that a flood was worldwide. Just about any civilisation growing up near large rivers - which is most of them - would have experienced inundations. We regularly get serious floods today. They are among the commonest and most destructive of natural disasters.

God or gods would know, hence a select person was chosen to survive it, survive it they did then recorded it. This wasn't a short cruise, they were on the water for months.

But the crucial point is that if there had really been such a flood, there would be traces of it in the geological record - a layer of silt, remains of drowned animals etc., laid down universally at the same time in the record. There is no such evidence. And as James points out there are sound reasons for thinking such a thing could not have occurred - unless you are into the business of the water having been created miraculously and miraculously disappearing afterwards, with all the traces being also miraculously removed, for some reason known only to the deity responsible. Such a scenario wouldn't exactly fit the principle of Ockham's Razor .

I find it difficult to imagine I must admit, what I'm pointing out is that it had to happen to satisfy Jesus' claims, otherwise he was wrong. Or maybe he referred to it as you'd refer to another lesson that didn't actually happen.

Jesus obviously would have spoken to his followers in terms of the tradition of the times. That would be the only sensible thing to do. The last thing he would want is to get his message side-tracked into a huge debate about whether Genesis was literally true or not.

Jesus only mentions the flood in passing, in the course of making a different point, about the need for his disciples to be spiritually prepared. He does not "claim" it literally happened. He just refers to the story.

 

[davewhite04]

exchemist:

Jesus obviously would have spoken to his followers in terms of the tradition of the times. That would be the only sensible thing to do. The last thing he would want is to get his message side-tracked into a huge debate about whether Genesis was literally true or not.

Jesus only mentions the flood in passing, in the course of making a different point, about the need for his disciples to be spiritually prepared. He does not "claim" it literally happened. He just refers to the story.

He was actually explaining what the end times will be like, not a passing statement. If he used the time before the flood as a threat, it seems empty somehow.