Just As In the Days of Noah

by Farkel 140 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    The Watchtower Society dates Noah's flood to 2370 B.C.E. They do this by following Bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 B.C.E., their date for Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem. However, as we know, the Society's date for that event is in error. All serious historians date that event to 587/6 B.C.E. Using that date as our starting point, and following the same Bible chronology used by the Society and others, we wind up with a 2350 B.C.E. date for Noah's flood.

    I find this quite interesting because a recent article published at space.com, a highly credible web site, discusses in some detail the theory that the meteor, which created the large crater recently discovered in southern Iraq, caused a catastrophic flood in that part of the world only a few thousand years ago. It also mentions the fact that recent studies of tree rings strongly suggest that a major, short term, climate altering event, such as a large meteor impact or series of such impacts, appears to have occurred in .... guess what year. Yup, "2350 BC".

    By the way, the article dates the account of the deluge found in "The Epic of Gilgamesh," which many Bible critics say was the basis of the Bible's flood account, to "circa 2200 BC." That's one hundred and fifty years AFTER Bible chronology, and these new tree ring studies, indicate Noah's flood occurred.

    The article, entitled "Comets, Meteors & Myth: New Evidence for Toppled Civilizations and Biblical Tales" may be read at this Web address: http://space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/comet_bronzeage_011113-1.html

    A map at this link shows the location of the alleged "meteor crater": http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/564185/posts

    A London Telegraph article, complete with a picture of the alleged "meteor crater" may be seen here: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F11%2F04%2Fwmet04.xml

    Some interesting excerpts:

    The draining of the region, as part of Saddam's campaign against the Marsh Arabs, has since caused the lake to recede, revealing a ring-like ridge inside the larger bowl-like depression - a classic feature of meteor impact craters.

    The crater also appears to be, in geological terms, very recent. Dr Master said: "The sediments in this region are very young, so whatever caused the crater-like structure, it must have happened within the past 6,000 years."

    Reporting his finding in the latest issue of the journal Meteoritics & Planetary Science, Dr Master suggests that a recent meteor impact is the most plausible explanation for the structure.

    A date of around 2300 BC for the impact may also cast new light on the legend of Gilgamesh, dating from the same period. The legend talks of "the Seven Judges of Hell", who raised their torches, lighting the land with flame, and a storm that turned day into night, "smashed the land like a cup", and flooded the area.

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    AChristian writes,

    Any message of "righteousness" that God's prophets have ever preached has been one in which wrong doers were urged to repent.
    You believe that God gives “wrong doers” a chance to repent? How do you explain why the Lord ordered the murder of infants and suckling babes:

    The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:1-3)
    What had the infants and sucklings done that was so wrong, that they had to be slaughtered, if this really happened? How was a suckling supposed to "repent"?

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

    * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Joseph,

    Your response is about what I expected. You change the subject. I didn't say that God has never brought a judgement upon a group of people without giving them a chance to repent. I said, "The Bible calls Noah 'a preacher of righteousness.'" And I said, "Any message of 'righteousness' that God's prophets have ever 'preached' has been one in which wrong doers were urged to repent."

    The passage you quoted in 1 Samuel tells us how God ordered Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites. It does not tell us that God appointed Saul to act as a "preacher of righteousness" before that destruction took place.

    I'm curious. Is your entire life now devoted to tearing apart the Bible and doing everything you can to destroy people's faith in God? Or is that now just your favorite hobby?

  • patio34
    patio34

    Hi Farkel and Amazing,
    Amazing, you replied to Farkel

    Hi Farkel: Jesus never stated that he believed in a literal world-wide / planetary flood. He merely spoke of Noah and mentioned the flood. The 'world of that time' could easily be a euphamism for the general locale of people around Noah. This is not to say for sure that Jesus didn't mean a world wide flood, but he just never specified. I think a worldwide flood never happened, in fact scientific evidence proves it cuold not have happened ... so I have to hope Jesus was speaking of a local event

    It seems to me that in Jesus referring to the flood as an historical event, that it has to stand as it was written in Genesis. Jesus referred to Noah in an unqualified manner, then it is implicit that i take it as the record states. If he didn't take it literally, he should have mentioned that.

    Farkel said

    Spot on! How often we heard Bible apologists come up with the insane excuse, "well, the Bible didn't mean what it meant." We have the phrases "entire earth" which didn't mean "entire earth," but meant "entire region." We have a phrase which describes the destruction of everyone on the earth which didn't mean the destruction of everyone on the earth at all, but meant "everyone in that immediate vicinity." We have the "highest mountain" which doesn't mean "highest mountain" at all, but "highest hill," ad nauseum.
    I second the opinion. As said, the Bible is like a fiddle that can be made to play any tune you want. Nothing 'means' what it says, according to the apologists. It can be understood that it's not worth much in an absolute sense then.

    Just my two cents,
    Pat

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    Giving instructions to Noah, God told him,

    You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you [Noah and his family] and for them [the pairs of every kind of animal]." (Genesis 6:13-31)
    AChristian asks,

    Could it be that Noah was instructed to build an ark big enough to hold every person in the land that was about to be flooded! An ark with room enough for all those who might repent but didn't?
    No, that's not possible, AChristian, because as can plainly be seen, God told Noah only to take food for Noah and his family and the animals. If God had expected that there might be some repentant sinners, then he would have told Noah also to put enough food on the ark to feed up to however many people were in the "land of Noah."

    AChristian, you responded to this argument by asserting,

    Had some people repented at the last minute I'm sure God would have allowed Noah a bit more time to bring some more food on board.
    "Some people"? What about vast numbers of people repenting at the last minute? If the infinitely wise and prudent God instructed Noah to build a huge ark just in case a huge number of people would repent--maybe most of them at the last minute, why would such a god not also instruct Noah to gather a huge amount of food for those people? Do you seriously think a god as clever and careful as the one described in the Bible would risk leaving gathering all that food until the last minute before the flood came?

    For I believe that when Christians now promote such a teaching....they look very foolish to very many people.

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

    * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • GWEEDO
    GWEEDO

    AC

    But doesn't the Bible's story of the flood say that all the high "mountains" were covered with water? And if that was true, since water seeks its own level, wouldn't that mean the whole earth had to have been flooded? For an answer to such questions we again have to look at the ancient Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrew word which has been widely translated as "mountains" in the flood narrative is translated elsewhere in the Old Testament simply as "hills." You see, the ancient Hebrews had only one word to describe what may have been either a small mound of earth or a Himalayan peak. That being the case, the flood narrative can certainly be understood as telling us that "all the high hills in the land of Noah were covered with water to a depth of about twenty feet." (see Gen. 7:20, 21)
    I find it extremely hard to believe that Noah didn't have any concept of a mountain, something around 600 metres or above. This guy walked around preaching for...what??...a hundred years. I'm expected to believe that he didn't see a mountain in the distance...say like the Zagros mountains that run down the border of Iran and Iraq. I mean, Mankind had been around quite some time by the time Noah came to earth. I'm supposed to believe that they hadn't done just a little walking and seen a few rather big hills...That mans only concept of a "HIGH" hill would have been a mound of dirt. This really stretchs my imagination AC
  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Joseph quoted the Bible with God saying the following words to Noah: You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you [Noah and his family] and for them [the pairs of every kind of animal]."

    Of course, the bracketed words are not part of the text. The "you" God referred to may have meant all people who Noah thought might end up being on the ark. If that was the case, Noah may have packed tons of extra food. Or, if many people did repent at the last minute, God may have delayed the start of the flood until enough food for all was brought on board. Or, if enough people repented, he may have cancelled the flood altogether, as He cancelled the destruction of Nineveh at the time Jonah served as a preacher of righteousness to that city.

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Gweedo,

    Noah may well have known that there were hills much higher than than the hills in his land outside of his land. However, what Noah knew about the height of hills outside of his own land has nothing to do with the Bible's account of Noah's flood. The account simply tells us that all the highest hills in the land of Noah were covered with water. I believe there were no mountains or even extremely high hills in the land in which Noah then lived. Whether or not Noah knew there were much higher hills in other areas of the earth is beside the point.

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    I offered the following portion of the flood story in rebuttal to aChristian's theory that God ordered such a huge ark to be built because he anticipated there might be a huge number of persons who might repent and enter the ark. I quoted a Genesis verse to point out that God didn't tell Noah to also put a huge amount of food on the ark for these people:

    You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you..
    This is what aChristian said in response:

    The "you" God referred to may have meant all people who Noah thought might end up being on the ark.
    That seems utterly preposterous to me, and I'm willing to go out on a limb here and venture the guess that every single true believer reading this post agrees with me. Frankly, aChristian, you are without doubt the worst apologist I've come across in five years, and I've corresponded with hundreds of them. Perhaps you don't appreciate the irony to be found in your own accusation directed at other Christians:

    For I believe that when Christians now promote such a teaching....they look very foolish to very many people
    I believe it is your "teaching," aChristian, that will look foolish, not theirs.

    Do you really imagine that the second "you" underlined above--the one for whom food is to be stored away--is not the same as the first "you"--the one who is to be doing the storing?

    Do you not think that the infinitely intelligent god who guided the Genesis writer would have had the sense to tell all his readers that the two "you's" are not the same, if that were really the case? Wouldn't he have known that most--no, all--intelligent persons would assume the two "you's" are the same?

    Don't you?

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • GWEEDO
    GWEEDO
    The account simply tells us that all the highest hills in the land of Noah were covered with water.

    All the highest hills under the WHOLE heaven, to be exact.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit