Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 3:06 PM
185 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,585 Year: 2,622/19,786 Month: 704/1,918 Week: 292/266 Day: 29/35 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Could the flood have been exaggerated?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 16 of 23 (582634)
09-22-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
09-22-2010 12:16 PM


Re: sure it could be an exageration.
It's interesting that the Atrahasis story includes many of the other features found in Genesis and so very likely played a part in the origins of several of the stories.

I'm fairly convinced a lot of the bible is culled from previous sources, the fludde being just one of them.

Not to single out the bible, though: there is good reason to compare Enki with Prometheus, Ninti (Lady Rib) and Eve etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 09-22-2010 12:16 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 09-22-2010 12:48 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 17 of 23 (582639)
09-22-2010 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Larni
09-22-2010 12:36 PM


Re: sure it could be an exageration.
Very true. I have started a new thread at The Birth of Monotheism to look at the evolution of monotheism and features such as those will play a part.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 09-22-2010 12:36 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
2ndReign
Junior Member (Idle past 2965 days)
Posts: 13
From: Wa
Joined: 05-04-2010


(1)
Message 18 of 23 (585111)
10-05-2010 8:33 PM


There Was No Flood
I'll accept the idea of a flood covering a large area, even the size of a country is completely plausible to most people, however the whole world is a different matter. The reason being that for the entire world to be covered in water, it would have been under 5 miles of water since that is the height of Mt Everest. This being the case, it is extremely unlikely that a flood during biblical times could have even come near that. Secondly the huge floods of the past occurred millions of years ago, rather than thousands as in the Bible.

A worldwide flood at any time in history would have not only killed every species, but would have wiped out all human kind as well. The fact is mankind wasn't wiped out at any time is irrefutable evidence that there was no world flood. There have been archaeological findings dating back constantly since the first of our ancestors walked upright, with no gap for the species being on the brink of extinction and then being repopulated. Also, the very largest of cruise liners or shipping boats today would hold less than a thousandth of every species on the planet, let alone every single one. Recent findings have found that there might well have been a large flood in the biblical times in of the size to flood a large area of land, perhaps the size of a country. However this of course didn't cover the entire world, and clearly didn't


  
Wojciech
Junior Member (Idle past 2942 days)
Posts: 6
From: Россия
Joined: 10-06-2010


Message 19 of 23 (585367)
10-07-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
09-20-2010 5:20 AM


The Flood never happened
There is no evidence at all for a global flood, (difficulty of putting all the species on the planet onto an ark is another issue). Geologists have a good understanding of the Earths processes for the last billion years or so. Had a global flood happened this would have been verified by the scientific community, but it has not. It is not because they wish to diss the bible, they do not, but just because the evidence is not there. Both the Old testament and the Koran refer to a great flood. Such a flood would require more water than exists on the planet which begs the question of where it came from and where it went. Of course you could say God did this but that is not really common sense.
Without calling religious people stupid as I know they can be misguided but not stupid I offer this explanation.
There was a flood in the local region and the local animals were put onto a large boat to save them for the local tribes: this does not imply a world wide flood. It must be remembered that the religious in those days had no concept of the world being a globe, so the world they refer to is their little world in the middle east somewhere. It is parochial knowledge, and to put animals on a boat is no different to farmers putting animals on high ground here when a local flood occurs.
yours
VFX
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 09-20-2010 5:20 AM frako has not yet responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2811
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 20 of 23 (585370)
10-07-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
09-20-2010 5:20 AM


The flood could of been exaggerated. I would venture to guess If it rained for forty days and nights. The number forty seems to pop up alot...like 162 times in the bible. So the fact that a nice round number like 40 leads me to believe it was probably some other number that didnt have as much impact.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 09-20-2010 5:20 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Nij, posted 10-07-2010 8:35 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 2932 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 21 of 23 (585389)
10-07-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by 1.61803
10-07-2010 6:26 PM


Apparently the original word just means "a lot" or "many".
When the first translators were doing their job, they picked a number that seemed like lots to them and used it instead.

There wasn't a number at all; just an unspecified plural amount that could be embellished into whatever the audience chose to think was substantially large.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by 1.61803, posted 10-07-2010 6:26 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2010 10:20 PM Nij has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16083
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 22 of 23 (585396)
10-07-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Nij
10-07-2010 8:35 PM


Apparently the original word just means "a lot" or "many".
When the first translators were doing their job, they picked a number that seemed like lots to them and used it instead.

There wasn't a number at all; just an unspecified plural amount that could be embellished into whatever the audience chose to think was substantially large.

I am skeptical. Do you have evidence? Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Nij, posted 10-07-2010 8:35 PM Nij has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Nij, posted 10-08-2010 6:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 2932 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 23 of 23 (585398)
10-08-2010 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Adequate
10-07-2010 10:20 PM


Only going by what I remember of my REST classes.

If anybody has something more concrete to say either way, I'll go with them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-07-2010 10:20 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019