Summations Only

quote:

---

There is much confusion about what the Bible says about the flood of Noah.

---

Absolutely. Note that this is a pristine, technical writings - every word is important and impacting; nothing is superfluous; nothing is negatble.The fulcrum opening verse exposes this.

quote:

---

1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation.

---

Consider:SAID TO NOAH
The address was not to the world. If it was referred to all mankind, a warning would be given to all mankind - not just to Noah. Note that the term 'THIS GENERATION' refers only to the people in Noah's vicinity, namelt THIS region; THIS people.COME THOU AND ALL THY HOUSE
Only Noah's household; THY HOUSE refers only to Noah's possessions and his domestic animals.

quote:

---

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean two [and two], each with his mate; 3 of the fowl also of the air, seven and seven, male and female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

---

Note, no non-domestic animals are included - not a oner - no snakes, bears, crocodiles, tigers! Note the term 'ALL THE EARTH' does not refer to the whole world but only the region in Noah's immediate surrounds and what he was able to do. Proof:

quote:

---

5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

---

The term 'DID' [past tense] cannot possibly refer to the entire world; Noah did NOT collect ALL the animals of the earth. That the animals 'CAME' to Noah signifies these were domestic animals which knew their master. Lions and snakes do not do such; they would have to be rounded up for eons if this was meant. Note also:

quote:

---

7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the ground. 9 there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, male and female, as God commanded Noah.

---

Only Noah, his family and the animals referred to previously [no wild animals; domesticated owned animals are only listed]. Obviously, all the earth's animals could not fit into the dimensions of the boat - the reason the dimensions were specified.

quote:

---

10 And it came to pass after the seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

---

Do the math. Seven days is only supportive of a regional flood, listed here as 'THE EARTH'; read, earth here does not refer to the whole world!

quote:

---

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

---

Here, WINDOWS OF HEAVEN refers to rain, exactly as it would rain in your hometown when the windows of heaven opens.

quote:

---

13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 they, and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort.

---

Much confusion comes from terms such as "and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind " This means nothing more than those creepy things whch are foods for animals or what some such ground based life forms are also consumed by humans; Noah's household would obviously have such sustainence foods. 'upon the earth' refers only to the area of Noah's household. It cannot in any wise refer to every insect in the world by the afore clarified verses. Proof is seen in the next verse:

quote:

---

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh wherein is the breath of life.

---

'AND THEY WENT IN' [past tense; it was done]. Remember the dimensions of the boat? Remember this applied only to Noah's household? Proof that this is the correct interpretation is seen in the next verse:

quote:

---

16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God commanded him; and the LORD shut him in.

---

Clearly, 'ALL FLESH' refers to only those that could fit in the ark; and then 'shut in'. The notion this referred to ALL LIFE [trillions of species and sub-groups] is an obviously wrong reading.Other verses confused:

quote:

---

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered.

---

This refers only to Noah's region, proven by its previous verses:

quote:

---

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth.

---

The waters did not bear up the boat till 'after' forty days; meaning this was not a global flood!Note also:

quote:

---

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered

---

A cubit is a foot [elbow to fingers]. This says the mountains were small hills and mounds only.It must also be understood the writings describe how it appeared to the people of Noah's region, in which time none ventured outside of their towns and villages all their lives. The writings is extremely authentic; the people would see a forty day rain and its waters as covering all 'their' world. Tasmania and New York did not exist at this time.

quote:

---

21 And all flesh perished that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and cattle, and beast, and every swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth, and every man;

---

The term 'SWARMETH' refers to those animals not of Noah's possessions, which are not consumable. The term 'UPON THE EARTH' is numerously before referred to as the earth in Noah's region only.

quote:

---

23 And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

---

Note now 'ON THE GROUND' is used to describe 'EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE', and qualified as what 'THE EARTH' refers to. Note that the fish were uneffected - namely this was NOT about ALL LIVING CREATURES ON THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH.

quote:

---

Genesis 1 has NOTHING to do with the Biblical Flood Myths, was written hundreds of years later and by a different culture and tradition.

---

Your proof of this?

Is a 3,500 year Egyptian stelle made of stone which describes a WAR with ISRAEL irrelevant - or is it of the utmost relevant to the book of Exodus - which of course was written by numerous people later on!?A lie by omission is - surprise, surprise - a lie. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

99% of Archeological determinations are made by 'NAMES' - not by relics or C14.The name, "NOAH' has been determined as authentic of its period. So have all these - in fact these names never appeared before in any recording of historical archives, displaying the power of the Hebrew writings' unequalled and unmatched authenticity:

quote:

---

Genesis Chapter 10
1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood. 2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5 Of these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. 6 And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. 7 And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan. 8 And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; wherefore it is said: 'Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.' 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah--the same is the great city. 13 And Mizraim begot Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim--whence went forth the Philistines--and Caphtorim. {S} 15 And Canaan begot Zidon his firstborn, and Heth; 16 and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite; 17 and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite; 18 and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite; and afterward were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad. 19 And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, unto Lasha. 20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, in their nations. {S} 21 And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children born. 22 The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram. 23 And the sons of Aram: Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. 24 And Arpachshad begot Shelah; and Shelah begot Eber. 25 And unto Eber were born two sons; the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. 26 And Joktan begot Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah; 27 and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah; 28 and Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba; 29 and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the sons of Joktan. 30 And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest toward Sephar, unto the mountain of the east. 31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations. 32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations; and of these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. {P}

---

quote:

---

Sorry to disagree, but that is not true.

---

What's in a name? These finds were determined by Archeologists via 'NAMES' found on relics - more powerful than C14 which are subject to errors in small margin datings:=============================http://www.bibleprobe.com/archeology.htm:First Temple SealA stone seal bearing the name of one of the families who acted as servants in the First Temple and then returned to Jerusalem after being exiled to Babylonia has been uncovered in an archeological excavation in Jerusalem's City of David, a prominent Israeli archeologist said on January 16, 2008.The 2,500-year-old black stone seal, which has the name "Temech" engraved on it, was found in January 2008 amid stratified debris in the excavation under way just outside the Old City walls near the Dung Gate, said archeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar, who is leading the dig.According to the Book of Nehemiah, the Temech family were servants of the First Temple and were sent into exile to Babylon following its destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.The family was among those who later returned to Jerusalem, the Bible recounts================================ Patriarchal Age Biblical archeology  (Archaeology ) Truthnet:There is a significant body of evidence on which to base an understanding of the patriarchal environment. There are four areas that evidence is found to support this period.1. Names: There are numerous examples of names used in Genesis that are found outside of the Bible in extra-biblical texts.=================================
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | NOVA | PBS:The Merneptah Stele, dated to about 1206 B.C.E. and now housed at the Cairo Museum, offers the earliest historical evidence of a people called Israel. Enlarge
Photo credit: WGBH Educational FoundationTell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlandsa loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you willcalled "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription.====================================
The City of David:The House of Ahi’el, on the northeastern slope, is a typical four-roomed Israelite dwelling of this time. The name derives from the Hebrew inscription on a pottery fragment found in the house, which includes this personal name. The house had an external stone staircase leading to a second story. In a small storage room over fifty restorable jars were found and in another small room a limestone toilet seat was embedded in the plaster floor, with a cesspit beneath it.The Bullae House, east of the House of Ahi’el, is so named for a collection of almost 50 clay sealings (bullae) with Hebrew lettering found there.http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

I can agree that every word is important and the meaning of those words are specific.

---

Yet you omitted the opening verse, which is the preamble to the story: this is limited to Noah's household - not the entire planet's livestock? Hereafter, everything must align with the preamble.

quote:

---

Noah was the only one that found grace in the eyes of God.

---

'In this [Noah's] generation'. A generation refers to a particular society and also a 60 year life lifespan. In this context it applies to the former, which must align with the aforesaid household of Noah.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Note, no non-domestic animals are included

​

Clean beast were eatable.

​

Unclean beast were non-eatable.

​

I think you could fit all beasts in that verse, as there was only two kinds, clean and unclean.

---

No sir. Some domestic animals are not clean [kosher]. For certain it excludes wild carnerveous animals. This says 'NOT ALL THE ANIMALS OF THE EARTH.' Also, it dispells the premise Tigers and Snakes were destroyed in a global flood.

quote:

---

Noah did not collect any animals. God sent them at the time for them to load on the ark. They had 120 years to get there.

---

This appears to mean something else than how you frame it. The animals came to him is better seen as domestic animals: Tigers did not come, negating the view wild animals would also follow, same as would domestic ones. The 120 year period does not justify all animals of the earth; it just represents that things moved slower in ancient times and more time was needed. A mansion or a large scroll, for example, took decades and centuries to complete. The writings is highly authentic, which calls for reading in the period of its descriptions.

quote:

---

Lions and snakes do not do such; they would have to be rounded up for eons if this was meant.

​

So they could not have traveled to the ark if God told them to go get on the ark. Is that what you are saying?

---

No. I'm reading the texts correctly. Your view must be reflected in the texts, not that God can do anything. Such a view is generic.

quote:

---

Where does the text say there was no wild animals?

---

None are listed; domestic ones are listed.

quote:

---

How big do you think the ark was?

---

Not big enough.

quote:

---

Do the math. Seven days is only supportive of a regional flood, listed here as 'THE EARTH'; read, earth here does not refer to the whole world!

​

You do understand that it started to rain seven days later and then rained for 40 days and the fountains of the deep open up and water gushed forth out of them until the hightest point on the land mass was covered with 15 cubits of water. That water stayed there for 150 days total from the day it began to rain. Then it took another 150 days for the water to receed.

---

Yes, I read it carefully. The boat did not float initially; the 150 days is not a long time for a land to settle after such a large flood - the water laden mud alone [wet earth] would require more than a year to dry out.

quote:

---

The confusion comes when IamJoseph or someone else decides 'every' means some.

---

Yes, certainly the word 'every' can apply to a small designated group. As in every member of some groups.

quote:

---

Clearly, 'ALL FLESH' refers to only those that could fit in the ark; and then 'shut in'.

​

More confusion as 'all' means some, according to IamJoseph.

---

All does not mean all flesh on the planet, but all flesh of those not taken into the boat. The regional limitations are not negated here.

quote:

---

This refers only to Noah's region, proven by its previous verses:

​

An assertion not supported by the text as it says the Earth, not Noah's part of the Earth.

---

Think thusly: all the earth of John Doe's land. The previous verses do limit the reference to earth being a portion of earth, as described in my post.

quote:

---

The waters did not bear up the boat till 'after' forty days; meaning this was not a global flood!

​

How does when the ark floated have anything to do with whether the flood was global or local?

---

In a global scenario, it would be instantanious. Here, the boat rising after 40 days can only refer to one large village or town. We saw a tsunami some years ago which stretched across continents - it was instantanious.

quote:

---

Since when is a cubit a foot?

​

The Hebrew short cubit was 17.5 inches.
The Hebrew long cubit was 20.4 inches.

​

The Egyptians and Bablonians had different length cubits.

​

You can check them out Here

---

The walls of the Jerusalem temple were 110 feet, which was the highest monument in the world at that time. A cubit is roughly a foot; at least in the Hebrew descriptions.

quote:

---

It must also be understood the writings describe how it appeared to the people of Noah's region,

​

Why?

---

Its the only view possible. E.g. a 30 storey building today would be seen as medium; 4000 years ago it would be seen as reaching the heavens. The writings are thus not relative but specifically and only applicable to the period of its setting. A whole town being submerged would thus be seen as if the world was being destroyed. This was the town peoples' world.

quote:

---

Moses was the one doing the writing hundreds of years later.

---

Admittedly, this retrospective writing is an explicable factor. Yet its also mysterious: even if one takes the view it was done by numerous writers, it still defies plausibility some ancients would be capable of compiling such a volume of works and descriptions, containing millions of stats in its verses, of numbers, dates, places and names, many introduced for the first time. IMHO, this is the most mysterious writings humanity possesses; nothing like it exists elsewhere for centuries; nothing is positively refuttable today - despite the multitude of peoples trying to do so obsessively.

quote:

---

Note now 'ON THE GROUND' is used to describe 'EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE',

​

On the ground refers to on the ground.

---

It does not refer to the world or the whole earth, was my point; its a localized indicator.

quote:

---

Every living substance refers to every thing that had the breath of life.

---

Not necessarilly. Consider, every living substance in a designated and specified area.

quote:

---

Note that the fish were uneffected - namely this was NOT about ALL LIVING CREATURES ON THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH.

​

Gee I thought the fish were in the water that was on the whole face of the Earth. I did not know they were on the face of the dry land, where everything that had the breath of life died.

---

You miss the point. It is conclusive proof not ALL life/flesh was destroyed!

quote:

---

"6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

​

Does 'every' mean some or does it mean all?

---

The term 'every' is hardly vested in a vacuum, as you have framed it The fish, the absence of a single wild animal, the directive in the opening preamble this pertains to Noah and his household - are the fulcrum pillars of this story.The terms such as "a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die" - do not negate this was a regional flood; those words at all times and in every interpretation can and do align with a regional flood. Look:In Cambodia, there was a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

To affirm the text is heady and complicated, please say how you interpret this simple sounding opening verse:'IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH'Particularly, what does 'heaven' refer to: is this a spiritual realm and earth is all material physicality; or does Heaven refer to the rest of the universe aside from the earth?'IN THE BEGINNING' can also refer to time; namely in the beginning times. Does this mean time existed at the onset, before anything was yet created?'IN THE BEGINNG GOD' - does this mean once only God existed and nothing else whatsoever - is it an answer what existed before this finite universe existed?What tools and elements were used to create the universe - seeing nothing else existed at one time, including any laws?

I see the seperation of water from land as one of the anticipatory actions for forthcoming life, in all their numerous forms, requiring different habitats. It is also the first introduction of the earth's age: this action would have taken millions of years, as would the seperation of light from darkness in a critical mode and varied from the light/darkness ratio of other planets.A true scientific view must accept that life could not have evolved without such actions, and that the emergence of life is no random accident! Thus I see real science here, as opposed to many aspects of anti-creationists who nshout MYTH as their only response.

The complexities of the text.The life spans and time periods of ordinary events in the Noah story are enormous and unrealistic. From our POV. This is seen as mythical from the start, as with the days listed in the first creation chapter. However this is a poor view and one obviosly not contemplated. Consider this.The universe is not expanding; its excelerating. This says if the universe is expandng at 10 KPH today, its expansion is 15 KPH tomorrow and 25 day after. Equally, the further back one looks, there is an equivalent decelleration. Yesterday the expansion was 5KPH, day before 2 KPH, and so on. The further back we see, the longer the time ratio variance; the slower everything moves. This would be the case in the early thresholds of the universe's early stages. The sun rays would take longer to reach us, the revolutions and rotations of the earth would be slower, our 24 our day of this period would be as millions of years in the very early phases. This is the reason the days in ch.1 are not listed as 24-hour days. If they were they would be listed in some form - after all the writings introduced the day and week, so there is no issue about hours of a day. The texts does not display lack of wisdom about time. Ch 1 is discussing the very first embryotic phases of the universe, from the point when stars never yet existed.It is scientifically positive that the earlier human's life spans would be greater than ours, yet their performance levels would also be much smaller than ours. It must be so. But its not this simple either, and it goes much deeper.One can ask, how can vegetation precede the sun? Read again, the vegetation was completed but yet not alive - nothing moved or grew [the texts]. The vegetation's initial, first appearance, when it was not alive and only completed - did not yet need sunlight [photntisis]. Further, read v14 again - it does not refer to the stars here, only the 'light' emitted from the stars. It is thus plausible after the vegetation apeared, the sun's light was critically refocused, in a manner different from other planets. It had to be so - it is manifest the light ratio in other planets do not suport life! The ratio is so unique and different, the earth has life compared to the entire known universe not having life - a ratio of 1: trillions.Further, the rate of expansion and decelleration is not small or insignificant. Such a view is only seen from our minute point of view, because we are so insignifcantly small. If the universe could be put on a table and observed objectively and seperately, we would see it moving like the speed of light. Raw energy which has no match in power of velosity. If we see galaxies moving at say 10 KPH, think what this means to a quark in one of the planets: at least the speed of light!The days in ch. 1, with the absence of hours, pointedly say these are not 24 hour days but epochs of time. Here, a day could be a millions of years. Consider how long it would take for the waters to be seperated from the land here on earth: the drift factor is miniscule. This says all the actions listed in ch.1 are epochs of time, not 24 hour days. IOW, they can be classified as days - but they cannot be read as 24 hour days. This is precisely how it is listed. A very complex construct is being stated in a simple mode, for the benefit of all generations of humanity - a feat on its own! This is the world's most pristine writings.

I did. It is based on the accepted premise of the universe's acceleration and de-acceleration.

Please don't say life as we know it could occur without the seperation of water and land in an open forum. The asylum is full.

Your own example best describes it. How is the fact the expanding universe has no effect on time a non sequitur - is the universe expanding only because Hubble discovered this - or since day #1!?

quote:

---

Why do you think the first statement affirms the second? All the water can be in one place(connected) and there still be multiple large land masses.

---

My reading of Genesis is that once no land would have been discernible; the earth was fully covered with water; the land was submerged. The seperation action caused portions of land to rise up, resulting in mountains and fords. The drift factor here is secondary to the first action, and the emergence of life would be a subsequent event - no life was present before the primal seperation action.

quote:

---

Archaeological evidence suggests shorter average life spans in the past.

---

And chess champs make poor war generals. One must apply mind over matter here, not repeat everything they read as non-negotiable COMMANDMENTS. The issue of shorter life spans is also seen today - in countries where poor survival conditions are present. This has no bearing on the earliest periods where the earth was less impacted by such conditions as deseases, population and war displacements: the premise you apply is about history, not physics. It is again transcended by the physics of the universe expansion and its impacts.This factor gives scientific plausibility humans would have had greater life spans in the first 500 years, in diminishing ratios as conditions became impacted by negative factors. It also says a 24 hour day was relatively recent in the big universal picture.If one accepts the expansion premise - they must accept its reverse as we go backwards. Science 101.