The Flood Myth - The Greatest Evil

[Danmark]

Assuming the myth of the flood as recorded in Genesis is accurate history, it is the greatest single evil act recorded in the history of man. It also is evidence the alleged god who perpetrated this evil makes mistakes, contradicts himself, and is capricious.
Consider that shortly after pronouncing all of his creation "good" he repents and calls the whole thing evil and decides to destroy all of it; man and all the other animals [except, presumably, marine life]. Then he changes his mind again and decides He'll just wipe out everything and everyone except a single family to represent each species.

Why he saved the death stalker scorpion, mosquitoes, the box jellyfish, the black widow spider, the poison dart frog, blue ring octopus, and Clostridium Botulinum is beyond me, except that it puts the lie to the idea he was trying to get rid of evil.

It's obvious the story of the flood is pure mythology, but even then, what is its purpose? To show man how evil and corrupt he'd become? The God of this myth certainly does not set a good example.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to Danmark]

To show that even though GOD is grieved, HE still provides a refuge and even just one (Noah) as a witness to HIM and HIS WORD...

Allowing one in a million to enter the sanctuary hardly qualifies god's plan as a 'refuge.'

It is for that one...Although I think there are a few more than one in a million...and then there are the uncountable holy angels in heaven who never sinned that will be with us in heaven.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 955 by mitty]

[row color=black] [color=gainsboro]Please elaborate. I'm not sure I recall Noah's family being all that was there to drown in the way of humans. Unless you're meaning it in the, "father Abraham, how many sons, (how many sons) how many sons had father Abraham. I am one of them, and so are you..." Kind of way. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:56[/b] [/color]

According to the Genesis myths there were only nine generations between Noah and Adam and his genetically identical "wife" (also named Adam) (Gen 5). Therefore according to the bible the only people who drowned in the local river flood of 15 cubits high (Gen 7:20) were all members of Noah's extended family. Or so the story goes.

And I'm certainly not a descendant of Abraham or Noah or Adam if they existed. And our aboriginals arrived over 40,000 years ago and long before Adam's grandfather was a boy and were totally unaffected by that local flood.

A 'local river flood' certainly makes more sense as the seed of the myth, but is there any Biblical support for the idea the flood was limited to the Tigris-Euphrates or other river system?

I would think that that is the most likely source of the story and particularly if there were major floods on both the Tigris and Euphrates with the flood peaks coinciding at the confluence of the two Rivers. And even more so if the Karan was also in flood. And being so far from the rain events in the mountains in Turkey the flood waters would appear to magically rise out of the ground on a Riverine flood plain.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 955 by mitty]

[row color=black] [color=gainsboro]Please elaborate. I'm not sure I recall Noah's family being all that was there to drown in the way of humans. Unless you're meaning it in the, "father Abraham, how many sons, (how many sons) how many sons had father Abraham. I am one of them, and so are you..." Kind of way. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:56[/b] [/color]

According to the Genesis myths there were only nine generations between Noah and Adam and his genetically identical "wife" (also named Adam) (Gen 5). Therefore according to the bible the only people who drowned in the local river flood of 15 cubits high (Gen 7:20) were all members of Noah's extended family. Or so the story goes.

And I'm certainly not a descendant of Abraham or Noah or Adam if they existed. And our aboriginals arrived over 40,000 years ago and long before Adam's grandfather was a boy and were totally unaffected by that local flood.

A 'local river flood' certainly makes more sense as the seed of the myth, but is there any Biblical support for the idea the flood was limited to the Tigris-Euphrates or other river system?

I would think that that is the most likely source of the story and particularly if there were major floods on both the Tigris and Euphrates with the flood peaks coinciding at the confluence of the two Rivers. And even more so if the Karan was also in flood. And being so far from the rain events in the mountains in Turkey the flood waters would appear to magically rise out of the ground on a Riverine flood plain.

As I say, this makes sense as the origin for the flood myth. I'm not questioning that. But the only evidence I see from Genesis suggests the claim is that the flood covered the entire world. Do you have a Biblical reference that suggests the flood was only a local event? In fact, if it were only a local event then the promise of God that it would never happen again has not been kept since there have been many devastating local floods since the rainbow promise.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 955 by mitty]

[row color=black] [color=gainsboro]Please elaborate. I'm not sure I recall Noah's family being all that was there to drown in the way of humans. Unless you're meaning it in the, "father Abraham, how many sons, (how many sons) how many sons had father Abraham. I am one of them, and so are you..." Kind of way. [/color][color=chartreuse][b]09:56[/b] [/color]

According to the Genesis myths there were only nine generations between Noah and Adam and his genetically identical "wife" (also named Adam) (Gen 5). Therefore according to the bible the only people who drowned in the local river flood of 15 cubits high (Gen 7:20) were all members of Noah's extended family. Or so the story goes.

And I'm certainly not a descendant of Abraham or Noah or Adam if they existed. And our aboriginals arrived over 40,000 years ago and long before Adam's grandfather was a boy and were totally unaffected by that local flood.

A 'local river flood' certainly makes more sense as the seed of the myth, but is there any Biblical support for the idea the flood was limited to the Tigris-Euphrates or other river system?

I would think that that is the most likely source of the story and particularly if there were major floods on both the Tigris and Euphrates with the flood peaks coinciding at the confluence of the two Rivers. And even more so if the Karan was also in flood. And being so far from the rain events in the mountains in Turkey the flood waters would appear to magically rise out of the ground on a Riverine flood plain.

As I say, this makes sense as the origin for the flood myth. I'm not questioning that. But the only evidence I see from Genesis suggests the claim is that the flood covered the entire world. Do you have a Biblical reference that suggests the flood was only a local event? In fact, if it were only a local event then the promise of God that it would never happen again has not been kept since there have been many devastating local floods since the rainbow promise.

The bible says that the flood height was only 15 cubits high and covered the highest ground on the flood plain, and that a nearby olive tree wasn't inundated. As for the rainbow and a god that's how myths and legends evolve whether it's about the Rainbow Serpent or the stories about Odysseus which are also based on actual events.

[Danmark]

The bible says that the flood height was only 15 cubits high and covered the highest ground on the flood plain, and that a nearby olive tree wasn't inundated. As for the rainbow and a god that's how myths and legends evolve whether it's about the Rainbow Serpent or the stories about Odysseus which are also based on actual events.

This is your second reference to a flood only "15 cubits" [about 23 feet] deep. I am baffled as to how you have come up with this. Your first reference was to Genesis 7:20, which reads,
The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
To me this suggests the flood was about 29,050* above normal sea level. In any case the operative word is "mountains," not "flood plain."


___________________
Mt. Everest is 29,029 feet above sea level

[Danmark]

I specifically do not accept that the Bible teaches that "children are innocent" even though whole Churches have been forced to talk publicly as if this is true (even if not stated in doctrine) or lose their congregations.
....

That's fine Ted. If you want to assert that children, even one year olds are not innocent, so be it. If you also claim that is the position of the Bible, I'll accept that too. It makes no sense in any event. To conclude that the Bible says that newborn babes are not innocent demonstrates the absurdity of the Bible and is at least as good an argument against the Bible as the word of a god, as the the flood myth itself.

[Zzyzx]

.

The bible says that the flood height was only 15 cubits high and covered the highest ground on the flood plain, and that a nearby olive tree wasn't inundated. As for the rainbow and a god that's how myths and legends evolve whether it's about the Rainbow Serpent or the stories about Odysseus which are also based on actual events.

The length of a cubit (according to https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... nal-cubit/) was

based on the distance from the elbow to the fingertips, so it varied between different ancient groups of people. Here are some samples from Egypt, Babylon, and ancient Israel:

Hebrew (short) 17.5 inches
Egyptian 17.6
Common (short) 18
Babylonian (long) 19.8
Hebrew (long) 20.4
Egyptian (long) 20.6

Thus, 15 cubits would equal between 262.5 inches (21.75 feet) and 309 inches (25.75')

A depth of 26 feet above some datum (river level, flood plain elevation) may constitute a significant local flood " but nothing like worldwide and not even close to meeting the Genesis claim of wiping out all living things.

However, Genesis 7:20 is taken to mean 15 cubits (max 26 feet) over the tops of mountains

New International Version
The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

New Living Translation
rising more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks.

English Standard Version
The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

New American Standard Bible
The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

King James Bible
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The mountains were covered as the waters surged above them more than 20 feet.

Mt. Everest is 29,035' in elevation (approximately 5.5 miles above sea level). To meet the claim that the entire Earth was flooded and all living things were wiped out except those on the ark, that is the depth of water required (plus 26 feet). Approximately one BILLION cubic miles (three times the Earth's total water supply) would have to be added and then taken away post-flood.

Apologetics that claim the story refers to a local flood do not meet Genesis requirement. Attempts to claim that "mountains were lower" a few thousand years ago fail to demonstrate the feasibility of that geological proposition (and ignore that Mt. Ararat is 16,000 feet in elevation).


From Answers in Genesis

God could not have been more clear in Genesis"this was a unique global catastrophic Flood, an act of divine judgment against a sinful world.
Science Confirms The Bible Shop Now

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (KJV)

Noahs Flood is critically important to the question of the age of the earth, as explains Dr. Terry Mortenson in his article on p. 62. For over eighteen centuries virtually all Christians understood Genesis to recount a universal Flood that completely covered the whole earth, leaving no dry land anywhere at the height of the event. However, during the past 200 years many Christians have been swayed by secular ideas and have abandoned the clear hermeneutic of Scripture for belief that the Flood was local and covered only the Mesopotamian Valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (the area of modern-day Iraq). But such a view cannot stand under the careful scrutiny of Genesis 6"9. Consider these points.
The Depth of the Flood

One of the most important biblical arguments for a universal (i.e., global) Flood is the statement of Genesis 7:19"20, which says, And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered (KJV).

You do need not be a professional scientist to realize the tremendous implications of these biblical statements. If the highest mountains1 were covered with water, the Flood would have been global in geographical extent, for water must seek its own level"and it must do so quickly!

The phrase fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail does not mean that the Flood was only 15 cubits deep, for the phrase is qualified by the one which immediately follows: and the mountains were covered.

Because Genesis 6:15 tells us that the height of the Ark was 30 cubits, nearly all commentators agree that the phrase fifteen cubits in 7:20 must refer to how deep the Ark sank into the water when it was fully laden. Such information adds further support for a universal Flood, because it tells us that the Flood prevailed over the tops of the highest mountains to a depth of at least 15 cubits. If the Flood had not covered the mountains by at least such a depth, the Ark could not have floated over them during the five months in which the waters prevailed upon the earth.

It appears as though Apologists shoot themselves in the foot (or a bit higher).

[mitty]

The bible says that the flood height was only 15 cubits high and covered the highest ground on the flood plain, and that a nearby olive tree wasn't inundated. As for the rainbow and a god that's how myths and legends evolve whether it's about the Rainbow Serpent or the stories about Odysseus which are also based on actual events.

This is your second reference to a flood only "15 cubits" [about 23 feet] deep. I am baffled as to how you have come up with this. Your first reference was to Genesis 7:20, which reads,
The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
To me this suggests the flood was 27,963* above normal sea level. In any case the operative word is "mountains," not "flood plain."


___________________
Mt. Everest is 27,940 feet above sea level

Wrong - note the semi-colon. Genesis 7:20 (KJV) says "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail;;;;;;..........

...........and the mountains were covered."
That doesn't mean that the flood height was 15 cubits above Mt Everest, but simply that the "mountains" or highest ground on the flood plain were covered and that the flood height was 15 cubits. I live on a riverine plain and the higher rises are often given names such as Mt Scopus etc and certainly wouldn't be classified as mountains by a surveyor.

The other versions make those authors/translators look stupid and particularly since the only ones who drowned were all members of Noah's family (Gen 5).

For those who read that story literally then - where did the extra 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of magic water come from and how and where did it drain to after the ocean level had risen at six inches per minute for 40 days? And if the irate god was so annoyed with most of Noah's family for being naughty, why didn't it just zap them, and then the story may have then have a miniscule of credibility. And particularly since as far as I know kangaroos and sloths and jaguars are not native to the middle east as hypothesized by a global flood which magically covered Mt Everest and then magically disappeared.

[Zzyzx]

.

That doesn't mean that the flood height was 15 cubits above Mt Everest, but simply that the "mountains" or highest ground on the flood plain were covered and that the flood height was 15 cubits. I live on a riverine plain and the higher rises are often given names such as Mt Scopus etc and certainly wouldn't be classified as mountains by a surveyor.

The "explanations" make less and less sense as we go along.

1) A flood that does not cover the Earth's mountains does NOT meet the requirements of Genesis 7 (wipe out all life on Earth).

2) "Highest ground" on a flood plain that is 25 feet high (fifteen cubits) is NOT likely to be considered a mountain " except possibly in jokes.

[mitty]

.

That doesn't mean that the flood height was 15 cubits above Mt Everest, but simply that the "mountains" or highest ground on the flood plain were covered and that the flood height was 15 cubits. I live on a riverine plain and the higher rises are often given names such as Mt Scopus etc and certainly wouldn't be classified as mountains by a surveyor.

The "explanations" make less and less sense as we go along.

1) A flood that does not cover the Earth's mountains does NOT meet the requirements of Genesis 7 (wipe out all life on Earth).

2) "Highest ground" on a flood plain that is 25 feet high (fifteen cubits) is NOT likely to be considered a mountain " except possibly in jokes.

Then the story is a joke since there is no evidence whatsoever to support such an absurd story.