Noah’s Ark seems like a myth

[dbasra99]

Hello. I am new here. Trying to find a place to openly discuss my faith issues without being attacked.

I had a total faith deconstruction that led me to severe depression. My faith has been somewhat been rebuilt but I still struggle with many issues.

For example, for many years I have not been able to believe the story of Noah. This is both from science and theology standpoints.

I have listened to many models by numerous apologists but no one brings me closure on this.

I see nothing more than a story of a great natural catastrophe that is blamed on God and is expressed in various ancient religions. However the references in the New Testament trouble me.

I am interested in what others think.

Thanks.

[Miles]

There is no "natural catastrophe" that could account for the entire planet covered meters deep with water.

"Meters"!!! How about miles. ...

Can meters not convert to miles? Should we not be inclusive of those that use metric ?

Most assuredly they can, but, why should we? Do you think 8,851 meters is more comprehensible than 5 1/2 miles? I don't. How about 885,139 centimeters? I don't. However, if one is more familiar with the metric system, then kilometers would be better units to express it in than meters. (8.85 kilometers equaling 5 1/2 miles)

Check out Genesis 7:17-20 in the New World Translation (2013 Revision)[/size]

17 The flooding continued* for 40 days on the earth, and the waters kept increasing and began carrying the ark, and it was floating high above the earth. 18 The waters became overwhelming and kept increasing greatly upon the earth, but the ark floated on the surface of the waters. 19 The waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains under the whole heavens were covered.+ 20 The waters rose up to 15 cubits* above the mountains.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt ... y=discover

NOTE If you are encouraging reference to the New World Translation it might be an idea to actually use the notes indicated by the asterix [*] which lead to the publishers outline of biblical measurements which differenciate between a long cubit and a cubit as per Gen 7v20 : https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070235

I'm not encouraging anything, just citing a source you're more likely to be familiar with.

.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm not encouraging anything, just citing a source you're more likely to be familiar with.

.

Unnecessary... but thank you anyway. It might be an idea if you cite a source you verify its contents , especially if your source disagrees with the conclusions you are using said source to support (which is the case for translators of the NWT with regard to said "5.5 mile" calculation you present in your post)





JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[dbasra99]

Hello. I am new here. Trying to find a place to openly discuss my faith issues without being attacked.

I had a total faith deconstruction that led me to severe depression. My faith has been somewhat been rebuilt but I still struggle with many issues.

For example, for many years I have not been able to believe the story of Noah. This is both from science and theology standpoints.

Congratulations! There is a reason the stories of Noah, creation, the 'Tower of Babel' and others seem like myths. They are myths.

There are three basic responses people have when they realize many of the Bible Stories they learned as children do not seem reasonable or plausible; that they seem like the myths all religions tell.

1) Double down, employ poor logic, poor scholarship and argue supporting those myths, arguing for their reality, hoping that if you convince others you might also convince yourself.

2) Recognize, like most Biblical scholars, that the stories ARE myths; myths that should not be taken literally tho' they contain some 'moral truth' but were never intended to be depictions of actual events. Many Christians do just that, but retain their basic faith in the 'God of Abraham' as the creator of life and the ultimate source of truth.

3) Accept the sad fact you have been lied to, fed a load of rubbish and that your whole foundation of belief about the universe is simply not true. Then congratulate yourself for being that rare person who realizes they have been wrong to believe in the junk they were indoctrinated with and strike out on the scary path of true honesty and discovery... being open to truth regardless of preexisting misconceptions and false teachings from people who are generally sincere, but wrong.

The choice is yours.
Change is difficult.
Intellectual honesty is rare.

Only you can decide to have the courage to seek truth even when the truth seems uncomfortable.

Good luck!

Can you share your current beliefs related to a creator?

[Diogenes]

Can you share your current beliefs related to a creator?

Sure! Tho' I see no evidence of it, I can only hope for some force/entity, 'X' (it's beyond my ability to find the right term; perhaps there is none) that is beneficent and unifying. A further hope, and one less likely, is that this X has a personality we can relate to. So, I am open to the idea of a 'God,' despite the exceedingly poor approximations, 'gods', that hundreds, thousands of cultures have suggested.

So, I do not claim to know there is a God, but the obviously and insistently anthropomorphic versions of tribal gods heretofore invented by men are most certainly nonexistent. They are all ludicrously and ineptly drawn figures invented by people who wanted to understand nature (or control others, or both). One example comes from the Bible. It's 'god' demands we both love 'him' and fear 'him.' That god sounds sadomasochistic.

My central view is that I simply want to understand what is. What is the truth? What is the ultimate reality? My central mantra is that none of the ideological mindsets are designed to find that truth... except science. And even 'science' can by misused or misapplied by bigots with some ideologic bias.
I am willing to accept that, without evidence, there is no God or gods and no purpose to a universe that has always existed in one form or another and did not need to be created by some agent.

[dbasra99]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #34]

Ok. Great reply. Thanks!!

[Miles]

Also, the inclusion of giants into the story

... there are no giants in the biblical account.

Sure there are,

Genesis 6:4

KJ21
There were giants on the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

AMPC
There were giants on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

BRG
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

CEB
In those days, giants lived on the earth and also afterward, when divine beings and human daughters had sexual relations and gave birth to children. These were the ancient heroes, famous men.

DARBY
In those days were the giants on the earth, and also afterwards, when the sons of God had come in to the daughters of men, and they had borne [children] to them; these were the heroes, who of old were men of renown.

DRA
Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

GNV
There were giants in the earth in those days: yea, and after that the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they had borne them children, these were mighty men, which in old time were men of renown.

GNT
In those days, and even later, there were giants on the earth who were descendants of human women and the heavenly beings. They were the great heroes and famous men of long ago.

etc.

etc.

AND

Numbers 13:33

KJ21
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, who come of the giants. And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

AMPC
There we saw the Nephilim [or giants], the sons of Anak, who come from the giants; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

BRG
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

DARBY
and there have we seen giants—the sons of Anak are of the giants—and we were in our sight as grasshoppers, and so we were also in their sight.

GNT
and we even saw giants there, the descendants of Anak. We felt as small as grasshoppers, and that is how we must have looked to them.”

KJV
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

etc.

etc.

AND

Deuteronomy 2:20

KJ21
(That also was accounted a land of giants. Giants dwelt therein in olden times; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummim,

BRG
(That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;

DARBY
(That also is reckoned a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in time past, and the Ammonites call them Zamzummim;

DRA
It was accounted a land of giants: and giants formerly dwelt in it, whom the Ammonites call Zomzommims,

GNV
That also was taken for a land of giants: for giants dwelt therein afore time, whom the Ammonites called amzummims:

etc.

etc.

AND

2 Samuel 21:22

KJ21
These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.

ASV
These four were born to the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

AMP
These four [warriors] were descended from the giant in Gath, and they fell by the hands of David and his servants.

AMPC
These four were descended from the giant in Gath, and they fell by the hands of David and his servants.

BRG
These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

.

[1213]

First quote off the Internet. "Orogenesis, the process of mountain building, occurs when two tectonic plates collide – either forcing material upwards to form mountain belts such as the Alps or Himalayas or causing one plate to be subducted below the other, resulting in volcanic mountain chains such as the Andes."

Thank you for your opinions. The problem with the official tectonic plate theory is, it can’t show any logical force that could lift mountains. The whole idea seems to be based on magical thinking.

There are various flood legends, but they are not the same. Notably Egypt doesn't have one and they were developing their civilisation when the flood was supposed to have happened.

One "flood myth" in Egyptian mythology involves the god Ra and his daughter Sekhmet. Ra sent Sekhmet to destroy part of humanity for their disrespect and unfaithfulness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

So either people tell stories about destruction (it is rather atavistic) or there was an actual global flood of some kind but it was not total, and many people survived. That means it was not done by God to wipe everyone out (with everything else as collateral damage) but was a natural event; so even if the Bible does mention an actual event, the Biblical version is no more believable than all those others.

I agree that they are not identical. But that there are many stories of similar event, which makes the general idea more convincing. For me Biblical story is the most convincing, because it explains well how it happened and shows knowledge that humans even today don’t seem to understand generally.

I am sure we've done marine fossils before. They are not marine debris washed up on mountains, but fossil sea floors, even with fossil worm burrows in. They show ancient sea floors raised up and validate deep time geology, not a flood.

It is amazing how you can believe in rising ocean floors.

The geology says that continents have some together as on and split up several times. Africa and America fit together. That shows separation by tectonic movement, not a hole bashed in the by a comet or anything else.

I think the correct word would be “geologists” not “geology”.

The grand canyon has meanders. That is formed by millions of years of erosion, not a sudden flood. That is also the reason for organic deposits in such amounts, it takes millions of years.

I don’t think it is reasonable claim to say it was formed by millions of years, sorry.

[TRANSPONDER]

First quote off the Internet. "Orogenesis, the process of mountain building, occurs when two tectonic plates collide – either forcing material upwards to form mountain belts such as the Alps or Himalayas or causing one plate to be subducted below the other, resulting in volcanic mountain chains such as the Andes."

Thank you for your opinions. The problem with the official tectonic plate theory is, it can’t show any logical force that could lift mountains. The whole idea seems to be based on magical thinking.

Tectonic plate moment is itself the force that pushes up mountains. At least understand a theory before you dismiss it.

There are various flood legends, but they are not the same. Notably Egypt doesn't have one and they were developing their civilisation when the flood was supposed to have happened.

One "flood myth" in Egyptian mythology involves the god Ra and his daughter Sekhmet. Ra sent Sekhmet to destroy part of humanity for their disrespect and unfaithfulness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

But this only shows that various cultures come up with destruction -myths of various kinds, and that one is no support for the Genesis flood anyway (1). I need herdly labour your extraction of the minimal contact point of 'destroy for disrespect' to try to wangle a link to the Noachian Flood.

So either people tell stories about destruction (it is rather atavistic) or there was an actual global flood of some kind but it was not total, and many people survived. That means it was not done by God to wipe everyone out (with everything else as collateral damage) but was a natural event; so even if the Bible does mention an actual event, the Biblical version is no more believable than all those others.

I agree that they are not identical. But that there are many stories of similar event, which makes the general idea more convincing. For me Biblical story is the most convincing, because it explains well how it happened and shows knowledge that humans even today don’t seem to understand generally.

'Don't understand' is no more than excusing why it doesn't work. And as said above, the various flood stories only show how people come up with destruction - myths. Even if one argued they were based on a real event, it only shows that people did survive and the divine intent set out in the Bible didn't happen. At best it is a religious spin based on an actual event. At worst it is an old Babylonian story adapted for the Bible. It is more sophisticated than the old myth but that only shows it was written a lot later, when shipbuilding was beter, the world was better known and a lot more species were known. It only makes it harder to cram it all into a wooden box.

I am sure we've done marine fossils before. They are not marine debris washed up on mountains, but fossil sea floors, even with fossil worm burrows in. They show ancient sea floors raised up and validate deep time geology, not a flood.

It is amazing how you can believe in rising ocean floors.

It is amazing how you can ignore and dismiss evidence. How else do you explain the in situ fossil sea floors up in mountain strata? Let me also say that some posters not too far from here have explained sea floors raised as mountains as part of the flood theory, to make the water appear to go down. Such creationist contradictions will happen when you ignore science and just make stuff up.

The geology says that continents have some together as on and split up several times. Africa and America fit together. That shows separation by tectonic movement, not a hole bashed in the by a comet or anything else.

I think the correct word would be “geologists” not “geology”.

Sorry, can't even award you even a quibble point. The 'geology' (evidence of the strata and distribution of various rocks) is what says and if you meant 'Geologists say' (but why believe them?) that is of course science denial. And not sorry because that only damages your case, not mine.

The grand canyon has meanders. That is formed by millions of years of erosion, not a sudden flood. That is also the reason for organic deposits in such amounts, it takes millions of years.

I don’t think it is reasonable claim to say it was formed by millions of years, sorry.

And I don't think it reasonable to deny scientific evidence and opt for faithbased deial, but if you must, don't try to use science to validate any of your arguments.

(1) Egypt
Floods were seen as beneficial in Ancient Egypt, and similar to the case with Japan, Ancient Egypt did not have any cataclysmic flood myths picturing it as destructive rather than fertile force. One "flood myth" in Egyptian mythology involves the god Ra and his daughter Sekhmet. Ra sent Sekhmet to destroy part of humanity for their disrespect and unfaithfulness which resulted in the gods overturning wine jugs to simulate a great flood of blood, so that by getting her drunk on the wine and causing her to pass out her slaughter would cease. This is commemorated in a wine drinking festival during the annual Nile flood.[6]
While of course (wearing a theist hat) I could pass this off as the Flood, someone was left to tell a different story.

[brunumb]

The problem with the official tectonic plate theory is, it can’t show any logical force that could lift mountains. The whole idea seems to be based on magical thinking.

The forces are easily explained and just as easily demonstrated. You are dismissing it all from a position of absolute denial based on the need to affirm magical thinking where gods are responsible for purely natural events.

[1213]

The problem with the official tectonic plate theory is, it can’t show any logical force that could lift mountains. The whole idea seems to be based on magical thinking.

The forces are easily explained and just as easily demonstrated.

Then, please explain what is the force and how it is formed?