by bother_forever 19 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Genesis 7:19, 20: And the waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered. Up to fifteen cubits the waters overwhelmed them and the mountains became covered.
That's all the proof a JW needs.
If a global flood occured, it left no evidence in line with its transpiring. None of it is possible without an unending series of miracles that are not mentioned. Every historical timeline is violated. The evidence of inherited folk lore mythology in the later writings of the bible must be cast aside. Finally, the maximum kinds of animals that fit on an ark require that evolution took place since a deluge at a ridiculous rate. That, and it was an empty and meaningless act.
If you want to believe that, go right ahead.
I began to question the global flood a long time ago but it was my coral reef hobby that showed me that if I believed the flood was global it would contradict many of the facts I knew in regards to reefs and fish.
For example, we know the great barrier coral reef and also all other major coral reefs through out the earth to be millions of years old. Their age is determined by the rate the coral deposit calcium to create a polyp. Therefore we know all these coral structures have been generally intact for that amount of time but if a global flood occurred it would have brought nutrients to the oceans from dead plant and animal matter, soil cover from land run offs that would have in a very short timed killed all corals (bleaching) and its inhabitants.
This is seen today when farm soil run off occurs nearby reefs. When it reaches the coral reefs it begins to bleach (kill) the corals by blocking the sunlight that reaches them, by depositing soil directly on the corals, and more importantly by depositing nutrients that create an algae bloom that overwhelm the corals.
As can be concluded if a global flood occurred the age of our coral reefs, if any existed, would only be 4000+ years old if that. At a minimum we would have seen a worldwide major scaring of the corals reefs but that is also not the case.
Just my two cents.
Great point! I'm putting that bullet in the chamber.
More food for thought.........
If a global flood did indeed happen, the evaporation that followed at such a great rate would have created a global atmospheric blanket (global warming) that would affect the ocean temperatures drastically since the majority of its inhabitants, especially coral reefs, are every sensitive to sudden temperature changes.
One to three degrees F change on a short-term (years, decades) basis would cause quite a stress level that would result in a major dieing off. It is hard to predict how much ocean temperatures would have increased in such a situation but if today’s global warming models can be used as an indicator, it is reasonable to conclude 10+ degrees F would be easily attained.
The global flood story is one of the few miracles in the Bible that can actually be investigated to test its validity; unfortunately the evidence against it is quite overwhelming. It is interesting to note that religions including the WTBTS will use archeological evidence when it favors their argument of an event being factual as the case with Sodom and Gomorrah (sulfur content found throughout the region) but when the evidence is not present little is said and if you don’t believe the best they can do is call you a critic.
By the way scientist believe a devastating fire could have occurred at SG causing to go airborne that some could have viewed as sulfur falling from the sky.
The global flood story is one of the few miracles in the Bible that can actually be investigated to test its validity; unfortunately the evidence against it is quite overwhelming.
Exactly. The authors of the global flood story made a huge mistake in choosing a story that would have massive worldwide implications in almost every area of science. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a story that would have larger implications for what we should expect to see geologically, biologically, archeologically, and so on.
Most of religion resides in the area of faith - it does not make any testable predictions, so it is immune to scientific verification. The flood account, however, unwittingly makes enormous predictions, and unfortunately, they are almost all wrong.
See the above cited TalkOrigins page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html) for an excellent article.
SNG
DannyBloem wrote:
First I want to say that I do not agree with the last poster, that the bible says the flood was not global. COnsider the following:
note that the bible does not speak about a local flood:
1) The time the bible says Noah was in the ark
2) The necessity of Noah to go in the ark the first place
3) The necessity of birds and animals to go inside the ark
4) The bible says the water were above the mountains
5) Gods promise to never to it again would mean nothing for a local flood (and would be untrue)
6) The bible says all people come from Noah
So i think that the writer ment what he was saying, the is telling the story of a global flood.
1) The time spent in the ark does not prove anything about how much area the water covered.
2) Ditto. If God destroyed all the land as far as the eye could see (and that's all the text says), then Noah had to get in the ark to avoid it, or else leave the region. He could not do the latter, because God told him not to. Peter mentions that Noah was "a preacher of righteousness", and presumably he stuck around to preach.
3) See above. Not all animals on Earth were represented in the ark. The text does not require anyone to believe that they were.
4) Not quite. What it actually says is, the water reached as high as the mountains, not that it buried the mountains under water.
5) God never has killed all the people on Earth with a flood since Noah's time, now has He? He never promised there would never again be a flood anywhere on Earth.
6) Yes, the Bible does say the Flood was universal -- it killed all the humans on Earth, except those in the ark. It was not global -- it did not cover every square inch of the planet.
Robert V Frazier
Here's a good article written by Jan H, who used to post here. The question it attempts to answer concerns what the Bible teaches about the flood:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2003/02/15/doesGenesisTeachALocalFlood.html
bother..I'm not sure how aware you are of the myththeme of waters and flood in many near eastern cult and culture. The Hebrew versions were drawn from the Babylonian which in turn derived from earlier forms of the myth. Each culture adapted it while retaining some key elements that betray the influences. It was not meant as literal history but like most myth it was a moral tale. It was also not part of the original legends of Genesis but was squeezed in between lines of an unrelated running narrative.
Robert, about your reasoning the the flood was universal but not global:
1) The time spent in the ark does not prove anything about how much area the water covered.
It is not a proof, but a strong indication that it is not a normal flood. When something is local flooding will occure becaue some natural dam breaks or whatever. It is sudden and the water goes away quickly, because it has somewhere to go. It can be reasoned of course that Noah just happen to be at the bottom of a new to be formed lake....
2) Ditto. If God destroyed all the land as far as the eye could see (and that's all the text says), then Noah had to get in the ark to avoid it, or else leave the region. He could not do the latter, because God told him not to. Peter mentions that Noah was "a preacher of righteousness", and presumably he stuck around to preach.
It can, but does it make sence?
3) See above. Not all animals on Earth were represented in the ark. The text does not require anyone to believe that they were.
The point is that there would be no need to represent any animals in the ark if the flood was not global. The whole idea about the story is that this is the way the whole human and animal species were saved.
4) Not quite. What it actually says is, the water reached as high as the mountains, not that it buried the mountains under water.
[19] And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
[20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
This is what de bible says, covered sounds very much that the water is higher that all the mountains. And if the water is only higher then the local mountains,why it did not go away quickly?
5) God never has killed all the people on Earth with a flood since Noah's time, now has He? He never promised there would never again be a flood anywhere on Earth.
6) Yes, the Bible does say the Flood was universal -- it killed all the humans on Earth, except those in the ark. It was not global -- it did not cover every square inch of the planet.
Here you go. All people killed. But people already lived in all continents (archeologie shows that). And even if you 'forget' about america, australia etc. It is clear that people already migrated to afrika, asia etc. So it must be almost global to kill them all. ANd almost global is really the same, because it can only be local small scale if the waters are slowly fading.
As nice guy said, this is one of the most stupid mistakes in the bible as it is verifyably wrong...
Danny
Robert V Frazier
