Noah's Flood - Local or Global?

Not in the globe. In the world as they knew it. Much smaller in area than today's world.

IMHO, the story in Genesis is a local telling of a global event. The flooding was global, but the story and events in Genesis were not.

It would be like someone in giving an account of a earthquale or other natural disaster from their hometown or region while the event influenced vast areas and other people.

What we get in Genesis is a particular POV about an event that other cultures incorporated into their storytelling traditions too.

Noah's flood is just the Hebrew version of the event.

 

Is there enough water on Earth for the globe to be flooded? I know it sounds like a stupid question.

 

polar ice caps my friend

 

IIRC, even if the the polar ice cap(s) melted, it would "only" flood the coastal areas.

 

and we know that for sure, that if they completely melted that it would only cover coastal areas?

 

Yes.

They calculated the density of the ice and figured that if they both melted it would drown the coastal areas but not cover entire continents.

...except for Atlantis.

 

i would like to see that study, but it looks like i stand corrected, but i will still say there i no actual way of knowing the real size of the icecaps either.

 

Yes, there is. I don't know the techniques, though.

 

Alot of the scientists studying the possible impacts of possible global warming use those techniques.

Saw a special on Discovery or one of those about it. Pretty solid stuff in other words.

 

I agree there isn't enough water to cover the Earth today. But if the Earth's crust was different orinally, the mountains could have been lower and the entire surface of the Earth could have been underwater, just like the story says it was. Lots of Christian geologists think the continents broke up during the flood all at once and that the Earth was alot flatter before. They call it catostrophic plate tectonics I think, and there are studies and computer models that show it fits with the evidence, in some ways even better than the commonly accepted view of slow continental drift.

Again with my primary source of info on this stuff

Hey ShaneP, I see what you were talking about now, but if you're saying Noah only saved the animals in his part of the world, what happened to the species populating the other areas?

 

Most ancient cultures have flood stories, and there is a lot of geological evidence that there were several catastrophic floods at the end of the last ice age. Noah's flood is just the Hebrew version, which wasn't written until after the Hebrews had been enslaved by the Babylonians and been exposed to the Sagas of Gilgamesh.

 

Hey ShaneP, I see what you were talking about now, but if you're saying Noah only saved the animals in his part of the world, what happened to the species populating the other areas?

I'm not a biblical literalist. I think when it says the world it means the world known to them and their traditions, not the world we know today.

Think of a story as it gets passed around. It can get altered and characters shifted, combined, dropped, new ones brought in, etc.

The bible is a mythical set of stories with the essence or core of it, basic truth, but with human embellishment.

I don't believe the bible was literally written by god.

The animals elsewhere migrated, were wiped out, or adapted to their new environments.

Keep in mind that during the end of the last ice age there were alot of animals that suffered from dispacement, extinction, etc.
Scientific evidence supports this.

Real science, not creationism, actually supports god.

The difference is that creationists take scripture as LITERAL TRUTH.

I see nature and the world and I see the wonders of godly creation.

I'm a deist just so you know.

 

One true fact about the Bible, is that as you go backwards through the text, there are pieces of archaeological evidence that fit the events that were recorded in the scriptures. In fact, there's an entire professional field devoted to "Biblical Archaeology". Many (not all) of the people, kings, cities, wars, prophets, and places described in the Bible are supported independently by archaological discoveries.

Now the problem is this: the line of good archaeological evidence ends precisely where Chapter 11 of Genesis ends. Even good Biblical archaeologists will attest to this. Everything from the creation and Garden of Eden to Noah's flood all the way up to the Tower of Babel is ONLY found in the first 11 chapters of the Bible, and nowhere else in the archaeological record. There are no additional supporting documents or artifacts that contribute validity to literal interpretations of these stories found in Genesis 1-11.

The TRUE meaning of the events found in Genesis 1-11 have been a subject of debate for as long as humankind can remember. One thing for sure, it's incredibly difficult to believe the text literally, given the current knowledge we have of our planet. Anybody who can show conclusive proof of any of these events occurring as described in the Bible would probably be considered the greatest archaeologist/geologist/paleontologist that ever lived!

 

It must have been a local flood, there is no evidence for a global flood. As for whether or not there was a guy called Noah who built an ark... I'm not gonna go there!

 

the biblical story of the deluge is actually taken from the Babylonian myth, the Atrahasis, and the Sumerian story of Ziusudra as seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Sumerians were victims of regular flooding, particularly in their early history before they developed adequate irrigation and flood control techniques. The flood came about when the god Enlil, who had asked for men to be created so that he would not have to work anymore (he was a very lazy god), found it impossible to sleep because of the noise produced by the immense numbers of human beings who had mulitplied exponentially since their creation. he thus petitioned the other gods for some form of population control, and they agreed on a mass flooding of the world.

However, the God Ea, aided by the Sun god Shamash, told his most devoted and wisest servant Ut-Napishti/Ziusudra/Atrahasis (he has many different names for different periods) about the upcoming flood and told him to build an ark and load as many people as he could (He's less selfish than Noah), the rest of the story is identical word for word to the later biblical version.

The reason its included in the bible, along with many other Sumerian myths is because, traditionally the Hebrews once lived under Sumerian rule (Abraham came from Ur), but also because the entire Middle East adopted Babylonian culture in some form or another (cuneiform writing, religion...)

Indeed, such myths spread as far as western Europe, India and Africa. For example, Athena and Aphrodite are, in effect, two facets of the Goddess Ishtar, and both Hercules and Samson are versions of Gilgamesh.


Incidentally, although the story is primarily a morality tale, their is evidence to suggest that inspiration for the tale came from the flooding of the cities of the Ubaid period, which preceeded the UrIII dynasty (the golden age of Sumer). Excavations by Leonard Wooley found wide spread destruction of the cities of lower Mesopotamia during this period, in around 2800BC.

 

If you have studied this you will know that it was global, we have the proof that a radical change took place on this planet when animals of all kinds were fast frozen in the area's that now experience winter.

This planet used to have a water canopy that made our weather very different than it is today, and the planet was alot different too. When God let the canopy drop our planet changed forever. Most of that water is still with us today, thats why our planet is 70% water.

Doubt this if you want, but it's true.

Also the rainbow is a promise this will never happen again.

And there was a movie documentry that was at the theatre about 20 years ago that proved they had found the ark on Mt Arrarat.

Sadly, that proof was mysteriously lost before the whole world could be shown it.

Think of the signifcance of the discovery of Noah's Ark, do you think this is something that those that are opposed to God want to happen?

 

believe what you want, but I guarantee you that the story was intended to be a metaphor, a morality tale, like all myths. As I said, the only real element of it was the drastic flooding of mesopotamia in 2800BC.

Anyway, somehow I find it hard to imagine the water ever did rise as high as Mt Ararat. Besides, if you truly believe you can find the remains of a wooden ark at the top of a mountain after 5000 years, well...

This happens to be my area of expertise, btw, since I study the Archaeology of Western Asia at the Institute of Archaeology of London.
In fact, my previous post verged on the obsessive

 

And there was a movie documentry that was at the theatre about 20 years ago that proved they had found the ark on Mt Arrarat.

Sadly, that proof was mysteriously lost before the whole world could be shown it.

They "find the Ark" every twenty years or so, and every time it turns out to be a hoax.

 

The mountains use to be lower than they are today because the new wieght of the water on the planets crust pushed them up.

So was the earth covered with water to the point that all the mountains we have today were covered, no. Were the mountains back in Noah's day all covered, Yes.

Before you judge, about the ark find, you owe it to yourself to watch this movie, not sure if you can even rent it, anymore.

 

Riiiiight, water pressing down on mountains...and where, pray tell did the water go?

Blue Jedi, I really don't want to sound arrogant, but:

1- Learn a bit of geology
2- then move on to physics
3- As I said earlier, I think I know what I'm talking about, since I AM an Archaeologist.

Besides, what do you have against Noah being a Sumerian myth? As an agnostic with a Catholic mother, I don't see anything wrong with that. it deosn't have anything to do with the existence of god, its just a good old story of the dangers of human overpopulation, a subject which is more valid than ever.

 

Blue Jedi, I really don't want to sound arrogant, but:

1- Learn a bit of geology
2- then move on to physics
3- As I said earlier, I think I know what I'm talking about, since I AM an Archaeologist.

Besides, what do you have against Noah being a Sumerian myth? As an agnostic with a Catholic mother, I don't see anything wrong with that. it deosn't have anything to do with the existence of god, its just a good old story of the dangers of human overpopulation, a subject which is more valid than ever.

That's the whole point Sidious, it does have to do with the existance of God (not god). If the Bible isn't the 100% acurrate Word of God, then He is a liar. That's what we have against it all being a myth. It makes our perfect and infinite God out to be a liar. And since He isn't, it must be true. I, by the way, know plenty about geology, physics, and a little about archeology, and I find nothing scientificly wrong with belief in Biblical creation and Noah's Flood. The evidence points towards it if you don't have preconcieved notions against it. We all have different preconceptions which, if incorrect, will blind us to the truth. I don't want to sound rude or arrogant either, but perhaps your agnostic beliefs will not allow you to interpret the facts correctly.

Bluejedi, finally someone else to back me up. I agree with sidous though that you might want to look into this a little deeper. Check out www.answersingenesis.com for the largest collection of scientific info on the Flood and Creation on the net.

 

If there was a worldwide flood, the saltwater of the ocean would have mixed with the fresh water of rivers and lakes, killing almost all plants and fish life (at least in the formely freshwater areas).

And what about the dinosaurs? Where are they supposed to come in?

 

ryan
"If the Bible isn't the 100% acurrate Word of God, then He is a liar."

Which VERSION? King James? Latin?

What about mistranslations or different calendars describing events and timelines changing throughout history and different regimes?

C'mon ryan, you KNOW that the bible has been changed with things thrown out, set aside, or suppressed.

Why did the Church then hold the Council of Nicea and toss out what became the Gnostic Gospels?

Are they not the word of Jesus?

The bible is a human story written by our forebearers.

 

But Ryan1234450, the Bible wasn't written by god! The old testament is the Hebrew holy book, containing their history and their myths.

All of the stories in the bible are supposed to teach people moral values, just like all myths, regardless of the religion do. Some, such as the story of Moses, for example, are based on historical events which are then exagerated through the years as they are told from father to sun. The hebrews, being nomadic in origin, borrowed many of their myths from neighbouring civilisations.

Saying that the bible is the literal word of god is ridiculous since the bible was written down gradually from 800BC onwards.



Now, if you still don't believe the deluge is Sumerian, heres an excerpt from the deluge passage in the Epic of Gilgamesh:

"By the fifth day I had set her hull in position,
One acre was her area, ten rods the height of her sides.
At ten rods also, the sides of her roof were each the same length.
I set in place her body, I drew up her design.

Six decks I gave her, dividng her thus into seven.
Into nine compartments I divided her interior, I struck the bilge plugs into her middle.
I saw to the punting-poles and put in the tackle."

and later...

"On the mountain of Nimush the boat ran aground,
Mount Nimush held the boat fast, allowed it no motion.
Ome day and a second, Mount Nimush held the boat fast, allowed it no motion,
a third day and a fourth, Mount Nimush held the boat fast, allowed it no motion,
a fifth day and a sixth, Mount Nimush held the boat fast, allowed it no motion."

"The seventh day when it came, I brought out a dove, I let it loose:
off went the dove but then it returned,
there was no place to land, so back it came to me.

I brought out a swallow, I let it loose:
off went the swallow but then it returned,
there was no place to land, so back it came to me.

I brought out a raven, I let it loose:
off went the raven, it saw the waters receding,
finding food, it was swooping and strutting, it did not come back to me."


You see? Not only that, but the Epic of Gilgamesh also contains a more realistic version of Adam and Eve, Enkidu and Shamhat, and the Atrahasis features the creation of men from clay.

The thing that bothers me is that most Sumerians did not believe these events actually happened and were aware that they were but morality tales. So why on earth are there people in the 20th century, 4000 years later who actually believe that this was written by god?

 

Local. The flood was local. Why do I believe this? Because that's what the evidence shows.

I would rather believe in modern geology that a 2+ thousand year old text.

Besides we all know that the story of Noah was just a later version of the story of Gilgamesh