Noah's Ark

[kx000]

The Babalonian version of genesis? Well, knowledge just gave you his version, that is the one you are looking for. Unforutantly my scrolls have been lost in the sands of time, and in the clutches of man, sad story really.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Good point. This is Comparative Religions, so Noah needs to be compared to Gilgamesh.

Gilgamesh is often citied as some biblical proof. What we need, ofcourse is not gilgamesh but exact, collabrative accounts from Mayans, aztecs, ancient chinese and the aborginies b4 we even begin to consider whther there are any Historical facts in such myths.

 

[Robittybob1]

Gilgamesh is often citied as some biblical proof. What we need, ofcourse is not gilgamesh but exact, collabrative accounts from Mayans, aztecs, ancient chinese and the aborginies b4 we even begin to consider whther there are any Historical facts in such myths.

If you need it, get it.
I see you are very negative.

 

[aaqucnaona]

If you need it, get it.
I see you are very negative.

Yes I am, coz a global flood cannot happen simply bcoz the water will have nowhere to come from or go. Even all the ice in the world would melt, thats still not enough to create anything near a biblical flood. The possible explaination is a localised flood of massive proportions.

 

[kx000]

The flood was regional follwed by worldwide earthquakes.

 

[Robittybob1]

Yes I am, coz a global flood cannot happen simply bcoz the water will have nowhere to come from or go. Even all the ice in the world would melt, thats still not enough to create anything near a biblical flood. The possible explaination is a localised flood of massive proportions.

Like what is happening if we don't get this global warming issue sorted.

 

[Stoniphi]

Gilgamesh is from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a book that predates the Hebrew and Christian Bibles and the Islamic Quran by many many years. Utnapishdum was the person whose family survived that flood, he was later referred to as "Noah". Don't care for Utnaphisdum? Hows about this scenario:

Lost Civilization Under Persian Gulf?

ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2010) — A once fertile landmass now submerged beneath the Persian Gulf may have been home to some of the earliest human populations outside Africa, according to an article published in Current Anthropology.

Jeffrey Rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the University of Birmingham in the U.K., says that the area in and around this "Persian Gulf Oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the Indian Ocean around 8,000 years ago. Rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the Near East, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.

In recent years, archaeologists have turned up evidence of a wave of human settlements along the shores of the Gulf dating to about 7,500 years ago. "Where before there had been but a handful of scattered hunting camps, suddenly, over 60 new archaeological sites appear virtually overnight," Rose said. "These settlements boast well-built, permanent stone houses, long-distance trade networks, elaborately decorated pottery, domesticated animals, and even evidence for one of the oldest boats in the world."

But how could such highly developed settlements pop up so quickly, with no precursor populations to be found in the archaeological record? Rose believes that evidence of those preceding populations is missing because it's under the Gulf.

"Perhaps it is no coincidence that the founding of such remarkably well developed communities along the shoreline corresponds with the flooding of the Persian Gulf basin around 8,000 years ago," Rose said. "These new colonists may have come from the heart of the Gulf, displaced by rising water levels that plunged the once fertile landscape beneath the waters of the Indian Ocean."

Historical sea level data show that, prior to the flood, the Gulf basin would have been above water beginning about 75,000 years ago. And it would have been an ideal refuge from the harsh deserts surrounding it, with fresh water supplied by the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun, and Wadi Baton Rivers, as well as by underground springs. When conditions were at their driest in the surrounding hinterlands, the Gulf Oasis would have been at its largest in terms of exposed land area. At its peak, the exposed basin would have been about the size of Great Britain, Rose says.

Evidence is also emerging that modern humans could have been in the region even before the oasis was above water. Recently discovered archaeological sites in Yemen and Oman have yielded a stone tool style that is distinct from the East African tradition. That raises the possibility that humans were established on the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula beginning as far back as 100,000 years ago or more, Rose says. That is far earlier than the estimates generated by several recent migration models, which place the first successful migration into Arabia between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago.

The Gulf Oasis would have been available to these early migrants, and would have provided "a sanctuary throughout the Ice Ages when much of the region was rendered uninhabitable due to hyperaridity," Rose said. "The presence of human groups in the oasis fundamentally alters our understanding of human emergence and cultural evolution in the ancient Near East."

It also hints that vital pieces of the human evolutionary puzzle may be hidden in the depths of the Persian Gulf.


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Chicago Press Journals, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Journal Reference:

Jeffrey I. Rose. New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis. Current Anthropology, 2010; 51: 6 DOI: 10.1086/657397

University of Chicago Press Journals (2010, December 8). Lost civilization under Persian Gulf?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 3, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com* /releases/2010/12/101208151609.htm

A similar event may well have occurred to the basin that is now the Black Sea, as we have found actual stone village remnants on the sea bottom there from the time it was farmland and not under water.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Gilgamesh is often citied as some biblical proof. What we need, ofcourse is not gilgamesh but exact, collabrative accounts from Mayans, aztecs, ancient chinese and the aborginies b4 we even begin to consider whther there are any Historical facts in such myths.

Are you asking to prove here was a flood? There never was a global flood. The purpose of comparing the story of Noah to the story of Gilgamesh (as noted, his friend, Utnapishtim) - is that it is a story that was handed down from the Akkadians to the Sumerians to the Baylonians, then finally to the Jews.

This is the history of the Noah story. It is borrowed mythology. it never happened. It is just a story, nothing more.

Emphasis is for the folks who are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge this essential fact.

 

[Arioch]

@Aqueous Id --

Exactly. The story of Noah's Ark is just like the story of the Exodus in that they're both merely examples of ancient Hebrew epic storytelling. Every culture produces it's epics(though some are obviously more "epic" than others), even modern cultures, why should the ancient Hebrew culture be considered any different?

 

[wellwisher]

The Americas were not well known until 1492. Before then ,the world of the Europeans did not include that area of land. Antarctica was not explored to even later than 1492. This was also not part of that world. The point I am trying to make is the world, at the time of Noah, was what was known to them and not what we known today. There is tendency to mix up time perception and assume what we know today is what they knew. The great flood only needed to extended to area of land based on Noah's perception of the world. To them, 1000 km2, could have been the world.

As far as two of each animal, this tells us something of their world perception. Currently there are thousands of undiscovered species within the Amazon rain forest. Why are these not currently included in the science catalogue? Does that mean science's current list is wrong? The answer is science only catalogues what they know. The same was true of Noah; he collected the animals that were known in this world perception. He too left out the animals of the Amazon that science still leaves out of their catalogue. We need to think in the proper time frame or else you will appear irrational.

Another interpretation of Noah, has to do with symbolism of the mind. In this case you treat it like a dream. The story tells us about a transition time within the evolution of human consciousness. This story is common to many cultures, even the Aborigine who were not in contact with the middle eastern world when their myth first began. In the alternate interpretation, a great flood is a period where the unconscious mind became extremely active and compulsive to where consciousness sort of drowns in the irrationality.

Gathering two of each kind of animal would symbolize getting back to natural instinct as a way to preserve healthy consciousness. From this I would infer that instinct had become unnatural, compulsive and addictive such that consciousness was becoming overwhelmed. Picture the consciousness of junkies where they are no longer able to function in culture in a productive way. Both men and women needed to get back to natural (gather the ancient animal instincts). Those who did lived to evolve. The others were lost in their compulsions; drowned.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Are you asking to prove here was a flood? There never was a global flood. The purpose of comparing the story of Noah to the story of Gilgamesh (as noted, his friend, Utnapishtim) - is that it is a story that was handed down from the Akkadians to the Sumerians to the Baylonians, then finally to the Jews.

This is the history of the Noah story. It is borrowed mythology. it never happened. It is just a story, nothing more.

Emphasis is for the folks who are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge this essential fact.

Of course. When I said "we need" I meant we need these accounts to be convinced to we must consider the global flood to be a serious historical idea, I was siding with the scientific sceptics. I only believe in Spinoza's God, so I am an Atheist in the religious sense. I know that holy books are no different than disney scripts.
U misunderstood it like:
The discovery institue would say, we need to find hominides in trilobite stratas.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this)

Numbers 13:33 We even saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak came from the Nephilim), and we seemed liked grasshoppers both to ourselves and to them.” [/I]

...so clearly we have a grotesque contradiction. Noah and those with him in the ark were not the only survivors.

The Nephilim survived too, since they were on the earth those days before the Deluge and also long, long after the Deluge.

The descendants of Anak cannot have come from the Nephilim if the Nephilim were all killed during the "Flood."

According to traditional interpretation of those passges, the name Nephilim was given to denote giants. The human race before the flood were all giants as was Noah. Their average height was just over 10 ft. After the flood some races maintained their height more than others, until there was a difference by as much as 3 ft between races. Differences still ocurr today with some races over 6 feet, but giants over 8 ft often suffer a genetic imbalance.

 

[Aqueous Id]

According to traditional interpretation of those passges, the name Nephilim was given to denote giants. The human race before the flood were all giants as was Noah. Their average height was just over 10 ft. After the flood some races maintained their height more than others, until there was a difference by as much as 3 ft between races. Differences still ocurr today with some races over 6 feet, but giants over 8 ft often suffer a genetic imbalance.

Ridiculous.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Ridiculous.

I like the fact that you have supplied some very valuable material to this thread, like the comparative graph of flood stories.

After reading the thread I found your conclusions quite rational, even though I think the flood was global.

I think the traditions can be interpreted to support both our views.

However, you would naturally expect the dynamics of a global flood to be unsubstantiated by science, which is true.

Moreover, the arguments put forward by creationists re the flood are insufficient, because they leach off scientific premises, instead of sticking to traditional and recorded views.

There is a total lack of understanding on both sides about the physics of such masses of water like the ocean.

To put it plainly- the relative viscosity of water (or any fluid) increases with mass, to the extent that fluid dynamics are no longer supreme. I have explained this in part under earth science, rising sea levels greatest lie...

PS as for the quote on nephilim, it does sound ridiculous, means you are thinking...

 

[origin]

There is a total lack of understanding on both sides about the physics of such masses of water like the ocean.

Do you have anything to back up this statement or is this just something you feel is true?

To put it plainly- the relative viscosity of water (or any fluid) increases with mass, to the extent that fluid dynamics are no longer supreme. I have explained this in part under earth science, rising sea levels greatest lie...

Do you have any evidence for you belief that viscosity increases with mass of the fluid?

I looked at the global warming thread and you didn't give any evidence. I also saw that you claimed that the ocean can be 90 meters higher in one point than another and this height difference can persist for 100s of years - this is pretty specific so I assume this is a documented case - could you cite your source of this claim.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I like the fact that you have supplied some very valuable material to this thread, like the comparative graph of flood stories.

I have no idea what you are talking about. "Flood stories" in this context are Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian myths, predating the myth in the Bible. Here are excerpts from Tablet XI of the Sumerian King List:


O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build,
its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
its length must correspond to its width.
Roof it over like the Apsu.
I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea:
'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered
I will heed and will do it.

:

All the living beings that I had I loaded on it,
I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat,
all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I
had go up.
:

All day long the South Wind blew ...,
blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water,
overwhelming the people like an attack.

:

No one could see his fellow,
they could not recognize each other in the torrent.
The gods were frightened by the Flood,
and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu.
The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall.

:

Six days and seven nights
came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.
When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,
the flood was a war--struggling with itself like a woman
writhing (in labor).

:

The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind (and) flood stopped up.
I looked around all day long--quiet had set in
and all the human beings had turned to clay!
The terrain was as flat as a roof.

 

[Aqueous Id]

After reading the thread I found your conclusions quite rational, even though I think the flood was global.

But speaking of "the" flood - and "global" - sounds irrational, which probably nullifies any conclusions about me.

I think the traditions can be interpreted to support both our views.

You appear to be advocating for the absurd.

However, you would naturally expect the dynamics of a global flood to be unsubstantiated by science, which is true.

Truth is problematic enough without introducing irrational ideations about ancient myths.

Moreover, the arguments put forward by creationists re the flood are insufficient, because they leach off scientific premises, instead of sticking to traditional and recorded views.

Unclear.

There is a total lack of understanding on both sides about the physics of such masses of water like the ocean.

Unclear.

To put it plainly-

Plain speech is lacking in your post.

the relative viscosity of water (or any fluid) increases with mass,

Besides making no sense, this seems to be a fundamentalist foray into pseudoscience, or perhaps some counterpoint.

to the extent that fluid dynamics are no longer supreme.

Unclear.

I have explained this in part under earth science,

The Flood Myth has no bearing on earth science, although the reverse is obviously not true.

rising sea levels greatest lie...

Unclear.

PS as for the quote on nephilim, it does sound ridiculous, means you are thinking...

The sentence fragment after that last comma is unclear. Notions of a race of giant humans are ridiculous.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Do you have anything to back up this statement or is this just something you feel is true?



Do you have any evidence for you belief that viscosity increases with mass of the fluid?

I looked at the global warming thread and you didn't give any evidence. I also saw that you claimed that the ocean can be 90 meters higher in one point than another and this height difference can persist for 100s of years - this is pretty specific so I assume this is a documented case - could you cite your source of this claim.

Viscosity does not increase with mass (volume), but the behaviour of water and any fluid is different for that entire body if the volume increases. I call it relative viscosity.
In regards to the high points in the ocean, I have not read it anywhere, it is what I understand.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

But speaking of "the" flood - and "global" - sounds irrational, which probably nullifies any conclusions about me.
You appear to be advocating for the absurd.
Truth is problematic enough without introducing irrational ideations about ancient myths.
Plain speech is lacking in your post.
Besides making no sense, this seems to be a fundamentalist foray into pseudoscience, or perhaps some counterpoint.
The Flood Myth has no bearing on earth science, although the reverse is obviously not true. The sentence fragment after that last comma is unclear. Notions of a race of giant humans are ridiculous.

Common science does not support a global flood, and so I would not expect you to contradict science. The fact that you said that notions of a race of giants is ridiculous, shows that you actually read it, unlike some who don't even understand plain English.

I support the story of the flood, and from what I read in myths and legends, accept that it was global. There is no shortage of scientists who have plenty of evidence of such a flood, but I don't like their explanations when it comes to accounting for the volumes of water required to cover the highest mountain.

However, I have an understanding of water on a large scale that I am fairly certain has already been discovered and understood by many other scientists.

These greater dynamics of a body of fluid have to be realised intellectually, because they are beyond the lab.

 

[origin]

Viscosity does not increase with mass, but the behaviour of water and any fluid is different for that entire body if the volume increases. I call it relative viscosity.

Could you please supply a more detailed definition of "relative viscosity", your current definiton of "the behaviour of water and any fluid is different" is a bit to vague.

In regards to the high points in the ocean, I have not read it anywhere, it is what I understand.

Huh? I have no idea what, "it is what I understand" means. You didn't read this so did you actual see this phenomena, did someone tell you, did you see it on TV or do you just think it is probably true?