Noahs Ark and the Biblical World Wide Flood Never Happened

a reply to: FlyersFan

How did the koala bear and the kangaroo get from Australia to Mesopotamia?
How did the sloth and the anaconda get from South America to Mesopotamia?

And the Penguins native the Antarctic and Polar bears native to the Arctic, answers are indeed required, and to date have failed to be provided, well those of the tangible sorts that is.

originally posted by: andy06shake
And the Penguins native the Antarctic and Polar bears native to the Arctic,..:

... that would have died in the 110 degree Mesopotamian heat. How'd they get there? How did they survive the heat?

a reply to: FlyersFan

I like the 2 short videos you posted.



All the best questions are contained within and they perfectly illustrate how ludicrous the entire affair would have been.

a reply to: andy06shake

Did you see the calculated rainfall rates?

Physics SMU

No wooden ark could hold up to that kind of pounding from the sky.
Of course, the ark wouldn't have been seaworthy, I already posted those facts.
It would have been torn in two by the ocean. The math doesn't lie.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I did indeed.

It's all just hokum really.

The tale of Noah's Ark does the Bible little credit.

As you suggest most people of the religious sort understand that fact plainly.

The majority choosing simply to accept the tale as a parable and get on with the day.

a reply to: FlyersFan

So you file the flood under Bible myth I assume. What’s your interpretation of why it was included in the Bible?

a reply to: JohnTChance

For the moral and theological lessons, i should imagine.

Then there is the preservation of righteousness, a covenant with god, redemption, and other symbolic aspects to consider.

a reply to: andy06shake

If that’s how it should be viewed, what’s the moral lesson behind giving the measurements of the Ark?

It has been thought that Noah (whether real or fiction) resided in the land of Mesopotamia, in between the two rivers Tigris and Euphrates, supposedly in the more northern parts. Those northern lands are somewhat surrounded by water and these lands are said to be flood prone.

Anyway I found an interesting article about an old unscientific archeological flood stratum material study in that area, if anyone is interested and it appears this is all there really is for that area up to today.

In all probability, the finds do represent floods, but the exact character of those events—fluvial or marine, rapid or slow deposition, unitary or episodic—remains unknown. The hydrology of southern Mesopotamia is very complex. Renewed excavation and modern scientific techniques could probably solve many of these questions, but current political and military conditions would seem to preclude any such activity in the near future. Until the situation changes, there are no compelling grounds on which to conclude that the Flood story found its ultimate beginning in an actual event that has been identified at Kish and Shuruppak or anywhere else in Mesopotamia.

The endemic character of flooding in southern Mesopotamia may well have been sufficient to generate the story about a supreme Flood, and the attachment of that story to a specific, long-passed, ill-known historical context may, in fact, be late and unreliable. The earliest edition of the Sumerian King List certainly includes no list of antediluvian kings, and the presence of reference to the Flood is in doubt. It may first have been added much later, during a period in which the Flood story was popular (Civil, 1969, p. 139). Ultimately, the search for a local Mesopotamian flood upon which a rationalization of the Bible story can be based may prove as illusionary as the search for Noah's ark.

ncse.ngo...

Map of ancient Mesopotamia.

owlcation.com...

I think that with the rewriting, artistic/biased license, and the lost in translation factors involved in copying scripture to another language that the story was misinterpreted or deliberately changed for shock value, for what someone else here suggested, to control the people.

a reply to: JohnTChance

I suppose the moral lessons or interpretations drawn from the measurements of the Ark vary among different religious traditions and individuals.

As to moral lessons that i can see that may be drawn, obedience to God springs to mind.

According to the story, and regardless of the seemingly impractical nature of building the ark, Noah appears to follow God's commands faithfully and to the letter, as impossible as that would be, which illustrates the importance of obedience and trust in god from a biblical perspective.

There is also faith, as i imagine the construction of the Ark would have required a great deal of faith on Noah's part.

The fact that Noah chooses to follow through with the construction of the Ark, despite the absence of immediate evidence of a flood, choosing to accept only God's word, certainly demonstrates unwavering faith in God's ""ineffable plan"".

There are plenty of ""moral lessons"" that can be drawn from the story of Noah's Ark depending on how one chooses to interpret the tale.

Taking the tale literally, however, is in my opinion rather pigheaded, given the insurmountable problems associated with the myth.

Never mind the lack of geological and fossil evidence to support the notion of a global flood around the time of 2000/2400BCE.

a reply to: quintessentone

Especially earlier on in Messopotamian History. Milankovitch Cycles are real. And Iraq didn't really dry fully up until between 4000-3000 BCE. The monsoon pattern shifting away for good by 2500 BCE. Southern Iraq is the same latitude as Giza and the once green Sahara, and a continuation of its climate.

That flood plain was prone to floods that reached from one river to the other. It was an occurrence for Mesopotamian barges to get swept out to The Persian Gulf. Some more noteworthy than others. Some were literally transporting livestock.

Gilgamesh was probably WAY closer to the original tale of a random trader swept out to sea and forced to exist on beer.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: andy06shake

Did you see the calculated rainfall rates?

Physics SMU

No wooden ark could hold up to that kind of pounding from the sky.
Of course, the ark wouldn't have been seaworthy, I already posted those facts.
It would have been torn in two by the ocean. The math doesn't lie.

I have to return to object to this, this calculation doesn't include the waters from below, and assumes it all comes from above. We had a whole thread on this, the endless amounts of water present beneath the earth's crust, and also how the Bible explicitly says that water came from below as well as above. Why would you post something that doesn't include a calculation about the water from below? The fact that the Bible predicts something that wouldn't be proven as possible until 2023 is quite astonishing.

abundance of water in Earth's mantle

Your zeal against the word of God is quite alarming, even most staunch atheists don't compare to you.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: andy06shake

Did you see the calculated rainfall rates?

Physics SMU

No wooden ark could hold up to that kind of pounding from the sky.
Of course, the ark wouldn't have been seaworthy, I already posted those facts.
It would have been torn in two by the ocean. The math doesn't lie.

Southern Methodist is a really good school. Texas is full of great Christian universities. Like Baylor and TCU.

I'm sure every single one of their prestigious science departments would agree with your positions. I can't speak for their theology departments though.

I like that me amd SMU both came up with around 372 inches of rain an hour. (9 meters). Over 6 inches of rain a minute.

There's simply no other usable water, in reality, to accomplish such an increase in 40 days, other than obscene rainfall across the the whole of Earth at once.

originally posted by: JohnTChance
So you file the flood under Bible myth I assume. What’s your interpretation of why it was included in the Bible?

the Bible was put together by Catholic men In the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397AD. They simply took the Jewish holy books, from what Christianity sprang from, and added the Church documents that we call the New Testament. They had no knowledge that what they were putting together contained myths instead of actual fact. It's not like they had the internet to go look up scientific information on. They assumed it was true. It's just a myth that teaches a lesson ... be good or God will punish you.

You didn't answer the questions.
How did the koala bear and the kangaroo get from Australia to Mesopotamia?
How did the sloth and the anaconda get from South America to Mesopotamia?

originally posted by: JohnTChance
If that’s how it should be viewed, what’s the moral lesson behind giving the measurements of the Ark?

The story kills itself.
A wooden ship that size and structure would be torn apart.
It couldn't take the stress loads. It would snap and sink.

Wanna tell us how the koala and kangaroo got from Australia to Mesopotamia?
And how the sloth and anaconda got from South America to Mesopotamia?
Same with the polar bears and penguins from the arctic and Antarctica?

Watch and learn. A wooden boat that size would snap under the stress -
(and no one in 2400bc could build a boat like that anyways
they didn't have shipbuilding skills like that)

originally posted by: JohnTChance
a reply to: FlyersFan

So you file the flood under Bible myth I assume. What’s your interpretation of why it was included in the Bible?

The Bible included a lot of old folk myths and stories and "just so" tales - as well as some later (pseudo) historical stuff, poety, laws and the musing of various prophets. Basically, the writers at the time didn't know what was real so they included everything (including 2 versions of the creation of life and 2 versions of the Flood story - in both cases merged into one) just to be sure they didn't miss the right bits out.

I have no doubt the story of Noah was a popular children's bedtime story 3,000 years ago. But that doesn't make it any more real than the Hungry Caterpillar. And, like many children's stories, it really doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

Of course, since the people telling the story had no knowledge of sea anemones, dodos and platypusses, they had no need to explain how Noah got them into his big wooden box.

originally posted by: cooperton
I have to return to object to this, this calculation doesn't include the waters from below, and assumes it all comes from above.

There ARE NOT massive reservoirs of water underground to spring up. the Bible got that wrong. But playing along - Any water from below wouldn't just bubble up. It would have to have been heated up, turned to steam and muck, shot up with great force into the sky and it would have to come down again. So yes, it would have rained down upon the heads of those on earth. this was all explained to you elsewhere. Obviously you didn't listen to the 'great force' information.

We had a whole thread on this, the endless amounts of water present beneath the earth's crust,

ANd that thread proved everything you say WRONG. There are NOT 'endless amounts of water' beneath the earths crust.

The fact that the Bible predicts something that wouldn't be proven as possible until 2023 is quite astonishing.

No. the Bible story of Noahs Ark has NOT been proven possible. Not even remotely.

abundance of water in Earth's mantle

You have been educated on this. What is in the mantle isn't sweet wet water. It's wet minerals. SOLID. You really should stop trying to tell people it's water. IT IS NOT. WET MINERALS

Your zeal against the word of God is quite alarming, even most staunch atheists don't compare to you.

blah blah blah Your zeal for clinging to something that has been proven false is quite alarming.

Answer the questions cooperton -
How did the koala and kangaroo get from Australia to Mesopotamia.
How did the sloth and the anaconda get from South America to Mesopotamia.
And no ... the world was not one big continent in 2400bc.
So .... how'd they get there?

originally posted by: Degradation33
I like that me amd SMU both came up with around 372 inches of rain an hour. (9 meters). Over 6 inches of rain a minute.

There's simply no other usable water, in reality, to accomplish such an increase in 40 days, other than obscene rainfall across the the whole of Earth at once.

Exactly. And as I posted earlier, all that rainfall and liquid in the atmosphere would have rendered the air unbreathable.

originally posted by: JohnTChance
If that’s how it should be viewed, what’s the moral lesson behind giving the measurements of the Ark?

THIS is the size of the boats in 2400bc. If you were going to make up a story about the power of God, making up a boat the size of the ark would have impressed the peasants of that time period who were either inland and used to no boats at all, or on the coast and used to boats the size of the one I just posted a link to. The purpose of giving the dimensions of the ark? Speculation ... IMPRESSION and AWE INSPIRATION upon peasants who couldn't fathom something of that size.

Good thing they gave the measurements because modern day science and math proves an empty ark that size can float, but it would be torn apart in the seas. It would be unseaworthy.

a reply to: FlyersFan

If you wanna put your faith in man go ahead. At some point we all have to have faith in something. I’m choosing God. If you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains. I don’t see any reason why that shouldn’t apply to Noah’s Ark.

As a Christian, do you believe in the miracles Jesus performed in the New Testament?