Was there a Worldwide Flood?

This is one of a great many mysteries in the Bible. Was there really a flood that covered the entire globe or was the flood more regional in nature and only covered and destroyed an ancient populated region?

relijournal.com...

If you look at all the landmass around the edge of the continents and on islands that you can tell used to be above land but are now underwater... and take into consideration that most civilizations would be living near a water source (the ocean makes for a good location to build your community with its abundant resources) I can see the evidence that global flooding may have taken place as the ocean levels rose at the end of the last ice age (as the glaciers where melting and receding) So I can see why people would have written the story about a worldwide flood that evidently did not cover the ENTIRE world but most of the inhabited coastline.

No its a made up story. Not trying to be harsh, but thats the truth.
Its fiction

My thought on this is that there was a large flood, however, it was probably concentrated in one area of the globe. Most of society was in the "cradle" of civilization or close to it, so while a bad regional flood may be the true story, it was perceived as a "global" flood. The vast majority of scientists also agree that there is little to no evidence to support a massive deluge that covered the entire globe.

reply to post by chimaybliss


I believe that there was and there will be again.Many people don't seem to understand that the Earth is life just like us, and like us it is always changing, slowly but still changing.

A Flood that covered the earth? no. Rising water levels as we came out of the last ice age? That sounds more likely and would explain the lack of evidence of a global flood.

Pretty much every civilization on the planet has a "story" of a global flood from the Americas to the Aborigines so there must be some truth, try reading a book called Uriels machine makes a bit of sense of the "story" from the bible and tries to put some logic in the equation instead of giving credit to that guy with the beard that lives in the clouds with the care bears.... whats his name. Any way i found it a great read and its also gives a insight into the origins of civilization and how easily lead they where with reference to early religion.

This is a gray area for me. Part of me leans toward the scientific view. But the other part of me believes that not every story that comes down to us as myth, is myth. And though I lean toward trusting scientific method. I don't always trust those who say they are using it. As I've said before, there are too many Zahi Hawass's in the world to just believe everything they say. Peer reviewed or no.

So even though I would say probably not. There's that part of me that leaves the door open for the possibility. But I most certainly don't base it on the bible alone.

Read Graham Hancock's "Underworld" for an accounting of what may have happened. During the last ice age a lot of water was locked up in ice. As the land warmed the area by Hidsons Bay melted, but the ice around the shore took longer to do so. If you've seen Lake Michigan in Winter you know what I'm talking about. The land ice acts as a dam.

Then the whole thing breaks and all the water in Hudons Bay (to a certain level) breaks out all at once and within a few hours the ocean levels rise 60 feet unnundating all seacoast based civilizations, such as the one that existed in India.

Voila: Flood story, about 14,000 years ago.

reply to post by chimaybliss

This is one of a great many mysteries in the Bible. Was there really a flood that covered the entire globe or was the flood more regional in nature and only covered and destroyed an ancient populated region?

If the flood was 'regional' God would not need to have Noah spend 120 years building an ark.

He would have just told Noah to MOVE.

reply to post by chimaybliss


No, there wasn't.

In fact, it would be impossible for the world to have flooded in the way described by the Bible. Now, there might have been some large regional flood, but nothing on the scale of a whole planet is actually possible.

And don't get me started on the animals...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Um..where in the Bible does it say that? I mean, it says he built an ark, but it doesn't say how long it took him anywhere in the book. It does say that Noah was 600 when the flood hit (Genesis 7:6), but it doesn't say what period of time passed between Noah being commanded to build the ark and the flood hitting.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I'm not going to do your homework for you. From the commandment to build the ark until the first rains fell was 120 years. Let's just say the maximum was 120 years. Now, if you're done straining the gnat care to address the camel?

If the flood was only local why didn't God just command Noah to move???

I really don't think you should take the Biblical flood story literally. It's already been shown numerous places that the flood story is nearly universal and a part of the mythology of peoples all over the world. OF COURSE the world did not flood like the Bible claims with one mountain sticking out. And there very likely was no Noah who built an ark and the ark certainly didn't save all the animals. That's the metaphorical part of the story--one flood myth among hundreds of variations recounting an event long ago reduced to mythology over literally thousands of illiterate years.

When you take all the flood myths together, a reasonable conclusion is: Something happened that was effectively worldwide. The evidence something happened goes far beyond the Old Testament. When you look at some of the evidence that Hancock provides, you begin to get a sense of what might have happened. Has the story been embellished, changed, and molded to fit the needs of a small desert tribe's religious worldview? Certainly! But to pick on one of the embellishments and say that was impossible does not lead you to the conclusion that a flood never happened.

reply to post by schuyler


Good answer what if as the most fertile place are the lower more susceptible to flooding areas flooded to earlyish man that would seem like the world

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by chimaybliss

 

This is one of a great many mysteries in the Bible. Was there really a flood that covered the entire globe or was the flood more regional in nature and only covered and destroyed an ancient populated region?

If the flood was 'regional' God would not need to have Noah spend 120 years building an ark.

He would have just told Noah to MOVE.

And the folly of your argument is that you're using a storybook as an accurate historical reference.

reply to post by zcflint05


I'm sorry, but do you have a rational reason why you have that opinion? You can make arbitrary statements if you wish, but don't expect me to acknowledge them. Secondly, this thread assumes for arguments sake that the flood was true, it's not explicitly stated otherwise in the title of the thread.