Not reading God's Word right is just wrong. No talking snakes!

There was a flood. History records it in the Sumerian writings. Science has found evidence of it in two Sumerian cities. (It wasn't the Black sea - that very interesting flood never receded.) The Sumerian flood fits all the Biblical statements. As for a God who would allow it, we have a God who created man in his image, with free will. I was at Niagara falls and read about an incident. A man took two kids on a boat on the river. He got close and people on shore started warning them but they ignored it. Soon they capsized and onlookers cried "swim to me, I'll pull you out." They rescued one child. The other two people went over. The second child somehow survived and was rescued, but the man died. God now sends us "prophets." In this case he uses scientists to warn us of overpopulation and environmental degradation. Will we listen better than Sumer did? Will we die in the millions or billions because we refuse to listen? Will we blame God because we refused to listen?Edited by greentwiga, : typos

Certainly:The gods were angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy him. The god Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save himself, his family, and "the seed of all living things." He does so, and the gods brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. The god Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods. See the text Epic of Gilgamesh: Sumerian Flood Myth.
Epic of Gilgamesh Sumerian Flood Myth: HistoryWiz Primary Source: Ancient MesopotamiaThis next site discusses archaeological evidence. Wooley, as usual was wrong but the other two sites Kish and Shruppak are possibilities. Mind you, this site doesn't necessarily support the conclusion that those floods were connected to the Biblical flood or even the Sumerian flood but it evenhandedly disparages scientists who won't look at the evidence either.
The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science EducationI personally always search for science, history, etc that backs up my statements. Always feel free to ask.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.

Sorry, your second question.
On person wrote,
"He shows how much in doing His part as a chimera God at the time of the flood. I wonder if He (Jesus) petitioned God to drown the children and babies first. All that crying would have been annoying.There was no flood.
It does stand up to moral sense."
I was responding to that sentiment. I added (Jesus) for clarification.

Please don't confuse the Bible with interpretations of the Bible. You are arguing against the Interpretation that says it is a world-wide flood. I scoured the Bible and find that world wide is only one possible interpretation. Sumerian-wide would fit just as well. Second, I know that the Sumerian quote is a myth, but history is written by the victors and even the American history we learned is a myth. We can find facts in both accounts. The Sumerian myth seems to be based on a real, dramatic flood around 2,900 BC. The science article goes into great depth on it. Did you read it?Now, the Bible says that the entire civilized world was covered, the mountains of the region were covered and the only mountains in the region were the artificial ones that later grew to the size we called ziggurats. All the animals of the region entered the ark, and the flood stayed for a year and three months. That is only possible in a flood plain, a marsh , in a year of unusual wetness. The entire region of Sumer is a flood plain. You are right if you reword your statement to say the interpretation of the Genesis account is factually incorrect - no global flood ever happened (that covered the highest mountains) remember, the Hebrew word translated Global is also translated regional. Which interpretation is meant? The evidence points to regional.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank line.

What I need to do is dig up my word studies on the Hebrew words for earth, land, ground, soil, etc. The focus in the passage is that all on the earth, all on the land, etc was destroyed. Some passages, especially the ones that leave out all mention of earth seem to be best interpreted all living things that breathe air. That is why I also compare other scriptures. In 2 Peter, he mentions the creation of the earth and uses Ge, meaning the whole globe. He concludes with the destruction of the whole earth and uses Ge again. In between he mentions Noah's flood but uses Cosmos which is often translated world, or civilized world. That is one reason why I lean toward the translation "civilized world" for the passages in Genesis. Still, I need to find those word studies but I won't be able to today.No, I don't think of the Bible as myth. It is a book of spiritual lessons that contains accurate history. I don' always stick to the most logical. the Ark was built out of gopher wood and wood is the most logical translation. There are other translations possible though less likely. The word wood is once or twice applied to flax stalks. A careful reading of the passage in Genesis and other Biblical passages shows that gopher wood should be translated Berdi stalks. Despite centuries of people insisting that it was a giant wooden boat, the Bible preserves the truth, forgotten by everyone for millineum, that only recently has science shown true, that in 3,000 BC, there were no oceangoing wooden boats but there were giant ocean going reed boats. Thus, I am willing to consider the other possibilities, even if the "whole earth" translation seems the best, on the surface, as you have shown.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank line.

No, I am no stripping anything out. I am looking for an understanding that fits all the Biblical evidence. In science, if a model, such as the Atom fits all the evidence except one, it is wrong. The model has changed, and still doesn't quite satisfy, but does a much better job of predicting than the older models. What you have quoted fits those facts, but when I examine the whole package, I think my model fits much better. I have already quoted Peter. Look at Genesis 11. What land did they find unpopulated or underpopulated? Shinar or Sumer. What region was committing the Sins of Gen 6? In 3,000 BC, the only place was Sumer. What place built ziggurats? Sumer. I agree, when you eliminate everything that is inconvenient, and only look at some of the evidence, as you have done, then a world wide flood is the interpretation to use. All the evidence together allows for the words to be interpreted as a regional dramatic flood.

We agree that "everything with nostrils getting drowned," by itself indicates a world wide flood. If we don't look any farther, that is the conclusion, but that is cherry picking the facts. That is why one needs to look at all the Biblical references to the flood and everything pertaining to the flood. Whether the Greeks of Peter's time understood that ge meant the whole world is a good question. It is known that a few Greeks, Eratosthenes and Posidonius, calculated the circumference of the earth reasonably closely before Peter's time. What is most important is that Peter used a much more limiting word for Noah's flood when he could have easily used ge, and in fact it seems more logical to use ge in the context since he used it for the other two verses 2 Peter 3:5-7.

That is why I discussed the use of the Hebrew words for earth and world in Genesis, looked at all the other clues in Genesis that I mentioned and and analyzed the surrounding context. They also allow for the flood to be regional. Also, As a Christian, with all Scripture inspired by God, I believe that Peter is also a valid source of information.

I only mentioned all scripture is inspired to justify my use, not to insist you believe it. Therefore, I see a regional flood. As for the burning bush, I do not limit myself to natural phenomenon. A. it could have been a miracle. b. It could have been a forceful ejection of gasses where the flames didn't start until a little above the bush. I don't know. There are only three references. There are things that I clearly have no answer for, such as the shadow going back a few steps, or Jesus walking on the water. The Biblical miracle in the case of Moses focuses on saving the people, not on the flood itself. (Heb 11:7) Notice that this passage on Noah also uses Cosmos. All the passage on the burning bush says is Moses calls it a strange sight. To say the burning bush was a miracle does not cause any conflict with evolution or any other key part of science in that any evidence would have been lost long ago. To say that the world wide flood was a miracle does cause major conflicts with the science of Geology.

That was applying Occam's Razor to the Flood interpretation. This is a principal used in science. I am convinced, but I would rather talk to people willing to dialogue on the issue, like Y'all

I don't find Genesis to be a myth. I find that it accurately preserves events. Though it is a reasonable interpretation to see a Global flood, it is also reasonable to see a regional flood. I have quoted evidence to show that it may even be the better interpretation. I also mentioned Occam's razor to show that the simpler interpretation (causing less conflict elsewhere) is the preferred interpretation in science. One of the problems with the flood story is that it is impossible to build a 450 foot woooden boat. The Bible preserves the fact that Noah's ark was a 450 foot reed boat, the kind built in Sumer. Again, a careful study shows that the Bible is extremely accurate, though the traditional interpretation is not. The thread says no talking snakes. I take that to mean that interpretations that cause major conflicts with science should be examined. My interpretation still leaves Noah's salvation to be a miracle and like Lot, an example of how God can save those who refuse to compromise with other religions but by faith, trust God.

Have you ever tried to communicate with people of another language, culture, and religion? The miscommunications can be hilarious or deeply wounding. I have lived overseas and experienced it all too often. It doesn't matter how the passage most makes sense to us, it matters how the ancient writers would have tried to communicate. We easily, looking back, using our modern American filters can misunderstand. I have tried to go back and look at the possibilities, according to other passages in the Bible, especially in Genesis. Yes they stated words forcefully, such as all that had breath died, but they also said, to clarify that all that had breath in the world/region died. This is typical dramatic wording used elsewhere in the Bible. I believe that it says all that had breath in the region (Sumer) died. I also believe that all the animals of the region, except their representatives on the Ark died. I believe that the word of God is accurate, just interpretations are not, and we are arguing about interpretations. As for your quotes on Genesis 1, I have left that alone since there are too many ways to make it fit or not fit. Foe example, we and the Bible say the sun rises. We know that the earth spins, but we word it from our frame of reference. That doesn't make the Bible insist that the sun circles the earth though you can insist that we have to interpret the Bible that way. Thus, I am very careful about interpreting Gen 1. Just one example, Scientists say that just after the big bang, all was dark. Then they say that sometime later, light suddenly appeared though there was no suns yet. I am not saying that this is the meaning, but just pointing out a possibility of light without the sun. As for making Adam and the beasts out of dust, elsewhere in the Bible, it says that David and beasts that grew in the womb were made out of dust and that we will return to dust. Just a possibility.

While driving, I had to go, so I stopped at a hotel in Kenya and asked to use the bathroom. This caused great consternation and they finally decided to charge me $2, a great sum at that time. I was indignant and said, $2 to use the toilet? They looked relieved that I didn't want a bath and said, that is free, it is down the hall. What I said and what they heard were two different things. What the original writer meant and what you assume can be two different things. That is why I want to try to understand what the original writer meant, that is the most literal interpretation.

I understand where you are coming from. As for my study of the Garden of Eden, at one point, I really liked the Lake Van area. Slowly, I was forced to give it up since it didn't meet the four rivers coming from one source. At that point, I decided that Mt Karacadag was the location, but was sad because Lake Van had a volcano. It was only after I decided on Karacadag that I learned it was a Volcano, and even a better volcano since it is the main type to produce lava fountains which could be seen as a flaming sword (I don't insist on this interpretation but recognize that the flaming sword could be something far different) Then, long after I had decided that Karacadag was the mountain, and that the first farmer, Adam, lived there, I discovered that scientists say the first farmer lived there. I came to my conclusions just by studying the Bible and then discovered the relevant science. I believe everything in the story of the Garden, even the talking serpent, fits reality, without leaving anything out. Some fits scientific reality, and some is a wonderful rejection of other ancient religions in the area, as you would expect the Bible to do, but it all fits. I numbered something close to a hundred clues in the story of the Garden and made sure I addressed them all.

Oh, I try talking to the Evangelicals. Most are not trained as scientists so they have a hard time debating the facts. I would be kicked out of most of the Churches that I like to attend, not because my ideas are wrong, but because each Churches traditional beliefs are unassailable. I am working on ways to present my study (read writing a book) but currently prefer to try presenting ideas where they will be debated. You have said that the flood and the garden were myths possibly growing up around a real event like a local flood. I am presenting evidence that the Garden was a real event at a real time, and presented a conflict between two know religions. Even the talking serpent relates to known religious beliefs. Again, I enjoy your response to and challenging my ideas.
(sorry for the confusion caused by my not understanding at first how to use the reply button)