"Where is Noah?" Then and now.

[chemostrat1646]

Hello all,

I just finished writing a couple articles on Noah's flood, trying to answer the following questions from scripture, history, archaeology, and geology:

1) Where is Noah today (a theological question)?
2) When and where did Noah sail his ark (a historical question)?

I did build heavily on previous works by theologians and geologists alike (you may already be familiar with the material), but my goal was to pull together a reasonable picture that did justice to evidence both from scripture and nature. The articles are long, but by no means exhaustive to the topic, which has been debated for millennia. Whether or not you agree with my conclusions, I hope that it might be a helpful guide in answering the same questions for yourself.

As a cautionary note, I discussed a range of perspectives (including controversial ones like the Documentary Hypothesis, apparent contradictions, etc.). Please be careful to note where I mention a possibility versus actually promote it. I've already received some hasty critiques, calling me a crazy liberal for thinking Gen. 6–9 was written 1,000 years after Moses when I never suggested such a thing.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have.

Part 1: http://questioninganswersingenesis.blog ... where.html
Part 2: http://questioninganswersingenesis.blog ... 2when.html

[Maytan]

Really interesting stuff!

[Legatus]

I'm afraid I cannot agree with this idea of "mythical", even if you call it "true myths". When I compare exactly what it says in Genesis with the evidence of science, I see that the evidence agrees 100% with the idea that genesis is completly a factual, scientific and hisrorical telling of exactly what happned. As such, why try to call it "mythical"? The only reason to beleive it is "mythical" are if you do not know the science that supports it, or if you have bought the lie of Satan that says there is no such science, that lie being made to support Satans current big lie that the bible is just myth and fable and has been proven false by science. When I see something accuratly describing the big bang, planetery formation, the gradual change of the early atmosphere to the one we know today, the start of the hydrological cycle, the formation of life in exactly the correct order, etc, I do not see myth.


The bible specifically denies this, here Rom 1:19 Rom 1:20. Note that it says that we can see evidence "plainly" and "clearly" from what has been made, "since the creation of the world". Thus, since that creation of the world is found in Genesis, we should expect genesis to track exactly with what science shows of those times. Thus, if it does not, if it is just "myth" (however "true" that myth might be) than we are not seeing "plainly" or "clearly", and Romans is flatly a lie, not "myth", not "metpahore" a lie, a bald faced lie. Did God lie?


And you can't change the wording to slip by either, by calling it "metaphore" (since when did proven science become metaphore?) or my personal favorite "literature", which is just euphemism for FICTION, ie. a lie, maybe a lie "telling important truths", but still a lie.


Satans current operation worldwide is to tell everyone, in school and everywhere else, that science "proves" that the bible is wrong, that the creation story is just "myth". It is the exact opposite of the truth, as seen in Romans, Genesis, and science. This operation goes hand in hand with Satan using people who do not know any science (most people nowdays) to make up things like young earth creationism which as such is not in the bible but which people are told is, and which can be easily proven by science to be comepletly wrong. Since people are beleiving the actual myths and fables that Satan says is what the bible says (it does not), Satan not only can "prove" the bible is wrong, but also starts the Christians who beleive Satans version of the bible down a path of increasing errors to support there completly false reading of the bible. Thus Satan can get them into the habit of lying to themselves and others to cover up the last lie, of using "groupthink" and "noble cause curruption" instead of thinking with their own mind about what God actually said, and can create pride in them that they are MUCH better than those "evil, godless evolutionists". It also helps Satan keep Christians away from science where they might discover that Romans is in fact true and perhpas even then tell others this truth, resulting in beleif in the bible.


And this is not just a minor scientific quibble either, this idea that the bible is just a myth, proven wrong by science, is now so widespread that no one even thinks that the bible MIGHT be worth considering as true. Are we to just swollow lies of Satan? Lies should be challenged.


I suggest that you click on the banner at the top of this page, and go to the parent site, godandscience.org, and read up in the creation part. There you will find that there is no need of myths.

[chemostrat1646]

Wow. Hmm...I take it you did not actually read the whole article?

Myth, epic, metaphor, and literature are not euphemisms for fiction. Accurate or not (I vote accurate), the Bible is literature. It is a collection of stories. These stories fall under different genres, and are written with different styles. That doesn't make them fiction, untrue, or unclear, but we cannot unravel the propositional truths thereof without studying the who, why, and how behind each author. Neither can we state that science lines up with a given reading of scripture without showing that literary analysis also demands that reading (or so I think).

"When I see something accuratly describing the big bang...etc, I do not see myth."

Given the style and theological overtones of Genesis, that's exactly what myth is. Myth does not mean falsehood. Myth/epic is a story that explains the theological origin and cosmic significance of historical/scientific truths.

Your response only demonstrates a connotative miscommunication. I think if you read the entire articles, you'll find why your response speaks past them.

[Grizz_1]

Interesting article.

I have a few questions.

1. You stated in your article under the sub topic, Survivors on the ark, that Quote "Rather, we can focus on Noah, his family, and the creatures of his immediate region (livestock, birds, etc.—note the account does not include the wild beasts like lions, etc.)."

What "account" are you referencing?

Does it not say in the Genesis account that Noah was to, Gen 7: 2-3 "2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."

Unclean animals would include Lions and Tigers and Bears OH MY! As stated in Lev 11: 27 "27 Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening." Noah must have known the difference between clean and unclean.

2. If Lions, Tigers and Bears were along for the ride along with Birds and everything else. ( as is stated in the Word) Then it makes no sense for it to be a local event. These animals could have just migrated back from the un-flooded areas. Why take them?

[RickD]

Does it not say in the Genesis account that Noah was to, Gen 7: 2-3 "2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."

Grizz, this has been discussed many times here. The word translated as earth, could very well be translated as "land". If one reads the above quote, and substitutes "land" for "earth", we can see how this would be a local event. Not a global flood.

[Grizz_1]

e·artz---the·earth Is used in Gen 1:1 The same e·artz is used in Gen 7:3 for the earth. Its also used, e·artz, for earth in Gen 1:26. Yes its also used for land.

So are you saying that God created the Heavens and the Land in Gen 1:1 ? and in Gen 7:3 to keep offspring alive upon the face of all the land?

could very well be translated

Could also very well be translated Earth, which makes it a global flood, correct? Don't we have to translate the word as it best fits the context of the story its used in? And if Noah took all the different kinds of animals, clean and unclean, then my question remains....Unless you are saying that he in fact did not take all the clean and unclean animals.

[Grizz_1]

... I would also like to add. IF this was a local event would it not contradict Matthew 24: 37-39?

Where it states "37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

Are you saying that the "coming of the Son of Man." is going to be a local event? If at the coming of the Son of Man EVERYONE will be dealt with and Jesus tells us that at the coming of the Son of Man it will be "As in the days of Noah" That tells me that EVERYONE was dealt with in the days of Noah not just a local population and it was not a local event. Thus the need for all the animals, birds of the air and things that creepeth on the ground. Like it says in the Word.

[chemostrat1646]

Grizz,

Thanks for your comments. I can't respond at length here, since I'm out of town at the moment, but here are a couple quick thoughts:

1) When I said wild beasts like lions, etc. were excluded, I took this idea from a commentary that noted the categorical terms for Noah's animals did not include a word that would normally describe those sorts of wild beasts. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the specific reference now, but I'll search for it when I return.

2) So yes, the text does use terms like 'all the unclean animals' but the modifier 'all' always depends on the context. Unclean animals might include wild beasts, or even kangaroos, alligators, panthers, and thousands of other creatures (i.e. everything else). But these would have been unknown to Noah's generation in that region, and were thus 'non-existent' for all practical purposes. While the purview of the text is universal, it describes the world of Noah—not the planet Earth. The literary importance of Noah's animals is that they also provided the land with sustenance (hence the explicit emphasis on cattle/livestock), and God preserved all aspects of the land for Noah. So "all" is defined by a pragmatic context—all animals that kept Noah's world in order.

3) Lastly, a local event would not contradict Matt. 24, which provides an exegetical use of the flood narrative. Since the literary purview of Noah's flood is universal, it constitutes a valid analog for universal judgement when retold in a new context. But since Noah's world != our world, we can describe the flood event, scientifically speaking, as local or of limited geographic extent without any conflict.

[RickD]

e·artz---the·earth Is used in Gen 1:1 The same e·artz is used in Gen 7:3 for the earth. Its also used, e·artz, for earth in Gen 1:26. Yes its also used for land.

So are you saying that God created the Heavens and the Land in Gen 1:1 ? and in Gen 7:3 to keep offspring alive upon the face of all the land?

could very well be translated

Could also very well be translated Earth, which makes it a global flood, correct? Don't we have to translate the word as it best fits the context of the story its used in? And if Noah took all the different kinds of animals, clean and unclean, then my question remains....Unless you are saying that he in fact did not take all the clean and unclean animals.

When the text says all the animals, why can't it mean "all" the animals in that land. Remember how important the animals would be to Noah and his family after the floodwaters subside. The text doesn't demand a translation that means all animals on the face of the earth. To Noah, the land that he knew, was the only area that had any influence on his life. Remember, he knew nothing of Australia, for example.

[RickD]

... I would also like to add. IF this was a local event would it not contradict Matthew 24: 37-39?

Where it states "37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

Are you saying that the "coming of the Son of Man." is going to be a local event? If at the coming of the Son of Man EVERYONE will be dealt with and Jesus tells us that at the coming of the Son of Man it will be "As in the days of Noah" That tells me that EVERYONE was dealt with in the days of Noah not just a local population and it was not a local event. Thus the need for all the animals, birds of the air and things that creepeth on the ground. Like it says in the Word.

I'm saying that in order for God to destroy all people except Noah and his family, all it took was a local flood. All people lived in that area. They hadn't "filled the earth" yet.

[Legatus]

[quote="RickDI'm saying that in order for God to destroy all people except Noah and his family, all it took was a local flood. All people lived in that area. They hadn't "filled the earth" yet.[/quote]
Let us say that there was an ice age (there actually was at least one, and more likely several, during the times we find human skeletons). And let us say that people lived here, as described in the bible, "east of Eden" http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-c ... -gulf.html . When the ice age ended (as recent discoveries show can happen with suprising suddeness), there could have been major climate disruption locally (and possibly worldwide) which would not only effect the humans living in this east of Eden area, but animal life for a wide or even worldwide area. The sea level rise (hundreds of feet) would have suddenly washed over this area on the map, killing all the people, the rains could get any not at that exact area by whiping out their food supply if it did not kill them outright, followed by famine and the usual follower of famine, plague.

BTW, there is further physical evidence that backs up the flood story. The description of the pre flood time told of a time when it was drier than today. The lastest evidence says that during times when the sea is much lower than today, and much of the water is tied up as ice sheets, there is a lot less water vapor in the air to make the clouds for rain. Thus recent evidence shows less rain over many areas of the earth during ice ages, as expected (including over areas now quite wet). This is what the bible describes, a time of little or no rain.

Further, there is the genetic evidence. If we track that genetic information of the female line, we should be able to track it all the way back to Eve, and so we do, we call her mitochondrial Eve. However, if we track the male line, there was not one, but two seperate times in history when there was one single male ancester of all men. The first was Adam, and the second was Noah, the ancestor of all 3 other men living, although their wives were daughters of three seperate women. As such, the male line genetic information for Adam would have been overwritten by that of Noah, and thus the date of this falsly named Y-chromasonal Adam (actually Noah) would read as considerably later than Eve. This is axactly what we do read.

Even if you agree with the scientists beliefs (and since when did "belief" count as science?) that there were actually several thousand individuals during these two seperate times (and is is simply belief, there is no genetic information to back it up), that is several thousand humans alive TOTAL in the whole world in two seperate time periods. What happened to all the other people? The bible says that the first time was because they started out with only Adam and Eve, and the second time there was a flood. This fits the data we have. You must then ask yourself, why where there so few people during these two times, if you do not eccept the bibles explaination? Do you have an explanation for these two events? What happened to all the other people, exactly? Certainly something must have happened to them, and the flood event is a very lileky scenerio.

The conclusion is that there is considerable scientific evidence that there was a literal flood that effected all people on earth at that time.

If the bible is also pointing it out to also show us the theological ramifications of this to our lives today, that does not change the fact that this was an actual factual even that took place exactly as described. chemostrat1646 , do you beleive that this was a factual event that took place exactly as described, in addition to whatever theological truths it may be telling? That is,, if you had a time machine and could go back to observe it, would you be able to observe Noah, his ark, and Noah and his family living through a flood that whiped out ALL other living people? I don't mean in fable, or epic, or myth, I mean actually seeing this happen factually, ending with a fact of only 8 total people left alive on the entire earth.

[Legatus]

"Had the flood of intellectualism finally overcome Noah's ark, more than 4,000 years after the waters receded?"

"Others, through scientific dereliction, whereby the historical question would determine the facts of nature. In the latter case, Christians with scientific degrees formulated the principles of 'Flood geology' and simply reinterpreted geological and archaeological facts to concord with a multifaceted, but rigid axiom: 1) the geologic column and associated structures are the result of a catastrophic flood, ~4,500 years ago, that reshaped the face of the planet; and 2) all terrestrial life, including humans, can be traced to the ark-born survivors of that event"

These two quotes say that it was 4,000 to 4,500 years ago, the genetic evidence says 65,000 years ago, and if the bible is true that people could live to be 900 and had children when they were from 70 to as old as 187 years (at that may have been only the age of that one child, they could have had more later), then the time between generations could have been 5-10 times the 20 years we agree on today, thus, the genetic drift that they measured that 65,000 years from may actually be far older thaan that.
The 4,000 to 4.500 timeframe is from young earth creationism, which was invented by people who were ignorant of the actual languages words used in the relevent passages, and/or who were deliberatly ignorant as a reaction to the "threat" of evolution, which talked of millions of years, causing the creationists to want to eliminate those millions of years by any means nessissary, including ignoring what the bible actually said in the original language in favor of whatever intepretaion they believed would eliminate those millions. Thye were also ignorant of science, some today are still ignorant of science deliberatly, doing so because they equate scientists with "those evil, godless evolutionists". Being so ignorant, they cannot see that the science supports, rather than denies, a literal flood. The original laguage knowledge interpretaion of the geneologies that these 4,000 year or so timeframes are taken from are disccussed here http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ogies.html . This shows that it is not nessissary that they be 4,000 years, they could very well be MUCH older.

The conclusion is that this 4,000 year timeframe is false, shown so both by science and the bible. And why would this idea then persist? See the quote below.

"If modern Christians are limited only to the two options above, then we may find ourselves in trouble"

This is the idea, an idea created by Satan, to "find ourselves in trouble". Satan wants us to be in trouble, to give us only two alternatives, when in fact there are more.
Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation): assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.

The whole idea of this, "the war between science and religion" (actually only versus Chrisianity) is to allow Satan to mandate that it be taught in every school that the bible is merely myth and fable and that no rational person would beleive such things, and so it is mandated. It is, I beleive, Satans most successfull tactic yet, allowing Satan to "prove" that the bible is unscientific, non factual, merely "myth" or "epic" or "litarature", something that might make you feel better, but you shouldn't actually take it seriously, especially when other religions "myths" might also make you "feel better". After all, if it is only "myth" or "epic" or "literature", why, one is a good as another, since none are proven or provable as true.

But does the bible agree with that? This is what it says about that: Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. We see here that God states that "what has been made" the world around us, ie. science, even scientific evidence back to "the creation of the world", speaks so accuratly of God that we are 'without excuse". And where do we find the bible talking about "the creation of the world", why Genesis. And thus Genesis must speak accuratly in a way that should agree totally with science, otherwise we cannot see it "clearly" and Romans is wrong. And thus Genesis is not "myth" or "epic" or "lierature", designed only to speak of "theological truths", but a factual and scientifically verifiable description of exactly what happeed. If it is not, Romans is wrong.

And if Genesis is factually and scientifically true, then the flood of Noah is also, being in Genesis. The earlier parts of Genesis have been found to be scientifically true, I see no reason to arbitrarily assign some parts of Genesis as true and other parts right after it as "myth". If one does that, one can assign any part of the bible we don't like to "myth" and thus saftly ignore it. We should only read the bible as written, the parts just before Noah have been shown to be simple factual science and history, the part about Noah and the flood is also. We should then look at the description of the flood, see exactly what the bible says about it, and also be careful to see what the bible does NOT say about it (something the young earth crowd fail to do), and then compare it with scientific evidence. If we do so, we should expect to find that the flood account matches the evidence, if Romans is true.

Thus, just at the biginning of your artical, I see that you are answering a false question, a faulty dilemma, originally invented by Satan. Since the question is a false one, there is no need to answer it. It is a lie, it should be challenged, not made excuses for or danced around.

I am still slogging through it, but this beginning does not bode well to expecting that you will actually challenge Satans lie, and expose the actual facts that show it as such.

[Legatus]

"Both the creation and flood narratives are quite old (primitive, if you will), and may have been around for centuries (in oral or written form) before being penned down as we find them in the received text. "

This is a faulty dilemma, there is another option, supported, in fact, DEMANDED, by the text itself. First, who wrote Genesis? Moses wrote genesis. Who observed the events described in Genesis chapter one? There was no human being who could have observed the events described, both because there were no human beings around to observed it, and because even if there were, they could not have survived the experience. Therefore, this part of genesis COULD NOT be folklore, there being no folk to do so. So who did observe it to tell of it? God observed it, and it is stated that God spoke to Moses for long periods, often in Moses tent. Thus, the only possible explaination for the now scientifically verified as accurate Genesis chaper one is that God, the only witness, told it to Moses, who wrote it down. This is further show because if it was folklore, which would have been nessissarily written by people who did not observe it, how could those people know to describe the big bang, planatery formation, the gradual changes in the atmosephere to what we know today, the formation of the hydrological cycle, the initial formation of dry land due to the cooling and wrinkling of the earths crust, and the formation if life in the exactly correct order? Folklore is not that accurate, especially when written by people who know nothing of science.

Thus the statement "may have been around for centuries" is shown to be false and indeed impossible.

[Legatus]

I now see where you got your basic idea, the bible, rocks, and time .http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/ ... bible.html Specifically this" Chapter 6 concludes by mentioning the solid dome in Genesis 1, and emphasizing that Biblical inerrancy cannot justify the claim that the sky is solid (p.182). This subject is revisited in chapter 7, in conjunction with the notion of divine accomodation - i.e. that divine revelation did not always provide new scientific and other information not pertinent to the communication of the revealed truths in question"


Excuse me, what solid dome?? I just re read Gen1 , not even in the King James version is anything even like a solid dome mentioned. This seems to be interpreting the word used in the King James as "firmament" as meaning ONLY 'solid dome". The only reason the Hebrews would interprete it thus " b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above) 1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above" is because the Hebrews knew nothing of science and also, were not observers to Gen 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it", they did not know about invisible water vapor, or that clouds are made of water, or that these clouds can indeed be held up in the air even if they are made of water (they knew only of liquid water, they knew nothing of water vapor and could not imagine liqide water held up by anything other than a solid), and they certainly did not know that at one time the planet, shortly after its formation, was so hot that water could not touch it's surface and would vaporise to steam immediatly thus resulting in all the water being up in the air, as seen here Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, where we see the sea, a complete cloud cover, and thick darkness from extremely thick clouds all tied together.


The alternative meanings are 1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament. Look at Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Open firmament, doesnt sound like a solid dome to me. Imagine those poor birds flying into that solid dome, none of them would survive. We therefore see that there is an alternative meaning, a non solid dome, and that the hebrews only arrived at this interpreation of a solid dome because they did not understand how water could be held up in the air (as it is in clouds) otherwise. The solid dome idea was merely the Hebrews, AFTER Gen 1:7 was written, adding a solid dome meaning to "firmament" or "expanse" because they could not understand how the water could be held up there otherwise.

BTW, look up, it really IS a dome holding up that sky. The earth is round, and the atmosphere is round with it. Thus, if you look up, since you cannot see the whole sphere of the earth, but only one small part of it, you only see a part of a sphere above you, essentially a dome of air above you (since it is curved with the earths curvature), which really does hold up the waters above, the clouds and water vapor.


Thus you are going on the idea that the bible ONLY talks of a solid dome here, which it does not (there being only about 8,000 words on hebrew, one word must often serve as several possible meanings), and from that going off the above books two full chapters about this "solid dome", and from this concluding that the bible "did not always provide new scientific and other information not pertinent to the communication of the revealed truths in question". I see no reason to continue this solid dome idea, or make up excuses for it, and continue the Hebrews ancient ignorance of the science of early planatery formation or clouds. I thought we were beyond that.