Flood Legends "Proof" of Global Flood...

by AlanF 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  aChristian

  Seeker,

  There may also be other reasons that God had Noah build an Ark to save him from the flood waters that were to come, rather than simply tell him to move to higher ground, and give him plenty of notice so he would have sufficient time to avoid the flood. The Bible tells us that "Noah was a preacher of righteousness." He probably continued urging the residents of his land to repent and accept God's provision for their salvation right up to the day it began to rain. (Gen.7:11-13) If Noah had relocated somewhere outside of the land that was to be flooded he would have been unable to offer his neighbors a way to escape God's coming judgment nearly as long as he did.
• 

  anewperson

  Alan (and whoever else actually reads all these notes), I said it would appear to have been a cataclysmic regional flood with global effects. I did not say it was or was not a global flood in the sense that it covered every bit of dry land around the planet.

  Imagine what would happen today if the world's oceans rose up one foot within a matter of months. That certainly would have a global impact on many islands and coastline cities and communities. I second the emotion someone else stated that you are a brave man for teaching your daughter how to drive. (smile)
• 

  AlanF

  : Alan (and whoever else actually reads all these notes), I said it would appear to have been a cataclysmic regional flood with global effects. I did not say it was or was not a global flood in the sense that it covered every bit of dry land around the planet.

  So what's your point? Everything has a global effect. A butterfly flapping its wings has a global effect. It's a matter of degree. So to make a specific point, you'll have to explain how your notion of a "global effect" relates to the topic at hand.

  : Imagine what would happen today if the world's oceans rose up one foot within a matter of months. That certainly would have a global impact on many islands and coastline cities and communities.

  Sure, but it certainly would not be considered a catastrophe of the magnitude of a "Noah's Flood". And of course, a one-foot rise in sea level 7000 years ago would have far less of an effect on humans living by the coast than it would today, since they were not generally tied down by massive construction that relied on a stable sea level.

  Did you not read my comments that a one-foot rise is an over-estimate?

  : I second the emotion someone else stated that you are a brave man for teaching your daughter how to drive. (smile)

  Maybe more stupid than brave.

  AlanF
• 

  anewperson

  In fact very commendable. Maybe the WTS never appointed you an elder but you an elder appointed by virtue of gray hairs that you either have or soon will have. :)
• 

  aChristian

  Jan,

  You wrote: the claim that the ark was anchored. The story clearly indicates it did not land where it had first been made.

  I don't think the story clearly indicates that the ark drifted far from its original location. The Genesis account only tells us that the ark came to rest in the hills of Ararat. However, as COJ's comments which I posted pointed out, there is evidence that the area Noah and his family called "Ararat" may have extended much further south than it does today and even much further south than it did at the time Genesis was written. That being the case, Noah's ark may have come to rest not far from its original location. It may have been anchored shortly after the flood waters reached their peak before it drifted very far away and, if it was, it would have then drifted very little further.

  You wrote: You keep ignoring that water runs downhill. A 150 day flood requires an enclosed area.

  As COJ's comments which I posted pointed out, Mesopotamia has often been described as a "trough" by geologists because it is "enclosed" by areas of higher elevation on its north, east and west sides. If part of central Mesopotamia suddenly lost elevation due to a meteor impact, which some scientists have recently said may have caused Noah's flood, and tidal waves from the Persian Gulf brought on by that same meteor impact or another one accompanying it drowned the land of Noah, as some now understand the epic of Gilgamesh to say, then that three sided "trough" may have temporarily turned into a four sided trough, that is until the land of Noah recovered its previous elevation, and while doing so drained its flood waters back into the Persian Gulf from which they mainly came. Remember, the Bible does not say that it was just the 40 days of rain that were responsible for the flood. It tells us that it was also and probably primarily caused by "waters of the great deep" which "burst forth." (Gen. 7:11) I say, "probably primarily caused" because that is the first cause of the flood that is listed in Genesis.

  You wrote: Your "rebuttal" of the wooden boat argument with a reference to Columbus' three ships shows you never bothered to find out the actual size of those historical ships.

  I am certainly aware that those ships were considerably smaller than Noah's ark. But since your argument was one against the seaworthiness of all wooden ships, I thought it was relevant to mention them. Especially since I believe they endured much more difficult conditions at sea than Noah's ark was subjected to. And besides, as I also pointed out, those wooden ships were designed by mere men. The Bible says God designed Noah's ark. I think God is capable of designing a wooden vessel of that size that could float in what were probably fairly calm waters for several months.
• 

  Seeker

  There may also be other reasons that God had Noah build an Ark to save him from the flood waters that were to come, rather than simply tell him to move to higher ground, and give him plenty of notice so he would have sufficient time to avoid the flood. The Bible tells us that "Noah was a preacher of righteousness." He probably continued urging the residents of his land to repent and accept God's provision for their salvation right up to the day it began to rain. (Gen.7:11-13) If Noah had relocated somewhere outside of the land that was to be flooded he would have been unable to offer his neighbors a way to escape God's coming judgment nearly as long as he did.

  Great. So 119 years, 11 months, and 3 1/2 weeks wasn't enough preaching. He needed that last day or two for return visits, huh. Sorry, that makes no sense to me. Besides, that would mean Noah was keeping the wicked from heading for higher ground too. Nasty trick.

  But since your argument was one against the seaworthiness of all wooden ships, I thought it was relevant to mention them. Especially since I believe they endured much more difficult conditions at sea than Noah's ark was subjected to. And besides, as I also pointed out, those wooden ships were designed by mere men. The Bible says God designed Noah's ark. I think God is capable of designing a wooden vessel of that size that could float in what were probably fairly calm waters for several months

  The seaworthiness of all wooden ships is clearly not in question. It is the particular design of the ark that was so stupid. If God designed it, He made a shape guaranteed to fail. And no, other ships did not have a harder time than the ark. If the flood was as cataclysmic as flood believers are forced to say it was (to make the mountains, freeze the arctic, destory civiliations), the ark would have been in for a heck of a ride. Lesser ships would have failed. The ark would have been in splinters in no time flat. It wasn't the later floating around for months that would have been hard. It was the cataclysm part.
• 

  Earnest

  Seeker, you asked whether there are any records of the early Christians putting forth the argument that the flood was limited in scope before science proved a global flood never happened.

  By and large the Christian apologists argued that the Biblical flood was global. However, pseudo-Justin related that some say the water only inundated the inhabited parts of the earth. In answer to the argument that scripture records the water covered the highest mountains, he replies that perhaps only the valleys were occupied. (Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos,PG,VI,1282).

  Alan, I have a step-daughter who has recently got her provisional driving license and know just what you mean by "uttering screeching sounds", more like death rattles in my case. At the moment she is away at college but I await the Easter vacation with trepidation.

  I think the only point I would add to what I've already said is that you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you are going to maintain that the absence of an Egyptian Flood legend is evidence that there was no such flood, then you cannot reasonably maintain that the plethora of such legends elsewhere is not evidence of a Flood. I think the truth is that the legends or lack of them are circumstantial evidence and have to be read in conjunction with the geological record, ice core samples and the record of magnetic fluctuation in the earth's crust.

  Earnest

  "Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson
• 

  D wiltshire

  Seeker,

  Sometimes you come out with some good ideas. Like your 1st post on this thread.

  But many times you don't have a clue what the person you are agueing with really said, go back and reread what aC said because it looks silly when you don't even comprehend what the other person said.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?

  
  New edit to answer seeker post below.
  Seeker, OK here:

  The seaworthiness of all wooden ships is clearly not in question. It is the particular design of the ark that was so stupid. If God designed it, He made a shape guaranteed to fail. And no, other ships did not have a harder time than the ark. If the flood was as cataclysmic as flood believers are forced to say it was (to make the mountains, freeze the arctic, destory civiliations), the ark would have been in for a heck of a ride. Lesser ships would have failed. The ark would have been in splinters in no time flat. It wasn't the later floating around for months that would have been hard. It was the cataclysm part.

  aC clearly has said over and over many times he didn't believe what other said about the flood being global.
• 

  Seeker

  Earnest,

  Thank you for your response.

  By and large the Christian apologists argued that the Biblical flood was global. However, pseudo-Justin related that some say the water only inundated the inhabited parts of the earth. In answer to the argument that scripture records the water covered the highest mountains, he replies that perhaps only the valleys were occupied. (Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos,PG,VI,1282).

  Even flooding the known inhabited part of the earth would have required something beyond anything recorded in geology. As for the Bible meaning valleys when it says the highest mountains, I'm wondering what his reasoning was to allow such a switch in meaning. Do you know what he said about that?
• 

  Seeker

  Sorry, D Wiltshire, but if you want to pick on me again by calling me silly and clueless, you'll have to be specific about my silly cluelessness. Being silly and clueless, I'm clueless to what you are talking about, unless you have misunderstood my meaning again.