Did it never rain on earth before Noah's flood?

They are all trying to sell off the Old Testement events as myths with plausible explanations, the Bible says what it says, if it means all over the world it means just that and not a local flooding. The world was flooded because giants and genetic experiments from fallen Angels caused God's plan to be compromised so he decided to stop it, if the Devil can do it so can God so it would have been a world event eradication.

As for rain during Noah's day, there was probably a stable environment where springs of water would flow from under ground to feed the plants and a lot of dew and ritch atmospheric conditions. It most probably rained at night and when it did rain during the day it was the very first time that a rainbow would have been witnessed by anybody in the sky.

Originally posted by The time lord
They are all trying to sell off the Old Testement events as myths with plausible explanations, the Bible says what it says, if it means all over the world it means just that and not a local flooding. The world was flooded because giants and genetic experiments from fallen Angels caused God's plan to be compromised so he decided to stop it, if the Devil can do it so can God so it would have been a world event eradication.

Sources for this?

As for rain during Noah's day, there was probably a stable environment where springs of water would flow from under ground to feed the plants and a lot of dew and ritch atmospheric conditions. It most probably rained at night and when it did rain during the day it was the very first time that a rainbow would have been witnessed by anybody in the sky.

"probably a stable environment"? "probably rained at night"? Probably making this stuff up as you go along?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by The time lord
They are all trying to sell off the Old Testement events as myths with plausible explanations, the Bible says what it says, if it means all over the world it means just that and not a local flooding. The world was flooded because giants and genetic experiments from fallen Angels caused God's plan to be compromised so he decided to stop it, if the Devil can do it so can God so it would have been a world event eradication.

Sources for this?

Yes there are many sources trying to pass of Old Testement events with nature like the plages of Egypt and when Moses crossed the dead sea to the burning bush. The BBC has done enough documentaries to try and disprove Bible events for smething else in the past.

As for rain during Noah's day, there was probably a stable environment where springs of water would flow from under ground to feed the plants and a lot of dew and ritch atmospheric conditions. It most probably rained at night and when it did rain during the day it was the very first time that a rainbow would have been witnessed by anybody in the sky.

"probably a stable environment"? "probably rained at night"? Probably making this stuff up as you go along?

You read the text, Noah's days were without rain and they had springs of water and a different environment system of today. So if it did not rain during the day there could not have been rainbows. Only after there were rainbows meaning there was a different weather system.

Originally posted by The time lordYou read the text, Noah's days were without rain and they had springs of water and a different environment system of today. So if it did not rain during the day there could not have been rainbows. Only after there were rainbows meaning there was a different weather system.

Ah, using the Bible to prove the Bible. Kinda a non-starter. You can't say "It's true because it says it." If you allow that then why can't you allow all the other mythologies to prove themselves by themselves? And, for that matter, any random statement, so long as it's in print?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

How would that work, exactly?

Much like it does today. Same Method. Different Medium.

As for your references, lots of ancient civilizations have "big flood myths". Accepting them as true, to support the bible flood story, would mean that you have to accept the other myths as at least plausible. That would lead to other gods being just a plausible as the biblical story. And that leads to all myths being "true", doesn't it?

Now you are getting it Gawdzilla. Finally, you are understanding the matter, inlight of all that is available to refer to.

Exactly what did you just Ask?

And that leads to all myths being "true", doesn't it?

This question you have posed is the Ultimate Problem.

Myth is from the Greek Mythos, meaning TRUTH.

I have no problem with the gods and dieties of Ancient Cultures. I believe they existed, as much as I believe the Bible. There is no contradiction between these, despite what some may argue. It's all the same story, just with different perspectives.

You have your views and I have mine. History has the view of those who rewrote it, and Ancient Lore has the views of the Peoples from which it originated.

But keep on taking those steps Gawdzilla. You'll be a supportive contributor in no time.

Ciao

Shane

reply to post by Shane


Sorry, but I don't think you read what I said. All the myths might be true, so why is the Hebrew flood story so special? Any of the stories could be the right one, not just Noah's flood. And they all differ in important details. Plato's flood happened 9,000 years before, for example. That puts the world at 5,000 years older than the Bible.

The obvious follow on is that all of them might be false. The global flood would leave global evidence. It didn't.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Sorry, but I don't think you read what I said. All the myths might be true, so why is the Hebrew flood story so special? Any of the stories could be the right one, not just Noah's flood. And they all differ in important details. Plato's flood happened 9,000 years before, for example. That puts the world at 5,000 years older than the Bible.

No, Noah's Flood is only special in 1 sense. It was passed onto Mose by GOD. It expresses one prespective. Thats all. They may all be right, again, with the prepsective the "Rose Color Glass" the teller is looking through.

And Again, please Gawdzilla. The Bible says the World was created in the begining. That was millions/billions of years ago. The Re-Creation story only speaks in Days, which was/has been noted clearly in the 6000 Year Post you have been part of.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A reminder.

Ciao

Shane

reply to post by Shane


Sorry, but why should I give one story precedence over another just because you like it?

And I think we can officially call the Bible "just a book" if we're going to be free to re-interpret anything in it to IMAC some pet theories.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla


The obvious follow on is that all of them might be false. The global flood would leave global evidence. It didn't.

If there was a global deluge what evidence should be present?
I see the polar ice caps as evidence of a global flood.

Thickness of Antarctica's ice sheet

"The ice cap has an average thickness of about 7,000 feet (2,100 m)."

hypertextbook.com...

The caps flash froze and the rest of the globe was underwater. Then the earth expanded to bring the land out of the water, leaving the ice caps intact. The ocean floor is younger than the land.

Expanding earth theory

reply to post by lostinspace


I suppose you want a course in forensic geology now? Or are you just being obtuse? Either way, your question shows that you don't know enough about the subject to allow me to give you a comprehensive answer in one post. A semester in a geo-sciences class may help. You can audit them free at most colleges.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by The time lordYou read the text, Noah's days were without rain and they had springs of water and a different environment system of today. So if it did not rain during the day there could not have been rainbows. Only after there were rainbows meaning there was a different weather system.

Ah, using the Bible to prove the Bible. Kinda a non-starter. You can't say "It's true because it says it." If you allow that then why can't you allow all the other mythologies to prove themselves by themselves? And, for that matter, any random statement, so long as it's in print?

Well there is scientific proof to suggest that the original earth Atmosphere was a lot richer but scientists do not agree on the Bible timeline but they do complement their findings with how the pre Noah earth was. Bigger animals like dinosaus had a rich atmospheric environment which made them grow big including plants and they lived longer. Noah lived to over 900 years and many scientists do try and put humans in rich oxigen chambers to simulate the same effects. Can not be all coincidence once you delve deeper for the explanations.
s

reply to post by The time lord


"Can not be all coincidence once you delve deeper for the explanations. "

The oxygen levels during the Cretaceous are estimated to be about 30%, compared to less than 20% (Much less than 20% in L.A. and Mexico City.)

However, that was 65,000,000 years ago.

Next try?

How can one liken the biblical tales, to periods within geological/evolutionary epochs or periods?
It is said that God created the Cosmos, Earth and all in 6 days; then rested on the 7th.
If any of us were silly enough to take this literally: 1) when do we know when the sun was created to mark the passage of 1 day?
2) before the sun was "created" would it not be reasonble to say that a day may have been a few million years?
3) who cares anyway

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
How can one liken the biblical tales, to periods within geological/evolutionary epochs or periods?
It is said that God created the Cosmos, Earth and all in 6 days; then rested on the 7th.
If any of us were silly enough to take this literally: 1) when do we know when the sun was created to mark the passage of 1 day?
2) before the sun was "created" would it not be reasonble to say that a day may have been a few million years?
3) who cares anyway

First off, "God" claims to have created the Universe in the dark. (Read it carefully for that hidden boast.

Second, why would anything that weird be "reasonable"? The concepts are bizarre enough without having "rubber time" thrown in.

Third, the creationists care, enough to want to have it mandated as the replacement of real science. That is why I care. I prefer not to revert to being a Bronze Age goat-herder, thank you.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Third, the creationists care, enough to want to have it mandated as the replacement of real science. That is why I care. I prefer not to revert to being a Bronze Age goat-herder, thank you.

Easy Tiger! Who cares was rhetoric. We both know who indeed cares; any faction with something to gain, albeit, control or money.

OK, let's return to the thread premise of Noah's flood being the first rainfall.

Well, aside from the fact that Genesis is collection of Sunday School tales not history there is internal evidence within. The animals from the time of the Garden of Eden to loading onto the ark ate vegetation and lived in the grasses, forests, and jungles. No rainfall virtually no plant life and ergo few animals.

Still for me unclear from the story, if all the land was covered by suddenly submerged for a few weeks, where did it all the excess water come form and recede to?

How did the vegetarian animals feed themselves with almost all their natural food sources destroyed? What kind of pyramid of life forms could there be with only two of each variety. One of the two lions goes after even one antelope and there goes the species.

Maybe it's just a moralistic fairy tale? You think?


Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


I would say it would be reasonable to assume that there was plant life on Earth before the; we know this to be indisputable fact.
Ask youself if it didnt rain, how on earth did plants manage to survive away from tracts of water?
The flood did really happen; its just that the writtings within the Torah are only one version of it; the epic of gilgamesh is only one other resource; there are many others.
Whether Noahs flood was an account of the original event or the account of a Memory; well thats another story.

reply to post by mmiichael



What would be the moral of the story if it wasn't a true event?

Nature takes vengence when society loses their humanity.

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by mmiichael

 

I would say it would be reasonable to assume that there was plant life on Earth before the; we know this to be indisputable fact.
Ask youself if it didnt rain, how on earth did plants manage to survive away from tracts of water?
The flood did really happen; its just that the writtings within the Torah are only one version of it; the epic of gilgamesh is only one other resource; there are many others.
Whether Noahs flood was an account of the original event or the account of a Memory; well thats another story.

A major flood that devastated a region of the Middle East. No doubt. Subjectively to those local surviving it seemed like the whole world.

Oral tradition legends get embellished in retelling. Myth cycles merge.

I doubt there was a man named Noah who lived 950 years. I doubt there was an ark big enough for his family to contain one of every animal life form or that they could gather them from all over the world. Their trip to Antarctica to get the penguins would be interesting to hear about.

A charming didactic fairy tale based on the recounting of a remembered terrible flood.


Mike

For a list off Biblical archaeological digs please see
en.wikipedia.org...(excavations_and_artifacts)

When it comes to work in Palestine/Israel there are nutters who faked finds in order to 'back up' biblical events.

Current excavated sites of importance include Ashkelon, Hazor, Megiddo, Gamla and Rehov.

No biblical sites have definatively proven a widespread flood. Rather only localised flooding at different times. Please scroll down to see ther are no works that prove anything about a flood.
en.wikipedia.org...(excavations_and_artifacts)

The geological record outside this region ie world wide does not provide evidence of a world wide flood.

Geological evidence proves rainfall elsewhere, for California as example, reserach is convering rainfall there for millions of years.

To determine when the Sierra rose to its current height, the scientists used an increasingly popular research tool that combines geology and chemistry to create a record of prehistoric rainfall patterns dating back millions of years. This technique relies on the fact that in nature, hydrogen and other atoms occur in different sizes called isotopes. Deuterium, for example, is a slightly heavier form of hydrogen, and drops of rainwater that contain deuterium isotopes often fall at lower elevations.

These samples go back to 60 million years in the clay for the Sierra Nevada:

Over time, some raindrops are incorporated into molecules of clay and other minerals that form on the ground. These clays provide scientists with a geologic record of ancient precipitation, which can then be compared with samples of modern precipitation collected at the same altitude. If the comparison reveals similar isotopic ratios, then the elevation of the mountain must have been similar in ancient and modern times.

news.bio-medicine.org...

There is no credence to this "No rain before Noah" hypothesis. I dont acccept the oral tradition of ancient uneducated people who made things up to explain the unknown. Certainly I can use the bible as a 'map' of kind but thats about it.

The historical record completely annihalates and destroys any such theory. I have presented factual and physical evidence it did rain, and can provide many many more samples.

I wish I knew how to start these long lasted threads about nothing