Noah and the great flood, unanswered questions

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

I still maintain that he only took 2 animals of the local stock present in the region where he lived.

Are you still maintaining that it was a local flood only? If that's the case then why did God tell Noah to take birds on the ark? If not, then nevermind, I'll save that bullet for another day.

Well, YOU say the God told him to take birds too. I on the other hand only say the he told him to take 2 of the animals (it does not even mention birds, or specify what animals) and his family.

By this I mean you are quoting the Bible, I am quoting the Qur'an.

Here, to be even more precise: It does not even mention animals as such:

"until when Our command came and the oven overflowed, We said, "Load upon the ship of each two mates and your family"

reply to post by NOTurTypical

ETA: Oh crap! Here's what I meant to get to:


20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Um, actually I posted it before you did....but that's not the issue....this ^^^ says EVERY KIND of bird, EVERY KIND of animal....and so on and so forth....

The one you posted seemed to have a differing translation.

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

I still maintain that he only took 2 animals of the local stock present in the region where he lived.

Are you still maintaining that it was a local flood only? If that's the case then why did God tell Noah to take birds on the ark? If not, then nevermind, I'll save that bullet for another day.

Well, YOU say the God told him to take birds too. I on the other hand only say the he told him to take 2 of the animals (it does not even mention birds, or specify what animals) and his family.

By this I mean you are quoting the Bible, I am quoting the Qur'an.

Here, to be even more precise: It does not even mention animals as such:

"until when Our command came and the oven overflowed, We said, "Load upon the ship of each two mates and your family"

Okay, well then I suppose I believe you then, I just found a picture of what a local flood that covered the mountaintops would have looked like:






Apparently, that's even a bigger miracle than a world-wide flood!!!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

I still maintain that he only took 2 animals of the local stock present in the region where he lived.

Are you still maintaining that it was a local flood only? If that's the case then why did God tell Noah to take birds on the ark? If not, then nevermind, I'll save that bullet for another day.

Well, YOU say the God told him to take birds too. I on the other hand only say the he told him to take 2 of the animals (it does not even mention birds, or specify what animals) and his family.

By this I mean you are quoting the Bible, I am quoting the Qur'an.

Here, to be even more precise: It does not even mention animals as such:

"until when Our command came and the oven overflowed, We said, "Load upon the ship of each two mates and your family"

Okay, well then I suppose I believe you then, I just found a picture of what a local flood that covered the mountaintops would have looked like:






Apparently, that's even a bigger miracle than a world-wide flood!!!

edit on 1-1-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Your sarcasm aside, it says in the BIBLE that the waters were above the mountains, In the Qur'an it also says the waves were large, with ONE SMALL DIFFERENCE. It says the waves were "like mountains" and not "above the mountains".

Small detail, but effective.

BTW, in the SAME verse where it says that waves were "like mountains" the Qur'an presents a conversation between Noah and his son, who did not want to go in the ark. Noah is pleading him to go into the ark, but his son says "I will climb THAT mountain" - which shows that there were indeed mountains ABOVE the water. The problem is (probably a tsunami) it says further in the verse, that BEFORE he could reach it "the waves separated them, and he was drowned" - which would seem to support the idea that it was a tsunami style flooding, which came VERY FAST.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

ETA: Oh crap! Here's what I meant to get to:


20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Um, actually I posted it before you did....but that's not the issue....this ^^^ says EVERY KIND of bird, EVERY KIND of animal....and so on and so forth....

The one you posted seemed to have a differing translation.

Correct, that's what I've been saying. It never says God told Noah to take two of every different animal. It said two of every animal "kind". Example: 2 dogs, not 2 of every type of dog as previously shown.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

It says the waves were "like mountains" and not "above the mountains".

Why would the Qur'an compare waves to "mountains" if they weren't close to the height of a mountain?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

It says the waves were "like mountains" and not "above the mountains".

Why would the Qur'an compare waves to "mountains" if they weren't close to the height of a mountain?

Tsunami? The waves, when large LOOK LIKE MOUNTAINS.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Correct, that's what I've been saying. It never says God told Noah to take two of every different animal. It said two of every animal "kind".

Huh. Well, then, I guess I don't read the new version (or the old) of the Bible clearly. "Every kind of bird" does not, to me, mean "two of the birdly kind".
It means "every kind of bird"....parakeets, crows, doves, sparrows, woodpeckers, owls, vultures, eagles, falcons, storks, herons, geese, ducks.... etc. Two of each. Two of EVERY KIND OF bird.

ETA: Okay, ladies and gents (I think it's mostly gents)....gotta get some shut-eye.
I will dwell on these mysteries as I drift off to the other dimension(s) in which I dwell while my body rests....

Cheers, and happy new year (really! I hope your new year is happy!) to all.
--wt

I'm extremely interested in this topic. Gotta love mysteries.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

It says the waves were "like mountains" and not "above the mountains".

Why would the Qur'an compare waves to "mountains" if they weren't close to the height of a mountain?

BTW, for those who say Muhammad copied the Bible, check this out:

"And it was said, "O earth, swallow your water, and O sky, withhold [your rain]." And the water subsided, and the matter was accomplished, and the ship came to rest on the [mountain of] Judiyy." - 11:44

Wait, wasn't it the mountain of Ararat where the ark landed according to Bible?

Wouldn't have Muhammad not risked being ridiculed by Jews and christians for this "evident" error?
Yet, he did not change that - he said "Judiyy" as he received it.

...

Search for a mountain called Judiyy.


Hint: It's gonna be hard. It is believed to be in northwestern Iran. ^^

reply to post by wildtimes


i think the flood/deluge. local or not is true; it's written about in many cultures, not just the bible and our as our ice melts and poles slowly shift today, i think it's perfectly feasible to assume that 6000 years ago the ice from a big region melted and flooded the earliest civilisations.

the story itself could even come from 15,000 years ago with the end of the last ice age.

the one thing i do know, it's the oldest story on earth, and that leans me towards thinking it's based on a factual historical event of some kind.

Did god cause it? who knows....

Did noah exist and have an ark? who knows...

as a believer in god and jesus? I think the bible is mostly proverbial and anyone focussing on the story is probably just looking for an excuse not to have a god or religion in their life.

now, can i ask you a question?

why do you even care? if you're so comfortable with your own faith and are just going to die at the end of your term, why do you feel the need to make posts like this that attempt to destroy other's faith? are you miserable and lacking company or do you actually gain something?

English is not my first language either, but I certainly understand what 'Off Topic' means.

Please, just post on the topic of this thread and refrain from making members the alternate topic for discussion. Enough posts have been removed already.

reply to post by Beavers

why do you even care?

I care because I want to know the truth behind the stories. I was taught them as a child, too, and even then I thought they were a bit unlikely to have actually happened.

if you're so comfortable with your own faith and are just going to die at the end of your term, why do you feel the need to make posts like this that attempt to destroy other's faith?

I don't think I'm "just going to die" at the end of my term:

I think we are immortal souls who visit the Earth many, many times before we are ready to be reunited with the Divine; and I feel the need to understand how others view and explain what looks to me to be entirely metaphorical legends. If anything, I'm a skeptical believer. I just don't think the Bible makes enough sense given what we "know" to make it all "true." Actually, I agree with you, that it was likely a local event and someone was warned.
The fact that other faiths DO HAVE IT in their stories lends it credence, in my opinion, and also indicates that there is ONE Divine, with whom we will ALL be reunited, and it is not dependent on the Christian Jesus ALONE.

are you miserable and lacking company or do you actually gain something?

Mean cheap shot, that one.
But I'll answer it anyway. Nope! Not at all miserable. Notice I am not the one who inserts laughy faces when people answer questions. I either say "okay,thanks", or "can you clarify", or "but what about this other source"?

Lacking company? Not that either.

You didn't ask me if I thought there was a flood, or what my theories are, but I'm going to put them here anyway.

Yes, I think there was a mighty flood in the part of the world from where that Noah story originated. There are numerous submerged cities and obvious very advanced masonry and architecture that make that indisputable. Those places were clearly once on dry ground.

Is it possible that a being from another dimension came and told Noah he was going to destroy everyone? Yes, it is, in my opinion.

Could Noah have rounded up every creature in his immediate area? Yes, but no one lives where ALL THE ANIMALS are. It would have had to been the local animals. Where I live there would be cats, dogs, horses, cattle, deer, turkeys, (well, all kinds of birds), snakes, turtles, frogs and toads, a few lizards, mice, rats, moles, skunks, squirrels, raccoons, opossums, coyotes, rabbits, and some bugs. Would need a pretty good-size yacht, but not as big as a Carnival cruise ship.

Why is it that people who take the Bible literally can't think about the possibility that "Ancient Aliens" having come or been here interacting with mere mortals, with all the flying about and alarming visitations, would actually make it all true? I'd think you'd be excited!

I am!

I love the stories of Avalon and King Arthur. Adore them...do I think they are The Truth? I certainly think Arthur lived. I'd like to believe that in the mists at Glastonbury there is a hidden place full of beauty...if someone could tell me "Look! It really is true! It really is there!" I would be overwhelmingly delighted. Likewise, if someone can tell me that everything in the Bible is based on real interactions from long, long ago, I would ALSO be delighted.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

If you're truly interested in hearing what us Christians, or more precisely, young-Earth creations believe then why start a thread on ATS asking random normal folks these questions? ....

Because this is a discussion forum. I'm interested in the discussion and different points of view.

I have already seen you state "only animals" where another stated "all living creatures".

(also sparks a big curiosity as to what snakes were on the ark....if any)

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
........

I'm not saying our opinions don't matter, but why not ask the people who professionally work in the field in question?

......

Please feel free to invite those who work in that field to this discussion.
Reading a website is a rather 1 sided view, but personally (and I imagine others here) would enjoy seeing their input in a question/answer style debate like we have here.

as a good example....I was always curious if snakes were on the ark.....but so far were still working out the "animals vs. creatures vs. living things vs. beasts" idea.

Originally posted by Beavers

.....................why do you feel the need to make posts like this that attempt to destroy other's faith? .....

Sorry if you feel that way, but really, this is a discussion board. No one is attacking your faith. Its more of a
"what did your faith tell you? what did his faith tell him? what did her faith tell her?"

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

It says the waves were "like mountains" and not "above the mountains".

Why would the Qur'an compare waves to "mountains" if they weren't close to the height of a mountain?

Tsunami? The waves, when large LOOK LIKE MOUNTAINS.

Lol, no, perhaps they may look like a large house, or as tall as a tree. A mountain is generally thousands of feet taller.

And a "Tsunami" is not a flood, it's a very large "wave".

reply to post by vogon42

I was always curious if snakes were on the ark.

Yes, the verse we've linked previously also says "2 of every kind that creepeth on the ground". That would mean 2 snakes, 2 lizards, etc.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Correct, that's what I've been saying. It never says God told Noah to take two of every different animal. It said two of every animal "kind".

Huh.

Well, then, I guess I don't read the new version (or the old) of the Bible clearly. "Every kind of bird" does not, to me, mean "two of the birdly kind".
It means "every kind of bird"....parakeets, crows, doves, sparrows, woodpeckers, owls, vultures, eagles, falcons, storks, herons, geese, ducks.... etc. Two of each. Two of EVERY KIND OF bird.

ETA: Okay, ladies and gents (I think it's mostly gents)....gotta get some shut-eye.
I will dwell on these mysteries as I drift off to the other dimension(s) in which I dwell while my body rests....

Cheers, and happy new year (really! I hope your new year is happy!) to all.
--wt

No, "kind" is an older English translation of "species". The Hebrew word in Genesis 6:20 for kind is "miyn" meaning:

"1) kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)"

Goups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Hope that clarifies your confusion.