You asked: are God, jesus, and the holy spirit the same person....yes or no. I'll take a stab at this. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same person. For they are three separate entities. However, the three of them together make up one God. While at the same time, any one of the three can properly be called "God." Consider the U.S. Government as an example. It is made up of three branches, the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, and the Judicial branch. However, even though these three branches are all part of one Government, any of them can properly be referred to as the Government of the United States.
a Christian
JoinedPosts by a Christian
-
64
Has the WTBS ever explained the trinity?
by wobble inif i were going to comment on a deep philosophical doctrine, i would first outline what that doctrine was,has the wtbs ever dne this properly with the trinity?
from memory they have only ever reasoned at the level"one plus one plus one = 3, not one" type of argument,and odd references to trinities in pagandom.. surely a college education would be of benefit to them so they know how to present a thesis?.
love.
-
-
-
64
Has the WTBS ever explained the trinity?
by wobble inif i were going to comment on a deep philosophical doctrine, i would first outline what that doctrine was,has the wtbs ever dne this properly with the trinity?
from memory they have only ever reasoned at the level"one plus one plus one = 3, not one" type of argument,and odd references to trinities in pagandom.. surely a college education would be of benefit to them so they know how to present a thesis?.
love.
-
-
a Christian
As an ex-JW and a new Christian I had one major problem in believing that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit could make up one God, or that one God could manifest Himself at different times, and simultaneously, in three different forms. That was my inability to fathom the existence of anything beyond our physical world.
But then I found out something quite interesting. I discovered that scientists now firmly believe that dimensions beyond our four physical dimensions of space and time do indeed exist. For they now tell us that even though we can only directly observe four dimensions, there must somehow, somewhere, exist at least six other dimensions. For, they say, only when we allow for the existence of these extra dimensions, in which forces operate beyond our four dimensional laws of physics, are we able to account for all the properties and principles of "quantum mechanics."
Take, for instance, "string theory." At the very heart of string theory is the proposal that the cosmos experienced a dimensional split at 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang began. At that instant, the ten-dimensional expanding universe split into two pieces: a six-dimensional piece that permanently ceased expanding and never produced matter, and a four dimensional piece that became our dimensions of length, width, height and time. Modern science maintains that only that four dimensional system continued to expand, eventually producing matter and stars. (see Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time)
Now, since modern science believes in the existence of dimensions beyond the four we experience, it seemed to me that I should be able to believe that God exists both in and beyond the four space time dimensions in which we exist. For if as the Bible says God created our physical universe, He would not be bound by the laws of the physical universe which He had created any more than I would be bound by a cage I made to keep my parakeets in. While my birds would be locked inside the width, height and depth constraints of the cage I made, I would not be so constrained. If as the Bible says God created our physical universe, He would have to be omnipresent. For, if He was not, He would be bound by the width, height and depth constraints of the "cage" He had made. The same goes for other natural laws. If God made them, He must have existed before they were made, and so He would not then have been bound by them. And He would not now be bound by them either, unless He chose to climb inside the "cage" He made, close the door and throw away the key
I also learned that Einstein proved that time is only a dimension of our physical universe. And that time began when our physical universe began. Thus, if Christ existed "with God" (John1:1) before the creation of our physical universe He must have existed before time began, and His origin can truthfully be said to be "from the days of time indefinite." (Micah 5:2 NWT) Or for those who prefer plain English, "from everlasting," and "from the days of eternity." (KJV, NAS) So, though in one sense God's Son had a beginning, in another sense He did not. For if Jesus Christ has existed since before time began, when did He begin
It also helped me to remember that Jesus Christ is God's "Only Begotten Son." (John 3:16) To be "begotten," according to both the Biblical and dictionary definitions, means to be produced, not out of nothing, but from a parent's own body. For instance, the Bible tells us that Abraham "begat Isaac" "from his own body." (Gen.15:4; 25:19) And it is widely understood that Isaac pictured Jesus Christ.
Children who are begotten by a human parent, once they are full grown, are also absolutely equal to their parents in every way. In physical stature, in strength, in intelligence, etc. Granted, the child may not have the same position in business or government as his father but, in reality, that child is the parent's equal in every way. I, for instance, will always show my father the special honor a son shows to his father, but at the same time I will always be my father's equal. So, if Jesus Christ was begotten from his Father's own body, so to speak, before time began, he is both eternal (without a beginning in time), as Micah 5:2 says, and his Father's equal, as Philippians 2:6 tells us in most translations of the Bible
Another thing I kept in mind was that our fathers are three dimensional physical people. As such they occupy only a few cubic feet of space. As their sons, begotten from their bodies, we too are three dimensional people who occupy only a few cubic feet of space. For fathers who beget sons always do so "after their own kind," so to speak. Now the Bible tells us that God is not a three dimensional being occupying only a few cubic feet of space. The Bible indicates God is omnipresent. He exists everywhere at the same time. So, if Christ was begotten from God's own body, so to speak, and "after his kind," so to speak, He too would have God's own omnipresent nature.
When I was born the cord connecting my mother and I was cut. At that time I was no longer physically a part of either one of my parents. We soon became even more "disconnected" when I was placed in the hospital nursery fifty feet down the hall. Right now I might be in New York and both my parents might be thousands of miles away from me in California. But if God begat a Son after His own kind, so to speak, He and His Son would both be of the same substance, and thus both omnipresent. If this is so, it becomes very difficult to think of them as two separate Spirit Beings. And since they both have and send forth the same Holy Spirit, as Scripture says they do, from their mutual omnipresent position, it is not difficult to think of God as "three in one." In fact it then becomes more difficult to think of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as separate entities.
Though the Trinity doctrine is clearly a very imperfect, very human, attempt to explain the nature of a God whose nature is clearly far beyond our ability to ever fully comprehend, it is almost certainly a better attempt to do so than the overly simplistic JW "1+1+1 = 3" teaching on the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I am now convinced that all the Scriptures pertaining to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and to their Deity, can only be understood and fully harmonized by someone who does not attempt to put the God of the Bible into some kind of four dimensional box.
-
29
607bce or 586/587 bce ? which is it?
by Number1Anarchist inok this is very difficult for me because i just started studing this question.
what i would like to know is what have you decided from your studies and does anyone know the statistics on how many beleive in the 607 dat and how many beleive in the 586/587 date.. the watchtower likes to say they agree with the 607 because that number is based on the bible when the 586/587 is based on secular history.. from what ive read so far the mojority thinks it to be 586/587 because most searches ive done give me that date.. what have you come up with in your research?
i feel like you almost need to be a scholar to figure this out.
-
-
a Christian
Now we did get an answer to this question if anyone is still interested. But it is difficult to understand historically and contains simple and visible events that take place in the future that are not related to Babylon in any way.
OK, Joseph. I'm interested. To what do you refer?
Mike
-
24
The ''truth'' that lead me to question the WTS.
by RULES & REGULATIONS inthe truth that leads to eternal life says on page 13:.
we need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with whichwe may be associated.
are its teachings in full harmony with god's word, or are they based on the traditions of men?
-
-
a Christian
Chicken Nest,
You asked: How in the hell did we swallow all this crap?
In my case I was born and raised in the cult. Baptized at 15. Like most kids, I believed what I was taught to be true was true. It took a few more years, until I was in my early 20's, before I was mature enough to start doing some "independent thinking."
So how is it then that so many JW's who are born and raised in "the truth" manage to stay in it for so long? All I can figure is that most JW's often deliberately supress and ignore their doubts because they know that to do otherwise might cost them their family and friends. A price that most people are simply not willing to pay in order to take a stand for what they know is really right and really true. I think the answer may also be that most JW's really do believe one very powerful lie which they have heard continually repeated, that even though the organization is not perfect, it is a "spiritual paradise" compared to anything they will ever find outside of the organization. What a lie that is.
A tougher question for me to answer is how in the world do JW's manage to make converts of anyone besides their own children today, with the truth about "the truth" now just a mouse click away for all other folks?
-
24
The ''truth'' that lead me to question the WTS.
by RULES & REGULATIONS inthe truth that leads to eternal life says on page 13:.
we need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with whichwe may be associated.
are its teachings in full harmony with god's word, or are they based on the traditions of men?
-
-
a Christian
Some more JW "traditions of men" : 1. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that there are two different "classes" of Christians with two different hopes for the future. They tell us that only a small minority of Christians will rule with Christ in his kingdom, and they say that the vast majority of Christians will be subjects of those kingdom rulers. However, the apostles taught that there was only "one hope" for all Christians. (Eph. 4:4-6) The apostles also forbid anyone to teach differently than they taught. Since Jehovah's Witnesses teach differently than the apostles on the issue of how many hopes there are for Christians, their two hopes/ two classes of Christians teaching is clearly contrary to the teaching of the scriptures. The Watchtower Society's insistence that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and promote this teaching must then be regarded as a "tradition of men." 2. The Watchtower Society commands Jehovah's Witnesses not to accept blood transfusions. It is widely understood by all Christian groups except Jehovah's Witnesses that the instructions recorded in Acts 15:29, "Keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication," were written as strong advise to new Gentile Christians as a way they could avoid offending Jewish Christians. We know this by reading the context. Acts 15:19, 20 says, "My decision is not to trouble those of the NATIONS who are turning to God, but to write THEM to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." It is plain that these words were not written as a binding decree imposed upon Christians. We know this because Paul later said that early Christians were, in fact, free to eat things sacrificed to idols ( one of the things Christians were advised to "abstain from" in Acts 15 ) so long as doing so did not stumble their brothers. (1 Cor. 8:4,7-9) We also know this because Paul said that for Christians, "All things are lawful but all things are not beneficial." (1 Cor. 6:12) Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses ban on blood is not scriptural. It must therefore also be regarded as a "tradition of men." 3. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that crime, wars, contagious disease, earthquakes, famine and the like are signs of Christ's second presence and have been much worse since the year 1914 than in past generations. They teach that this proves that Christ returned in that year. The facts show that this is a misunderstanding of scripture. Read Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 carefully and you will find what Jesus was really saying. His point was that such conditions would exist all the way up to the time of his return and would not be signs of his return at all. He warned his disciples that they should not be worried by such things. He said, "These things must take place but the end will not come right away." (Luke 21:9) He compared the difficult times to come to "birth pains." (Mt. 24:8) For just as a woman must often undergo a long painful period of time before she finally gives birth, so Jesus indicated that our world had much pain to endure before he would finally return. To support their "composite sign of Christ's invisible presence" interpretation of scripture the Watchtower Society has shamelessly played with crime, war, disease and earthquake statistics ever since it first began in an attempt to prove their contentions. The truth is, however, since 1914 none of these problems has gotten worse and some have actually gotten much better compared to past generations. An objective study of scripture and history clearly shows that the Society's "composite sign" interpretation is not a teaching of scripture. However, the men who run the Watchtower Society command all Jehovah's Witnesses to accept and teach others this misinterpretation of scripture and distortion of history. This teaching too then is a JW "tradition of men." 4. The name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was taken from God's words to Israel recorded in Isaiah 43:10. For a Christian group to take on such a name clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture. First, as mentioned, the words spoken by God recorded in Isaiah 43:10 were spoken to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. The Bible tells us that Christians are to be witnesses of Jesus just as the Jews were witnesses of Jehovah. Jesus said, "You will be witnesses of me." (Acts 1:8) And the Bible tells us that it was "by divine providence," by God's own direction, that His people in the post-Jewish age would be known by the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 11:26 NWT) Thus, instructing Christians to identify themselves by the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture and must be regarded as a command of men and not of God 5. Insisting that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and teach others that Christ returned in the year 1914 is certainly a tradition of men. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Daniel chapter four indicates that Christ would return 2,520 years after the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by the ancient nation of Babylon. They say this destruction took place in the year 607 BCE. However, as all those who have studied this teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses in an unbiased way have discovered, this understanding of Daniel chapter four is in conflict with both the scriptures and ancient history. Accepting and teaching others this highly questionable interpretation of scripture must then also be regarded as merely a "command of men." 6. The same can be said about Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that the resurrection of all Christians who died before the year 1918 occurred in that year. Paul said that those who teach that "the resurrection has already occurred" have "deviated from the truth" and "are subverting the faith." (2 Tim. 2:18) Jehovah's Witnesses teach that "the resurrection has already occurred." Thus, the teaching that the resurrection occurred in 1918 is clearly unscriptural, and the Watchtower Society's demand that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and promote this teaching must be regarded as a "tradition of men" which clearly conflicts with the Word of God. 7. The teaching that Jesus appointed the men who run the Watchtower Society as his "faithful slave" "over all his belongings" in 1919 is certainly not a clear teaching of scripture. Thus, it can only be regarded as a teaching of men, not of God. And the Watchtower Society's insistence that all Jehovah's Witnesses accept and promote this teaching must be regarded as a "command of men." Without any clear statement in scripture that Christ ever appointed the leaders of the Watchtower Society to such a position, such claims by the Watchtower Society are extremely presumptuous. And the Bible tells us that God hates presumptuousness. (Isaiah 13:11) 8. The Watchtower Society's use of the name "Jehovah" is not scriptural. They have added the name "Jehovah" many times to the text of the New Testament even though they admit that, "…no early surviving Greek manuscript of the ‘New Testament’ contains the personal name of God." ( The Watchtower March 1, 1991 p. 28 ) The Watchtower Society has said that they believe that the writers of the New Testament used the divine name in their original writings but that their original writings were later corrupted. However this contradicts what the Society itself has said. The Society tells us that, "Jehovah God has seen to it that his Word has been protected not only from mistakes copyists made but also from attempts of others to make additions to it. The Bible itself contains God’s promise that his Word would be kept in a pure form for us today." ( You Can Live For Ever in Paradise on Earth, 1982 p. 53 ) So, the fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses had no business inserting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations when they themselves admit that that name is not found in any early surviving Greek manuscript of the New Testament. Historians tell us that the personal name of God, as used in the Old Testament, was not used in either its written or spoken form for many years before the time of Christ. Because the Jews were afraid overuse of the divine name might amount to "taking the name of the Lord in vain," they actually forbid its use altogether. The Bible tells us that for Christians the name of Jesus should be promoted "above every name." (Phil. 2:9) But Jehovah's Witnesses do not do this. Their putting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations and promoting that name above every name, rather than the name of Jesus as the Bible says Christians should be doing, and insisting that all Jehovah's Witnesses do the same is clearly a "tradition of men." 9.The Watchtower Society's demand that all Jehovah's Witnesses who share their faith with others keep track of their time doing so, and then report that number of hours they do so each month to their congregations is also contrary to the teachings of scripture. Jesus said that those who let others know what good works they are doing already have their reward in full. But he said that those who give in secret will be the ones who are rewarded by their father in heaven. (Mt. 6:1-4) Jehovah's Witnesses who are "regular publishers" let their elders know exactly how much time they spend preaching. Jehovah's Witnesses who are "Pioneers" let everyone in their congregations know how many hours they preach just by the act of "Pioneering." The Watchtower Society encourages this kind of "trumpet blowing," contrary to the teachings of Christ. Because they do, the Watchtower Society's telling all Jehovah's Witnesses to report the time they spend preaching is not scriptural and must then be regarded as an unscriptural "tradition of men." 10. Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to decide for themselves many minor matters which certainly should be left to an individual Christian's conscience. For instance Jehovah's Witnesses are not even allowed to decide for themselves if they will give their mother a card on Mother's Day or celebrate their child's first Birthday. This is not Christianity. It is legalistic Phariseeism. The Bible says that, "where the Spirit of God is there is freedom." ( 2 Cor. 3:17 ) With this verse in mind, since freedom of action, thought and speech to make decisions for themselves in minor matters such as these does not exist among Jehovah's Witnesses, we can only view the many legalistic prohibitions, which the Watchtower Society imposes on Jehovah's Witnesses, as "traditions of men" and not as commands of God. 11. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to let any member of the military or police join their religion even though the first Gentile accepted into the Christian congregation was a Roman army officer. Peter baptized Cornelius without ever demanding that he first resign from the military. (Acts 10) The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses treat baptismal candidates differently than Peter did shows that, in this area also, they teach "traditions of men as doctrine." ( Matt. 15:9 ) 12. Jehovah's Witnesses "disfellowship" people for things never mentioned in the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses have been disfellowshipped for using tobacco, for celebrating Christmas, for working for a Christian charitable organization and, more and more often today, simply admitting that they doubt the Watchtower Society's claim that it is God's exclusive channel for truth on the earth. Disfellowshipping and then shunning people for such unbiblical reasons clearly shows that the Watchtower Society's instructions to congregational Elders to disfellowship Jehovah's Witnesses for such things are commands of men, not commands of God. 13. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they are considered by God to be Christians and that only they have any hope of surviving Armageddon. Some of Jehovah's Witnesses actually deny the Society teaches this. However, as any well informed member of Jehovah's Witnesses knows, they most certainly do. As the Sept. 1, 1989 issue of the Watchtower tells us on page 19, "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the 'great crowd,' as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil." Jehovah's Witnesses have consistently taught that all members of Christendom's Churches, who are still its members when Armageddon strikes, will be executed by God. This amounts to judging and condemning others in the worst way. Who God now accepts as Christians and who he will destroy at Armageddon is a judgment that is God's to make, not ours. Jesus commanded his followers to "Stop judging and you will not be judged," and "stop condemning and you will not be condemned." ( Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37 ) Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that God only accepts the worship of Jehovah's Witnesses, only considers them to be Christians and that only they "have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system," is not a teaching of Scripture and, in fact, is totally contrary to the teachings of Christ. Thus, the Watchtower Society's instructions to Jehovah's Witnesses that they should accept and promote such judgmental teachings are certainly commands of men and not of God. 14. And, even though "Rules and Regulations" already mentioned this in this thread's opening post, I think it bears repeating. Jehovah's Witnesses demand that all of their members regularly engage in their preaching and disciple making work. However, the Bible says that God gave only "some as evangelists" and only "some as teachers." (Eph. 4:11) Though all true Christians are certainly moved to share their faith with others when the opportunity arises, the teaching that all Christians are required by God to regularly serve as door-to-door preachers contradicts the scriptures and so must also be regarded as "a tradition of men."
-
8
144,000 symbolism.
by iamthewolf5562 inok. i have a question that was never answered for me when i was going to meetings.
humorous answers are appreciated, but if anyone knows the real answer to this, i'd appreciate it, just so my curiousity will shut up.. the witnesses teach that the book of revelation is a book of symbols.
that's how they determined that hell is symbolic of being dead forever and that hell literal doesn't really exist.
-
-
a Christian
First John heard the (symbolic) number of those sealed, "144,000" from all the tribes of (spiritual/symbolic) Israel. (All of revelation is symbolic.)
Then John saw a great crowd "which no one can number," "from every nation."
Contrary to JW teaching, John did not see two groups of people. The number John first "heard" was symbolic of the "great crowd" of people he then "saw."
That group of people is made up of all God's faithful servants througout time, Jews and Christians. For 12 was not only the number of Israel's tribes, it was also the number of Christ's apostles. Thus 12 X 12 = 144 X 1000 (the number the Bible often uses in reference to a large group of people) = 144,000.
That's how I see it anyway.
-
29
Where was Noah's flood ?
by a Christian inone of the things that has long been debated is the location of noah's flood.
the most popular, and most common claim, is that the flood was in mesopotamia, or present day iraq.
but, as has been pointed out on this forum before by alan f and others, the major problem with this theory is that the entire area drains into the persian gulf.
-
-
a Christian
Snowbird,
Aren't all seas 'remnants of the vast body of water that surrounded the supercontinent'?
Mike
-
29
Where was Noah's flood ?
by a Christian inone of the things that has long been debated is the location of noah's flood.
the most popular, and most common claim, is that the flood was in mesopotamia, or present day iraq.
but, as has been pointed out on this forum before by alan f and others, the major problem with this theory is that the entire area drains into the persian gulf.
-
-
a Christian
Hillary,
You wrote: ... this Black Sea/Caspian Sea possible location of the Biblical Flood has been around for years and has been extensively researched scientifically. The evidence seems to point to a huge breach in the land mass between the two seas at some point in recent history.
The Black Sea is believed to have risen some 400 feet and its shoreline moved inland some 24 miles in about 5600 BC when the rising Mediterranean spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosporus into it. I don't see a connection here between the Black Sea flood, which we know took place, and a hypothetical flood in the area of the Caspian Sea which I have here suggested.
In any case, I don't believe the Black Sea flood is a good candidate for Noah's flood since a location for the Garden of Eden has never been proposed near it, which I believe is necessary to fulfill the conditions set down in Genesis for the location of Noah's flood. It is primarily the location for Eden near the Caspian Sea, recently convincingly set forth by David Rohl, that has caused me to take a closer look at the Caspian Sea as the source of Noah's flood.
-
29
Where was Noah's flood ?
by a Christian inone of the things that has long been debated is the location of noah's flood.
the most popular, and most common claim, is that the flood was in mesopotamia, or present day iraq.
but, as has been pointed out on this forum before by alan f and others, the major problem with this theory is that the entire area drains into the persian gulf.
-
-
a Christian
Snowbird,
I believe you are right in understanding Genesis 1:9 to refer to the formation of Pangaea, one super continent arising from what had been a global ocean covering all land. But science tells us that Pangaea existed some 250 million years ago, long before the existence of man.
Consider Antiquities of the Jews, by Josephus: (I. x. 4) : "Heber beget Joctan and Phaleg: he was called Phaleg, because he was born at the dispersion of the nations to their several countries; for Phaleg, among the Hebrews, signifies division."
Josephus, and most likely most other ancient Jews, understood this passage to say that it was the people of the land who were then divided (not the earth - the Hebrew word sometimes translated here as "earth" is translated elsewhere as "land" - as in "the land of Canaan," etc.). His words clearly imply he believed that this passage was referring to the time of the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel. He states that Peleg was born at the time of this dispersal, thus, the reason for his so being named.
Mike
.
-
29
Where was Noah's flood ?
by a Christian inone of the things that has long been debated is the location of noah's flood.
the most popular, and most common claim, is that the flood was in mesopotamia, or present day iraq.
but, as has been pointed out on this forum before by alan f and others, the major problem with this theory is that the entire area drains into the persian gulf.
-
-
a Christian
One of the things that has long been debated is the location of Noah's flood. The most popular, and most common claim, is that the flood was in Mesopotamia, or present day Iraq. But, as has been pointed out on this forum before by Alan F and others, the major problem with this theory is that the entire area drains into the Persian Gulf. There is no possible way Mesopotamia could have contained the flood waters. So a flood of the magnitude and duration described in Genesis could never have occurred there. The rain waters would simply run away into the ocean. The only way to make this work is to have God perform a miraculous event at the southern end, making an invisible wall, or barrier, to keep the flood waters within the region. But there is no indication in the biblical text that this occurred. So if Noah's flood did not take place in Mesopotamia, where else could it have taken place? The site of the flood would have to meet four requirements. First, it would have to be capable of containing the waters of the flood. In order to do this, we need a basin, with no outlet to the sea. If there were an outlet, the water would simply run out of the area. Second, the flood would have to fit the parameters mentioned in the Bible. Noah believed that the world was flooded, and that all the mountains were covered with water. Therefore this would require that the basin for the flood be large enough for Noah not to see any mountains from the center of the basin where the ark was floating. Third, this flood location would have to include the areas populated by Adam and Eve's descendants. That would include the area around the Garden of Eden, and east of the Garden. For when God drove them out of the Garden, he placed a cherubim at the east of the Garden (Genesis 3:24). This would indicate that Adam and Eve went east out of the Garden. We also have another clue in Genesis 4:16. Cain was sent away, and he settled in the land of Nod, which was east of Eden. Therefore, if we know the location of the Garden, we know the location of the Flood, since it had to cover the lands east of the Garden.
Finally, the ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. Note that the Bible says mountains of Ararat, and not "on Mount Ararat." The Ararat range is several hundred miles long, so the ark could be anywhere along this range. Although the taller mountains in the range are to the east, mountains extend westward all the way to the Mediterranean.
I believe the Caspian Sea is the most likely location for Noah's flood based on all the evidence. Here's why.
(From Wikipedia) "The Caspian Sea is the largest enclosed body of water on Earth by area ... It is an endorheic body of water (has no outflows), The Caspian ecosystem is a closed basin, with its own sea level history that is independent of the eustatic level of the world's oceans. The level of the Caspian has fallen and risen, often rapidly, many times over the centuries. Some Russian historians claim that a medieval rising of the Caspian caused the coastal towns of Khazaria, such as Atil, to flood."
It is clear that Noah would see no land, not even tall mountains, if he were in the center of a flood expanded Caspian Sea. For even in today's Caspian Sea, if you were in the middle of the southern portion, you would be over 180 miles from the tallest mountain, and you would see no mountains.
In his book, Legend: The Genesis of Civilization, a rchaeologist David Rohl proposes, I think quite convincingly, that the Garden of Eden was located in north-west Iran, near the city of Tabriz. (However, Rohl does not suggest the Caspian Sea location for Noah's flood.) According to Rohl the Garden of Eden was located in a vast plain referred to in ancient Sumerian texts as Edin, east of the Sahand Mountain, near Tabriz. He cites several geological similarities with Biblical descriptions, and multiple linguistic parallels as evidence. Additionally, he points out that this location is bound by the "headwaters" of four rivers, which Rohl identifies as those of the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:10-14)
The map below shows the Caspian sea, and the part in yellow shows the drainage basin. Since this is a closed basin, so theoretically the waters of Noah's flood could have filled up and stood for an indefinite period of time in the entire area in yellow. In the lower left portion of the drainage basin we find the city of Tabriz,which is Rohl's location for the Garden of Eden. If Rohl is right, and if Adam and Eve and their descendants settled in the lands "East of Eden," as Genesis tells us they did, they would have lived near the Caspian Sea.
The requirement for the ark to land on the mountains of Ararat is met, because the mountains on the west side of the southern portion of the Caspian are within what is considered the Ararat range. In fact, Mount Ararat itself is within the drainage basin. However, given the elevation on the west side of the Caspian, it would not be possible to float the ark all the way to Mount Ararat. However, it could easily land on the slopes of the mountains to the east of Mount Ararat
I see only one problem with this understanding. From what I have read, the Caspian basin has few "flood deposits." This can be explained in one of two ways, if indeed Noah's flood did take place near the Caspian Sea. The flood took place a long, long time ago, (longer than some understand Genesis to indicate) since to completely erode flood sediments takes many thousands of years. Or the winds that God sent over the earth causing the flood waters to recede (Gen. 8:1) swept away the sediments that floods, which are not accompanied by such winds, normally leave behind.
I believer the Caspian Sea location for Noah's Flood fits all the parameters. It is a "closed basin" capable of holding onto the flood waters for a long period of time and also an area large enough to prevent Noah from seeing any surrounding land masses. Based on recent archaeological research by David Rohl, the Garden of Eden is believed to have existed just to the west of the flooded area. And finally the ark would have come to rest on mountains that are part of the Ararat range.
Thanks to Greg Neyman for much of the above information.
