PDA

View Full Version : Date of Noah's Flood?



WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:23 PM
Some say Noah's Flood was somewhere around 2300-2350 BC
Others say it was somewhere between 2400-2500 BC
Still others say it was around 4000 BC
Archeologists say there was no universal Flood, but some evidence of large local floods.

What is the evidence, archeological or otherwise, that would confirm a Flood and any of these dates?

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:27 PM
Bible says it was real wet.

Don't really care when it was. Sometime after Adam, sometime before Abe.

The date is immaterial

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 02:57 PM
The date is immaterial

Well, it is material, since a lot of material was sunk.

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:03 PM
Well, it is material, since a lot of material was sunk.

Washed, not sunk!

:)

"Out came the sun and dried up all the rain, and the itsy bitsy spider...."

:D

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:08 PM
"Out came the sun and dried up all the rain, and the itsy bitsy spider...."

:D

Oh no not this again.

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:10 PM
Oh no not this again.

It's a theme in the Bible. When you are a spider, you see drainspouts and rain everywhere.

:D

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:16 PM
Spiders in the bible:

Job 8:14 What he trusts in is fragile; what he relies on is a spider's web.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:20 PM
Hijack Alert! Hijack Alert! Hijack Alert!

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:23 PM
Hijack Alert! Hijack Alert! Hijack Alert!

http://politicalintegritynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/hijack4.gif

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:38 PM
There is no archeological evidence to suggest a universal wipe out of human kind. That is, the archeological record shows nothing of a large scale catastrophe....only stories of one!

Maybe this will spark discussion?

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:40 PM
Maybe this will spark discussion?
Too late, I hijacked your thread already. Just go along and no one will get hurt.

Slug1
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:48 PM
There is no archeological evidence to suggest a universal wipe out of human kind. That is, the archeological record shows nothing of a large scale catastrophe....only stories of one!

Maybe this will spark discussion?Ya know... if buildings were made of steal and concrete back then instead of just mud, piled stone in the mud and/or wood... just maybe, there would be evidence to your satisfaction. Instead, we have the Word of God and we either believe it and faithfully trust it, or not.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:53 PM
Ya know... if buildings were made of steal and concrete back then instead of just mud, piled stone in the mud and/or wood... just maybe, there would be evidence to your satisfaction. Instead, we have the Word of God and we either believe it and faithfully trust it, or not.

I believe it, I trust it. But there is no evidence of a universal wipe out of human kind in the 24th Century BC. You either believe the evidence or not.

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 03:56 PM
This assumes that a universal flood of the magnitude of the Noahic Flood acts in a similar way as localized periodic flooding, which is quite an assumption. It also assumes the absence of the "opening up of the fountains of the deep," which is quite an assumption. It also assumes that the Noahic Flood was not the cause of vast tectonic shifting, which is also quite an assumption.

Comparing post-local flooding sedimentary patters to a Noahic Flood is like comparing post-campfire soot and ash patterns to the results of a nuclear explosion. Not same-same.

moonglow
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:01 PM
I believe it, I trust it. But there is no evidence of a universal wipe out of human kind in the 24th Century BC. You either believe the evidence or not.

Or you believe the bible or not...er?

The thing the bible has many things in it that people didn't believe happened..until later when the evidence was discovered. And more and move evident everyday for the bible is being discovered through historical and archeological evidence. So do you decide to wait for this evident or believe the Word of God is true anyway?

God bless

BrckBrln
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:02 PM
Archeologists say there was no universal Flood, but some evidence of large local floods.

I agree with this. It just seems that if there was an actual global flood there would be some massive evidence. Plus, you have the similarities with other ANE flood stories.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:08 PM
This assumes that a universal flood of the magnitude of the Noahic Flood acts in a similar way as localized periodic flooding, which is quite an assumption. It also assumes the absence of the "opening up of the fountains of the deep," which is quite an assumption. It also assumes that the Noahic Flood was not the cause of vast tectonic shifting, which is also quite an assumption.

Comparing post-local flooding sedimentary patters to a Noahic Flood is like comparing post-campfire soot and ash patterns to the results of a nuclear explosion. Not same-same.

Well, the same folks who argue for a universal flood will also speak of large silt deposits left by that Flood. Did such silt deposits escape being laid down at the lowest point on planet earth? Jericho and the Dead Sea Valley are the lowest sub sea level points on the earth. If silt deposits are the result of a cataclysmic Flood, we should expect Jericho to be buried deep in dirt. It isn't.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:09 PM
I agree with this. It just seems that if there was an actual global flood there would be some massive evidence. Plus, you have the similarities with other ANE flood stories.

Agreed! My sediments exactly! LOL!

moonglow
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:10 PM
Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
Part I: An Overview
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one)

This is the beginning of a series of articles explaining the evidences from geology for the Genesis Flood. Each article will discuss one evidence. This first article simply overviews all the evidences discussed in upcoming issues.

Have you ever been tongue-tied when asked to provide geologic evidence that the Genesis Flood really did occur, just as the Bible describes? Then what follows is for you.


This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow, each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. Together, they will provide you with ammunition and a teaching tool for you and others.

Why is it that many people, including many Christians, can’t see the geologic evidence for the Genesis Flood? It is usually because they have bought into the evolutionary idea that “the present is the key to the past.” They are convinced that, because today’s geological processes are so slow, the rock strata and the earth’s rock layers took millions of years to form.

However, if the Genesis Flood really occurred, what evidence would we look for? We read in Genesis 7 and 8 that “the fountains of the great deep” were broken up and poured out water from inside the earth for 150 days (5 months). Plus it rained torrentially and globally for 40 days and nights (“the floodgates [or windows of heaven] were opened”). No wonder all the high hills and the mountains were covered, meaning the earth was covered by a global ocean (“the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished,” 2 Peter 3:6). All air-breathing life on the land was swept away and perished.

So what evidence would we look for? Wouldn’t we expect to find billions of dead plants and animals buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime that were deposited rapidly by water in rock layers all over the earth? Of course! That’s exactly what we find. Indeed, based on the description of the Flood in Genesis 7–8, there are six main geologic evidences that testify to the Genesis Flood.*

Read the rest at the link and follow the titles links given on that page.

God bless

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:10 PM
It isn't likely we will find any evidence of a universal Flood anywhere between 9,000 BC to the present. There is just too much of an unbroken chain of remains...remains from human civilization between then and now. If there was a universal Flood, it must predate 9,000 BC.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:13 PM
[B]Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
Part I: An Overview
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one)

I'm not talking about geological. I make the claim that there is NO archeological evidence of a universal Flood.

moonglow
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:30 PM
I'm not talking about geological. I make the claim that there is NO archeological evidence of a universal Flood.

So because the evidence isn't in the category you want it in..you reject it? Why?

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:31 PM
Well, the same folks who argue for a universal flood will also speak of large silt deposits left by that Flood. Did such silt deposits escape being laid down at the lowest point on planet earth? Jericho and the Dead Sea Valley are the lowest sub sea level points on the earth. If silt deposits are the result of a cataclysmic Flood, we should expect Jericho to be buried deep in dirt. It isn't.

Why would you expect that? That assumes the absence of water currents and silt settling at a universal rate. Another huge assumption.

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:32 PM
I'm not talking about geological. I make the claim that there is NO archeological evidence of a universal Flood.

Duh....if the flood destroyed all the buildings, then you wouldn't have any. Dirt block wouldn't stand up too well, and the wood tended to float.

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:33 PM
It isn't likely we will find any evidence of a universal Flood anywhere between 9,000 BC to the present. There is just too much of an unbroken chain of remains...remains from human civilization between then and now. If there was a universal Flood, it must predate 9,000 BC.

Assuming that the 9000 BC date is correct, then I would agree.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:39 PM
So because the evidence isn't in the category you want it in..you reject it? Why?

Simple!

Some say the Grand Canyon is the result of the Flood of Noah. But if somebody came forward and said that a giant flood hit North America, wiping out all its inhabitants in the middle of the 18th Century AD, I would say, "NO WAY." If the person pointed to the Grand Canyon as evidence of this flood, I would simply counter, "Well, the Grand Canyon may be evidence of a giant flood, but there's no way such a flood occurred in the 18th Century AD. Why?...because we have a whole unbroken chain of human history on the continent during that time period. There is NO corroborating human evidence of such a flood wiping out North America in the 18th Century, even if there might be geological evidence of a flood forming the Grand Canyon."

And there is no corroborating evidence of a universal Flood wiping out all human beings anywhere along the "9,000 BC - Present" timeline. None!

So when was the Flood then?

moonglow
Feb 3rd 2011, 04:58 PM
Simple!

Some say the Grand Canyon is the result of the Flood of Noah. But if somebody came forward and said that a giant flood hit North America, wiping out all its inhabitants in the middle of the 18th Century AD, I would say, "NO WAY." If the person pointed to the Grand Canyon as evidence of this flood, I would simply counter, "Well, the Grand Canyon may be evidence of a giant flood, but there's no way such a flood occurred in the 18th Century AD. Why?...because we have a whole unbroken chain of human history on the continent during that time period. There is NO corroborating human evidence of such a flood wiping out North America in the 18th Century, even if there might be geological evidence of a flood forming the Grand Canyon."

And there is no corroborating evidence of a universal Flood wiping out all human beings anywhere along the "9,000 BC - Present" timeline. None!

So when was the Flood then?

I think you keep forgetting about Noah and his family..they were wiped out.

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:11 PM
Simple!

Some say the Grand Canyon is the result of the Flood of Noah. But if somebody came forward and said that a giant flood hit North America, wiping out all its inhabitants in the middle of the 18th Century AD, I would say, "NO WAY." If the person pointed to the Grand Canyon as evidence of this flood, I would simply counter, "Well, the Grand Canyon may be evidence of a giant flood, but there's no way such a flood occurred in the 18th Century AD. Why?...because we have a whole unbroken chain of human history on the continent during that time period. There is NO corroborating human evidence of such a flood wiping out North America in the 18th Century, even if there might be geological evidence of a flood forming the Grand Canyon."

And there is no corroborating evidence of a universal Flood wiping out all human beings anywhere along the "9,000 BC - Present" timeline. None!

So when was the Flood then?

1. Who cares?
2. What does it matter?

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:21 PM
1. Who cares?
2. What does it matter?

Well it matters when certain ones in the church end up making claims that put egg on the church's face, even building a so called science from their interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2.

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:34 PM
Well it matters when certain ones in the church end up making claims that put egg on the church's face, even building a so called science from their interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2.

We aren't responsible for what other Christians do. If idiots want to say that science proves that Noah and his family came from Xanadu in an ark made of Galactic Gopherwood, then I don't need evidence of a universal flood in the last 9000 years to prove them wrong.

We don't have to prove the Bible correct. Our task is to demonstrate the love of Christ in such power that the unsaved world says "How do I get what you got?" No one ever got saved because someone "proved" to them the historical accuracy of the first 20 chapters of Genesis, and no one ever was lost because a Christian couldn't prove it to them.

People die and go to hell because we don't give them any reason to think that Christianity is other than all other religions, and it is only the power of the Holy Spirit being evidenced through our lives that does that.

Everything else is vain arguments about speculations that are meaningless.

The text of Genesis is very clear. If people want to argue about whether the Flood story is accurate or whether it was a localized flood like the other ANE stories or Gilgamesh, so what? No one ever went to hell for not believing in the first 6 chapters of Genesis. They go to hell because they don't believe what the New Testament says about the person and work of Christ.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:36 PM
Simple!

Some say the Grand Canyon is the result of the Flood of Noah. But if somebody came forward and said that a giant flood hit North America, wiping out all its inhabitants in the middle of the 18th Century AD, I would say, "NO WAY." If the person pointed to the Grand Canyon as evidence of this flood, I would simply counter, "Well, the Grand Canyon may be evidence of a giant flood, but there's no way such a flood occurred in the 18th Century AD. Why?...because we have a whole unbroken chain of human history on the continent during that time period. There is NO corroborating human evidence of such a flood wiping out North America in the 18th Century, even if there might be geological evidence of a flood forming the Grand Canyon."

And there is no corroborating evidence of a universal Flood wiping out all human beings anywhere along the "9,000 BC - Present" timeline. None!

So when was the Flood then?

I don't see this as a problem, other than pre-conceived truncation of modern human history largely based on whether Biblical geneologies are exhaustive. In the scope of comparison to paleontological models, this is extremely recent history/pre-history.

We're not talking about IF there was a flood, or really even if it was global; we're talking about WHEN in the very near (comparatively) past could/did the Noahic Flood occur. Why must that be dictated by calculation/compilation from passages not intended to comprehensively outline historical timelines.

If someone were to propose an interruption/diversion in the lineage of Jesus, for instance, that would present a problem. Dating pre-Abrahamic history gets a little dicey, to say the least. And I'm not a concordist, either.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:41 PM
We aren't responsible for what other Christians do. If idiots want to say that science proves that Noah and his family came from Xanadu in an ark made of Galactic Gopherwood, then I don't need evidence of a universal flood in the last 9000 years to prove them wrong.

We don't have to prove the Bible correct. Our task is to demonstrate the love of Christ in such power that the unsaved world says "How do I get what you got?" No one ever got saved because someone "proved" to them the historical accuracy of the first 20 chapters of Genesis, and no one ever was lost because a Christian couldn't prove it to them.

People die and go to hell because we don't give them any reason to think that Christianity is other than all other religions, and it is only the power of the Holy Spirit being evidenced through our lives that does that.

Everything else is vain arguments about speculations that are meaningless.

The text of Genesis is very clear. If people want to argue about whether the Flood story is accurate or whether it was a localized flood like the other ANE stories or Gilgamesh, so what? No one ever went to hell for not believing in the first 6 chapters of Genesis. They go to hell because they don't believe what the New Testament says about the person and work of Christ.

If this were Texas Hold 'Em, I'd be "All In" on this post for the whole pot. Reps!!!!

Liquid Tension
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:47 PM
Well, according to God's word, 'all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered' (Gen. 7:19, NIV). That's all the "evidence" I need.

WSGAC
Feb 3rd 2011, 05:51 PM
We aren't responsible for what other Christians do. If idiots want to say that science proves that Noah and his family came from Xanadu in an ark made of Galactic Gopherwood, then I don't need evidence of a universal flood in the last 9000 years to prove them wrong.

We don't have to prove the Bible correct. Our task is to demonstrate the love of Christ in such power that the unsaved world says "How do I get what you got?" No one ever got saved because someone "proved" to them the historical accuracy of the first 20 chapters of Genesis, and no one ever was lost because a Christian couldn't prove it to them.

People die and go to hell because we don't give them any reason to think that Christianity is other than all other religions, and it is only the power of the Holy Spirit being evidenced through our lives that does that.

Everything else is vain arguments about speculations that are meaningless.

The text of Genesis is very clear. If people want to argue about whether the Flood story is accurate or whether it was a localized flood like the other ANE stories or Gilgamesh, so what? No one ever went to hell for not believing in the first 6 chapters of Genesis. They go to hell because they don't believe what the New Testament says about the person and work of Christ.

Very true! But curious minds would like to know. We use the scriptures for a wealth of information. Biblical archeologists us the Hebrew scriptures as a source for their inquiries. Scripture has thus been confirmed by the archeological record, and the scriptures are used to get at the archeological record. It's part of our quest for knowledge. I mean, many will say, "We need to know the historical context of the time to better understand the scriptures....to interpret them more accurately."

So why do we throw out that inquiry and quest for understaning when it comes to the Flood? Instead, we bury our heads in the sand and ask, "Can a person go to hell if he/she doesn't believe in the first 6 chapters of Genesis?" I'd say that's a cop out!

RabbiKnife
Feb 3rd 2011, 06:06 PM
No one is burying their head. No one is saying throw out the inquiry. But if you begin with science to try to prove the Bible, the approach is skewed.

There are many things that we can't prove, yet we believe them. Inquire all you like, but not because some Christian idiot has rocks in his head.

Science starts with just as many presuppositions as religion.