The Flood Controversy

Many have argued that the flood of noah never happened, while others believe it/don't believe it, without ever investigating it, pro or con. Still further, geologists have discovered what may in fact be proof of the noah flood in the guise of the Black Sea Flood

you can see a video series on the subject, by 2 geologists from oxford university who discovered the black sea flood
www.youtube.com...

The premise of this thread, however, is to suggest that what we've been taught about the flood of noah, is partially wrong. For example, it says noah was instructed to bring 7 clean animals in pairs. that's 14. 7 birds in pairs. that's 28. and 2 unclean animals in pairs. that's 32. 32 animals is a long way off, from every animal on the planet.

Furthermore, the black sea flood was bad but it wasn't global. So why is the global flood concept hinted at in the biblical passages about noah, not to mention the flood passages of other ancient texts? Clearly, there's more than one flood involved in the noah story. I think i found evidence of this, and it's nothing short of amazing. Observe:

In the opening passages of the book of Genesis, it says the earth was in a state of "tohu" (hebrew for chaos). later in the text it says the earth was not created "tohu". so the verse that describes the earth as being tohu, is not describing the beginning of the creation of the planet, but rather a re-terraforming of the planet following an event that caused the earth to be tohu.

notice how it says the spirit of elohim moved over the face of the deep. the deep in this reference could be many things, but for the sake of this theory, let's just go with it being a reference to very deep water, which was covering the earth. it recedes to reveal dry land that was already there. these passages are not describing the creation of the earth. they are describing the RE-creation of the earth following a global cataclysm involving water.

so who was re-terraforming the earth? in the passage it says elohim (plural). they were instructed to replenish or refill the earth with life. the more i pondered this idea, the more i realized that the flood of noah story, is actually 2 flood stories skillfully threaded together to give the impression that it is one flood story but without removing any of the original story, so that it begins to contradict itself in short order. it then vacillates back and forth from all animals to only 32 animals. global to not global. chaos to semi-chaos. the only reason i can determine for this decision was that the original authors did not realize these were separate events and so wrote them both together.

you might be saying "well then who instructed the elohim to do this, if the elohim is god how can elohim be commanded to do anything"? simple answer is that adam = elohim, and that the intracacies of stuffing thousands and thousands of years into just a few passages, has resulted in requiring very careful reading of each and every word. we're talking compaction of data on a massive scale. by saying adam=elohim, i don't mean there wasn't an elohim that created the elohim (adam), who commanded them to refill, replenish, re-terraform, the earth. i'm not saying this is necessarily evidence of ancestor worship, mind you, but evidence that our understanding of the word elohim in its many applications (and it does have many) has lead us to the wrong assumptions regarding the history of the earth.

before you get your knickers in a knot, understand that the elohim created copies of themselves. these copies were called adam. however, they were copies of the elohim. yes, copies . genetic copies of prior lifeforms on the planet. in fact, the entire reference to the creation of life on the planet is not the original creation but the RE-creation following a global cataclysm, we see only partial glimpses of in the noah flood story.

Considering the period in history that the bible refers to, they wouldn't have known exactly how large the Earth was. Therefore, even if it was a regional flooding, they would have thought of it as global. Maybe that's why there is a contradiction in the texts?

reply to post by undo


The flood is baptism (involution and evolution). The allegory of the flood may have been founded on a real event, but it is symbolic of what is taking place to refine souls in the waters of life. All of these stories point to Christ as the final salvation from the water.

The beast and mark of mankind is Carbon. It has 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. The beast in question is the selfishness of mankind. The beasts are riding on the waters of the flood. Baptism is the immersion of the soul into the waters for a span of time to get rid of the beast nature. The ARK is the House of Seed.

Son, in Hebrew, is Bet (House) Nun (Seed). The Son of God is the soul being refined, but each of us is an individuation of the original. Just like God made the Sons of God. The Sons are then the seeds for what they express in individuation, just like an acorn makes the oak tree, then the oak tree makes more acorns. Just like the father and mother make a new daughter or son and the pattern repeats.

We are the beasts. The water cleanses the temple so we can return.

Cobaltic1978
Considering the period in history that the bible refers to, they wouldn't have known exactly how large the Earth was. Therefore, even if it was a regional flooding, they would have thought of it as global. Maybe that's why there is a contradiction in the texts?

i considered that as well but after studying the passages regarding the creation of the adam, who were males and females copied from the elohim, i realized there was more going on than i originally realized. if eve was the first woman, and she was created from adam's rib, who the heck was the female adam that was created in the image of elohim? and if god (elohim) is a singular male, how'd he make a copy of himself that was female ? that's when i tried to detangle where the idea of a female adam might fit into all this. now stick with me a moment longer:

moses was raised as an egyptian. he had access to both the mesopotamian and egyptian creation and flood accounts. in egypt the god of creation was atum. i pondered the possibility that atum=adam. that's when ye olde wheels started turning in me brainpan. what if the adam that were copies of the elohim, pre-fall narrative, were also called elohim in places in the text -- that is, the copied creation was named after its creators. so then it dawned on me that some passages about the elohim in the creation account, are not about the original elohim who the adam were copied in the likeness of, but the adam as elohim copies, who were instructed to re-terraform/replenish/refill the earth after the real global flood and thus you see elohim, recreating lifeforms on the earth.

theoretically, they are using copies of prior lifeforms, i.e. dna data, to recreate life on the planet. maybe they had a warehouse of dna data for all the species that would be recreated on the recovered earth

if the noah/flood is true, then we are all descended from good old fashioned souther country cousin lovin'. because, to repopulate the earth, first cousin had to marry first cousin. and there was probably some brother/sister action going on as well. noah would have had to have a son who was black, asian, caucasian, etc... then where are the records of their travels to places like japan and south america? a move that long with people who were literate would have been written down.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


ah yes the meat of the gospel. we are talking about the milk of human history in this thread

blackthorne
if the noah/flood is true, then we are all descended from good old fashioned souther country cousin lovin'. because, to repopulate the earth, first cousin had to marry first cousin. and there was probably some brother/sister action going on as well. noah would have had to have a son who was black, asian, caucasian, etc... then where are the records of their travels to places like japan and south america? a move that long with people who were literate would have been written down.

read the whole op. no really, read the whole thing.
it will help to detangle some of the confusion on the subject.

undo

before you get your knickers in a knot, understand that the elohim created copies of themselves. these copies were called adam. however, they were copies of the elohim. yes, copies . genetic copies of prior lifeforms on the planet. in fact, the entire reference to the creation of life on the planet is not the original creation but the RE-creation following a global cataclysm, we see only partial glimpses of in the noah flood story.

One of the questions I have regarding this aspect is highlighted in ongoing DNA investigations and mapping in classifying our ancestors migrations and interactions.

Thus far, starting around 40,000 years ago, we've fairly strong evidence for 'contact' with Neanderthal such all modern humans, with exception of those subsaharans that never left Africa, have about 2.5% Neanderthal DNA. There's additional contact noted with some of us where Denisovan DNA on the order of up to 5% is found indicating much more recent 'contact'.

Thus, if 'god', or 'elohim', or whatever created, or created copies called "Adam", the DNA, one would suspect, should be of a pure-blooded uncompromised example.
The only example of such we have is subSaharan Black Africans with zero ad-mixture of foreign DNA from Neanderthal, and Denisovan.

This would imply that 'god', 'elohim', whatever was either a subSaharan Black African, or that 'god', 'elohim', or whatever had some kinky trysts with beasts of the field (neanderthal), or, was in fact 100% Neanderthal where we modern humans out competed a poorly 'made' creation that couldn't adapt or compete.

Whatever the case, however one desires to interpret the DNA, we're left with questions concerning the legitimacy of any supposed creator race mythology.
A pure-blood creation gives us either SubSaharan origin, or Neanderthal origin.
A mixed blood 'creation' accepts the premise of a flawed god.
A Neanderthal 'Adam' accepts a flawed god incapable of creating something that could compete with humans.
A SubSaharan African origin takes us back to Africa, much further back in time, back to Homo-Erectus, and a whole long line of fairly well documented evolutionary history.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


the premise of my op, doesn't go back that far. it only goes back to the end of the last global cataclysm (ice age). so how nean and cro and etc, fit into the picture is not touched upon. bible scholars who find the creation account in genesis, to be inconsistent with the first creation of the earth, also refer to the biblical account as primarily focused on what is called, the human dispensation.

in other words, it's not about our biological ancestors other than the elohim who we were copied from. however, i would take it a step further and point out that the adam created as copies, are not homo sapiens. homo sapiens don't appear in the text, till the fall narrative. what differentiated the homo sapien from prior ancestors, was the ability to procreate, and that is the fall narrative as well. procreating humans with fully regenerative bodies, would've been an environmental disaster (according to the one elohim who wanted our dna to be nerfed)

reply to post by undo


All I can say is I have had a vision of the flood and for me it is very real, I have searched for plausible scientific methods and have thought on everthing from a collapse of the mid atlantic trench and the eastern seaboard of south america to some unknown cataclysm in the pacific displacing a tsunami of unimaginable size but that would leave scars and would have not lasted for the period specified, then I thought on dimensional stability and convergence, what if there was a method to bring out of phase parralel worlds together, next to us may be a reality with a much deeper world sea and no land so as the barries between the realitys weakened the water from that world would have appeared in this even raining or pouring indoors as it coalesced, so somewere with some form of dimensional shield or anchor would be the only way to survive, and once the two realitys diverged again the water from that one would have gone back to it as it was in essence merely an interdimensional intrusion but maybe not all the water.

The vision I had was of a white ark like a large double ender shaped like the formation at little arrarat and on deck was a long house running the length of the barge, it was very low in the water, at the front were two windows and a door all open and black as hell, I felt great fear looking at it but I was apparently bobbing along dead in the water, the sky was grey and the sea was black, I am not certain it was a vision of noahs ark but it was certainly an ark type similar.

Nothing unusual for me as I have climbed a ladder as well in another oobe but was not able to life my head to see what was at the top.

reply to post by LABTECH767


the gates of the deep!
well a friend of mine who read my stargates are real thread, theorized that perhaps the gates had counterparts on mars, and the earth is now in possession of the water that use to be on mars. 2 planets decimated, in one fell swoop

Lets take the bible out of the equation, and assume this was a passage in the Illiad. Then we would be looking for the flood. I believe it is based on a "local" huge catastrophic flood (Every area has a once in a lifetime flood), and the black sea is a good but not the only candidate. Please remember that there are quite wide local weather variations even within a few hundred years e.g. mini ice age of 1700s in the uk when the Thames was iced over for most of the winter, or Roman times when grapes were grown in the UK.

templar knight
Lets take the bible out of the equation, and assume this was a passage in the Illiad. Then we would be looking for the flood. I believe it is based on a "local" huge catastrophic flood (Every area has a once in a lifetime flood), and the black sea is a good but not the only candidate. Please remember that there are quite wide local weather variations even within a few hundred years e.g. mini ice age of 1700s in the uk when the Thames was iced over for most of the winter, or Roman times when grapes were grown in the UK.

agreed, although the point of the op is to make people aware of the concept of 2 floods being described in the flood account - a global one and a bad one that wasn't global but was quite severe.

undo
reply to post by LABTECH767

 

the gates of the deep!
well a friend of mine who read my stargates are real thread, theorized that perhaps the gates had counterparts on mars, and the earth is now in possession of the water that use to be on mars. 2 planets decimated, in one fell swoop

What happens to the walls (gates) of a bowl when momentum is upset? What happens with the waters on Earth when the speed of the moving bowl is upset?

Not seeing a controversy. The flood myth (as portrayed) is basically a crock of... and didn't happen. Even if it were a based on local flooding or a retelling of something borrowed from an earlier culture to fit in with tales of a certain imaginary friend, it is still so full of nonsense and exaggeration as to be a crock of ...

It seems to me the archeological evidence indicates the Atrahasis Epic inscriptions/tablets predates the biblical account.

DMFL1133
It seems to me the archeological evidence indicates the Atrahasis Epic inscriptions/tablets predates the biblical account.

agreed, although i don't think that indicates the stories aren't legit. i think it just verifies the events. i'm aware of the sumerian and akkadian texts, by the way. when people say the biblical stories aren't legit because the akkadians had similar story, i laugh because, these are the same people from the same area, having the same experiences, and retelling them from their perspective. dunno why that's considered evidence of stealing.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Any 'reptilian' or 'seed of cain' or 'sky god' or 'insert theory here' DNA
would stick out like a sore thumb in both the coding and the non
coding portions of human DNA. There is no 'god of the gaps' argument
possible with human DNA, unless you say that some sort of 'energy'
or other epigenetic influence is riding in human DNA.

Now that is certainly possible .. (a mystical sort might say the chance
is high; a pure reductionist would say the chance was zero or near
zero)

But as far as actual DNA goes, enough samples have been taken from
human populations all over the world, that the most minor differences
can be tracked back over time.. such that I know for example, that
8% of my Lakota Sioux brethren have genes that originated in
Mongolia thousands of years ago.

Any genes that code for reptile shapeshifting or whatever would show
up like a fluorescent 747 flying through the genome. I'd imagine that
such individuals would do everything in their power not to be tested,
should they in fact exist.

KPB

reply to post by undo


The story of Noah's Ark was stolen from The Epic of Gilgamesh, why not start by looking at the original story of the flood.

Also The 10 Commands were taken from egyptian boom of dead principles of Ma'at

KellyPrettyBear
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

Any 'reptilian' or 'seed of cain' or 'sky god' or 'insert theory here' DNA
would stick out like a sore thumb in both the coding and the non
coding portions of human DNA. There is no 'god of the gaps' argument
possible with human DNA, unless you say that some sort of 'energy'
or other epigenetic influence is riding in human DNA.

Now that is certainly possible .. (a mystical sort might say the chance
is high; a pure reductionist would say the chance was zero or near
zero)

But as far as actual DNA goes, enough samples have been taken from
human populations all over the world, that the most minor differences
can be tracked back over time.. such that I know for example, that
8% of my Lakota Sioux brethren have genes that originated in
Mongolia thousands of years ago.

Any genes that code for reptile shapeshifting or whatever would show
up like a fluorescent 747 flying through the genome. I'd imagine that
such individuals would do everything in their power not to be tested,
should they in fact exist.

KPB

Preaching to the choir.

The only DNA I gave reference to was Modern Human, Neanderthal, and Denisova; all of which are quite well documented in the hominid record.

Adam and Eve creationists have this idealized mythology of a human created by some super power god.

In questioning this, IF there was any such creator type (which there's no sign of), then the very data you refer to in tracing back to Mongolia, the data that's also given us decent detail in confirming that everyone, with exception of a small minority of racially pure subSaharan Africans that never left Africa and have never mixed with any anyone that has, all of, except them, has Neanderthal DNA, and this mixture would indicate either a flawed creator, or no creator at all.

Such all ocurred around 40,000 years ago when Africans started migrating out of North-East Africa, and encountered the few Neanderthals extent there.
At some point during contact, over the course of some 10,000 years of human migration and expansion into Neanderthal occupied territories in Europe, We have Neanderthals interbreeding with Humans, enough so that everyone (except that tiny minority still in Africa) now has anywhere from 2% - 4% Neanderthal DNA as part of their heritage.
Now, I also mentioned Denisovan, where during Eastern Migration we pick up some extra mixture with them, but, this isn't as universal as Neanderthal, and is primarily found in Polynesian, Asian, and Eastern Aboriginal peoples, including Australian and PNG aboriginals.

If there were some magical creator being, would they not create a pure-blooded 'man' in their image?
or would this indicate these/this creator(s) were part Neanderthal too, like the rest of us, further supporting a flawed, imperfect, contaminated creator?

The only other argument for a creator/created relation where there IS uncontaminated pure Homo-Sapiens DNA is where we have our Sub-Saharan Africans, which then, makes the rest of us, who've been mixed up with the biblical equivalent of 'beasts of the fields' (Neanderthal), it would make us Abominations, but would also at the same time discount a creator/created relationship due our ability to trace Sub-Saharan ancestry back to Homo Erectus, as well as the fact that the Sub-Saharans never really amounted to much civilizationally which would indict this imaginary god as a failure.



Fun stuff.
All in all, there was no creator. There is no god, at least no more or less than any other superstition or mythology that's been invented since the dawn of history.
DNA supports human origins and human migrations along with comingling with other hominids not too far distantly related such that successful offspring resulted that could in turn make progeny their own.

Nowhere do we find Angel DNA, or reptilian DNA, or Giant DNA, or the barest speck of Alien/God DNA.