Evidence for a worldwide flood described by Noah

[ZNPaaneah]

This thread is an offshoot from the Bible vs Science thread. In that thread it was claimed that science has disproved the biblical account of a flood.

I responded that this was not true, the fact that every ancient civilization has an account of "the flood" (not a flood) and that these accounts share incredible similarities (for example the ancient chinese word for boat literally means 8 souls, Noahs ark held 8 souls) rules out "coincidence". Therefore scientists have been forced back to the drawing board.

In Geology there is a principle called "the principle of uniformitarianism". Originally this principle stated that what we see today is pretty similar to what happened in the past. However, there was a geologist in Washington state who was trying to figure out what formed strange hills fifty feet high. Finally they realized they weren't hills, they were ripple marks. It was a flood of Biblical proportions, called the Missoula floods, or ice age floods. Since that discovery the "principle of uniformitarianism" has been adjusted, we now say that the same physical laws that act today, acted in the past, but that we could have dramatically different world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMbsGHVzXRU

What happens is that as the glaciers from the last ice age melt the water doesn't percolate away drip by drip, instead the water seeks the lowest point, which could be a valley trapped behind an ice wall. When the ice wall breaks the entire lake escapes in a huge, catastrophic flood. We see these lakes today on Greenland and there is one very huge one just discovered in Antarctica. When these lakes do break free and rush into the ocean there will be a sudden surge in sea level.

This retreat and ultimate collapse of the last ice age began 15,000 years ago. It is difficult to say if there were people present because everything would have been swept away. However, we know that there were people in America 11,000 years ago, we also know that the Black Sea flooded 5,600 BC, about 7,600 years ago, and certainly do (at least in part) to sea level rise as a result of these melting glaciers. Archaeologists have found evidence of ancient civilizations at the bottom of the black sea. A date and location that corresponds very nicely with the account of Noah's flood.

So then, scientific evidence has proven that as the ice receded from the last ice age sea level rose and in 5600BC it rose high enough for the Black sea to flood. This rise must be associated with glaciers melting, because ice already in the ocean does not cause sea level to rise when it melts. We also know that as glaciers melt they don't do it in drips or drabs, but rather lakes will form within the glacier because ice is impermiable and water seeks its lowest point. When the ice wall of these glacier locked lakes breaks you have catastrophic floods.

Still it doesn't explain the 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Using the principle of uniformitarianism this description sounds like a monsoon. A monsoon forms when cold air rolls down from the Himalayas and meets warm moist air from the Indian ocean. At the end of the last ice age we would have cold air rolling off the entire outer edge of the glaciers, and if this met warm water from an ocean you would have the correct conditions for a monsoon. Also rain would have a huge impact on causing ice walls in the glaciers to melt. Monsoons take place during the summer which would also coincide with the greatest melting of the glaciers and highest probability of these catastrophic collapses. A sudden rise in sea level would not result in "regional" flooding, it would be worldwide. Collapsing glacier locked lakes would also result in massive flooding. This would certainly coincide with flooding of outwash plains. Virtually all agricultural societies live next to the ocean, rivers and lakes. They would all have experience flooding at virtually the same time. Since all human civilization at that time was based on agriculture they would all have been located in river valleys, along the coastline, next to lakes, etc. All of these places would have experienced catastrophic flooding associated with sudden sea level rise, monsoon like conditions, and catastrophic collapse of ice locked lakes.

Would this all have happened the same day? No. Would it be over at the whole earth? yes. Would all human civilizations have witnessed this? Yes. Would all of these conditions been the result of this flood yes. Would the story of Noah's ark struck a major chord with many disparate civilizations, probably.

[awareness]

Bro ZNP, how would the author of Genesis know all the stuff that's in your OP?

[Intothewind]

None of that matches what was said in the Bible.

This is almost like Moses passing through the reed sea...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro ZNP, how would the author of Genesis know all the stuff that's in your OP?

They saw the rain, the boat, the flood. Didn't know the why or the how, only that God warned him and gave him the design for the boat and the mission for the animals. Noah also describes what the flood was like where he lived, not necessarily what it was like everywhere else on the Earth. His description sounds like what happened when the Black sea was flooded. Noah's account also gives us a time frame that we can examine. The account in the Bible is a great piece to the puzzle, and a really great first hand account of what happened. The account also relays that this "flood" was something that you could see coming ten, twenty, thirty years in advance and prepare for. Kind of ironic, almost like it is there so that we could learn from it.

I expect the account was relayed down to the writer from the descendants of Noah.

However, using scientific inquiry we can piece together what happened. As a rule scientists originally ruled this out as a true story because we assumed we would see "evidence" of this worldwide flood. Then when we looked more closely to disprove this story we did see the evidence and the elephant in the room that was hiding in plain sight -- the glacial remnants of the last ice age.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They saw the rain, the boat, the flood. Didn't know the why or the how, only that God warned him and gave him the design for the boat and the mission for the animals. Noah also describes what the flood was like where he lived, not necessarily what it was like everywhere else on the Earth. His description sounds like what happened when the Black sea was flooded. Noah's account also gives us a time frame that we can examine. The account in the Bible is a great piece to the puzzle, and a really great first hand account of what happened. The account also relays that this "flood" was something that you could see coming ten, twenty, thirty years in advance and prepare for. Kind of ironic, almost like it is there so that we could learn from it.

I expect the account was relayed down to the writer from the descendants of Noah.

However, using scientific inquiry we can piece together what happened. As a rule scientists originally ruled this out as a true story because we assumed we would see "evidence" of this worldwide flood. Then when we looked more closely to disprove this story we did see the evidence and the elephant in the room that was hiding in plain sight -- the glacial remnants of the last ice age.

You seem to just be mixing it up to see what sticks. The Bible doesn't mention glacial remnants of any ice age. Like the "gap" this is nothing short of reading it into the Bible, to try to make it fit with science.

The starting premise, that drives this prejudice is : The Bible has all the answers ;; even tho the Bible authors came out of the bronze and iron age, and never knew anything about the age of Science. You can't make the bronze and iron age's fit into the age of Science, I don't care how you cut the puzzle pieces to make them fit, the final picture will not look right. That's why they are called ages.

And I'll go you one further, in this silly thread :

First, they didn't even know about the globe. The age of discovery of the globe didn't begin to happen until the 15th c.

Second, where did all the water come from, and where did it go? Genesis 7:20 says it covered the mountains by fifteen cubits. Perhaps they didn't know about the Himalayan Mountains, that's more than 29,000 ft high.

You can answer these questions by thinking like they had to be thinking back then, which didn't match reality at all, because they didn't know enough to even know reality ... not like we know it today.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You seem to just be mixing it up to see what sticks. The Bible doesn't mention glacial remnants of any ice age. Like the "gap" this is nothing short of reading it into the Bible, to try to make it fit with science.

The starting premise, that drives this prejudice is : The Bible has all the answers ;; even tho the Bible authors came out of the bronze and iron age, and never knew anything about the age of Science. You can't make the bronze and iron age's fit into the age of Science, I don't care how you cut the puzzle pieces to make them fit, the final picture will not look right. That's why they are called ages.

And I'll go you one further, in this silly thread :

First, they didn't even know about the globe. The age of discovery of the globe didn't begin to happen until the 15th c.

Second, where did all the water come from, and where did it go? Genesis 7:20 says it covered the mountains by fifteen cubits. Perhaps they didn't know about the Himalayan Mountains, that's more than 29,000 ft high.

You can answer these questions by thinking like they had to be thinking back then, which didn't match reality at all, because they didn't know enough to even know reality ... not like we know it today.

I prefaced this with "I don't know what happened". To which Intothewind responded that I had "moved the goalposts" indicating some kind of deceit. As a result I opened this thread so as not to hijack the other one.

There is evidence of a "global flood" due to sea level rise and melting glaciers at the retreat of the last ice age. This global flood could have also been accompanied with monsoon like conditions.

That is the extent of what I have pieced together. I shared this reluctantly because, as I said before "I don't know what happened". That said I think the evidence has moved the scientific community a very great way from completely dismissing the Noah account to now realizing there must have been a global flood of "Biblical proportions" that we have not yet fully pieced together. But in the last 30 years scientists have moved very far from dismissing this out of hand which you and Intothewind are doing, to realizing that we don't have all the answers and the Earth is a much stranger place than we realize.

I did not want to add the final puzzle piece because it is the most speculative. "Open the windows of heaven" this is virtually impossible to comprehend except for the possibility of a super volcano.

We had 2 super volcanos erupt 6,300 years ago, one in Japan and one in New Zealand. There was also one 10,000 years ago. These throw up huge amounts of material into the atmosphere.

So when it says that the deep was opened, it could refer to these. They could have spewed massive amounts of water into atmosphere, they could have caused massive tsunami waves.

Bottom line is that when these erupt it is huge, it affects the entire globe, and it is not something that we are used to.

The fact that I can't answer all the questions does not disprove the accuracy of the account in the Bible. That account is certainly stunning and it would seem would have to have some clarification. But why make those caveats till we have pieced exactly what did happen together.

Also, the description is of a wave, because they also describe the water "receding". A wave does not behave based on simple math. The last tsunami in Japan was a wave of a certain height, so they built a sea wall that high thinking it would keep the wave out. instead the water piles up at the wall and then goes over the top even though the wave height is not higher than the wall.

Now this is what I do know for a fact:

1. If you lived in the Black Sea region when it was flooded and survived in a boat you had built due to God's speaking to you, that would be considered the biggest miracle ever.

2. If you were alive when one of these ice age lakes collapsed and flooded the area you would have remembered it as the most catastrophic and cataclysmic event you ever saw.

3. If you were alive when a super volcano exploded you would remember that as the most catastrophic and cataclysmic event of your lifetime.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I prefaced this with "I don't know what happened". To which Intothewind responded that I had "moved the goalposts" indicating some kind of deceit. As a result I opened this thread so as not to hijack the other one.

There is evidence of a "global flood" due to sea level rise and melting glaciers at the retreat of the last ice age. This global flood could have also been accompanied with monsoon like conditions.

That is the extent of what I have pieced together. I shared this reluctantly because, as I said before "I don't know what happened". That said I think the evidence has moved the scientific community a very great way from completely dismissing the Noah account to now realizing there must have been a global flood of "Biblical proportions" that we have not yet fully pieced together. But in the last 30 years scientists have moved very far from dismissing this out of hand which you and Intothewind are doing, to realizing that we don't have all the answers and the Earth is a much stranger place than we realize.

I did not want to add the final puzzle piece because it is the most speculative. "Open the windows of heaven" this is virtually impossible to comprehend except for the possibility of a super volcano.

We had 2 super volcanos erupt 6,300 years ago, one in Japan and one in New Zealand. There was also one 10,000 years ago. These throw up huge amounts of material into the atmosphere.

So when it says that the deep was opened, it could refer to these. They could have spewed massive amounts of water into atmosphere, they could have caused massive tsunami waves.

Bottom line is that when these erupt it is huge, it affects the entire globe, and it is not something that we are used to.

The fact that I can't answer all the questions does not disprove the accuracy of the account in the Bible. That account is certainly stunning and it would seem would have to have some clarification. But why make those caveats till we have pieced exactly what did happen together.

Also, the description is of a wave, because they also describe the water "receding". A wave does not behave based on simple math. The last tsunami in Japan was a wave of a certain height, so they built a sea wall that high thinking it would keep the wave out. instead the water piles up at the wall and then goes over the top even though the wave height is not higher than the wall.

Now this is what I do know for a fact:

1. If you lived in the Black Sea region when it was flooded and survived in a boat you had built due to God's speaking to you, that would be considered the biggest miracle ever.

2. If you were alive when one of these ice age lakes collapsed and flooded the area you would have remembered it as the most catastrophic and cataclysmic event you ever saw.

3. If you were alive when a super volcano exploded you would remember that as the most catastrophic and cataclysmic event of your lifetime.

Bro ZNP, I think you'd fit right in here in Kentucky. With your background you could work for Ken Ham, at either his Creation Museum, or his massive Ark exhibit. Maybe you could even get your picture taken riding on a dinosaur. Either way, your ideology seems to come close to that of Ken Ham, and his answersingenesis.org. ... and your scientists too, seem to be those on Ken Ham's payroll.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro ZNP, I think you'd fit right in here in Kentucky. With your background you could work for Ken Ham, at either his Creation Museum, or his massive Ark exhibit. Maybe you could even get your picture taken riding on a dinosaur. Either way, your ideology seems to come close to that of Ken Ham, and his answersingenesis.org. ... and your scientists too, seem to be those on Ken Ham's payroll.

That's idiotic. Building the boat according to the design is interesting to see how big this really was. But dinosaurs in cages on the ark are just idiotic. How do you put Dr. E.O. Wilson in that group? Besides he argues for an earth that is 6,000 years which I completely reject.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That's idiotic. Building the boat according to the design is interesting to see how big this really was. But dinosaurs in cages on the ark are just idiotic. How do you put Dr. E.O. Wilson in that group? Besides he argues for an earth that is 6,000 years which I completely reject.

Kan Ham has proven there would be enough space. Many dinosaurs were small. Also, God made the animals live together peacefully and not eat each other. Contrary to the nonsense scientists claim today that "sharp teeth = meat eater", many dinosaurs were plant eaters, including the famed T-rex, or they transitioned from meat eaters to plant eaters.

This is interesting work done by a researcher into how they went from meat eaters to vegetarians:


http://io9.gizmodo.com/5715384/the-m...ent-vegetarian

[Intothewind]

Evangelical: did you read that article you posted? It says no where that T. rex was vegetarian.

Nice job spinning something to fit the nutty dinosaurs on the ark narrative. You and Ken Ham would get along splendidly. Unless that post was total sarcasm....

Zpanaah: The idea of the ark only needing to host "animals"(as in only big creatures) from the local region makes it somewhat more plausible. But again, this requires modifying the original text so their is no worldwide flood, and that Noah's family was not the only group that survived.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Evangelical: did you read that article you posted? It says no where that T. rex was vegetarian.

Nice job spinning something to fit the nutty dinosaurs on the ark narrative. You and Ken Ham would get along splendidly. Unless that post was total sarcasm....

Zpanaah: The idea of the ark only needing to host "animals"(as in only big creatures) from the local region makes it somewhat more plausible. But again, this requires modifying the original text so their is no worldwide flood, and that Noah's family was not the only group that survived.

Yes I read it, but perhaps you missed this part:

The theropod dinosaurs, like Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor, were some of the most fearsome carnivores ever. Yet most of these perfect hunters abandoned live prey in favor of a more peaceful, vegetarian existence...which started their evolution into birds.

I believe science has made a gross assumption when they equate big sharp teeth with meat eating. By that logic, then humans should not be meat eaters as our teeth are relatively pathetic when it comes to stripping meat off a bone. It is possible that all of the animals on the ark were vegetarian, no cages would be required on the ark.

Anyway, science has admitted it was wrong about their meat-eating assumptions when the article says:

The results were shocking. Many of the supposedly carnivorous therapod dinosaurs were actually eating plants.

I believe this is a problem with evolution itself- the assumptions that are made based solely upon the fossil and what the creature looks like. It is the assumption that things with wings should fly, things with fins should swim, things with legs should walk. The opposite could be true = walking things can swim, swimming things can fly, flying things can swim and walk. And how do they know that dinosaurs were not colored pink and purple with yellow polka dots? They cannot assume those things.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That's idiotic. Building the boat according to the design is interesting to see how big this really was. But dinosaurs in cages on the ark are just idiotic. How do you put Dr. E.O. Wilson in that group? Besides he argues for an earth that is 6,000 years which I completely reject.

If you can see that about Ken Ham then surely you can see that the flood story is idiotic too.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That's idiotic. Building the boat according to the design is interesting to see how big this really was. But dinosaurs in cages on the ark are just idiotic. How do you put Dr. E.O. Wilson in that group? Besides he argues for an earth that is 6,000 years which I completely reject.

ZNPaaneah, since God caused all the animals to come to the ark by divine intervention, it is possible that God caused all the animals to fit into the ark as well. He could have worked any number of miracles to make them fit, if Noah's ark dimensions were not big enough.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

If you can see that about Ken Ham then surely you can see that the flood story is idiotic too.

I consider the writers of the Bible to be faithful witnesses. Just like any other witness, you can tell the truth from your perspective, it doesn't mean that I can get a full picture of what happened without looking at other pieces of evidence and witnesses as well.

I am reminded of Cameron Todd Willingham, the man convicted of killing his wife and children by burning down their house. All of the evidence supported the fireman's conclusion that an accelerant was used, poured on the floor leading out the front door. The speed with which the house burned, the V shaped patterns on the walls, and the gas can in his car where he was sleeping all supported this conclusion.

But because they wanted to put him to death and he insisted that he was innocent a forensic investigator tested his story. The house next door was abandoned, it was the exact same floor plan as the house that burned, built the same year by the same builder. They set up the furniture and other stuff just like the other house, started a fire on the couch according to Cameron's testimony and burned it down. To their amazement they saw the same evidence of accelerant on the floor, the same V shaped pattern and the house went up so fast it supported his story as well.

That was when we learned how dangerous those cheap sofas were and laws were passed to use fire retardant cushions.

You accuse the writer of Genesis of concocting a story. However, over the last 30 years I have seen one piece after another of the puzzle put into place so that in the end I feel we will all be utterly amazed at how accurate the description was.

For example: "Macha is the name of a group of meteorite craters in the Sakha Republic in Siberia, Russia.[1] The largest measures 300 meters in diameter and is part of a field of 5 craters, the diameters of which range from 60 to 300 meters.[2][3]

The two largest craters form the pear-shaped Abram Lake while the remaining three are located to the north.[4] They have been very well preserved.

The craters are the result of the fall of possible iron meteorites at approximately 5300 BCE (Holocene), which would give them an age of about 7,300 years.[1]"

What is interesting is that we have seen this correlation before, on one side of the Earth a large meteorite strikes, on the other it sets off massive volcanic eruptions. This event could have triggered the two simultaneous super volano eruptions. Just like the Bible says the heavens were opened (if 5 meteorites of this size struck in Siberia all of the snow and ice would be vaporized and put into the atmosphere. Likewise the deep was opened, i.e. the super volcano's.

And in the Indian ocean there is evidence that meteorites hit at the same time causing a megatsunami to wash over Africa: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...ebate-science/

Remember we cannot know how high the water was in the mountains without witnesses. It reminds me of the Indonesia Tsunami where only people in the mountains clinging to trees survived. Only this tsunami was three times greater.

The thing that always amazed me about this is the same people who argue that the story of Noah never happened, these same people agree that we are now experiencing a new extinction event, just like Jesus said -- His coming would be as the days of Noah.

So here is what bothers me about that. If Noah never happened in the first place, how could it happen in the second place? How could the Lord's coming be as the days of Noah if there were no days of Noah?

Do you remember when Time magazine made the Earth their "man of the year"? That was just like the day that Noah learned there was going to be a flood. And do you remember the news stories about "arks" -- seed banks designed to preserve the DNA of millions of species so that we can have them after this extinction event is over. Well that is just like the day that Noah began to build his ark. Then you may be familiar with the arrogant townspeople who made fun of Noah and mocked at him, well that is just like the day you first posted on this thread.

[Intothewind]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes I read it, but perhaps you missed this part:

The theropod dinosaurs, like Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor, were some of the most fearsome carnivores ever. Yet most of these perfect hunters abandoned live prey in favor of a more peaceful, vegetarian existence...which started their evolution into birds.

I believe science has made a gross assumption when they equate big sharp teeth with meat eating. By that logic, then humans should not be meat eaters as our teeth are relatively pathetic when it comes to stripping meat off a bone. It is possible that all of the animals on the ark were vegetarian, no cages would be required on the ark.

Anyway, science has admitted it was wrong about their meat-eating assumptions when the article says:

The results were shocking. Many of the supposedly carnivorous therapod dinosaurs were actually eating plants.

No, that passage does not say that T. rex or velociraptor were meat eaters. It simply says most theropod dinosaurs(not all) were vegetarian. We have lots of direct evidence that many theropods were carnivores. But many are not. What this does do is break the notion that dinosaur diets were divided based on these three evolutionary lines. And this is supported by the varied dentition of the theropod group

Keep in mind gizmodo is not a strictly science reporting source. These two articles are much better written. Note that they mention dentition as well. The tyrannosaurids and the dromaeosaurs(which include the likes of Velociraptor and Deinonychus), members of the theropod dinosaur group, are carnivores. But some of the other lesser known theropods ate various diets.

Btw, birds are directly descended from early theropod dinosaurs, and they eat a variety of diets, as well.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...arp-claws-too/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...ants-89838067/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes I read it, but perhaps you missed this part:

Perhaps you missed clicking on Alasdair Wilkins. That should tell you all about his wild imagination and his untrustworthiness.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

No, that passage does not say that T. rex or velociraptor were meat eaters.

Originally Posted by ZNP

This is completely irrelevant to this thread and off topic. I realize that Evangelical started this foolishness, it should have been ignored. If Awareness will remove these Dinosaur posts I'll be amenable to reopening this thread.

This thread wasn't destined for a long life. Your point has been made brother ZNP - that the flood covered the whole earth. Okay, you defended the Bible (it can't defend itself - like a Lion).

Sorry this thread strayed. I dislike deleting posters posts. No one was mean or insulting so, no harm no foul. It's your thread deal with it as you wish.

[ZNPaaneah]

According to the record of the Bible Noah's flood should have taken place around 5,300 BC

According to the Geologic record several things happened that year

1. There was a major meteorite impact (5 craters, the biggest was from a meteorite 1/3 of KM in diameter) in Siberia. This can be very accurately dated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macha_crater)

2. Two super volcanoes also exploded. This also can be very accurately dated. Kickai caldera Japan and Macauley Island, New Zealand.

3. There may have been more than the 5 meteorite impacts, because there is evidence of a mega tsunami that hit africa from a meteorite that hit off the coast of Madagascar. Since the meteorite hit in the ocean we cannot date it as accurately, but the result of the tsunami can be dated based on the age of sediments that were disturbed. It is "around 10,000 years ago" so it is quite possible that this occurred at the same time. Burckle crater has been discovered in the Indian ocean between Madagascar, some estimate it was 5,000 years ago. This thing is incredibly huge and would have caused a megatsunami. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater)

4. Also, around 5300 BC the mediterranean ocean flooded into what is now the Black Sea through the Bosphorous. As a result of the last ice age ocean levels had dropped and as the ice was receding ocean levels were rising. However, something catastrophic like this meteorite impact could have been the straw that caused the flooding. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...ood-102813115/)

According to the record in Genesis the flood was over all the Earth, this would certainly have been a global event.

According to the record in Genesis the Heavens were opened -- this could refer to the impact of meteorites.

According to the record in Genesis the waters of the deep were opened -- this could refer to the super volcanos.

According to the record in Genesis it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. This could simply refer to the Black Sea region, it could refer to a monsoon like conditions, or it could be a result of the Super volcanos erupting great volumes of water into the heavens, or it could be a result of 5 large meteorites hitting Siberia and causing a tremendous amount of water to rise up into the atmosphere, or it could be a result of meteorites hitting the ocean and vaporizing a huge amount of water, or it could be a combination of all of these factors.

However, the Bible also records water going over the highest mountains to an extraordinary depth. How is that possible?

If you look at any high peak you will generally see a snow covered peak, particularly this close to the last ice age. As the ice melts it is very possible for you to get ice locked lakes, similar to what flooded due to the Missoula flood (I have given a link in a previous post on this).

Breaking one of these ice dams could easily result in a flood similar to the Jonestown flood.

Any reasonable person would conclude that the account in Genesis is based on eyewitnesses, yet not eyewitnesses on every single peak worldwide, but perhaps on some mountains. It may very well be that as these meteorites streaked over the himalayas on their path from Siberia to the Indian Ocean, that they may have sparked some catastrophic flooding in the mountains. I cannot imagine any event that would cause a flood over all peaks, but the possibility that something caused a massive flood over some peaks, even the highest peaks on earth, is not impossible. What is so difficult to find these is that they would be currently covered with glaciers, but with climate change we may discover them shortly.

In addition to the geologic evidence that has been amassed there is striking historical evidence of a massive worldwide flood recorded by every civilization at the time. These stories are not just of "flooding" but of "The Flood". It does appear that we have multiple records of this event from a variety of eyewitnesses.

For a very large meteorite to break into 6 or 7 fragments is not unusual, we saw the exact same thing happen to Jupiter a few years ago where the comet shoemaker levy broke into 21 fragments.

Bottom line there was certainly a massive flood that occurred worldwide at the time of Noah. We can confirm much of the account and it is possible that as the ice and glaciers on these highest peaks melts due to climate change we may even be able to confirm the most extraordinary claim of massive floods on these peaks as well.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

According to the record of the Bible Noah's flood should have taken place around 5,300 BC

According to the Geologic record several things happened that year

1. There was a major meteorite impact (5 craters, the biggest was from a meteorite 1/3 of KM in diameter) in Siberia. This can be very accurately dated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macha_crater)

2. Two super volcanoes also exploded. This also can be very accurately dated. Kickai caldera Japan and Macauley Island, New Zealand.

3. There may have been more than the 5 meteorite impacts, because there is evidence of a mega tsunami that hit africa from a meteorite that hit off the coast of Madagascar. Since the meteorite hit in the ocean we cannot date it as accurately, but the result of the tsunami can be dated based on the age of sediments that were disturbed. It is "around 10,000 years ago" so it is quite possible that this occurred at the same time. Burckle crater has been discovered in the Indian ocean between Madagascar, some estimate it was 5,000 years ago. This thing is incredibly huge and would have caused a megatsunami. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater)

4. Also, around 5300 BC the mediterranean ocean flooded into what is now the Black Sea through the Bosphorous. As a result of the last ice age ocean levels had dropped and as the ice was receding ocean levels were rising. However, something catastrophic like this meteorite impact could have been the straw that caused the flooding. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...ood-102813115/)

According to the record in Genesis the flood was over all the Earth, this would certainly have been a global event.

According to the record in Genesis the Heavens were opened -- this could refer to the impact of meteorites.

According to the record in Genesis the waters of the deep were opened -- this could refer to the super volcanos.

According to the record in Genesis it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. This could simply refer to the Black Sea region, it could refer to a monsoon like conditions, or it could be a result of the Super volcanos erupting great volumes of water into the heavens, or it could be a result of 5 large meteorites hitting Siberia and causing a tremendous amount of water to rise up into the atmosphere, or it could be a result of meteorites hitting the ocean and vaporizing a huge amount of water, or it could be a combination of all of these factors.

However, the Bible also records water going over the highest mountains to an extraordinary depth. How is that possible?

If you look at any high peak you will generally see a snow covered peak, particularly this close to the last ice age. As the ice melts it is very possible for you to get ice locked lakes, similar to what flooded due to the Missoula flood (I have given a link in a previous post on this).

Breaking one of these ice dams could easily result in a flood similar to the Jonestown flood.

Any reasonable person would conclude that the account in Genesis is based on eyewitnesses, yet not eyewitnesses on every single peak worldwide, but perhaps on some mountains. It may very well be that as these meteorites streaked over the himalayas on their path from Siberia to the Indian Ocean, that they may have sparked some catastrophic flooding in the mountains. I cannot imagine any event that would cause a flood over all peaks, but the possibility that something caused a massive flood over some peaks, even the highest peaks on earth, is not impossible. What is so difficult to find these is that they would be currently covered with glaciers, but with climate change we may discover them shortly.

In addition to the geologic evidence that has been amassed there is striking historical evidence of a massive worldwide flood recorded by every civilization at the time. These stories are not just of "flooding" but of "The Flood". It does appear that we have multiple records of this event from a variety of eyewitnesses.

For a very large meteorite to break into 6 or 7 fragments is not unusual, we saw the exact same thing happen to Jupiter a few years ago where the comet shoemaker levy broke into 21 fragments.

Bottom line there was certainly a massive flood that occurred worldwide at the time of Noah. We can confirm much of the account and it is possible that as the ice and glaciers on these highest peaks melts due to climate change we may even be able to confirm the most extraordinary claim of massive floods on these peaks as well.

Your view regarding multiple eyewitnesses is incompatible with the Bible because it says that Noah and his family were the only ones to survive the flood. According to the Bible the only eyewitnesses were Noah and his family.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your view regarding multiple eyewitnesses is incompatible with the Bible because it says that Noah and his family were the only ones to survive the flood. According to the Bible the only eyewitnesses were Noah and his family.

Honestly do I really have to put up with this?

10 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, namely, of Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5 Of these were the [a]isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

6 And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. 7 And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan. 8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah: wherefore it is said, Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Jehovah. 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city). 13 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (whence went forth the Philistines), and Caphtorim.

Who did these grandchildren of Noah marry? What is this "isle of the nations". Who are these "nations"? Kingdom of Babel? How could that be? Philistines? Weren't they killed?

If you lived in NYC and there was a great flood that wiped out the entire city of 20 million and you and your family alone were saved it would be perfectly acceptable to say:

23 And every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

You can't read chapter 7 in isolation from chapter 10. You have to read both to get the full story.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Honestly do I really have to put up with this?

10 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, namely, of Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5 Of these were the [a]isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

6 And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. 7 And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan. 8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah: wherefore it is said, Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Jehovah. 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city). 13 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (whence went forth the Philistines), and Caphtorim.

Who did these grandchildren of Noah marry? What is this "isle of the nations". Who are these "nations"? Kingdom of Babel? How could that be? Philistines? Weren't they killed?

If you lived in NYC and there was a great flood that wiped out the entire city of 20 million and you and your family alone were saved it would be perfectly acceptable to say:

23 And every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

You can't read chapter 7 in isolation from chapter 10. You have to read both to get the full story.

Let's not forget chapter 9 which says

Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth."

Genesis 9:16 shows that God's covenant was with every living creature, confirming it was a global worldwide flood involving every living creature.

This is clear indication that Noah's family were the only survivors.

Genesis 7:23 is quoted by 1 Peter 3:20 which says only 8 people were saved.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let's not forget chapter 9 which says

Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth."

Let's not forget that Genesis is stories told long long after the events. Genesis was written around 800bc. That's what, at least 3000 years, that's 3000 yrs, after the events -- even if the events were nothing more than just the flood of the then known world, which was tiny compared to the whole globe, as known today. The idea that the whole globe, as we know it today, was flooded, is just comical. We're reading stories that were passed down, 2nd hand after 2nd hand, thousands of hands -- have you ever played the game telephone?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is clear indication that Noah's family were the only survivors.

The moral aspects of the flood hasn't even been brought up on this thread. That obviously is not important to brother ZNP. I guess proving the Bible is true is more important to him than morals, ethics, murder, slaughter, and human sufferings (Men, Women, children, fetuses, and all kinds of innocents), and even the sufferings of all the innocent critters.

Let me guess, this is off topic ... and should be deleted along with the dinosaur posts ???

If you're gonna have a conclusion ... the moral questions should be the conclusion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's not forget that Genesis is stories told long long after the events. Genesis was written around 800bc. That's what, at least 3000 years, that's 3000 yrs, after the events -- even if the events were nothing more than just the flood of the then known world, which was tiny compared to the whole globe, as known today. The idea that the whole globe, as we know it today, was flooded, is just comical. We're reading stories that were passed down, 2nd hand after 2nd hand, thousands of hands -- have you ever played the game telephone?


The moral aspects of the flood hasn't even been brought up on this thread. That obviously is not important to brother ZNP. I guess proving the Bible is true is more important to him than morals, ethics, murder, slaughter, and human sufferings (Men, Women, children, fetuses, and all kinds of innocents), and even the sufferings of all the innocent critters.

Let me guess, this is off topic ... and should be deleted along with the dinosaur posts ???

If you're gonna have a conclusion ... the moral questions should be the conclusion.

My concern was that the view regarding eye witnesses and the flood does not match a number of passages in the Bible - it is hard to reconcile the Bible with science. I was not talking about the moral aspects.

ZNP has concluded that the Genesis account is due to various eye witnesses on mountain tops but this is unlikely and does not match the scriptural account. The Bible itself states that Noah's knowledge of the flood being global and him being the only survive, came via revelation from God (not via eye witnesses). It is more likely that the Genesis account came by revelation passed down through oral tradition because there were no survivors of the flood except Noah and Noah could not observe much, being safely locked away in the ark. This is the viewpoint that the Bible itself presents, if we consider it as a standalone book and keep our scientific presumptions separate from it.

I believe it is possible to pass down oral tradition over hundreds if not thousands of years. We can expect that the major or important aspects of the traditions such as the flood being global and Noah and family being the only survivors to stand the test of time. I believe studies into ancient tribes and such have shown such abilities. I also believe the minds of ancient peoples were also sharper and able to store and recall more information in precise detail with greater clarity than us today. You assume that the abilities of ancient peoples were the same as yours or mine today. I believe ancient people were smarter in a number of ways - they had to survive without technology, which required greater intelligence and mental/physical ability. So I think accurate memory retention and recall over hundreds or thousands of years is possible. And I do not think the flood is about morality but about justice.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let's not forget chapter 9 which says

Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth."

Genesis 9:16 shows that God's covenant was with every living creature, confirming it was a global worldwide flood involving every living creature.

This is clear indication that Noah's family were the only survivors.

Genesis 7:23 is quoted by 1 Peter 3:20 which says only 8 people were saved.

It is a clear indication that many people were killed. When combined with the very next chapter that talks about nations, tongues, and philistines and many new daughters in law it is clear that this was not a complete extermination of all people.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's not forget that Genesis is stories told long long after the events. Genesis was written around 800bc. That's what, at least 3000 years, that's 3000 yrs, after the events -- even if the events were nothing more than just the flood of the then known world, which was tiny compared to the whole globe, as known today. The idea that the whole globe, as we know it today, was flooded, is just comical. We're reading stories that were passed down, 2nd hand after 2nd hand, thousands of hands -- have you ever played the game telephone?


The moral aspects of the flood hasn't even been brought up on this thread. That obviously is not important to brother ZNP. I guess proving the Bible is true is more important to him than morals, ethics, murder, slaughter, and human sufferings (Men, Women, children, fetuses, and all kinds of innocents), and even the sufferings of all the innocent critters.

Let me guess, this is off topic ... and should be deleted along with the dinosaur posts ???

If you're gonna have a conclusion ... the moral questions should be the conclusion.

The moral question "should be" the conclusion to a side thread entitled "evidence for a worldwide flood"?

This is a side thread to a larger thread on Bible vs Science.

Maybe you can explain further why a conclusion to the evidence should be "the moral question"? I thought we were discussing the scientific evidence to either support or disprove biblical accounts. Why don't you clear that up for us and tell us what we are really discussing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My concern was that the view regarding eye witnesses and the flood does not match a number of passages in the Bible - it is hard to reconcile the Bible with science. I was not talking about the moral aspects.

ZNP has concluded that the Genesis account is due to various eye witnesses on mountain tops but this is unlikely and does not match the scriptural account.

Here is the scriptural account:

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Now how do you know this? Did an angel report this? If we are talking about Moses then it would be all the mountains he could see, if we are talking about other accounts from other people it might include other mountain ranges as well. It seems reasonable to assume that Noah's input was valuable since the boat came to rest on a high mountain, but you would think that there were other witnesses that people heard from over the years as well.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible itself states that Noah's knowledge of the flood being global and him being the only survive, came via revelation from God (not via eye witnesses).

Wow, well that settles it. Just show us the verses in the Bible, I seem to be unable to find that particular passage.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is more likely that the Genesis account came by revelation passed down through oral tradition because there were no survivors of the flood except Noah and Noah could not observe much, being safely locked away in the ark. This is the viewpoint that the Bible itself presents, if we consider it as a standalone book and keep our scientific presumptions separate from it.

Seriously? No survivors? No nations? No philistines? No wives for his grandchildren? No kingdom of Babel? Now I get it, we interpret the Bible in the most idiotic way possible, we ignore all evidence that is plainly spoken in the Bible that our interpretation is idiotic, and then we can say "look, science disproves the Biblical account". Where did you get this? Your first grade Sunday school teacher?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe it is possible to pass down oral tradition over hundreds if not thousands of years. We can expect that the major or important aspects of the traditions such as the flood being global and Noah and family being the only survivors to stand the test of time. I believe studies into ancient tribes and such have shown such abilities. I also believe the minds of ancient peoples were also sharper and able to store and recall more information in precise detail with greater clarity than us today. You assume that the abilities of ancient peoples were the same as yours or mine today. I believe ancient people were smarter in a number of ways - they had to survive without technology, which required greater intelligence and mental/physical ability. So I think accurate memory retention and recall over hundreds or thousands of years is possible. And I do not think the flood is about morality but about justice.

Thank you for that peak inside the mind of evangelical.

[ZNPaaneah]

So then, just to review some of the scientific evidence:

The Burckle crater is approximately 30 km in diameter and at the bottom of the Indian ocean, the Chicxulub crater is about 180 km in diameter. When that meteorite hit the earth it was hypothesized that the entire Americas were deluged.

When a meteorite hits the ocean it will completely vaporize a huge quantity of the ocean which will be spewed up into the upper atmosphere while also heating up the atmosphere. This water will eventually rain back down to earth, and the idea of it taking 40 days and nights is not unreasonable.

Monsoon effect is when hot, muggy air hits colder air. This vaporized water would be extremely hot and muggy. When that air came in contact with cooler air in the mountains you would get rain, it is called the orographic effect. This could easily spark flash floods in mountains, in fact that is what you would expect. These floods could certainly wash away villages that form in the valleys.

The Chicxulub meteorite crater coincides with the extinction of 65% of creatures living in that day. This Burckle crater is significantly smaller so that it would be exponentially less powerful, still the effect would be something that anyone who lived through it would never forget.

We can date this crater quite accurately because of sediments that are torn up, those that are deposited, the formations that are made, and the special minerals that form under the extreme heat, pressure and impact. So then we know this took place precisely at the time the Bible says Noah's flood was.

Again, the account of 40 days and nights of rain is very similar to the account of a monsoon. We associate a monsoon with India, and with this impact in the Indian ocean it could have been the most severe monsoon in human history. Also, please note, the water vapor that is vaporized is steam. It is possible that when this warm air hit the himalayas it actually melted glaciers. So yes, it is certainly possible that the highest mountains experienced massive flooding, not because of a wave from the ocean or tsunami, but because this hot, steamy air came in contact with the cold air, causing massive rain, floods and melting.

They have found evidence that an ice dam broke in the Himalaya mountains around this time causing the greatest flood on Earth since the last ice age. (http://www.washington.edu/news/2004/...ammoth-floods/). The lake was 2,200 feet deep when the ice dam broke. It released more than 500 cubic miles of water. Now this happened and was witnessed by human civilization. No doubt they would remember the greatest flood in human history. Pretty silly huh?

This effect is also called the "rain shadow effect" because the rain will be on one side of the mountain and not on the other. as terrible as this might have been on one side of the Himalayans it is very likely that on the other people survived at a much greater rate.

This also corresponds with the historical records. Those in Sumeria, the Middle East, and India are all quite similar to that of the Bible.

Just so we understand, according to science this did happen. The only real question is if this event is what the Bible was referring to.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe it is possible to pass down oral tradition over hundreds if not thousands of years. We can expect that the major or important aspects of the traditions such as the flood being global and Noah and family being the only survivors to stand the test of time. I believe studies into ancient tribes and such have shown such abilities. I also believe the minds of ancient peoples were also sharper and able to store and recall more information in precise detail with greater clarity than us today.

Research and studies have revealed this to be a false assumption. Memories, both individual and group, don't work this way. In fact, in oral traditions it changes with each passing, even tho the latest memory passer believes it to be identical.

Leading Bible scholar, and professor, Bart Ehrman goes into this quite intensively in his latest book "Jesus before the Gospels." Check it out. You won't be disappointed. I have a digital copy if you would like one. Hit me in PMs if interested.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The moral question "should be" the conclusion to a side thread entitled "evidence for a worldwide flood"?

This is a side thread to a larger thread on Bible vs Science.

Maybe you can explain further why a conclusion to the evidence should be "the moral question"? I thought we were discussing the scientific evidence to either support or disprove biblical accounts. Why don't you clear that up for us and tell us what we are really discussing.

Nope ... you are right. It's more important to prove that the Bible is as scientifically accurate as the science we have today. If you want to appear silly that is. Just remember that by doing so you are defending an amoral God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Research and studies have revealed this to be a false assumption. Memories, both individual and group, don't work this way. In fact, in oral traditions it changes with each passing, even tho the latest memory passer believes it to be identical.

Leading Bible scholar, and professor, Bart Ehrman goes into this quite intensively in his latest book "Jesus before the Gospels." Check it out. You won't be disappointed. I have a digital copy if you would like one. Hit me in PMs if interested.

I think I would be disappointed.

And if we all believe Bart Ehrman, we will all be atheists like him.

No thanks. I'll take my chances with my faith.

Ehrman is no Bible "scholar." He only uses the Bible to make money.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Nope ... you are right. It's more important to prove that the Bible is as scientifically accurate as the science we have today. If you want to appear silly that is. Just remember that by doing so you are defending an amoral God.

You said: "Their basis is a Bible taken literally. However, that means they are unable to use the Bible to those that take their authority from the scientific method, evidence, observation, and empiricism." Post #47, Bible versus Science

This is not true. I will be happy to use evidence, observation and empiricism provided by scientists. Anywhere the sole of my foot goes, that has been given to me. As far as I am concerned the scientific method is not off limits to me.

Now, if you have a problem with that, if you think that is silly it demonstrates the hypocrisy in your position. I am not going to give credit to a hypocrite to tell me that my God is "amoral".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You said: "Their basis is a Bible taken literally. However, that means they are unable to use the Bible to those that take their authority from the scientific method, evidence, observation, and empiricism." Post #47, Bible versus Science

This is not true. I will be happy to use evidence, observation and empiricism provided by scientists. Anywhere the sole of my foot goes, that has been given to me. As far as I am concerned the scientific method is not off limits to me.

Now, if you have a problem with that, if you think that is silly it demonstrates the hypocrisy in your position. I am not going to give credit to a hypocrite to tell me that my God is "amoral".

First, I said that?!? Wow! Thanks for reposting it. I revisited it and it sure seems that it would be good for all to revisit my post. The excerpt doesn't do it justice.

Second : Well it certainly seems you fixed me. Now any opinions I may have, of a moral nature, isn't to be trusted. I'm a hypocrite. Thanks for that.

But don't use me, as a moral compass. Trying using our Declaration of Independence, and other founding documents, as a moral compass, to the most massive genocide ever committed in recorded history.

But maybe you believe that if God does it it can't be wrong ; that even when He's wrong He's right ... that sort of thing???

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here is the scriptural account:

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Now how do you know this? Did an angel report this? If we are talking about Moses then it would be all the mountains he could see, if we are talking about other accounts from other people it might include other mountain ranges as well. It seems reasonable to assume that Noah's input was valuable since the boat came to rest on a high mountain, but you would think that there were other witnesses that people heard from over the years as well.



Wow, well that settles it. Just show us the verses in the Bible, I seem to be unable to find that particular passage.



Seriously? No survivors? No nations? No philistines? No wives for his grandchildren? No kingdom of Babel? Now I get it, we interpret the Bible in the most idiotic way possible, we ignore all evidence that is plainly spoken in the Bible that our interpretation is idiotic, and then we can say "look, science disproves the Biblical account". Where did you get this? Your first grade Sunday school teacher?



Thank you for that peak inside the mind of evangelical.

These verses prove that Noah's knowledge of the flood came via revelation and direct speaking from God:

Genesis 6:7 "7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Genesis 7:4 "4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”"

It also clearly states that Noah and family were the only survivors:

Genesis 7:

21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.


Noah could not have been a witness to the height of the flood water because the Bible says he was locked away in the ark until the land had dried up, and the first thing Noah saw was the dry land:

Genesis 8: 13 Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.

15 Then God said to Noah, 16 “Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives.

So Noah knew that God would destroy everyone and everything except him before the flood even happened. Noah did not need to be an eyewitness to write about the flood - he could have written about the flood from the information God gave him directly. The height of the flood water must have come via revelation from God to Noah or the author of Genesis.

The Bible also says all the people on the Earth are descended from Noah:

Genesis 9:19 "19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth."

These verses show it is impossible to reconcile science with what the Bible actually says.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

First, I said that?!? Wow! Thanks for reposting it. I revisited it and it sure seems that it would be good for all to revisit my post. The excerpt doesn't do it justice.

Second : Well it certainly seems you fixed me. Now any opinions I may have, of a moral nature, isn't to be trusted. I'm a hypocrite. Thanks for that.

But don't use me, as a moral compass. Trying using our Declaration of Independence, and other founding documents, as a moral compass, to the most massive genocide ever committed in recorded history.

But maybe you believe that if God does it it can't be wrong ; that even when He's wrong He's right ... that sort of thing???

You are referring to Noah's flood as genocide?

From a scientific point of view that doesn't make any sense at all. The meteorite that killed the dinosaurs was much more powerful and destructive. That extinction event was essentially nothing compared to the Permian extinction. Basically every 85 million years there has been a major extinction event. This is the environment we live in. No one considers the Chixculub meteorite to be an act of genocide, I mean, that is just silly.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

These verses prove that Noah's knowledge of the flood came via revelation and direct speaking from God:

Genesis 6:7 "7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Genesis 7:4 "4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”"

It also clearly states that Noah and family were the only survivors:

Genesis 7:

21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.

23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Every living thing refers to every one in a group. You assume that the group is the entire earth, yet we know from multiple sources including the next few chapters of Genesis that this is not so.

However, try reading these verses as every living thing in the same region as Noah.


Imagine a CNN reporter visiting the site:
1. Every living thing on the face of the Earth was wiped out.
2. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
3. Every living creature that moved on land perished.

This is the kind of description we get all the time after natural disasters and no one has any issue understanding, no complaints from the grammar police, so why is it so hard for you to read the Bible with the same discernment?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Every living thing refers to every one in a group. You assume that the group is the entire earth, yet we know from multiple sources including the next few chapters of Genesis that this is not so.

However, try reading these verses as every living thing in the same region as Noah.


Imagine a CNN reporter visiting the site:
1. Every living thing on the face of the Earth was wiped out.
2. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
3. Every living creature that moved on land perished.

This is the kind of description we get all the time after natural disasters and no one has any issue understanding, no complaints from the grammar police, so why is it so hard for you to read the Bible with the same discernment?

There are the logical shortcomings of your view such as why the need for an ark and all the animals to be in it (including birds), if there were some patches of dry land? To me, the fact that God wanted birds to be in the ark proves that there was no dry land until after the flood.

God was the one who brought the animals to Noahs ark. If God wanted to save the birds he would have told them to fly or migrate to a dry spot outside of the local area.

Theologically there are problems with your view. In order for your view to fit you would have to interpret "the earth was filled" in the following verses as "the area local to Noah". But earth means the earth (not the local area) and filled means full, to the brim. All of this indicates that God intended to kill everything not just the people in Noah's area.

Genesis 6:

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Also if you believe Noah's flood was local then the future destruction of the world by fire as mentioned by Peter, Paul and Jesus must also be local. We could also interpret Jesus dying for the world as being only for the local people.

Reading the reasons for the flood it seems that God intended to kill every unrighteous person except Noah.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are the logical shortcomings of your view such as why the need for an ark and all the animals to be in it (including birds), if there were some patches of dry land? To me, the fact that God wanted birds to be in the ark proves that there was no dry land until after the flood.

God was the one who brought the animals to Noahs ark. If God wanted to save the birds he would have told them to fly or migrate to a dry spot outside of the local area.

Theologically there are problems with your view. In order for your view to fit you would have to interpret "the earth was filled" in the following verses as "the area local to Noah". But earth means the earth (not the local area) and filled means full, to the brim. All of this indicates that God intended to kill everything not just the people in Noah's area.

Genesis 6:

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Also if you believe Noah's flood was local then the future destruction of the world by fire as mentioned by Peter, Paul and Jesus must also be local. We could also interpret Jesus dying for the world as being only for the local people.

Reading the reasons for the flood it seems that God intended to kill every unrighteous person except Noah.

The end of all flesh is come before God, the earth is filled with violence through them, and behold, God will destroy them with the earth.

What am I missing, all that is true and all that will take place.

The flood at Noah's time is evidence, a token, that this is true.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Every living thing refers to every one in a group. You assume that the group is the entire earth, yet we know from multiple sources including the next few chapters of Genesis that this is not so.

However, try reading these verses as every living thing in the same region as Noah.


Imagine a CNN reporter visiting the site:
1. Every living thing on the face of the Earth was wiped out.
2. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
3. Every living creature that moved on land perished.

This is the kind of description we get all the time after natural disasters and no one has any issue understanding, no complaints from the grammar police, so why is it so hard for you to read the Bible with the same discernment?

I have no problem thinking of the Biblical flood as a local flood, or one of the then known world. Which is why in the timeframe of it the Native American Indians didn't experience it.

Every tribe of people from all around the world have their flood stories. Why? because floods happen everywhere, and not all at the same time ... and when they happen it's understandable to think that it's happening all over the world.

Floods happen today, but we have the advantage of global communicans, so we know it's only happening locally. Not so back then. What was happening to them, to them was happening to the whole wide world, or so they thought ... and wrote.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The end of all flesh is come before God, the earth is filled with violence through them, and behold, God will destroy them with the earth.

What am I missing, all that is true and all that will take place.

The flood at Noah's time is evidence, a token, that this is true.

The theological problems remain if you interpret it to be a local flood:

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flo...cal-in-extent/

Even the renowned and theologically liberal Hebrew scholar James Barr, then Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University in England, was prepared to admit in a letter to David C.C. Watson dated April 23, 1984:

. . . so far as I know, there is no Professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that . . . Noah's Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the Ark. Or to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose . . . the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood are not taken seriously by any such Professors, as far as I know.6

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The theological problems remain if you interpret it to be a local flood:

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flo...cal-in-extent/

Even the renowned and theologically liberal Hebrew scholar James Barr, then Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University in England, was prepared to admit in a letter to David C.C. Watson dated April 23, 1984:

. . . so far as I know, there is no Professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that . . . Noah's Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the Ark. Or to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose . . . the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood are not taken seriously by any such Professors, as far as I know.6

OK, so you didn't read what I wrote, great, stop wasting my time.

I mentioned a meteorite that struck the indian ocean, capable of wiping out 25% of life in the area surrounding the Indian Ocean. This was associated with the flooding of the Black Sea, capable of completely wiping out all life in that area, and also associated with the collapse of an ice dam in the Himalaya mountains instantly releasing 500 cubic miles of water in what is described as the biggest flood in recorded history.

How do you get "merely local Mesopotamian flood" from that?

[awareness]

And what about that rainbow? Bahahahaha ... But maybe that belongs on Science v. Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And what about that rainbow? Bahahahaha ... But maybe that belongs on Science v. Bible.

I would say any interpretation of the account that says that the first rainbow was after Noah's flood, that goes against science.

But, the Bible doesn't say that, it says that God gives us the rainbow as a "token" of His new covenant with us (prior covenant was you eat the tree, you die). In the same way Noah's flood was given to us as token of God's coming judgement on the flesh.

Noah's flood was not the first time a meteorite hit the earth, it wasn't the first time an ice dam collapsed, it wasn't the first time the earth had a flood. No, it was given to us as a token so that we would see that God would judge the world.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would say any interpretation of the account that says that the first rainbow was after Noah's flood, that goes against science.

But, the Bible doesn't say that, it says that God gives us the rainbow as a "token" of His new covenant with us (prior covenant was you eat the tree, you die). In the same way Noah's flood was given to us as token of God's coming judgement on the flesh.

Noah's flood was not the first time a meteorite hit the earth, it wasn't the first time an ice dam collapsed, it wasn't the first time the earth had a flood. No, it was given to us as a token so that we would see that God would judge the world.

The Bible says "Genesis 9:11 "Never again will there be a flood that destroys the earth."

Because floods are still happening, Genesis 9:11 proves that it was a global flood to destroy everything. It was a unique, one time event. It was not a "token" (where in the Bible it says that?). It was a complete overhaul of life on Earth. If it was not to extinguish all life on Earth, then God would not have to give his pinky promise with the rainbow.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OK, so you didn't read what I wrote, great, stop wasting my time.

I mentioned a meteorite that struck the indian ocean, capable of wiping out 25% of life in the area surrounding the Indian Ocean. This was associated with the flooding of the Black Sea, capable of completely wiping out all life in that area, and also associated with the collapse of an ice dam in the Himalaya mountains instantly releasing 500 cubic miles of water in what is described as the biggest flood in recorded history.

How do you get "merely local Mesopotamian flood" from that?

I read it, but you have not addressed the logical shortcomings of your view, such as - why did God not simply relocate the animals (especially the birds that could fly) to a dry area? Anyway, you have the science all figured out it would seem, but theologically, your interpretation of the Bible has some problems.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible says "Genesis 9:11 "Never again will there be a flood that destroys the earth."

Because floods are still happening, Genesis 9:11 proves that it was a global flood to destroy everything. It was a unique, one time event. It was not a "token" (where in the Bible it says that?). It was a complete overhaul of life on Earth. If it was not to extinguish all life on Earth, then God would not have to give his pinky promise with the rainbow.

You understand of course that river systems naturally are designed to flood. The river flows from the mountains, which are covered in snow. During the spring melt the rivers will flood, laying down a layer of silt on the farm land.

As a result the river system will have a "flood plain".

These floods don't "destroy" the earth.

Likewise with the monsoon season.

Likewise with meltwater from the Himalayas.

The events during this flood were far more extreme to the point of destruction. But the really destructive event was the meteor strike (or comet). Prior to the discovery of that meteor crater at the bottom of the Indian ocean it was thought that our last meteor strike was over 100,000 years ago, and we have not had one since.

Therefore we have not had another "flood that destroys the earth" the way this one did.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I read it, but you have not addressed the logical shortcomings of your view, such as - why did God not simply relocate the animals (especially the birds that could fly) to a dry area? Anyway, you have the science all figured out it would seem, but theologically, your interpretation of the Bible has some problems.

There are a lot of things about this story that seemed impossible -- flood was worldwide, the flood lifted a boat rather than rolling it, and the flood went over the highest peaks on earth.

The heavens were opened and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights seemed very extreme, but plausible on a local scale, but unthinkable on a more global scale.

But the one thing I always thought was completely absurd was the Sunday school depiction of Noah traveling around the world, collecting a menagerie of every kind of animal, gathering the food for all those animals, keeping the Lions from eating the Zebra, etc.

But rather than me answering your question why don't you think on it a little. Pray about it a little. What was so special about the animals where Noah lived that God wanted him to bring them with him?

Forget the fact that the ark is a type of Christ. Let's just focus on the practical reason that Noah needed to fill his boat with the animals from that location.

If you read Jared Diamond's books he points out that one key reason that civilization began and thrived in the fertile crescent is because 13 of the 14 domesticated farm animals are native to the Mediterranean area. Only 1 out of 14 is native to the Americas (llama) and none are native to Australia or Sub Saharan Africa. But you should read about how absolutely critical these 13 animals were to the success of human civilization, pray about it, and see if the Lord gives you understanding.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

. . . it was given to us as a token so that we would see that God would judge the world.

I'm beginning to think that nothing will ever please God but God Himself. Sure He's happy at first - "It is good" - but it doesn't take long for Him to become displeased. So the flood.

Maybe He was happy immediately after that 'cleansing.' But the flood results didn't fix anything for very long.

So no more floods ... fire the next time.

Goodness ... you'd think God would be able to make something right.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm beginning to think that nothing will ever please God but God Himself. Sure He's happy at first - "It is good" - but it doesn't take long for Him to become displeased. So the flood.

Maybe He was happy immediately after that 'cleansing.' But the flood results didn't fix anything for very long.

So no more floods ... fire the next time.

Goodness ... you'd think God would be able to make something right.

Beginning? I'm pretty sure you have been thinking this way for as long as I have known you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Beginning? I'm pretty sure you have been thinking this way for as long as I have known you.

No, it just dawned on me that the only thing that will please God is God Himself.

But actually it's perchance a carry-over from my local church days. I remember the idea that eventually, if we ate enough Jesus, by pray-reading and calling on his name enough, we'd be transformed into his image. So there, again, God is only please with God.

So why make any thing else? Why create disappointment? Whatever He makes can't ever be as great as He is. He's bound to be disappointed ... and like a disappointed child destroy it all, in one fell swoop.

And why do we need evidence for a worldwide flood? We obviously don't learn from our past, that when God is displeased, which of course He can't help to be, He throws a worldwide fitty, of Biblical proportions, punishing even the animals.

If that don't scare us into snuggling up close to God nothing will.

In the end, isn't that the purpose of the flood story in Genesis, to scare us into being good little boys and girls? Then maybe God will be happy with us ... maybe, just maybe ... and won't wipe us out.

God is hard to make happy. It's a good argument that God is a woman ; that He is a She. If Noah had realized this, and he should have, he could have corrected this "He" reference early on.

But Noah wasn't all that sharp. He couldn't have been. He thought the flood was worldwide. And he failed to see that God was throwing a big tantrum, just like a woman.

God did the same thing to Job ; He, or should I say She, in the end, acted just like a woman.

Worldwide or not, that's what the flood story teaches me.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

No, it just dawned on me that the only thing that will please God is God Himself.

But actually it's perchance a carry-over from my local church days. I remember the idea that eventually, if we ate enough Jesus, by pray-reading and calling on his name enough, we'd be transformed into his image. So there, again, God is only please with God.

So why make any thing else? Why create disappointment? Whatever He makes can't ever be as great as He is. He's bound to be disappointed ... and like a disappointed child destroy it all, in one fell swoop.

And why do we need evidence for a worldwide flood? We obviously don't learn from our past, that when God is displeased, which of course He can't help to be, He throws a worldwide fitty, of Biblical proportions, punishing even the animals.

If that don't scare us into snuggling up close to God nothing will.

In the end, isn't that the purpose of the flood story in Genesis, to scare us into being good little boys and girls? Then maybe God will be happy with us ... maybe, just maybe ... and won't wipe us out.

God is hard to make happy. It's a good argument that God is a woman ; that He is a She. If Noah had realized this, and he should have, he could have corrected this "He" reference early on.

But Noah wasn't all that sharp. He couldn't have been. He thought the flood was worldwide. And he failed to see that God was throwing a big tantrum, just like a woman.

God did the same thing to Job ; He, or should I say She, in the end, acted just like a woman.

Worldwide or not, that's what the flood story teaches me.

Sometimes when something bad happens to us, it feels like it's worldwide.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are a lot of things about this story that seemed impossible -- flood was worldwide, the flood lifted a boat rather than rolling it, and the flood went over the highest peaks on earth.

The heavens were opened and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights seemed very extreme, but plausible on a local scale, but unthinkable on a more global scale.

But the one thing I always thought was completely absurd was the Sunday school depiction of Noah traveling around the world, collecting a menagerie of every kind of animal, gathering the food for all those animals, keeping the Lions from eating the Zebra, etc.

But rather than me answering your question why don't you think on it a little. Pray about it a little. What was so special about the animals where Noah lived that God wanted him to bring them with him?

Forget the fact that the ark is a type of Christ. Let's just focus on the practical reason that Noah needed to fill his boat with the animals from that location.

If you read Jared Diamond's books he points out that one key reason that civilization began and thrived in the fertile crescent is because 13 of the 14 domesticated farm animals are native to the Mediterranean area. Only 1 out of 14 is native to the Americas (llama) and none are native to Australia or Sub Saharan Africa. But you should read about how absolutely critical these 13 animals were to the success of human civilization, pray about it, and see if the Lord gives you understanding.

In other words, if I pray, God will make me a scientist like you? Well I tried praying to pass an exam once, didn't work. My experience of God tells me that He is less concerned about precision than a scientist would be. For example I once I ask Him what the value of Pi is and he pointed me to the Bible passage where it says 10 cubits diameter and 30 cubits circumference where I worked out "it's 3.0". I believe God is less of a scientist and more of a blue collar dad who tells their son to just do enough to get through school so they can work on the factory floor.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sometimes when something bad happens to us, it feels like it's worldwide.

Well according to Hollywood unless something is affecting America it is not affecting the world. Why every time the aliens invade the world they choose America?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well according to Hollywood unless something is affecting America it is not affecting the world. Why every time the aliens invade the world they choose America?

That's easy. Hollywood is narcissistic. They think they are the center of the universe. It's run by Jews. God's chosen people.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In other words, if I pray, God will make me a scientist like you? Well I tried praying to pass an exam once, didn't work. My experience of God tells me that He is less concerned about precision than a scientist would be. For example I once I ask Him what the value of Pi is and he pointed me to the Bible passage where it says 10 cubits diameter and 30 cubits circumference where I worked out "it's 3.0". I believe God is less of a scientist and more of a blue collar dad who tells their son to just do enough to get through school so they can work on the factory floor.

In other words if you were sincerely asking the question then you would surely go read a very short discussion on the significance of these animals to human civilization. If you won't do that then you are just wasting everyone's time with your questions, they aren't genuine.

19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 21And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female: 3of the birds also of the heavens, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Sheep, goat, cow, pig, horse, Camel, donkey, reindeer, water buffalo, yak, bali cattle, and Mithan. Most of these would be considered clean. Also you would have chickens, ducks, geese, doves, pigeons. Also clean animals. Dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits — unclean beasts.

The clean animals you have 7 and 7, the idea that it is “two by two” conveniently ignores the fact that you have 14 cows, 14 reindeer, 14 water buffalo, 14 sheep, 14 goats, 14 chicken, 14 ducks, 14 doves, 14 pigeons, etc. It is a floating farm, not a zoo.

Where do all of our "childhood" diseases originate? Some are bovine, equine, avian, etc. They come from the animals that we are herding and keeping. These diseases are not deadly to children, only adults. If you get the disease as a child you will be immune as an adult. As a result these herds of animals protect us from other civilizations that don't herd animals. This is what wiped out the Incas, the Mayans, the American Indians, etc.

Before their were tractors you couldn't farm without oxen and horses. They made a huge difference. Not all societies had them. Those that did thrived, those that didn't have disappeared.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are a lot of things about this story that seemed impossible -- flood was worldwide, the flood lifted a boat rather than rolling it, and the flood went over the highest peaks on earth.

The heavens were opened and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights seemed very extreme, but plausible on a local scale, but unthinkable on a more global scale.

But the one thing I always thought was completely absurd was the Sunday school depiction of Noah traveling around the world, collecting a menagerie of every kind of animal, gathering the food for all those animals, keeping the Lions from eating the Zebra, etc.

But rather than me answering your question why don't you think on it a little. Pray about it a little. What was so special about the animals where Noah lived that God wanted him to bring them with him?

Forget the fact that the ark is a type of Christ. Let's just focus on the practical reason that Noah needed to fill his boat with the animals from that location.

If you read Jared Diamond's books he points out that one key reason that civilization began and thrived in the fertile crescent is because 13 of the 14 domesticated farm animals are native to the Mediterranean area. Only 1 out of 14 is native to the Americas (llama) and none are native to Australia or Sub Saharan Africa. But you should read about how absolutely critical these 13 animals were to the success of human civilization, pray about it, and see if the Lord gives you understanding.

Jared Diamond theory doesn't have anything to do with Noah's Ark. "Diamond posits that the combined effect of the increased population densities supported by agriculture, and of close human proximity to domesticated animals leading to animal diseases infecting humans, resulted in European societies acquiring a much richer collection of dangerous pathogens to which European people had acquired immunity through natural selection (see the Black Death and other epidemics) during a longer time than was the case for Native American hunter-gatherers and farmers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_...nd_Steel#Germs

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jared Diamond theory doesn't have anything to do with Noah's Ark. "Diamond posits that the combined effect of the increased population densities supported by agriculture, and of close human proximity to domesticated animals leading to animal diseases infecting humans, resulted in European societies acquiring a much richer collection of dangerous pathogens to which European people had acquired immunity through natural selection (see the Black Death and other epidemics) during a longer time than was the case for Native American hunter-gatherers and farmers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_...nd_Steel#Germs

A big part of Noah's ark story is the boat with all the animals. This has been distorted to mean that Noah travelled the world, collecting animals from all the continents to save them from the extinction event for which we have no evidence. Then presumably after the flood was over he revisited every continent, returning these animals. Did a wonderful job of feeding them, caring for them, keeping them separate. I don't think gopher wood is going to keep a lion or hyena from chewing through, but perhaps they just neglected to mention the iron cages.

Also 6 months of food for lion? Not to mention 6 months of water for all of these animals? They probably assumed you had all the water you want, but that doesn't work if it was the Black Sea.

On the other hand, Evangelical correctly pointed out that there seems to be no need for this ark if there is not a global extinction event. What is the point of that huge ark with all those animals and the story about it?

Clearly Noah was saving certain animals that God felt were crucial. If you read Jared Diamond's account those 14 large domesticated animals, 13 of which could have been easily found in the presumed vicinity of Noah, were crucial. These animals would be easily obtained, you could buy them. These animals would be easy to feed, since they were domesticated you could buy the food for them as well. These animals aren't simply DNA, they represent the state of the art of human technology at the time.

The flooding of the Black Sea has already been correlated with the rapid spread of the agricultural revolution throughout Mesopotamia, Europe and the Middle East. These animals are a critical link in that process.

As a result of the three biggest floods in human history which have been documented by Geologists there could have been the death of as many as 25% of the creatures living at the time. This would have opened the door for these cattle and other domesticated animals to repopulate these regions even faster. It could have also been the impetus necessary for many to quit their "hunter gatherer" lifestyles and switch to farming.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A big part of Noah's ark story is the boat with all the animals. This has been distorted to mean that Noah travelled the world, collecting animals from all the continents to save them from the extinction event for which we have no evidence. Then presumably after the flood was over he revisited every continent, returning these animals. Did a wonderful job of feeding them, caring for them, keeping them separate. I don't think gopher wood is going to keep a lion or hyena from chewing through, but perhaps they just neglected to mention the iron cages.

Also 6 months of food for lion? Not to mention 6 months of water for all of these animals? They probably assumed you had all the water you want, but that doesn't work if it was the Black Sea.

On the other hand, Evangelical correctly pointed out that there seems to be no need for this ark if there is not a global extinction event. What is the point of that huge ark with all those animals and the story about it?

Clearly Noah was saving certain animals that God felt were crucial. If you read Jared Diamond's account those 14 large domesticated animals, 13 of which could have been easily found in the presumed vicinity of Noah, were crucial. These animals would be easily obtained, you could buy them. These animals would be easy to feed, since they were domesticated you could buy the food for them as well. These animals aren't simply DNA, they represent the state of the art of human technology at the time.

The flooding of the Black Sea has already been correlated with the rapid spread of the agricultural revolution throughout Mesopotamia, Europe and the Middle East. These animals are a critical link in that process.

As a result of the three biggest floods in human history which have been documented by Geologists there could have been the death of as many as 25% of the creatures living at the time. This would have opened the door for these cattle and other domesticated animals to repopulate these regions even faster. It could have also been the impetus necessary for many to quit their "hunter gatherer" lifestyles and switch to farming.

I don't see anything about a Great Flood in Diamond's book let alone anything about Noah's Arc. He does say the following:

In the Fertile Crescent the transition from hunting-gathering to food production took place relatively fast: as late as 9000 B.C. people still had no crops and domestic animals and were entirely dependent on wild foods, but by 6000 B.C. some societies were almost completely dependent on crops and domestic animals.

Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (p. 137). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see anything about a Great Flood in Diamond's book let alone anything about Noah's Arc. He does say the following:

I am not saying that he said anything about Noah's ark.

What I am saying is that there was a very important reason why Noah needed to put all those animals in the ark and it wasn't because of a worldwide extinction. That is what was inferred by "Bible teachers" with little or no scientific background. The 50/500 rule says that you need a bare minimum of 50 different animals of a species to prevent inbreeding in the short term and 500 to support the survival of the species long term. Since Noah only took 14 of any species on board it was not to maintain the survival of the species.

You can breed domesticated cattle with wild cattle and still get herds that can be domesticated.

After the flood Noah will have a huge advantage, he will have sufficiently large herds to start again, support his family, and build up new herds.

The timing of the Black Sea flood and the adoption of an agrarian way of life by all those in the area is interesting, and the fact that this area all used these 13 large domestic animals was a huge competitive advantage over all other human civilizations. Hence it was very important to save not only his family but these animals.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A big part of Noah's ark story is the boat with all the animals. This has been distorted to mean that Noah travelled the world, collecting animals from all the continents to save them from the extinction event for which we have no evidence. Then presumably after the flood was over he revisited every continent, returning these animals. Did a wonderful job of feeding them, caring for them, keeping them separate. I don't think gopher wood is going to keep a lion or hyena from chewing through, but perhaps they just neglected to mention the iron cages.

Also 6 months of food for lion? Not to mention 6 months of water for all of these animals? They probably assumed you had all the water you want, but that doesn't work if it was the Black Sea.

On the other hand, Evangelical correctly pointed out that there seems to be no need for this ark if there is not a global extinction event. What is the point of that huge ark with all those animals and the story about it?

Clearly Noah was saving certain animals that God felt were crucial. If you read Jared Diamond's account those 14 large domesticated animals, 13 of which could have been easily found in the presumed vicinity of Noah, were crucial. These animals would be easily obtained, you could buy them. These animals would be easy to feed, since they were domesticated you could buy the food for them as well. These animals aren't simply DNA, they represent the state of the art of human technology at the time.

The flooding of the Black Sea has already been correlated with the rapid spread of the agricultural revolution throughout Mesopotamia, Europe and the Middle East. These animals are a critical link in that process.

Gosh, you are so foot loose and fancy free with your extra-Biblical imagination that it entertaining.

Originally Posted by ZNP

As a result of the three biggest floods in human history which have been documented by Geologists there could have been the death of as many as 25% of the creatures living at the time. This would have opened the door for these cattle and other domesticated animals to repopulate these regions even faster. It could have also been the impetus necessary for many to quit their "hunter gatherer" lifestyles and switch to farming.

And so began the population explosion. More food equals more population.

This may not be the exact math but, it took say 100,000 years for the human population to reach a billion. Then only 100 years to double that, and only 50 years to double that. And in a relatively short time we've reach 8 billion.

And we're locked in. Hunting and gathering will no longer support the human population. And we can't stop feeding our present one, and more food just means more population, and more population just brings more trouble and eventual extinction from depleting our resources and destroying our planet. It's more than time for worldwide birth control.

God is shouting, "Stop! Stop! Being fruitful and multiplying," but no one is listening. Or they deny there's a problem :

"After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.

Tree, Lasts, Christ save quote report
My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.

Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible?"
James G. Watt - Sec. Interior under Reagan

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In other words if you were sincerely asking the question then you would surely go read a very short discussion on the significance of these animals to human civilization. If you won't do that then you are just wasting everyone's time with your questions, they aren't genuine.

19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20Of the birds after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 21And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female: 3of the birds also of the heavens, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Sheep, goat, cow, pig, horse, Camel, donkey, reindeer, water buffalo, yak, bali cattle, and Mithan. Most of these would be considered clean. Also you would have chickens, ducks, geese, doves, pigeons. Also clean animals. Dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits — unclean beasts.

The clean animals you have 7 and 7, the idea that it is “two by two” conveniently ignores the fact that you have 14 cows, 14 reindeer, 14 water buffalo, 14 sheep, 14 goats, 14 chicken, 14 ducks, 14 doves, 14 pigeons, etc. It is a floating farm, not a zoo.

Where do all of our "childhood" diseases originate? Some are bovine, equine, avian, etc. They come from the animals that we are herding and keeping. These diseases are not deadly to children, only adults. If you get the disease as a child you will be immune as an adult. As a result these herds of animals protect us from other civilizations that don't herd animals. This is what wiped out the Incas, the Mayans, the American Indians, etc.

Before their were tractors you couldn't farm without oxen and horses. They made a huge difference. Not all societies had them. Those that did thrived, those that didn't have disappeared.

You seem to be saying that the reason God did not send the animals to a dry spot is because God needed the animals to stay with Noah so they could share microorganisms and be the "farm" to start anew. That makes sense. But God miraculously bringing all the animals around the world to Noah just so they could squeeze into his ark for only a local flood in Noah's area does not make much sense. My question was not about the importance of the animals but why God chose to use a robust and sturdy ark rather than relocate them all to an unflooded area. It does not require an ark to keep all the animals and Noah together. God was able to bring the animals to Noah miraculously, he could have moved them all to a dry area as well. For God to tell Noah to build an ark for a local flood is like NASA building a space shuttle for a trip from New York to London - it's possible (it will work) but unlikely (it's overkill for the situation at hand). Knowing God's penchant for moving people around so they would be put out of danger (e.g. Abraham, Mary/Joseph & child, Moses, the early Christians etc), it is likely He would have done the same for Noah if the flood was to be local. God would not have gone to the trouble of telling Noah to build an ark, just move him to a dry spot. Furthermore, if there were unflooded areas on the Earth, a more effective way would be for God to keep all the animals where they were, in their local habitats around the world, and relocate them to Noah after the flood so Noah could start his new farm.



Remember that Noah's ark is a story of God miraculously preserving His creation. The bible does not say that Noah traveled the world collecting the animals. It says that God brought the animals to him. God did not tell Noah to collect any animals. If God moved the animals to the ark, He could have also moved the animals to a dry spot. It sounds miraculous and it was. If God did that, then God also could miraculously prevent the animals from eating or trampling each other or giving each other any kind of diseases.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

This may not be the exact math but, it took say 100,000 years for the human population to reach a billion. Then only 100 years to double that, and only 50 years to double that. And in a relatively short time we've reach 8 billion.

And we're locked in. Hunting and gathering will no longer support the human population. And we can't stop feeding our present one, and more food just means more population, and more population just brings more trouble and eventual extinction from depleting our resources and destroying our planet. It's more than time for worldwide birth control.

God is shouting, "Stop! Stop! Being fruitful and multiplying," but no one is listening. Or they deny there's a problem :

"After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.

Tree, Lasts, Christ save quote report
My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.

Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible?"
James G. Watt - Sec. Interior under Reagan

So it is save the planet, by marrying robots, controlled by the anti-Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to be saying that the reason God did not send the animals to a dry spot is because God needed the animals to stay with Noah so they could share microorganisms and be the "farm" to start anew. That makes sense. But God miraculously bringing all the animals around the world to Noah just so they could squeeze into his ark for only a local flood in Noah's area does not make much sense. My question was not about the importance of the animals but why God chose to use a robust and sturdy ark rather than relocate them all to an unflooded area. It does not require an ark to keep all the animals and Noah together. God was able to bring the animals to Noah miraculously, he could have moved them all to a dry area as well. For God to tell Noah to build an ark for a local flood is like NASA building a space shuttle for a trip from New York to London - it's possible (it will work) but unlikely (it's overkill for the situation at hand). Knowing God's penchant for moving people around so they would be put out of danger (e.g. Abraham, Mary/Joseph & child, Moses, the early Christians etc), it is likely He would have done the same for Noah if the flood was to be local. God would not have gone to the trouble of telling Noah to build an ark, just move him to a dry spot. Furthermore, if there were unflooded areas on the Earth, a more effective way would be for God to keep all the animals where they were, in their local habitats around the world, and relocate them to Noah after the flood so Noah could start his new farm.



Remember that Noah's ark is a story of God miraculously preserving His creation. The bible does not say that Noah traveled the world collecting the animals. It says that God brought the animals to him. God did not tell Noah to collect any animals. If God moved the animals to the ark, He could have also moved the animals to a dry spot. It sounds miraculous and it was. If God did that, then God also could miraculously prevent the animals from eating or trampling each other or giving each other any kind of diseases.

Have you thought this through or are you just throwing this out?

A farmer who raises animals like cows, sheep, goats, horses, etc is extremely susceptible to cattle hustlers. This is why an agrarian society is associated with cities and government. You may remember that the covenant to Noah establishes human government.

If Noah were to just pick up his family, leave the city with a hundred or more animals and then go into areas where the prevailing economy is hunter gatherer and where he is a stranger, how does he protect his possessions?

Could he have done this without being robbed and killed? It was truly "the wild west" at this time. There was no law, no government.

That is one thing to consider.

2nd, even if he left the area that was flooded to become the new Black Sea it doesn't mean he would have escaped 40 days and nights of rain. When this meteorite put that much water into the atmosphere it all came back down as rain, worldwide. His farm would have been washed away, some of his animals drowned, all of his storehouses destroyed. This way when the boat rests on land he has a barn, he has all of his supplies, he has a place to live, and when he builds his new house he has wood he can cannibalize.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Gosh, you are so foot loose and fancy free with your extra-Biblical imagination that it entertaining.

I consider the Bible to be a faithful witness and I also consider the fossil record to be a faithful witness. I do not consider your run of the mill Bible teacher or scientist to be on that same level.

Witness Lee, for example, did not know science at all. I learned to just completely ignore anything he said on the matter. Likewise I have learned that there are many scientists who have no integrity.

I am looking for the interpretation that is completely within the Biblical account and the account we see from the fossil record, the two best witnesses that we have. Both of which have been given to us from God.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Have you thought this through or are you just throwing this out?

A farmer who raises animals like cows, sheep, goats, horses, etc is extremely susceptible to cattle hustlers. This is why an agrarian society is associated with cities and government. You may remember that the covenant to Noah establishes human government.

If Noah were to just pick up his family, leave the city with a hundred or more animals and then go into areas where the prevailing economy is hunter gatherer and where he is a stranger, how does he protect his possessions?

Could he have done this without being robbed and killed? It was truly "the wild west" at this time. There was no law, no government.

That is one thing to consider.

2nd, even if he left the area that was flooded to become the new Black Sea it doesn't mean he would have escaped 40 days and nights of rain. When this meteorite put that much water into the atmosphere it all came back down as rain, worldwide. His farm would have been washed away, some of his animals drowned, all of his storehouses destroyed. This way when the boat rests on land he has a barn, he has all of his supplies, he has a place to live, and when he builds his new house he has wood he can cannibalize.

If it has not occurred to you already, my approach is using Occam's razor - if there was any dry land, building an ark would not be necessary, God could just relocate them, just like God relocated so many people in the bible including the whole nation of Israel with Moses. The fact that an ark was required (as you suggest it was, because of the destructiveness of the event), indicates that only those people within an ark containing sufficient wood and materials to rebuild, would survive.

You have presented two reasons why God would not simply relocate Noah and the animals. The first reason is saying that relocating them would be dangerous. The second reason is saying that a) an ark or similar protective floating structure would be necessary to survive the event and b) the protective device had to have enough wood and other resources in it to be used for post-disaster recovery.

I am summarizing this so you can see if I have interpreted what you said correctly or not.

I have thought this through in fact, which I will now present. After thinking this through, to me they are both valid reasons, but both unlikely reasons.

To me the first reason you gave is unlikely for the following reasons:

1) A hostile environment is not a reason why God would not move him. The Bible is full of examples of God leading His people into hostile environments - the Israelites into Egypt and Canaan, Christ into Jerusalem... even the creation and existence of Israel today in a Muslim majority environment is an example of God's people moving into and living in a hostile environment. The repeated pattern of the Bible is God putting His people into hostile situations and tell them to overcome, defeat, or invade for His purpose - not running away from it. Not only is ancient and modern Israel, and the early and present day church an example of this, but even God putting Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (where Satan was a hostile entity) is an example of this.

2) Noah's own country must have been the "wild west" at the time, I do not see how relocation would be much more dangerous. Being a righteous man, Noah must have been under God's protection wherever he lived.

3) 2 Peter 2:5 - Noah was under God's protection, wherever Noah went he would have been protected.

I like the second reason better than the first, but it is not without its own problems.

"2nd, even if he left the area that was flooded to become the new Black Sea it doesn't mean he would have escaped 40 days and nights of rain. When this meteorite put that much water into the atmosphere it all came back down as rain, worldwide. His farm would have been washed away, some of his animals drowned, all of his storehouses destroyed. "

This suggests that a person and animals needed an ark to survive. So this means that if any one else besides Noah survived this event, they would have required an ark or similar floating structure.

Now we can consider the likelihood of this situation based upon the ark's requirements. The ark has four main requirements - 1) it needed to float, any fixed structure would be washed away, and 2) it needed to have no side openings so water could not get in from the sides, 3) it needed to be strong, tough, durable. 4) it needs to be large enough to have enough wood in it for rebuilding - it has to be made of wood.

To me the likelihood of someone surviving this event without forethought of an ark satisfying those 4 requirements is very small. What do you suppose the chances are that a person other than Noah had built such a structure to not only survive the flood, but be able to survive afterwards? I believe it is close to zero. The bible indicates that the people at the time had no forethought in this and did not prepare anything. Even when they saw Noah building the ark they did not figure:

Matt 24:38-39

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;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.

What saved Noah and his family was not just the ark, but his forethought to build an ark, as given by God. So the things a person needed to survive this flood were an ark or similar structure, and forethought to build such a structure meeting those 4 requirements. Human beings are terrible at forethought and preparation for disasters even with today's technology - just look at Hurricane Katrina. No one can reliably predict the scale and intensity of the disasters. It was only because God told Noah what would happen that Noah could be prepared for it. The chance of someone being prepared for it without divine inspiration would be very small.

You said: This way when the boat rests on land he has a barn, he has all of his supplies, he has a place to live, and when he builds his new house he has wood he can cannibalize.

A person in a different place could have survived the flood by sheltering in some kind of ark-like boat, that they happened to have on hand. However, without the forethought that Noah had, they would not have enough "wood to cannibalize".

If there was any place in the world where these things were not required, then it would have been a suitable place for God to relocate Noah and the animals to. If necessary, they could have driven out or killed any local people that tried to resist, or where there was not enough room for them, just like God told the Israelites to do. So if we say that Noah needed to cannibalize the ark's wood is a reason why he needed an ark, is to say that any and all dry places that God could have moved Noah to, did not have enough trees to use for wood. Is that what you believe as a geologist? That if there were areas of dry land that were not flooded, they had no trees?

I believe all these matters point to one thing if we accept a local rather than global flood - God must have inspired the people of different lands to build themselves an ark. Each local area could have had its own "Noah", a righteous person chosen by God. There was a Chinese Noah and a South American Noah etc. If relocation to dry land was an option - there is no way that a person could have survived without divine inspiration and preparation. If relocation to dry land was an option - based upon Occam's razor, relocation would have been God's preferred method of salvation rather than building an ark.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If it has not occurred to you already, my approach is using Occam's razor - if there was any dry land, building an ark would not be necessary, God could just relocate them, just like God relocated so many people in the bible including the whole nation of Israel with Moses.

There was no dry land. There was 40 days and 40 nights of rain.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The fact that an ark was required (as you suggest it was, because of the destructiveness of the event), indicates that only those people within an ark containing sufficient wood and materials to rebuild, would survive.

I agree with this. I don't agree with the reading that the entire Earth was 500 feet under water. I agree with an event destructive enough to kill 10-20% of creatures on Earth, and that as horrific as it was the Black Sea area was not the hardest hit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You have presented two reasons why God would not simply relocate Noah and the animals. The first reason is saying that relocating them would be dangerous. The second reason is saying that a) an ark or similar protective floating structure would be necessary to survive the event and b) the protective device had to have enough wood and other resources in it to be used for post-disaster recovery.

I am summarizing this so you can see if I have interpreted what you said correctly or not.

Well I would take a few issues with it. When the omniscient and omnipotent God chooses one strategy over another you can describe the other one as "dangerous" but my guess is that He could forsee that it was a dead end.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have thought this through in fact, which I will now present. After thinking this through, to me they are both valid reasons, but both unlikely reasons.

To me the first reason you gave is unlikely for the following reasons:

1) A hostile environment is not a reason why God would not move him. The Bible is full of examples of God leading His people into hostile environments - the Israelites into Egypt and Canaan, Christ into Jerusalem... even the creation and existence of Israel today in a Muslim majority environment is an example of God's people moving into and living in a hostile environment. The repeated pattern of the Bible is God putting His people into hostile situations and tell them to overcome, defeat, or invade for His purpose - not running away from it. Not only is ancient and modern Israel, and the early and present day church an example of this, but even God putting Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden (where Satan was a hostile entity) is an example of this.

2) Noah's own country must have been the "wild west" at the time, I do not see how relocation would be much more dangerous. Being a righteous man, Noah must have been under God's protection wherever he lived.

3) 2 Peter 2:5 - Noah was under God's protection, wherever Noah went he would have been protected.

I like the second reason better than the first, but it is not without its own problems.

"2nd, even if he left the area that was flooded to become the new Black Sea it doesn't mean he would have escaped 40 days and nights of rain. When this meteorite put that much water into the atmosphere it all came back down as rain, worldwide. His farm would have been washed away, some of his animals drowned, all of his storehouses destroyed. "

This suggests that a person and animals needed an ark to survive. So this means that if any one else besides Noah survived this event, they would have required an ark or similar floating structure.

No, it suggests that he needed the ark to survive with all those animals. It is a very safe assumption that this is in fact the purpose of the ark based on the story.

Again, I am looking for the interpretation that fully and completely fits the Bible while at the same time fully and completely fitting the fossil and archaelogical record. There is lots of fossil and archaeological evidence that no event in the last 10,000 years wiped out all people but 1 and all animals but those on the ark. Nor are you required to read the Bible that way. Also, reading the Bible that way suggests that there is a very big gap in the Bible record -- namely how did animals from all over the world come to the Ark, how did they return to their continent and how were these various species replenished with only two parents, our knowledge of DNA tells us that we need a bare minimum of 500 individuals to maintain a species. So that explanation has problems with both the Biblical witness, the fossil witness, and the archaeological witness.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now we can consider the likelihood of this situation based upon the ark's requirements. The ark has four main requirements - 1) it needed to float, any fixed structure would be washed away, and 2) it needed to have no side openings so water could not get in from the sides, 3) it needed to be strong, tough, durable. 4) it needs to be large enough to have enough wood in it for rebuilding - it has to be made of wood.

To me the likelihood of someone surviving this event without forethought of an ark satisfying those 4 requirements is very small. What do you suppose the chances are that a person other than Noah had built such a structure to not only survive the flood, but be able to survive afterwards? I believe it is close to zero. The bible indicates that the people at the time had no forethought in this and did not prepare anything. Even when they saw Noah building the ark they did not figure:

Matt 24:38-39

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;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.

What saved Noah and his family was not just the ark, but his forethought to build an ark, as given by God. So the things a person needed to survive this flood were an ark or similar structure, and forethought to build such a structure meeting those 4 requirements. Human beings are terrible at forethought and preparation for disasters even with today's technology - just look at Hurricane Katrina. No one can reliably predict the scale and intensity of the disasters. It was only because God told Noah what would happen that Noah could be prepared for it. The chance of someone being prepared for it without divine inspiration would be very small.

No one in that region survived except for Noah and his family. But by this time in history there were homo sapiens all over the face of the earth and some of them survived. That is the very clear record from the Bible (Genesis 10), archaeology, and fossils.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You said: This way when the boat rests on land he has a barn, he has all of his supplies, he has a place to live, and when he builds his new house he has wood he can cannibalize.

A person in a different place could have survived the flood by sheltering in some kind of ark-like boat, that they happened to have on hand. However, without the forethought that Noah had, they would not have enough "wood to cannibalize".

If there was any place in the world where these things were not required, then it would have been a suitable place for God to relocate Noah and the animals to. If necessary, they could have driven out or killed any local people that tried to resist, or where there was not enough room for them, just like God told the Israelites to do. So if we say that Noah needed to cannibalize the ark's wood is a reason why he needed an ark, is to say that any and all dry places that God could have moved Noah to, did not have enough trees to use for wood. Is that what you believe as a geologist? That if there were areas of dry land that were not flooded, they had no trees?

I believe all these matters point to one thing if we accept a local rather than global flood - God must have inspired the people of different lands to build themselves an ark. Each local area could have had its own "Noah", a righteous person chosen by God. There was a Chinese Noah and a South American Noah etc. If relocation to dry land was an option - there is no way that a person could have survived without divine inspiration and preparation. If relocation to dry land was an option - based upon Occam's razor, relocation would have been God's preferred method of salvation rather than building an ark.

Once again you have come up with a theory that is extra biblical. There is no Biblical account of "other Noah's". So if that theory is correct or not is completely irrelevant to me. What I am looking for is a theory that is fully supported by both the Bible, the fossils and archaeology. You have not provided that at all. Even the other accounts, like the epic of Gilgamesh don't support that but rather support there only being one Noah.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No one in that region survived except for Noah and his family. But by this time in history there were homo sapiens all over the face of the earth and some of them survived. That is the very clear record from the Bible (Genesis 10), archaeology, and fossils.

Once again you have come up with a theory that is extra biblical. There is no Biblical account of "other Noah's". So if that theory is correct or not is completely irrelevant to me. What I am looking for is a theory that is fully supported by both the Bible, the fossils and archaeology. You have not provided that at all. Even the other accounts, like the epic of Gilgamesh don't support that but rather support there only being one Noah.

"Other Noah's" is what I call your interpretation. You said that some humans survived. These humans must therefore be "other Noahs" if they were righteous.
If these people that survived were righteous, then they were protected like Noah was.

If they were unrighteous then your view has a problem - it means that the unrighteous escaped God's judgement. That God would go to all the trouble to preserve only Noah and kill everyone else in Noah's area, and spare some unrighteous ones in other areas, defies logic. Probably the unrighteous were knocking on the ark's door saying "let us in let us in" and it was ignored. If sparing some unrighteous was God's intention, he should have let some onto the ark.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If sparing some unrighteous was God's intention, he should have let some onto the ark.

Hey, according to the story God saved a lot of critters, and I mean a lot. But according to the story, God only saved a few representatives of the human animal species.

But then again, this story being written thousands of years after the flood, might not have all the information. We just don't know do we? We're left guessing, and filling in the gaps with extra-Biblical imaginations.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"Other Noah's" is what I call your interpretation. You said that some humans survived. These humans must therefore be "other Noahs" if they were righteous.
If these people that survived were righteous, then they were protected like Noah was.

If they were unrighteous then your view has a problem - it means that the unrighteous escaped God's judgement. That God would go to all the trouble to preserve only Noah and kill everyone else in Noah's area, and spare some unrighteous ones in other areas, defies logic. Probably the unrighteous were knocking on the ark's door saying "let us in let us in" and it was ignored. If sparing some unrighteous was God's intention, he should have let some onto the ark.

I did not say there were other humans, I said there were other homo sapiens.

When you read the account of Adam as the first man it is very clear that there are other homo sapiens. Now that creates a problem for everyone.

When you read the account of Noah it is very clear that there are other homo sapiens.

So you have to reconsider what does it mean that God created man? Does flesh and bone make a man or is there something else. When you look at the Bible's description of a man it is someone that has the image and likeness of God. If we agree with Paul that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, then we can see what that means. Therefore being a "homo sapiens" does not make you a man.

A written language is a crucial component of what it means. But as we know, Jesus is the incarnated word of God. You cannot be a man unless you have God's word inside of you.

To interpret the Bible you can't do it based on a single verse. You can't look at the account of Noah in isolation, or the account of Adam, or the account Peter, or Paul, etc.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I did not say there were other humans, I said there were other homo sapiens.

When you read the account of Adam as the first man it is very clear that there are other homo sapiens. Now that creates a problem for everyone.

When you read the account of Noah it is very clear that there are other homo sapiens.

So you have to reconsider what does it mean that God created man? Does flesh and bone make a man or is there something else. When you look at the Bible's description of a man it is someone that has the image and likeness of God. If we agree with Paul that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, then we can see what that means. Therefore being a "homo sapiens" does not make you a man.

A written language is a crucial component of what it means. But as we know, Jesus is the incarnated word of God. You cannot be a man unless you have God's word inside of you.

To interpret the Bible you can't do it based on a single verse. You can't look at the account of Noah in isolation, or the account of Adam, or the account Peter, or Paul, etc.

I thought Adam and Noah were homo sapiens as well, they were also humans. Humans are homo sapiens.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I thought Adam and Noah were homo sapiens as well, they were also humans. Humans are homo sapiens.

I don't know what bro ZNP is saying for sure. He needs to explain further. So far I gather that Adam and Eve, and Noah, were Neanderthals. But then again, maybe he's saying that Adam and Eve and Noah were white Europeans.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I thought Adam and Noah were homo sapiens as well, they were also humans. Humans are homo sapiens.

Is that the Biblical definition of a man?

The issue is when the Bible is referring to "Man" what is He referring to?

The Church is the "New Man", isn't the definition of the church the Body of Christ? The flesh is just the box, it isn't the content.

The church is the Temple of God. Once again, it isn't the building that makes it the temple of God but the God who indwells it.

When Jesus was incarnated it said He "tabernacled among us". The body, the "homo sapien" was merely the tent that He dwelled in.

Adam was the first man because of the word that He got from God, it was when God breathed into him that he became a living soul.

A homo Sapien does not require history, poetry, science, language or civilization for the definition. That is not the image of God nor is it like God. "Man" by definition is in the image of God and the likeness of God.

This doesn't mean five fingers. A gorilla has five fingers, and if a man has his hand decapitated he is still a man. Likewise, this doesn't mean to walk upright, to use tools, or to make a few warning calls.

All of these people who think the Bible is not scientifically accurate because it says God created man about 6,000 years ago, that is because they equate a man with a homo Sapien, except of course when they describe what it means to be a man.

Look at the entire record of the Bible, this is how God gets the new creation. Is it about the flesh or about the spirit? Are we now the new creation because our physical body has evolved?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is that the Biblical definition of a man?

The issue is when the Bible is referring to "Man" what is He referring to?

The Church is the "New Man", isn't the definition of the church the Body of Christ? The flesh is just the box, it isn't the content.

The church is the Temple of God. Once again, it isn't the building that makes it the temple of God but the God who indwells it.

When Jesus was incarnated it said He "tabernacled among us". The body, the "homo sapien" was merely the tent that He dwelled in.

Adam was the first man because of the word that He got from God, it was when God breathed into him that he became a living soul.

A homo Sapien does not require history, poetry, science, language or civilization for the definition. That is not the image of God nor is it like God. "Man" by definition is in the image of God and the likeness of God.

This doesn't mean five fingers. A gorilla has five fingers, and if a man has his hand decapitated he is still a man. Likewise, this doesn't mean to walk upright, to use tools, or to make a few warning calls.

All of these people who think the Bible is not scientifically accurate because it says God created man about 6,000 years ago, that is because they equate a man with a homo Sapien, except of course when they describe what it means to be a man.

Look at the entire record of the Bible, this is how God gets the new creation. Is it about the flesh or about the spirit? Are we now the new creation because our physical body has evolved?

What does this have to do with a worldwide flood?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

What does this have to do with a worldwide flood?

I take it you are not reading Evangelicals posts?

Evangelical decided that since I don't read the account in Genesis of Noah and his family being the only men to survive the flood as being equivalent to the flood wiping out all HomoSapiens that therefore my interpretation is of "multiple Noah's".

It is very tiring to have this guy continually trying to twist and reword what I say.

I don't dismiss science. I don't dismiss the fossil record nor do I dismiss the evidence from archaeologists. I figure that these records are left in the sediment for us from God. To me the fossil record is every bit as much the word of God as the Bible is.

Therefore the only way to reconcile these two is to realize that 6,000 years ago when human language began with the Sumerians, and the agricultural revolution began with Adam tending the garden, that it was this change that is the point at which "God breathed into man and he became a living soul".

It is not simply the flesh that makes us a man but more importantly, the breath of God.

[Evangelical]

The context was "other survivors". Other what? Other donkeys? No, presumably, other humans like Noah. ZNPaaneah has introduced this confusion by mentioning other human civilizations (first post) which witnessed the flood. Naturally I assume that the "other" survivors are human like Noah. But when I mentioned these "other humans" surviving the flood, ZNP declares:

"I did not say there were other humans, I said there were other homo sapiens."

"When you read the account of Noah it is very clear that there are other homo sapiens."

So Noah is not a human he is a homo sapien. So presumably ZNPaaneah believes that these "human civilizations" (first post) which witnessed the flood are actually homo sapien civilizations.

ZNPaaneah's continual flipping back and forth between humans and homo sapiens leads to the confusion. Adding to the confusion is when we Google "are humans homo sapiens" and Google says yes. ZNPaaneah says no. This human timeline equates humans with homo sapiens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

So naturally when ZNPaaneah mentions "other homo sapiens" I will understand this to be humans, because according to science, humans are homo sapiens.



It does not really matter if Noah is homo sapien or a man. Let's call them cyborgs for all I care. Whatever Noah was, if other cyborgs like him survived the flood then there is a problem based upon God's intentions.

The fact remains that God wanted to destroy the unrighteous cyborgs and spare the righteous ones. The flood was His judgement He has done that before with Sodom, he gave the righteous a chance to escape.

So if some unrighteous cyborgs survived, it means God's judgement failed.

If some righteous cyborgs survived, it means they were protected like Noah was. So how can these not be "other Noahs"?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The context was "other survivors". Other what? Other donkeys? No, presumably, other humans like Noah. ZNPaaneah has introduced this confusion by mentioning other human civilizations (first post) which witnessed the flood. Naturally I assume that the "other" survivors are human like Noah. But when I mentioned these "other humans" surviving the flood, ZNP declares:

"I did not say there were other humans, I said there were other homo sapiens."

"When you read the account of Noah it is very clear that there are other homo sapiens."

So Noah is not a human he is a homo sapien. So presumably ZNPaaneah believes that these "human civilizations" (first post) which witnessed the flood are actually homo sapien civilizations.

ZNPaaneah's continual flipping back and forth between humans and homo sapiens leads to the confusion. Adding to the confusion is when we Google "are humans homo sapiens" and Google says yes. ZNPaaneah says no. This human timeline equates humans with homo sapiens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

So naturally when ZNPaaneah mentions "other homo sapiens" I will understand this to be humans, because according to science, humans are homo sapiens.



It does not really matter if Noah is homo sapien or a man. Let's call them cyborgs for all I care. Whatever Noah was, if other cyborgs like him survived the flood then there is a problem based upon God's intentions.

The fact remains that God wanted to destroy the unrighteous cyborgs and spare the righteous ones. The flood was His judgement He has done that before with Sodom, he gave the righteous a chance to escape.

So if some unrighteous cyborgs survived, it means God's judgement failed.

If some righteous cyborgs survived, it means they were protected like Noah was. So how can these not be "other Noahs"?

Yes, other humans survived, philistines survived, people in Babel survived. We can read that in Genesis 10. If you can't see it, then it is only because you refuse to see it.

These humans were not like Noah. That is the point of the story.

They didn't have those animals that he had in the ark. That ark, with those animals represented the state of the art of human civilization. You act like they were just animals, they weren't.

1. Those animals represented the new economy.

2. They also represented the state of the art of weapons of mass destruction.

3. Those animals were God's blessing to man and Noah was the lone steward of that mystery.

Why don't you try and read the reference I gave you so you don't have to expose your total ignorance.

In the beginning was the word that God spoke to Adam to tend the garden. But the word concerning these animals was hidden in God, Abel dug those words out when he realized the need for shepherding sheep. Noah was there at the very beginning working together with God for the start of this new economy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I take it you are not reading Evangelicals posts?

Evangelical decided that since I don't read the account in Genesis of Noah and his family being the only men to survive the flood as being equivalent to the flood wiping out all HomoSapiens that therefore my interpretation is of "multiple Noah's".

It is very tiring to have this guy continually trying to twist and reword what I say.

I don't dismiss science. I don't dismiss the fossil record nor do I dismiss the evidence from archaeologists. I figure that these records are left in the sediment for us from God. To me the fossil record is every bit as much the word of God as the Bible is.

Therefore the only way to reconcile these two is to realize that 6,000 years ago when human language began with the Sumerians, and the agricultural revolution began with Adam tending the garden, that it was this change that is the point at which "God breathed into man and he became a living soul".

It is not simply the flesh that makes us a man but more importantly, the breath of God.

Okay, but who has the breath of God? When did God breath into your nose?

So are you saying that there were humans that weren't 'men?' That they didn't have the breath of God, were therefore human but not 'man?' And only Noah was 'man?'

How do I know which I am? Am I human, but not man? God didn't breath into my nose. Tell us who back then got the breath and who didn't.

Please explain what you mean. And don't give me "the body of Christ" is man. Logic don't follow there.

And what about this verse :

"Gen_6:13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, but who has the breath of God? When did God breath into your nose?

So are you saying that there were humans that weren't 'men?' That they didn't have the breath of God, were therefore human but not 'man?' And only Noah was 'man?'

How do I know which I am? Am I human, but not man? God didn't breath into my nose.

Please explain what you mean. And don't give me "the body of Christ" is man. Logic don't follow there.

And what about this verse :

"Gen_6:13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

1 In the beginning was the Word, (this was the word to tend the garden and to name all the animals)

2. and the Word was with God, (this was the word concerning domesticated animals. God did not tell Abel this, he had to figure it out. The word was with God but Abel dug it out).

3. and the Word was God. (It was this word -- the agricultural revolution, that changed man into a living soul, a steward of the garden of God, a shepherd of His sheep. This word is what makes us in the image and likeness of God. Prior to this word we were hunter gatherers, not much different from a troop of chimpanzees, but to received this word from God requires that we become a eusocial organism, that is not according to our kind, we are not eusocial based on our genetics, but rather that is according to God.)

4. The same was in the beginning with God. (This was the beginning of a new economy, and Noah was there in the beginning with God. This was the beginning of human government, human civilization, human language, everything that constitutes "Man". Noah was a partnership with God in this endeavor because he received that word by faith when everyone else rejected it. Before you can plunder the strong man's house you have to first bind the strong man. Initially it is very difficult to see an advantage in a agrarian society over hunter gatherers. It is very difficult if not impossible to protect your farm and herds from plunder. But after the flood it opened a door for Noah and his family.)

As for Gen 6:13 Evangelical already asked about it and I already answered him. The verse is true, God has determined to make an end of all flesh, He will destroy them with the earth. Noah's flood is a token of this by which you can have faith that it will happen. This destruction is referred to by Jesus, and the Apostles in the NT.

For the last 6,000 years we have had a battle between "organized crime" and "God's economy". Little by little, step by step, we are getting closer and closer to the fulfillment of the Lord's word that "whatever you do in secret will be shouted from the rooftops". We have lojack, which virtually put an end to chop shops and grand theft auto. We have electronic check deposit, credit and debit cards, which have greatly reduced muggings on payday. We have smart phones and 911. We have big data, DNA, fingerprints, etc. These advances may have seemed completely impossible at the time of Noah, but this is what it takes for a non eusocial organism to become eusocial. Behavior that we consider to be a psychopath is just ordinary, common behavior for a reptile, mammal, or bird.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1 In the beginning was the Word, (this was the word to tend the garden and to name all the animals)

2. and the Word was with God, (this was the word concerning domesticated animals. God did not tell Abel this, he had to figure it out. The word was with God but Abel dug it out).

3. and the Word was God. (It was this word -- the agricultural revolution, that changed man into a living soul, a steward of the garden of God, a shepherd of His sheep. This word is what makes us in the image and likeness of God. Prior to this word we were hunter gatherers, not much different from a troop of chimpanzees, but to received this word from God requires that we become a eusocial organism, that is not according to our kind, we are not eusocial based on our genetics, but rather that is according to God.)

4. The same was in the beginning with God. (This was the beginning of a new economy, and Noah was there in the beginning with God. This was the beginning of human government, human civilization, human language, everything that constitutes "Man". Noah was a partnership with God in this endeavor because he received that word by faith when everyone else rejected it. Before you can plunder the strong man's house you have to first bind the strong man. Initially it is very difficult to see an advantage in a agrarian society over hunter gatherers. It is very difficult if not impossible to protect your farm and herds from plunder. But after the flood it opened a door for Noah and his family.)

As for Gen 6:13 Evangelical already asked about it and I already answered him. The verse is true, God has determined to make an end of all flesh, He will destroy them with the earth. Noah's flood is a token of this by which you can have faith that it will happen. This destruction is referred to by Jesus, and the Apostles in the NT.

For the last 6,000 years we have had a battle between "organized crime" and "God's economy". Little by little, step by step, we are getting closer and closer to the fulfillment of the Lord's word that "whatever you do in secret will be shouted from the rooftops". We have lojack, which virtually put an end to chop shops and grand theft auto. We have electronic check deposit, credit and debit cards, which have greatly reduced muggings on payday. We have smart phones and 911. We have big data, DNA, fingerprints, etc. These advances may have seemed completely impossible at the time of Noah, but this is what it takes for a non eusocial organism to become eusocial. Behavior that we consider to be a psychopath is just ordinary, common behavior for a reptile, mammal, or bird.

That's a concocted concatenation that is nowhere developed in the Bible. You are just taking puzzle pieces out of the Bible and forcing them to fit your contrivance. Not, however, that it's not cute.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, other humans survived, philistines survived, people in Babel survived. We can read that in Genesis 10. If you can't see it, then it is only because you refuse to see it.

These humans were not like Noah. That is the point of the story.

They didn't have those animals that he had in the ark. That ark, with those animals represented the state of the art of human civilization. You act like they were just animals, they weren't.

1. Those animals represented the new economy.

2. They also represented the state of the art of weapons of mass destruction.

3. Those animals were God's blessing to man and Noah was the lone steward of that mystery.

Why don't you try and read the reference I gave you so you don't have to expose your total ignorance.

In the beginning was the word that God spoke to Adam to tend the garden. But the word concerning these animals was hidden in God, Abel dug those words out when he realized the need for shepherding sheep. Noah was there at the very beginning working together with God for the start of this new economy.

How can you say the philistines did not come from Noah when Genesis 10:13-14 says they did?

I don't see it because it isn't there and I'm not aware of any bible scholars or theologians that accept your view either. According to The Generations of Noah or Table of Nations, the Philistines were descended from Noah as were the Hebrews. This can be found in Rogers, Jeffrey S. (2000). "Table of Nations". In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How can you say the philistines did not come from Noah when Genesis 10:13-14 says they did?

I don't see it because it isn't there and I'm not aware of any bible scholars or theologians that accept your view either. According to The Generations of Noah or Table of Nations, the Philistines were descended from Noah as were the Hebrews. This can be found in Rogers, Jeffrey S. (2000). "Table of Nations". In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.

Yes, this interpretation is completely debunked by scientists. Interbreeding will cause the species to collapse.

They make this mistake because they don't see the difference between "man" which is eusocial and homo sapiens which are not.

Genetically we are descended from apes, they are not eusocial.

At some point in history man chose to be eusocial and then had to teach this to their children. We are not eusocial by nature, which is why we have psychopaths, sociopaths, etc.

I have already told you, I am concerned with two criteria -- is it Biblically accurate and is it accurate based on the fossil and archaeological record.

Saying that all people on Earth today are descended from Noah has been, to my opinion, completely and utterly debunked.

Every Bible commentary I have read on Genesis 4 realizes there is a problem:

Matthew Poole — recognizes that there were other men besides Adam in his commentary on Gen 4:14

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown also alludes to this fact.

Barnes notes — recognizes that this verse indicates a large poplation though he ascribes it to Adam, his children and grandchildren.

Cambridge Bible commentary — refers to a pre Adamic race and a prehistoric age.

Neil and Delitzsch Biblical commentary — admit that it is undeniable there were other people. They ascribe this to Adam having other children not mentioned in the Biblical record.

Gill’s exposition — this also admits there were “a large number of men on earth at this time” though it doesn’t go so far as to say where they came from.

Everyone realizes that this chapter refers to a large population of people not references so far in the Bible. To say that they are Adam's children is complete and utter conjecture that is not in any way supported by the Biblical record.

What everyone does agree on is that there are other people, a large population of other people at the time that Cain killed Abel.

But, if all of these people referred to in Genesis 4, that all commentators recognize, were in fact the offspring of Adam and Even that would violate Lev 18 which forbids incestuous relationships.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's a concocted concatenation that is nowhere developed in the Bible. You are just taking puzzle pieces out of the Bible and forcing them to fit your contrivance. Not, however, that it's not cute.

The entire Bible teaches man to be eusocial. That is the 10 commandments, that is the underlying theme of the books of Moses, that is something that is not according to our nature but that we can appreciate.

According to Matthew Henry "This law, which is so extensive that we cannot measure it, so spiritual that we cannot evade it, and so reasonable that we cannot find fault with it, will be the rule of the future judgment of God, as it is for the present conduct of man. If tried by this rule, we shall find our lives have been passed in transgressions. And with this holy law and an awful judgment before us, who can despise the gospel of Christ? And the knowledge of the law shows our need of repentance. In every believer's heart sin is dethroned and crucified, the law of God is written, and the image of God renewed. The Holy Spirit enables him to hate sin and flee from it, to love and keep this law in sincerity and truth; nor will he cease to repent." This is what I am saying.

Jesus is the example, the prototype of what it means to truly be eusocial. When we are saved we get a new heart, not the heart of a stone cold killer like a reptile, but a heart of flesh.

This is what it means to be a new creation.

The reason there are 8 billion people or thereabouts is because we are eusocial, if it were not for that we never could have thrived and had this big an impact on our environment.

This is what the entire Bible is about, teaching us how to behave in the house of God. According to Vincent's word study "The reference is not to Timothy's conduct as the A.V. implies but rather to the instructions which he is to give to church members." Which is what I am saying.

That is what is different between Man and Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens are genetically related and descended from Apes. They are not eusocial. Man is.

But unlike bees, and ants, and hornets we were not born eusocial, we choose to be. That is unique among all of God's creatures.

If you look at the record in Genesis all creatures are created according to their kind, the only exception is Man.

Barnes notes on the Bible says "Man. - Man is a new species, essentially different from all other kinds on earth. "In our image, after our likeness." He is to be allied to heaven as no other creature on earth is. He is to be related to the Eternal Being himself. This relation, however, is to be not in matter, but in form; not in essence, but in semblance. This precludes all pantheistic notions of the origin of man. "Image" is a word taken from sensible things, and denotes likeness in outward form, while the material may be different. "Likeness" is a more general term, indicating resemblance in any quality, external or internal. It is here explanatory of image, and seems to show that this term is to be taken in a figurative sense, to denote not a material but a spiritual conformity to God. The Eternal Being is essentially self-manifesting. The appearance he presents to an eye suited to contemplate him is his image. The union of attributes which constitute his spiritual nature is his character or likeness." This is what I am saying.

This is not "my contrivance". Scientists without any bone in the theological debates have come to this conclusion. A conclusion that I would say is undeniable.

Now anyone who wants to say that Adam was the first man cannot be referring to him being the first Homo sapiens. Any interpretation of the Bible that says this is willfully ignoring the fossil record and archaeological record.

Likewise if you understand the definition of "eusocial" you cannot deny that the description of man in the Bible is always of a eusocial creature. Why is it that man, alone of all creatures, has religion? This is how we learn to be eusocial.

What I find very striking is the very people who realize how absurd the interpretation is that Adam was the first Homo Sapiens are the very same people who are now the thought police arguing that no one is allowed to read this any other way. You are in effect arguing that "this interpretation is wrong and you must stick with the wrong interpretation". No I don't.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The entire Bible teaches man to be eusocial. That is the 10 commandments, that is the underlying theme of the books of Moses, that is something that is not according to our nature but that we can appreciate.

Jesus is the example, the prototype of what it means to truly be eusocial. When we are saved we get a new heart, not the heart of a stone cold killer like a reptile, but a heart of flesh.

This is what it means to be a new creation.

The reason there are 8 billion people or thereabouts is because we are eusocial, if it were not for that we never could have thrived and had this big an impact on our environment.

This is what the entire Bible is about, teaching us how to behave in the house of God.

That is what is different between Man and Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens are genetically related and descended from Apes. They are not eusocial. Man is.

But unlike bees, and ants, and hornets we were not born eusocial, we choose to be. That is unique among all of God's creatures.

If you look at the record in Genesis all creatures are created according to their kind, the only exception is Man.

This is not "my contrivance". Scientists without any bone in the theological debates have come to this conclusion. A conclusion that I would say is undeniable.

Now anyone who wants to say that Adam was the first man cannot be referring to him being the first Homo sapiens. Any interpretation of the Bible that says this is willfully ignoring the fossil record and archaeological record.

Likewise if you understand the definition of "eusocial" you cannot deny that the description of man in the Bible is always of a eusocial creature. Why is it that man, alone of all creatures, has religion? This is how we learn to be eusocial.

What I find very striking is the very people who realize how absurd the interpretation is that Adam was the first Homo Sapiens are the very same people who are now the thought police arguing that no one is allowed to read this any other way. You are in effect arguing that "this interpretation is wrong and you must stick with the wrong interpretation". No I don't.

You are hung over. I remember Witness Lee teaching that the Bible from Genesis to Revelation teaches that the eternal purpose of God is : The Building. You say you weren't in the local church for Lee, but you sure seem to still be a Leeite.

And do yourself a favor and look up eusocial. By the way, if "The entire Bible teaches man to be eusocial," why doesn't it say so in simple to understand terms? Why does it need you to explain it, by piecing together verses, by different authors, over a span of a couple thousand years? Is the Bible a magical book to you?

[zeek]

ZNP--

You seem to be equivocating on the word "eusocial". If people were eusocial like ants, they wouldn't need the Bible to teach them to be eusocial they would behave that way spontaneously. If people learn to cooperate by following commands or instructions, that isn't eusocial behavior.

As far as Adam is concerned, the fossil record says nothing. How do you propose to determine that Adam actually existed?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You are hung over. I remember Witness Lee teaching that the Bible from Genesis to Revelation teaches that the eternal purpose of God is : The Building. You say you weren't in the local church for Lee, but you sure seem to still be a Leeite.

Witness Lee never taught this, never taught anything like this, and I am sure that anyone who has been brought up exclusively on Witness Lee's teachings never heard this before. Because Witness Lee said there were certain threads that ran from Genesis to Revelation therefore anyone else who says that is a "Leeite"? That is a standard theme in literature. Many Bible teachers do that.

I don't have any concern for Witness Lee. If he taught something I am not afraid of it nor do I embrace it because he taught it. Just because he is a false prophet doesn't mean every teaching was false. The most effective lies are those that use the truth to lie. Witness Lee was a very effective liar, therefore we should realize he was probably using quite a bit of truth to push his lies.

Originally Posted by awareness

And do yourself a favor and look up eusocial. By the way, if "The entire Bible teaches man to be eusocial," why doesn't it say so in simple to understand terms? Why does it need you to explain it, by piecing together verses, by different authors, over a span of a couple thousand years? Is the Bible a magical book to you?

Eusociality is defined as cooperative brood care (including brood care of offspring from other individuals), overlapping generations within a colony of adults, and a division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups. The division of labor creates specialized behavioral groups within an animal society which are sometimes called castes. Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform at least one behavior characteristic of individuals in another caste.

1. Brood care (including care of offspring from other individuals). The Bible teaches us that the leaders are to "shepherd" the flock. That we are all brothers. That the nation of Israel enters the good land as one group, not individually, etc. This seems to be "obvious" behavior to us but is unheard of among primates from which we apparently have evolved. Although the mother is not the only one to care for a child it is almost always a sister, aunt or brother that will assist the mother. We have teachers, child care workers, pediatricians, etc. Completely unheard of in any other species to teach individuals to do this task.

2. Division of labor -- once again there are very few species that do this, especially to the extent of a caste system. However, a Priestly caste along the lines of Aaronic priesthood and Levitical priesthood. Scribes, lawyers, etc. The bible teaches that in the Body there are many functions but one body. We have many gifts -- evangelists, shepherds, teachers, helps, etc. This is taught in both the Old and New Testament. You think nothing of it, but there is no other creature on this planet that does this. All the other eusocial organisms don't have to teach it, rather it is their nature. For non eusocial organisms you can't teach it.

3. People of one caste usually lose the ability to perform behavior characteristics of another caste. All people used to bake their own bread by evidence of the story of the passover. How about today, how many have lost that ability? All people used to build their own dwellings, how about today? All people used to gather their own food from the wild, how many today could go into the woods and find edible plants, berries, roots, etc? This also is taught in the Bible where the king was not allowed to do the job of a priest, etc.

How can anyone deny this? Ants, Bees, Hornets, creatures who are very different from us genetically do things that are similar, but none of them had to learn it. What man does is very, very different form the primates.

Homo Sapiens are closely related to primates, and they are closely related to man. But the definition of a man includes eusociality and it doesn't have to be the definition of a Homo Sapien.

But once you choose to "tend the garden" and "shepherd the sheep" (agricultural revolution) you go down a path of eusociality. How do I protect my herd from rustlers? Who goes after the crooks to catch them? Who makes my tools? One person owns a farm but then employs temporary laborers to help harvest the crops. One person grows the food, another sells it, a third makes bread from it, etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP--

You seem to be equivocating on the word "eusocial". If people were eusocial like ants, they wouldn't need the Bible to teach them to be eusocial they would behave that way spontaneously. If people learn to cooperate by following commands or instructions, that isn't eusocial behavior.

As far as Adam is concerned, the fossil record says nothing. How do you propose to determine that Adam actually existed?

I readily admit that our form of "eusociality" is unique. Ants do not have to be taught, we do.

I relate this to Genesis that says each of these creatures was made "after its own kind" but that man was made "in the image and likeness of God". Man is unique. Not because we make tools, not because we have a thumb, not because we walk upright, not because we have a big brain. We are unique because we are the only species on Earth that teaches itself to be eusocial.

I would be happy to give us a special category:

You have Homo Sapiens -- these are the creatures who evolved from Primates. They are hunter gatherer tribes and are not that different from a troop of chimpanzees in behavior. They are virtually extinct with about 1% of the population still existing as psychopaths and sociopaths.

Then you have Man -- this creature has human language, the arts, religion, literature, etc. for the purpose of teaching the members of the society to be eusocial. They have brood care, division of labor and caste system. Genetically they are identical to Homo Sapiens and they branched off from them about 6,000 years ago at the start of the Agricultural revolution.

[ZNPaaneah]

I have been very surprised at the response to what I assumed everyone had figured out, at least in part. I wouldn't say "stunned" but very surprised.

So I am wondering if Awareness, or Zeek or Evangelical has an interpretation of Genesis (chapter 1-4 for Adam, and Chapter 6-10 for Noah) that does not come across as infantile and idiotic to someone familiar with the fossil record and archaeological remains of past human civilizations?

It seems to me that your complaint is that you want to hold onto your claim that the Bible is not scientific, rather than read the Bible in light of the scientific evidence.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee never taught this, never taught anything like this, and I am sure that anyone who has been brought up exclusively on Witness Lee's teachings never heard this before. Because Witness Lee said there were certain threads that ran from Genesis to Revelation therefore anyone else who says that is a "Leeite"? That is a standard theme in literature. Many Bible teachers do that.

Just confirming that you are correct - Lee did not teach this. The building is the work which fulfills the eternal purpose of God (the dwelling place). We would not say that the building is the eternal purpose of God, just as we would not say that the purpose of having a house is to build it. The purpose of having a house is to live in it. God creates, then He builds with what He created for a purpose - I think it is a standard theme as you said.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have been very surprised at the response to what I assumed everyone had figured out, at least in part. I wouldn't say "stunned" but very surprised.

So I am wondering if Awareness, or Zeek or Evangelical has an interpretation of Genesis (chapter 1-4 for Adam, and Chapter 6-10 for Noah) that does not come across as infantile and idiotic to someone familiar with the fossil record and archaeological remains of past human civilizations?

It seems to me that your complaint is that you want to hold onto your claim that the Bible is not scientific, rather than read the Bible in light of the scientific evidence.

The others may want to hold onto the claim that the Bible is not scientific, but I am trying to reconcile your view with traditional/Sunday School Christian theology /history which you appear to reject, such as the Table of Nations, of which Ken Ham etc seem to keep and interpret the fossil record in a different way. I will need a few days to thoroughly study this matter and reply then.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The others may want to hold onto the claim that the Bible is not scientific, but I am trying to reconcile your view with traditional/Sunday School Christian theology /history which you appear to reject, such as the Table of Nations, of which Ken Ham etc seem to keep and interpret the fossil record in a different way. I will need a few days to thoroughly study this matter and reply then.

I look forward to your reply when you are ready, you have made a number of thoughtful contributions which I appreciate.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I readily admit that our form of "eusociality" is unique. Ants do not have to be taught, we do.

I relate this to Genesis that says each of these creatures was made "after its own kind" but that man was made "in the image and likeness of God". Man is unique. Not because we make tools, not because we have a thumb, not because we walk upright, not because we have a big brain. We are unique because we are the only species on Earth that teaches itself to be eusocial.

I would be happy to give us a special category:

You have Homo Sapiens -- these are the creatures who evolved from Primates. They are hunter gatherer tribes and are not that different from a troop of chimpanzees in behavior. They are virtually extinct with about 1% of the population still existing as psychopaths and sociopaths.

Then you have Man -- this creature has human language, the arts, religion, literature, etc. for the purpose of teaching the members of the society to be eusocial. They have brood care, division of labor and caste system. Genetically they are identical to Homo Sapiens and they branched off from them about 6,000 years ago at the start of the Agricultural revolution.

Your hypothesis is based on black and white, all or nothing thinking. What you are doing is called pseudospeciation, i.e. the tendency of members of in-groups to consider members of out-groups to have evolved genetically into different, separate, and inferior species to their own. Once the out group has been defined as sub-human, it becomes easier to destroy them with impunity.

An alternative theory with empirical support is that like other personality traits, agreeableness is distributed throughout the human population in a roughly bell shape curve. High scorers on this dimension are cooperative, trusting and empathetic while low scorers are relatively cold-hearted, hostile and non-compliant. Most of us are somewhere in between.

The difference between humans and other primates may be explainable primarily in terms of our highly developed language capacity. Our ancestors survived by living in small long lasting groups performing collaborative tasks. The benefits of membership were high and the cost of being ostracized deadly. It would pay to be a good group member. If you weren't the group could gossip about you and reject you. On the other hand, highly disagreeable people could adapt to and succeed in the group by exploiting cooperative behavior by using cunning and deception just as they do today.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The difference between humans and other primates may be explainable primarily in terms of our highly developed language capacity. Our ancestors survived by living in small long lasting groups performing collaborative tasks. The benefits of membership were high and the cost of being ostracized deadly. It would pay to be a good group member. If you weren't the group could gossip about you and reject you. On the other hand, highly disagreeable people could adapt to and succeed in the group by exploiting cooperative behavior by using cunning and deception just as they do today.

You have no basis to make this hypothesis. It isn't an educated guess informed from previous examples but made up whole clothe because you have nothing on which to base it. There are many species who have language capacity (whales, dolphins, all primates, birds, etc). So you are drawing the line on this nebulous "highly developed" language capacity. Now if you wanted to define this as written language, then that would not be nebulous and is also something unique to humans. I have already suggested this as a criteria based on the verse "God breathed into him and he became a living soul", based on the record of the entire Bible, based on the use of this written language to teach us to be eusocial, etc.

But a highly developed language is not the only difference between primates and man. We have religion, they don't. We have brood care by unrelated members, they don't. We have a caste system based on function, they don't. We tend the garden, they don't. We shepherd the sheep, they don't.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So I am wondering if Awareness, or Zeek or Evangelical has an interpretation of Genesis (chapter 1-4 for Adam, and Chapter 6-10 for Noah) that does not come across as infantile and idiotic to someone familiar with the fossil record and archaeological remains of past human civilizations?

It seems to me that your complaint is that you want to hold onto your claim that the Bible is not scientific, rather than read the Bible in light of the scientific evidence.

What would be the point? What is the point? You seem to have the need to prove that the Bible is scientific, but I don't. I think it's a silly and ludicrous endeavor.

But maybe I'm wrong. So tell us exactly why you have this need?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

What would be the point? What is the point? You seem to have the need to prove that the Bible is scientific, but I don't. I think it's a silly and ludicrous endeavor.

But maybe I'm wrong. So tell us exactly why you have this need?

Then you have no basis to claim that the Bible is contradicted by science.

As for "my need", there are 500 witnesses to the resurrection. I consider science to provide reliable witnesses. Why do we witness concerning Jesus? Not all need to see the nail imprint in the hands, but some do, and for those Jesus will show them the nail prints.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have no basis to make this hypothesis. It isn't an educated guess informed from previous examples but made up whole clothe because you have nothing on which to base it. There are many species who have language capacity (whales, dolphins, all primates, birds, etc). So you are drawing the line on this nebulous "highly developed" language capacity. Now if you wanted to define this as written language, then that would not be nebulous and is also something unique to humans. I have already suggested this as a criteria based on the verse "God breathed into him and he became a living soul", based on the record of the entire Bible, based on the use of this written language to teach us to be eusocial, etc.

But a highly developed language is not the only difference between primates and man. We have religion, they don't. We have brood care by unrelated members, they don't. We have a caste system based on function, they don't. We tend the garden, they don't. We shepherd the sheep, they don't.

I would love to see your evidence that any species has as highly developed symbolic language as humans do. Written language obviously developed because of humans already had symbolic verbal and cognitive capacities not in spite of that fact. Apparently you are unaware of evolutionary psychology which draws evidence from biology and cognitive psychology. Here's a primer on the subject. http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I would love to see your evidence that any species has as highly developed symbolic language as humans do. Written language obviously developed because of humans already had symbolic verbal and cognitive capacities not in spite of that fact. Apparently you are unaware of evolutionary psychology which draws evidence from biology and cognitive psychology. Here's a primer on the subject. http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html

It has been shown that whales have a map of the entire ocean in their brain. We know that they communicate. We have not deciphered their language, but until we do there is still a lot we don't know. Dolphins have been taught sign language and have demonstrated the ability to be creative and speak (they were instructed using sign language to come up with a new trick, then underwater they communicated with each other, and came up and performed a trick they had never done before).

The point is that "as highly developed" is not a clear criteria. What does that mean? Obviously whales and dolphins have highly developed brains and communicate verbally. What they don't do is have a written language. That is quite easy to use as a criteria. For example, chimpanzees have no physical reason why they couldn't have a written language, they have hands, they communicate verbally and they use tools. So this appears to be a useful distinction.

From an evolutionary standpoint the ability to read and write is very strange. It requires a great portion of your brain which in turn uses quite a few calories. As a result it is fair to say that this is an expensive characteristic from an evolutionary standpoint, yet it seems to confer no immediate evolutionary advantage. What's worse, it seems we have exchanged our photographic memory for this ability, a characteristic which would be extremely valuable to a hunter gatherer. What is the advantage in being able to write when no one can read? What is the advantage in being able to read when there is nothing that has been written?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then you have no basis to claim that the Bible is contradicted by science.

All I have is just the historical record of the battle between the Bible and science ... that continues today. The battle has become so urgent that we now have such ones as Ken Ham, doing their best to make the Bible stories valid ... and apparently you.

Originally Posted by ZNP

As for "my need", there are 500 witnesses to the resurrection. I consider science to provide reliable witnesses.

That's your Biblical science? Can you provide the names of the 500? Are they peer reviewed?

And talking about witnesses, we have Acts and Luke, and those witnesses don't confirm 500.

But, what's your purpose in bringing these supposed (not scientifically proven) 500 witnesses, to bear on the flood story? And how does it meet "your need?"

Originally Posted by ZNP

Not all need to see the nail imprint in the hands, but some do, and for those Jesus will show them the nail prints.

So when does Jesus show me the nail imprints?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

All I have is just the historical record of the battle between the Bible and science ... that continues today. The battle has become so urgent that we now have such ones as Ken Ham, doing their best to make the Bible stories valid ... and apparently you.

Please stop comparing me to Ken Ham. The only similarity is that we both happen to be talking about Noah's ark. On that basis there are a million people similar. You aren't comparing me to Ken Ham you are comparing all people who discuss Noah's ark.

Originally Posted by awareness

That's your Biblical science? Can you provide the names of the 500? Are they peer reviewed?

And talking about witnesses, we have Acts and Luke, and those witnesses don't confirm 500.

But, what's your purpose in bringing these supposed (not scientifically proven) 500 witnesses, to bear on the flood story? And how does it meet "your need?"

No, that is not my point. My point is that the Bible has multiple witnesses. Science, archaeology, historical records, miracles, apostle's testimony, answered prayer, these can all be witnesses.

Originally Posted by awareness

So when does Jesus show me the nail imprints?

I will start a new thread on this.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It has been shown that whales have a map of the entire ocean in their brain. We know that they communicate. We have not deciphered their language, but until we do there is still a lot we don't know. Dolphins have been taught sign language and have demonstrated the ability to be creative and speak (they were instructed using sign language to come up with a new trick, then underwater they communicated with each other, and came up and performed a trick they had never done before).

The point is that "as highly developed" is not a clear criteria. What does that mean? Obviously whales and dolphins have highly developed brains and communicate verbally. What they don't do is have a written language. That is quite easy to use as a criteria. For example, chimpanzees have no physical reason why they couldn't have a written language, they have hands, they communicate verbally and they use tools. So this appears to be a useful distinction.

From an evolutionary standpoint the ability to read and write is very strange. It requires a great portion of your brain which in turn uses quite a few calories. As a result it is fair to say that this is an expensive characteristic from an evolutionary standpoint, yet it seems to confer no immediate evolutionary advantage. What's worse, it seems we have exchanged our photographic memory for this ability, a characteristic which would be extremely valuable to a hunter gatherer. What is the advantage in being able to write when no one can read? What is the advantage in being able to read when there is nothing that has been written?

Let me be specific then. As far as I know no other species invented a written language. That's a species specific language difference between humans. But even prior to that can any of your animals do algebra, comprehend a short story, interpret a proverb, or describe how concepts are similar produce representative visual drawings? Those are language tasks that average humans can do.

[Intothewind]

I can't tell if we are reading the same Bible or not. The verses literally say the whole earth. Oh well...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Let me be specific then. As far as I know no other species invented a written language. That's a species specific language difference between humans. But even prior to that can any of your animals do algebra, comprehend a short story, interpret a proverb, or describe how concepts are similar produce representative visual drawings? Those are language tasks that average humans can do.

Algebra -- if a whale or dolphin has an entire map of the ocean in their brain would that include the ability to calculate distance, that would be algebra. Can they calculate rate? That would be algebra. So we don't really know what their capability is yet.

I think they compare the language skills of chimpanzees to a 3 year old.

They do have elephants that have been painting pictures, so they can produce "visual drawings" again on the level of a toddler.

But even though Dolphins can understand sign language and chimpanzees can read more than a hundred different symbols and bees will communicate via dance, I am not aware of any creature that writes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I can't tell if we are reading the same Bible or not. The verses literally say the whole earth. Oh well...

Which verse are you referring to?

Genesis 7:6And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

I have described a flood that took place in the geologic past that was global. When the meteorite struck it would have put enough water up into the atmosphere to cause it to rain like a flood worldwide.

10And it came to pass after the seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

This would be true everywhere, if you had just seven days of massive downpour you will have a flood, everywhere.

11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12*And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Fountains of the deep — I have already explained that when volcanos erupt they also can cause significant water to be sent into the air. A large meteorite like the one described striking the earth would have triggered volcanic activity. There were two super volcanos that exploded at the same time. It is possible that the meteorite strike is what triggered these two super volcano eruptions.

Windows of heaven were opened — as I have said repeatedly, a meteorite striking the ocean is going to send a tremendous amount of water into the atmosphere. To describe this event, thousands of miles away, as “the windows of heaven were opened” seems apt.

17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth. 18And the waters prevailed, and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

We have also seen that there is geologic evidence that the Black Sea flooded. Unlike a Tsunami or a flash flood in the mountains, this flood would cause the ark to be lifted up.

19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. 20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Once again there is geologic evidence that an ice dam in the Himalayas broke, releasing 500 cubic miles of water flowing down out of the Himalayas. This is enough water to flood an area 1,000 miles by 100 miles by 20 feet. At this time, roughly the same time as the Black Sea flooding, the meteorite striking and two super volcanos erupting is considered the biggest flood in human history.

21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every [c]creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, of all that was on the dry land, died. 23And every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark.

All flesh died at Hiroshima. All flesh died at Nagasaki. Every living thing was destroyed. You have to look at the context. Likewise every living thing that was hit by the Tsunami, at the Black Sea or in the path of the flood from the Himalayas would have died. All flesh, zebras, elephants, giraffes, it wouldn’t matter. But the context is that in chapter 10 it talks about the isles of the gentiles or nations. Yes, if you understand this to mean that the only living creatures left after the flood were those in the ark, then these nations have to be the product of incest.

However if you read the context — the dove had a branch in its mouth signifying that there was a living tree somewhere, hence there were some parts of earth not destroyed. Nations refer to nations, there were people in other places who were not destroyed.

Why would the dove not return to the ark if it had the only food and only animals left on earth?

If all the nations are descended from the interbreeding of Noah’s kids why do they refer to “everyone after their tongue, their family, in their nation”?

Noah’s great grandchildren build great cities and are rulers of kingdoms. Does that really make sense? Based on the names given it is hard to predict more than 100 or even 200 great grandchildren. How do you get the kingdom of Babel, Philistines and Nineveh out of that?

The interpretation that all of these people, tongues, families and nations are all descended from Noah’s three sons is based on the erroneous interpretation that every human other than these 8 died. It is not necessary to come to that conclusion based on the text. Hence it is much easier and more logical to explain Genesis 10 if you don’t.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Algebra -- if a whale or dolphin has an entire map of the ocean in their brain would that include the ability to calculate distance, that would be algebra. Can they calculate rate? That would be algebra. So we don't really know what their capability is yet.

I think they compare the language skills of chimpanzees to a 3 year old.

They do have elephants that have been painting pictures, so they can produce "visual drawings" again on the level of a toddler.

But even though Dolphins can understand sign language and chimpanzees can read more than a hundred different symbols and bees will communicate via dance, I am not aware of any creature that writes.

Can you document any of this? I saw elephants supposedly painting pictures on a Youtube video. You're not referring to that are you?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Can you document any of this? I saw elephants supposedly painting pictures on a Youtube video. You're not referring to that are you?

http://wcfcourier.com/fast-facts-abo...cc4c03286.html

Concerning whale brains -- speculative

I don't know what youtube videos you have been watching, but yes, there are elephants who paint pictures, but just with colors, nothing you could identify.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I can't tell if we are reading the same Bible or not. The verses literally say the whole earth. Oh well...

I think this one:

Gen_6:13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Algebra -- if a whale or dolphin has an entire map of the ocean in their brain would that include the ability to calculate distance, that would be algebra. Can they calculate rate? That would be algebra. So we don't really know what their capability is yet.

I think they compare the language skills of chimpanzees to a 3 year old.

They do have elephants that have been painting pictures, so they can produce "visual drawings" again on the level of a toddler.

But even though Dolphins can understand sign language and chimpanzees can read more than a hundred different symbols and bees will communicate via dance, I am not aware of any creature that writes.

I'm trying to get your point here, as to how these critters relate to evidence of the flood.

And then it dawned on me. I've been wrong all this time in judging God for drowning all the innocent critters. The critters weren't innocent. They were using their algebra and mapping abilities to go to forbidden places ; and the monkeys were learning swear words ; and the elephants were drawing dirty pictures. God was right in drowning those corrupt immoral apostate critters.

Is that what you are getting at brother ZNP? Is that evidence of the flood? Oh I forgot. You're not interested in the moral implications of the flood. It's more important to you that you prove the Bible true ... even if it is immoral.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think this one:

Gen_6:13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Evangelical asked, this, I answered. Awareness asked this, I answered. This is now the third time, do these posters read the thread?

God said "I have determined to make an end of all flesh" -- this is true.

"Behold, I will destroy them with the earth" -- This is God's promise to us. It is true. It hasn't happened yet. You might think that the context indicated that the flood at Noah's time would be the fulfillment. Not unreasonable, but ignores all other references to Noah as a type of the coming judgement of God.

We know that God "will destroy them with the earth" because Noah and the flood is a token of God's judgement. It is part of our covenant with God. It is like the downpayment on a house is evidence that the full payment will be received.

God made a covenant with us, in this covenant He promised to destroy the flesh with the Earth. This judgement on the world is referred to as God's condemnation of the world, it has been condemned since Adam's fall. There is a also a plan of salvation.

Noah's ark is not "the" plan of salvation, but rather a type. Jesus is the plan. We need to be "in Christ" just as Noah's family needed to be "in the ark". It is a type.

In this coming judgement the flesh will be destroyed, but that doesn't mean unbelievers go to hell. There are sheep and goats. At the time of the New Jerusalem there will be the "nations" and there will be the Israelites. They are not all destroyed in the judgement. The flood at Noah's time was like the downpayment on this covenant, not the full payment.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical asked, this, I answered. Awareness asked this, I answered. This is now the third time, do these posters read the thread?

God said "I have determined to make an end of all flesh" -- this is true.

"Behold, I will destroy them with the earth" -- This is God's promise to us. It is true. It hasn't happened yet. You might think that the context indicated that the flood at Noah's time would be the fulfillment. Not unreasonable, but ignores all other references to Noah as a type of the coming judgement of God.

We know that God "will destroy them with the earth" because Noah and the flood is a token of God's judgement. It is part of our covenant with God. It is like the downpayment on a house is evidence that the full payment will be received.

God made a covenant with us, in this covenant He promised to destroy the flesh with the Earth. This judgement on the world is referred to as God's condemnation of the world, it has been condemned since Adam's fall. There is a also a plan of salvation.

Noah's ark is not "the" plan of salvation, but rather a type. Jesus is the plan. We need to be "in Christ" just as Noah's family needed to be "in the ark". It is a type.

In this coming judgement the flesh will be destroyed, but that doesn't mean unbelievers go to hell. There are sheep and goats. At the time of the New Jerusalem there will be the "nations" and there will be the Israelites. They are not all destroyed in the judgement. The flood at Noah's time was like the downpayment on this covenant, not the full payment.

I've never liked using the Old Testament as a "Type." I see them as inventions from la la land.

The author(s) of Genesis was not thinking in the far future, obviously. You are just rationalizing the obvious meaning of the verse away. Why I don't know. But prolly cuz God didn't destroy the earth like He clearly stated. Your future extrapolation is just a bunch of wishful bunkum. Go tell it to the gullible and naive.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've never liked using the Old Testament as a "Type." I see them as inventions from la la land.

The author(s) of Genesis was not thinking in the far future, obviously. You are just rationalizing the obvious meaning of the verse away. Why I don't know. But prolly cuz God didn't destroy the earth like He clearly stated. Your future extrapolation is just a bunch of wishful bunkum. Go tell it to the gullible and naive.

Matt 24:27 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man.

Matthew Henry says "The end of the world shall not be till the gospel has done its work." This has been a standard doctrine taught to most Christians and not invented by be as some "wishful bunkum".

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

McLaren's exposition of the Bible says "And what was the future that loomed before this man? The coming of a destruction as certain as God, and the coming of a deliverance as complete as His love could make it. Never mind although Noah’s outlook related but to a temporary catastrophe, and ours has reference to an eternal condition of things. That is a difference of no real moment. We have what Noah had, a definite, divine utterance, as the source of all our knowledge of what is coming. Both are alike in having two sides, one dark and menacing with a certain destruction, the other radiant and lustrous with as certain a deliverance. And now the question for each of us is, do I so believe God that that future is to me what it was to this man - far more real than these fleeing illusions that lie nearer me?" So then he also points out that this "temporary catastrophe" and ours is eternal, "Both are alike" because they both point to "certain destruction" and "radiant deliverance". Once again, this word is not for the gullible but for men of faith.

1Pet 3; 17For it is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. 18Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, 20that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: 21which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

Matthew Poole's commentary says "The like figure; Greek, the antitype. Twice this word occurs in Scripture; once Hebrews 9:24, where it signifies simply a type, or exemplar, or representation; and here, where it implies either the likeness or correspondence of one type with another in signifying the same thing: so that here may be two types, the deliverance of Noah and his household in the flood, and baptism, whereof the former was a type of the latter, yet so as both represent the salvation of the church; in that as the waters of the flood lifting up the ark, and saving Noah’s family shut up in it, signified the salvation of the church; so likewise baptism signifies the salvation of those that are in the church (as in an ark) from that common destruction which involves the rest of the world: or, it signifies the truth itself, as answering the type or figure; and thus the temporal salvation of Noah, &c. from the flood, in the ark, was the type, and the eternal salvation of believers by baptism is the antitype, or truth figured by it. Our translation seems to favour the former. " The naive are those who argue that Noah's flood was not a type of the coming judgement. Clearly they are unaware that Peter says it is.

2Pet 3:4For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly; 7and delivered righteous Lot, sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked 8(for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their lawless deeds): 9the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment;

Concerning this Matthew Henry said "The heavens and the earth which now are, by the same word, it is declared, will be destroyed by fire. This is as sure to come, as the truth and the power of God can make it." Which is what I said. So clearly this is not "my" future extrapolation but the "future extrapolation" that most Bible commentators understand Peter, Jesus and the writer of Hebrews were making.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical asked, this, I answered. Awareness asked this, I answered. This is now the third time, do these posters read the thread?

God said "I have determined to make an end of all flesh" -- this is true.

"Behold, I will destroy them with the earth" -- This is God's promise to us. It is true. It hasn't happened yet. You might think that the context indicated that the flood at Noah's time would be the fulfillment. Not unreasonable, but ignores all other references to Noah as a type of the coming judgement of God.

We know that God "will destroy them with the earth" because Noah and the flood is a token of God's judgement. It is part of our covenant with God. It is like the downpayment on a house is evidence that the full payment will be received.

God made a covenant with us, in this covenant He promised to destroy the flesh with the Earth. This judgement on the world is referred to as God's condemnation of the world, it has been condemned since Adam's fall. There is a also a plan of salvation.

Noah's ark is not "the" plan of salvation, but rather a type. Jesus is the plan. We need to be "in Christ" just as Noah's family needed to be "in the ark". It is a type.

In this coming judgement the flesh will be destroyed, but that doesn't mean unbelievers go to hell. There are sheep and goats. At the time of the New Jerusalem there will be the "nations" and there will be the Israelites. They are not all destroyed in the judgement. The flood at Noah's time was like the downpayment on this covenant, not the full payment.

ZNPaaneah, do you believe that every flood since the time of Noah, are also down payments ? If not, why does it make sense to say Noah's flood was a downpayment, but any flood since then is not?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, do you believe that every flood since the time of Noah, are also down payments ? If not, why does it make sense to say Noah's flood was a downpayment, but any flood since then is not?

No, I don't.

1. The reason this flood is considered a downpayment is because of God's speaking to Noah and the covenant that God made with Noah. In the same way the cross of Christ is evidence, a token, of the coming judgement on the flesh because of the covenant God made with us there and the word spoken to us there.

2. The reason Noah is so important is because of his faith to listen to God, to build the ark, to fill it with those animals. The record in Genesis 10 is clear, his children became kings, nobles, leaders of men? Why? They had the product of thousands of years of domestication of both cereal grains and animals. No one else could compete with them. In the same way the Christians will rule and reign in the coming age because of thousands of years of development and maturation in the church life.

3. The floods since Noah's flood are to a large part man made and avoidable. For example, Katrina. The hurricane, as big as it was, would not have been the problem. The real problem was caused by building levy's for the Mississippi river which failed. People build homes in flood plains. If you eliminated all the stupid, obvious things people do wrong which make them prone to getting flooded, you would eliminate the vast amount of flood. What we call a "flood" is the natural process. Every single spring the Mississippi river and most other rivers are supposed to "flood". The snows melt, the river floods, the flood plain gets a new layer of silt, and as a result we have rich farmland.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

http://wcfcourier.com/fast-facts-abo...cc4c03286.html

"--- Captive dolphins typically can learn about 90 commands in American Sign Language."

According to Dr. Stanley Coren, an expert in canine intelligence, the average dog can understand about 165 words, possibly more with training.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper, in 1986, estimated the size of the average person’s vocabulary as developing from roughly 300 words at two years old, through 5,000 words at five years old, to some 12,000 words at the age of 12.

Concerning whale brains -- speculative

Thank you.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't know what youtube videos you have been watching, but yes, there are elephants who paint pictures, but just with colors, nothing you could identify.

If you can't identify anything, they aren't "pictures". Humans draw pictures.

So, you made my case that humans have significantly higher language capacity than other animals. If we accept that chimpanzees have the language capacity of a three year old child, then it is evident that an adult human's language capacity is exponentially higher. There's controversy about the research, but no credible scientific source claims that other primates have language abilities comparable to humans. Your position is totally unsupported whereas my position is well supported by evidence from multiple sciences.

All primates use their vocal cords to produce different kids of signals to convey different kinds of information. But, humans have evolved the most sophisticated communication system in the animal kingdom. Special neurological equipment is required to learn and use human language. Chomsky showed that it would be impossible for children to learn language at the rate they do unless they were pre-programmed to do so. Human children learn thousands of words and master complex rules of grammar by age five.

British anthropologist, Robin Dunbar found that the primary function of language was to exchange information about the social environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groomi...on_of_Language

Your claim that I was making up my hypothesis whole cloth is defeated. That's what you were doing. Nice try.

You're saying that human sociability is due to a special act of divine creation and that that results in humans that are different than homo sapiens generally. I'm saying that human sociability evolved because of natural selection.

Incidentally, we can continue this discussion on the Bible vs. science thread if you prefer as it seems to be only tangentially related to Noah's Flood.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Dr. Stanley Coren, an expert in canine intelligence, the average dog can understand about 165 words, possibly more with training.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper, in 1986, estimated the size of the average person’s vocabulary as developing from roughly 300 words at two years old, through 5,000 words at five years old, to some 12,000 words at the age of 12.




Thank you.



If you can't identify anything, they aren't "pictures". Humans draw pictures.

So, you made my case that humans have significantly higher language capacity than other animals. If we accept that chimpanzees have the language capacity of a three year old child, then it is evident that an adult human's language capacity is exponentially higher. There's controversy about the research, but no credible scientific source claims that other primates have language abilities comparable to humans. Your position is totally unsupported whereas my position is well supported by evidence from multiple sciences.

All primates use their vocal cords to produce different kids of signals to convey different kinds of information. But, humans have evolved the most sophisticated communication system in the animal kingdom. Special neurological equipment is required to learn and use human language. Chomsky showed that it would be impossible for children to learn language at the rate they do unless they were pre-programmed to do so. Human children learn thousands of words and master complex rules of grammar by age five.

British anthropologist, Robin Dunbar found that the primary function of language was to exchange information about the social environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groomi...on_of_Language

Your claim that I was making up my hypothesis whole cloth is defeated. That's what you were doing. Nice try.

You're saying that human sociability is due to a special act of divine creation and that that results in humans that are different than homo sapiens generally. I'm saying that human sociability evolved because of natural selection.

Incidentally, we can continue this discussion on the Bible vs. science thread if you prefer as it seems to be only tangentially related to Noah's Flood.

My position is that making the delineation based on a written language is clearer and less ambiguous. Since there is no other creature with a written language other than man.

Your position is that Man has a "higher developed" language ability. But what does that mean? 200 word vocabulary, 500 word vocabulary 1,000 words? If you draw the line at 1,000 words why is that an important distinction from an animal with a 500 word vocabulary? How is that not an ambiguous distinction?

What is abundantly clear is that many, many animals communicate with one another. Being social and communicating is not a valid distinction. Likewise many, many creatures use vocal sounds to communicate. That also is not a distinction.

However, only man uses written language. Seems like an incredibly interesting and intriguing distinction to me.

I am not referring to "human sociability". If we accept that homo sapiens evolved from primates all primates are sociable.

What I am saying is that humans became eusocial, a very special classification, something that seems to be contrary to the basic premise of evolution which species appear to behave in a way that advances their DNA.

What I am claiming is that you are saying man evolved to be eusocial, yet there is no other example of any other creature that did this, hence you are creating this theory out of whole cloth. It has never ever happened before.

[awareness]

Now that was an interesting post (left below) ... and a pretty good selection of puzzle pieces from Jewish writers of Bible books. Jewish writers, by the way, that believe the Jews are God's chosen people, so believe that Jewish written books are of superior importance and so reference them like they are directly from God. Why? Because it must be that God is Jewish.

But none of it is scientific proof of a worldwide flood. You've just twisted the Bible into scientific fact, when it clearly is not. I still think you are speaking to the gullible and naive.

-----------------

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Matt 24:27 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man.

Matthew Henry says "The end of the world shall not be till the gospel has done its work." This has been a standard doctrine taught to most Christians and not invented by be as some "wishful bunkum".

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

McLaren's exposition of the Bible says "And what was the future that loomed before this man? The coming of a destruction as certain as God, and the coming of a deliverance as complete as His love could make it. Never mind although Noah’s outlook related but to a temporary catastrophe, and ours has reference to an eternal condition of things. That is a difference of no real moment. We have what Noah had, a definite, divine utterance, as the source of all our knowledge of what is coming. Both are alike in having two sides, one dark and menacing with a certain destruction, the other radiant and lustrous with as certain a deliverance. And now the question for each of us is, do I so believe God that that future is to me what it was to this man - far more real than these fleeing illusions that lie nearer me?" So then he also points out that this "temporary catastrophe" and ours is eternal, "Both are alike" because they both point to "certain destruction" and "radiant deliverance". Once again, this word is not for the gullible but for men of faith.

1Pet 3; 17For it is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. 18Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, 20that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: 21which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

Matthew Poole's commentary says "The like figure; Greek, the antitype. Twice this word occurs in Scripture; once Hebrews 9:24, where it signifies simply a type, or exemplar, or representation; and here, where it implies either the likeness or correspondence of one type with another in signifying the same thing: so that here may be two types, the deliverance of Noah and his household in the flood, and baptism, whereof the former was a type of the latter, yet so as both represent the salvation of the church; in that as the waters of the flood lifting up the ark, and saving Noah’s family shut up in it, signified the salvation of the church; so likewise baptism signifies the salvation of those that are in the church (as in an ark) from that common destruction which involves the rest of the world: or, it signifies the truth itself, as answering the type or figure; and thus the temporal salvation of Noah, &c. from the flood, in the ark, was the type, and the eternal salvation of believers by baptism is the antitype, or truth figured by it. Our translation seems to favour the former. " The naive are those who argue that Noah's flood was not a type of the coming judgement. Clearly they are unaware that Peter says it is.

2Pet 3:4For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly; 7and delivered righteous Lot, sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked 8(for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their lawless deeds): 9the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment;

Concerning this Matthew Henry said "The heavens and the earth which now are, by the same word, it is declared, will be destroyed by fire. This is as sure to come, as the truth and the power of God can make it." Which is what I said. So clearly this is not "my" future extrapolation but the "future extrapolation" that most Bible commentators understand Peter, Jesus and the writer of Hebrews were making.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My position is that making the delineation based on a written language is clearer and less ambiguous. Since there is no other creature with a written language other than man.

So....SO..."In the beginning was the word" means to you the beginning of the written word. Okay, I'm just trying to be clear.

I really don't know what you are driving at. If I missed it, please repeat it, what to you is a MAN.

Cuz, making a jump, so far it sounds to me like you are saying man became man when he invented writing ... (and then the alphabet, and then holy-writ-CANONS.

But get to the point, at what point did proto-man, if you will, become distinguished, to God I guess, into 'real man,' that we are today? And what about the neanderthals? What do we do about them?

Finally : Did God communicate with man before the invention of writing?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now that was an interesting post (left below) ... and a pretty good selection of puzzle pieces from Jewish writers of Bible books. Jewish writers, by the way, that believe the Jews are God's chosen people, so believe that Jewish written books are of superior importance and so reference them like they are directly from God. Why? Because it must be that God is Jewish.

But none of it is scientific proof of a worldwide flood. You've just twisted the Bible into scientific fact, when it clearly is not. I still think you are speaking to the gullible and naive.

-----------------

What this proves is that my interpretation of Noah's ark and flood story being a type of the coming judgement, and being a token of the coming judgement is not "my" interpretation.

The evidence for a worldwide flood has already been given on previous posts. There is virtually no scientific dispute that the Himalayan flood, the Black Sea flood, and the eruption of two super volcanos all took place at approximately the same time, that they were the "biggest floods" in human history, that they were global in scale and that they would have been witnessed by human civilizations.

There is some debate about the meteorite, but that is largely due to the fact that the crater is 12,500 feet under the ocean. If it is in fact a meteorite crater then the huge dunes on Madagascar and everything else is agreed on. What has not been confirmed completely is whether or not that crater was formed by a meteorite. However, the evidence is quite good.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So....SO..."In the beginning was the word" means to you the beginning of the written word. Okay, I'm just trying to be clear.

I really don't know what you are driving at. If I missed it, please repeat it, what to you is a MAN.

Cuz, making a jump, so far it sounds to me like you are saying man became man when he invented writing ... (and then the alphabet, and then holy-writ-CANONS.

But get to the point, at what point did proto-man, if you will, become distinguished, to God I guess, into 'real man,' that we are today? And what about the neanderthals? What do we do about them?

Finally : Did God communicate with man before the invention of writing?

1. God made man from the dust of the ground

This is equivalent to the theory of evolution, only it was written about 6,000 years before Darwin and is far more elegant than anything Darwin ever said.

And, God breathed into man and He became a living soul.

God's word animates man and distinguishes MAN from Homo Sapiens.

A. The first word that distinguishes man from all other creatures is God's word to "tend the garden". A eusocial species will change its environment. Ants, Termites, Bees, etc. they all do this. Man does this on a scale that far surpasses any other creature.

B. Adam named all the animals. This is a process that results from observation and creativity. We see each animal, observe their special characteristics, and then give them a name. These names are crucial towards using them. Clearly we have many domesticated animals which have revolutionized our life, but naming plants, medicines, bacteria, things like penicillin, these all will have a huge impact on making man very different from Homo Sapiens. First, it indicates a vocabulary and language ability far surpassing all other creatures as their are hundreds of thousands, even millions of different species that we have already named. Also, this indicates school and books. There is no way a geologist can learn about foraminifera without books, there are thousands of these microscopic creatures, each with photos and key descriptions. So here we have an indication of Adam not just being a gardener but also a husbandman and a zoologist. Hence a scientist with a written language and higher education. A written language and higher education is one characteristic that is unique to man and should be used to define Man vs homo sapiens.

C. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. This indicates that we are made according to Jesus Christ who is the image of the invisible God. Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of what it is to be eusocial. The crucified life is completely contrary to standard evolutionary theory and shows that man is unique among all the species on this planet. Although an ant may act similarly, giving up their life for the ant hill, the process by which an ant becomes eusocial is completely different from a man. We have "evolved" from primates. They are not eusocial. What we call aberrant behavior, psychopath or sociopath, is normal behavior for a primate. This process of making man eusocial is commonly referred to as "religion". Once again, religion is something uniquely characteristic of Man.

D. Woman is described as a "help meet for man". This indicates a division of labor with different people having different functions. This is also a characteristic typical of a eusocial species.

So then

Homo Sapiens -- evolved from primates, not eusocial, don't have written language, don't have higher education, don't have religion. They did not change their environment any more than a troop of chimpanzees.

Man -- these are homo sapiens that God has breathed into. They are eusocial, they tend the garden and change their environment, they have a written language, higher education, religion, and division of labor.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:15 And Jehovah God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

2:18b It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him..

3:22 Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My position is that making the delineation based on a written language is clearer and less ambiguous. Since there is no other creature with a written language other than man.

Written language is the result of a unique biological human property for language. Other animals communicate but none use language in the sense that we do. The structure of human language is unique. https://www.jstor.org/stable/415004?...n_tab_contents

Your position is that Man has a "higher developed" language ability. But what does that mean? 200 word vocabulary, 500 word vocabulary 1,000 words? If you draw the line at 1,000 words why is that an important distinction from an animal with a 500 word vocabulary? How is that not an ambiguous distinction?

As a matter of fact human language is uniquely characterized by its "discrete or digital infinity" by which humans can use a finite number of sounds to create infinite number and variety of meanings. Other animals don't do that.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_infinity

What is abundantly clear is that many, many animals communicate with one another. Being social and communicating is not a valid distinction. Likewise many, many creatures use vocal sounds to communicate. That also is not a distinction.

Unlike other species, human language is creative and recursive. We make up new sentences freely. While grammar is finite, the language generated is infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion

However, only man uses written language. Seems like an incredibly interesting and intriguing distinction to me.

The unique properties of human language are already evident in children before they learn to read or write and in cultures without written language. here's an example of a language developed by people who were deaf and couldn't read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language

I am not referring to "human sociability". If we accept that homo sapiens evolved from primates all primates are sociable. What I am saying is that humans became eusocial, a very special classification, something that seems to be contrary to the basic premise of evolution which species appear to behave in a way that advances their DNA. What I am claiming is that you are saying man evolved to be eusocial, yet there is no other example of any other creature that did this, hence you are creating this theory out of whole cloth. It has never ever happened before.

Yeah, well we're talking about what makes humans unique among the primates, and I'm contending that it is primarily a function the unique human brain as manifest in our language capacity. To qualify as eusocial, in Wilson’s definition, animals must live in multigenerational communities, practice division of labor and behave altruistically, ready to sacrifice “at least some of their personal interests to that of the group.” http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...EUwuVeF2pFH.99


Since our sociability is unique as Wilson admits, the usefulness of categorizing it with the sociability of ants and bees who lack comparable cognitive freedom is questionable. "Not all biologists agree with Wilson’s ideas about the source of humanity’s dominance or existential angst. Some resist calling humans eusocial, preferring to restrict that term to animals like ants, in which just one or a few group members reproduce and the rest attend to the royal ones’ brood."
I'm with them.

How any of this evidence supports your proposition of a special act of God to create some humans and not others, I don't see. I think you're out on a limb that can't support the weight of your hypotheses.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah, well we're talking about what makes humans unique among the primates, and I'm contending that it is primarily a function the unique human mind as manifest in our language capacity.

For an observer, how would they distinguish from a human appearing primate and a man? Do they need to dissect the brain first, or could the classification be made based on behavioral traits? Please note, we use these kind of classifications already to discern psychopaths, sociopaths, and other mental "abnormalities".

Originally Posted by zeek

To qualify as eusocial, in Wilson’s definition, animals must live in multigenerational communities, practice division of labor and behave altruistically, ready to sacrifice “at least some of their personal interests to that of the group.” http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...EUwuVeF2pFH.99


Since our sociability is unique as Wilson admits, the usefulness of categorizing it with the sociability of ants and bees who lack comparable cognitive freedom is questionable. "Not all biologists agree with Wilson’s ideas about the source of humanity’s dominance or existential angst. Some resist calling humans eusocial, preferring to restrict that term to animals like ants, in which just one or a few group members reproduce and the rest attend to the royal ones’ brood."
I'm with them.

Well I would definitely be with them. I consider Man to be unique among all creation. I have indicated this by saying that of the 19 eusocial species Man is the only one that chooses to be. However, that is an even harder pill for some to swallow that believe man evolved from lower forms of life.

Originally Posted by zeek

How any of this evidence supports your proposition of a special act of God to create some humans and not others, I don't see. I think you're out on a limb that can't support the weight of your hypotheses.

Well then, judge those who say man evolved by the same standard.

The underlying principle that is supposed to operate in evolution is "survival of the fittest". We are supposed to be able to explain all of the evolutionary changes as having conferred an advantage, likewise all behavior is explained as promoting the furtherance of their DNA. This is why a momma bear will fight to the death to protect her cubs and also why the male bear is kept away from the cubs.

But no one has done that with man concerning these issues:

1. Written language uses a very large portion of our brain. As a result the human brain is the most expensive brain on a calories consumed to weight of animal ratio. Not only so, but to get this function we lost our photographic memory which is very useful to a hunter gatherer in a competitive environment. So then, please explain what the competitive advantage was? No one else could read so how does it help that you can write? Since no one can write there is nothing for you to read, so how does it help that you can read?

2. Where did Religion come from? The concept of visiting orphans and widows in their affliction is contrary to the theory of evolution. A male Gorilla that finds an orphan will kill it, not care for it. There is no concept of religion among primates, so how did we evolve this trait?

3. Why did we "tend the garden" and become "husbandmen"? Gorillas don't use other animals as a help. How do you "evolve" this trait.

As I have said, any explanation you give is going to be completely out on a limb because you will not be able to point to a single creature other than man in which this has happened. All you are going to be able to do is to reword Genesis 1 into something with a more scientific and ambiguous terminology.

In the end there is no explanation for these very dramatic changes, which at the time did not confer any short term advantage, but over thousands of years clearly have.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For an observer, how would they distinguish from a human appearing primate and a man? Do they need to dissect the brain first, or could the classification be made based on behavioral traits? Please note, we use these kind of classifications already to discern psychopaths, sociopaths, and other mental "abnormalities".

No. Just try talking with the primate. You seem to have an all or nothing notion of psychiatric nomenclature. In real life it doesn't work that way. Psychiatrists themselves are human and have to make judgments of "more or less." Everything they classify exists in all of us to a greater or lesser extent.

Well I would definitely be with them. I consider Man to be unique among all creation. I have indicated this by saying that of the 19 eusocial species Man is the only one that chooses to be. However, that is an even harder pill for some to swallow that believe man evolved from lower forms of life.

Every species is unique in some way. That's why they're are considered to be species. But humans are the ones doing the classifying. It's difficult to be objective about oneself as a species. We're caught in the conundrum. Religion is tied to that problem.

Well then, judge those who say man evolved by the same standard.

Nah. The preponderance of evidence is on their side vs. the fundamentalists'.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The underlying principle that is supposed to operate in evolution is "survival of the fittest". We are supposed to be able to explain all of the evolutionary changes as having conferred an advantage, likewise all behavior is explained as promoting the furtherance of their DNA. This is why a momma bear will fight to the death to protect her cubs and also why the male bear is kept away from the cubs.But no one has done that with man concerning these issues:

1. Written language uses a very large portion of our brain. As a result the human brain is the most expensive brain on a calories consumed to weight of animal ratio. Not only so, but to get this function we lost our photographic memory which is very useful to a hunter gatherer in a competitive environment. So then, please explain what the competitive advantage was? No one else could read so how does it help that you can write? Since no one can write there is nothing for you to read, so how does it help that you can read?

First, show me your evidence that we have lost a memory function.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

2. Where did Religion come from? The concept of visiting orphans and widows in their affliction is contrary to the theory of evolution. A male Gorilla that finds an orphan will kill it, not care for it. There is no concept of religion among primates, so how did we evolve this trait?

Does every make gorilla kill every orphan? Is there no personality variability between male gorilla's.

You didn't read the primer on evolutionary psychology did you? Language gave humans an adaptive edge. Reciprocal altruism is based on language. You need information about who you can trust and who you can't. Chimps gain this information by direct personal interaction. Because of language, humans are capable of indirect reciprocity. Written language extends the nexus of reciprocity. Belief that a divine being will be the source of the "payback" further extends it at least to members of one's religious in-group. The survival value of this practice is well documented. Look how the church survived the fall of the Roman Empire.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. Why did we "tend the garden" and become "husbandmen"? Gorillas don't use other animals as a help. How do you "evolve" this trait.

Crop cultivation and animal husbandry have obvious survival advantages for an organism with the intellectual capacity to master them.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As I have said, any explanation you give is going to be completely out on a limb because you will not be able to point to a single creature other than man in which this has happened. All you are going to be able to do is to reword Genesis 1 into something with a more scientific and ambiguous terminology.

Why does the notion that a species is unique require a leap to divine intervention?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the end there is no explanation for these very dramatic changes, which at the time did not confer any short term advantage, but over thousands of years clearly have.

There's no problem admitting we don't know. Saying "God did it" doesn't explain it. Explain God.

However, your contention that there would be no short term advantage is unwarranted. Among primates, the development of rudimentary language between would have immediate short term advantages in terms of avoiding threats and securing resources.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Does every make gorilla kill every orphan? Is there no personality variability between male gorilla's.

Well documented as normal behavior for a silverback who takes over. For man it is aberrant.

Originally Posted by zeek

You didn't read the primer on evolutionary psychology did you? Language gave humans an adaptive edge. Reciprocal altruism is based on language. You need information about who you can trust and who you can't. Chimps gain this information by direct personal interaction. Because of language, humans are capable of indirect reciprocity. Written language extends the nexus of reciprocity. Belief that a divine being will be the source of the "payback" further extends it at least to members of one's religious in-group. The survival value of this practice is well documented. Look how the church survived the fall of the Roman Empire.

Actually it was required reading. You are assuming that there is a smooth line curve from having a vocabulary of 100 words to 30,000. That is not true. It seems you are the one who has not read the latest research. The ability to read and write is separate from being able to make vocal calls.

Yes, language gives all social animals an edge, even the ones that aren't social have some forms of communication (spraying their territory, etc). Yet for some reason there isn't one other creature that has evolved this feature.

Now the underlying premise of evolution is that it is simply a roll of the dice. You have millions of creatures, experiencing a certain odds of a mutation and over millions of years you will get various mutations. Based on that it is very difficult if not impossible to explain how a creature that predates man (and virtually all creatures do) with a highly developed brain (greatly reduces the numbers but still hundreds if not thousands) did not get this mutation?

Originally Posted by zeek

Crop cultivation and animal husbandry have obvious survival advantages for an organism with the intellectual capacity to master them.

No, they don't. Try reading the accounts of archaelogists. Hunter gatherers were healthier, stronger, and less prone to disease and epidemics.

Early adopters of agriculture lived in crowded, dirty villages with diseases. They didn't know about sanitation or disease. Their diet was based heavily on a few starches. They were generally malnourished, significantly smaller than hunter gatherers, and much more subject to famine and disease.

Originally Posted by zeek

Why does the notion that a species is unique require a leap to divine intervention?

Yes, a badger cannot mate with a dog, hence they are "unique". But in virtually all other respects the differences in behavior, intelligence, skills, etc are not that different. They occupy different niches in the ecosystem, but are essentially quite similar.

However, man is not merely unique because he cannot mate with a badger, but because we do things that no other creature does, not even remotely. We make instruments, write songs and perform them. Yes a dog will howl at the moon and birds will also make songs, but there is no species that even closely resembles this behavior.

All civilizations are religious and worship a higher power. No other species does this. It would be completely bizarre behavior for any other species.

Written language is not just a higher developed brain, it is a unique ability.

You are not basing any of your arguments off of the scientific research that has come out in the last 20 years.

Originally Posted by zeek

However, your contention that there would be no short term advantage is unwarranted. Among primates, the development of rudimentary language between would have immediate short term advantages in terms of avoiding threats and securing resources.

Once again you are confusing vocal sounds with the ability to read and write as though it is simply one continuum. It is not. We have discovered there is a separate portion of the brain, due to specific genes, that gives us this ability. Our language ability is not merely a more developed skill than what apes have, it is unique, requiring special genes and a special architecture of the brain and a very large portion of the brain's resources. You have not read the research and are arguing based on your assumptions which are out of date.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. God made man from the dust of the ground

This is equivalent to the theory of evolution, only it was written about 6,000 years before Darwin and is far more elegant than anything Darwin ever said.

And, God breathed into man and He became a living soul.

God's word animates man and distinguishes MAN from Homo Sapiens.

A. The first word that distinguishes man from all other creatures is God's word to "tend the garden". A eusocial species will change its environment. Ants, Termites, Bees, etc. they all do this. Man does this on a scale that far surpasses any other creature.

B. Adam named all the animals. This is a process that results from observation and creativity. We see each animal, observe their special characteristics, and then give them a name. These names are crucial towards using them. Clearly we have many domesticated animals which have revolutionized our life, but naming plants, medicines, bacteria, things like penicillin, these all will have a huge impact on making man very different from Homo Sapiens. First, it indicates a vocabulary and language ability far surpassing all other creatures as their are hundreds of thousands, even millions of different species that we have already named. Also, this indicates school and books. There is no way a geologist can learn about foraminifera without books, there are thousands of these microscopic creatures, each with photos and key descriptions. So here we have an indication of Adam not just being a gardener but also a husbandman and a zoologist. Hence a scientist with a written language and higher education. A written language and higher education is one characteristic that is unique to man and should be used to define Man vs homo sapiens.

C. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. This indicates that we are made according to Jesus Christ who is the image of the invisible God. Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of what it is to be eusocial. The crucified life is completely contrary to standard evolutionary theory and shows that man is unique among all the species on this planet. Although an ant may act similarly, giving up their life for the ant hill, the process by which an ant becomes eusocial is completely different from a man. We have "evolved" from primates. They are not eusocial. What we call aberrant behavior, psychopath or sociopath, is normal behavior for a primate. This process of making man eusocial is commonly referred to as "religion". Once again, religion is something uniquely characteristic of Man.

D. Woman is described as a "help meet for man". This indicates a division of labor with different people having different functions. This is also a characteristic typical of a eusocial species.

So then

Homo Sapiens -- evolved from primates, not eusocial, don't have written language, don't have higher education, don't have religion. They did not change their environment any more than a troop of chimpanzees.

Man -- these are homo sapiens that God has breathed into. They are eusocial, they tend the garden and change their environment, they have a written language, higher education, religion, and division of labor.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:15 And Jehovah God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

2:18b It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him..

3:22 Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

We need a copy of your own personal Lexicon. You play loosey-goosey with definitions, and the Bible too. So maybe we need a copy of your Bible dictionary too.

As a result, I don't know where to begin. I'm flabbergasted. Are you saying that God first created homo sapiens and then one day breathed into one of them and created homo sapien sapien? Or were homo sapien sapiens the only ones made from the dust of the ground?

And how did "God breathed into man and He became a living soul." become "God's word animates man?" Was the breath a word? I looked up the Hebrew on the verse and there's no hint of "word" in it. Oh that's right, you use your own dictionaries. And must be using a translation that's worse than the Septuagint.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are not basing any of your arguments off of the scientific research that has come out in the last 20 years.

I cited plenty of current sources in my post this morning which you ignored. You cited NOTHING to support your language hypothesis. Cite your sources so I can LEARN from you. In particular what scientist claims humans were just making "calls" or "vocal sounds" until the invention of written language? That's ludicrous.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

We need a copy of your own personal Lexicon. You play loosey-goosey with definitions, and the Bible too. So maybe we need a copy of your Bible dictionary too.

As a result, I don't know where to begin. I'm flabbergasted. Are you saying that God first created homo sapiens and then one day breathed into one of them and created homo sapien sapien? Or were homo sapien sapiens the only ones made from the dust of the ground?

And how did "God breathed into man and He became a living soul." become "God's word animates man?" Was the breath a word? I looked up the Hebrew on the verse and there's no hint of "word" in it. Oh that's right, you use your own dictionaries. And must be using a translation that's worse than the Septuagint.

What I am saying is that according to the Bible Adam and Eve correspond relatively well with the beginning of the Agricultural revolution.

If you read Genesis 1 there are several key points about Adam and Eve that are unique

1. God made man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him and he became a living soul.

I understand that to mean that God made a homo sapiens from the process of evolution (i.e. from the dust of the ground) and then, 2nd step is to breath into him and man became a living soul.

What does that mean?

Well, I think all Bible expositors relate that to God's Spirit, the pneuma, the living word of God.

So then, what "living word of God" did Adam receive.

The words correspond very nicely with the beginning of the agricultural revolution -- tend the garden, view animals as a help, name all the animals, invent written language, and have a division of labor (Eve is also a help meet for Adam).

What does it mean that man "became a living soul". I connect this with our writing, our history, our poetry, our song, our celebrations, our calendar, etc.

Genesis also says that, unlike all the other animals which are after their kind, man is made after the image and likeness of God. I equate this loosely with what Dr. E.O. Wilson calls "eusocial". I point out that man evolved from primates which are not eusocial and yet we are (though it is perfectly reasonable to say that man is in a special classification of eusocial that is unique to man).

The image of the invisible God is Jesus Christ, and to me the Bible terminology for "eusocial" is the crucified life. What Jesus did, giving His life so that we could be saved, is completely contrary to the theory of evolution by which all other creatures operate, and is the definition of altruistic or "eusocial". We can see the division of labor throughout the Bible, we can see the gifts. We can see the different generations living together throughout the Bible, we can see the brood care throughout the Bible.

What is particularly unique with man is that he chooses to be this way. This is not "natural", it is not part of his "flesh" as it is with ants, and termites, etc. This is why Paul tells Timothy that we need to learn how to behave in the house of God. The process of sanctification is the process of making a primate eusocial.

You can think I need a special terminology and lexicon, but the teachings of the Bible were all given to us by many of the fundamental teachers from Matthew Henry, Darby, Witness Lee, etc. I don't think I am teaching anything new to Bible teachers. Nor am I teaching anything that different from mainstream scientists. The only thing I am doing that is "new" is saying that they are both saying the same thing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I cited plenty of current sources in my post this morning which you ignored. You cited NOTHING to support your language hypothesis. Cite your sources so I can LEARN from you. In particular what scientist claims humans were just making "calls" or "vocal sounds" until the invention of written language? That's ludicrous.

Fair enough, I should have some time this weekend, let me put together some references.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I cited plenty of current sources in my post this morning which you ignored. You cited NOTHING to support your language hypothesis. Cite your sources so I can LEARN from you. In particular what scientist claims humans were just making "calls" or "vocal sounds" until the invention of written language? That's ludicrous.

And you didn't answer my direct question :

Did God communicate with man before the invention of writing?

You went into seemly evasive ramblings, and quoted verses like someone that only lives and thinks quotations.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And you didn't answer my direct question :

Did God communicate with man before the invention of writing?

You went into seemly evasive ramblings, and quoted verses like someone that only lives and thinks quotations.

Which was first the chicken or the egg?

In my opinion the point where God "breathed into man and he became a living soul" would be the first communication by God with Man, and it would also be the inspiration for the invention of writing. The became necessary when God began bringing the animals to him that Adam would then name.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which was first the chicken or the egg?

In my opinion the point where God "breathed into man and he became a living soul" would be the first communication by God with Man, and it would also be the inspiration for the invention of writing. The became necessary when God began bringing the animals to him that Adam would then name.

But, as the story goes, God breathed into the very first man. That could have happened 200,000 years before the advent of writing. Did God communicate with man during those "prehistory" times?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which was first the chicken or the egg?

In my opinion the point where God "breathed into man and he became a living soul" would be the first communication by God with Man, and it would also be the inspiration for the invention of writing. The became necessary when God began bringing the animals to him that Adam would then name.

Chicken first.

God made a chicken.

[awareness]

Could Noah read and write?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But, as the story goes, God breathed into the very first man. That could have happened 200,000 years before the advent of writing. Did God communicate with man during those "prehistory" times?

That is because you see the "very first man" as a homo sapiens. I see it differently.

I see the very first homo sapiens appearing before "God breathed into Man and he became a living soul".

I see that as the second step in the process based on that little word "and"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What I am saying is that according to the Bible Adam and Eve correspond relatively well with the beginning of the Agricultural revolution.

That's your problem. The Bible origin myths don't correspond well with science AT ALL. Why? Because 1) the stories are PRE-SCIENTIFIC and 2) science is about NATURE while the Bible is about the SUPERNATURAL. Or, at least that's the way fundamentalists like you interpret it.

If you read Genesis 1 there are several key points about Adam and Eve that are unique

1. God made man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him and he became a living soul.

I understand that to mean that God made a homo sapiens from the process of evolution (i.e. from the dust of the ground) and then, 2nd step is to breath into him and man became a living soul.

Step 2 is totally baseless in terms of history or science.

What does that mean? Well, I think all Bible expositors relate that to God's Spirit, the pneuma, the living word of God. So then, what "living word of God" did Adam receive. The words correspond very nicely with the beginning of the agricultural revolution -- tend the garden, view animals as a help, name all the animals, invent written language, and have a division of labor (Eve is also a help meet for Adam). What does it mean that man "became a living soul". I connect this with our writing, our history, our poetry, our song, our celebrations, our calendar, etc.

Ah, there you go. I've been presenting actual science and you have been rejecting it, because you are nursing this pet supernatural belief.

Genesis also says that, unlike all the other animals which are after their kind, man is made after the image and likeness of God. I equate this loosely with what Dr. E.O. Wilson calls "eusocial". I point out that man evolved from primates which are not eusocial and yet we are (though it is perfectly reasonable to say that man is in a special classification of eusocial that is unique to man).

Yeah, well that's Wilson's opinion. It's not a matter of biological scientific consensus. And he doesn't share your belief in supernatural origins so you're bending his theory to suit your own ends.

The image of the invisible God is Jesus Christ, and to me the Bible terminology for "eusocial" is the crucified life. What Jesus did, giving His life so that we could be saved, is completely contrary to the theory of evolution by which all other creatures operate, and is the definition of altruistic or "eusocial". We can see the division of labor throughout the Bible, we can see the gifts. We can see the different generations living together throughout the Bible, we can see the brood care throughout the Bible.

Ants are eusocial. Seems like you're trying to make eusociality into something it isn't in order to bolster your faith.

What is particularly unique with man is that he chooses to be this way. This is not "natural", it is not part of his "flesh" as it is with ants, and termites, etc. This is why Paul tells Timothy that we need to learn how to behave in the house of God. The process of sanctification is the process of making a primate eusocial.

Yeah, it's supernatural and therefore outside the realm of science. I hear you getting lots of "Amens" in the meeting for this, but science has left the building.

You can think I need a special terminology and lexicon, but the teachings of the Bible were all given to us by many of the fundamental teachers from Matthew Henry, Darby, Witness Lee, etc. I don't think I am teaching anything new to Bible teachers. Nor am I teaching anything that different from mainstream scientists. The only thing I am doing that is "new" is saying that they are both saying the same thing.

No. Your theory of language is wrong at its origin. Maybe you could get away with this at some evangelical Bible college, but outside of that, I doubt it. Science ends where the supernatural begins and your theory is a supernatural one. It's a science non-starter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is because you see the "very first man" as a homo sapiens. I see it differently.

I see the very first homo sapiens appearing before "God breathed into Man and he became a living soul".

So will you -- pretty please with a cherry on top -- identify who you believe to be the man God breathed into ... and maybe provide when that happened.

Let's settle this distraction and move on to proof of a worldwide flood.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So will you -- pretty please with a cherry on top -- identify who you believe to be the man God breathed into ... and maybe provide when that happened.

Let's settle this distraction and move on to proof of a worldwide flood.

Try rereading post #123, I think it is very clear to all but the most befuddled and addle brained. Perhaps if you cut back on the cherry daiquiris you'll get it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Try rereading post #123, I think it is very clear to all but the most befuddled and addle brained. Perhaps if you cut back on the cherry daiquiris you'll get it.

That's not the answer I expected. Just state clearly when and to whom God made man that became separate from homo sapiens. Or just tell us you don't know.

[Intothewind]

Zpanaah: The ordering does not work. Plain and simple. We had art, music, and the like way before civilization. You keep moving things around and changing them to suit your narrative. And you are as quick to do that with the Bible as you are with science.

That God made man from the dust of the ground somehow translates to evolution is as utterly ridiculous as Jacob discovering Mendel's law...

It is pretty plain that according to the account, 8 survived. Everyone else died. It takes some serious gymnastics to get your ideas to work...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I cited plenty of current sources in my post this morning which you ignored. You cited NOTHING to support your language hypothesis. Cite your sources so I can LEARN from you. In particular what scientist claims humans were just making "calls" or "vocal sounds" until the invention of written language? That's ludicrous.

Where did I claim that humans were just making "vocal sounds" until the invention of written language? Please refer me to the post so I can clear that up.

There is plenty of evidence of homo sapiens having "relatively" advanced communication compared to other species prior to 9,000 years ago.

If that is what you are concerned with then yes, that is absurd. I would like to see where you got that from my posts, if I am responsible for the misunderstanding I'll clear it up, but please let me see where you are getting this from and why you are saying I made this claim.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Zpanaah: The ordering does not work. Plain and simple. We had art, music, and the like way before civilization. You keep moving things around and changing them to suit your narrative. And you are as quick to do that with the Bible as you are with science.

Maybe I am wrong. I thought the theory of evolution says that man evolved from single celled organisms, the kind you see in a microscope when you look at dust. So please, without moving things around or changing them to suit your narrative, please explain to me the difference between the "theory of evolution" and the expression that "man was made from the dust of the ground".

If you answer this one question satisfactorily then I will consider the rest of your post.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's not the answer I expected. Just state clearly when and to whom God made man that became separate from homo sapiens. Or just tell us you don't know.

If this question is not answered in Post 123 then I don't understand the question.

Homo sapiens were first seen in the fossil record about 200,000 years ago.

I do not see a genetic difference between man and homo sapiens.

What is different is that about 9,000 years ago

Man became quite different from our Primate ancestors.

Homo Sapiens were closely related to Primates and behaved very similarly to a troop of chimpanzees up until about 9,000 years ago. They lived as hunter gatherers, just like chimpanzees, they were not eusocial, they had a simple spoken language but no written language, they did not farm, did not raise animals, did not let non relatives do the brood care, did not have division of labor.

Then, about 9,000 years ago all of these changes can be seen.

Therefore I distinguish between Man, which has written language, religion (which I equate with being eusocial), farming, husbandry, formal education, literature, etc.

With Homo Sapiens which did not.

When -- approximately 6-9,000 years ago.

To whom -- A man named "red clay" was the first man to receive this burden to tend the garden and use animals as a help.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's your problem. The Bible origin myths don't correspond well with science AT ALL. Why? Because 1) the stories are PRE-SCIENTIFIC and 2) science is about NATURE while the Bible is about the SUPERNATURAL. Or, at least that's the way fundamentalists like you interpret it.

Must be very easy to have a discussion when you tell the other person how they think and interpret. What a jackass.

Adam named all the animals. That is precisely the job of a zoologist. This requires very careful observation. Once again the key skill of a scientist.

That is how someone like me interprets the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ah, there you go. I've been presenting actual science and you have been rejecting it, because you are nursing this pet supernatural belief.

What am I rejecting? That man evolved from single celled organisms? No. That the Earth is 4.6 billion years old? No. That homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years? No. That man is merely a highly evolved ape? Yes.

We are not merely an ape. If you can't see that then you are the one who is not using actual science. The difference between man and all the other creatures on this planet is dramatic and undeniable. Is it because of some special brain or other aspect of our anatomy? No. Our anatomy has fundamentally not changed for 200,000 years and yet we are dramatically different in just the last 6-9,000 years.

There are theories but no real scientific explanation. Maybe the need to make tools was a catalyst for our language, but other primates make and use tools. Maybe our discovery of fire allowed us to get more calories to support our very expensive brain, but then you would have had to discover fire prior to the development of our brain. Why then haven't other primates?

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah, well that's Wilson's opinion. It's not a matter of biological scientific consensus. And he doesn't share your belief in supernatural origins so you're bending his theory to suit your own ends.

And that is how scientific theories are developed.

Originally Posted by zeek

Ants are eusocial. Seems like you're trying to make eusociality into something it isn't in order to bolster your faith.

Anthropologists have noted for a very long time that religion is universal for man and have not been able to explain it. No other animals do this, especially not our "close ancestors" the primates. I am merely making the connection. What makes us most distinctive from all other primates is this concept of "religion", which is quite similar to the concept of "eusocial". There are only 19 species classified as eusocial, and it is a very big deal because these are the 19 most successful, most influential species on the planet, and because their behavior is contrary to a basic tenet of the theory of evolution which is that all behavior can be explained as a way to further your DNA.

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah, it's supernatural and therefore outside the realm of science. I hear you getting lots of "Amens" in the meeting for this, but science has left the building.

No. Your theory of language is wrong at its origin. Maybe you could get away with this at some evangelical Bible college, but outside of that, I doubt it. Science ends where the supernatural begins and your theory is a supernatural one. It's a science non-starter.

I haven't heard a single amen, I don't share this with others.

As for my theory of language, your understanding of it is wrong and until you show me where you got that idea I cannot determine if it is due to some issue with something I wrote or if the error is with your reading of it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Man's Brain is very Expensive

Most vertebrate animals devote between 2% and 8% of basal metabolism to the brain. In primates it is higher. In humans it rises to 20-25%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207181/

This is a big deal for evolution as "survival of the fittest" often means survival of the most efficient use of energy.

Encephalization is the primary trait of intelligence
http://people.exeter.ac.uk/jfh206/AB...5BrainSize.pdf

Encephalization quotient (EQ)
http://images.slideplayer.com/26/857...es/slide_6.jpg

Human Brain is 3 times larger than a one would expect from a primate brain
http://people.exeter.ac.uk/jfh206/AB...5BrainSize.pdf

General consensus among Scientist is that the Human brain is remarkable, not extraordinary:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207181/

By this they mean it is far and away the most expensive brain. This was published in 2013. This raises an issue among those looking at this from an evolutionary point of view. This issue is laid out in the following article.

Issue for Evolution

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1834002/

They make some educated guesses as to why this would occur, but don’t go further than that. This was in 2006.

Homo Sapiens evolved 200,000 years ago.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

Written language emerged 9,000 years ago

However,

Written language emerged when hunter gatherers developed a more permanent agrarian society about 9,000 years ago with Sumerian language, our first written language. (http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetect...-written-word/)

You cannot explain the development of written language as a result of biology. We had the anatomy for the last 200,000 years. At best we know it correlated with the beginning of the Agricultural revolution. However, correlation is not causation. Something happened 9,000 years ago that resulted in two things: written language and the agricultural revolution.

No theories, only hypothesis

One study suggests that teaching others how to make tools could have been the catalyst to developing a more complex spoken language. Likewise, it could be that teaching others how to farm, raise animals and sell the goods could have been the catalyst for a written language.

There is a myth that man took up farming because it was a more efficient way of getting food. Not true.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/...e-to-own-stuff

The one advantage that farmers had over the nomads was in raising kids. It is easier to raise and care for kids when you aren’t traveling. Using this same reasoning it is also easier on the elderly.

The best theory on why man didn’t abandon farming at the first famine is concern for raising the young and the elderly.

Correlation between Agricultural Revolution, Written Language, and being Eusocial

So then, we have all the elements of a “eusocial” organism that showed up 9,000 years ago.

How do you explain an organism “evolving” into a eusocial organism. There is no precedent for that. That is a very fair question that has been asked for a very long time, only they asked where did religion come from rather than use Dr. Wilson's term of "eusocial".

[Intothewind]

Zpanaah: dust is not one celled organisms. Why did he only say this for man? Why didn't he form man and the rest from fish?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Zpanaah: dust is not one celled organisms. Why did he only say this for man? Why didn't he form man and the rest from fish?

Wow, well you better tell these guys:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1932751/

Hurry up, publish your paper.

[Intothewind]

I have no idea how that paper possibly proves your point that dust IS single celled organisms.

I am quite perplexed that you don't see how ridiculous this interpretation is.

Also, you continue to spout inaccuracies. Their are more than 19 eusocial species for example. I am glad to see you checking primary literature now! I hope you actually read the papers though...instead of using the titles as building blocks for some wacky argument.

[zeek]

ZNP -- A cursory read of the articles you posted in #141 reveals that the papers don't support your supernatural theory in the slightest. The following comments follow the order in which you listed the articles.


If I understand you correctly, based on Genesis 2:7, you propose that God miraculously transformed human brain approximately 9 thousand years ago by breathing the breath of life into a primate ancestor. You then are claiming that encephalization is related to that supposed event in order to explain "man's" ability to read and write, farm and engage in religion.

The authors you have cited, H. J. Jerison and H. B. Barlow, disagree with you as is clear in the following quote:

The highest grade of encephalization is shared by humans and bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). The sapient grade was attained about 200,000 years ago, but cetaceans may have reached their highest grade 18 million years ago. (vii) Encephalization in the hominids is a phenomenon of the past three to five million years, and its rapidity appears to have been unique in vertebrate evolution.

Herculano-Houzel's proposition is the exact opposite of yours. You are asserting the human brain is literally extraordinary, she's saying that it's a scaled-up primate brain.

Isler K and van Schaik provide no support for anything other than natural selection to explain differences in brain sizes among the various species. No mention or support for divine intervention or miracles there.

You should have correlated tract you cited on homo sapiens evolving 200 thousand years ago with your encephalization papers and realized that the large brain necessary for modern human cognition didn't miraculously appear on the scene 9 thousand years ago. See the Jerison and H. B. Barlow quote above.

Chatterjee has farming start 12 thousand years ago, three thousand years before your putative supernatural creation of "man".

So, thanks for the interesting articles, but they don't remotely support your leap to the fantastical.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

only they asked where did religion come from rather than use Dr. Wilson's term of "eusocial".

Dr. Wilson's eusocial theory didn't pass peer review. I like Edward, and have for decades, but he really boo-booed on his eusocial thingie.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I have no idea how that paper possibly proves your point that dust IS single celled organisms.

I am quite perplexed that you don't see how ridiculous this interpretation is.

Also, you continue to spout inaccuracies. Their are more than 19 eusocial species for example. I am glad to see you checking primary literature now! I hope you actually read the papers though...instead of using the titles as building blocks for some wacky argument.

Where do you get this garbage. Are you saying that man did not evolve from the stuff that is found in dust? Single cell organisms as well as larger microscopic life can hitch a ride on dust particles and travel the entire globe. That is remarkable.

Evolution is not simply a matter of life evolving but requires a means of locomotion this is why we believe that you need liquid water for life to evolve into advanced life forms as we have on earth. Even so, the math doesn't work out until we discovered that the bacteria can literally travel the entire globe on dust particles.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP -- A cursory read of the articles you posted in #141 reveals that the papers don't support your supernatural theory in the slightest. The following comments follow the order in which you listed the articles.


If I understand you correctly, based on Genesis 2:7, you propose that God miraculously transformed human brain approximately 9 thousand years ago by breathing the breath of life into a primate ancestor. You then are claiming that encephalization is related to that supposed event in order to explain "man's" ability to read and write, farm and engage in religion.

The authors you have cited, H. J. Jerison and H. B. Barlow, disagree with you as is clear in the following quote:


Herculano-Houzel's proposition is the exact opposite of yours. You are asserting the human brain is literally extraordinary, she's saying that it's a scaled-up primate brain.

Isler K and van Schaik provide no support for anything other than natural selection to explain differences in brain sizes among the various species. No mention or support for divine intervention or miracles there.

You should have correlated tract you cited on homo sapiens evolving 200 thousand years ago with your encephalization papers and realized that the large brain necessary for modern human cognition didn't miraculously appear on the scene 9 thousand years ago. See the Jerison and H. B. Barlow quote above.

Chatterjee has farming start 12 thousand years ago, three thousand years before your putative supernatural creation of "man".

So, thanks for the interesting articles, but they don't remotely support your leap to the fantastical.

The point I am making is very simply that something revolutionary happened about 6-9,000 years ago. There is nothing remarkable about that, I think every anthropologist and archaeologist would agree to some extent or another.

I am saying that the two remarkable events were

1. The agricultural revolution

and

2. The development of written language.

Again, full consensus with every historian, anthropologist and archaeologist.

I am saying that this correlates quite nicely with the account in Genesis 1.

First -- According to Bible scholars the time frame for the Adam and Eve account closely correlates with this time frame.

Second -- The general location of Adam and Eve closely correlates with these two events.

Third -- the account of God's word to Adam -- to tend the garden, closely correlates with the beginning of the agricultural revolution. That is the paradigm shift in a nutshell, man for the first time began to "tend the garden" which involved "keeping it" from disease, germs, and pests.

Fourth -- the account of God bringing animals to Adam as a help also closely corresponds with the beginning of domesticated animals.

Fifth -- the account of Adam naming every animal closely corresponds with the development of a written language.

Therefore, I conclude that when God says that "Man became a living soul" this is the event He is referring to.

I do not use the term "supernatural event" that is you. What I do use is the term in Genesis that "God breathed into man". Based on a general understanding of the use of this term in the Bible I conclude it refers to the word spoken by God to Adam to "tend and keep the garden".

What those articles show is that there is no evidence of an evolutionary change to man 9,000 years ago to explain this change.

1. They point out that man has a "remarkable" brain in that it is the most expensive based on caloric requirement to body mass index. However, it is equivalent to a "scaled up" primate brain as you say. So then, why have no primates, other than man, taken this path in the last 200,000 years?

There is only one theory, cooking food allows us to get more calories from it, hence we can support a bigger brain. That is a hypothesis. The problem with this is that we would have had to discover fire and cooking first, before we had the big, expensive brain. So then, why haven't chimps or other primates also discovered fire and begun cooking food? This is a reasonable question that any unbiased scientist should consider.

2. They have absolutely no explanation for the dramatic change in man 6-9,000 years ago. There is no "evolutionary" explanation. Yet this is the paradigm shift that has led us on a distinctly different path from the primates. Yes, genetically we are very similar to primates. But not behaviorally.

Now a real scientist would not blow this off which you are doing.

3. They have no explanation for why man has religion and no other creature does. The best they can do is say it is unimportant. But that is why I bring up the issue of "eusocial". There is no denying that the 19 species classified by Dr. E.O. Wilson create a fundamental problem for evolution. These creatures will die to protect a different creatures DNA. The best way to view them is not as individuals but as a super organism where the hive acts as a single organism.

My argument is that man is closely related to primates, yet we do not act like primates in very specific ways. Rather than itemizing them I borrow the term "eusocial" and equate that with "religion". But either way it is undeniable that caring for orphans and widows that are not related to you is contrary to the theory of evolution. Why do we do this? Why do we have religion?

No one has an answer. But I argue that this is the reason that man has made such a dramatic change over the last 9,000 years. Religion is what teaches us how to live as a "super organism". Primates cannot live in troops larger than a certain size because of the issues that arise from them not being eusocial. They cannot trust others to be around their young.

Finally, I relate our development of religion with our development of a written language, both which started as a result of God's word to Adam to "tend and keep the garden" and to use animals as a help.

If you think there is going to be a scientific study out there that says that, then you are kidding yourself. I don't claim there is. What I am doing is making a connection between two very different words -- the world of Bible commentary with the world of science.

What those scientific papers do is show that they don't have a genetic, biologic or anatomical explanation for the paradigm shift 6-9,000 years ago.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Dr. Wilson's eusocial theory didn't pass peer review. I like Edward, and have for decades, but he really boo-booed on his eusocial thingie.

See post 148

Most major breakthroughs didn't pass peer review.

This summer I really enjoyed reading about the Wright brothers. Do you know why they sold their airplane to France instead of the US? It is a great story, in a nutshell its not that the plane didn't pass peer review, it did, its just that the US government wouldn't even give it a review. Ouch. So much for the experts.

What is even funnier is that while they were testing and developing the plane (after the first flights at Kitty Hawk) they would fly around a large field in their town in Ohio. Hundreds of people in the town saw them flying. Yet the local newspaper never once carried a story about this incredible break through. Later, when asked why not the editor paused and said "I guess we were just stupid".

The day will come when people will say "how could you not realize that 6-9,000 years ago there was this huge, revolutionary change to man?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

See post 148

Most major breakthroughs didn't pass peer review.

This summer I really enjoyed reading about the Wright brothers. Do you know why they sold their airplane to France instead of the US? It is a great story, in a nutshell its not that the plane didn't pass peer review, it did, its just that the US government wouldn't even give it a review. Ouch. So much for the experts.

What is even funnier is that while they were testing and developing the plane (after the first flights at Kitty Hawk) they would fly around a large field in their town in Ohio. Hundreds of people in the town saw them flying. Yet the local newspaper never once carried a story about this incredible break through. Later, when asked why not the editor paused and said "I guess we were just stupid".

The day will come when people will say "how could you not realize that 6-9,000 years ago there was this huge, revolutionary change to man?

Read "The Story of B" :
https://www.amazon.com/Story-B-Danie.../dp/0553379011

[Intothewind]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Where do you get this garbage. Are you saying that man did not evolve from the stuff that is found in dust? Single cell organisms as well as larger microscopic life can hitch a ride on dust particles and travel the entire globe. That is remarkable.

Evolution is not simply a matter of life evolving but requires a means of locomotion this is why we believe that you need liquid water for life to evolve into advanced life forms as we have on earth. Even so, the math doesn't work out until we discovered that the bacteria can literally travel the entire globe on dust particles.

What math?

[Intothewind]

Your fire brainsize idea is bogus. Humans evolved large brains before humans figured out fire. Lots of things evolve that are amazingly expensive across the animal kingdom.

The first gardening likely far preceded the civilization you talk of.

The beginning of cultural evolution, which continues today. That is not anything special to civilized man.

[zeek]

ZNP--Re: Post 148

Since you are now denying that Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." represents a supernatural event, I don't know what you're proposing. As with the creation gap theory, you again are reading something about "the Word" into the verse that isn't there to make it mean something you apparently need it to mean.

You refer to the date when this supposed event occurred, when in reality it is by no means evident that it occurred at all depending of course on what you propose it means. If the author had wanted to say that God spoke his word into Adam and he became a living soul, there was nothing to prevent him from saying that.

This appears to be another one of your tortured Bible interpretations. Instead of letting the Book simply speak to you according to what it is, you need to make it into a science book that it clearly isn't.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

You refer to the date when this supposed event occurred, when in reality it is by no means evident that it occurred at all depending of course on what you propose it means. If the author had wanted to say that God spoke his word into Adam and he became a living soul, there was nothing to prevent him from saying that.

The consensus is the event occurred 10,000 years ago. But 9,000 will do. Let's talk about the event.

Humans share 98% of the genetic makeup of the chimps. So there's a 2% difference between us and the chimps. And that 2% really packs a wallop. It makes humans vastly different than the chimps.

Now when did that happen, and how did it happen? I think bro ZNP is saying that it happened when God breathed into man. If so then, what God breath into man, or a chimp, was that little 2% that make us different.

Do I believe this? No. But I still don't know where the 2% came from.

[OBW]

Worldwide Flood.

I think it happened in the Dallas area a few days ago.

And the rain, rain, rain came down, down, down
In rushing, swirling rivlets
Till the river crept out of its bed
And crept right into Piglet's

(gotta have some fun occasionally)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

The consensus is the event occurred 10,000 years ago. But 9,000 will do. Let's talk about the event.

Humans share 98% of the genetic makeup of the chimps. So there's a 2% difference between us and the chimps. And that 2% really packs a wallop. It makes humans vastly different than the chimps.

Now when did that happen, and how did it happen? I think bro ZNP is saying that it happened when God breathed into man. If so then, what God breath into man, or a chimp, was that little 2% that make us different.

Do I believe this? No. But I still don't know where the 2% came from.

Why would any woman want to share their makeup with a chimp?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

What math?

Statistical theory and evolutionary Genomics

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vie...-9780199213269

Evolution is not based solely on random mutations but also on the rate of sexual recombination.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../365/1544/1281

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

The consensus is the event occurred 10,000 years ago. But 9,000 will do. Let's talk about the event.

Humans share 98% of the genetic makeup of the chimps. So there's a 2% difference between us and the chimps. And that 2% really packs a wallop. It makes humans vastly different than the chimps.

Now when did that happen, and how did it happen? I think bro ZNP is saying that it happened when God breathed into man. If so then, what God breath into man, or a chimp, was that little 2% that make us different.

Do I believe this? No. But I still don't know where the 2% came from.

Very funny Evan. Like Palin said "What's the difference in a woman and a chimp? Lipstick."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Statistical theory and evolutionary Genomics

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vie...-9780199213269

Evolution is not based solely on random mutations but also on the rate of sexual recombination.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../365/1544/1281

Interesting stuff. Thanks ZNP!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Statistical theory and evolutionary Genomics

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vie...-9780199213269

Evolution is not based solely on random mutations but also on the rate of sexual recombination.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../365/1544/1281

Interesting links bro ZNP. Thanks. I'm bumping into some of this reading Jared Diamond's "The Third Ape."

I think it's obvious that somewhere along the line we picked up a 2% difference from the chimps. The question is, did that happen all at once, or gradually?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting links bro ZNP. Thanks. I'm bumping into some of this reading Jared Diamond's "The Third Ape."

I think it's obvious that somewhere along the line we picked up a 2% difference from the chimps. The question is, did that happen all at once, or gradually?

There is a gene that controls our brain morphology and results in our ability to read, chimps don't have it.

Don't know how we got it. According to ancient Sumerian texts the Gods made this change so that we could be their slaves.

According to Genesis God "breathed into man and he became a living soul".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is a gene that controls our brain morphology and results in our ability to read, chimps don't have it.

Don't know how we got it. According to ancient Sumerian texts the Gods made this change so that we could be their slaves.

According to Genesis God "breathed into man and he became a living soul".

And according to some the Sumerian mythology speaks of space aliens mixing their genes with that of Apes, in mud, to create a race of slaves to gather needed resources for them. And the Sumerian mythology is the first where we find the notion that the purpose of humans is to serve the gods. That belief is still held today by some.

And what does it mean that God breathed into man? God has breath? Does "He" have a mouth? Does He sit on a throne with an ass? Does he have male genitalia too? How far do we take this "breathing?" How did God breath? Is He still breathing today?

Or does it mean that the minute we take our first breath we become a living soul?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is a gene that controls our brain morphology and results in our ability to read, chimps don't have it.

Don't know how we got it. According to ancient Sumerian texts the Gods made this change so that we could be their slaves.

According to Genesis God "breathed into man and he became a living soul".

OMG! I just have to let this out. We're talking about Sumerian mythology and I'm reading Irving Finkel's "The Ark before Noah."

And I am astounded at the evidence that the creation story and the flood story in Genesis were adapted from Sumerian and Mesopotamian thinking, that we've dug up, written in cuneiform on clay tablets, at least a 1000 yrs before Genesis was written, and longer.

I'm reading about, and looking into, The Atra-Hasis tablets, dating back to at least the 18th-century BCE, that Assyriologist's think likely went even further back.

I don't need to go into it. Wiki has done a fine job on it. Take a read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis

Now I realize that some of you will just dismiss this out of hand. Like bro Ohio has stated (in so many words), our faith is maintained not only by what we expose ourselves to, but prolly even more so by what we don't expose ourselves to.

But for those of us - doubting Thomases perchance - that like solid, down on the ground, dirt in your hand, proof, we've got to admit that the Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, but was written by men who were influenced by pre-existing Sumerian thinking, and pre-existing Mesopotamian cultures, of their day.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

OMG! I just have to let this out. We're talking about Sumerian mythology and I'm reading Irving Finkel's "The Ark before Noah."

And I am astounded at the evidence that the creation story and the flood story in Genesis were adapted from Sumerian and Mesopotamian thinking, that we've dug up, written in cuneiform on clay tablets, at least a 1000 yrs before Genesis was written, and longer.

I'm reading about, and looking into, The Atra-Hasis tablets, dating back to at least the 18th-century BCE, that Assyriologist's think likely went even further back.

I don't need to go into it. Wiki has done a fine job on it. Take a read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis

Now I realize that some of you will just dismiss this out of hand. Like bro Ohio has stated (in so many words), our faith is maintained not only by what we expose ourselves to, but prolly even more so by what we don't expose ourselves to.

But for those of us - doubting Thomases perchance - that like solid, down on the ground, dirt in your hand, proof, we've got to admit that the Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, but was written by men who were influenced by pre-existing Sumerian thinking, and pre-existing Mesopotamian cultures, of their day.

Yes, or another way to understand this is that more than one group of people wrote about the flood. In both the Genesis account and the Sumerian account they refer to these "Gods". Genesis says that the purpose of the flood was to deal with the giants that resulted from the mixing of fallen angels with man.

If you begin with the assumption that the story is a myth then the only explanation is that the Genesis and Sumerian stories are two versions of the same myth. But, if you look at the evidence that the story is not a myth but actually happened as described, then a more reasonable explanation is that there is more than one account of this cataclysm, which is what we would have expected.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you begin with the assumption that the story is a myth then the only explanation is that the Genesis and Sumerian stories are two versions of the same myth. But, if you look at the evidence that the story is not a myth but actually happened as described, then a more reasonable explanation is that there is more than one account of this cataclysm, which is what we would have expected.

Prolly the most reasonable explanation is that all peoples experienced floods, and since they couldn't calculate any sort of vastness, thought that it was world wide ... and they didn't even know "world wide" as we know it today. Their world wide was very small, by comparison.

BTW, what's a cubit?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Prolly the most reasonable explanation is that all peoples experienced floods, and since they couldn't calculate any sort of vastness, thought that it was world wide ... and they didn't even know "world wide" as we know it today. Their world wide was very small, by comparison.

BTW, what's a cubit?

There is a very great distance from the Black Sea to the Himalayas. I think the geologic record makes it very clear that human civilization would have witnessed these two events, both of which would have been floods on a scale we have never seen since.

Of course, the meteorite strike in the Indian ocean and the resulting tectonic activity -- two super volcanoes erupting, were global in scale and would have been witnessed by all civilizations.

I think we downplay the "40 days and nights" of rain because we think they were talking about the kind of rain we have seen. We have never seen anything like those 40 days and nights since. A huge amount of water was vaporized from that impact, went into the atmosphere, probably even the Stratosphere, and for 40 days and night fell back down to earth.

Cubit -- an ancient measure of length, approximately equal to the length of a forearm. It was typically about 18 inches or 44 cm, though there was a long cubit of about 21 inches or 52 cm.

[awareness]

King Sargon of Akkad (2270– 2215 BC) explains how his mother had deposited him, a new baby, on the River Euphrates in what is always translated as a ‘basket’, to go wherever the waters might take him:

I am Sargon, the great king, king of Akkad,
My mother was a high priestess but I do
not know who my father was,
My uncle lives in the mountains.
My city is Azupirānu, which lies on the bank
of the Euphrates.
My mother, a high priestess, conceived me,
and bore me in secret;
She placed me in a reed quppu and made its
opening watertight with bitumen.
She abandoned me to the river,
from which I could not come up;
The river swept me along,
and brought me to Aqqi,
drawer of water.
Aqqi, drawer of water,
lifted me up when he dipped his bucket,
Aqqi, water drawer, brought me up as his adopted son.
Aqqi, water drawer, set me to do his orchard work;
During my orchard work Goddess Ishtar loved me;
For fifty-four years did I rule as king …
~ Finkel, Irving. The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood (Kindle Locations 2018-2027). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

King Sargon of Akkad (2270– 2215 BC) explains how his mother had deposited him, a new baby, on the River Euphrates in what is always translated as a ‘basket’, to go wherever the waters might take him:

I am Sargon, the great king, king of Akkad,
My mother was a high priestess but I do
not know who my father was,
My uncle lives in the mountains.
My city is Azupirānu, which lies on the bank
of the Euphrates.
My mother, a high priestess, conceived me,
and bore me in secret;
She placed me in a reed quppu and made its
opening watertight with bitumen.
She abandoned me to the river,
from which I could not come up;
The river swept me along,
and brought me to Aqqi,
drawer of water.
Aqqi, drawer of water,
lifted me up when he dipped his bucket,
Aqqi, water drawer, brought me up as his adopted son.
Aqqi, water drawer, set me to do his orchard work;
During my orchard work Goddess Ishtar loved me;
For fifty-four years did I rule as king …
~ Finkel, Irving. The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood (Kindle Locations 2018-2027). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Sounds like it is more relevant to a thread on Moses than on Noah's flood.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sounds like it is more relevant to a thread on Moses than on Noah's flood.

Yes and no. The tie-in is the word used for ark :

Strongs:
H8392
תֵּבָה
têbâh
tay-baw'
Perhaps of foreign derivation; a box: - ark.

This is used for both Noah and Moses, and nowhere else in the Bible. In both cases the word is translated as ark.

But the word is not a Hebrew word, as Strong's indicates. Finkel says :

The biblical word tēvāh, which is used for the arks of Noah and Moses, occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The flood and baby episodes are thus deliberately associated and linked in Hebrew just as the Atrahasis and Sargon Arks are linked associatively in Babylonia.

Now for something extraordinary: no one knows what language tēvāh is or what it means. The word for the wood, gopher, is likewise used nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and no one knows what language or what kind of wood it is. This is a peculiar state of affairs for one of the most famous and influential paragraphs in all of the world’s writing!

The associated words kopher, ‘bitumen’, and kāphar, ‘to smear on’, are also to be found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, but, significantly, they came from Babylonia with the narrative itself, deriving from Akkadian kupru, ‘bitumen’, and kapāru, ‘to smear on’. In view of this it is logical to expect that tēvāh and gopher are similarly loanwords from Babylonian Akkadian into Hebrew, but there has been no convincing candidate for either word. Suggestions have been made for gopher-wood, but the identification, or the non-Hebrew word that lies behind it, remains open. Ideas have also been put forward over the centuries concerning the word tēvāh, some linking it – because Moses was in Egypt – with the ancient Egyptian word thebet, meaning ‘box’ or ‘coffin’, but these have ended nowhere. The most likely explanation is that tēvāh, like other ark words, reflects a Babylonian word.
~Finkel, Irving. The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood (Kindle Locations 2178-2185). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

The idea here is, we think these stories were inspired by God. But the evidence suggests otherwise. They're adapted from earlier Mesopotamian stories, and embellish to apply to the Hebrews.

So this evidence doesn't support the Noah flood story as original to the author(s) of Genesis.

Still, maybe it's a hard pill to swallow, but, I guess God could have inspired the Mesopotamians.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes and no. The tie-in is the word used for ark :

Strongs:
H8392
תֵּבָה
têbâh
tay-baw'
Perhaps of foreign derivation; a box: - ark.

This is used for both Noah and Moses, and nowhere else in the Bible. In both cases the word is translated as ark.

But the word is not a Hebrew word, as Strong's indicates. Finkel says :

The biblical word tēvāh, which is used for the arks of Noah and Moses, occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The flood and baby episodes are thus deliberately associated and linked in Hebrew just as the Atrahasis and Sargon Arks are linked associatively in Babylonia.

Now for something extraordinary: no one knows what language tēvāh is or what it means. The word for the wood, gopher, is likewise used nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and no one knows what language or what kind of wood it is. This is a peculiar state of affairs for one of the most famous and influential paragraphs in all of the world’s writing!

The associated words kopher, ‘bitumen’, and kāphar, ‘to smear on’, are also to be found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, but, significantly, they came from Babylonia with the narrative itself, deriving from Akkadian kupru, ‘bitumen’, and kapāru, ‘to smear on’. In view of this it is logical to expect that tēvāh and gopher are similarly loanwords from Babylonian Akkadian into Hebrew, but there has been no convincing candidate for either word. Suggestions have been made for gopher-wood, but the identification, or the non-Hebrew word that lies behind it, remains open. Ideas have also been put forward over the centuries concerning the word tēvāh, some linking it – because Moses was in Egypt – with the ancient Egyptian word thebet, meaning ‘box’ or ‘coffin’, but these have ended nowhere. The most likely explanation is that tēvāh, like other ark words, reflects a Babylonian word.
~Finkel, Irving. The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood (Kindle Locations 2178-2185). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

The idea here is, we think these stories were inspired by God. But the evidence suggests otherwise. They're adapted from earlier Mesopotamian stories, and embellish to apply to the Hebrews.

So this evidence doesn't support the Noah flood story as original to the author(s) of Genesis.

Still, maybe it's a hard pill to swallow, but, I guess God could have inspired the Mesopotamians.

The evidence from this is that the word was first used for Noah and then the use of it for Moses was a reference to the story of Noah.

Therefore the language tevah that no one knows about would logically have been the language that Noah spoke and would come from the civilization that was wiped out by the flood.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The evidence from this is that the word was first used for Noah and then the use of it for Moses was a reference to the story of Noah.

Therefore the language tevah that no one knows about would logically have been the language that Noah spoke and would come from the civilization that was wiped out by the flood.

You sure make me laugh bro ZNP. Sometimes you stick to the Bible and sometimes you don't. Of course Noah spoke Hebrew. Both accounts were written by them.

So did the over 100,000 cuneiform tablets archeologists are digging up come from the Antediluvian period? They're made of clay.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You sure make me laugh bro ZNP. Sometimes you stick to the Bible and sometimes you don't. Of course Noah spoke Hebrew. Both accounts were written by them.

Noah didn't write any book in the Bible. Neither did Adam, or Enoch, or Cain, or even Abraham.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

You sure make me laugh bro ZNP. Sometimes you stick to the Bible and sometimes you don't. Of course Noah spoke Hebrew. Both accounts were written by them.

Wrong "them." My fault. I should have written "by Hebrews."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This thread is an offshoot from the Bible vs Science thread. In that thread it was claimed that science has disproved the biblical account of a flood.

I responded that this was not true, the fact that every ancient civilization has an account of "the flood" (not a flood) and that these accounts share incredible similarities (for example the ancient chinese word for boat literally means 8 souls, Noahs ark held 8 souls) rules out "coincidence". Therefore scientists have been forced back to the drawing board.

The most interesting verse on Noah's flood, to my opinion, is the Lord's word that "as the days of Noah so also will the coming of the Son of Man be".

On the one hand it is impossible for "history to repeat itself" if the "history" is actually fake news. So Jesus in the most elegant and brief way possible dismisses all debate on this.

But even more you have to ask yourself what were the "days of Noah".

No doubt the day he learned of the coming flood would be a major red letter day.

The day he got the plans to build the ark.

The day he began to build the ark.

The day the rain began and he entered the ark.

Those would certainly be big days for Noah. How would you compare that with the day Trump announced his travel ban?

The ban was on Somalia

Somalia: Due to seven consecutive poor harvests coupled with chronic insecurity in some regions, food stability is deteriorating, affecting as many as one million people, including 300,000 children aged under 5 years. The drought has been made worse by sudden torrential rains and flash flooding. (See the
Somalia Donor Update .)

and on Sudan

Sudan: An estimated 2.8 million people in the south face food insecurity in the coming months.

and on Iran

Iran: The government has informed the United Nations office in Tehran that it is ready to accept international aid to help meet losses estimated at $1.7 billion from the drought. Iran needs about $200 million to provide water tankers and water purifying units for drought-hit areas.

and on Syria

Syria: Drought, which is being exacerbated by climate change and bad government policies, has forced more than a million Syrian farmers to move to overcrowded cities. Water shortages, ruined land and corruption, they say, fomented revolution.

and on Yemen

Yemen: More than half of Yemen’s 28 million people are already short of food, the UN has said, and children are particularly badly hit, with hundreds of thousands at risk of starvation.

A recently published NASA study found that the Levant region – Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria – had recently suffered from the worst drought in 900 years as a result of climate change.
“Basically, we used a dataset of dry variability from the region that goes back, with reasonably good accuracy, to 1100 AD, and from that we were able to estimate that the recent drought in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean looks like it was the worst, or driest drought anytime in the last 900 years,” Benjamin Cook, one of the leading authors of the study and a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Middle East Eye.

and on Libya and Iraq

The Middle East, from North Africa to Afghanistan, has seen an unusual number of governments collapse in recent years. Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen have abruptly become something akin to failed states, and masses overthrew dictators in Egypt and Tunisia. It is unclear how strong the Afghanistan state is, which was built by the US and NATO, but surely President Barack Obama is leaving 10,000 US troops there even after he declared the war over on Sunday because he is afraid that Afghanistan’s government and army might fall apart, as well. Severe drought hit Afghanistan in the late 1990s and early 2000s, contributing to the turbulence of the country under and after the Taliban. The drought has recurred in recent years.

Trump is putting up sand bags against this flood, not building an ark. Too many have focused on the rising seas and not enough have considered the flood of refugees. There have been no deadly terrorist attacks from the citizens of the countries Trump is banning since 911, so it seems like a very thin fig leaf to claim that is what we are concerned about.

Flooding is common place in Mar a Lago developments owned by Trump when the rain coincides with high tide. If he admitted that they were in danger of floods due to climate change the appraised value would plummet.

When you look at the data on what really happened during Noah's flood you realize that these pathetic little sand bags are not going to cut it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Environmental refugees -- in 2008 they were estimated to be 20 million.

In 2020 it is estimated to grow to 50 million

In 2050 it is estimated to grow to 150 million.

In the future the number could potentially be 200 million based on UN studies.

http://www.osce.org/eea/14851

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/surge-200-m...ogress-1507548

[ZNPaaneah]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evi...ry?id=17884533

It appears that Ballard has been able to confirm that the giant chevrons on Madagascar are due to a flood between 5,000 and 10,000 BC. They have also confirmed a farming community living around the Black Sea area in a location that is now 400 feet underwater. In addition they have found evidence of other cities around the world that are now under water (in the Ocean). And of course it seems that the claims that they found Noah's ark on (near) Mr. Ararat have been confirmed as well? Apparently that is what the researcher who first identified the satellite pictures in the 90s is now saying.

[Evangelical]

Apparently the world's oceans were once freshwater 3.8 billion years ago.

I am wondering if they were freshwater oceans in the time of Noah, and that is how Noah and his ark could have sustained themselves with fresh water, besides obviously collecting the rain.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Apparently the world's oceans were once freshwater 3.8 billion years ago.

I am wondering if they were freshwater oceans in the time of Noah, and that is how Noah and his ark could have sustained themselves with fresh water, besides obviously collecting the rain.

What are you talking about? It is possible to determine salinity and other chemical factors in the ocean at different times in history by looking at the sediments, sea shells, etc.

Salt deposits are a result of inland seas drying up. etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Apparently the world's oceans were once freshwater 3.8 billion years ago.

I am wondering if they were freshwater oceans in the time of Noah, and that is how Noah and his ark could have sustained themselves with fresh water, besides obviously collecting the rain.

If it rained for 40 days and 40 nights I suspect they were able to gather as much fresh water for drinking as they needed. Personally I do not subscribe to the Sunday school version of Noah's ark as some huge floating Zoo. The region that Noah came from had 4 of the 5 most important domesticated animal species -- cow, pig, sheep, and goats. I assume he also had horses, dogs and perhaps camels. If you read Jared Diamond's books (Guns, Germs and Steel, etc.) you realize that these domesticated animals were a huge advantage for those from the Fertile crescent which others in the Americas and Africa didn't have. It is as though Noah was preserving alive the sum total of human ingenuity and invention by saving these animals alive.

Instead of a zoo I view the ark as a floating barn. These animals and this "barn" would have given Noah a great advantage once he began to repopulate the region after the flood.