The sheer number of "Flood" stories that exist lends credence to the idea that it did happen. Aside from Gilgamesh and the Bible, there are such stories found in remote Asian cultures, Chinese history, North American Indians and Central America's Aztec and Incan empires.
I'm about to go out but I'll research the links in a day or so. I remember reading up on this a couple of years ago during AI's Fellowship Wars.
With such an abundance of stories, most people would normally take the position that something on a global scale in the distant past triggered such narratives.
But, of course, the fact that the story exists in the Bible means that it must be discounted at all costs.
No, just the idea that it covered the world over and it could be used to build a convoluted support for a paranoid creation theory that has neither anything to do with the original spirit of the text, nor any sensitivity to its rhetorical purpose.
Confine yourself to a few Mediteranean low lands and you'll be closer to the truth.
Let us say the crust of the earth covered a body of underground water and that a giant meteor came in and cracked it... how was there an atmosphere to sustain wooly mammoths without massive and exposed bodies of water? (Hint: There would not be.)
It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, enough to cover the entire earth, 15 cubits over the highest mountain. Everest is ~29,000 feet high (~348,000) inches.
348,000/40=8700inches/day
8700/24=362.5inches/hour
362.6/60=6inches/minute
It had to rain 6 inches per minute to cover Mt. Everest in 40 days. Now, forget the obvious question of where the water came from, just imagine in your brain that kind of rain. For 40 days. 6 inches per minute.
For reference, the heaviest rain I have ever read about or even heard of in my entire life was ~15 inches in one day, during a hurricane.
So we are to believe that the entire earth was subjected to a rainfall 580x greater than the worst recorded hurricane for over a month. We have all seen the mudslides caused by heavy rains... I am no geologist, but would there even be mountains left? What shelter could protect the living things of the world? The ark?
The water stood for 150 days, according to the Bible. That would undoubtedly kill well over 90% of all plant life on the Earth, at least (if they would even survive the brutality of the rain, which I cannot even conceive being possible).
I am prone to think it did not happen. That's just me.
Confine yourself to a few Mediteranean low lands and you'll be closer to the truth.
That wouldn't account for the widespread "Flood" accounts all over the world though.
Quote:
Originally posted by Groverat
Let us say the crust of the earth covered a body of underground water and that a giant meteor came in and cracked it... how was there an atmosphere to sustain wooly mammoths without massive and exposed bodies of water? (Hint: There would not be.) [/B]
I don't know anything about this guy or his theory, but the "underground water" thing I've come across before. One of the most overlooked passages in the Genesis account is Chapter 2, verse 5.
Basically, there's a bizarre reference to the fact that it had never rained on the Earth before. A "mist" is said came up from the ground and watered the Earth. This explains the reasoning behind Noah not being able to sign up even one convert to his cause. Water falling from the sky seemed silly.
I'm not sure if this is what he's talking about.
[rant] How can I be discussing Genesis in TWO different AO threads? I'm going to bed. [/rant]
*HOWEVER* (oh, you knew one was coming ), if a university level professor was teaching random spewage that was indefensible from some basic critiques (and no, 'ineffable mind of God' is not a valid justification), I'd expect them to be yanked out of the classroom and given a nice harmless job doing something else. Students are paying good money to receive a good education. We should strive to give them that, not waste their time, money or neurons.
(And this is coming from the guy that thinks that cold fusion still has some potential unexplained processes that could turn out to be interesting.)
I disagree. Tenured university profs (and, really, the non-tenured as well, although it is not politically wise for them to do so) have the right to spew whatever they want so long as it is related to the subject matter without fear of political, personal, or theoretical/philosophical reprisal or punishment.
Just a little more I remembered what he said. Said the trenches that travel along the center of the atlantic and pacific oceans are proof of the crack that traveled the whole way around. He also said I think that it came out more at the polls for some reason I forget what. He said it wasn't rain really it was just the massive amounts of water falling from the sky that were shot up by the tremendous force of the crust on the water under it. That is why you find mammoths frozen in such perfect condition because of how fast it came down.
I second the notion that this teacher should stick to maths. Maybe you kids should stop derailing him from the subject and let him return to his equations? I always find it the scary when scientists who will not believe in Darwinism and refer to the Bible for answers get to so much attentions simply because they are scientists (and supposed to know better).
The sheer number of "Flood" stories that exist lends credence to the idea that it did happen.
that's fallacious reasoning. most of the western world believed for a long time, and many professed that, the sun revolved around the earth. they are all now believed to be wrong. mass acceptence of an idea isn't proof of its truth; just proof of its favorable effect on the believers.
Quote:
Originall posted by KANE
I second the notion that this teacher should stick to maths. Maybe you kids should stop derailing him from the subject and let him return to his equations?
thats one of the most fun things about school. it's what makes it safe for kids like me to sleep in class (knowing that teacher isn't talking about the subject being tested). and for people who aren't sleeping, they can have a class discussion on something they might be interested in, instead of trig, bio or whatever other b.s. they got on the curriculum. we once got our music teacher to go 40 or 50 minutes about why "110%" is a valid amount of effort to give, despite arguments from the galley that it would only seem like "110%" and yet be "100%". it's really funny to watch them when they are so far off topic.
Well we've gotten my bio teacher on the topic of school vs club sports for the a whole period almost. He even made it a test question!
Basically he was saying that you should do school sports instead of club because the club isn't sponsored by the school and it takes good atheletes away from school sports. He is the track coach
They are good teachers, it's just when you talk about something they believe and are adament about, it's easy to go into that. Just like it's hard to not say something when people are bashing macs or saying how good PC's are.
He gave some names today when we were talking about it if anyone wants them, but we didn't talk about it long because he said he had to teach and tried to tie it in though, about carbon 14 dating and stuff. If you want to know what he said just ask.
That wouldn't account for the widespread "Flood" accounts all over the world though.
Sure it does, if the flood was ancient enough that it occurred back when most civilization was in the fertile area that we now call the Black Sea.
There was no global flood. It defies logic and the laws of physics. There is not that much water in the world, and had there ever been, our planet would have been too heavy to maintain our current orbit. Nothing would have survived the event the Bible recounts, and we would not have now the speciation and separation of animal types that we do had this event truly occured (how would we have kangaroos in Australia, how did they get there from the Ark?)
The Bible, particularly Genesis 1 through 10, should only be taken literally in the most minute of ways, lest the literalness of the text strip away its theological value in the modern age.
You've obviously never seen Kevin Costner's Waterworld.
I've often wondered if a Loving God would really create Canadian Winters.
Maybe he created an entirely tropical world, and the Flood messed up half the planet and the water cycle subsequently created the polar ice caps.
My own crackpot theory to be sure, but anyone who's had to shovel a driveway and sidewalk in -35ºC weather has got to question whether this was part of the Grand Design.
This is an interesting question ... I agree with Kirk.
The Bible stories (OT) are probably all true.
That is, they are metaphorical, allegorical retellings of truths about humanity.
For example, the Cain and Abel story has a sedentary farmer killing a nomad; it's interesting that -- in the very area where the OT was written -- nomadic hunter-gathering people became sedentary farmers, changing the course of human development and society totally. Farming man 'killed' nomadic man.
What are the Bible stories if not true in some way?
But, of course, the fact that the story exists in the Bible means that it must be discounted at all costs.
I don't think that's it, I just think that the idea that the entire earth was flooded and killed everything just doesn't make sense and doesn't fit with empirical evidence.
A question: Do you start out with a belief that the Bible must be true, and then reason from that point? That's what it seems like with many religious folk. Does that seem like a reasonable way to try to understand the world?
My own crackpot theory to be sure, but anyone who's had to shovel a driveway and sidewalk in -35ºC weather has got to question whether this was part of the Grand Design.
I'd say they're often folk memories of the broadest sort too. OK, the Genesis bit is as valid as Malian tales of the world being made by a god high on palm wine, but many of them seem to feel like real history, distorted by oral re-telling a few thousand times. You don't have to believe in God to think that (I don't) and you don't have be a blind believer in obvious impossibility (like ahem some in this thread) either ...
I think that the Old Testament is basically 'true' in that everything in it happened. They're stories belonging to a particular agriculturalist people refracted, beautifully and metaphorically, through generations of retelling. It's very common for stone age and iron age peoples to remember even recent history in a sort of mythical way, partly because they quite literally understand time differently.
I don't actually know a whole heap about Middle Eastern culture of the late stone age and the early iron age but I do know that there were pastoralists (herders), farmers, expansions and displacement of people, and we remember them thanks to experts in oral history and the people who finally wrote down what they passed on.
For various reasons, agriculturalist societies tend to be more robust, and far more in need of land, than herding people. Agriculturalist people go looking for land to seed and they don't share it with herders. This happed recently in South Africa - less than 2,000 years ago - and when you look at myths of origins there you can often map it to places (rivers and mountains) that really exist. The stories seem to correspond nicely to the archeology. The mythical tone reminds you very much of the stuff in Genesis.
In Southern Africa there were a herding people called the Khoekhoen who lost their land to Bantu-speaking peoples like the Tswana, the Zulu and Xhosa. 'Xhosa', in eastern Khoe dialects, is phonetically identical to a word meaning 'angry men'.
Comments
I'm about to go out but I'll research the links in a day or so. I remember reading up on this a couple of years ago during AI's Fellowship Wars.
With such an abundance of stories, most people would normally take the position that something on a global scale in the distant past triggered such narratives.
But, of course, the fact that the story exists in the Bible means that it must be discounted at all costs.
Confine yourself to a few Mediteranean low lands and you'll be closer to the truth.
Let us say the crust of the earth covered a body of underground water and that a giant meteor came in and cracked it... how was there an atmosphere to sustain wooly mammoths without massive and exposed bodies of water? (Hint: There would not be.)
It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, enough to cover the entire earth, 15 cubits over the highest mountain. Everest is ~29,000 feet high (~348,000) inches.
348,000/40=8700inches/day
8700/24=362.5inches/hour
362.6/60=6inches/minute
It had to rain 6 inches per minute to cover Mt. Everest in 40 days. Now, forget the obvious question of where the water came from, just imagine in your brain that kind of rain. For 40 days. 6 inches per minute.
For reference, the heaviest rain I have ever read about or even heard of in my entire life was ~15 inches in one day, during a hurricane.
So we are to believe that the entire earth was subjected to a rainfall 580x greater than the worst recorded hurricane for over a month. We have all seen the mudslides caused by heavy rains... I am no geologist, but would there even be mountains left? What shelter could protect the living things of the world? The ark?
The water stood for 150 days, according to the Bible. That would undoubtedly kill well over 90% of all plant life on the Earth, at least (if they would even survive the brutality of the rain, which I cannot even conceive being possible).
I am prone to think it did not happen. That's just me.
Originally posted by Matsu
Confine yourself to a few Mediteranean low lands and you'll be closer to the truth.
That wouldn't account for the widespread "Flood" accounts all over the world though.
Originally posted by Groverat
Let us say the crust of the earth covered a body of underground water and that a giant meteor came in and cracked it... how was there an atmosphere to sustain wooly mammoths without massive and exposed bodies of water? (Hint: There would not be.) [/B]
I don't know anything about this guy or his theory, but the "underground water" thing I've come across before. One of the most overlooked passages in the Genesis account is Chapter 2, verse 5.
Basically, there's a bizarre reference to the fact that it had never rained on the Earth before. A "mist" is said came up from the ground and watered the Earth. This explains the reasoning behind Noah not being able to sign up even one convert to his cause. Water falling from the sky seemed silly.
I'm not sure if this is what he's talking about.
[rant] How can I be discussing Genesis in TWO different AO threads? I'm going to bed. [/rant]
Originally posted by Kickaha
*HOWEVER* (oh, you knew one was coming
(And this is coming from the guy that thinks that cold fusion still has some potential unexplained processes that could turn out to be interesting.)
I disagree. Tenured university profs (and, really, the non-tenured as well, although it is not politically wise for them to do so) have the right to spew whatever they want so long as it is related to the subject matter without fear of political, personal, or theoretical/philosophical reprisal or punishment.
Cheers
Scott
The whole crust floating on water thing is a bit bizarre... Do you go to a public school?
If so, this man should be fired...
Originally posted by Frank777
The sheer number of "Flood" stories that exist lends credence to the idea that it did happen.
that's fallacious reasoning. most of the western world believed for a long time, and many professed that, the sun revolved around the earth. they are all now believed to be wrong. mass acceptence of an idea isn't proof of its truth; just proof of its favorable effect on the believers.
Originall posted by KANE
I second the notion that this teacher should stick to maths. Maybe you kids should stop derailing him from the subject and let him return to his equations?
thats one of the most fun things about school. it's what makes it safe for kids like me to sleep in class (knowing that teacher isn't talking about the subject being tested). and for people who aren't sleeping, they can have a class discussion on something they might be interested in, instead of trig, bio or whatever other b.s. they got on the curriculum. we once got our music teacher to go 40 or 50 minutes about why "110%" is a valid amount of effort to give, despite arguments from the galley that it would only seem like "110%" and yet be "100%". it's really funny to watch them when they are so far off topic.
Basically he was saying that you should do school sports instead of club because the club isn't sponsored by the school and it takes good atheletes away from school sports. He is the track coach
They are good teachers, it's just when you talk about something they believe and are adament about, it's easy to go into that. Just like it's hard to not say something when people are bashing macs or saying how good PC's are.
He gave some names today when we were talking about it if anyone wants them, but we didn't talk about it long because he said he had to teach and tried to tie it in though, about carbon 14 dating and stuff. If you want to know what he said just ask.
Originally posted by Frank777
That wouldn't account for the widespread "Flood" accounts all over the world though.
Sure it does, if the flood was ancient enough that it occurred back when most civilization was in the fertile area that we now call the Black Sea.
There was no global flood. It defies logic and the laws of physics. There is not that much water in the world, and had there ever been, our planet would have been too heavy to maintain our current orbit. Nothing would have survived the event the Bible recounts, and we would not have now the speciation and separation of animal types that we do had this event truly occured (how would we have kangaroos in Australia, how did they get there from the Ark?)
The Bible, particularly Genesis 1 through 10, should only be taken literally in the most minute of ways, lest the literalness of the text strip away its theological value in the modern age.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
There is not that much water in the world[/B]
You've obviously never seen Kevin Costner's Waterworld.
I've often wondered if a Loving God would really create Canadian Winters.
Maybe he created an entirely tropical world, and the Flood messed up half the planet and the water cycle subsequently created the polar ice caps.
My own crackpot theory to be sure, but anyone who's had to shovel a driveway and sidewalk in -35ºC weather has got to question whether this was part of the Grand Design.
The Bible stories (OT) are probably all true.
That is, they are metaphorical, allegorical retellings of truths about humanity.
For example, the Cain and Abel story has a sedentary farmer killing a nomad; it's interesting that -- in the very area where the OT was written -- nomadic hunter-gathering people became sedentary farmers, changing the course of human development and society totally. Farming man 'killed' nomadic man.
What are the Bible stories if not true in some way?
Originally posted by Frank777
But, of course, the fact that the story exists in the Bible means that it must be discounted at all costs.
I don't think that's it, I just think that the idea that the entire earth was flooded and killed everything just doesn't make sense and doesn't fit with empirical evidence.
A question: Do you start out with a belief that the Bible must be true, and then reason from that point? That's what it seems like with many religious folk. Does that seem like a reasonable way to try to understand the world?
Originally posted by Harald
What are the Bible stories if not true in some way?
They are stories. Many of them good ones.
Originally posted by Frank777
My own crackpot theory to be sure, but anyone who's had to shovel a driveway and sidewalk in -35ºC weather has got to question whether this was part of the Grand Design.
Never occured to me.
Originally posted by midwinter
They are stories. Many of them good ones.
I'd say they're often folk memories of the broadest sort too. OK, the Genesis bit is as valid as Malian tales of the world being made by a god high on palm wine, but many of them seem to feel like real history, distorted by oral re-telling a few thousand times. You don't have to believe in God to think that (I don't) and you don't have be a blind believer in obvious impossibility (like ahem some in this thread) either ...
I think that the Old Testament is basically 'true' in that everything in it happened. They're stories belonging to a particular agriculturalist people refracted, beautifully and metaphorically, through generations of retelling. It's very common for stone age and iron age peoples to remember even recent history in a sort of mythical way, partly because they quite literally understand time differently.
I don't actually know a whole heap about Middle Eastern culture of the late stone age and the early iron age but I do know that there were pastoralists (herders), farmers, expansions and displacement of people, and we remember them thanks to experts in oral history and the people who finally wrote down what they passed on.
For various reasons, agriculturalist societies tend to be more robust, and far more in need of land, than herding people. Agriculturalist people go looking for land to seed and they don't share it with herders. This happed recently in South Africa - less than 2,000 years ago - and when you look at myths of origins there you can often map it to places (rivers and mountains) that really exist. The stories seem to correspond nicely to the archeology. The mythical tone reminds you very much of the stuff in Genesis.
In Southern Africa there were a herding people called the Khoekhoen who lost their land to Bantu-speaking peoples like the Tswana, the Zulu and Xhosa. 'Xhosa', in eastern Khoe dialects, is phonetically identical to a word meaning 'angry men'.