Convincing evidence of a Global Deluge...

[Romber]

...just look to all the past cultures. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. They all have a global flood story. Many of these are even separated by an ocean, yet their story is eerily similar. Just a coincendence? What if multiple cultures separated by an ocean had the same story?

Most opponents of a Global flood will just say the stories are there to explain the flooding in the regions as early civilization did settle near abundant water sources. But this is a lack-luster attempt to deny the apparent similarities between all the stories.

This is not typical evidence people expect. They often expect some sort of geological or archaeological evidence to prove anything in the past, but the greatest evidence is in the cultures of the past! If you don't believe me, take a look at these two links.

The similarities between the flood stories

Summary of all Flood stories in the world (never thought I would ever use Talk origins for a reference.)

[BrckBrln]

This is, I think, a weak argument for a global flood. What I mean by global is a flood that covered every inch of the earth. It is, however, a pretty good argument for a universal flood. A flood that did indeed kill every human save the ones on the Ark. And starting from here the story of the flood starts to get distorted and this accounts for the dissimilarities.

[Itinerant Lurker]

...just look to all the past cultures. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. They all have a global flood story. Many of these are even separated by an ocean, yet their story is eerily similar. Just a coincendence? What if multiple cultures separated by an ocean had the same story?

Most opponents of a Global flood will just say the stories are there to explain the flooding in the regions as early civilization did settle near abundant water sources. But this is a lack-luster attempt to deny the apparent similarities between all the stories.

If the Genesis account of a global flood is 100% correct then all those stories are wrong right? There are any number of explanations that are consistent with observable evidence such as geology. Should we then conclude that werewolfves are real because of the plethora of cultural traditions in which humans transform into animals? Does African animism's remarkably similar traditions lend it credibility as well?

The publication of The First Fossil Hunters by Adrienne Mayor, followed by Fossil Legends of the First Americans, have caused the hypothesis that flood stories have been inspired by ancient observations of fossil seashells and fish inland and on mountains to gain ground. Though the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, and Chinese all commented in ancient writings about seashells and/or impressions of fish that they found inland and/or in the mountains, it was no less than Leonardo da Vinci who postulated that an immediate deluge could not have caused the layered and neatly ordered strata he found in the Italian Apennines. The Greeks hypothesized that the earth had been covered by water several times, and noted the seashells and fish fossils that they found on mountain tops as the evidence for this belief. Native Americans also expressed this belief to early Europeans, though they had not written these ideas down previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)#Hypotheses_of_origin_of_flood_m yths

This is not typical evidence people expect. They often expect some sort of geological or archaeological evidence to prove anything in the past, but the greatest evidence is in the cultures of the past! If you don't believe me, take a look at these two links.

People often expect some sort of geological or archaeological evidence because that's solid evidence. And global flood proponents have to resort to these kinds of evidence because there geological and archaeological evidence point in the opposite direction.

[Gulah Papyrus]

I see the usual suspects are back at it!

[Romber]

This is, I think, a weak argument for a global flood. What I mean by global is a flood that covered every inch of the earth. It is, however, a pretty good argument for a universal flood. A flood that did indeed kill every human save the ones on the Ark. And starting from here the story of the flood starts to get distorted and this accounts for the dissimilarities.

How do you come to the conclusion that it is a weak argument for global flood, but not a universal one. Remember a global flood would inherently mean it is universal.

If the Genesis account of a global flood is 100% correct then all those stories are wrong right? There are any number of explanations that are consistent with observable evidence such as geology.

This is simple. As both of us accept the Bible as absolute truth, then all the other stories are a distortion of what originally happened. This is pretty good evidence of what happens when a story is passed down through history. However, even though each story has it's own polytheistic pagan beliefs thrown in, it has the same core story.

"Once there was a worldwide flood, sent by God to judge the wickedness of man. But there was one righteous family which was forewarned of the coming flood. They built a boat on which they survived the flood along with the animals. As the flood ended, their boat landed on a high mountain from which they descended and repopulated the whole earth."

Should we then conclude that werewolfves are real because of the plethora of cultural traditions in which humans transform into animals? Does African animism's remarkably similar traditions lend it credibility as well?

You make a good point here. I think this alone would debunk my whole argument if I wasn't using the bible, an absolute truth, to begin my investigation. I am sure the many stories out there on human transformation have very different stories within them, and no singular similarity would be present. Human transformation is not mentioned in the bible (and I'm pretty sure it would be a sin for something), so we must rely on our observations. We have never seen a human change into something else. We can sufficiently say these stories are not correct just because there are multiple, different myths on the same subject.

And global flood proponents have to resort to these kinds of evidence because there geological and archaeological evidence point in the opposite direction.

I didn't have to 'resort' to this as evidence because I am desperate to prove my point. It is actually quite the contrary. I posted this because I think it is unique evidence of a global flood and wanted to discuss it-not because I have no other facet of proof

[Romber]

I see the usual suspects are back at it!

Oh come on Gulah It is interesting topic at least, you have to admit.

[BrckBrln]

How do you come to the conclusion that it is a weak argument for global flood, but not a universal one. Remember a global flood would inherently mean it is universal.

What I mean is that it only gives good evidence for a universal flood. It can't be used to prove that the entire earth was covered with water.

[Gulah Papyrus]

Oh come on Gulah It is interesting topic at least, you have to admit.

Hey, I didn't say i wouldn't be watching the thread.

Unstoppable Force(Rombar) vs. The Unmovable Objects(IL & BB)...what's not to like?

BTW, I'm with you on this one as well. It's along the same lines as a thread I started last week about almost all ancient cultures all having the same zodialogical signs for the same constellations...

Anyway...

[Itinerant Lurker]

You make a good point here. I think this alone would debunk my whole argument if I wasn't using the bible, an absolute truth, to begin my investigation.

It's an interesting possibility, but with no accompanying evidence in geology or the fossil record it remains a conjecture with it's only real strength being that you already believe in it.

I didn't have to 'resort' to this as evidence because I am desperate to prove my point. It is actually quite the contrary. I posted this because I think it is unique evidence of a global flood and wanted to discuss it-not because I have no other facet of proof

Floods are not a limited phenomena, just about all geographic locales that lend themselves to giving rise to agricultural societies which lead to advanced civilizations experience and, indeed, depend on regular periods of flooding. It is then, not terribly surprising to find all these cultures with stories about floods. Additionally, the noted findings of fossilized marine creatures inland by ancient peoples could have contributed to this and encouraged flood myths.

The way I see it at best you've got an interesting coincidence. If this coincidence was supported by physical evidence you'd have something. Unfortunately that's not the case. Cultural stories will not wish away the geological column or the fossil record, no matter how intriguing their similarities.

[shepherdsword]

Should we then conclude that werewolfves are real because of the plethora of cultural traditions in which humans transform into animals? Does African animism's remarkably similar traditions lend it credibility as well?

We have a similar myth being taught in our schools right now. Only they say it's the animals that got transformed into humans. It's called evolution

[Romber]

What I mean is that it only gives good evidence for a universal flood. It can't be used to prove that the entire earth was covered with water.

Where are you taking the evidence from though? Is it from the similarities of the stories?

Unstoppable Force(Rombar) vs. The Unmovable Objects(IL & BB)...what's not to like?

Hey, that's a match I wouldn't dare to miss!

Floods are not a limited phenomena,

But global floods are. In fact the global flood is a unique event in history.

Cultural stories will not wish away the geological column or the fossil record, no matter how intriguing their similarities.

The stories are passed down eye-witness accounts. They were there. They saw the flood happen. They know exactly how everything happened. Scientists now do not have such opportunities. It's not only one written account, it is many. In fact over 200. Combine this with an evolutionary bias and you begin to see how the evidence is being filtered through the bias to produce answers science 'must' see.

We have a similar myth being taught in our schools right now. Only they say it's the animals that got transformed into humans. It's called evolution

Haha, very good point!

[Itinerant Lurker]

The stories are passed down eye-witness accounts. They were there. They saw the flood happen. They know exactly how everything happened. Scientists now do not have such opportunities. It's not only one written account, it is many. In fact over 200. Combine this with an evolutionary bias and you begin to see how the evidence is being filtered through the bias to produce answers science 'must' see.

The evidence is not being filtered, at least not on the scale you imply. Stories do pass down from eye-witness accounts, but I don't think you can make this one pseudo-tradition is directly descended from a biblical global deluge. Like I said it's interesting, but I think it has much more plausible explanations that are consistent with scientific understanding about the history of the world.

Finally, while this is a possible argument between old and young earth Christians it becomes entirely moot if it is used as an example of biblical reliability to non-Christians because it is circular. The Bible is reliable because many cultural traditions retell the flood story, the flood stories of many cultural traditions are reliable because they are based on the Bible. You can see how this would be a problematic argument to make.

Either way, to me it's a non-starter. If this is the best evidence for a global flood then you've got serious problems with a global flood theory. Even if multiple cultures had word for word traditions of a single event, if geology and paleontology didn't agree it would be called into question, and rightly so.

[Romber]

Finally, while this is a possible argument between old and young earth Christians it becomes entirely moot if it is used as an example of biblical reliability to non-Christians because it is circular. The Bible is reliable because many cultural traditions retell the flood story, the flood stories of many cultural traditions are reliable because they are based on the Bible. You can see how this would be a problematic argument to make.

How can anyone ever prove to anything without a little circular reasoning? If the bible is our ultimate authority, then nothing can supersede it. You cannot hope to prove anything in the bible without a bit of circular reasoning.

Either way, to me it's a non-starter. If this is the best evidence for a global flood then you've got serious problems with a global flood theory. Even if multiple cultures had word for word traditions of a single event, if geology and paleontology didn't agree it would be called into question, and rightly so.

It's not the best, don't worry Just the most interesting.

[crawfish]

I would agree that the plethora of accounts is evidence of a major flood at a significant point in human history, and a man who survived it. I wouldn't say it had to be a global flood; the perspective of the people of the time would have been much smaller, and "the entire earth" could have indicated only those parts of the world familiar to them.

[fishbowlsoul]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulah Papyrus
Unstoppable Force(Rombar) vs. The Unmovable Objects(IL & BB)...what's not to like?

Hey, that's a match I wouldn't dare to miss!

Can I sell the tickets?


Pulling out my trusty dusty Strong's concordance. The Hebrew word for land used in the Noah narrative is 'erets which can mean the whole earth or a local area. The word 'erets is used for both throughout the OT.

A flood story is not unusual or rare. Floods are a relatively common natural event. This past week there were floods in Washington state and in Fiji. For those people their whole world was flooded.