Did the Deluge ever happen?

Just posting to get this thread started again...

Did anyone see the Noah's Ark special on the Discovery Channel this Easter Sunday? It was quite interesting. They tackled the whole biblical truth to the matter and found the evidence to be quite lacking.

The show stated that for Noah to board 2x2 of every animal species on the ark, he would have to load up 50 pairs of animals every second. Also, they stated that it was impossible to have a world wide flood due to there not being enough water to flood the earth. I think someone on this thread already stated this.

To their credit, Discovery postulated that the gathering of 2x2 of every animal could have meant animals from the local area of where Noah lived. A much easier task to complete. Also, there was thought of a comet smashing into planet and thus sending the needed amount of water to flood the earth. But this idea was quickly shot down seeing as how a comet impact would kill just about everything on the planet including Noah and his animals.

There was also talk about Mt. Ariat and the resting place of the Ark. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet on the thread...

Finally, the show gave its own theory of Noah's Ark. Basically, Noah was a Sumerian merchant who was on his boat when the Tigris & Euphrates flooded. He had a cargo of domestic animals and beer (Which helped with the problem of pottable water.) When the flood subsided, Noah was left with a bunch of angry customers who wondered where their beer was. To flee his debitors, Noah exiled himself, never to return to Ur or the summarian lands ever again.

It then goes on to state that Jewish scholars picked up Noah's tale, polished it up a bit with moral implications of God's wraith and put it in the Torah. Several retellings and mistranslations later, we get the standard biblical telling of Noah's Ark.

This is the Discovery Channel's theory, so take it for what you will.

BTW, the show mentioned that Gilgamesh's retelling of the flood was based off an older Bablyonian (sic) text. Does anyone know what that orginal source was?

Originally posted by Cowboy Clint

BTW, the show mentioned that Gilgamesh's retelling of the flood was based off an older Bablyonian (sic) text. Does anyone know what that orginal source was?

that at first sounds like a contradiction in terms as Gilgamesh being Akkadian predates anything from babylonia
but when it comes to the flood story its quite correct
Gilgamesh itself is not a whole surviving text from one tablet

it is based on a large amount of surviving story from 2300bce with the missing gaps filled in with later copies sometiems found in different cultures, (Gilgamesh was known throughout the fertile crescent and its popularity jumped cultures)
heres a brief example of that
this is from the known 2300bce part

'Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall!
O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!

so the raw materials in the original version are a standard reed house
next thing you know

its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height,
the sides of its top were of equal length, 10 times It cubits each.
I laid out its (interior) structure and drew a picture of it (?).
I provided it with six decks,
thus dividing it into seven (levels).
The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments).
I drove plugs (to keep out) water in its middle part.
I saw to the punting poles and laid in what was necessary.
Three times 3,600 (units) of raw bitumen I poured into the
bitumen kiln,
three times 3,600 (units of) pitch ...into it,
there were three times 3,600 porters of casks who carried (vege-
table) oil,
apart from the 3,600 (units of) oil which they consumed (!)
and two times 3,600 (units of) oil which the boatman stored
away.

amazing how far you can stretch a few reeds when you set your mind to it isn't it

anyway
this is the Babylonian version of the flood story that Discovery was talking about
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
this is only known from a babylonian copy that dates from 1700bce
(600 years after Gilgamesh)
but the names in it are all spelled the ancient Sumerian way (An, Enlil, Utu, Ziusudra etc). so its accepted that originally it was far older than Gilgamesh but we only have this late in the day copy
its useful however to see how elements were added over the years to the story
in Gilgamesh he doesnt take animals onto the ark
in the later Babylonian flood story he does

3-11. More and more animals disembarked onto the earth. Zi-ud-sura the king prostrated himself before An and Enlil. An and Enlil treated Zi-ud-sura kindly ……, they granted him life like a god, they brought down to him eternal life. At that time, because of preserving the animals and the seed of mankind

so its quite clear that the Bible version is a very late in the day copy and not original at all as it borrows from both works.
its a pastiche if you like of earlier stories
there are some who claim that this is because the Biblical one is the original but this is not possible
see Akkadian is a South Semitic language
and Hebrew is a west semtiic language
so the earliest that the Hebrews could have come across the Mesopotamian flood stories is when they had access to Mesopotamian stories
and that wasn't possible much before 750bce and only then because of this guy
en.wikipedia.org...

Finally, the show gave its own theory of Noah's Ark. Basically, Noah was a Sumerian merchant who was on his boat when the Tigris & Euphrates flooded. He had a cargo of domestic animals and beer

thats not their own theory
they stole that idea from Robert M. Best
www.noahs-ark-flood.com...
its complete fiction and doesn't stand up to any scrutiny
Robert actually marketed it as

A reconstruction of a lost legend

ask yourself
how can you reconstruct a lost legend ?
heres the answer
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Cowboy Clint


Also, they stated that it was impossible to have a world wide flood due to there not being enough water to flood the earth. I think someone on this thread already stated this.

What would happen if you took the tallest mountain range and stuck it in the deepest ocean and then the second tallest mountain range etc. etc. and then melted the polar ice caps. There is also plenty of water in underground rivers etc that can be considered................there is plenty of water to cover the earth.

BTW, the show mentioned that Gilgamesh's retelling of the flood was based off an older Bablyonian (sic) text. Does anyone know what that orginal source was?

That's right..........it all starts in Babylon. The original source was Nimrod, the great grandson of Noah.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix


What would happen if you took the tallest mountain range and stuck it in the deepest ocean and then the second tallest mountain range etc. etc. and then melted the polar ice caps. There is also plenty of water in underground rivers etc that can be considered................there is plenty of water to cover the earth.

But now what born again christians/creationists believe happened, they actually belive that the mountains were a lot smaller in those days and grew so big due to the deluge. The water itself came from the sky as in those days there was a thick dense fog containing the water, also there was a lot of water stored undergound which then came upwardbreaking open the ground, this also formed the continents the way they are shaped today.

So that would explain why there would be no need for so much water because if the mountains were as big as they are today, creationists would have a hard time explaining where all the water came from

Originally posted by Sun Matrix



What would happen if you took the tallest mountain range and stuck it in the deepest ocean and then the second tallest mountain range etc. etc. and then melted the polar ice caps. There is also plenty of water in underground rivers etc that can be considered................there is plenty of water to cover the earth.

well first thing that would happen was the bible would be proven to be completely false (not that it hasn't been thousands of times already)
because it doesn't claim it happened that way
then all you'd need to do is work out how you get every race of man in less than 4000 years from a Hebrew sailor and its job done right
ahahaha


and you can forget the polar ice caps
they have ice core samples that prove they have been completely unmelted for millions of years

in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C (6,460 F).

www.holysmoke.org...

Cardinal Bellarmino (from the trial of Galileo)
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."

thats more about your level Sunmatrix
stick with faith and ignorance
it suits you



[edit on 15-4-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Marduk]

Originally posted by Marduk

well first thing that would happen was the bible would be proven to be completely false (not that it hasn't been thousands of times already)
because it doesn't claim it happened that way
then all you'd need to do is work out how you get every race of man in less than 4000 years from a Hebrew sailor and its job done right
ahahaha

I thought you might go into hiding again after the last beating.......which of course was just more of the same. You know the one where you said the Hebrews were in Canaan in 1400 bc and you were proven wrong AGAIN. Just so you know.........there was no Hebrew sailor 4000 years ago. You are in confusion AGAIN.

in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C (6,460 F).

I'm sorry........maybe you misunderstood my post.....here's what I said.

What would happen if you took the tallest mountain range and stuck it in the deepest ocean and then the second tallest mountain range etc. etc. and then melted the polar ice caps. There is also plenty of water in underground rivers etc that can be considered................there is plenty of water to cover the earth.

Cardinal Bellarmino (from the trial of Galileo)
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."

thats more about your level Sunmatrix
stick with faith and ignorance
it suits you

Might as well try to put words in my mouth........everything else you have tried has failed.
There is a difference in knowing and thinking you know. Always learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

It's easy to prove the Bible wrong........just deny the facts.

There was a major flood few months ago in Indonesia, Java island, city Jakarta.

Some people in Jakarta thought it was a flood of the globe, and they recorded it as act of God. A punishment from Above.



It is one of the most funniest story of lifetime. The Jews Bible Noah's flood that sunk everybody except the Noah's family, a very funny Jews story.

And sadly Christian copied it all the way, cheated and lied to their children all the way to heaven.

What happened there, doesn't mean it happen everywhere.
In bible you don't hear Noah was saving Panda, Koala, Kangaroo. Because they didn't have it, all they had was camel.

Sorry, double post

[edit on 16-4-2007 by CinLung]

Sorry, double post.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by CinLung]

Strange how we can find evidence of a global flood in most ancient cultures. Strange how we find the gods of the sun, moon and stars..........and serpents and dragons........imagine that.

BTW the Christians did not copy anything from the Jews. Jesus is the Jewish prophesied Messiah who their own writings say they will reject.

the egyptians have no flood myth
the biblical flood myth is a copy of the mesopotamian one
it travelled from mesopotamia via bible stories to greece
and on from there to Rome who spread it around europe
so no
not much of a surprise really
the mesoamerican flood myths do not even slightly resemble the Noah story
the micro/polnesian ones do not even slightly resemble the Noah story
and you need to consider that these last few groups all reached their present location by crossing a large body of water
there are about 10 flood stories from africa mostly the result of christian missionaries and besides 10 flood stories compared to thousands of seperate cultural groups, hardly global is it


so what do you do
check the geology
strange how there is no evidence whatever of:-
a global flood
of a creation in a garden
of God
and I'm still waiitng to hear how you explain how the canaanite proto hebrews didn't have a flood god until they were enslaved by the Babylonians who did have one
you don't seem to be aware that the earths surface is 4/5 water yet the quantity of water could barely cover a small hill globally let alone mountains. your attempt to claim that the mountains were all plucked off and dropped in the water was laughable and typical of a religious bigot who's attempts at logic bring derision from anyone hearing them


the rest as they say is history
but you don't know what that is Sunmatrix do you
you're too busy judging people and showing everyone that you have no faith and proving that you're a fundementalist bigot who makes one ignorant post after another
all of which are guaranteed to send your soul straight to hell
so its lucky for you that doesnt exist either eh


oh wait
why don't you tell us all again that Baal is a real god because the bible says so
you can link to wikipedia again like you did last time you got served if you like

Originally posted by Marduk

oh wait
why don't you tell us all again that Baal is a real god because the bible says so
you can link to wikipedia again like you did last time you got served if you like

You seem to be in confusion and wrong again.......as always. IT WAS YOU WHO LINKED WIKI. Here is your link. And it is your link that disproved your point about Baal not being a god.

quote: Originally posted by Marduk
there were no Oral traditons passed along the hebrew culture in 1400bce
the hebrew culture didn't exist at this period

during this time they were all living in Canaan and worshipping an assortment of Gods who have no similarity to anything found in the Bible (or the Tanakh :lol at all
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is my comment on YOUR LINK to Wiki.

First your link proves absolutely noting date wise about the Hebrews. What it does do is shoot down your past agrument that BAAL was not a god as your link clearly shows that BAAL is a god.

The Hebrews were not in Canaan in 1400 bc they were in Egypt just as the archaeological evidence proves.
www.cynet.com...

As usual...........your are wrong..........AGAIN. If I get time tonight I will review the rest of your post...............

posted by someone that can't read english
Here is your link. And it is your link that disproved your point about Baal not being a god.

Canaanite gods

Anat
Asherah
Ba'al
Baalat or Baalit, the wife or female counterpart of Baal (also Belili)
El (Canaanite god)
Lotan
Mot
Yam-nahar or Yam
Shemesh

these are all hotlinks
when you click onBa'al it sends you to this page
en.wikipedia.org...

Ba`al (baʕal; Hebrew: בעל) (often spelled Baal) is a Northwest Semitic title and honorific meaning "master" or "lord" that is used for various gods, spirits and demons particularly of the Levant, cognate to Assyrian Bēlu.

"Ba`al" can refer to any god and even to human officials; in some texts it is used as a substitute for Hadad, a god of the rain, thunder, fertility and agriculture, and the lord of Heaven. Since only priests were allowed to utter his divine name Hadad, Ba`al was used commonly. Nevertheless, few if any Biblical uses of "Ba`al" refer to Hadad, the lord over the assembly of gods on the holy mount of Heaven, but rather refer to any number of local spirit-deities worshipped as cult images, each called ba`al and regarded as an "idol". Therefore, in any text using the word ba`al it is important first to determine precisely which god, spirit or demon is meant.

.

so whos wrong
ahahaha
but no need to trust wiki
lets ask pantheon.org
www.pantheon.org...

Baal, literal meaning is "lord," in the Canaanite pantheon was the local title of fertility gods.

in fact if you really want to get into it Ba'al is merely the west semitic hebrew rendering of the south semtic akkadian title "Bel"
there is no Mesopotamian deity called Bel anymore than there is a canaanite Deity called Ba'al although quite a few use it as a title
see your problem is that you don't recognise languages or in fact any convention that isn't clearly explained in the bible
mark of a good fundementalist that but also the mark of a very poor scholar
you think the languiage of God is english because thats what your bible is written in
you probably arent even using the original version are you
bet youre using the later dervation KJV or worse the ASV which quite frankly is a bunch of derived crap about as far removed from God as you are from being correct

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Strange how we can find evidence of a global flood in most ancient cultures. Strange how we find the gods of the sun, moon and stars..........and serpents and dragons........imagine that.

BTW the Christians did not copy anything from the Jews. Jesus is the Jewish prophesied Messiah who their own writings say they will reject.

Mouth to Mouth, man!!!!!!!!
Mouth to Mouth, man.

Well, perhaps they didn't travel and talk much at that time, but somehow, records, tale story, etc complete the circle.

??? ok the old testaments were all Christian self-made which has nothing to do or nothing similar to Jews story tale.

Cinlung
the old testament is called that because it is the Jewish old testament
the new testament is called that because it is the christian new testament
your bible knowledge is shocking
try reading it
then make posts about it eh

Originally posted by Marduk
Cinlung
the old testament is called that because it is the Jewish old testament
the new testament is called that because it is the christian new testament
your bible knowledge is shocking
try reading it
then make posts about it eh

So it is the Jews testament eh? So Christian didn't copy anything from Jews and never use old testament eh? hehe Reading Jews bible and Christian bible? hehehe what a joke.
You know it is a mistake, and you spent time learning it in order to get knowledge hahaha.......... and you recommend me to read it.

By the way, I see most Christian and Catholic bible consists of:

- Old Testament (Jewish Old Testament)
- New Testament

And Christian claims that there is no copy whatsoever from Jews.



[edit on 16-4-2007 by CinLung]

Originally posted by Marduk


so whos wrong
ahahaha
but no need to trust wiki

You are wrong.....as always. I already linked to Britannica and they seem to think that Baal is a god. AND OOPS, do I see that Britannica is also saying the Bel is ultimately identified as Zeus. Gee, It must be a bugger being wrong all the time. Baal = Bel = Zeus = Osiris = Nimrod = Marduk =Gilgamesh..........Etc.....Etc.......Etc. The list goes on and on.

BAAL----god worshiped in many ancient Middle Eastern communities, especially among the Canaanites, who apparently considered him a fertility deity and one of the most important gods in the pantheon. As a Semitic common noun baal (Hebrew ba'al) meant “owner” or “lord,” although it could be used more generally; for example, a baal of wings was a winged creature, and, in the plural, baalim of arrows indicated archers. Yet such fluidity in the use of the term baal did not prevent it from being attached to a god of distinct character.

But Baal was not exclusively a fertility god. He was also king of the gods, and, to achieve that position, he was portrayed as seizing the divine kingship from Yamm, the sea god.

The worship of Baal was popular in Egypt from the later New Kingdom in about 1400 BC to its end (1075 BC). Through the influence of the Aramaeans, who borrowed the Babylonian pronunciation Bel, the god ultimately became known as the Greek Belos, identified with Zeus.

www.britannica.com...

mark of a good fundementalist that but also the mark of a very poor scholar

You seem to be the one in confusion...........Bel = Zeus....a god ........Baal = Bel

When you get past Baal means Lord, give me a shout.

and I'm still waiitng to hear how you explain how the canaanite proto hebrews didn't have a flood god until they were enslaved by the Babylonians who did have one

Please provide some specifics as what to god you are referring to....when....what is a Canaanite proto Hebrew?

you need to learn to read buddy
the links you just posted proved my point not yours

a Semitic common noun baal (Hebrew ba'al) meant “owner” or “lord,” although it could be used more generally; for example, a baal of wings was a winged creature, and, in the plural, baalim of arrows indicated archers.

duh

Originally posted by Marduk
you need to learn to read buddy
the links you just posted proved my point not yours

a Semitic common noun baal (Hebrew ba'al) meant “owner” or “lord,” although it could be used more generally; for example, a baal of wings was a winged creature, and, in the plural, baalim of arrows indicated archers.

duh

Why are you always so confused. I understand that Baal means Lord and am in complete agreement. In fact I linked you to a post showing that I was well aware of this fact before you brought it up. The real question is whether Baal is the name of a god........you deny that it is........you deny a fact that is proven.

Baal is the name of a god and no matter how much you deny it, it won't change the truth.

Now how about a little help on that Canaanite proto Hebrew god that you would talking about.........or are you in confusion and wrong.......AGAIN?