Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Noah's flood: global or local?


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#1 M. Partyka

M. Partyka

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 16 February 2008 - 04:09 AM

Granted, it wasn't really "Noah's flood" -- he didn't start it, just survived it -- but that's the shortest title I could think of.

#2 Matthew Namee

Matthew Namee

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 16 February 2008 - 04:20 AM

There's plenty of non-biblical evidence to support the idea that the Flood was a global catastrophe. In fact, you might say it is the best-documented event in the pre-Christian world. Many have written on the various ancient cultures that speak of a global flood survived by one couple or a small group in a boat, often after having been warned by a god. There are literally dozens of these stories, most of which are unconnected with each other.

Besides that, from what I have read, there is reason to believe in a global flood from a scientific standpoint as well. The sources I have found suggest sometime in the eleventh century BC.

#3 Nina

Nina

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,149 posts

Posted 16 February 2008 - 04:20 AM

Granted, it wasn't really "Noah's flood" -- he didn't start it, just survived it -- but that's the shortest title I could think of.


Of course it was global.

#4 M. Partyka

M. Partyka

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 16 February 2008 - 04:21 AM

Oops! You both posted before I could put up the poll. Please remember to vote!

#5 M. Partyka

M. Partyka

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts

Posted 16 February 2008 - 04:25 AM

...from what I have read, there is reason to believe in a global flood from a scientific standpoint as well. The sources I have found suggest sometime in the eleventh century BC.

Wouldn't that put Moses before the flood?

#6 Father David Moser

Father David Moser

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,581 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Cleric

Posted 16 February 2008 - 03:52 PM

Oops! You both posted before I could put up the poll. Please remember to vote!


Just a note - polls are a feature that has been discontinued in the Monachos discussion forum, therefore, don't wait to vote - just continue to make your comments. This could be a very interesting discussion.

Fr David Moser

#7 Alec Lowly

Alec Lowly

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 16 February 2008 - 09:08 PM

There's plenty of non-biblical evidence to support the idea that the Flood was a global catastrophe. In fact, you might say it is the best-documented event in the pre-Christian world. Many have written on the various ancient cultures that speak of a global flood survived by one couple or a small group in a boat, often after having been warned by a god. There are literally dozens of these stories, most of which are unconnected with each other.

Besides that, from what I have read, there is reason to believe in a global flood from a scientific standpoint as well. The sources I have found suggest sometime in the eleventh century BC.



I am unaware of any physical evidence of a global flood during the time that the human race has walked this earth, so please amplify your statement that "there is reason to believe in a global flood from a scientific standpoint as well." Also, the prevalence of flood myths does not in the least support the idea that everybody is talking about the same flood. Devastating floods happen locally all the time, all over the world, therefore virtually all primitive cultures have flood myths.

#8 Antonios

Antonios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 February 2008 - 02:36 AM

Does science support either side? Will it ever in my lifetime, or even before the end of time? I just don't have the knowledge or the facts.

As to whether it was local or global, I think we must understand what the flood was to the person of Noah first, even before considering its geographic magnitude. To him, it was both.

Anything else, we rely on faith.

#9 Rick H.

Rick H.

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 February 2008 - 01:20 PM

Global Flood

#10 Paul Cowan

Paul Cowan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 February 2008 - 09:07 PM

Global Flood

In the hill country of Texas you can find water dwelling fossils all over the place. Since there has not been an ocean this high up, how else did these fossils get there unless the water was that high up at one time. I dont know of a major evaporation period on the planet to account for that much water disappearing so it must have been something else.

Paul

#11 Alec Lowly

Alec Lowly

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 17 February 2008 - 10:46 PM

Global Flood


Thanks, Rick, but I do not find the arguments of the creationists at all persuasive.

#12 Rick H.

Rick H.

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 17 February 2008 - 11:41 PM

Thanks, Rick, but I do not find the arguments of the creationists at all persuasive.


On the whole, I'm not that interested to be honest (and do not appreciate the 'fundyville' from which many of the creationists come from), but I heard a guy named Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis speak once who was pretty sharp and held my attention. But, the point being there is some science behind this that is credible as any.

#13 Antonios

Antonios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 February 2008 - 03:24 AM

Science can't even tell us what came first, the chicken or the egg? (mistake, there are some who come from the purely poultry camp of the chickens which cowardly claim the chicken came first. Another camp of hermetic introverts insist, however, that it is the egg which came first. As we can see, the jury is still out, and to this day, humans cook both and eat'em...)

:)

#14 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,823 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 February 2008 - 07:46 AM

If memory serves, Ken Ham is an Australian creationist who has been living in the US for some years now. The circumstances of his relocation to the US were somewhat controversial. He has set up the Creation Museum (which has, among its exhibits, animatronic recreations of humans living alongside dinosaurs), and is a fervent advocate of the literal interpretation of the Bible, including the Book of Genesis, and argues that the Earth is about 6000 years old (so-called "young-earth" creationism).

#15 Yuri Zharikov

Yuri Zharikov

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts

Posted 18 February 2008 - 08:25 AM

I am unaware of any physical evidence of a global flood during the time that the human race has walked this earth, so please amplify your statement that "there is reason to believe in a global flood from a scientific standpoint as well." Also, the prevalence of flood myths does not in the least support the idea that everybody is talking about the same flood. Devastating floods happen locally all the time, all over the world, therefore virtually all primitive cultures have flood myths.


Just a note... if something is grounded in reality, i.e. based on an event that happened, it cannot be a myth; myths have no reality behind them.

Yura

#16 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 February 2008 - 11:46 AM

Just a note... if something is grounded in reality, i.e. based on an event that happened, it cannot be a myth; myths have no reality behind them.

Yura


I do not believe this is correct. I know that G. K. Chesterton has a much different take on the subject:

It is quite easy to see why a legend {myth} is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend {myth} is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad.

From Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton


Words in {} added by me. Myth is merely history given context.

Herman the Pooh

#17 Rick H.

Rick H.

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 February 2008 - 12:21 PM

Science can't even tell us what came first, the chicken or the egg? (mistake, there are some who come from the purely poultry camp of the chickens which cowardly claim the chicken came first. Another camp of hermetic introverts insist, however, that it is the egg which came first. As we can see, the jury is still out, and to this day, humans cook both and eat'em...)

:)



Antonios, I wonder if you read the discussion (post #29 in the following) by the great thinkers here at monachos about why the chicken crossed the road? :)

Ode to the overuse of boldface font - Page 2 - Monachos.net Discussion Community

#18 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 18 February 2008 - 04:37 PM

Just a note... if something is grounded in reality, i.e. based on an event that happened, it cannot be a myth; myths have no reality behind them.


No! This is a terribly secular version of 'myth'. In theology, myths convey truth.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

#19 Alec Lowly

Alec Lowly

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 19 February 2008 - 01:04 AM

On the whole, I'm not that interested to be honest (and do not appreciate the 'fundyville' from which many of the creationists come from), but I heard a guy named Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis speak once who was pretty sharp and held my attention. But, the point being there is some science behind this that is credible as any.


Well, Rick, no. There is ~not~ "some science behind this that is as credible as any." Creationism is simply not credible as science, period, because it dispenses with the necessity of falsifiability. Their arguments work this way: "If I had some cheese, I could make a cheese sandwich -- if I had some bread." Once I asked a creationist where all the flood water went to -- that would have been a simply stupendous amount of water -- and he told me that it had drained off into underground caverns. Then I asked him for evidence of the existence of underground caverns of that size -- and pretty soon he was talking about something else entirely. The plain fact is, the creationists have no new evidence, none, that would overturn the scientific consensus on the age of the earth, the origin of species, etc.

#20 Paul Cowan

Paul Cowan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 19 February 2008 - 01:21 AM

Once I asked a creationist where all the flood water went to -- that would have been a simply stupendous amount of water -- and he told me that it had drained off into underground caverns. Then I asked him for evidence of the existence of underground caverns of that size -- and pretty soon he was talking about something else entirely.


Have you not seen the "Voyage to the center of the earth"? (sorry, just kidding)

This begs the question though...where do evolutionists say the water went? Even on a "local" scale for the ark to rest on top of Mount Arafat, that is a significant amount of water. What does "local" mean anyway?

So would evolutionists say something like, this event was local in that that which was not local was butted up against an intensly high wall of water such as in the Moses crossing the Red Sea story. And it just sort of decreased in height over time to allow the local and nonlocal water to be the same depth once again.

Paul ( I can't believe I opened myself up to this debate)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users