If Noah's Ark is a true story...

[kenisyes]

Most of the Flood water didn't come from the sky, but the ground. Fissures opened in the crust of the earth, causing the "fountains of the deep" to burst. Those same cracks are still pumping water into the oceans at the bottom.

That's kind of my point. But I think the single continent broke in pieces (it says this in the Sumerian legend - "land shattered like a pot") and that's what caused the ocean waters to come up from under it. It's kind of point of view, whether the water broke through the mantle of land, or the mantle of land broke and let in the water. I think the mantle of land was split by the earth's molten iron core hitting it from below. Could the Hebrew word "fountain" include the iron core?

 

[Bowman]

But without an understanding of the flood, you cannot rule out destruction of much of the evidence by the flood itself. The bible itself calls it mobal, which is a word that means "causing vibrations". So the Bible itself tells us that it was more than a flood. Without knowing what that "more" part is, we cannot say what it might have destroyed.

If a population existed that grew geometrically into the millions or even billions, then there would be ample evidence of its prior existence....just as we find in the fossil record.

I could challenge you to prove that from the Bible.

The term for murder 'harag' as first used in Gen 4, for what Cain did to his brother, has the same lexical meaning as the term Violence in Gen 6, when it had reached its summit....'kill, slay, implying ruthless violence, especially private violence'.

Thus, murder was indeed rampant and kept the population down and local.

You still have the statement that people who were not killed were living to be 120 years old,
and that the names of those who are listed lived several hundred years each and bore "sons and daughters" implying at least four children each.

Before the Flood.

Do you know the Jewish legend that says that it was Lamech who killed him? That's what Gen. 4:23 is really supposed to be about. Lamech is blind and thinks he is shooting a deer. When he realizes he killed Cain, he accidentally kills his son, who was guiding the blind hunter. Similarly, Ovid gives us the Greek legend that part of the sin that made God angry was killing people to feed the giants. Either legend inmplies that murder was rare for quite a long time. Neither legend contradicts anything in Scripture. You cannot prove that it was prevalent, as this historical legendary evidence survived Scriptural challenges for centuries.

'Legends' are not scripture.

 

[kenisyes]

If a population existed that grew geometrically into the millions or even billions, then there would be ample evidence of its prior existence....just as we find in the fossil record.
So you don't agree that a process you do not understand, for which the Bible uses a different word, can do what God said it would do, and destroy things? That is most inconsistent.
The term for murder 'harag' as first used in Gen 4, for what Cain did to his brother, has the same lexical meaning as the term Violence in Gen 6, when it had reached its summit....'kill, slay, implying ruthless violence, especially private violence'.
Please tell me the specific verse where the word harag occurs in Gen. 6, I can't find it. If God used a different word, why do you insist it has the same meaning? The words I see are ra' meaning bad, and chamac, Strong's 2555 which does not have murder as one of it's sub-meanings.
Thus, murder was indeed rampant and kept the population down and local.
Before the Flood.
How long before the flood? The Bible doesn't tell us.
'Legends' are not scripture.
But they contain the Jewish interpretation of the passage. Surely, if the Jews don't agree with you, how can you insist they are wrong and you are right?

 

[Bowman]

So you don't agree that a process you do not understand, for which the Bible uses a different word, can do what God said it would do, and destroy things? That is most inconsistent.

The mechanism is straight forward and easily understood.


Abundant life on this planet that has ceased to exist is found in the fossil record. If modern humans existed in the numbers that you forecast, then where are all the fossil remains?

Even tiny sea creature fossils that numbered in the billions, and died long ago, are to be found today on mountain tops.

But the much larger humans, who,according to you, also numbered in the billions, and died long ago….well, there simply is no record of them…not on mountain tops…not in valleys…nowhere…

Please tell me the specific verse where the word harag occurs in Gen. 6, I can't find it. If God used a different word, why do you insist it has the same meaning? The words I see are ra' meaning bad, and chamac, Strong's 2555 which does not have murder as one of it's sub-meanings.

Brown-Driver-Briggs, as thus…

1. a. kill, slay,implying ruthless violence, especially private violence Genesis4:8,14,15,23,25; Genesis12:12 (all J), Genesis20:11 (E) Genesis 26:7; Genesis27:41,42; Genesis 34:25,26; Genesis37:20,26 (all J), Genesis49:6 (poem in J), Exodus2:14 (twice in verse); Exodus2:15 (E), Exodus 5:21 (J) Exodus21:14; Exodus 23:7 (both J E), Numbers31:19 (P) Judges 9:5,18,24 (twice in verse); Judges9:56; Judges 16:2; Judges20:5; 1 Samuel 16:2; 1Samuel 22:21; 1Samuel 24:11; 1Samuel 24:12; 1Samuel 24:18; 2 Samuel 3:30; 2Samuel 4:10,11,12; 2Samuel 12:9; 2 Samuel 14:7; 2Samuel 23:21; 1 Kings 2:5,32; 1Kings 18:12,13,14; 1Kings 19:1,10,14; 2Kings 9:31; 2 Kings 10:9; 1 Chronicles 7:21; 1 Chronicles 11:23; 2Chronicles 21:4,13; 22:8;24:23,25; 25:3; Nehemiah 4:5; Nehemiah6:10 (twice in verse); Zechariah11:5; Psalm 10:8; Psalm94:6 ("" רִצֵּחַ); compare Judges8:18,19,20,21; Judges 9:54; 1Kings 12:27; Isaiah 14:20; 2Chronicles 22:1; Nehemiah9:26; so of massacre of Jews planned by Haman Esther3:13; Esther 7:4 (both לְהַשְׁמִידלַהֲרֹגוּלְאַבֵּד), and of slaughter ofJews' enemies in defence and revenge Esther8:11 (same combination) Esther9:6,10,12,15,16 compare Esther9:11 (passive participle the slain).

How long before the flood? The Bible doesn't tell us.

Ever since the first murder committed by Cain, according to Genesis.

But they contain the Jewish interpretation of the passage. Surely, if the Jews don't agree with you, how can you insist they are wrong and you are right?

Modern day Jews have about as much understanding of their scriptures as do Muslims. Not much.

All throughout the Tanak, we have the divinely inspired prophets informing the reader that Jews were idolaters and improperly worshiping God, in literallythousands upon thousands of verses.

They could not interpret God’s message…they still can’t.

Clearly, Jewish ‘interpretation’ of scripture means very little. They missed the boat, they always have.

The Jews that actually comprehended their scriptures knew immediately that Jesus was Godin the flesh when He came. What was so special about their ‘interpretation’ over that of the other Jews who denied that Jesus is The truth?

So no….Jewish interpretation means nothing…not in scripture, and most assuredly outside ofscripture.

 

[kenisyes]

The mechanism is straight forward and easily understood.
Yes, so you assume. The bible disagrees by using a different word, mobal, for what you are calling a flood.

Abundant life on this planet that has ceased to exist is found in the fossil record. If modern humans existed in the numbers that you forecast, then where are all the fossil remains?

Even tiny sea creature fossils that numbered in the billions, and died long ago, are to be found today on mountain tops.
Oops, how did they get there unless the spreading ocean waters washed them up that high? So where were all the cattle mixed in? Surely they were alive in great numbers? The answer is simple. The higher order creatures ran away from the initial surge that piled everything up into that flowing mud. The bodies were not entombed, so there weren't any bones.

But the much larger humans, who,according to you, also numbered in the billions, and died long ago….well, there simply is no record of them…not on mountain tops…not in valleys…nowhere…

Brown-Driver-Briggs, as thus…

Thank you for proving my assertion that the word is not used for anything betwen Cain and the flood, except for when Lamech uses it.

Ever since the first murder committed by Cain, according to Genesis.


Modern day Jews have about as much understanding of their scriptures as do Muslims. Not much.

All throughout the Tanak, we have the divinely inspired prophets informing the reader that Jews were idolaters and improperly worshiping God, in literallythousands upon thousands of verses.

They could not interpret God’s message…they still can’t.

Clearly, Jewish ‘interpretation’ of scripture means very little. They missed the boat, they always have.

The Jews that actually comprehended their scriptures knew immediately that Jesus was Godin the flesh when He came. What was so special about their ‘interpretation’ over that of the other Jews who denied that Jesus is The truth?

So no….Jewish interpretation means nothing…not in scripture, and most assuredly outside ofscripture.

I'm just showing you there is another way to interpret the purpose of that verse. You say Gen. 4:23 is there becuase Lamech was bragging, and it indicates a lot of killing. They say it is there because Lamech had committed the first killing since Cain, and it was an accident. No matter who they are, your opinion does not match theirs, and without additional Scripture, we cannot use that verse to prove a great deal of killing.

 

[Bowman]

Yes, so you assume. The bible disagrees by using a different word, mobal, for what you are calling a flood.

All Biblical usages of the word 'mabbul', and its derivatives, are used in the context of 'mayim' (water).


A flood, is a flood, is a flood...

O

ops, how did they get there unless the spreading ocean waters washed them up that high?

Fossils are located on mountain tops because this was the bottom of the ocean shortly after the earth was formed - not because of any great flood. Gen 1 and Psalm 104 both tell us that the earth was completely covered with water BEFORE the mountains were formed.

Thus, we would predict that ONLY the fossils of sea life would be found there...and that is what is found, just as predicted from scripture.

So where were all the cattle mixed in? Surely they were alive in great numbers? The answer is simple. The higher order creatures ran away from the initial surge that piled everything up into that flowing mud. The bodies were not entombed, so there weren't any bones.

They 'ran away'....that's nice. So where did they run away to?

One of the supposed isolated pockets of dry land?

Where might we find the remains of all these animals and the billions of people that you claim were with them?

We don't find anything...

Thank you for proving my assertion that the word is not used for anything betwen Cain and the flood, except for when Lamech uses it.

I demonstrated that the lexical meanings have overlapping definitions.

Different words to describe the same murder events.

I'm just showing you there is another way to interpret the purpose of that verse.

I showed you how how unreliable your assertion is, based upon the Holy Bible, itself.

Basically, you question the authority of the Holy Bible and wish to add in Jewish legend....not cool...

You say Gen. 4:23

is there becuase Lamech was bragging, and it indicates a lot of killing.

That's what scripture tells us.

They say it is there because Lamech had committed the first killing since Cain, and it was an accident. No matter who they are, your opinion does not match theirs, and without additional Scripture, we cannot use that verse to prove a great deal of killing.

Perhaps this is now the time where you need to look to the completed action tenses of the verbs you are tempting to use for your position, and abandon Jewish legend.

 

[kenisyes]

All Biblical usages of the word 'mabbul', and its derivatives, are used in the context of 'mayim' (water).
A flood, is a flood, is a flood...

Noah's flood was different, or God is a liar. He said He would never punish the earth with water that way again, but we have had amny local floods since. Besides, why does God use a different word?

Fossils are located on mountain tops because this was the bottom of the ocean shortly after the earth was formed - not because of any great flood. Gen 1 and Psalm 104 both tell us that the earth was completely covered with water BEFORE the mountains were formed.

Thus, we would predict that ONLY the fossils of sea life would be found there...and that is what is found, just as predicted from scripture.


But God did not create any such creatures until the fifth day. He got the water off the earth on the third day. There were no creatures in that water, when God made the earth pop out. If your theory is correct, the fossile record means nothing in regard to the flood, since everything in it was there long before the flood.

They 'ran away'....that's nice. So where did they run away to?
One of the supposed isolated pockets of dry land?
Where might we find the remains of all these animals and the billions of people that you claim were with them?
We don't find anything...

Higher ground. That protected them from the onslaught of the mud, but not the water. They were drowned in the water, and left on top of the ground when the waters receded. They simply decayed like any body would do. The fossils are there because they were entombed in mud which later hardened.

I demonstrated that the lexical meanings have overlapping definitions.
Different words to describe the same murder events.
God used different words, yet you are claiming that the two different words have the same meaning. History says they were different types of events.

I showed you how how unreliable your assertion is, based upon the Holy Bible, itself.
Basically, you question the authority of the Holy Bible and wish to add in Jewish legend....not cool...

And you are doing the same with an arbitrary assertion that you made up.
That's what scripture tells us.

Perhaps this is now the time where you need to look to the completed action tenses of the verbs you are tempting to use for your position, and abandon Jewish legend.
And you know that when telling a story, the complete and incomplete tenses interchange usage, right?

 

[TheStraightener]

How did kangaroos, emus and platypuses get to Australia after Noah landed his boat?

Think about the poor Sloths and Snails! Only now they are arriving lol

 

[Bowman]

Noah's flood was different, or God is a liar. He said He would never punish the earth with water that way again, but we have had amny local floods since. Besides, why does God use a different word?

You're not reading the text.

Gen 9.15

And I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you, and every living soul in all flesh. And the waters shall not again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

There shall be no more flood waters that destroy ALL FLESH.

See how that differs from your stance.

This scripture, alone, further supports that the flood only needed to be local in order to exterminate mankind.

But God did not create any such creatures until the fifth day. He got the water off the earth on the third day. There were no creatures in that water, when God made the earth pop out. If your theory is correct, the fossile record means nothing in regard to the flood, since everything in it was there long before the flood.

Mountains are continuously forming even to this very day.

Higher ground. That protected them from the onslaught of the mud, but not the water. They were drowned in the water, and left on top of the ground when the waters receded. They simply decayed like any body would do. The fossils are there because they were entombed in mud which later hardened.

Where exactly did they 'run to'...? The text only mentions the place-names local to Mesopotamia. All those billions of people...where are their remains?

And you are a YEC...so the remains of this gargantuan population would not have had time to fossilize...instead, there would be literally piles of human bone fragments atop high places....as the flood lasted ~ 1 year to fully recede ..and any living people would have starved to death during that time.....so...again...where are their remains?

Your stance looks like Swiss cheese....

God used different words, yet you are claiming that the two different words have the same meaning. History says they were different types of events.

The lexicons and context tell the truth.

You would need to refute both in order to have a valid position.

And you know that when telling a story, the complete and incomplete tenses interchange usage, right?

Show us in the Hebrew.

 

[TheAristocat]

Ok now you're grasping at straws. Obviously you can't have two of all living creatures and seven of every kind of animal clean or not. Surprised you didn't go with the old "mistranslated" tactic.

Anyway it's already been beaten to death and yes it is a clear contradiction.

"If Noah knew the Mosaic law and passed it on to his children, there would be no point in God revealing it to Moses and Aaron later in Leviticus. In order to get away from this, you need to maintain that Noah was revealed at least parts of the Mosaic law, which were then lost at some point after the Flood.
Of course, there's also the much more plausible explanation that the story was invented by a Jewish writer who was so accustomed to thinking about animals as clean or unclean that he did not spot this chronological inconsistency."

Number of each "kind" on Noah's Ark - RationalWiki

I guess you could also say the same thing of Genesis 4:3-5, which implies that they were aware of complex sacrificial laws similar to those in the Torah.

Genesis 4:3-5 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

But saying that there were no such stipulations and then claiming the Bible is in error would be inventing straws at which to grasp.

If you have a problem with repeated revelations you can read this passage and understand that God first gave the law of circumcision to Abraham and then re-gave it to Moses.

John 7:22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath.

 

[terminator]

[video=youtube;v7FHRlzmWPM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7FHRlzmWPM[/video]

Why do all the good ones have comments and ratings disabled?

 

[TheAristocat]

Why do all the good ones have comments and ratings disabled?

"Repent of your sins and get on the ark. Walk through that door and be saved."

Of course Noah was called a preacher of righteousness, so who did he preach to?

2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

The argument could be made that the flood could have still been local and that the reason Noah was ordered to build the ark instead of just leave the area was so that the people he lived with could have an opportunity to at least hear his message and repent. I'm undecided on this issue, but I've heard that there is evidence of a rather large flood in that area several thousand years ago. And when I say "large" I mean on the order of covering the entire state of Denmark. So both sides make good points.

And in relation to the 船 character, I've studied it a little bit and have an idea of how characters are formed. The meaning part of the character is 舟, which indicates a boat. The part on the right does not mean "eight" and "people." I believe, just as the part on the left is a meaning part, the part on the right is a phonetic part. But phonetic parts also influence the meanings of characters when they're first made. So it's possible that the part on the right influenced the meaning. However, the character above is the simplified version of a traditional character that looks like this: 舩. That version is closer to the original, and it does not have the 口 part (which actually means "mouth" and may refer to people or may just refer to holes or cavities). I've been told, though, by an old professor that no one really quite knows why the part on the right (that is, 公) was used. But I have a friend who wrote a paper about it. I can ask him.

Actually, it appears that the simplified 船 might've been closer to the original than the traditional character 舩. And that's true of some simplified characters. Here's the link: 字典中 船 字的解释

 

[TheAristocat]

"Repent of your sins and get on the ark. Walk through that door and be saved."

Of course Noah was called a preacher of righteousness, so who did he preach to?

2 Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

The argument could be made that the flood could have still been local and that the reason Noah was ordered to build the ark instead of just leave the area was so that the people he lived with could have an opportunity to at least hear his message and repent. I'm undecided on this issue, but I've heard that there is evidence of a rather large flood in that area several thousand years ago. And when I say "large" I mean on the order of covering the entire state of Denmark. So both sides make good points.

And in relation to the 船 character, I've studied it a little bit and have an idea of how characters are formed. The meaning part of the character is 舟, which indicates a boat. The part on the right does not mean "eight" and "people." I believe, just as the part on the left is a meaning part, the part on the right is a phonetic part. But phonetic parts also influence the meanings of characters when they're first made. So it's possible that the part on the right influenced the meaning. However, the character above is the simplified version of a traditional character that looks like this: 舩. That version is closer to the original, and it does not have the 口 part (which actually means "mouth" and may refer to people or may just refer to holes or cavities). I've been told, though, by an old professor that no one really quite knows why the part on the right (that is, 公) was used. But I have a friend who wrote a paper about it. I can ask him.

Actually, it appears that the simplified 船 might've been closer to the original than the traditional character 舩. And that's true of some simplified characters. Here's the link: 字典中 船 字的解释

Since the link isn't straightforward, here's the image I wanted people to see:




You see 舟 on the left and 八 in the upper right and 口 in the lower right. But those two both should be counted as one part and shouldn't be able to be broken apart. Anyway, it's a possibility from what I know about character formation. This character appears to be placed well within the B.C. timeline. Maybe in the first or second millennium B.C.

 

[Unbelievable]

The Noah's Ark storey has to be one of the BIGGEST insults to our intelligence in the bible.
Can any of you Christians apply your logic and critical thinking
Are any of you game enough to question your faith, as I once did, and do some basic research and thinking with common sense
Start here if you have the slightest interest or doubts in this ridiculous myth

An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense

 

[Tintin]

What the heck do you think we've been doing in the previous posts? If you're not here to be respectful in your discussion, go elsewhere.

 

[MidniteWelder]

You're not reading the text.

Gen 9.15

And I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you, and every living soul in all flesh. And the waters shall not again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

There shall be no more flood waters that destroy ALL FLESH.

.

Note: There is more Flesh than just mankind
If the bible depicts all flesh, we should be careful not make that assume it is referring only to mankind.
If it was local...why get species of every animal

[SUP]2 [/SUP]Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,[SUP]3 [/SUP]and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Why do all the good ones have comments and ratings disabled?

Probably because there's a lot of haters on YouTube, and the person who posted the clip doesn't have time to sift through them all.