You seem to have retracted from your original statement. Earlier you implied the dichotomy: either Noah’s Flood was one great global miracle or it didn’t happen at all.
At least that’s the impression I got.
I don’t think we have to resort to those two extreme. Why can’t there be an in-between position so as not to make Noah unnecessarily mythic?
While of course there’s an infinite number of ways one CAN interpret Scripture, I would argue that there are more valid ways than others. For example, I don’t honestly consider my particular interpretation of Adam and Noah being “covental fathers” as all that liberal of an interpretation.
We have pretty good assurance that there’s other people in existence, outside of Adam’s clan, based on Genesis 4, if you read Scripture using the Narrative Approach. The only other option would be to consider Genesis 2-3 and Genesis 4 as being separate traditions that were never meant to be stuck together <<< and I wager the latter option is much less appealing to the conservative type.
The similarities between Adam and Noah are pretty striking if you take the time to examine it. Adam was given the first commandment, which was an either-or/conditional statement. He’s considered a Covental Father by some, even though word “covenant” isn’t explicitly used, that’s basically what that statement is saying. Next, after his transgression, God says “Cursed be the ground for thy sake.” With Noah the world gets “re-constructed” back to the state it was in Genesis 1:2, where waters were covering the earth. After the Flood, a wind comes to reveal the dry ground, so that new life can begin. In the Creation the “spirit of God” is brooding over the surface of the waters, which is the same word for “wind”. Shortly afterwards the waters get gathered into one place, the dry ground appears, so that vegation and life can spring forth. Gods seventh day is a Day of Resf, and Noah’s name literally means “Rest” — which is talking about order and stability, not relaxation. Noah and the Flood is essentially bringing order back into the world — which at that time it was the known world of Mesopotamia, of which people that were under the covenant, and were tranagressors. Next God establishes a covenant with Noah (same with Adam), and the he says, “No more shall I curse the ground for man’s sake, for man is wicked from his youth.” … See how it changed from God dealing our curses to Adam and his progeny based on sinful behavior? Well God is evidently trying next tactics with Noah.
The message of the Cursed-Ground is much more theological than scientific. Gods statement to Noah is telling you WHY, through subtlety, God implemented curses in the firs place … To get man back on the right track. But it didn’t work because the world dwindled into violence nonetheless, and the curses were only external causes. It didn’t get at the heart.
The story of what REALLY [might have] happened in Sumer is best told in this book:
Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic: Sumerian Origins of the Flood Myth Written by Robert M. Best
Noah’s Ark is the Hebrew co-opting of the originally Sumerian story … and is completely devoid of historically correct history - - with one exception: It does sometimes rain, and floods do happen.
I’ll check out the article … But this is what you wrote. One giant miracle after another … No less.
While I do certainly agree that it is indeed miraculous. Under the “whole heavens” I interpret as just meaning all the water one can see in every direction … The human eye, I’ve been told, can only see about three miles in a straight line, before the curvature of the earth impairs your vision… So yes, it would definitely be a big flood, but not a contintinent-moving, global catastrophe flood.
Do you agree or disagree that Noah was a real person, that perhaps, God actually spoke too?
I’ll have to read the article, of course, to get a more well rounded opinion, and see whether or not the arguments are valid.
Right… or it is a complex web of complete fiction.
There is no way to have a partial story of Noah’s Flood. Noah can’t simply run his ark up to some mountain side village and say he has saved all humanity from extinction.
The story makes no partial sense.
It has God’s miracles running through it everywhere.
And that is the way of fiction borrowed from other culture’s fiction.
Noah, pronounced No-Ak … in Semitic is actually just NK … which could very easily have been derived from the Sumerian name (e)N-K(i). There’s a verse in the bible that use’s the term “Noah’s Waters”. This makes no sense.
But if the phrase was originally Enki’s Waters … then it starts to tie together…
George
P.S. Best’s writing is actually a BOOK … not an article. But it is very well thought out.
Genesis wasn’t written in English. And even in 1611 English, the word “earth” was much more likely to be understood by the first KJV readers to mean “opposite of sky” (much like the ancient Hebrews) with virtually no thought of “planet earth”.
Indeed, it was not until I became more fluent in Biblical Hebrew that I realized that there was no “global flood” in Genesis. The ERETZ (“land”, “country”, “region”) was flooded, not “planet earth”. That also explains why we find zero evidence of a recent global flood today. (When God’s creation doesn’t fit my interpretation of God’s scriptures, I question whether I’m interpreting those scriptures properly.)
Also, many miss the fact that HA’ADAM (“the human one” from the HA’ADAMAH) was not described as “the first Homo sapiens sapiens” but rather the first Image of God creature. He was the first of that “capability” to have a special relationship with God, even while various other “humanoid” contemporaries are mentioned in Genesis, such as the Nephilim and the tribe where Cain found a wife and built a city with/for. (And why would Cain need a mark to protect him if only his immediate family existed???)
It’s also worth mentioning that the 2Peter comparison of the future judgment by fire versus Noah’s flood shows a very careful word-choice in Greek that verifies the regional scope of the flood in apply to Noah’s ERETZ and the Imago Dei descendents of HA’ADAM.
I’ve yet to hear any “creation science” advocate for a global flood provide an explanation for why God would somehow have erased all of the evidence for such a recent global flood…and fill this planet with abundant evidence for many millions of years of history that never happened.
You see, I refuse to the believe that the God of the Bible is a deceiver who plants deceptive evidence. That’s not the God I know. He’s not a liar and deceiver.
Also, if humanity is defined as those under the law of God that was given to Adam, then in Genesis 6, he could simply be referring to “the imagination of man was only evil continually and violence was through out the earth” as simply meaning men who were capable of perceiving right from wrong, under God’s covenantal relationship, as being wiped out. It has to do with the “homo divinus” viewpoint of what makes a man a man. Remember that in the antebellum era of the Civil War certain people were not perceived as being “really human”, and people even argued from a so-called biblical viewpoint. So we have to discuss what a man would be considered to be in the Bible.
Like I said earlier if Adam is NOT the biological father of everyone, and really just the Archetype of Covenant father of humanity … Then it stands to reason that Noah, who is portrayed as the New Adam, would also not have to be the biological father of all humanity either… But only the representative, archetype, or covenantal father … Etc., which is the focus of the narrative.
Why does it bother you to think of Noah in this fashion, and yet it doesn’t blow your mind that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was applicable to ALL humanity, from every region. Inuits, aborigines, Chinese etc.,? Does it seem far fetched to you, considering that Jesus is called, by Paul, as the “Second Adam”… Even though Paul is not suggesting that Jesus is literally the second person to have ever lived? The comparison actually makes more sense to me that Adam would be living around with other people in his day, since that’s exactly what Jesus was born into… A world already populated with people.
I would not call Noah a mythic figure lightly, and consider the ramifications of doing so.
Well stated! So why is it so hard to convince YEC Evangelicals of this?
As for “global” vs. “regional” in the completely separate story module of the flood - - since the writers of Genesis didn’t even KNOW the earth was a GLOBE … it wouldn’t have entered his mind to offer the clarification.
If the story had not meant THE WHOLE OF HUMANITY’S EARTH - - he wouldn’t have needed a breeding population of “all the animals” on the ark … and it wouldn’t have taken the bulk of a year (almost a year?) for dry land to return.
@Beaglelady
Hi Beaglelady. The problem with those so-called experts is that they generally have only a superficial knowledge of their own field.
A few simple examples: geologists don’t know where and how liquid lava is formed and they don’t know why and how liquid material can float on gas. Yes, liquid material can float on gas! And I doubt that you are able to believe that.
But the explanation is very simple: if two different materials do not dissolve in each other and do not mix, like vegetable oil and water, then the lightest material will float on the heavier material. The oil will float on water. As you know very well.
Limestone has a weight of some 2,500 kilogram per cubicle meter. If you want to let a piece of limestone float on air, then it is sufficient to compress the air to a pressure of 2,000 bar. Then the air has a weight of 2,800 kilogram per cubicle meter and then the air is heavier than limestone and then limestone will float on that air.
Another example: our Earth has a magnetic field and many scientists are convinced that it is caused by the solid central core. However planet Venus has also a solid central core and has no magnetic field. That means that the solid central core is not the cause of the magnetic field and geologists have no idea what the real cause of the magnetic field is.
Greetings, Jan
I hate to barge in on someone else’s conversation. But how could someone know what the core of Venus would be like? We’ve never even been to Venus except take pictures of it from satellite… Didn’t the moon get theorized as having an ice core in it?
All I can offer is my opinion. Aspects of the story seem more theological or symbolic in places … For instance, there is seven pairs or clean animals and only one pair of the unclean animals … Was this simply for the purpose of repopulation? Or does it have to do with the number 7 … And why the distinction between clean an unclean in the first place, when the differences between the two groups of animals aren’t even described until you get to Exodus?
Part of the reason is because Moses (or whoever the author is) was speaking to ancient culture, and didn’t need to put footnotes in the text, to make sure a group thousands of years later would perfectly understand it.
As far as the breeding population I’m not positive … But again it doesn’t seem lions and tigers were on the ark but mainly livestock.
Here’s a good short video by John Walton.
What do you think about it? He puts it in a ladder format ---- first literarily, then theologically, then historically. Notice that he puts the literary and theology ABOVE the history aspects, but doesn’t discount that there’s actual history behind it.
Maybe the ark wasn’t that huge; maybe the animals were mostly just livestock; maybe there were other people and everything that got destroyed was the people that were apart of the covenantal relationship and the known world of Noah. These are things we can discuss and realize that there may be some leeway … But saying that there wasn’t actually a judgmental flood that took place is a little bit contrary to what Peter says in his epistle … As well as what Jesus says about future judgement.
I would tread carefully in saying that the entire account is completely false.
I think Exodus is on even shaker historical grounds that the global flood story. No historical evidence in Egypt of the Israelites even being there. And Egyptian history is pretty solid stuff.
“Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic: Sumerian Origins of the Myth is a book that takes a fresh look at six versions of the Ancient Near East flood myth, demythologizes them, and combines the various story elements like pieces of a jigsaw picture puzzle into one coherent story. There actually was an archaeologically confirmed flood about 2900 BC on which the ark stories were based, but it was a local river flood, not a global deluge. The original ark stories were about a small commercial river barge that was hauling a few hundred cattle, sheep, and goats, but there were no kangaroos, lions, apes, elephants, or giraffes on that cattle barge.”
This actually sounds a lot like what I was talking about earlier … Carol Hill has written some articles about this and mentions such things as Ziusudra being another name for Noah … As well as the local flood, and as far as I know, the river barge carrying hundreds of livestock animals. What has that to do with “complete fiction” though? It sounds like elements of it are definitely rooted in history … A story can be heavily embellished to teach a theological message, but I don’t think that calls for calling the story in question non-historical.
The descriptions of the ark are pretty sparse in my opinion. I don’t think the sea-worthiness of the boat was the focus of the story though. In any case, the purpose was to stay afloat, no go sailing. And it it was a tepid flood, it could survive for longer.
As far as the Exodus goes, I really don’t gather that a story that begins “we were slaves” as something you would just make up. Elements could be exaggerated or embellished in the telling … But that doesn’t make the whole account false. Also I really wouldn’t expect the Egyptians to record history in stone that was embarrassing for them … What would be the purpose? American History Class don’t teach kids about the Banana Wars (yes it’s a real thing) because it makes America look bad.
This is a description for inspiring the original Sumerian version of the story. The story takes on a life of its own … as the story gets re-engineered… and amplified.
This is like seeing a trailer for a movie “Inspired by a True Story”.
By the time we get to the story of Noah, there is virtually nothing to point at that is historical…
The version in Genesis can only be true if a half a dozen or more miracles didn’t actually happen.
It was more of a covered barge which couldn’t survive anything like a flood described in the Bible. Impossible for a 500 ft wooden boat to not be broken apart. Unless divine intervention keep it safe (more miracles)
I’m not positive numbers are used in quite the same fashion as we would today.
It rained for 40 days during Noah’s Flood… But the mourning of Jacob also lasted 40 days … And the Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness … And Jonah gave the people of Ninevah a 40 day warning … And Jesus spent 40 days being tempted in the wilderness…
I’m not sure how one is supposed to take number 40, considering how frequently it pops up.
The flood lasted a year … But then afterwards in chapter 8 it makes an issue about the seasons, “while the earth remains, seed time and harvest, summer and winter, cold and heat, and day and night shall not pass.” …
There are dimensions given to the boat … In the dimensions of a Golden Rectangle, which is in accordance with Phi. Was it emphasizing carrying compactly or numerology?
@gbrooks9 <<< I’ll have to read that book one of these days. It’s a rather fascinating topic.
Why would you be bothered by this? While the what the bible says can be taken to be true. that does not mean that it must include every physical detail that ever happened. Are you just as bothered that the people of china and indonesia and australia are not mentioned in the bible? I mean your botherment is confusing to me. If the eruption of mt vesuvius is not mentioned in the bible, does that bother you? Does that mean that it cannot be true? Again, your botherment is confusing to me.
While I don’t have an immediate response to “Nephilim”, I think your other concerns about Cain’s wife, and a mark to protect him from his family are easily explained. Cain married one of his sisters, and the mark would protect him and his descendants from revenge. If Cain could kill his brother, do you think that other relatives could not kill Cain? In fact, Cain leaving for another area was probably partly to escape this potential revenge factor.
Whether they knew it was a globe or not, is not relevant. They certainly knew what was local, and what was “covering the earth” as far as they could see or walk or had heard of. Since a local flood of the proportions described in the bible, is a geological impossibility, and since the flood is not described as “local”, since they could not walk away from the flood in the course of a hundred years, and since the highest mountains were covered, and since they needed to rescue all the animals, including birds, who otherwise would be able to run, walk, fly, or swim out of danger, certainly it was not a local flood.
I agree with old timer that God would not have deceived us by telling us the flood covered the whole earth when it didn’t.
I also agree that there is generally lots of evidence for a flood, in that fossils were mostly laid down by water born sediment, that they were generally sorted in various ways, and yet mixed up enough to indicate general turbulence. That fossils of sea-living creatures are found on the highest and most remote places on earth. That tropical trees (both fossils and frozen) are found in the high artic. That animals tended to be much larger in the past, such as giant camels, dragonflies, reeds, dinosaurs, bison. That almost all sediment found on earth is water laid sediment. That a very large amount of sediment is laid relatively flat without significant erosion within the layers, which the present day dramatic erosion reveals, since the present day erosion does not follow ancient erosion channels, but rather simply carves through the horizontal layers of previous sedimentation. Of course, there is more evidence, but this is a start.