Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is of little to no value, since the original story is not of Hebrew origin.
Do you not see the futility in examining a story that is copied from older sources which themselves are copies of an older original source?
Who's side are you on?
The original story did not claim the flood covered the whole earth either. Look up Babylonian flood myths, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Assyrian flood myths and so on.
That's an interesting read. It is moot, of course whether the story originated in an actual Sumerian flood or was just a story based on thoughts of how a person (warned by a god) could survive a really big flood in Mesopotamia. So far as I can remember there is no evidence that the Ur flood levels were anything but limited to the are or Ur.
Yes. The floods were local as far as I can make out. Interestingly though, they are dated to around 2800 BC which ties in with the Burckle crater event. I'm interested in learning whether the two events are actually related. That hasn't been proven so far.
Yes. The floods were local as far as I can make out. Interestingly though, they are dated to around 2800 BC which ties in with the Burckle crater event. I'm interested in learning whether the two events are actually related. That hasn't been proven so far.
Possible, but the stories rather suggest floods caused by storms and rain leading to the rivers flooding, rather than the rising sea backing up.
Of course a meteor impact might cause storms, but storms happen without meteor impacts, so just using the habitual nervousness about flooding rivers (which is the same explanation of the Chinese "Flood" legend) to construct these stories would be the first choice explanation.
Note that the Egyptian 'Flood' story is also related to the regular rising of the Nile, but that is welcomed rather than feared and the story is more about a God polluting the Nile than about the Nile causing harm. The dragging in of Atum creating the world from primeval waters (and eventually they will return to that), in order to try to fake up, really, that Egyptian Global flood story so much needed by Genesis -literalists, is the closest you will ever get to lying for Jesus.
I didn't say God said that in Genesis 1. He said it in Psalm 104.
From Barne's Notes on the Bible: "That they turn not again to cover the earth - As it was before the dry land appeared; or as the earth was when “darkness was upon the face of the deep” Gen_1:2, and when all was mingled earth and water. It is “possible” that in connection with this, the psalmist may also have had his eye on the facts connected with the deluge in the time of Noah, and the promise then made that the world should no more be destroyed by a flood, Gen_9:11, Gen_9:15."
Since the water did cover the earth in Noah's day, you must be taking Psalm 104 wrongly.
Quote:
Pangea didn't submerge. It formed and then broke apart but there were large areas under shallow seas but these were formed during the formation of Pangea, not by any submergence.
Pangea broke apart in Peleg's day. That was after the historic world-wide flood.
Quote:
You cannot use Pangea as part of your argument because doing so negates Noah's flood, Adam and Eve and the whole of creation.
No it doesn't negate Noah's flood. It proves it.
Of course I can use Pangea as my argument.
Quote:
Pangea existed 300 million years ago and broke apart some 200 million years ago.
Not really.
Quote:
the middle east was formed some 50 million years ago. All of which was way before the creation of 10,000 years ago (even if you make the creation 100,000 years ago). Besides, the bible makes no mention of Pangea.
So? The Bible makes no mention of Adam or Eve taking a crap either.
Quote:
That ocean partially surrounded by land is the Paleo-Tethys Ocean. The Tethys Sea was pretty much where the middle east is now and is why there are oil fields there today.
Actually it was after the world wide flood that the continental plates began their drift apart with the Indian plate pushing northward causing the uplift of the Himalayas.
Yes. The floods were local as far as I can make out. Interestingly though, they are dated to around 2800 BC which ties in with the Burckle crater event.
Were they? The problem with the 'written earlier' hypothesis is simply the passage of time and the great number of generations for such stories to get lost in. Scholars seem to think the source flood was circa 2800 BC. Two earlier large floods would be the flooding of the Black Sea and the one the archaeologists discovered in the early part of last century, dated to around 3800 BC, IIRC
Flood myths are dated by the language use at the time of writing and the earliest cuneiform tablets are post 2800 BC.
What I find interesting is that the Mesopotamian flood myths differ from the Genesis myth only in the source of the water. In Genesis there is water welling out of the oceans while not in the others. Now this could conceivably be due to the inclusion in the Genesis myth a tsunami which didn't reach Mesopotamia. Could be. Or not.
Eusebius, yes you can use Pangea as your argument. But then you'll lose. What's the fun in that? I want a good debate, like the time you countered me by saying "that's because the descendants of Noah spread to all parts of the globe, carrying the flood legend with them". Good one!
Using geology to support your argument isn't working. Geology isn't your strong point.
Quote:
... you must be taking Psalm 104 wrongly.
Yes! Now you're putting forward a good point. But you could also just have asked me whether I have actually read Psalm 104. However, you preceded the above quoted segment with;
Quote:
Since the water did cover the earth in Noah's day,
No, no, no. You're using the point you are trying to prove as the proof!
OK, lets try this, the great flood of the bible never happened! The Himalayas were firmly in place way before the Hebrew nation ever existed. The flood that spawned the Genesis flood myth 'possibly' began on the morning of May 10, 2807 BC. How do we know this? Because there are flood myths of that time frame that mentions a total eclipse of the sun at the time and that can be precisely dated. However, this is not even a theory. It's a hypothesis. But the hypothesis does have some tantalizing evidence - but not solid proof!
Your statement of a factual, as written, biblical flood doesn't have any of those qualities. Just the fact that the man who built and piloted the ark was over six hundred years old at the time is a dead giveaway (no pun intended).
You should now ask me whether I can prove or provide proof of any of my assertions. Then I would feel free to ask you to provide proof for your assertions regarding Pangea.
Last edited by 303Guy; 10-19-2015 at 02:57 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll have to go look for it so it may take a while.
Or not.
I want a good debate, like the time you countered me by saying "that's because the descendants of Noah spread to all parts of the globe, carrying the flood legend with them". Good one! 
