FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The story of Great Flood or Deluge reveals the truth





supernova1987a
The great flood at the time of Noah or Nuh or Manu should be true for the same story existing all over the world, including Australia and America. It is believed that people reached America more than 10,000 years ago via a land/ice bridge between russia and alaska possibly during the ice age. Even recent findings suggest that it might have occurred around 50,000 years ago. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/17/carolina.dig/index.html But archaeologists have tried to explain the great flood happening around 3000 BC only and in a much smaller scale, like around the middle east where they believe civilization first flourished. So if Aztec had a similar story, how could it be that a long disconnected society talk about the same flood that supposedly (according to the nerd archaeologists) happened only around 5000 yrs ago??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
So what is the truth?
Bikerman
The truth is that the flood epic appears in many ancient texts. The bible version was probably 'borrowed' from the Sumerian flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
http://www.historywiz.com/flood.htm

There is a lot of evidence for large scale (not global) flood events in history. The event which most closely matches ancient accounts seems to the the Black Sea flood hypothesis (5600 BCE) but this hypothesis is still controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
bonestorm74
Floods are not an uncommon occurrence, and considering the size of most colonies in ancient times, it would be easy for a culture to believe that the entire world had been flooded, when it fact it may have only been their localised area, say a few hundred kilometres. Not surprising then that most cultures have stories of calamitous floods that 'engulfed the world' - but how would a tribe in the middle of Africa know that China, Australia and the US were flooded?

I'm not ruling out a 'great flood' but I think it's more likely to be a scenario as I've outlined above.
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
The truth is that the flood epic appears in many ancient texts. The bible version was probably 'borrowed' from the Sumerian flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh.


One could also say that the Epic of Gilgamesh was "borrowed" from the Biblical version.

Answers in Genesis has a lot of information on the various Flood stories and the Biblical Flood here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/HOME/AREA/faq/flood.asp
Bikerman
MeddlingMonk wrote:
Answers in Genesis has a lot of information on the various Flood stories and the Biblical Flood here:

But AiG is a creationist web site devoted to propagandist lies, so why would anyone wish to visit it? Unlike the AiG site, I have no particular theory to push, and neither do the sites I reference. AiG cannot possibly accept anything other than a creationist bible literal account of the flood (that is the whole point of the site). To say it is silly is a rather large understatement.

One would only say that the biblical account pre-dated the Sumerian epic if one had no understanding of history, and one wanted to proselytise a rather ridiculous religious viewpoint which no serious minded person would entertain.
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
But AiG is a creationist web site devoted to propagandist lies, so why would anyone wish to visit it?


To say that it is a creationist website is correct. To say that it is devoted to propagandist lies is your opinion. The authors of the articles published on the Answer in Genesis website, as well by Creation Ministries International, are educated people. You seem to have rejected all that they say, regardless of scientific merit, based on the fact that they have a particular set of beliefs.

Quote:
Unlike the AiG site, I have no particular theory to push, and neither do the sites I reference. AiG cannot possibly accept anything other than a creationist bible literal account of the flood (that is the whole point of the site).


AiG makes the basic assumption that the Biblical account is true and hence they interpret the evidence from that perspective. The material you have referenced (either directly or indirectly) assumes that: a) the Biblical account is wrong; and b) the dating system on which their version of history is based is accurate. Hence they interpret the evidence from a different point of view (probably secular and evolutionary).

Quote:
One would only say that the biblical account pre-dated the Sumerian epic if one had no understanding of history, and one wanted to proselytise a rather ridiculous religious viewpoint which no serious minded person would entertain.


Firstly, it is ridiculous only to those who don't believe it. Secondly, I do not think you can make the generalisation that no serious-minded person could entertain the idea that the Bible was an accurate record of history.

Assuming that the Biblical account is correct, the Flood would have occurred approximately 4400 years ago (or approximately 1600 years after Creation, around 2300-2400 BC). The earliest written record of the Sumerian epic is currently dated to around 2100-2000 BC (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569495/assyro-babylonian_literature.html), assuming, of course, that the method used to date it is accurate. Hence the statement that the Sumerian epic was based on the events in the Biblical account is reasonable.
Bikerman
MeddlingMonk wrote:
Quote:
But AiG is a creationist web site devoted to propagandist lies, so why would anyone wish to visit it?


To say that it is a creationist website is correct. To say that it is devoted to propagandist lies is your opinion. The authors of the articles published on the Answer in Genesis website, as well by Creation Ministries International, are educated people. You seem to have rejected all that they say, regardless of scientific merit, based on the fact that they have a particular set of beliefs.
Nonsense. There is not ONE SINGLE peer reviewed piece of science on the whole site. That is because creationists don't do science - they do lies. It is not only my opinion, it is the opinion of the scientific community and the opinion of anyone who doesn't hold to some stupid dogmatic faith system.
Quote:
AiG makes the basic assumption that the Biblical account is true and hence they interpret the evidence from that perspective. The material you have referenced (either directly or indirectly) assumes that: a) the Biblical account is wrong; and b) the dating system on which their version of history is based is accurate. Hence they interpret the evidence from a different point of view (probably secular and evolutionary).
More nonsense. The material I have referenced makes no such assumptions. Scientists don't start from the assumption that the bible is correct or incorrect - why would they? Some scientists are Christians, most are not. It really doesn't matter - facts are facts. The facts are that the world was NOT created a few thousand years ago, there WAS NO Noah's flood and anyone who says there was is either an idiot, a liar, or both.
Quote:
Firstly, it is ridiculous only to those who don't believe it. Secondly, I do not think you can make the generalisation that no serious-minded person could entertain the idea that the Bible was an accurate record of history.
I do make the generalisation and I mean it. It is completely ridiculous and no serious minded person would go along with the notion that the bible is an accurate historical record. Those that do so are either deliberate liars or deluded or both.
Quote:
Assuming that the Biblical account is correct, the Flood would have occurred approximately 4400 years ago (or approximately 1600 years after Creation, around 2300-2400 BC). The earliest written record of the Sumerian epic is currently dated to around 2100-2000 BC (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569495/assyro-babylonian_literature.html), assuming, of course, that the method used to date it is accurate. Hence the statement that the Sumerian epic was based on the events in the Biblical account is reasonable.
Rubbish.
Firstly you have to go by the date of the account, not by some mythical guess about dates. Can you show that the biblical account was written prior to 2100BCE? No, you can't. Now, the reference you cited shows that the Sumerian account was certainly written at that time. So, which comes first?
Creationists like you really give me the hump. You spout your nonsense as though it had some scientific or historical credibility. It doesn't. I could spend all day pointing out, systematically, the stupidity involved in creationism, but that is what creationists want - they wish to engage serious people in serious debate about ridiculous belief systems. There is no point. If you have something scientific or historic to say then publish it. The fact is that you (and AiG and other creationist drivel websites) have NOTHING to say on the matter and should be regarded with either contempt or pity, depending on how generous you feel.
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
Nonsense. There is not ONE SINGLE peer reviewed piece of science on the whole site. That is because creationists don't do science - they do lies.


Once again, your opinion. And as for the peer review - this article might enlighten you a little: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/theology-peer-review. As in the article, attempts by creationists or Christians to get their work peer-reviewed have often been ignored or turned down by the secular scientific community.

Quote:
More nonsense. The material I have referenced makes no such assumptions. Scientists don't start from the assumption that the bible is correct or incorrect - why would they?


Any atheist would logically have to assume that the Bible (along with every other religious text) is incorrect; any person with different religious beliefs would also assume that the Bible is incorrect. No one is completely objective and hence they always have some bias and underlying assumptions that they make. The evidence is always interpreted (albeit to varying degrees) through the "glasses" of a person's bias or belief system.

Quote:
I do make the generalisation and I mean it. It is completely ridiculous and no serious minded person would go along with the notion that the bible is an accurate historical record. Those that do so are either deliberate liars or deluded or both.


I am disappointed that you resort to personal attacks on those that disagree with your belief system. In your eyes, then, I must be a liar or deluded or both.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Assuming that the Biblical account is correct, the Flood would have occurred approximately 4400 years ago (or approximately 1600 years after Creation, around 2300-2400 BC). The earliest written record of the Sumerian epic is currently dated to around 2100-2000 BC (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569495/assyro-babylonian_literature.html), assuming, of course, that the method used to date it is accurate. Hence the statement that the Sumerian epic was based on the events in the Biblical account is reasonable.

Rubbish.
Firstly you have to go by the date of the account, not by some mythical guess about dates. Can you show that the biblical account was written prior to 2100BCE? No, you can't. Now, the reference you cited shows that the Sumerian account was certainly written at that time. So, which comes first?


I did say assuming the Bible is correct... if one follows the information given in the Bible, logic indicates that the Flood would have occurred around 2300-2400 BC. Even if the events of the Flood weren't immediately written down, there are other forms of communication by which the story could have been passed on. I said that the Sumerian epic would be based on the events in the Bible, not specifically the written account, if one follows the assumption that the Bible is true.
Bikerman
a) I don't have a 'belief' system. I go by the evidence and 'believe' what that shows. That is the way science works.
b) Yes I do think you are either a liar or deluded. I'm sorry if that offends you (I make it a point not to indulge in personal comments, but you asked.)
c) The people at AiG naturally say that they can't get published because 'they hate us' - what else would they say? The fact is that they don't do science and therefore no scientific journal publishes their lies.
d) Why one earth would one start from the assumption that the bible is correct? That is a ridiculous and totally unscientific way to proceed. One starts from the evidence, not presupposition. The fact is that there is no geological, palaeontological or archaeological support for any serious flood at the period indicated, and any contemporaneous record is likely to be referring to a previous event, thousands of years prior to the account.
Then, of course, there is absolutely no evidence for any 'global' flood at any time, and the physics shows that it is impossible and it simply didn't happen.

If you seriously want to debate the flood 'hypothesis' then why not do so in either one of the science forums or the religion and philosophy forum? I would be perfectly willing to indulge your delusions in those arenas.
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
a) I don't have a 'belief' system. I go by the evidence and 'believe' what that shows. That is the way science works.


Unless you actually conduct the experiments yourself for every scientific article or publication you read, see or hear, you do have a belief system. You are accepting the interpretation of the evidence presented to you by another person. As I said before; no one is completely objective and the evidence always gets interpreted to some degree.

Quote:
b) Yes I do think you are either a liar or deluded.


I find that insulting and consider continuing this discussion to be pointless if you're going to continually insult both me and others just because of our beliefs.

Quote:
c) The people at AiG naturally say that they can't get published because 'they hate us' - what else would they say? The fact is that they don't do science and therefore no scientific journal publishes their lies.


Yet again, another opinion.

Quote:
d) Why one earth would one start from the assumption that the bible is correct? That is a ridiculous and totally unscientific way to proceed. One starts from the evidence, not presupposition.


You yourself should know that it is quite common to have a hypothesis or base assumption and then test it against the evidence.
Bikerman
I don't really care if you are insulted or not. I've made it clear that I don't set out to insult people - you asked. I am perfectly willing to stand by my record on this and if you feel strongly then I advise you to complain to another moderator (I will not interfere or canvass support).
The simple fact is that you support a ridiculous and mythical account of creation that is completely bogus. This board is not the place to demolish your nonsense systematically - the science or philosophy forums are a better choice. If you want to raise this rubbish in those forums I will happily demolish it there.
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
I'm sorry if that offends you (I make it a point not to indulge in personal comments, but you asked.)


Next time, post the apology in the original post, not the edit.

Quote:
The fact is that there is no geological, palaeontological or archaeological support for any serious flood at the period indicated, and any contemporaneous record is likely to be referring to a previous event, thousands of years prior to the account.
Then, of course, there is absolutely no evidence for any 'global' flood at any time, and the physics shows that it is impossible and it simply didn't happen.


Opinion.

Quote:
If you seriously want to debate the flood 'hypothesis' then why not do so in either one of the science forums or the religion and philosophy forum? I would be perfectly willing to indulge your delusions in those arenas.


I fail to see how an historical event such as the Flood doesn't belong in the History section. I would agree that an in-depth discussion of the evidence would be better suited to the Science category, however. I appreciate the offer to "indulge my delusions", but I think it a little pointless to debate it when I know you'll probably never accept anything I say.
Bikerman
The flood is not 'history' and to suggest it is is simply another lie. I'm pretty sure that the reason you won't debate it in the appropriate forum is because you know you will be crushed (as all creationists are). The scientific evidence is overwhelming, as is the historical and archaeological evidence. Creationism is a lie. It is simply not possible to maintain that falsehood in good faith - it requires either dishonesty or genuine delusion.
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
The flood is not 'history' and to suggest it is is simply another lie. I'm pretty sure that the reason you won't debate it in the appropriate forum is because you know you will be crushed (as all creationists are).


Once again, that is your opinion. I believe the Flood to be history; as you do not, you may take that as part of my "delusion" rather than a deliberate lie. I am not concerned about being "crushed" in the another forum; I stated my reason in the previous post. Whether you choose to believe it is up to you.
Bikerman
Well, you are free to believe what you like and I would have it no other way. When, however, you post your delusions as if they had any basis in reality then you should expect to (and will) be challenged in robust terms.
supernova1987a
Of course, currently existing Bible has many errors. Otherwise, why would Jesus have had to come?
[Why would Jesus say the world is ruled by Satan? Why would Bible believers crucify Jesus?]

Please read this New York Times Article: NOAH, NOT ADAM, ATE THE APPLE; Sumerian Bible, 1,000 Years Older Than the Old Testament, StartlesTheologians
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F04E5DD133FE233A25756C1A96E9C946496D6CF
Bikerman
Th article is interesting, but the headline is rather ridiculous. That, I suppose, is not surprise since it is in a popular daily newspaper rather than an proper historical periodical.

The main thesis is, of course, correct. The Sumerian epic pre dates the bible by a millennium. It also contains many of the central myths contained in the later Old Testament, which is pretty clear evidence that the Hebrews 'nicked' a lot of their 'stuff' from earlier civilisations. That has never really been in doubt - most scholars know this. The headline - implying that 'Noah' was the cause of 'the Fall' is entirely misleading. Noah, of course, is entirely fictional. Noah is compared to the equally fictional character 'Tagtug' in the Sumerian epic, and there are indeed many similarities. To be fair, the article also points out the dissimilarities in the two stories, so I think it is a case of an editor choosing a headline for maximum impact, rather than a badly written article.
deanhills
supernova1987a wrote:
The great flood at the time of Noah or Nuh or Manu should be true for the same story existing all over the world, including Australia and America.


I think most of it could have been one epic that was spread by word of mouth. Moral of the story is to instill fear in people who did not believe in God. Perhaps the flood was a local one, such as we see floods anywhere in the world, and then someone had to explain it from a religious point of view, and that became the truth for more than one area by word of mouth. There could have been a number of floods in different parts of the world at the same time. I like the story though. Sort of catches the imagination. Very creative.
Omega-hotelomega
deanhills wrote:
supernova1987a wrote:
The great flood at the time of Noah or Nuh or Manu should be true for the same story existing all over the world, including Australia and America.


I think most of it could have been one epic that was spread by word of mouth. Moral of the story is to instill fear in people who did not believe in God. Perhaps the flood was a local one, such as we see floods anywhere in the world, and then someone had to explain it from a religious point of view, and that became the truth for more than one area by word of mouth. There could have been a number of floods in different parts of the world at the same time. I like the story though. Sort of catches the imagination. Very creative.


There 's archaelogical evidence I believe that the Black Sea was once lower than it is now and several ancient settlements were engulfed..
Mrs Lycos
Just my 2 cents:
Thinking that only what you can see, touch, mesure and verify is true is as narrow-minded as saying the opposite.
Science is useful, but can't claim to hold "all the truth in the world" and that everything that can't be interpreted through it is false, wrong, or never existed.
Solon_Poledourus
MeddlingMonk wrote:
One could also say that the Epic of Gilgamesh was "borrowed" from the Biblical version.
Except that the Epic of Gilgamesh is older.
MeddlingMonk wrote:
To say that it is a creationist website is correct. To say that it is devoted to propagandist lies is your opinion. The authors of the articles published on the Answer in Genesis website, as well by Creation Ministries International, are educated people. You seem to have rejected all that they say, regardless of scientific merit, based on the fact that they have a particular set of beliefs.
I don't doubt they are educated people. And I don't reject them just because they have certain beliefs. I reject them because those beliefs they have prohibit them from coming to any scientific conclusions which may run contrary to those beliefs. The problem with "christian science" is that they begin every scientific inquiry with a pre-existing answer to that inquiry, which derives from their faith. The flood is a good example of that type of thinking. The bible says the whole world was flooded in 40 days and 40 nights. Armed with that pre-existing answer, christian scientists will have more bias towards evidence which supports that story. Even you have admitted as much:
MeddlingMonk wrote:
AiG makes the basic assumption that the Biblical account is true and hence they interpret the evidence from that perspective.
This is the worst way to do any scientific research.
MeddlingMonk wrote:
The material you have referenced (either directly or indirectly) assumes that: a) the Biblical account is wrong; and b) the dating system on which their version of history is based is accurate. Hence they interpret the evidence from a different point of view (probably secular and evolutionary).
The material Bikerman referenced assumes nothing, and bases it's findings on evidence, and forms a theory. Yes, it's likely secular and evolutionary, because those groups don't assume they have the answers first, and then go looking for evidence to support that answer. The secular scientific community has no agenda to push, they simply report on what they find, and form theories based on said findings. Unlike christian science, which only seems to find evidence in support of their already existing "book-o-facts".
MeddlingMonk wrote:
Assuming that the Biblical account is correct, the Flood would have occurred approximately 4400 years ago (or approximately 1600 years after Creation, around 2300-2400 BC). The earliest written record of the Sumerian epic is currently dated to around 2100-2000 BC
Your first word there, "Assuming", is the main problem with this statement. Another problem is that you are accepting the scientific method of dating for the Epic of Gilgamesh, while disregarding the same scientific community when it comes to dating other things which are older than your date of creation. You can't cherry pick your acceptance of scientific dating. Another thing, the Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the bible, or any evidence in existence of Noah and his ark(consequently, there is none).
MeddlingMonk wrote:
assuming, of course, that the method used to date it is accurate. Hence the statement that the Sumerian epic was based on the events in the Biblical account is reasonable.
As I said, if you accept the dating process for the Gilgamesh story, then you should be able to accept that same dating technique which finds things to be hundreds of thousands of years old. But since your creation date is only about 6,000 years ago, it would be impossible for you to accept such dating techniques, since they tend to date things much older than that.
Kopernikus
MeddlingMonk wrote:
Quote:
The flood is not 'history' and to suggest it is is simply another lie. I'm pretty sure that the reason you won't debate it in the appropriate forum is because you know you will be crushed (as all creationists are).


Once again, that is your opinion. I believe the Flood to be history; as you do not, you may take that as part of my "delusion" rather than a deliberate lie. I am not concerned about being "crushed" in the another forum; I stated my reason in the previous post. Whether you choose to believe it is up to you.


There seems to be the problem...
You can´t conceive of something which would convince you otherwise...
Hogwarts
Mrs Lycos wrote:
Just my 5 cents:
Thinking that only what you can see, touch, mesure and verify is true is as narrow-minded as saying the opposite.
Science is useful, but can't claim to hold "all the truth in the world" and that everything that can't be interpreted through it is false, wrong, or never existed.


If it can't be measured, does it matter if it exists? Assuming that it can't be measured means that it has no effect upon this universe.
deanhills
Hogwarts wrote:
If it can't be measured, does it matter if it exists? Assuming that it can't be measured means that it has no effect upon this universe.
It may matter more. Especially when you take your last breath. At that moment "if it can't be measured" won't mean anything any more Smile
Klaw 2
Funny how everything is a opinion, is the fact that I cut my hand while cutting our hedge is an opinion too? According to medlingmonk it is.
gandalfthegrey
I've heard many flood hyptothesises in my days:

(1) The black sea was much smaller and not linked to the Mediterrian Sea previously, and many people lived below sea-level in it's plains before an earthquake triggers the Mediterrian to flood over the Bosporus straight into the Black Sea.

(2) I've heard a similar hypothesis regarding the Mediterrian at Gibraltar,

(3) and the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aden

(4) Along with many post-ice age flood stories, that may have sunk the alleged Atlantis civilization

(5) A tectonic plate shift that may have shifted the Continents and moved Antarctica from a sub-tropical climate, to its current location at the South Pole.
Bluedoll
informational flooding . . . by Bluedoll

It is true that historical events can be also be written about with a twist focused on other subjects other than the one we are researching. Take for example our present global situation. It is simply indisputable there is something happening even though people and scientists may disagree exactly what is going to happen in the future.

What if some historian (from another planet) in the future picked up an article that said, “people are stressed out over global warming.” Would it be reasonable to suggest that global warming might have existed even though the subject was more to do with stress?

What is so amazing is that some records tell a story for a purpose and not to just hold on to cold factual data. I am not attempting to clarify what actually occurred so very long ago but to suggest, perhaps this was a regional ‘flood’, a natural event and was going to happen regardless. It does raise one important issue however.

The biblical story points out that God did care and wanted to share some very important information. Truth was not accepted by everyone however. Kind of makes you think about today’s times as well, does it not?

Isn’t the difference between a myth and the truth really in it’s interpretation?

____________________________________________________________________

Keeping with the writing . . .

“It was the end of all his delusions. The little man walked across the front of the screen, he was a prisoner of his own demise, a cyber brat, a pixel pushing prince of the message board world . . . Suddenly, fire consumed his integrated circuit and he fried his little brain!”
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
Isn’t the difference between a myth and the truth really in it’s interpretation?
I can't agree. The closest I would be able to get to this is to say that the truth has many faces, so much so that it can obscure itself in the eyes of the beholder.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
What is so amazing is that some records tell a story for a purpose and not to just hold on to cold factual data. I am not attempting to clarify what actually occurred so very long ago but to suggest, perhaps this was a regional ‘flood’, a natural event and was going to happen regardless. It does raise one important issue however.

The biblical story points out that God did care and wanted to share some very important information. Truth was not accepted by everyone however. Kind of makes you think about today’s times as well, does it not?

Isn’t the difference between a myth and the truth really in it’s interpretation?

Not really.
Wiki wrote:
a myth is conventionally defined as a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form
That definition seems accurate to me in this context.

As far as the biblical account of the flood - you think that this story shows that 'God did care'? It seems to me to show that the only thing God cared about was being worshipped and that anyone not doing so should die.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
As far as the biblical account of the flood - you think that this story shows that 'God did care'? It seems to me to show that the only thing God cared about was being worshipped and that anyone not doing so should die.
For me it is a mythical story that was passed on from one generation to another by word of mouth. Moral of the story was that people were sinful and because of their excesses there was a great deluge as an act of divine retribution. The BIG flood could have been true as a BIG event. The part about Noah and the Arc is a myth. I imagine the big flood would have caught most by surprise resulting in the mythical story to explain the event. An equivalent would be when there is drought, people go to church to pray for rain and the minister says that there is drought because the people have been sinning. The latter not being a myth but just total nonsense. Objective is however the same. To obtain obedience to God by instilling fear. Chris is right, there cannot be love in that. Although I believe that has nothing to do with God. The myth and fearmongering are creations of man.
Solon_Poledourus
For me, the Biblical Flood story is just a re-hashing of older flood myths, told with a localized bias. To me, it's not really about god, either. Much like the Indian Epic of Manu, it's about the human will to survive even the worst of scenarios, and the foresight to preserve knowledge and the "seeds of life" for future generations. In fact, that's what I get from most of the worlds flood myths. The christian flood epic just seems to dwell more heavily on the anger god has toward humanity.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
For me, the Biblical Flood story is just a re-hashing of older flood myths, told with a localized bias. To me, it's not really about god, either. Much like the Indian Epic of Manu, it's about the human will to survive even the worst of scenarios, and the foresight to preserve knowledge and the "seeds of life" for future generations. In fact, that's what I get from most of the worlds flood myths. The christian flood epic just seems to dwell more heavily on the anger god has toward humanity.
I liked the story as a kid and even like it today. Very creative. Imagine fitting two of every species into an Arc. Snakes together with everyone, all in a nice orderly fashion. And then the instructions of how to make the arc, including with the tar on the inside. Cute. I imagined as a kid that those two of everything had to be very good "two's" so that everyone would get on with every one else. Smile
Bluedoll
No, this is so wrong! If Chris is going to judge someone let it not be God, doing so is way out of his league.

God did and does care. By having Noah build a huge arc demonstrates love. It could have been people aboard the vessel instead of animals. The people were stubborn bad mouths but had the free will to choose thier fate.

Do we have different Wiki’s – I don’t know if I would accept Wiki as the authority on everything but it is very helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth

“The term "myth" is often used to refer to a false story; however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity . . . in a very broad sense, the term can refer to any traditional story”

_____________________________________________________________________________

... and the woman sat in the vehicle waiting for her love to show her the way but not a man was available for the job.[/url]
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
No, this is so wrong! If Chris is going to judge someone let it not be God, doing so is way out of his league.
This is quite funny. On the one hand Christians say that they have a 'relationship' with God through Jesus and, furthermore, claim that the scriptural sources they selectively put together (ie the OT and NT) are 'definitive'. These sources, they go on, tell us much about God. Yet, when someone uses those scriptural sources to critique God then we are told that God cannot be judged by human standards and the will of God is ineffable. Some consistency please?
Quote:
God did and does care. By having Noah build a huge arc demonstrates love. It could have been people aboard the vessel instead of animals. The people were stubborn bad mouths but had the free will to choose thier fate.
There is SO much wrong with this....where to start?
a) You say that I cannot judge God, but you do so by saying he/she/it cares. That is a judgement on your part - my own judgement is quite different.
b) Having Noah build an arc doesn't demonstrate compassion, let alone love. In fact it is entirely selfish - God selects only those who pander to his/her/its ego, or animals that can't answer back, and drowns everyone else....
c) The notion that infants, babies, the mentally impaired and infirm were "stubborn bad mouths" or had "the free will to choose their fate" is clearly nonsense - yet all such people were drowned with the rest.
Also, the notion that the entire population of the world, except for one family, were 'stubborn bad mouths' seems statistically improbable to the point of ridiculous.....
Solon_Poledourus
Bluedoll wrote:
No, this is so wrong! If Chris is going to judge someone let it not be God, doing so is way out of his league.
Nah, it's almost too easy to judge god. Take the traits of god that are described in the bible, his actions and demands and such, and write them down on paper with the name "Mike" next to them. Take this paper to a psychologist, and ask them to tell you what kind of person "Mike" is. "Loving and caring" will not be the answer.
Bluedoll wrote:
God did and does care. By having Noah build a huge arc demonstrates love. It could have been people aboard the vessel instead of animals. The people were stubborn bad mouths but had the free will to choose thier fate.
Bikerman pretty much covered this one. There's nothing about this that resembles love in any way. This is an act of hatred, jealousy, and megalomania. I find it funny that christians always call these "acts of love". When humans acts this way, we call it what it is: psychopathic.
Bluedoll wrote:
“The term "myth" is often used to refer to a false story; however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity . . . in a very broad sense, the term can refer to any traditional story”
Fine. Then I'll start calling it "fiction". Or "fantasy". If "myth" doesn't necessarily "refer to a false story", then do you accept the possibility of other myths being as true as the biblical myths? Careful how you answer that one...
Bluedoll
I should pick something to agree with on these pages. That is so hard!

I do think it is good to questions things. If you read the bible and ask these kinds of questions, have these kinds of thoughts that is a good thing because it shows that you are just not accepting things just because you are being told. You want to reason it out and come to your own conclusions. Well done. I can agree.

What I don’t agree with is both of Chris’s and Solon_Poledourus findings.

I don’t have to be careful with an answer because it is really simple. The definition of myth came right from Wiki – thought that was good definition for myth.

Personally I accept Biblical accounts as what it is period. A bible.

We can read the bible and discuss it in great length. The bible itself is not a myth, it is real. If we examine it and find something in it that doesn’t seem just right, it is good to discuss it and make our own conclusions.

What I disagree from both of you is a lack in your reasoning in reference to how you try to interpret the bible then go on to ‘bad mouth’ God. You would do better to question.

Chris I didn’t mean you could not try to make a judgement against God I meant you would do better not to. What are you going to do to God by the way with your judgement, pass sentence too? Send God off the message board?

The truth is history is full of uncertainties, we dig and ask questions. The account of the arc, the story of the flood may indeed be lacking a scientific explanation but it is not lacking in worth.

I am saying that even if the flood was a regional one and the people that lived and wrote about it considered their world a complete world is really not the point.

The truth is the arc was made to save people and if people decided to ignore it that was their doing. As for the babies it goes without saying that if you bring God into the picture as you so acknowledge, then know too that God will look after the babies.

You do well to compare humans with God for we were made in God’s image even you two are however don’t too sure you are right about the arc. We were not there and can only go by accounts.

I know you make the consideration that the arc might not exist, that the flood didn’t happen, that God is a myth however you would do well to reexamine this because you need to.

I am not saying everything in the bible is scientific, I will say however the bible is truth. When we read the bible we find that it seems to have contradiction but it is not really but accounts by different authors, people just like us. What makes it true might be summed up in these very words.

“Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.”

What that means is we should all get an understanding. Someone else is here!
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
As for the babies it goes without saying that if you bring God into the picture as you so acknowledge, then know too that God will look after the babies.

You do well to compare humans with God for we were made in God’s image even you two are however don’t too sure you are right about the arc. We were not there and can only go by accounts.

I know you make the consideration that the arc might not exist, that the flood didn’t happen, that God is a myth however you would do well to reexamine this because you need to.

I am not saying everything in the bible is scientific, I will say however the bible is truth. When we read the bible we find that it seems to have contradiction but it is not really but accounts by different authors, people just like us. What makes it true might be summed up in these very words.

“Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.”

What that means is we should all get an understanding. Someone else is here!
The deluge is just a story. A myth. From my own personal point of view it would be almost blasphemous to say that God was responsible for the deluge. It would not make sense. It is simply a story by human beings to obtain the obedience of other human beings. A nice one that grabs the imagination, but a story nonetheless. One finds these kind of stories in many religions and cultures. I respect your personal point of view being "personal", but can't agree that God created the deluge in the way the story would have it.
Solon_Poledourus
Bluedoll wrote:
What I disagree from both of you is a lack in your reasoning in reference to how you try to interpret the bible then go on to ‘bad mouth’ God. You would do better to question.
I don't need to "bad mouth" god. I simply question the religion, and point out that astoundingly arrogant views and amazingly impossible claims of religion.
Bluedoll wrote:
The truth is history is full of uncertainties, we dig and ask questions. The account of the arc, the story of the flood may indeed be lacking a scientific explanation but it is not lacking in worth.
I never said it was lacking in worth. In fact, if you scroll up a few posts, you will see that I do indeed find worth in the story.
Bluedoll wrote:
The truth is the arc was made to save people and if people decided to ignore it that was their doing.
Actually, the Ark was intended for Noah and his family only. God was angered at the depravity of human civilization, and decided to kill everyone except Noah, who was faithful to god.
Bluedoll wrote:
As for the babies it goes without saying that if you bring God into the picture as you so acknowledge, then know too that God will look after the babies.
Right after he drowned them for sins they never had a chance to commit.
Bluedoll wrote:
don’t too sure you are right about the arc. We were not there and can only go by accounts.
What accounts? God killed everyone on the planet except for Noah and his family, and none of them were the authors of the story. So there are no actual "accounts" of the flood, only myths.
Bluedoll wrote:
I know you make the consideration that the arc might not exist, that the flood didn’t happen, that God is a myth however you would do well to reexamine this because you need to.
Nope. I don't need to. You assume I need to, because it's your belief that god exists, which makes me a heathen for turning away from him. But to me, there is no such thing as any god or devil, these are just superstitions that people made up a long time ago to deal with their fear of death. This is my main problem with all religions, they claim to have knowledge which they can't prove, and which they can't even fully explain. Knowledge of the creation of the universe, of life after death, etc. Stephen Hawking once said, "the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". To me, religion is an illusion of knowledge(of death and the afterlife etc), and history shows that it has been the enemy of knowledge on many occasions, and on a great scale.
Bluedoll wrote:
When we read the bible we find that it seems to have contradiction but it is not really but accounts by different authors, people just like us. What makes it true might be summed up in these very words.
I thought the bible was the inspired word of god. Are you saying that it's possible there are some mistakes in the bible, due to it being authored by "people just like us"?
Bluedoll wrote:
“Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.”

What that means is we should all get an understanding. Someone else is here!
Actually...

Repent :
1. to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often fol. by of): He repented after his thoughtless act.
2. to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent.

It means to feel guilty for your sins, make apologies to god for your sins, because "the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near". In other words, start your apologizing quickly, or risk not being allowed into heaven.

The thing is, I don't have anything against people who choose to follow a certain belief. If it's something that helps you realize the goodness in yourself, then I say "go for it". I have had numerous talks with friends of mine who are devoutly religious, and I support them in their faith. But this is a forum, and debate is the natural end result of anything posted here. If you preach your beliefs, prepare for disagreements. If you make the claim that biblical stories are factual, people will ask you to prove it. And a bit of advice... when people don't believe what you believe, it comes off as extremely presumptuous to tell them they "need" to reexamine their beliefs. Especially if they haven't told you to reexamine yours.
Bluedoll
I really want to post something under the topic of “The Story of Great Flood . . . “ and happy to be able to.

In no way do I wish to be offensive to anyone nor break any forum rules and do not believe I have ever done so. I certainly would appreciate someone telling me of any violation to the rules of the board because I would want to correct it.

Other than doing the above, I do not intend to play silly forum games or will be made to feel that I have to ‘prove’ something to anyone. My intention is to write what I want, how I want, in a manner that suits me, period.

______________________________________________________________________

The truth according to Bluedoll

A water flood happened!

Repent means to turn around, to see things from a different perspective. Sometimes, we all need to do that. A kingdom could be a medieval castle, Nazi Germany, British or American any organization really, that rules. In my quote it means freedom and the heavens are not of the physical world.

Whatever one believes can greatly effect their life. Many organized religions have made many mistakes and yes are an enemy. This fact is also documented in the bible. We should not allow however false things to affect our own personal beliefs in a negative way.

All the stories in the bible are true not myths but non the less a story handed down, subject to interpretation and debate. The great flood is one of these. What actually happened may not be accurately retold, that is impossible but we can believe something happened. More importantly, than mere factual data however is that in bible stories there are ideas and concepts that lead to truth about God. This is the purpose of the bible. It is totally unreceptive to the word of God to consider the bible a mythical book in part or in whole.

Do I want to prove to people reading this board that bible stores are true? Well, I do not have to. What I can write about is the story of the flood certainly does resemble very closely the story of our present day in many ways and those that wish to be unreceptive can choose to do so.
Solon_Poledourus
Bluedoll wrote:
A water flood happened!
No disagreement there.
Bluedoll wrote:
Repent means to turn around, to see things from a different perspective.
This is wrong, I provided the definition in my previous post. It's not a word which is subject to interpretation, it has a very clear definition.
Bluedoll wrote:
Many organized religions have made many mistakes and yes are an enemy.
And who decides which organized religions are the "enemy"? Conversely, which organized religions have not "made many mistakes"?
Bluedoll wrote:
All the stories in the bible are true not myths
I won't ask you to prove this claim. But I am curious as to why you believe this.
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
What I can write about is the story of the flood certainly does resemble very closely the story of our present day in many ways and those that wish to be unreceptive can choose to do so.
In which ways? The part that I can't visualize is the two of everything, like two rattle snakes obediently lining up behind two rabbits. Just imagine two of everything in the world, do you think it would fit into the arc that was built? I.e. rhinos, hippos, elephants, crocodiles. I can't believe that God would nix people either, people sort of have an inbuilt desire for self-destruction and destruction of others. That is why I say that the story is man-made. I like the story, sort of cute and nice how the baddies have been sorted out.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
The part that I can't visualize is the two of everything,
Or how Noah somehow found two polar bears and two penguins in ancient Palestine...
deanhills wrote:
That is why I say that the story is man-made.
Historically, I think it's based on deluges that happened during the last glacial maximum. They get passed down through families and tribes all over the world, and each culture puts it's own twist of mythic proportions on it. Which is why you have Manu and the Great Flood in India, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Drowning of Atlantis, the Egyptian Atum flood, Enlil of Assyria, the Puzob of the Maya... every major civilization from every corner of the world(and most minor ones) have a flood myth. Statistically, it would be almost impossible for them all to have just "invented" these stories out of thin air.
deanhills wrote:
I like the story, sort of cute and nice how the baddies have been sorted out.
Convenient, too.
Kopernikus
All of the cultures regardles of their location in the world who develeoped writing which enables us today to get a glimpse of their mythology, need irrigation for organized farming. That´s why most of them are in a river valley or a countryside where´s plenty of water.
If there is water, there´s alway the possibility for a flood. So all of them have the same experience of powerlessness against the forces of nature, or, as they would have seen it, the gods.
It´s like hunter/gatherer cultures which have many similarities also around the world without anyone trying to tell you, that the aboriginies invented the art of rockpainting, so that the french caves were painted by prophets from australia.
Solon_Poledourus
Kopernikus wrote:
All of the cultures regardles of their location in the world who develeoped writing which enables us today to get a glimpse of their mythology, need irrigation for organized farming. That´s why most of them are in a river valley or a countryside where´s plenty of water.
That doesn't explain the Hopi Indians of the American Southwest, who didn't live near a river valley, and had a flood myth. Many American Indians had a name for America, which meant "turtle island". I agree that river valley flooding probably helped create flood mythology in cultures, but it is not wholly responsible. Much digging needs to be done on ancient coastlines(now underwater) in order to fully understand where these flood stories came from. Ancient and dry rivers as well may hold answers, such as the mysterious culture of the Indus-Sarasvati, who's language we have yet to decipher.
Bikerman
Well, as regards the SouthWest US, the following might be of interest (if my geography is OK I think Arizona is in the SW...).
http://water.usgs.gov/wrri/96grants/wr3nv.htm
Solon_Poledourus
I'm actually from Arizona, and it is the definitive Southwest, so you are spot on there. There is some serious "flash flooding" that occurs there during the rainy season. It's been known to destroy bridges and collapse buildings. I have seen these floods firsthand, my brother almost died in one, and they are quite scary. So I was perhaps a bit hasty in suggesting that the Hopi don't have river floods on which to base deluge myths.
Bikerman
Well, credit for that link goes to David. I am currently sat in front of a group of IT students and I gave them a little exercise in data retrieval - investigate and quote sources on historical flooding in the SW of the US. David found that link in 5 mins....not bad for NVQ2....
Solon_Poledourus
Bikerman wrote:
Well, credit for that link goes to David. I am currently sat in front of a group of IT students and I gave them a little exercise in data retrieval - investigate and quote sources on historical flooding in the SW of the US. David found that link in 5 mins....not bad for NVQ2....
Not bad at all. I am horrible at data retrieval. Actually, that's not true, I can do it and I enjoy it. It just takes me forever because I usually get so sidetrac ----- HEY! A KITTEN!
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
The part that I can't visualize is the two of everything,
Or how Noah somehow found two polar bears and two penguins in ancient Palestine...
Good one ... Smile

Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Historically, I think it's based on deluges that happened during the last glacial maximum. They get passed down through families and tribes all over the world, and each culture puts it's own twist of mythic proportions on it. Which is why you have Manu and the Great Flood in India, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Drowning of Atlantis, the Egyptian Atum flood, Enlil of Assyria, the Puzob of the Maya... every major civilization from every corner of the world(and most minor ones) have a flood myth. Statistically, it would be almost impossible for them all to have just "invented" these stories out of thin air.
Well one can also say historically they all are about "one deluge", "the deluge". "The deluge" probably came from the original deluge at the time when the story was written for the Bible (the "deluge" of this thread).
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Well one can also say historically they all are about "one deluge", "the deluge". "The deluge" probably came from the original deluge at the time when the story was written for the Bible (the "deluge" of this thread).
Except that the Biblical deluge is not the oldest recording of this event.
Bikerman
This thread is going nowhere. I suspected from the start that it didn't really belong in the history forum.
LOCKED - Bikerman
Related topics
Why do you all hate God?
The Bible and Eating Meat
Where did Cain's wife come from?
Do you believe in myths
how dinosaurs disappared from the world?
Is Adam really the first human in our world?
whale mythology
Heaven or Hell?
Age of Earth?
Genesis in the spotlight..1
A question for people who believe in heaven:
2012
Was the Garden of Eden real?
Creationism & ID (split from sticky)
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> History

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.