Timing of Noah's Flood

Personally I think that the float that is spoken of in the story of Noach, isn't just a small coastal region that has been floated, but it must have been an entire continent that has sunk in the sea: So there are 2 possibilities:
1) the water rises
2) the land sunk into the ocean.

Someone in this discussion remarks that there always has been land, which keeps his mountains above the water. We also need to consider that at the time of the noachian flood, not the whole world was known to the humans. So when the myth tells us that there is no land anymore, for 40 day and 40 nights, then this means, that there could have been land, but that the land was not known to the human race.

Personally I think it was the main continent of the humans that has been sunk into the sea. On this continent humanity was created. For the Dawinists this means that the monkeys evolved their brain until they hath consciousness, and therefore we speak of humans. Humanity has lived on this continent as long as they existed. They could find whatever they needed, and because it was u huge island, they didn't know any other continents.

I also consider that there could have been more then one major flood catastrophe.
But when was the last flood? For me it is most likely the period of the last major glacier retreat. If I put on a date of this let's say 10,700 B.C. plus or minus 300 years.

I know this is more then a thousand years earlier then Plato writes in his dialogues Timaeos and Kritias, about the end of Atlantis. But after all this is a religion forum, and for me you belief with you hearth and not with logic. So I declare that I belief that it was in 10,700 BC, so lets just let each other in our own truth and respect that. I have no need to convince any of you of my ideas, I want you to take knowledge of them. You do with it whatever you like!
 
Dragonrider said:
I have no need to convince any of you of my ideas, I want you to take knowledge of them. You do with it whatever you like!
Thank you for that choice. I intend to ignore them, since, as you say, you offer no evidence for any of your contentions. At the same time I am aware of facts that render your ideas impossible.

Religion is not obligated to be close minded, illogical, or retrograde in its thinking. There is nothing to prevent the religious from following their faith and allowing it to be tempered by the insights of science.
 
j1r2c3 said:
A couple of observations about this very interesting summary.

Assuming "begat" allows for multiple generations and the written lineage might just pick out prominent individuals to mention (unless specific evidencs of a direct father:son relationship is included), how does one best deal with the formula:

when so and so was (age) he begat so and so and after that lived (number of years)?

That question aside, the allowance for multiple generations with each begat does facilitate solving the timing-of-the-flood problem.

Thanks for your summary.
j1r2c3

That formula, conscerning the begats, does not matter because of the use of the word sons for the descendants of Noah's children. A large time break could be present in those scriptures since in Hebrew, sons can refer to descendants many generations later.

Also, the Hebrew usage of the word son, can mean son, or grandson, or great
grandson, or great great great grandson or descendant many generations
later.
[Example: Jesus is called the son of David. Jesus is a descendant of David
many generations later.] If you look at the biblical account of the
descendants of the sons of Noah, it uses the word sons, several times. Every
where it says sons, according to Hebrew usage, it could be referring to
descendants many generations later. That would put the time of Noah's flood
much farther back in history and it would more closely match archeological
findings about the age of man.

Genesis 9:19 These [are] the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole
earth overspread.

Genesis 10:2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan,
and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

Genesis 10:3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

Genesis 10:4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and
Dodanim.

Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their
lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Genesis 10:7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and
Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.

Everywhere sons is used for the descendants of Noah's children, there could be the large time breaks that could push the flood timing much further back in history.
 
ghost7584 said:
That formula, conscerning the begats, does not matter because of the use of the word sons for the descendants of Noah's children.

Actually, it "doesn't matter" because only the deluded take that silly, superstitious nonsense literally.
 
*************
M*W: I've read that the "story" of Noah should precede the "story" of A&E in the GoE, as far a the "timing" goes. This is NOT to say that either can be taken literally. They are simply "stories" of creation. According to this "story" theory, Adam would have been created somewhere other than Earth and place in the GoE. Then Eve would have been created on earth. But, who cares? It's just a story, so the timing of either story is really moot.

I also understand that the Book of Job was chronologically the earliest written "story" in the Bible, and it was written as a dramatic tragedy.

My question is: Why wasn't the Bible assimilated by the timely chronology the books were written? Just seems all the more illogical.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: I've read that the "story" of Noah should precede the "story" of A&E in the GoE, as far a the "timing" goes.

the noah story is just another version of genesis you idiot.

Then Eve would have been created on earth.

it's astrological shit.

But, who cares?

do you want to know.

It's just a story, so the timing of either story is really moot.

and how do you know it's only a fucking story. but i guess you're too stupid to understand the real meaning.

I also understand that the Book of Job was chronologically the earliest written "story" in the Bible, and it was written as a dramatic tragedy.
you believe every shit you want to believe.
 
SkinWalker said:
Actually, it "doesn't matter" because only the deluded take that silly, superstitious nonsense literally.

On the contrary, it is the deluded that don't take it literally.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2 Thessalonians 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
 
Back
Top