Noah's Flood - Local or Global?

"All this does not represent a direct influence of Tolkien's Christianity on his writing. In fact, Tolkien recognised that much of his early work was incompatible with Christianity, particularly the material in The Silmarillion (The Lord of the Rings he described as consciously planned with religious compatibility in mind). At the time of his death, he was struggling to re-write material from The Silmarillion to make it compatible with Christian philosophy."



Tolkien Christianity


Here's one link, sorry I can't present anything from the bio's I've read on Tolkien.

 

Another thing I really don't get with creationists is how they manage to fit prehistory and history in such a tight timeline, if you do indeed believe the world was created in about 4000 something BC


Ryan123450's assertion that "Dinosaurs appeared with all other animals and ruled for 1000 years", is particularly perplexing.
1- how on earth do creationists measure stratified geological layers if they have to fit several million years in 1000 years
2- how do fossils manage to form in thousands of years instead of millions
3- where are the fossils of all the modern animals which coexisted with the dinosaurs.
4- Are you trying to say that every single species of dinosaur appeared at the same time and dissapeared in the space of 1000 years?
5- Dating things must be very hard for creationists, since, evidently radio-carbon dating doesn't work.

So, after 1000 years, humans appear? Thats means, round about 3000BC? Or did they appear at the same time as the dinoaurs, wearing furry shorts like in those awful films in the 60s? In either case, Jericho must not exist, since it was founded in 4500BC, neither must Catal huyuk or any of the other early cities. It also means that man learned to write as soon as he appeared since writing was invented in 3000BC. Again, the evidence of gradual evolution of pictograms predating 3000BC must not exist. Around this time, apparently, we lived demons and hobbits and then, the deluge happes round about 2500BC, which means the Sumerians never existed(which in itself means that I made up Gilgamesh and furthermore, that Abraham himself never existed since he left Ur in about 2500BC), the Pyramids weren't built (my god! maybe they wer built by demons before the deluge!!), and Harappa never developed its swimming pools.

Getting to fit our history in a creationist timeline isn't helped by the fact that people in the Bible seem to have rather long lives.

Of course, going further back,it also means that the Neolithic never took place, the mesolithic never took place, nor did the paleolithic.

Very simple.

 

Check this site out for essays on Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, and the relationship between their myths and their relgion.

Lord of the Rings:
True Mythology

 

In fact, Goliath was a giant wasn't he? Now which of these two theories sound more plausible:
1- Goliath is a big, mean giant defeated by little david
2- the story is an analogy of the small hebrew army defeating a large phillistine force?

Why couldn?t there have been a race of extraordinarily tall humans in the past? People come in all shapes and sizes.

I said that the Sumerians had a more realistic version of Adam and Eve. The moral of the story is the same, but instead of their being fruit and serpents, Eve, called Shamhat in the story, is a cultic prostitute who tempts the wild man Enkidu (Adam), out of his forest where he lived in harmony with the animals. So, do you believe that was a real story? And if so, does that mean Eve was a prostitute? Or isn't it more likely that the hebrew version of the myth is just more politically correct and less lewd, after all, in the Sumerian one, they have sex for 6 days and 7 nights, whereas in the Bible they consume the forbidden fruit. Don't you think the fruit is just a metaphor for sex?

Just like I said, these stories are embellished versions of real events. People in ancient times had a love for entertainment containing sex just like today. What is so different from adding in some gratuitous sex into a movie and adding in seven days of sex into a written story? It made it more interesting for some people, but that doesn?t mean it was what really occurred.

Ryan123450's assertion that "Dinosaurs appeared with all other animals and ruled for 1000 years", is particularly perplexing.

I didn?t say dinosaurs ruled for a thousand years. I said they lived on Earth from Creation to the Flood (about 1500-2000 years) and then died off afterwards. People were around in this period too, and ?ruled the world? just as they do today.

I have lots to say on the other questions you brought up, but I think maybe we should start a new thread about Young Earth Creationism for that. Should I get mod approval for that? How do I do that?

 

Sidious,

Why wouldn't it be such a tight timeline?

Do you know when written history first appeared?

Do you know when the first clues to language appeared?



Do you know that most of the info that's been presented to you since the earliest days of your education have been built on assumptions?


You, therefore, accept, a priori, that which has inundated you from your childhood.

When one removes assumptions and examines the bare bone facts, one finds not all is as has been presented, or is as popularly accepted, that problematica exists, but is neatly swept under the carpet because it doesn't fit well with current secular paradigms espoused.

The question becomes, are you willing to examine what actually is, or to, rather, argue defensively for those assumptions?


EDIT: As Tolkien wrote in prose, "All that glitters is not gold."

To tie it all together loosely.

 

EXCELLENT POST DARTH BROOKS!

 

What makes the bible any different than some Aztec creation legend?

 

JediFlyer,

That's a big question, in that there are so many avenues to go down in answering it. We could begin with an examination of history, we could go with archaeology, we can it approach it logically and philosophically.

Ultimately, it would be a tremendous tangent to go on that might take this discussion further off course than the Tolkien digression, and which might be better suited for other existing threads examining Christianity.


We can observe the ruins of Jericho, see that it exists in a crumbled form, walls down, which matches precisely the conditions described in the Biblical narrative involving it's defeat, however, we can't demonstrate that the Israelites circled the city and with an improbable shout brought down the walls.

But, enough matching archaeological evidence, that which coincides with the Biblical chronicles, might begin to suggest the authors of the Holy Bible were accurate in at least that much of the history they recorded...and if we are lead to believe in at least that much credence to their ability to recount, we might ask if perhaps they didn't "fudge" the rest of it, as they were being reliable in all other areas.

That historians and archaeologists are able to use the Holy Scriptures reliably demonstrates at least that much veracity.

So, when do we begin to doubt and why? How do we determine that the authors were reputable enough to accurately depict facts, yet decide other words are not reliable coming from the same authors?

Do we do so based on modern assumptions which obfuscate our examinations? Should we not lay aside all those assumptions temporarily at least in trying to approach objectively?

Did the authors closest to the events know the actual facts better than we, thousands of years later removed from the events?

If we wish to approach the subject impartially for an examination we have to begin assessing with such questions.

If we don't trust the chronicle of the ancients, should we trust todays chroniclers attempting to revise that history, simply upon their own preconceptions?

This would perhaps be one starting point.

 

"It sounds like you are referring to the ice age Earth experienced about 10 000 years ago. This has absolutely nothing to do with a flood. Just cold temperatures, and only large parts of the globe near the poles were under snow and frigid temperatures, not the whole thing."

When was the last ice age?
How many ice ages have there been?

What causes an Ice Age?

Could global warming be the last "ice age" still melting off?


"Okay...even if this bizarre event is possible, if most of that water is still with us today, where did the rest of it go?"


Nowhere. It's still here. Think---Archimedes. Now, fill your bath tub, sit in it, and lay back. Did more water enter the tub when you submersed yourself? When you sat back up, did some water mysteriously disappear? The same amount of water. If you filled the level of water in your bath tub high enough, when you displaced it with your body mass it would flow over and onto your bathroom floor.


"If this is true, we have to scrap everything we know about weather, metoerology, geology, physics, and pretty much all of the earth sciences and start from scratch again."

What would necessarily be scrapped and why?
Would we be scrapping certain assumptions?



"I don't believe in God, but I would be in awe of seeing some good evidence of Noah's ark, should somebody ever find remains of it."

I personally believe there are no artifact remains of the Ark to be located. I would tend to think it was dismantled for new construction uses, as most trees wouldn't have been immediately mature enough for useful purposes after the Ark was grounded, or simply deteriorated, or something much more likely than it somehow exists intact anywhere. To my knowledge, scripture nowhere indicates the Ark of Noah will be located. That would seem a strange omission for such an important archaeological find.

 

There are some that seem to think this is some big joke.
But it relates to our day

As Matthew 24: 37-39 brings out. Ignore this like those people that thought that Noah building an ark was a joke too.

 

Who's Noah? Is this what that 'n-word' thread is all about?

 

We can observe the ruins of Jericho, see that it exists in a crumbled form, walls down, which matches precisely the conditions described in the Biblical narrative involving it's defeat, however, we can't demonstrate that the Israelites circled the city and with an improbable shout brought down the walls.

Ahah! BUT creationists believe the world was created in 4000BC, yet Jericho was founded in around 4500BC. Furthermore, if the flood had really happened, there would be no material culture preceeding 2500BC, thus, no Jericho, no Pyramids, etc...

Why wouldn't it be such a tight timeline?

Do you know when written history first appeared?

Do you know when the first clues to language appeared?

FOR GODS SAKE I'M AN ARCHAEOLOGIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I SPECIALISE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!! IN FACT, I SPECIALISE IN THE PERIOD 3000-1800BC, a period where, due to your deluge there should be no material culture and was populated by dinosaurs and demons!!!

you people are insane, truly!

the thing I don't understand is that I've never had to argue about this in Europe, I've never met a "creationist", it seems to solely be a product of American Christian fundamentalism.

 

Ahah! BUT creationists believe the world was created in 4000BC, yet Jericho was founded in around 4500BC. Furthermore, if the flood had really happened, there would be no material culture preceeding 2500BC, thus, no Jericho, no Pyramids, etc...

The dating for all this is way off. There was no material culture before about 2300 BC, at least any that is left today. Show us some hard evidence that proves your dating system.


FOR GODS SAKE I'M AN ARCHAEOLOGIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I SPECIALISE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!! IN FACT, I SPECIALISE IN THE PERIOD 3000-1800BC, a period where, due to your deluge there should be no material culture and was populated by dinosaurs and demons!!!

Your entire feild is filled with people who take their preconceptions about history and then twist the evidence to fit with thier beliefs. The facts point to you being incorrect, which you cannot accept.

you people are insane, truly!

You're the one ranting and raving. Sidious, we have given you so much evidence that gives credence to our beliefs, and when presented with it, your only recourse is to label us all "insane.?
If I was advocating any other theory, and presented you with such a wealth of information backing it up, you would mull it over and eventually come to the conclusion that the prevailing theory on the subject must be incorrect. But because of the religious implications of that in this case, you refuse to do so. Why must the conclusion that the Flood was global be wrong? All the evidence supports it. Just accept the fact that the prevailing theory is riddled with errors and doesn?t fit the facts. Aren?t you, as a scientist, obliged to find the truth?

the thing I don't understand is that I've never had to argue about this in Europe, I've never met a "creationist", it seems to solely be a product of American Christian fundamentalism.

Like I said a few posts up, our beliefs were widely held until a few centeries ago, when uniformitarian thinking began to infest every field of science.

 

SidiousDragon:

"the thing I don't understand is that I've never had to argue about this in Europe, I've never met a "creationist", it seems to solely be a product of American Christian fundamentalism."

Heh

The reason the British Empire was so successful was that we shipped our criminals to Australia and our puritanical oddballs to America.

 

I believe it was global

personally I believe that the Meteor that killed off the dinosaurs was what triggered the event. (my personal theory)
Meteor crashes into earth, dust seeds the water canopy and collapses, earth is suddenly covered by water, water freezes at poles and settles down a bit in other places, Now only 3/4 is covered by water. Lands Divide years later etc.

 

Again there was no water canopy. No scientist has believed that for decades. There is no scientific evidence for it, and it would have only been able to hold a miniscule amount of water if it had existed.
The water came from underground caverns, "the fountains of the deep."

 

"There is no scientific evidence for it"

That ain't stopped you yet.

 

I need to ask some of the Biblical literalists this question:

Let's say, hypothetically, that some enormous piece of evidence shows that the story of Noah's flood is entirely fiction, beyond argument. Now, I have to ask: is the deeper religious meaning of the story diminished in any way, shape, or form? Does this automatically make every event in the Bible untrue? I think the literalists are missing the puropse of religious scripture.

If the Bible is the word of God, I don't think he's trying to give us a science lesson. Saying that Noah's flood is God trying to teach us scientific history is like saying when Jesus spoke about a tiny mustard seed growing into a giant shrub, he was trying to teach his disciples how to garden.

 

Ryan,

I wouldn't entirely wipe out the water canopy. There's still some work being done on the model. We'll just wait and see.

 

Blackjebus, what kind of proof could do that? I can't think of a single thing. It's impossible.

And while I don't personally think there was a water canopy, darthbrooks, I am still open to new work on the subject. I think it would be cool to say the least, but I don't think it will ever be accepted as probable.

 

None of what you are saying will ever be accepted as probable.

 

"I don't think it will ever be accepted as probable."

Once again, you haven't let that stop you

 

I have to ask, where the heck are you all getting the idea of a "water canopy?"




Anata Baka?!

 

I think whether Noah's flood was local or global depends on your own point of view.

Remember, during Noah's time, the world as we know it didn't exist. Only the part of the world that the ancient people knew, existed.

So, in a way it was both local and global.


My dad actually told me Noah wasn't real. I partially believe that - but even if Noah wasn't real - the story of Noah's ark is one of my all time favorites from the bible.

And he said there is actual evidence (I think geological?) of a flood from thousands of years ago. So, its possible that it was just passed on generation after generation after generation. I think many cultures have a story of a great flood.....but I'm not sure about that.

Anyway, that's my take on it. Now, I'm not a bible "literalist", but I am a christian.

Noah's ark, no matter if its true, or from a certain point of view, is a fascinating story.