I personally came to terms with the fact that the OT stories deserve to be taken as mythology, which inevitably meant there was no reason to view Jesus as God or NT stories as factually accurate. The OT stories just don't stand up period, and the NT stories just don't stand without the OT stories.
I just don't get the motivation for going to such lengths to defend these stories. How does one truly perceive that their faith is set on a solid foundation, when their faith is set on these crumbly silly old stories? I think it's that their faith rests entirely on the person of Jesus Christ, but they recognize that he comes as a package deal with all these other OT stories. If the stories get tossed, then the whole basis for Jesus has been tossed, and that's not an option for them.
"The author of Noah's flood didn't mean global, but local" - totally made up, typical adaptable theology. How can we bend this to make it still plausible?
"Does science disprove global flood? ... I haven't studied that... But I see no reason to think so..." no comment.
The other commenters summed it up: Noah's flood is a rehash of Sumerian mythology, The Epic of Gilgamesh. Science shows lack of global flood. Noah's flood was written as global, "God" has sent local floods since then.
@clemstevenson I agree that it's mythology, but I think its worthy of consideration because there may have been a flood like this in ancient times that the Bible story was exaggerated from. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying some 600 year old man was told by God to build a boat... But perhaps something really did happen that led to the Bible story. And that in and of itself merits at least some study.
@Jayoung1000 I don't see why the roots of the flood mythology should not be considered. Apparently, the Old Testament Noah myth was based upon an ancient Mesopotamian flood that really did happen. Archaeologists discovered in 1931 that there had been an unusually severe flood thousands of years ago, caused by the Euphrates bursting its banks. The Noah's Ark story matched that of the ancient texts fairly closely, except that this flood was only a local disaster.
@clemstevenson That's my point. It goes back to something that was real and it helps us to understand how various cultures interpreted these events. Its very interesting to me at least. I would agree with you however that the stuff about God and every animal is just myth, but it is myth that allows us to get into the heads of early man in that area.
@Jayoung1000 Apparently, the truth behind the great flood myth had been uncovered in 1931, and there was even evidence of sedimentary deposits to back it up. Yet I'd never even heard of the discovery until 2011. In other words, there has been a deliberate 80-year effort to bury the truth about the great flood, for very obvious reasons. Various religions depend upon the Ark story being true, and disproof of its veracity further weakens the religious authoritarian stance.
@clemstevenson Sounds very interesting. That makes alot of sense. Not to overly characterize the religious (some of them, like Greg Koukl are brilliant) but many of them have a way of suppressing things that stand in contrast to their beliefs. Think of cosmology, biological evolution, neuroscience etc. So it doesn't surprise me that some find it necessary to suppress these stories. The wise religious person however would try to find a way to incorporate ancient floods with their stories.
@Jayoung1000 Suppressing the truth is human nature. If you checked out my channel, you'd find some pretty bizarre stuff. It is weird, yet it is really happening. I know for myself that the British authorities are trying to use disinformation to keep this stuff out of the public domain, thus not making it too obvious that they want it suppressed. Sure, Winston Churchill had a world war to justify his part in the secrecy issue, but even Churchill realised that it would kill religious beliefs.
Nope, it was global. God promised never to flood the earth again, and yet we have local floods all the time. So, either God is a liar, or it was worldwide, in which case God promised to not flood the entire world. Has the "world that then was" been flooded since then, i'm not for total sure, but i'd wager to say yes. Worth checking into.
This seems like a reasonable approach to the flood, but once you go there, where do you stop? I mean the story says the flood covered "all land". Once you say "well, it might have not been ALL the land, it might just have been SOME of the land, and it might not have been male and female of ALL the animals but just SOME of the animals, what else can you relax? Perhaps there wasn't a literal noah either, perhaps this is just another variation on the gilgamesh myth....
It has been found that the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea as well as other seas in the Middle Eastern area were once dry land, that is not underwater. Perhaps this is where all the water of the World wide flood ended up. But while it was raining for those forty days, the area in between was underwater.
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Note God is quoted here and He is saying "the end of ALL flesh..."
Research the large clams buried "face down" with shells closed (means they were all alive) on top of Mt. Everest- This is another piece of evidence for a flood-I don't understand how water levels could rise to that level and not be a global flood-There is a ton of scientific evidence to back up a global flood-Many people think evolution scientists INTERPRETATION of geology shows there was no flood-Those interpretations are not facts and a global flood can also be interpreted with same evidence-
@shotsxxx Some brief research on the nets says that the shells were found fossilized within limestone deposits. Are you suggesting that this limestone formed during the 40 days of the flood, or some time after the flood 8500+ meters above sea level?
@tarrin4ever The flood would have placed the ingredients to form the limestone during the flood but would have taken longer than 40 days to "turn to stone"- 8500+ meters had to have been the average depth of the flood waters- The thing is, They fossilized in a living condition.(they open their shells when they die)- This can only mean they were buried by the sediment of the flood while they were still alive (on top of the mountain)-
@shotsxxx Even if the ingredients for the limestone were present, when and how did the limestone form? This is a crucial piece of evidence that would need to be addressed if the flood story is true.
And throught what mechanism did the shells reach the top of mount everest according to the flood theory? It would seem to me that they'd still have a great deal of trouble climing up mount everest underwater or not.
@tarrin4ever Some have estimated the flood waters could have receded with currents reaching hundreds of miles per hour- This is well more than enough to "wash" the clams on top of Everest-
@shotsxxx Receded? So when the water was draining downwards it pulled clams upwards to the top of Everest? Forgive me, but I'm not quite grasping the mechanics of this.
@tarrin4ever Your question shows your idea of the flood is that the mountain was above water.Keep in mind the mountain was under water.There are many graphs and maps online showing the flow patterns and different currents of the flood water.It was not just one big current going in one direction.You must google them I can't post them in this comment box- I am no expert on the flood.I can't explain in the form of a comment-Please google this.All your questions will be answered if you seek-
Most of the fossil layers were laid down in the flood. We know this as Christians because the fossil layers contain disease, and thorns, which only appeared after the fall. So those layers should be interpreted as a result of the flood - not millions of years. Thats the problem I have with the old earth view. If you bring your old earth beliefs into the text, you have to do funny things to scripture to make it work. Study the greek, and take the Bible for what it says. Thats how I see it!
Have you tried to test that theory? Here's a test. 1. Find an empty swimming pool. 2. Put two cones (our mountains) in separate ends of the pool. 3. Try to fill the pool with water so it covers one cone and not the other. Doesn't happen? Guess what, water flows!
You can't cover mountain ranges with water with a "local" flood....because water FLOWS.
There are smaller mountain ranges that could be covered while larger ones are not, The mountain range could be in a lower altitude say within a low laying plain or valley while others are farther up on the continental regions that are at higher altitudes. There are many ways that one mountain range can be underwater while others are not. Using your pool example, even given mountains of the same hight, one mountain was in the shallow end while the other was at the deep end. One covered, one not.
@imkluu Ok, and now look at a map of the Middle East and search for this magical valley which is totally enclosed with tall mountains and contains smaller mountains (although the story talks about all the tall mountains being covered, let's just ignore that).
Excellent video. There is evidence all over the Earth of a bublical flood that moved allot of dirt into many layer of sediment, one on top of the other with no erosion in between layers. People that refuse to acknowledge the biblical flood have been told that each layer was laid down very slowly over vast amount of time. So they never think of just how it could be that for millions of years ONLY shale dusted the ground, then for millions of years ONLY sand or clay could built up very slowly.
wow, I don't think I've ever seen so much special pleading and "re-interpretation" of Biblical scripture in a very long time
Elpha22 2 months ago
But that's mot what the Bible says. It talks about the WHOLE EARTH and clearly states it! Also, how did those eight people move all the poop?
jarchd 3 months ago
I personally came to terms with the fact that the OT stories deserve to be taken as mythology, which inevitably meant there was no reason to view Jesus as God or NT stories as factually accurate. The OT stories just don't stand up period, and the NT stories just don't stand without the OT stories.
sswave4dave 7 months ago in playlist Miscellaneous
I just don't get the motivation for going to such lengths to defend these stories. How does one truly perceive that their faith is set on a solid foundation, when their faith is set on these crumbly silly old stories? I think it's that their faith rests entirely on the person of Jesus Christ, but they recognize that he comes as a package deal with all these other OT stories. If the stories get tossed, then the whole basis for Jesus has been tossed, and that's not an option for them.
sswave4dave 7 months ago in playlist Miscellaneous
Summay:
"The author of Noah's flood didn't mean global, but local" - totally made up, typical adaptable theology. How can we bend this to make it still plausible?
"Does science disprove global flood? ... I haven't studied that... But I see no reason to think so..." no comment.
The other commenters summed it up: Noah's flood is a rehash of Sumerian mythology, The Epic of Gilgamesh. Science shows lack of global flood. Noah's flood was written as global, "God" has sent local floods since then.
sswave4dave 7 months ago in playlist Miscellaneous
Noah's Ark was just a fairy story, and it's not even worthy of consideration.
clemstevenson 8 months ago
@clemstevenson I agree that it's mythology, but I think its worthy of consideration because there may have been a flood like this in ancient times that the Bible story was exaggerated from. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying some 600 year old man was told by God to build a boat... But perhaps something really did happen that led to the Bible story. And that in and of itself merits at least some study.
Jayoung1000 7 months ago
@Jayoung1000 I don't see why the roots of the flood mythology should not be considered. Apparently, the Old Testament Noah myth was based upon an ancient Mesopotamian flood that really did happen. Archaeologists discovered in 1931 that there had been an unusually severe flood thousands of years ago, caused by the Euphrates bursting its banks. The Noah's Ark story matched that of the ancient texts fairly closely, except that this flood was only a local disaster.
clemstevenson 7 months ago
@clemstevenson That's my point. It goes back to something that was real and it helps us to understand how various cultures interpreted these events. Its very interesting to me at least. I would agree with you however that the stuff about God and every animal is just myth, but it is myth that allows us to get into the heads of early man in that area.
Jayoung1000 7 months ago
@Jayoung1000 Apparently, the truth behind the great flood myth had been uncovered in 1931, and there was even evidence of sedimentary deposits to back it up. Yet I'd never even heard of the discovery until 2011. In other words, there has been a deliberate 80-year effort to bury the truth about the great flood, for very obvious reasons. Various religions depend upon the Ark story being true, and disproof of its veracity further weakens the religious authoritarian stance.
clemstevenson 7 months ago
@clemstevenson Sounds very interesting. That makes alot of sense. Not to overly characterize the religious (some of them, like Greg Koukl are brilliant) but many of them have a way of suppressing things that stand in contrast to their beliefs. Think of cosmology, biological evolution, neuroscience etc. So it doesn't surprise me that some find it necessary to suppress these stories. The wise religious person however would try to find a way to incorporate ancient floods with their stories.
Jayoung1000 7 months ago
@Jayoung1000 Suppressing the truth is human nature. If you checked out my channel, you'd find some pretty bizarre stuff. It is weird, yet it is really happening. I know for myself that the British authorities are trying to use disinformation to keep this stuff out of the public domain, thus not making it too obvious that they want it suppressed. Sure, Winston Churchill had a world war to justify his part in the secrecy issue, but even Churchill realised that it would kill religious beliefs.
clemstevenson 7 months ago
Yes, it is obvious that there was no global flood, Geologists found that out 200 years ago. Given. Read a geology book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Nope, it was global. God promised never to flood the earth again, and yet we have local floods all the time. So, either God is a liar, or it was worldwide, in which case God promised to not flood the entire world. Has the "world that then was" been flooded since then, i'm not for total sure, but i'd wager to say yes. Worth checking into.
1tmoch 1 year ago 2
@1tmoch But there was no global flood, are you saying the bible is wrong?
gregrutz 1 year ago
This seems like a reasonable approach to the flood, but once you go there, where do you stop? I mean the story says the flood covered "all land". Once you say "well, it might have not been ALL the land, it might just have been SOME of the land, and it might not have been male and female of ALL the animals but just SOME of the animals, what else can you relax? Perhaps there wasn't a literal noah either, perhaps this is just another variation on the gilgamesh myth....
randyhelzerman 1 year ago
It has been found that the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea as well as other seas in the Middle Eastern area were once dry land, that is not underwater. Perhaps this is where all the water of the World wide flood ended up. But while it was raining for those forty days, the area in between was underwater.
imkluu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lets check the Bible again!
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Note God is quoted here and He is saying "the end of ALL flesh..."
jbooks888 1 year ago
Research the large clams buried "face down" with shells closed (means they were all alive) on top of Mt. Everest- This is another piece of evidence for a flood-I don't understand how water levels could rise to that level and not be a global flood-There is a ton of scientific evidence to back up a global flood-Many people think evolution scientists INTERPRETATION of geology shows there was no flood-Those interpretations are not facts and a global flood can also be interpreted with same evidence-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@shotsxxx Some brief research on the nets says that the shells were found fossilized within limestone deposits. Are you suggesting that this limestone formed during the 40 days of the flood, or some time after the flood 8500+ meters above sea level?
tarrin4ever 1 year ago
@tarrin4ever The flood would have placed the ingredients to form the limestone during the flood but would have taken longer than 40 days to "turn to stone"- 8500+ meters had to have been the average depth of the flood waters- The thing is, They fossilized in a living condition.(they open their shells when they die)- This can only mean they were buried by the sediment of the flood while they were still alive (on top of the mountain)-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@shotsxxx Even if the ingredients for the limestone were present, when and how did the limestone form? This is a crucial piece of evidence that would need to be addressed if the flood story is true.
And throught what mechanism did the shells reach the top of mount everest according to the flood theory? It would seem to me that they'd still have a great deal of trouble climing up mount everest underwater or not.
tarrin4ever 1 year ago
@tarrin4ever Some have estimated the flood waters could have receded with currents reaching hundreds of miles per hour- This is well more than enough to "wash" the clams on top of Everest-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
@shotsxxx Receded? So when the water was draining downwards it pulled clams upwards to the top of Everest? Forgive me, but I'm not quite grasping the mechanics of this.
tarrin4ever 1 year ago
@tarrin4ever Your question shows your idea of the flood is that the mountain was above water.Keep in mind the mountain was under water.There are many graphs and maps online showing the flow patterns and different currents of the flood water.It was not just one big current going in one direction.You must google them I can't post them in this comment box- I am no expert on the flood.I can't explain in the form of a comment-Please google this.All your questions will be answered if you seek-
shotsxxx 1 year ago
If local mountains were covered with water, what stopped the water running away with gravity?
Darwinsgift 1 year ago
"Obvious" evidence that was never a global flood? Um, the earth is STILL FLOODED my friends! 70% of the surface of earth is covered in water.
Go to the coast and look at the ocean. That's evidence of a global flood if you ask me.
skalapunk 1 year ago
Most of the fossil layers were laid down in the flood. We know this as Christians because the fossil layers contain disease, and thorns, which only appeared after the fall. So those layers should be interpreted as a result of the flood - not millions of years. Thats the problem I have with the old earth view. If you bring your old earth beliefs into the text, you have to do funny things to scripture to make it work. Study the greek, and take the Bible for what it says. Thats how I see it!
onceforgivennowfree 1 year ago
Mountain ranges were covered "in a region"?
Have you tried to test that theory? Here's a test. 1. Find an empty swimming pool. 2. Put two cones (our mountains) in separate ends of the pool. 3. Try to fill the pool with water so it covers one cone and not the other. Doesn't happen? Guess what, water flows!
You can't cover mountain ranges with water with a "local" flood....because water FLOWS.
MausPonticus 1 year ago
There are smaller mountain ranges that could be covered while larger ones are not, The mountain range could be in a lower altitude say within a low laying plain or valley while others are farther up on the continental regions that are at higher altitudes. There are many ways that one mountain range can be underwater while others are not. Using your pool example, even given mountains of the same hight, one mountain was in the shallow end while the other was at the deep end. One covered, one not.
imkluu 1 year ago
@imkluu Ok, and now look at a map of the Middle East and search for this magical valley which is totally enclosed with tall mountains and contains smaller mountains (although the story talks about all the tall mountains being covered, let's just ignore that).
MausPonticus 1 year ago
Excellent video. There is evidence all over the Earth of a bublical flood that moved allot of dirt into many layer of sediment, one on top of the other with no erosion in between layers. People that refuse to acknowledge the biblical flood have been told that each layer was laid down very slowly over vast amount of time. So they never think of just how it could be that for millions of years ONLY shale dusted the ground, then for millions of years ONLY sand or clay could built up very slowly.
sablechicken 1 year ago