Noah's Flood: revisited

[Edric O]

The Bible is basically another educated guess as to our origins and must be treated with the same level of scrutiny.

Actually, no. The Bible is a compendium on ethics and lifestyle that also discusses our origins briefly and without giving them much attention.

I have a Romanian copy of the Bible in front of me. It is 1773 pages long. Of those 1773 pages, only the first 33 discuss the origins of the universe and humanity. A subject that covers a mere 0.02% of the Bible could not possibly be considered one of the Bible's main topics.

But on to the main subject of this topic - I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the flood story, but I must point out that the notion of "races" as separate and distinct groups is completely false. Human genetic diversity is not discrete, it is continuous. The right question to ask is not "how did several different races evolve from a single family within 1000 years," but rather "how did so many different human genes and mutations develop from a single family within 1000 years."

[Egeides]

Yes, that's a curiosity for me. How can inter-breeding from the start end up with something else than  stupidus hominubus? This is like this thing about all humans coming from seven women. Shouldn't they all die of genetic malformations within a couple of centuries?...

[Edric O]

Well, no, not if either (a) those original seven females were exceptionally healthy, or (b) the rate of new mutations was high enough to create sufficient genetic variety rather quickly.

Leaving the Bible aside, there are scientific theories which claim that all human beings who live today are descended from a small population - about the size of a village - that existed around 70,000 - 75,000 years ago. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

And also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

[Acriku]

Pardon me, I meant the book of Genesis and I'm pretty sure you know what I meant but decided to correct me anyway. Anyway, I could see how we all descend from an original small population, but that population wasn't human as we know it. And that wasn't the only population around. Groups of our ancestors roamed the Earth while one group came out on the top and took dominance in the world. Eventually that group, now large, lasted longer than any other group and led to further different races based on their environment. I'm not an anthropologist but that's how I see it anyway.

Problem with Noah's flood is that it's taking the entire process of evolution of many different races within their environment and putting it into a timeframe of less than 5000 years. That's way too short of time to have one family of people turn into the major races we have today.

[TMA_1]

I have the same problems with the amount of time, acriku. I would have to agree that all of the processes known and unknown had to take more than 5000 years to fully develop into what we see now.

[Tatar Khan]

Actually the fact that at some points our species was near extinction and there were just several 1000s of us left has been confirmed by genetical evidence. Human beings unlike other animals are less varied in their genes and the fact that the scientists were able to trace a certain gene in many different human ethnicities all the way to a single female and same for thing was done for  the male. The two are called by paleontologists adam and eve but i think about 150K years separate them. ( i get exact dates and names of scientists when i get home later today) This points to some bottleneck that human population has come through and so it points to close extinction.

[Falconius]

The Iliad was written by a certain Greek poet called Homer.

Archaeologists are divided about its historic accuracy.

Genesis was written by a certain Egiptian prince called Moses.

Archaeologists are divided about its historic accuracy.

In the 1870s a certain German archaeologist called Heinrich Schliemann set out to prove that Homer's "story" had some basis in fact.

Maybe I should draw a picture to help carify what I meant with archaeology catching up with ancient texts?

Also, saying the author is grabbing at straws to seek the site of the flood in China is putting it a bit harsh. Like Tibet this area isn't traditionally part of China. If you think he is grabbing at staws, name for me one other place on the face of this planet where a flood like that could have occured. The requirements are that the bulk of the water for the flood must come from below (the deep),and the water must rise above the hills and mountains inside this area. Also there must be physical evidence of a massive flood, as can be seen on the mountainrim of this area.

[Acriku]

Falconius, you're assuming that the observations made in the Bible are factual. It could very well have been a flood from the river and having passed through so many mouths turn out to be a massive flood that covered the mountains.

[ant222]

Don't you know that a lot of Bible legends have a highly pronounced figurative meaning?

For example, the legend of Cain and Abel.

Cain means labour, and Abel means Rest.

... And Rest was a shepherd, and Labour a husbandman.

When God rejected the gifts of Labour and accepted those of Rest (smoke of the Labour's altar drifted on the ground, while that of Rest's rose in the sky), Labour got vexed and lowered his face to the ground (the constellation of Hercules with a club, drooping his face to the ground; the constellation of Rest — now the Snakeholder — is looking above the Altar at the sky)

Sin (the constellatioin of the Snake) is at your door, it strives towards you, but you can resist. — said God to Labour.

But Labour rose up agaisnt Rest and killed him.

"...When thou shalt till it (earth), it shall not yield to thee its fruit:  a

fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be upon the earth." — said God — "and whosoever shall kill labour on earth, shall be punished sevenfold."

And the lord set the mark of eternity onto the face of Labour, and Labour went out from the face of God and dwelt in the Land of Complaints, before the face of Eden. There He built the town of Mercy (Henoch) — after his son's name, and there he begot Handicraftsman (Lamech — LMK — "acting with a cutting instrument"), whoose wifes were Clothing (ELE), and Roofing (TsLE). His first wife gave birth to Prosperity with his flocks ("the father of such as dwell in tents, and of herdsmen.") and Holiday (IUBL, jubilee), the inventor of pipes and gusli ("he was the father of them that play upon the harp and the organs."). From the second wife he had daughter Beauty and son Voolcano (BALCAN), the inventor and smith of all the brass and iron instruments.

And the Handicraftsman said to his wives: "Clothing and Roofing! <...> Whereas the murder of labor shall be punished sevenfold, the destruction of craft shall be revenged seventy and seven-fold!" ("Sevenfold vengeance shall be taken for Cain:  but for Lamech seventy times sevenfold.")

Same goes to the legend of the Great Flood. The names of his sons are:

"And he said:  Blessed be the Lord God of Sem (Noble), be Chanaan (unskilled worker) his servant. May God enlarge Japheth (elegant), and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant."

So, this is the legend about the origin of the three classes: grand people (noblemen), elegant people (gentlemen) and common people. The elegent people live in the tents of the noblemen and the common people serve them.

My knowledge of the Biblical dialect of Ancient Arabian language is even worse than that of English, so I just wrote here a couple of thoughts from a book called "The Christ: The History of Culture from a Natural-Scientific Viewpoint".

It has a lot of fun and interesting things to think over, so you're lucky if you find an English version. After reading about the book of Apocaliplse, I got so sure about it's astrological (and thus the day the book was written was calculated) and nature-scientific meaning that I don't know what can dissuade me from it...

[Tatar Khan]

The Iliad was written by a certain Greek poet called Homer.

Archaeologists are divided about its historic accuracy.

Genesis was written by a certain Egiptian prince called Moses.

Archaeologists are divided about its historic accuracy.

In the 1870s a certain German archaeologist called Heinrich Schliemann set out to prove that Homer's "story" had some basis in fact.

Maybe I should draw a picture to help carify what I meant with archaeology catching up with ancient texts?

The Troy that was found turned out to be quite different from what Homer described and so the stories in Genesis could refer to historical events but due to to time became so altered that is hard to say if they carry enough truth in them.

[Caid Ivik]

Homer (or who) wrote Illias about 300 years after the war, Genesis was written down about 3000 years after flood, if it had been...but the idea was not to provide historical chronicle, but to present a certain moral teaching and poetic capabilities. Which are sings of a high culture too.

[Acriku]

Homer (or who) wrote Illias about 300 years after the war, Genesis was written down about 3000 years after flood, if it had been...but the idea was not to provide historical chronicle, but to present a certain moral teaching and poetic capabilities. Which are sings of a high culture too.

Moral teachings and poetry are great things to get across to an entire people. The Bible does have good things in it (as Thomas Jefferson edited all but the good stuff in his version of the Bible), but I get frustrated when people take the teachings and poetry one step further and claim to be what happened. Especially when they teach it down to unbeknownst children..

[Falconius]

Here Acriku- you must accept that we are irrevocably on opposite sides of the fence.

The Bible in its original unmodified form does represent for many the Word of God.

This principle, and what it entails, was the prime motivation for all the major decisions taken by my ancestors.

So will it be for the descendants of me, my brothers and my kindsmen.

Servants of the Almighty, against the entire world, free.

Moses, as a man of God, had the privilege of revelation to things long past, things yet to come.

It is possible that large parts of his writings in Genesis was written in prophetic style rather than as an accurate chronicle.

[Edric O]

Pardon me, I meant the book of Genesis and I'm pretty sure you know what I meant but decided to correct me anyway.

Not really. I have often heard the claim that humans invented religion to explain their origins. However, while it is true that most religions do indeed make some attempt to explain the origins of the universe and mankind, no major religion places any particularly high importance on this matter. In other words, religion tends to treat human origins more like a footnote than a main subject.

Anyway, I could see how we all descend from an original small population, but that population wasn't human as we know it. And that wasn't the only population around. Groups of our ancestors roamed the Earth while one group came out on the top and took dominance in the world. Eventually that group, now large, lasted longer than any other group and led to further different races based on their environment. I'm not an anthropologist but that's how I see it anyway.

Well, since we cannot actually recover any DNA samples from thousands of years ago, there is no proof that there were other groups of humans besides the small one that we originate from. It seems reasonable to assume that such other groups existed, but that remains an assumption.

Problem with Noah's flood is that it's taking the entire process of evolution of many different races within their environment and putting it into a timeframe of less than 5000 years. That's way too short of time to have one family of people turn into the major races we have today.

Yes, that is true.

[Acriku]

Not really. I have often heard the claim that humans invented religion to explain their origins. However, while it is true that most religions do indeed make some attempt to explain the origins of the universe and mankind, no major religion places any particularly high importance on this matter. In other words, religion tends to treat human origins more like a footnote than a main subject.

While that may be true for the religion, the followers of the religions (or at least the fundies) take their origins into extreme account. The amount of blind opposition coming from fundies against evolution is point. It seems to me, with Christianity, that God making US is the most important premise and reason for what it said later in the Bible following the Genesis. We follow these commandments because God is our maker, we must do this or that because our creator says so, etc.

As far as DNA samples go, I have read up on what biologists and microbiologists are doing and DNA unraveling (our own especially) is giving us more clues than ancient samples toward our origins. Very interesting stuff going on nowadays in those fields.

[Edric O]

If God created the universe - by whatever means - then He is our creator and the premise of the fundamentalists should not suffer.

[Caid Ivik]

The condition is set incoherently: "God" is the name of the creator, or any creative principle of the universe. At least in the sense connected to the Flood.

Moral teachings and poetry are great things to get across to an entire people. The Bible does have good things in it (as Thomas Jefferson edited all but the good stuff in his version of the Bible), but I get frustrated when people take the teachings and poetry one step further and claim to be what happened. Especially when they teach it down to unbeknownst children..

If a historian's explanation of the past experience (relation between events) doesn't help you in life, then you naturally take another explanation, or focus on more important aspects of knowledge. Teachings and poetry could be seen as events occuring in the history too; but it's like the idea of theologians, who thought, that Quran is created in every moment, when it's being recited. Genesis could be read as an event, can be an event as such, but primarily it was written as a cause for events.

[Fortigurn]

As for Noah, what gives evidence to his very existence? To the flood's existence? I ask these two simple questions because you told his tale as if it were not doubted.

There is no hard evidence that Noah existed.  But there is physical evidence for the flood described in the Bible, and evidence that the story of Noah's Ark is credible.  That evidence is reviewed here.

[Acriku]

From that site...

The information in the Genesis flood record is reliable, and is proved so by archaeological findings. There was a real Noah, a real ark, and a real flood. There was a real judgment, sent by a real God.

Yeah, that's not the greatest of persuasions. A global flood (if taken literally) raises several questions, most especially how a wooden ship would survive the downpour of that much water. Also, even though the article refuses to acknowledge, with that much water in that amount of time (40 days) there would be torments of weather and waves unless God decided to let the laws of physics have a standstill until the flood was over... The scientific incongruities between what we find today in the Earth, and its cultures, and the possibility of a global flood in Noah's time are numerous. Chinese history dates before Noah and this flood, and there are no records of a massive flood (and those records and people would have been washed away anyway...). It's as if the entire Chinese empire and history popped into existence after the flood, with its history and all (a confusing concept).

[Tatar Khan]

Any chronology of when did flood occur should not be considered as slid since it basis itself on the idea of that world is 5000 or 6000 years old. However due to large number of repeating myths in different world culture with regards to the flood, it has to be acknowledged that something occurred to spam those myths. It might not have been the flood as described but something that got hyperbolised over many years into global flood.

[Fortigurn]

From that site...

Yeah, that's not the greatest of persuasions.

That wasn't meant to be persuasive.  You're not actually addressing the argument, you're simply repeating the opening statement without reading the supporting evidence provided for it.  Even worse, you're representing the opening statement as the argument itself, which is inaccurate.

A global flood (if taken literally) raises several questions, most especially how a wooden ship would survive the downpour of that much water.

I agree.  Of course, the article argues that a global flood did not take place.  It argues for a local flood.

Also, even though the article refuses to acknowledge, with that much water in that amount of time (40 days) there would be torments of weather and waves unless God decided to let the laws of physics have a standstill until the flood was over...

The scientific incongruities between what we find today in the Earth, and its cultures, and the possibility of a global flood in Noah's time are numerous. Chinese history dates before Noah and this flood, and there are no records of a massive flood (and those records and people would have been washed away anyway...). It's as if the entire Chinese empire and history popped into existence after the flood, with its history and all (a confusing concept).

It seems you didn't read the article very well at all.  It proposes a local flood, not a global flood.  You're arguing as if the article proposed a global flood.

[Acriku]

My apologies, I did in fact dismiss the article as soon as I read that opening statement. The opening statement told me that the writer was bound by the unbroken truth of the Bible. I find it hard to give patience to someone who does not go about things with an open mind.

So let me get this straight before we go on, do you consider the flood to be local or global? Also, if you believe the flood to be local then all animals gathering aboard the ark is false, too right? In other words, what of the story is factual? Was Noah a super-old man building his ark for a century? An age beyond what is recorded in science?

[MrFlibble]

Many people mentioned in the Old Testament are said to have lived to an age far beyond what is recorded in science.

[Fortigurn]

My apologies, I did in fact dismiss the article as soon as I read that opening statement. The opening statement told me that the writer was bound by the unbroken truth of the Bible. I find it hard to give patience to someone who does not go about things with an open mind.

Then you misunderstood the opening statement.  The opening statement was not intended to convey any such thing.

So let me get this straight before we go on, do you consider the flood to be local or global?

Local.

Also, if you believe the flood to be local then all animals gathering aboard the ark is false, too right?

I don't believe that all the animals of the world were represented in the Ark, no.

In other words, what of the story is factual?

I believe all of the story is factual. 

Was Noah a super-old man building his ark for a century?

No, I believe it took less time than that.  The Bible doesn't say anything about Noah building the Ark for 100 years.

An age beyond what is recorded in science?

Surely you mean 'An age beyond the longest in verifiable recorded human history'?  Yes.

[Acriku]

I don't believe that all the animals of the world were represented in the Ark, no.

So, the direct statement (Genesis 7:4) :

...and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

is not true, correct? Although, if such a statement that has no ambiguity in it is not true, then why is it even in the Bible? This is an example of the exaggeration in the Bible that misleads many readers.

Also, about the age:

6And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

meaning he could have built it for a long time, coupled with ...

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

A hundred year grace, which I take to mean while Noah builds his ark. Also, for a very huge ark like Noah's, it would take one man to build such an ark a very long time. It could very well have been a century.