The Flood did it or didn't it happen

[rebelgirl]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Originally posted by mountaingal:
[qb]It would appear that different cultures have different stories of "The Flood" because it is part of natural phenomena. (I think this was where rebel was going.)

The constructive and destructive power of water would be known to many peoples. It's mystical properties, too, e.g., the flood that gushes out of a woman about to give birth, would also give rise to myths about the power of water/flood. What people don't understand and fear they usually ascribe to God or gods.[/qb]

Yup bang on to what I was getting at with my previous post [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jedi]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Originally posted by rebel:
[qb]A question Jedi. From the information I have been able to find on Rehwinkle this book was written in 1951 is the book called "The flood in the light of the Bible"? just wondering cause I haven't been able to find much on him.

One thing I notice is completely abscent from you exert is he fails to mention if any dating was done on the fossils or the layers of rock they were found in. I have some very interesting stuff on the "evidence for a global flood I would like to share, a cyber aquaintance of mine, who's a scientist, helped me write this up:

1. The oldest rocks where fossils have been found are sands and shales deposited in a marine environment (that is, in the sea). They were deposited in a time known as the Cambrian. They contain lots of fossil arthropoda (insect-like animals like trilobites etc). But NO fish, NO mammals.

2. On top of these there are more marine sands and shales, known as 'Ordovician' and 'Silurian'. Not only trilobites, but lots of shells and worms and other little sea creatures appear now as well.

Still, NO fish, NO mammals, NO land animals ANYWHERE.

Interestingly, there are variations in the size of the particles making up the sediments. Lots of it is very fine-grained,ie. has been laid down in very calm water. Other layers contain many nicely rounded pebbles. No way they have been laid down in calm water.... they have been deposited right on the coastline where they were constantly moved around by the waves and lost all their sharp edges through continually abrasing against each others.

These pebble-bearing sands and the very fine stuff alternates a number of times - the coast was now nearby, then again far away. It shows that sealevel was not constant but varied considerably during this time.

Also, we find here layers of limestone, indicating warm and shallow water (because the little animals forming the calcium carbonate which forms these rocks can only live in warm, tropical, waters)

Why do geologist separate these rocks into two periods, Ordovicium and Silurian? Well, for one reason, they do not lie parallel on top of each other. In fact, the Silurian layers lie flatter on top of more tilted Ordovician layers. How can this be if we may safely assume that the sediments are generally laid down in flat layers?
At the very least it indicates a gap in the geological record.

This makes up the 'Older Paleozoic'.

So how does this relate to the flood model?

Problem 1: No fossils ANYWHERE of fish or mammals. Where were they??

Problem 2: Good indications of many fluctuations in water energy, ie. water depth (the deeper, the less movement at the sea floor, in general). So, the sea level went up, down, up, down etc. etc. a good many times.

Problem 3: It was nice and warm in the UK back then - tropical, in fact. How is this possible if all this happened in England only 6000 years ago, when the climate was just like it is now?

Problem 4: Why is there suddenly a gap in the deposition of the sediments between Ordovician and Silurain sediments?

Problem 5: Why do we see all these sea sediments nicely exposed hundreds of feet above sea level, but only in the Western part of the country? I'd say because in this part of England they have been uplifted long after their deposition, and erosion has subsequently removed everything younger which was ever laid down on top of them. This needs a LOT of time, though...

Oh yeah, part of this erosion was clearly caused by a massively thick glacier slowly moving through the landscape. Bit difficult, just after a tropical sea, isn't it?

Overlying the Lower Paleozoic we find sediments from the Devonian. In some places these are thick marine sands and shales (ie. deposited in the sea). Most importantly, we suddenly start to find fossils of fish bones (plus still most of the older lifeforms, such as trilobites and shells). However, in other areas of Britain the Devonian consists of red-coloured sands and shales without many fossils at all. The structure of the beds, the size and shape of the grains, the red colour caused by iron oxide all point compellingly to one explanation: this stuff was laid down in a desert. It directly compares to what you can find in modern sand deserts.

These Devonian sediments are in their turn overlain by the Carboniferous. At first there are very thick limestones containing fossil reefs, but then something special is found: very rich, thick layers of coal which have their origin in tropical swamps covered with lush vegetation. Apart from many, many plant fossils (fern-like) we also find beautiful insects, scorpions and other land animals. None of these are found in any of the earlier rocks. But, still no dinosaurs, no mammals, no humans.

After this period, something changed again and we are back in the desert. Very thick and extensive, this New Red Sandstone forms a large part of the English Midlands. Interestingly, a sub-period of this time saw very thick salt deposits formed over a very large area (extending from Eastern England through the North Sea to Holland and Germany). Such salt deposits are typically formed in shallow seas or lakes in a desert environment (compare to to-days Arabian Gulf), which are temporarily shut-off from the main oceans so that evaporation almost dries them out. There is plenty of evidence for a number of cycles of flooding and drying-out.

How do we interpret this? Well, I would say that the part of the world containing the UK was slowing moving North all the time, having started somewhere near the equator (warm, humid) it slowly moved through the dryer but still warm Northern desert climatological belt (ie. the latitude where we now find the Southern USA deserts, the Sahara and the Gobi desert). This is pure plate tectonics and is very well confirmed by paleo-magnetic measurements.

Also we see again constant fluctuations of sea level, sometimes deeper (shales), then shallow seas (limestones), coastal (swamps), or absent altogether (desert). It really goes up and down. Life was evolving from invertebrates to fish, and the land became populated with plants and insects.

So, where's the flood? Before all of this? During all of this? or after all of this?

we have now arrived in the Mesozoic, or 'Middle Life'. This has historically been separated from the previous period because the fossil content is so different. A major extiction took place at the
end of the Paleozoic, about 85% of marine species died out and have gone forever (a.o. the lovely trilobites).

Why? Theories abound, one of them relates this extinction with the clear evidence for an Ice Age as found in a number of places such as Arabia and South Africa. Remember, the continents were not where they are now! As a consequence of so much water trapped in the land ice, sea level was a lot lower, continental shelves were very narrow and so the natural habitat of many marine species was severely restricted, leading to intense competition and extinctions.

Anyway, the positive side is that after this period there suddenly appear many new types of land animals, such as dinosaurs.

The first period of the Mesozoic was the Triassic, mainly land sediments indicative of a desert environment. Slowly the sea level rose, and in the Jurassic we find warm water limestones (with many new types of fossils, such as ammonites).

Now I have to draw a bit on evidence from the many thousands of oil and gas wells drilled offshore. Wilst in onshore England we continue to see marine sediments, the North Sea was actually land during part of the Jurassic. We find evidence for swamps with coals, and beach sand deposits, and so on. An interesting reversal from today's situation.

After the Jurassic came the Cretaceous, at first with shallow-water sands and shales which are nicely exposed in the South of England (dinosaurs have been found here) This is followed by the very, very thick, white,Chalk limestones, famous from the white cliffs of Dover....

Chalk is funny stuff. it is very pure calcium carbonate and consists of zillions of microscopic particles produced by algae, and some coarser shell fragments. The entire Chalk 'layer'can be thousands of feet thick, as we now from numerous boreholes. It originated in a fairly shallow, warm and tranquil sea.

This brings us to the end of the Mesozoic.

So, what we see is a continuation of the Northward drift of Western Europe and long periods of high sea levels to account for the many marine sediments. But, in between these we find, time and again, evidence for land sedimentation or the vicinity of the coastline. Sea level goes up and down all the time.

Most sediments of this period look as if they were deposited in fairly quiet water. No indications of catastropic floods are seen in the UK.

The fossils are very different from what is seen before, and also very different from what came after. Plenty of fish, shells (including
the famous ammonites) and reptiles / dinosaurs. No mammals, no humans.

And at the end of this period, something disastrous happened, and all dinosaurs and many sea creatures became extinct.....but it wasn't a flood.

The 'hot' theory of the moment is that a giant meteorite hit the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous. The main argument for this is that a thin layer of clay with an exceptionnaly large amount of the metal Iridium in it has been found in many locations worldwide. This clay layer can be dated as coinciding exactly with the extinction moment of nearly all of the species wich disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous (especally the abundant marine microfossils which in fact form the backbone of geological dating, much more so than the more exciting macrofossils of large animals and plants).

Now, Iridium is a very rare metal on Earth, but is quite common in meteorites. The idea is that the meteorite exploded into tiny dust particles upon impact, which were blown right into the atmosphere. This dust cloud, which of course also contained a large volume of material from the impact site, clouded over a large part of the Earth and blocked the sunlight. This caused a catastrophic short-term climate change. Many species could not adapt to those sudden new conditions and perished. Others, not too many, managed somehow to survive and formed the evolutionary basis for all animals and plants which lived afterwards.

And yes, people believe that we know where the impact happened: at the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. There are quite good indications for this.

A flood? Sorry - the sediments on either side of the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary are different all over the world. Someties deep water, sometimes shallow, sometimes land. Often there is a gap in the geological record - no sedimentation, because that particular area happened to be on land. (This is very common in geological history - very few places, if any, have a continuous record). But there is no single, worldwide flood deposit.

In terms of the Earth, nothing extraordinary was happening at all in terms of geology. The impact was a sudden, dramatic moment against a backdrop of a slowly evolving world.

Please keep in mind that we are still well before the time of human fossils.

We are now in the Tertiary. All those nice dinosaurs have gone, and many other species (the abundant marine ammonites, for instance). Nowhere in any rocks laid down after (i.e. 'on top') of the Mesozoic rocks have dinosaurs ever been found.

For England, the Tertiary was rather a quiet period. The Chalk sea retreated and there was little sedimentation over most of the area except in the South-East. There, the shoreline was never far away, and we see again an alternation of shallower and deeper marine sediments.

Mammals are now found, and for the first time fossil pollen of grass. That's right, nowhere in the huge amount of older rock have we ever
found fossil grass pollen - the stuff didn't exist before the Tertiary (so, remember: dinosaurs didn't eat grass ).

I'll fast-forward now to the Pleistocene, the time of the Ice Ages. For some reason the worldwide climate cooled down considerably, and huge masses of land ices started to form and expand from the poles outward. Like many things in geology, this was not one simple event: in Britain there is evidence for three separate Ice coverings, separated by periods of warmer climate and retreat of the ice. When a Glacier of several kilometers thick moves (slowly!) over the landscape, the effects are dramatic. Entire valleys are gouged out, rounded hills break up and get sculpted into jagged peaks and ridges through the effects of frost. And when the Ice retreats it leaves behind a colossal jumble of sand, pebbles and rocks which it picked up on it's way. Most of this is still there and forms the present-day landscape.

Finally, the climate warmed up again and we are where we are now.

In this last period we then finally find human fossils. Flint tools have been found in many places, and the finest Stone Age monument of the world, Stonehenge, still stands proudly.

So, no flood. In the long history documented by the geology we have seen many different environments, and even some catastrophes. But underneath it all there is a steady progression, the land started near the equator and moved ever so slowly North. And all the time sea level fell, rose, fell, rose in an endless dance faithfully recorded by the sediments.

Animals and plants came, and went, and others came in turn - but all very orderly. This history of development of life is what evolution is all about.

It is complex, I have only scratched the surface. Note that I have never mentioned the absolute age - but there is enough data from crystalline rocks interspersed with the sediments to allow us to give dates. What I have described here began some 500 million years ago, the Mesozoic started some 200 million years ago and the meteorite hit us 70 million years ago. The Ice Age started 1.5 million years ago and Stonehenge is, I believe, 6000 years old.

You know, geology is not rocket science. It is based on physics, chemistry and biology, but what it most resembles is: forensic science. We stand at the crime scene, we see all the evidence, and we have to piece together an explanation of what happened. And nature, like some suspects, will not confess. All we can do is build a strong case, and let the jury decide.

also absent is the flattening and erosion that would have take place on the major mountain ranges around the world if such a flood had happened.

One final note many of today's large mountain ranges such as the Himalayas were formed but the collision of continental plates. Many of these mountains were once at sea level. so the finding of sea fossils on mountains is not remarkable nor unexpected. The Himalayas themselves were once a part of an Asiatic sea which they believe was first isolated into a large salt water lake and then through thousands of years of pressure and seismic activity formed into the mountains we know today. In fact the Himalayas are still rising and much of the area is still very seismically active.

I think the evidence is irrefutable: it all took a very, very long time. Much happened, but a world-wide flood is just nowhere recorded.

Examining this flood question has lead me to allot of sites claiming the flood has happened, and I have found a lot of flaws in most of the info they provide as proof.

Nice discussion Jedi I like talking about this stuff when everything is civil. It's a very interesting debate [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Edited because wordpad really messed up the formating when I pasted my reply [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [/qb]

Rebel I too had a difficult time locating anything on the flood without going out to buy a book [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] At any rate yes the book came from the Library and I did notice that the copyright is 1951. I am still looking for more recent articles or books. I haven't tried all sources yet to be sure, but I will continue. Meanwhile, the excerpt was just that, not the complete chapter. I would like to come back to your question later if possible and try to see what is written on carbon dating of the fossils. There is also a whole chapter devoted to the problem of reconciling "Genises with Geology", one of the things he talks about is the cambrian rock. He also points out the fact that a lot of the Geological viewpoints taught in schools are based on theory and not on facts. One of the problems with rocks is that they are constantly being eroded by the elements, and over time huge masses become mere sand which might explain why there is so very little geological evidence to support the flood.

My search is by no means conclusive, but unfortunately (or fortunately) I will be going away on vacation for a week and hopefully when I return will be able to devote more time to this study (very interesting I must add), or debate.

[rebelgirl]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Hi Jedi. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

that was the reason I asked about if it was the book of the same date 1951. Some of the information he was putting forth seemed out of date.

He also points out the fact that a lot of the Geological viewpoints taught in schools are based on theory and not on facts. One of the problems with rocks is that they are constantly being eroded by the elements, and over time huge masses become mere sand which might explain why there is so very little geological evidence to support the flood.

what I bolded from your last post, is an example of that. Geology is definitely more than theory, of the earth sciences geology relies the least (in present day) on theory. There has been immense amounts of progress made in geology. Mineral analyzing, as well as presents of microbes in sediments, Radiometric Dating, Isochronal Dating , etc ... there are theories as to why these peices of evidence are there, but the theories are based on the facts presented. His theories, from what you posted, are lacking facts in geology, and other sciences.

Here's a link to the talk origins section on geological evidence supporting the age of the earth etc.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

Of particular interest would be the article on the accuracy of Isochron Dating. but there is so much good stuff, it's easier for me to post the link rather then writing another novel about it [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] (Yes I'm lazy [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] )

Anyway have a good Vacation [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] rebel says jealously

That's the great thing about message boards you can always get back into it when your ready no rush [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[fiver]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

wow, rebel, that was one of the most accesible descriptions of the history of the earth and the evidence against a "great flood" i've had the privilege reading. well done.

i would add that dendronchronology, tree-ring dating (the annual growth rings in trees reveal nothing so catastrophic as a global flood within the past 50 000 or so years) when matched with the icecore samples (or the fact we have ice caps at all} provide some very persuasive evidence against a biblical style flood. a planetful. literally.

on the surface science and fringe authors such as Mutty's source aren't as far apart as they seem. science would suggest there were many worldwide floods but nothing of the intensity suggested in the bible.

so why this insistence from theists that the flood had to "cover all the land"?

for bible literalists it would mean the bible can't be literally true. and if the flood wasn't so great then why build an ark at all?

[fiver]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Originally posted by mountaingal:
[qb]...What people don't understand and fear they usually ascribe to God or gods.[/qb]

the god-of-gaps.

[mountaingal]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Originally posted by fiver:
[qb]

Originally posted by mountaingal:
[qb]...What people don't understand and fear they usually ascribe to God or gods.[/qb]

the god-of-gaps.[/qb]

Lol! Funny but true.

[Mutty]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

I am one who obviously repsects the Bible and whether the Flood covered the whole globe is not of any great significance to me. Understandably, the 'earth' could have simply been the known area. The whole point I have been trying to make, or at least the question I have been asking is, say there were many floods at different times, why is it that just about every culture make mention of the SAME essential ingredients to this story?

I have already proposed the idea that the Flood may have affected one initial group of people (the survivors) who impressed the story upon their descendants, but based on what we read, one could only sit in awe at how greatly they impressed it.

I often wonder if a year from now, if a catastophe (say an asteroid) hits the earth in ONLY one spot but affecting all the earth wiping out all of history and it's legacy leaving behind only a handful of survivors who tell their descendants would the distant ancetors buy the story or chalk it up as nonsense of primitive man?

I know it is cutomary for us modern day folk to look back at ancient people and think they all just created gods out of the air to explain the acts of nature (and MANY did just that) while we are the enlightened ones, however, I find it highly coincidental that all of these people mention not only a flood but attach a common theme to them all.

Ok, let's say they use God(s) to explain what they did not understand, what about the consistent mention of a survior(s)? Ok, they made him/her/them up to explain their own presence on the earth. Why not just make up another creation myth and say the gods created a new man and woman? They 'allegedly' did it before. What about the persistent mention of mankind becoming corrupt in his ways warranting the gods to send destruction? There is no story close enough to the Flood narrative that suggests mankind was doing good and right. All appear to make mention of man becoming deprave and some even make mention an an x-factor race.

Even while many may not put much stock into the Flood narrative, some of the same folk are fascinated by the story of Atlantis. Whether or not the place existed or it it stricly mythical, we are again confronted with the persistent idea of depraved man, angry gods, and a susbsequent flood. No matter how you slice it, they (ancient man) all speak of this event as something way back into the deep recesses of human history to which they only remember by way of oral and some written tradition. None, even the "wise" Greeks make ANY suggestions the events were not real. It is really only OUR generation that has questioned it so loudly.

One such account can also be found in Ovid's (Latin poet overlapping Christ) work known as Metamorpheses which you can read here http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ovid/meta/meta00.htm. Take great note of how Genesis 6 and 7 is expanded upon.

[rebelgirl]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Originally posted by Mutty:
I am one who obviously repsects the Bible and whether the Flood covered the whole globe is not of any great significance to me. Understandably, the 'earth' could have simply been the known area. The whole point I have been trying to make, or at least the question I have been asking is, say there were many floods at different times, why is it that just about every culture make mention of the SAME essential ingredients to this story?

I agree with what you have said below on this. Ancient man did originate from one ancestral group so it makes sense that a disaster that befell that group would turn into a legend or myth that would travel to all the places of the earth that they populated.

I have already proposed the idea that the Flood may have affected one initial group of people (the survivors) who impressed the story upon their descendants, but based on what we read, one could only sit in awe at how greatly they were impressed by it.

Of course an experience of such great magnitude would not be one that would be forgotten among the descendants of the victims. i wonder if Sept. 11th will be a great myth of fire from the sky destroying a great city sometime in the distant future.

I often wonder if a year from now, if a catastrophe (say an asteroid) hits the earth in ONLY one spot but affecting all the earth wiping out all of history and it's legacy leaving behind only a handful of survivors who tell their descendants would the distant ancetors buy the story or chalk it up as nonsense of primitive man?

i never claimed that it was nonsense of primitive man, but I would claim that the story has become greatly exagerated as it was handed down through the generations of people that came after. As all myth have a tendency to have. For instance the myth of fire breathing dragons exists in many cultures. I would say though that we are almost completely certain fire breathing dragons never existed. However it is possible that a large lizard that fightened our ancestors did exist and over the millenia the story was changed from a lizard into a massive fire breathing beast that terrorized our ancestors.

I know it is cutomary for us modern day folk to look back at ancient people and think they all just created gods out of the air to explain the acts of nature (and MANY did just that) while we are the enlightened ones, however, I find it highly coincidental that all of these people mention not only a flood but attach a common theme to them all.

argumentum ad numerum. Just because many say something is true does not make it true.

However if they did all originate from the same group or groups of people then of course the story would have a common theme through out the cultures that descended from the first group. Also people travel with their myths in tow. Quite reasonable to assume that the cultures they come in contact with would assimilate some of the knowledge and myth brought by the new visitors.

Ok, let's say they use God(s) to explain what they did not understand, what about the consistent mention of a survior(s)? Ok, they made him/her/them up to explain their own presence on the earth. Why not just make up another creation myth and say the gods created a new man and woman? They 'allegedly' did it before. What about the persistent mention of mankind becoming corrupt in his ways warranting the gods to send destruction? There is no story close enough to the Flood narrative that suggests mankind was doing good and right. All appear to make mention of man becoming deprave and some even make mention an an x-factor race.

Well if there was survivors one would expect that they would be mentioned. And if there were none I suspect i wouldn't be responding to this now. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

As for the consistant mention of punishment. Well that is a common theme through out any group of people, if something bad happens then it must be because I deserved it. Back to the sacrifice to the volcanoe god thing as one example. Then there is the hopi prophecy. Of course if at any time between now and the death of the sun a catasrophe that wipes out most of mankind happens then we could say the hopi were right and we were being punished by mother earth for behaving so badly, and disrespecting her.

Even while many may not put much stock into the Flood narrative, some of the same folk are fascinated by the story of Atlantis. Whether or not the place existed or it it stricly mythical, we are again confronted with the persistent idea of depraved man, angry gods, and a susbsequent flood. No matter how you slice it, they (ancient man) all speak of this event as something way back into the deep recesses of human history to which they only remember by way of oral and some written tradition. None, even the "wise" Greeks make ANY suggestions the events were not real. It is really only OUR generation that has questioned it so loudly.

Well Ours is the first time in human history we have been able to do such careful analysis of evidence in fossils, and the geological record of the earth, so it makes perfect sense. Besides there have always been those that question the stories, and realities told to them . This has lead to the developement of modern science. If they hadn't questioned what they were told as being true, then we would still believe the earth to be flat, and the sun to revolve around the earth. So your claim that they did not question loudly is false. however what has ended recently is the persecution of those that question.

One such account can also be found in Ovid's (Latin poet overlapping Christ) work known as Metamorpheses which you can read here http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ovid/meta/meta00.htm. Take great note of how Genesis 6 and 7 is expanded upon.

I haven't read it yet but I will. but Greece and Roma and the middle east are all some of the very earliest places humans settled when they left Africa so i find the common thread of those flood myths and common God stories to be easily explainable. 7,500 hundred years ago was the approximate time of the flooding of the dead sea. Plenty of time for the story to have spead out to many civilizations through out the region and turn into a great myth. however I will make a leap in theory and say I believe the flood myths were inspired by an older event perhaps dating to around the time homosapiens were still in Africa before the migration out began.

During the Dreamtime flood, woramba, the Ark Gumana carrying Noah, Aborigines, and animals, drifted south and came to rest in the flood plain of Djilinbadu (about 70 km south of Noonkanbah Station, just south of the Barbwire Range and east of the Worral Range), where it can still be seen today. The white man's claim that it landed in the Middle East was a lie to keep Aborigines in subservience.

I liked this aboriginal myth (a relatively recent addition to their myth stories). Dang Christians [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Heres some of the native myths from my area. Now 2 things happened in north America that could explain a regional origin. As I have said before the area has experienced some massive tsunamis through out history that inundated the entire coast. the other is a massive lake that was formed at the end of the last ice age that was held in by rocks and debris. A natural dam that eventually burst flooding a huge segment of the mid west. the other thing is that the Native indians are believed to have migrated here acrooss ice bridges during the last great ice age, aproximately 15 to 20 thousand years ago. No doubt bring the legends of their ancestors with them.

Haida (Queen Charlotte Is., British Columbia):
A strange woman wearing an unusual fur cape came to a village. One of the boys playing in the area pulled at her garment and saw her backbone, which had protuberances like a plant that grows along the seashore. The children jeered at this. The parents told the children not to laugh, and the woman sat by the water's edge at low tide. As the tide rose and touched her feet, she moved up a little and sat down again. The tide kept rising, following the woman. The villagers soon became alarmed at its unprecedented height, and having no canoes, they prepared rafts and provisioned them with fish and water. At last the tide covered the whole island. The people saved themselves on the rafts. The various rafts landed in different places, which is how the tribes became dispersed. [Erdoes & Ortiz, pp. 472-473]

Kaska (northern inland British Columbia):
A great flood came; people survived it on rafts and canoes. Darkness and high winds came, which scattered the vessels. When the flood subsided, people landed at the nearest land and lived where they had landed. Thus they were scattered all over the world, and when they met again long afterwards, they were different tribes and spoke different languages. [Gaster, p. 119]

Squamish (British Columbia):
When the Squamish saw the great flood coming, they held a council and decided to make a giant canoe. The men worked day and night to make this canoe, the biggest ever, and the women made a long rope of oiled cedar fibers with which they tied the canoe to a giant rock. They put every baby into the canoe, with food and water. They selected the bravest young man and the mother of the youngest baby to go as their guardians. No one cried as the waters rose and drowned everyone else. After several days, the man saw a speck far to the south. By the next day, he could see that it was a mountain top, Mount Baker. He cut the rope and paddled to it, and made a new home there. The outline of the canoe can still be seen halfway up the slope of Mount Baker. [Clark, pp. 42-43]

Tsimshian (British Columbia):
The flood was sent by the god Laxha, who had become annoyed by the noise of boys at play. [Gaster, p. 119]

Skagit (Washington):
The Creator made the earth and gave four names for it -- for the sun, waters, soil and forests. He said only a few people, with special preparation for the knowledge, should know all four names, or the world would change too suddenly. After a while, everyone learned the four names. When people started talking to the trees the change came in the form of a flood. When the people saw the flood coming, they made a giant canoe and filled it with five people and a male and female of all plants and animals. Water covered everything but the summit of Kobah and Takobah (Mts. Baker and Ranier). The canoe landed on the prairie. Doquebuth, the new Creator, was born of a couple from the canoe. He was told to go to a lake (Lake Campbell) and swim and fast to get his spirit powers, but he delayed. Finally he did so after his family deserted him. The Old Creator came to him in dreams. First he told Doquebuth to wave his blanket over the water and the forest and name the four names of the earth; this created food for everyone. Next, at the direction of the Old Creator, he gathered the bones of the people who lived before the flood, waved the blanket over them and named the four names, and made people again. These people couldn't talk, so he similarly made brains for them from the soil. Then they spoke many different languages, and Doquebuth blew them back to the places they lived before the flood. Someday, another flood will come and change the world again. [Clark, pp. 139-141]

Skokomish (Washington):
The Great Spirit, angry with the wickedness of people and animals, decided to rid the earth of all but the good animals, one good man, and his family. At the Great Spirit's direction, the man shot an arrow into a cloud, then another arrow into that arrow, and so on, making a rope of arrows from the cloud to the ground. The good animals and people climbed up. Bad animals and snakes started to climb up, but the man broke off the rope. Then the Great Spirit caused many days of rain, flooding up to the snow line of Takhoma (Mount Ranier). After all the bad people and animals were drowned, the Great Spirit stopped the rain, the waters slowly dropped, and the good people and animals climbed down. To this day there are no snakes on Takhoma. [Clark, pp. 31-32]
Once a big flood came. People made ropes of twisted cedar limbs and used them to fasten their canoes to mountains. The flood covered the Olympic Mountains. Some of the ropes broke, and the canoes drifted to the country of the Flatheads. That is why the Skokomish and the Flatheads speak the same language. [Clark, p. 44]

Klallam (northwest Washington):
People escaped the great flood in canoes tied by ropes to the summit of a tall mountain. The top of the mountain broke off in the flood, leaving two peaks visible in a ridge in the Olympics. The canoes floated away and came to rest, after the flood, in the region where Seattle is now. Their descendants became the natives of that area. [Clark, pp. 44-45]

Makah (Cape Flattery, Washington):
The ocean rose high enough to cut off the cape. Then it withdrew, reaching its low ebb four days later, leaving Neah Bay high and dry. Then it rose again to cover all but the mountain tops. The rising waters were very warm. People with canoes loaded their belongings and were borne far to the north. Many died when their canoes were caught in trees. The sea returned to normal after four more days, and the people found themselves far to the north, where their descendants still live. [Vitaliano, pp. 171-172]

Quillayute (Washington):
Thunderbird was once so angry that he sent the ocean over the land. When it reached the village of the Quillayute, they got into their canoes. The water rose for four days, covering the mountains. The boats were scattered by the wind and waves. Then the water receded for four days, and people settled in many areas. [Clark, p. 45]

Nisqually (Washington):
The people became so numerous that they ate all the fish and game and started to eat each other. They were so wicked that Dokibatl, the Changer, flooded the earth. All living things were destroyed except one woman and one dog, which survived atop Tacobud (Mt. Ranier). From them the next race of people were born. They walked on four legs and lived like animals. To make matters worse, a huge and powerful bear came from the south. It had the power to paralyze with its gaze whatever it wanted to eat, and it threatened to eat all the people. The Changer sent a Spirit Man from the east to teach them civilization. He showed them how to make and use bows, canoes, clothing, fire, etc., and taught them about the spirits and the potlatch custom. He killed the bear with seven arrows, and he put all the ills of the world in a large building, but years later a curious daughter peeked in the building and let them out. [Clark, pp. 136-138]

Kathlamet?:
Beaver's wife left him to marry a panther. Beaver cried for five days, flooding the whole country with his tears. [Kelsen, p. 148]

I do find these myths and ledgends fascinating. that's why I spend so much time reading about them . But for me the myths themselves do not provide evidence of any global flood or the existence of God. they present an interesting look at how human experience can transcend time and we can listen to stories inspired by the experiences of our ancestors. but Oral history is notoriously inaccurate as to the realities of events. A small thing often develops into a fantastical event filled with magik and mystery. there are endless examples of this dealing with many historical events. Troy existed but the stories of it are definitely exaggerations. Komodo dragons exist but have never breathed fire.

anyway I'll go read your link now mutty and give my fingers a rest.

I hope your enjoying this discussion as much as I am [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Mutty]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Very much so Rebel. Some very good points made.

[Mutty]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Rebel I came back across your post for a minute and I figured I should comment on this befor eI forget later on when I post some more items.

You mentioned a few things our ancestors may have misunderstood or feared and put to myth. However, if you note very carefully, their myths, in your examples, were based on something actual. They were NOT baseless. Yes, the embellishments followed and I am very well aware of that being a rabid student of mythology. As I have always stated, myths are nothing more than "loose" stories based on actual events. If we are able to weed away the barnacles of wild imaginations, there are basic truths in many of these myths.

In the case of the Flood, the biblical story may seem sane compared to the others, but deep inside the story the ancients persist on a central message. I find it quite interesting that the descendants of the ancients generally speak of a time when men were in tune with the gods and lived righteous and then up and debased themselves. One is hardpressed to find a different series of events. The idea seems to be that men were living more than just immoral lives, but rather, at a heightened level which warranted an ultimate judgment which is explained in the other overlooked popular myth of the past...that of men receiving forbidden knowledge which they used to corrupt themselves.

Oh, and by the way, I do not think I have personally made mention of God as being the one who sent the Flood as yet so I am simply leaving that out there. I have used the Bible's account, but have stopped short of claiming the bibical God sent it. Also, I did not say YOU stated the ancients spoke nonsense.

[jojorust]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Hi All!

I am usually a lurker...enjoying the discussions at various message boards. However, I feel compelled to add my 2cents here, and I hope no one takes offense. For starters, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I also believe that "knowledge is power, and information is how you get it." Mutty, I sympathize with you because, while you are right in your beliefs about the existence of God, you are up against a tough bunch of evolutionists. As a creationist (and I didn't get here overnight), I must say that I find many of the arguments contradictory and way off base. The arguments are so old they remind me of the days when I was in primary school and was being taught that "man came from monkey." Thank God we have all been "weened" from that theory! We were also taught that Christopher Columbus discovered Jamaica. To save face the story was changed to "the first European" to discover Jamaica. As we become "more enlightened" and more fossils are found, theories are changing and new hypothesis formed. One thing I find constant is the "theory" of a Creator. If God is real, and the Bible is His guide for moral behavior, then all the pieces fall in place. For example, at this moment, as we speak, there are a group of scientists from Mt. Blanco who are in Colorado, digging up dinosaur remains. I don't know if you have ever heard of Dr. Carl E. Baugh, however, for those who don't know, Dr. Baugh is the founder and director of the Creation Evidence Museum in Texas. He is also author of the books "Why do men believe evolution against all odds" and "panorama of creation." Well, presently, the Mt. Blanco Fossil Team, from the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, under the direction of Dr. Baugh and the Creation Evidence Museum "has been working at excavating a major Dinosaur graveyard in Northwest Colorado for several years. The site, located on a private ranch, has yielded the remains of at least ten different kinds of dinosaurs and other animals, and is part of the Morrison Formation of the Jurassic group. This is an ongoing excavation. Work here has been happening twice annually since 1995. The bonebed is far from exhausted. The actual excavation is in a rock outcroping on the side of the mountain)." This discovery has tremendous implications. The question of the day is this: How did such huge animals as the Stegosaurus end up in Colorado and in such huge numbers? The site has been dubbed a "grave yard" because of the number of fossils found and still being recovered. Before I go further I should also add that at this site, (and Rebel and company can take a plane to Colorado to see for themselves), there are evidence of humans co-existing with the dinosaurs (which dispells that theory that dinosaurs didn't eat grass ). Interestingly the Bible make mention of these dinosaurs (and those fire-breathing dragons that you think are a myth), as being around at the same time as man. Over the years Evolutionists like John Stear have laughed and made fun of Dr. Baugh's work (even calling him a looney). Today the joke is on them as organizations such as Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum gets involved with the excavation of this Colorado site. Then, Dr. Russell Humphrey's, an Adjunct Professor of Physics and a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquergue, New Mexico, alleges that the earth's magnetic field is very young. His theory is backed up by other noted physicists such as Dr. Thomas Barnes and R. S. Coe. They believe, based on the rapid decaying of the magnetic field that the earth cannot be more than or even as much as 10,000 years old. Interestingly, while Agnostics and others like to refute the validity of the Bible, the facts are that Archeologists (who are not necessariy christians) have found evidences of people, places and cultures described accurately in the Bible. For example: The tomb where Jesus' was laid by Joseph, and the linen that was used to wrap Him. These have been miraculously preserved until this day! The city that Jesus cursed is uninhabited to this day and is a tourist attraction in the middle east, the Dead Sea scrolls which have been certified authentic, etc. etc. Now, if the Bible is not true, then there were a brilliant melange of people who were able to tell tall tales that miraculously coincided with historical facts and an over active imaginiation that again, miraculously coinicde with modern day occurences. Noteworthy also is the fact that of all the "great" books ever written, the Bible is the only book that has survived all these centuries, and in such large quantities. Perhaps there has been some divine intervention? It is interesting to note also that there are 66 books in the Bible, and if you study them carefully, they all tell of one story and in a chronological format - despite the fact that they were written by more than thirty different writers. We all know that we can hardly get two witnesses to give an accurate account of one incident, much more thirty - forty! How did they manage to tell such tall tales of Jacob (he was a deciever but he was the father of the israel); King David (he was one of their greatest king but he was an adulterer and murderer, carried forward to Jesus (the carpenter's son and his mother a virgin!) such imagination! Then let's have the baby in a manger and when he starts preaching, let's choose a fisherman (who was one of the least in the Jewish society), a tax collector (who no one liked for obviouys reaons), and let's throw in a thief for good measure. What I find most interesting of all however, is the very beliefs of the Jewish people. They themselves read the Torah and they speak of a Messiah who should come, who they are still looking for. these people can trace their ancestry as far back (the same way we can trace back to our great-greats). So the Old Testament is a part of their history. They don't beleive in the New Testament because thay teaches of the Messiah who they did not accept because he did not come in the manner they envisioned. So, is some part of the Bible true and some not? With regard to the flood...I was watching the Discovery Channel the other day, and they found at the Grand Canyon, fossils in the wall of the Canyon. The moderator of the program said the position of the fossils suggests that they were "carried" there by a huge body of water. (which would also explain the Grand Canyon itslef)! In addition to the large mammoth remains that were found in the Arctic region, which archaelogists (not christians) theorise were killed by a brief but widespread ruch of water." They claim "this catastrophe ....not only killed the animals but also buried them under continuous beds of loam and gravel." Why is it so hard to believe that this could be the flood of Noah's time, especially when it so conveniently fit the time frame? I am sorry for taking up so much of your time but I tend to get carried away when I start speaking about the Creator. His words have proven to be the most constant and accurate account of mankind and until evolutionists can present hard facts, besides theories, to prove otherwise, I will continue to believe in His existence and his divine plan for mankind. Telling me I evolved from some specie that does not even have my DNA will not cut it! I
encourage everyone (creationists and evolutionists, and those in-between) to visit the "Reason to Believe" website at www.reasons.org. Dr. Hugh Ross makes some very interesting points and answers some of Rebel's questions about the Bible. Dr. Carl Cantrell who was a professed Agnostic also shed some light at this link http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Creation.html, if anyone wants to pursue this. Also, please forgive my spelling....I am sleepy! Going to bed now!

[Mutty]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Rusty I thank you for your support, but man, you sure went all over the place with your post there, didn't ya? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Anyway, you brought up a lot of subjects outside the scope of what is being discussed here and there are some very intelligent people here who would take issues with some of the points you made.

Needless to say, the subject of Evolution vs Creation is a very intense subject. Go to any site dealing with the topic and you are likely to see over five pages of posts. The topic is not one I get into though I do believe we were created by a divine being who created us with purpose as opposed to an accident where purpose is a thing of choice or guess work.

As for the Flood, I think the issue here is not whether or not (they) or (one) happened, but whether it covered the "whole earth." On the surface it seems like semantics but in a very subtle way, the arguement is used to undermine the bible in some people's mind. If the bible said it covered the whole earth and it can be proven it did not cover the whole earth, then the bible is false and nothing else in it can be given much credence.

Others believed floods happened but they were local and various peoples attributed then to gods who were apparently angry with the locals. Ancient people did this kind of stuff for real and in some indirect way, their assumptions were not always off base considering they did things like we do today to upset or challenge nature (the god) (like here in South Florida where against the warnings of some, development continues on the beaches making a vicious hurricane likely to destroy many). Again, on the surface, it may sound like semantics but if it can be proven ancient men were simply unenlightened about the real causes of natural disasters, then the gods are ruled out of the equation.

But like Rebel stated, the Flood does not necessarily prove God exists but at the end of the day whether parties involved want to admit it or not, that is the core point of the argument. All the banter around the topic is really to get at that.

[fiver]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Originally posted by rusty:
Hi All!

I am usually a lurker...enjoying the discussions at various message boards. However, I feel compelled to add my 2cents here, and I hope no one takes offense. For starters, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I also believe that "knowledge is power, and information is how you get it."

hi rusty!

Mutty, I sympathize with you because, while you are right in your beliefs about the existence of God, you are up against a tough bunch of evolutionists.

your assertion that those who doubt the accuracy of the biblical accounts of the flood are evolutionists is a red herring. we are discussing the flood-not how life changes over time. i see a strawman coming.

and we're really not that tough. i'm of a friendly disposition. you can't prove i eat kittens for breakfast. a joke that.

a creationist (and I didn't get here overnight), I must say that I find many of the arguments contradictory and way off base.

examples please?

The arguments are so old they remind me of the days when I was in primary school and was being taught that "man came from monkey."

and the strawman attack emerges! either you had a bad teacher or you were a bad student. evolution teaches that monkey and man share a common ancestor. thank you for not saying "if man came from monkeys how come we still got monkeys?"

Thank God we have all been "weened" from that theory!

a theory that didn't exist to begin with.

you do understand that evolution (as opposed to that strawman you attacked) is both a fact and a theory?

"We were also taught that Christopher Columbus discovered Jamaica. To save face the story was changed to "the first European" to discover Jamaica. As we become "more enlightened" and more fossils are found, theories are changing and new hypothesis formed.

science formulates a theory and if the facts don't match the theory, the theory is altered or discarded to that which best explains the evidence. creationism embraces an assumption, god-did-it, and if the facts don't match, they then alter or discard the facts. this is why creationism is not science.

One thing I find constant is the "theory" of a Creator. If God is real, and the Bible is His guide for moral behavior, then all the pieces fall in place. For example, at this moment, as we speak, there are a group of scientists from Mt. Blanco who are in Colorado, digging up dinosaur remains. I don't know if you have ever heard of Dr. Carl E. Baugh, however, for those who don't know, Dr. Baugh is the founder and director of the Creation Evidence Museum in Texas. He is also author of the books "Why do men believe evolution against all odds" and "panorama of creation." Well, presently, the Mt. Blanco Fossil Team, from the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, under the direction of Dr. Baugh and the Creation Evidence Museum "has been working at excavating a major Dinosaur graveyard in Northwest Colorado for several years. The site, located on a private ranch, has yielded the remains of at least ten different kinds of dinosaurs and other animals, and is part of the Morrison Formation of the Jurassic group. This is an ongoing excavation. Work here has been happening twice annually since 1995. The bonebed is far from exhausted. The actual excavation is in a rock outcroping on the side of the mountain)." This discovery has tremendous implications. The question of the day is this: How did such huge animals as the Stegosaurus end up in Colorado and in such huge numbers? The site has been dubbed a "grave yard" because of the number of fossils found and still being recovered. Before I go further I should also add that at this site, (and Rebel and company can take a plane to Colorado to see for themselves), there are evidence of humans co-existing with the dinosaurs (which dispells that theory that dinosaurs didn't eat grass ).

ah. the ICR's circus sideshow. i'm afraid to ask but what evidence is there of humans co-existing alongside dinosaurs? and angiosperms (grass) did not exist for much of the dinosaurs reign. simply put, there was no grass to eat. or are you using your unproven assertion that humans existed alonside dinosaurs to prove dinosaurs ate grass once it evolved or appeared?

Interestingly the Bible make mention of these dinosaurs (and those fire-breathing dragons that you think are a myth), as being around at the same time as man.

yes one dubious translation in Job that may just as well have refered to an elephant's penis and testicles. i guess satyrs and unicorns as described in Isaiah must have existed too. you are using the bible to prove the bible. this is a circular argument.

Over the years Evolutionists like John Stear have laughed and made fun of Dr. Baugh's work (even calling him a looney). Today the joke is on them as organizations such as Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum gets involved with the excavation of this Colorado site. Then, Dr. Russell Humphrey's, an Adjunct Professor of Physics and a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquergue, New Mexico, alleges that the earth's magnetic field is very young. His theory is backed up by other noted physicists such as Dr. Thomas Barnes and R. S. Coe. They believe, based on the rapid decaying of the magnetic field that the earth cannot be more than or even as much as 10,000 years old.

if God created everything only 10 000 or so years ago then how come we are recieving light from stars millions even billions of years old. how come we have ice core records showing 160 000 or so annual layers

Interestingly, while Agnostics and others like to refute the validity of the Bible, the facts are that Archeologists (who are not necessariy christians) have found evidences of people, places and cultures described accurately in the Bible.

and they found more evidence that much of the bible is exaggerations or fabrications. like the flood for example.

For example: The tomb where Jesus' was laid by Joseph, and the linen that was used to wrap Him. These have been miraculously preserved until this day! The city that Jesus cursed is uninhabited to this day and is a tourist attraction in the middle east, the Dead Sea scrolls which have been certified authentic, etc. etc.

the same scrolls that reveal the biblical acounts were completely re-written according to the biases of the authors.

Now, if the Bible is not true, then there were a brilliant melange of people who were able to tell tall tales that miraculously coincided with historical facts and an over active imaginiation
not that brilliant actually. just have a look at how often they got it wrong. not that imaginative either when you compare it to the fables that predated it.

that again, miraculously coinicde with modern day occurences.

such as...

Noteworthy also is the fact that of all the "great" books ever written, the Bible is the only book that has survived all these centuries, and in such large quantities. Perhaps there has been some divine intervention?

good thing you tell me these copies of the Upanishads, Baghavadgita, Eightfold path to rightousness ect, ect, ect, don't exist. it must be a greater miracle that they reappeared and proof what they say is true. Praise Vishnu!

because there is a lot of something does not make it any more true than the flat earth or the geo-centrism contained there-in.

It is interesting to note also that there are 66 books in the Bible, and if you study them carefully, they all tell of one story and in a chronological format - despite the fact that they were written by more than thirty different writers. We all know that we can hardly get two witnesses to give an accurate account of one incident, much more thirty - forty! How did they manage to tell such tall tales of Jacob (he was a deciever but he was the father of the israel); King David (he was one of their greatest king but he was an adulterer and murderer, carried forward to Jesus (the carpenter's son and his mother a virgin!) such imagination! Then let's have the baby in a manger and when he starts preaching, let's choose a fisherman (who was one of the least in the Jewish society), a tax collector (who no one liked for obviouys reaons), and let's throw in a thief for good measure.

so you argue that the bibles uniformity is proof of it's divine origin. i won't bother with the easy one's like the two conflicting acounts of Genesis or the conflicting acounts of the ressurection. there are many more examples.

variations in the text of the NT are not just typos and omissions - there are many changes which appear to be deliberate. here are some examples:

Markan appendix -
not found in early manuscripts - there are now three different versions of endings to Mark.

Matt. 6:13 -
to this day, there are different versions in various bibles - the early manuscripts show that "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is a later addition.

Luke 3:22 -
early witnesses have :
" . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"later manuscripts have the KJV version :
"...Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"

John 9:35 -
the KJV has "...son of god", but the early manuscripts show "..son of man".
John's pericope of the Adulteress -
not found in the early witnesses - generally agreed to be a later addition.

Colossians 1:14 -
the phrase "through his blood"[i] is a later addition.

Acts 9:5-6 -
absent from early manuscripts - a later addition.

Acts 8:37 -
[i]"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
absent from early manuscripts - a later addition.

John 8:59 -
"...going through the midst of them, and so passed by"
absent from early manusripts - a later addition.

1 John 5:7
the Trinity formula found here only originated centuries after the events -
Bruce Metzger notes :
"The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late rescension of the Latin Vulgate . . .
"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version
of the (Latin) Acts of the Lutheran Council in 1215."[i]
"The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin;
and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex
Fuldensis [copied AD 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before AD 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [9nth century]) "
"The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chapter 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic
Priscillian (died about 385CE) or to his follower Bishop Instantius . . ."

the NT shows considerable evidence of having been tampered with by the early church during the early arguments over doctrine - and these variations in texts cover most of the fundamental points of Christian dogma.

i reccomend Ehrmans book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"

What I find most interesting of all however, is the very beliefs of the Jewish people. They themselves read the Torah and they speak of a Messiah who should come, who they are still looking for. these people can trace their ancestry as far back (the same way we can trace back to our great-greats). So the Old Testament is a part of their history. They don't beleive in the New Testament because thay teaches of the Messiah who they did not accept because he did not come in the manner they envisioned. So, is some part of the Bible true and some not?

and if you examine the translations from Hebrew you will find they don't match up starting with the first word, "Bere****..."

With regard to the flood...I was watching the Discovery Channel the other day, and they found at the Grand Canyon, fossils in the wall of the Canyon. The moderator of the program said the position of the fossils suggests that they were "carried" there by a huge body of water. (which would also explain the Grand Canyon itslef)! In addition to the large mammoth remains that were found in the Arctic region, which archaelogists (not christians) theorise were killed by a brief but widespread ruch of water." They claim "this catastrophe ....not only killed the animals but also buried them under continuous beds of loam and gravel." Why is it so hard to believe that this could be the flood of Noah's time, especially when it so conveniently fit the time frame?

who's denying the possibility of catastrophic floods inducing myth for generations?

I am sorry for taking up so much of your time but I tend to get carried away when I start speaking about the Creator. His words have proven to be the most constant and accurate account of mankind and until evolutionists can present hard facts, besides theories, to prove otherwise, I will continue to believe in His existence and his divine plan for mankind. Telling me I evolved from some specie that does not even have my DNA will not cut it!

the hard evidence is lacking on the creationist side (not even what this thread was about) and you really should understand evolution before you reject it. your DNA is 99% similar to that of a chimpanzee. you might be able to have kids with it.

meanwhile, back on earth, the water was really piling up. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[fiver]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Originally posted by Mutty:

...As for the Flood, I think the issue here is not whether or not (they) or (one) happened, but whether it covered the "whole earth." On the surface it seems like semantics but in a very subtle way, the arguement is used to undermine the bible in some people's mind. If the bible said it covered the whole earth and it can be proven it did not cover the whole earth, then the bible is false and nothing else in it can be given much credence...

respectfully, i disagree. if the flood did not cover the whole earth it simply means the story of Noah can't be taken literally. many Christians consider it a parable. only the literalist position is undermined.

...Again, on the surface, it may sound like semantics but if it can be proven ancient men were simply unenlightened about the real causes of natural disasters, then the gods are ruled out of the equation...

again i politely disagree. understanding of natural disasters threatens the gods no more than understanding of weatherpatterns leading to crop failures. the questions of why we are here and what to do when we are here will always have room for the gods.

...But like Rebel stated, the Flood does not necessarily prove God exists but at the end of the day whether parties involved want to admit it or not, that is the core point of the argument. All the banter around the topic is really to get at that...

careful you don't ascribe your motives in this thread to others. i have found this thread to be very informative and respect the points you have raised. so please don't spoil it with insinuations.

[Mutty]

Re: The Flood did it or didn't it happen

Fiver I maintain my positions on the first two items you brought up. I have been in circles of debates long enough to know how the tactics work on both sides. Perhaps you may only break down the story of the Flood simply to prove the literalists wrong, but for others, the agenda goes beyond that. This does not necessarily mean people are up to something sinister per se, but the bottom line I have found to be many times, whether consciously or subconsciously, is to prove God or to disprove Him by way of first disproving or proving the sacred writings attributed to Him. Christians, based on their beliefs, echo exclusive claims. Not everyone likes to hear them, wants to believe them, or sees reason to believe them. How convienient would it be to pick apart their lofty positions and expose the "alleged" fallacies. Where does that leave them? There are intelligent and observant enough people who spot this supposed glass pedestal very easy and get to working.

For example Fiver, I have seen this a few times around the net and I have seen you use it..."don't use the Bible to prove the Bible." That disables most Christians right there who unfortunately do not know much outside the 66 or 72 books of the Bible. Personally, I think it is a very good point because it forces some very narrowminded people to think and look outside the box, not for their salvation which they SHOULD be secure in, but like for me, to solidify what I already believe.

As for motives, I do not necessarily go around populating my posts with the name of God whom I DO believe in. What I prefer to do is simply present things to provoke thought and let people make their own decisions or draw conclusions.