Noah's Flood: revisited

[Fortigurn]

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

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.

It seems you haven't read the article.  That direct statement is true, and it is not an exaggeration.  It is the first point explained in the article.  It is a figure of speech.

Also, about the age:  meaning he could have built it for a long time, coupled with ...

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.

Firstly there is nothing in the text which says that Noah was building the Ark for 120 years.  Secondly, there is nothing to say that he was the only person building it.  Thirdly, it doesn't take 120 years to build a ship the size of the Ark.  Try not to read into the text things which aren't there.

[Acriku]

Actually yes I have gone over it. What tells this writer that it is used a figure of speech? He merely says they are used in a non-literal sense without any reason why. Also, how can something be true yet just a figure of speech?

[Falconius]

the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was "eh-rats", meaning "the land".

Hey Acriku-, i see you mentioned Chinese history. Wonder where you got that.

Reading your posts makes me smile, dude.

If i was an atheist i can see myself argueing very much like you have so far.

So i cannot but feel inclined to compliment your efforts.

Altough you obviously didn't want to read Fortigurn's article, you did do the trouble.

i should probably read it too, but i'm feeling a bit lazy at present.

Sorry Fortigurn.

[Caid Ivik]

Chinese history has many interesting points too. Their first kings (of the "flood era") lived quite a long time as well, btw wasn't it so, that first ruler of the Xia empire gained the throne by solving the problems with floods?

[Fortigurn]

Actually yes I have gone over it. What tells this writer that it is used a figure of speech? He merely says they are used in a non-literal sense without any reason why.

As the article goes on to explain, the physical evidence for the flood indicates that it was only local.  There's also the fact (not specifically mentioned in the article), that the pre and post flood geography of the Edenic region is clearly described in the Bible as being the same - the geography would not have changed as a result of a local flood, but would have been dramatically changed by a global flood.

Also, how can something be true yet just a figure of speech?

THis is a somewhat confused statement.  Using a figure of speech does not mean that you're saying something which isn't true.  It does mean that the words are not to be taken literally.  To use a venerable example, if I say it is raining cats and dogs that doesn't mean that I am not telling the truth.  But it does mean that you're not to take the words literally. The phrase 'raining cats and dogs' means 'raining heavily', and I am certainly telling the truth as long as it is indeed raining heavily.

[Fortigurn]

Hey Acriku-, i see you mentioned Chinese history. Wonder where you got that.

I believe there's plenty of evidence for pre-flood Chinese history.  And Egyptian history.  And Sumerian history.

Altough you obviously didn't want to read Fortigurn's article, you did do the trouble.

i should probably read it too, but i'm feeling a bit lazy at present.

Sorry Fortigurn.

No drama.  It's not compulsory.  You won't be graded on it.

[Acriku]

I understand that the article reads the flood as being local, and if there is any credibility to the story of Noah it would have to be a local flood. But, the Bible seemed very clear that every living thing God created was destroyed. I just don't see how that is a figure of speech.

Falconius, about the Chinese history you can look up information about the Xia dynasty that dates all the way back to 11,000 BC. It's fascinating what they have found in archaeological digs near the Huang He river!

[Fortigurn]

I understand that the article reads the flood as being local, and if there is any credibility to the story of Noah it would have to be a local flood. But, the Bible seemed very clear that every living thing God created was destroyed. I just don't see how that is a figure of speech.

If you don't see how that is a figure of speech, then you need to read the article, which provides a list of Bible passages in which the same language is used figuratively.  Standard Bible dictionaries observe that the language can be used in this way.

Falconius, about the Chinese history you can look up information about the Xia dynasty that dates all the way back to 11,000 BC. It's fascinating what they have found in archaeological digs near the Huang He river!

I believe the Xia Dynasty was between the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BC.  I am not aware of any recorded dynasties prior to the 3rd millennium BC, certainly not 11,000 BC.

[Acriku]

You're right about the dynasty's age, don't know why I said it dates all the way back to 11,000 BC, although Chinese culture does date further than that.

Once again, I have read the article you're talking about. Here are the passages said to be "non-literal sense" :

Equivalent phrases also used in a non-literal sense include:

[Fortigurn]

You're right about the dynasty's age, don't know why I said it dates all the way back to 11,000 BC, although Chinese culture does date further than that.

Chinese culture dates back further than 11,000 years BC?

Once again, I have read the article you're talking about. Here are the passages said to be "non-literal sense" :

Now, the Ezekiel verse is used as an example for the exact same verse in the group of verses that they say suggests a global flood. So that doesn't make much sense.

Why doesn't that make sense?

Why is the Ezekiel phrase taken as non-literal?

Because of the context in which it appears.

[Acriku]

No, I meant that the Chinese culture dates further than the beginning of the Xia dynasty. Not good with words apparently  :-

It doesn't make sense because it's using the verse as an example to support the same verse. Circular reasoning, eh?

[Fortigurn]

It doesn't make sense because it's using the verse as an example to support the same verse. Circular reasoning, eh?

What it is doing is quoting a phrase which is demonstrably used in one verse in a non-literal sense.  The context of the verse informs us that the sense is non-literal in this place.  That is not circular reasoning.

[FloodofNoahdotcom]

Hi

This is my first time on this site.

Please go to

http://www.FloodofNoah.com

for my fairly-complete study on  Noah's Flood as to whether it is Local or Global.

As to Pre-flood Chinese history?

I would rather believe the Bible than the Chinese records, especially as the Bible agrees with every other piece of evidence available, to my knowledge. Can anyone guide me to the site/page which covers the Chinese history mentioned. I have heard of it before, but I've never chased it to the source.

Regards.

[Fortigurn]

Hi

This is my first time on this site.

Please go to

http://www.FloodofNoah.com

for my fairly-complete study on  Noah's Flood as to whether it is Local or Global.

Unfortunately it doesn't look quite complete yet.  The 'Arguments for a Local flood' side is missing any text.  For a more balanced approach, see this first article of four.

As to Pre-flood Chinese history?

I would rather believe the Bible than the Chinese records, especially as the Bible agrees with every other piece of evidence available, to my knowledge.

The Bible certainly agrees with every other piece of evidence available, which is why a global flood is not even remotely plausible.

Can anyone guide me to the site/page which covers the Chinese history mentioned. I have heard of it before, but I've never chased it to the source.

I've been to the National Palace Museum in Taiwan and seen the artefacts myself.  There's no doubt that Chinese history predates the flood.  But why bother when Chinese history, when it's equally conclusive that Sumerian and Egyptian history predate the flood?

[Acriku]

Hey Noah, welcome! What are these pieces of evidence that the Bible agrees with so well?

[Egeides]

for my fairly-complete study on  Noah's Flood as to whether it is Local or Global.

As to Pre-flood Chinese history?

I would rather believe the Bible than the Chinese records, especially as the Bible agrees with every other piece of evidence available, to my knowledge. Can anyone guide me to the site/page which covers the Chinese history mentioned. I have heard of it before, but I've never chased it to the source.

Regarding the Chinese, they have had Confucean scholars cautious about preserving knowledge since the beginning of their civilization, maybe as the West had priests/monks and rabbis responsible for keeping knowledge.

For specific sources, as our Herodotus, their "first historian" was Sima Qian, and this is ca. 145–90 BC. He records all he can from times before him. Some others wrote before him, but it shows as with Herodotus that "systematic history writing" is not so ancient.

And they went from what they had access to in those times, and "history writing" as we know it is from the 19th Century. Forget the contemporary precision you are used by living in our present tiems, as Ranke was the first to promote "solid archivistic sources" in the 19th Century. Those before could have to rely much more on what was told around or have other goals to start with (e.g. keeping tradition, remembering the centrality of an event, remembering a ruler's lessons, etc.) [nb.: so regarding the Bible, to have something relevant to write, it didn't have to be "systematic history writing".]

To look from now, there's also archeology and things like the turtle shells I have mentioned. Wiki places Chinese characters from 6500 BC, but you can bet that not everything was physically preserved from destruction from the beginning. You can give a check at the Chinese Neolithic from Wiki. I'd expect that, although some things might be found by now, much more is to come as archeologists go on.

PS: Somehow, I have trouble entering on your site. I click enter and get a blank page.

[Fortigurn]

Regarding the Chinese, they have had Confucean scholars cautious about preserving knowledge since the beginning of their civilization...

No they haven't.  Confucius wasn't even born until about 551 BC.  The evidence we have for ancient Chinese civilization is largely archaeological rather than textual.

[Egeides]

It's my error: I changed definition in the middle, starting with "Chinese civilization" in its general look and considering the Confucean aspect as "common beginning" of civilization. Mea culpa.

They discussed history from very early parts. They cared for it early but started a lot later than the first tribes or emperors (Yellow Emperor is something like 2500 BC by Sima Qian).

[Caid Ivik]

I've been to the National Palace Museum in Taiwan and seen the artefacts myself.  There's no doubt that Chinese history predates the flood.  But why bother when Chinese history, when it's equally conclusive that Sumerian and Egyptian history predate the flood?

Well, there had to be some culture in the Noah's enviroment too, before the flood...that doesn't contradict the possibility, that it could have been flooded. Even Slovakia was already civilized (tough a little ;D  ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:European_Middle_Neolithic.gif

[Acriku]

No, just the fact that they existed before the flood and still do exist. Unless Noah's family was a crazy mix of all the races in the world...

[Caid Ivik]

I don't think my culture would be charactericized by "linear pottery". Even in this aspect we prefer more organical shapes...

Cultures do change a lot, there are eras of high development replaced by certain empty spaces in chronicles. Take Iran for example, you have quite a lot clues of a homogenous kingdom since the copper age there, but is the Chamenei's regime comparable to an empire of Medes? Is it a "still existing culture of Medes"? Perhaps in Shahnameh. People move. Also, if a chronicle speaks about an emperor, who lived for thousand years, it is as acceptable as an idea that all humans are descendants of a single family (or tribe) living few millenia ago.

[Sneakgab]

I think that a major issue that has been somewhat ''swept under the carpet'' here was Acriku's issue regarding a God that took major divine based action, recording it in the bible, and then covering up any evidence of such action as being somewhat hard to take as seriously existing. The response received was that this was done to keep the ''test of faith'' and the freedom that comes with it.

''Say you're right, and it is relevant. The big question that is begging to be asked is this: Why? Why would God make a huge flood to eliminate a bunch of people and then go out of his way to remove any evidence of it? And then have it talked about it in the Bible! Just doesn't make enough sense to me for it to be a valid argument.''

While this would be reasonable if there were simply no evidence that it happened (lack of evidence is not lack of) or evidence left that showed that it may or may not have happened (thusly leaving room for the ''test''), what we instead have is evidence that (some of) these bible proclaimed events DID NOT HAPPEN.

It is this significant fact that makes such a God seem to be invalid hard to take seriously. Insufficent evidence to confirm these divine events would have been alright for maintaining the test of faith, but instead God with his absolute power who could control the evidence as he pleased has left us with virtually confirmed evidence that what he has recorded in the bible and has supposedly done is DEFINETLY (or atleast most likely) not true/ has not happend.

Btw, regarding the flood, please do not bother argueing it's validity to me. It does not matter it that flood took place or not, as there are countless other examples of divine events recorded in the bible having been confirmed (to the non religious and the religious who take the bible metaphorically rather than literally) to have not taken place.

If I am wrong in the statement directly above, and in fact none of the bible miracles have been found to be (by the least) most unlikely (ie: beyond reasonable doubt) to have happened, then I apologize (as the statement seems so likely to be correct I have not bothered confirming it), stand corrected, and acknowledge that this post is completely moot. Not that it's very likely that any board member will find info stating that all the divine events recorded in the bible are ''reasonably likelyhave a reasonable chane of being true'' anytime soon anyway :P ;D.

on that note, it seems relevant to note something regarding the non-bible records of the flood by people existing at the time of the flood. If we take the bible literally and consider it's statement regarding everything being killed by the flood excl Noah and his family, then the ''literal religious'' school must admit that unless noah or his family members recorded info about the flood in a text other than the bible there can definetely be no witness testimony other than that in the bible and considering the destruction wrecked by the flood we can imagine no documents made by others during the flood could possibly have survived. Thusly, if the flood did happen, it would seem that it would be virtually impossible to find historic documents outside of the bible and we would thusly have to rely on the scientificlogic investigation that currently shows the likelyhood of the flood happening to so unlikely as to say that the fact that a global flood did not take place is beyond reasonable doubt (that is, for any reasonable person).

Considering evolutionary,geographical, geological, scientic, chemical,e.t.c reasoning, argueing that we have non-bible evidence that a global flood really did occur at the given in the bible seems to be absurd, but thats not to say that if somebody came up with a logical reasonable argurment that did not depend on the bible that I would not listen. (Don't consider me some ''unreasoable'' atheist who assumes the religious to consist entirely of foolish sheep-like masses and dismisses their arguments without consisdering them... just getting that out of the way)

btw, in my first post I claimed ''there is much reason to believe in an arbitrary God for no reason'', obviously, that was supposed to be: there is NOT much reason. Just a note for those to who it may have seemed that I took a sudden and arbitrary dip in the loonyrandom bin :D.

[Sneakgab]

''Local.

Quote

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.

Quote

In other words, what of the story is factual?

I believe all of the story is factual.  ''

The bible states many times that 2 of each creature, male and female, (btw: would that include species that reproduce asexuallyunisexually and only have 1 sex to begin with) were brought aboard the ark. Considering the number of times (that Akricu) listed where it was stated explicitly by the bible, it seems reasonable to think that if anything in the bible was intended literally, then the ark/all creatures on earth story was. It doesn't seem valid to view it as something intended metaphorically.

It seems to me that the only was one can believe all of the bible (im assuming thats what you meant by ''story'') ot be factual is by pure belief, as of yet there is no convinving evidence that any of it is factualhappened while there is convincing evidence that much of ti did not happen.