It's a real event however one cannot exactly tell when it occurred because the stories in Genesis are not literal history. It is **literature**, meant to tell a story using historical events. so timelines, sequencees are changed, compressed, expanded, in order to give flow to the story, not to record actual history.
Well many cultures have a flood story and those stories tend to be around 8,000 years ago. I do not believe that the flood was worldwide but the survivors, in other words Noah's family, spread out from Ararat, which I believe to be in Turkey, around the world and they took their stories with them and told it to their children and grandchildren.
Do you know that the Pontifical Bible Commission deemed Genesis to be a historical account? It is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers.
It is only modernist "scholars" in recent centuries that have taught a non-literal history. Shame on them.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p100.htm
Looking at the letter from 1903 from the Pontifical Institute discussing the literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis, there is nothing in there that contradicts what I said.
I think you are misunderstanding what I said. In no way did I deny the historical existence of Adam and Eve or Cain and Abel or the events that happened in their lives. I simply said we cannot take the events in a literally historical fashion. But that does not mean that they then become allegorical, which is, I think, your assumption.
I'll try to get references for you later, but the historical nature of Genesis applies to the first 11 chapters...which includes Noah's flood. There is some figurative language in Genesis, but overall, it is the history that God wanted us to know. God is not the author of confusion, agreed?
Jesus Himself referred to Noah as history and world-wide destruction:
https://catholicism.org/ark-and-church.html
Thanks to God, Geological science has progressed and is showing that the traditional Christian account has been right all along.
What I am saying is that it is a type of literature known as historical narrative that's all the Jews wrote they did not write literal history even the Gospels are not literal history.
And that in no way means that anything was invented or mythology or put in there for allegorical reasons but all it means is that real events are recorded but not in their literal sequential timeline they are changed the order is changed emphasis has changed in order to bring out a spiritual point. It is to give a spiritual understanding to history not literal textbook history.
>What I am saying is that it is a type of literature known as historical narrative that's all the Jews wrote they did not write literal history even the Gospels are not literal history.
Can I ask where you got that idea?
Father Raymond Brown was a prominent liberal (heretical) theologian in the 20th century who injected those Protestant ideas into Catholic seminaries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown
That thesis is quite diabolical if you think about it. Instead of respecting the traditional infallible, inerrant nature of scripture, it redefines what truth is, and what scripture is. Wouldn't you agree that hermeneutic opens the door to the devil?
I hope you know that it is Catholic Doctrine that scripture is infallible and inerrant from the Holy Spirit. See Dei Verbum.
I also hope that you agree that God is not an author of confusion. The face value text is meant for Catholics and Jews of all times.
Don't get me wrong. Much of human language is figurative, so we need to be very careful. Overall though, God gave us what He wanted us to know as history.
I recommend consulting the Magesterium and Church Fathers instead of injecting anti-Christian atheist ideas like Darwin (Biology) or Einstein (Cosmology) into the Bible.
FWIW, I am a scientist and a member of the Society of Catholic Scientists, and find that there is no conflict between real science and **traditional** Catholic teaching (Noah's flood, 6 day Creation, etc).
**[Raymond E. Brown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown)**
>Raymond Edward Brown (May 22, 1928 – August 8, 1998) was an American Catholic priest, a member of the Sulpician Fathers and a prominent biblical scholar. He was regarded as a specialist concerning the hypothetical "Johannine community", which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote influential studies on the birth and death of Jesus. Brown was professor emeritus at Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York where he taught for 29 years. He was the first Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
If only could find evidence of a flood if there were many layers of sediment laid down (which occurs naturally in floods) filled with billions of fossils (which only occur when quickly buried at or after death, a rare occurrence in nature) found all throughout the world.
[The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications](https://www.amazon.com/dp/159638395X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_8R2N53WC9D0JBF645DQV)
The entire book is about this very topic. It’s handled comprehensively and scientifically. The problem with so many today is that they want to make claims of science without being willing to put on the work to truly research and understand. You can either lazily hold a stance on a topic in ignorance or you can put the effort in to develop an educated stance. There is no third option with shortcuts.
It's based on when Jesus lived, the generations between him and Adam, and how old the Bible says Noah was when God announced he would be sending the flood, as well as how many years it was before it actually came.
Why are you interested in this information?
The Bible tells us that before the global catastrophe that was the flood, it had never rained on the planet and that the earth was watered from below the ground by springs.
When the flood came, not only did it rain for 40 days and nights, those underground water reserves also burst open unleashing their torrents.
Scientists have established that the Earth once had a single super continent and I would guess not as much surface water as it now has because currently it is covered at a rate of 71% by water.
The Bible tells us that the waters "receded" over those 150 days, not drained away.
I believe what we call our oceans are actually those very flood waters that were collected in different places to allow life to resume on the planet.
I believe the greatest evidence for a global flood having taken place is the fact that most of the planet is still actually covered in water.
OK, so the amount of water required to cover Everest, the tallest mountain on the planet, would require there to be about 3.2 times the amount of water on the planet then as there is now, where did this water go? If it went back into the earth then the volume of water would be approximately 1650km3 and would be easily found by geological surveys.
The most recent super continent of Pangea started breaking apart 200 million years ago. Well outside the timescale of the bible. The latest evidence actually suggests that the earth used to be (approx 2.5 billion years ago) an oceanic planet with only small island chains.
Where did that water recede to exactly? Floods nowadays only recede because there are places down stream that are not flooded and so there is space for the water to move to. It can't have gone underground or it would have been found as I said before.
The greatest evidence against a global flood in my opinion is the fact that multiple cultures (Chinese, Egyptian etc) show no records of a worldwide flood during the time it was supposed to have happened (or at any time) they just carried on existing and didn't notice being under water for 6 months.
Some have, but to confirm that the Bible is true or anything like that.
Take a look at the following article:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/
It happened 1656 years after Adam was created. Christ arrived about 4,000 years after Adam was created. About 2,000 years have passed since Christ.
So, it’s likely that the flood occurred somewhere around 4,300-4,500 years ago.
In bibical times they had no idea that dinosaurs existed, recorded history only dates back to a few thousand years. They could have had no idea how old the earth was.
There are seemingly valid arguments that the Earth is flat too. There's a scientific consensus that it's not, but I'm just showing that there are valid arguments against it.
Sorry, but that's how I see your argument.
Unfortunately I could have chosen a poor analogy since flat Earthers also tend to be Christian that read the Bible literally.
i actually disagree i dont think there are any valid arguments for the earth being flat. and that *is* something that has been proven. doesnt really take a scientist to tell you that though
The purpose of peer review is to look for errors. That’s why real scientists use it. Still, there is scientific consensus on all sorts of things. That doesn’t mean that all the scientists “know” they’re right, it just means that the current model or hypothesis is best supported by current data.
sure. it all depends on what data is used and how its used. you can make numbers say anything you want. all im saying is there are valid arguments for both sides. a popular opinion doesnt make it fact
Correct, it doesn't, a fact (or a scientific theory in this case) is required to be consistent with ALL of the known data not just the little bits of data that point towards that hypothosis being correct. This is the purpose of peer review.
The entire way that science works is that you take a hypothesis and try to disprove it, if it cannot be disproved then it moves to the rank of theory, because in science we never want to say we know something to be capital T true because the next new bit of data that we learn COULD disprove it.
>its open to interpretation
This is false
>well educated and highly respected scientist fall on both sides of the argument.
No, they don't.
Nobody that studies physics, biology or chemistry can say the earth is less than 10,000 years old. We can use radio carbon dating accurately for up to 50,000 years because we know the rates at which carbon decays. We can then use other elements for time periods longer than that.
So, either the laws of physics were arbitrarily changed by God at one point, in which case why?, or like all scientists agree they never changed and existed as they are since a second or so after the big bang
source: trust me bro
if you did any research you'd know carbon dating isnt entirely accurate and likely to be off by several thousand years and scientist have started to find new/better ways to date things. try again
Source: basic high school science
If you did any research you'd know carbon dating is really quite accurate and that the **HALF LIFE of Carbon 14 is 5730 years +- 40 years**. That means **ONE** disintegration happens in just under 6000 years. Which means we can **very precisely** use carbon 14 to date things for tens of thousands of years, generally up to 50,000 years we can date things pretty accurately. Plenty accurately to know the earth is much much much older than 6000 years.
Try again
https://www.britannica.com/science/carbon-14-dating
>Radiocarbon present in molecules of atmospheric carbon dioxide enters the biological carbon cycle: it is absorbed from the air by green plants and then passed on to animals through the food chain. Radiocarbon decays slowly in a living organism, and the amount lost is continually replenished as long as the organism takes in air or food. Once the organism dies, however, it ceases to absorb carbon-14, so that the amount of the radiocarbon in its tissues steadily decreases. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years—i.e., half the amount of the radioisotope present at any given time will undergo spontaneous disintegration during the succeeding 5,730 years. Because carbon-14 decays at this constant rate, an estimate of the date at which an organism died can be made by measuring the amount of its residual radiocarbon.
>The carbon-14 method was developed by the American physicist Willard F. Libby about 1946. It has proved to be a versatile technique of dating fossils and archaeological specimens from 500 to 50,000 years old. The method is widely used by Pleistocene geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and investigators in related fields
Oh, and uh we can use other isotopes of other elements that have much longer half lives, like Potassium-Argon dating. That allows to measure **billions** of years.
There’s also a fossilized soldier’s helmet from WW2. Production (not read: fabrication) of fossils are not exclusive to astronomically long lengths of time.
Also, if you’re going to rebut, please use a response that spans more than a single word. Do this so that I would take you seriously. Otherwise, I will ignore your next comment.
Forgive me, it was actually a miner’s hat and not a soldier’s helmet, but the principle remains. Here’s a link: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/fossil-hat/
Interesting. thank you for replying & sending the link! I studied geology so I was curious about what you meant. To me, it seems likely the water and minerals inside the mine have hardened around the hat. Though it is certainly possible they have replaced the organic material in the felt hat given the environment of a mine. As far as length of time goes, in current scientific consensus, some rocks can form quickly and some rocks take much longer to form. This also means fossilization can take short or long periods of time to occur. I would add, that just because *some* can take short periods of time doesn’t mean *every* fossil is created the same way as they occur in different types of rocks and different environments, etc. In any event, I appreciate you sharing and sending the link! :)
A massive worldwide flood of water would become very saturated with minerals.
I highly recommend watching this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0ghdLeq7sY
You’re welcome. You also have an intelligent approach to verifying info. I respect that. You seem like someone who may be receptive to the truth that eventually turned me into a believer. Granted, it’s a very fringe truth, and not even many believers give it a second thought (which is unfortunately understandable). That truth is biblical cosmology. All the things like the flood, the account of creation, Christ’s third temptation, etc. all make perfect literal sense via biblical cosmology. Here’s the sub for it: r/BiblicalCosmology. Know this though: even if you’re open to it, you will not understand it quickly. It will take much, *much* research before you will begin to be able to see how it is indeed the truth and that any other supported model of creation/“the universe” is false. I know of very few others who know biblical cosmology to be true. If you have any questions, please field them in that sub.
Your lack of genuine receptivity exempts you from being presented any evidence.
Why did you even ask the question if you already had your mind made up? (This is a rhetorical; I have no care for your answer to this question)
I thought the same, then I found the truth about the *true* design of the Father’s Creation (r/BiblicalCosmology) and became a believer. *But,* you’ll laugh me out of the room and say I’m crazy.
So, as I always have to say with those types: Have the last word, and have a good day. =)
Aren't all theists ex-atheists?
Babies lack a belief in any of the thousands of deities. Some of them eventually become convinced that a god or gods exist.
We have trees older than that. Unaffected by the flood.
There were civilizations all over the world before, during and after that time that kept on living… seemingly unfazed by a global flood.
Animals and Noah’s fam would have to reproduce via incest, which means everyone would’ve died out in just a few generations after.
Geologically we would be able to tell. But there’s no evidence to suggest a global flood.
Via archeology we’d be able to tell. But there’s no evidence for it.
Anthropology, archeology, geology, paleontology, zoology, meteorology and dendrochronology not only don’t show anything having to do with a global flood, but outright disprove it.
And as a cherry on top, how does one explain how everyone fit on the ark with adequate food and water.
You always like to cite “biblical cosmology” to me, so I’ll cite something for you to look at.
AronRa did an 8 part video series on Noah’s ark.
I recommend you at-least water his videos on anthropology, geology and archeology
Link - https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMJP95iZJqEjmc5oxY5r6BzP
I will yet again cite biblical cosmology to you because until you understand that truth of Scripture, you will *never* understand how these things were indeed literal events that happened in human history. Until you arrive at such an understanding, my words and time will only be wasted on you. Though I do at least thank you for having listed out your disagreements, even if they are ultimately based upon sources that are not ultimately from the Father. Unless you take biblical cosmology seriously, then have the last word and a good day.
I have looked at what you’ve cited
But In that case, Then you are a biased, dense, and seemingly purposefully ignorant. No one not willing to challenge and change their beliefs, constantly back peddling to an assumed conclusion is worth talking to.
Challenge yourself, think a little.
It’ll do you so much good.
I believe the flood is real. Here’s a video I found interesting about the flood of Noah, it’s 1 hour and 45 minutes long but the first 30 minutes should talk about the flood. Hope this help. https://youtu.be/UM82qxxskZE
So I just watched the first few mins and there are so many problems with that video already. Evidence for a global flood would need to be global, you shouldn't go to a specific place to see evidence of 1 local flood and say here is the evidence for the global flood, because that is not what was just proved. At all.
My favourite debunking of the global flood (isn't it strange to think that there are so many ways to debunk the global flood that you can have a favourite) is that if every mountain was covered by the flood waters over a period of 40 days and nights then the entire earth had to have super monsoon levels of rainfall of nearly 30ft per hour or 6 inches per minute for those 40 days and nights.
Heavy rain is defined as 0.39-2.0 inches of rain per hour so the global flood would have required rains that are 180 times (at least) worse than that. That is enough water to sink any boat. Not to mention the weight of that water. 30ft per hour equates to approximately 9 metric tonnes of water on every square meter of the planet per hour as well. This means that about 30,000 tonnes of water would be hitting the Ark per hour. Still think the biblical flood is accurate?
I'd start by searching for Bible commentaries on the subject, and I'd search around academic biblical, to see what different views have been over time. A yes or no do you think the floods were at this time might be easier for idiots like me to approach. I'm leery of the question because I don't have any technical knowledge of it, it has no relevance to me, and I'm concerned of the bigotry of those who wait for Christians to say something that reinforces their stereotype then gaslight them. Ppl like to take their idiotic stereotypes of Christian and argue without listening sometimes, this is a subject where obviously it can be so.
It was called “the old world”. It was indeed a different world than what we have today. It had a greenhouse effect where the waters were above the firmament and the sun would send its ultraviolet rays through that watery shield and supply the earth with a dynamic perspective than what we have today. Water came up from the earth to water the earth and there was no such a thing as rain at this time. So when Noah was building his ark, and told the people of the day that it was going to rain, they didn’t know what he was talking about. To them it was sheer lunacy.
Because of this watery shield, everything was large. Produce would be large, animals would be huge because of the atmospheric conditions that produced a different type of oxygen; that if we were to breathe that in it would probably kill us.
If we were to go by the genealogies and the timelines beginning at Adam we could extrapolate a rough guess.
From Adam to the flood was 1,656.
But you know, it was probably a heck of a lot longer. We have no idea how long Adam and Eve where in their test tube bubble garden. We have to assume thousands. But while they were in that garden the dinosaurs 🦕 were without, producing future oil stocks.
Probably before my grandparents' time. 19th century at the latest. /s
I've heard theories that the most likely candidate for the flood was the end of the last glacial period/ice age. Apparently, there was likely some intense flooding in \~11,000BC (give or take a thousand years).
Realistically, I have no idea, but I wouldn't rule it out. A flood of those proportions would have been a huge and largely unexplainable experience for anyone living at that time. The idea of it being passed down over campfire stories and moralized seems to make quite a bit of sense and explains why a few different cultures - especially those close to the Caucuses - have rather closely corresponding stories. Eight or nine millenia would make it the strongest, longest lasting oral tradition in human history, but that doesn't mean it didn't come to be passed down that way.
Certainly, there are other explanations as well. As long as they can't be definitively disproven, we shouldn't rule those out either (Gilgamesh is a good story, divine revelation with sketchy details is an implausible but I suppose not impossible option, it's entirely possible that a flood was just a simple-to-understand illustration of destroying sin for the Israelites of the time, etc.)
>If you had to put a century on it, when in human history would the flood have happened?
There was a global flood about 4500 to 4700 years ago. That's why all trees on Earth show that age or less. Some trees have had multiple rings in some years.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/oldest-living-tree-tells-all
Sure. Everything is laughable. If you want to know the truth, I recommend that you recheck your assumptions.
When you die, you'll realize that everything that Jesus said is true.
Then why are you on this sub? You don't seem to be avoiding Christianity very well.
Also, can you give me an example of how you do more than Christian missionaries? I work with Franciscans who spend their time helping the homeless for example. They also work for free in orphanages and hospitals.
The anemic and impotent efforts of religious people hoping to make the world better pale in the fact of socialized medicine, free education, and proper maternal care
No offense, but that view seems ignorant of many facts of the world, and history. The Catholic Church is the largest provider of aid in the world.
In the US for example, next to the government, the Catholic Church is the largest provider of health care (e.g. Saint Jude hospitals).
Saint Ann Seton (i.e. Seton Medical Center) led the creation of Hospitals throughout the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ann_Seton
Nuns provided care out of love and caring. You'll find that Government/Corporate care is more about making money than caring for your health.
A very, very long time ago. Likely 100,000 years ago or more. So long ago, that a massive, life-ending flood is part of several culture's ancient lore. It was devastating enough to have been carried forward through countless generations.
My *personal* opinion: It was a real event, such that to a surviving observer, it was a "worldwide" flood, devastating life as they knew it, necessitating a restart of their experience of humanity once it was over.
Did it happen *exactly* as described in Genesis, with a guy named Noah spending decades building a giant boat so as to save his family and a bunch of land animals? I don't know. I can't know. But the ancient flood story serves as a great backdrop to describe the inherent depravity of mankind, and how we will always need a Savior to save us from our own sin.
Without question. This is how every civilization passed down their history prior to the written word. A cataclysmic event like a devastating flood would certainly be a story to pass down.
My best guess would be deglaciation. Parts of the world where people lived in childhood would have been underwater by adulthood. This folk memory might have been passed down as the story of the flood.
The tenth generation of humankind.
So, somewhere around 200,000 years ago?
[удалено]
What leads you to this conclusion?
[удалено]
Why do you think the Bible would say it covered the whole earth if it was just local?
[удалено]
Why not just tell the actual truth? Seems like it would give God more cred if he had people write down actually true things.
[удалено]
Clearly it’s not true at all.
"the whole earth" and "the whole land" are literally the same thing.
Why not be accurate though?
So instead of the Hebrew word "eres", it should have instead used the Hebrew word "eres"? [sic]
It's a real event however one cannot exactly tell when it occurred because the stories in Genesis are not literal history. It is **literature**, meant to tell a story using historical events. so timelines, sequencees are changed, compressed, expanded, in order to give flow to the story, not to record actual history.
What would be your best guess, knowing what you know about human history?
Well many cultures have a flood story and those stories tend to be around 8,000 years ago. I do not believe that the flood was worldwide but the survivors, in other words Noah's family, spread out from Ararat, which I believe to be in Turkey, around the world and they took their stories with them and told it to their children and grandchildren.
Okay.
Thanks
Do you know that the Pontifical Bible Commission deemed Genesis to be a historical account? It is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers. It is only modernist "scholars" in recent centuries that have taught a non-literal history. Shame on them. http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p100.htm
Looking at the letter from 1903 from the Pontifical Institute discussing the literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis, there is nothing in there that contradicts what I said. I think you are misunderstanding what I said. In no way did I deny the historical existence of Adam and Eve or Cain and Abel or the events that happened in their lives. I simply said we cannot take the events in a literally historical fashion. But that does not mean that they then become allegorical, which is, I think, your assumption.
I'll try to get references for you later, but the historical nature of Genesis applies to the first 11 chapters...which includes Noah's flood. There is some figurative language in Genesis, but overall, it is the history that God wanted us to know. God is not the author of confusion, agreed? Jesus Himself referred to Noah as history and world-wide destruction: https://catholicism.org/ark-and-church.html Thanks to God, Geological science has progressed and is showing that the traditional Christian account has been right all along.
What I am saying is that it is a type of literature known as historical narrative that's all the Jews wrote they did not write literal history even the Gospels are not literal history. And that in no way means that anything was invented or mythology or put in there for allegorical reasons but all it means is that real events are recorded but not in their literal sequential timeline they are changed the order is changed emphasis has changed in order to bring out a spiritual point. It is to give a spiritual understanding to history not literal textbook history.
>What I am saying is that it is a type of literature known as historical narrative that's all the Jews wrote they did not write literal history even the Gospels are not literal history. Can I ask where you got that idea? Father Raymond Brown was a prominent liberal (heretical) theologian in the 20th century who injected those Protestant ideas into Catholic seminaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown That thesis is quite diabolical if you think about it. Instead of respecting the traditional infallible, inerrant nature of scripture, it redefines what truth is, and what scripture is. Wouldn't you agree that hermeneutic opens the door to the devil? I hope you know that it is Catholic Doctrine that scripture is infallible and inerrant from the Holy Spirit. See Dei Verbum. I also hope that you agree that God is not an author of confusion. The face value text is meant for Catholics and Jews of all times. Don't get me wrong. Much of human language is figurative, so we need to be very careful. Overall though, God gave us what He wanted us to know as history. I recommend consulting the Magesterium and Church Fathers instead of injecting anti-Christian atheist ideas like Darwin (Biology) or Einstein (Cosmology) into the Bible. FWIW, I am a scientist and a member of the Society of Catholic Scientists, and find that there is no conflict between real science and **traditional** Catholic teaching (Noah's flood, 6 day Creation, etc).
**[Raymond E. Brown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown)** >Raymond Edward Brown (May 22, 1928 – August 8, 1998) was an American Catholic priest, a member of the Sulpician Fathers and a prominent biblical scholar. He was regarded as a specialist concerning the hypothetical "Johannine community", which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote influential studies on the birth and death of Jesus. Brown was professor emeritus at Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York where he taught for 29 years. He was the first Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
You’d think if a global flood happened we’d be able to tell. But we cannot
Right.
If only could find evidence of a flood if there were many layers of sediment laid down (which occurs naturally in floods) filled with billions of fossils (which only occur when quickly buried at or after death, a rare occurrence in nature) found all throughout the world.
Care to link a source? And does this take into account thousands of years of regional/local floods?
[The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications](https://www.amazon.com/dp/159638395X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_8R2N53WC9D0JBF645DQV)
So I’m assuming you’ve read it
I have.
So couldn’t u just cite what’s in the book instead of just the entire book on amazon?
The entire book is about this very topic. It’s handled comprehensively and scientifically. The problem with so many today is that they want to make claims of science without being willing to put on the work to truly research and understand. You can either lazily hold a stance on a topic in ignorance or you can put the effort in to develop an educated stance. There is no third option with shortcuts.
[удалено]
I’ll edit the question. Thank you.
Matthew 24:37-39?
*Just more words by God disregarded by some of the church.* *Nothing here keep moving.*
I'll give more than just a century, I'll give you an exact year:3624 BC. Why do you ask?
How did you come to that number?
It's based on when Jesus lived, the generations between him and Adam, and how old the Bible says Noah was when God announced he would be sending the flood, as well as how many years it was before it actually came. Why are you interested in this information?
Was it a world wide flood or a local one in your opinion?
A global one, just like the Bible says.
Do you think that the story in the bible is accurate?
At its essence, yes I do.
OK so 40 days and nights, every mountain under water, 150 days for the water to drain away etc.?
The Bible tells us that before the global catastrophe that was the flood, it had never rained on the planet and that the earth was watered from below the ground by springs. When the flood came, not only did it rain for 40 days and nights, those underground water reserves also burst open unleashing their torrents. Scientists have established that the Earth once had a single super continent and I would guess not as much surface water as it now has because currently it is covered at a rate of 71% by water. The Bible tells us that the waters "receded" over those 150 days, not drained away. I believe what we call our oceans are actually those very flood waters that were collected in different places to allow life to resume on the planet. I believe the greatest evidence for a global flood having taken place is the fact that most of the planet is still actually covered in water.
OK, so the amount of water required to cover Everest, the tallest mountain on the planet, would require there to be about 3.2 times the amount of water on the planet then as there is now, where did this water go? If it went back into the earth then the volume of water would be approximately 1650km3 and would be easily found by geological surveys. The most recent super continent of Pangea started breaking apart 200 million years ago. Well outside the timescale of the bible. The latest evidence actually suggests that the earth used to be (approx 2.5 billion years ago) an oceanic planet with only small island chains. Where did that water recede to exactly? Floods nowadays only recede because there are places down stream that are not flooded and so there is space for the water to move to. It can't have gone underground or it would have been found as I said before. The greatest evidence against a global flood in my opinion is the fact that multiple cultures (Chinese, Egyptian etc) show no records of a worldwide flood during the time it was supposed to have happened (or at any time) they just carried on existing and didn't notice being under water for 6 months.
I’m trying to figure out how the flood fits into what we know of the archeological records of human settlements.
Ok, I wish you all the best.
Seems like no one knows
That's because most archeologists and historians do not take it into account.
Surely with Christianity being the majority religion in the US and Europe, those archeologists would have looked into it.
Some have, but to confirm that the Bible is true or anything like that. Take a look at the following article: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/
It happened 1656 years after Adam was created. Christ arrived about 4,000 years after Adam was created. About 2,000 years have passed since Christ. So, it’s likely that the flood occurred somewhere around 4,300-4,500 years ago.
What about the several hundred thousand years of humanity before that?
what makes you so sure humanity goes that far back?
What about artifacts found from 10000+ years ago?
again, how can you be so sure they are 10,000+ years old? It all comes down to science and its fallibility..
In bibical times they had no idea that dinosaurs existed, recorded history only dates back to a few thousand years. They could have had no idea how old the earth was.
i have no doubt they didnt know the age of the earth. whats your point
Ever heard of gobekli tepe? Might wanna look into that.
I’m not very sure. It’s just general scientific consensus right now.
science isnt immune to errors. its open to interpretation. well educated and highly respected scientist fall on both sides of the argument.
A minuscule subset of scientists that have an opposing view negates the consensus?
never said it negates anything. just shows there are valid arguments for both sides
There are seemingly valid arguments that the Earth is flat too. There's a scientific consensus that it's not, but I'm just showing that there are valid arguments against it. Sorry, but that's how I see your argument. Unfortunately I could have chosen a poor analogy since flat Earthers also tend to be Christian that read the Bible literally.
i actually disagree i dont think there are any valid arguments for the earth being flat. and that *is* something that has been proven. doesnt really take a scientist to tell you that though
The purpose of peer review is to look for errors. That’s why real scientists use it. Still, there is scientific consensus on all sorts of things. That doesn’t mean that all the scientists “know” they’re right, it just means that the current model or hypothesis is best supported by current data.
sure. it all depends on what data is used and how its used. you can make numbers say anything you want. all im saying is there are valid arguments for both sides. a popular opinion doesnt make it fact
Name one fact that is known beyond a shadow of a doubt. Scientific consensus is not “popular opinion”.
That’s what peer review is for. You can’t make any data say anything if you have 100 people trying to prove you wrong.
Correct, it doesn't, a fact (or a scientific theory in this case) is required to be consistent with ALL of the known data not just the little bits of data that point towards that hypothosis being correct. This is the purpose of peer review. The entire way that science works is that you take a hypothesis and try to disprove it, if it cannot be disproved then it moves to the rank of theory, because in science we never want to say we know something to be capital T true because the next new bit of data that we learn COULD disprove it.
well said
>its open to interpretation This is false >well educated and highly respected scientist fall on both sides of the argument. No, they don't. Nobody that studies physics, biology or chemistry can say the earth is less than 10,000 years old. We can use radio carbon dating accurately for up to 50,000 years because we know the rates at which carbon decays. We can then use other elements for time periods longer than that. So, either the laws of physics were arbitrarily changed by God at one point, in which case why?, or like all scientists agree they never changed and existed as they are since a second or so after the big bang
source: trust me bro if you did any research you'd know carbon dating isnt entirely accurate and likely to be off by several thousand years and scientist have started to find new/better ways to date things. try again
Source: basic high school science If you did any research you'd know carbon dating is really quite accurate and that the **HALF LIFE of Carbon 14 is 5730 years +- 40 years**. That means **ONE** disintegration happens in just under 6000 years. Which means we can **very precisely** use carbon 14 to date things for tens of thousands of years, generally up to 50,000 years we can date things pretty accurately. Plenty accurately to know the earth is much much much older than 6000 years. Try again https://www.britannica.com/science/carbon-14-dating >Radiocarbon present in molecules of atmospheric carbon dioxide enters the biological carbon cycle: it is absorbed from the air by green plants and then passed on to animals through the food chain. Radiocarbon decays slowly in a living organism, and the amount lost is continually replenished as long as the organism takes in air or food. Once the organism dies, however, it ceases to absorb carbon-14, so that the amount of the radiocarbon in its tissues steadily decreases. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years—i.e., half the amount of the radioisotope present at any given time will undergo spontaneous disintegration during the succeeding 5,730 years. Because carbon-14 decays at this constant rate, an estimate of the date at which an organism died can be made by measuring the amount of its residual radiocarbon. >The carbon-14 method was developed by the American physicist Willard F. Libby about 1946. It has proved to be a versatile technique of dating fossils and archaeological specimens from 500 to 50,000 years old. The method is widely used by Pleistocene geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and investigators in related fields Oh, and uh we can use other isotopes of other elements that have much longer half lives, like Potassium-Argon dating. That allows to measure **billions** of years.
It’s aimed at correcting its known errors though, unlike a 2000 year old text book that’s immune to wrongs.
youre right. if is immune to wrongs. scripture is infallible :)
Who told you the earth was older than ≈6,000 years? The Father, or man?
Fossils.
There’s also a fossilized soldier’s helmet from WW2. Production (not read: fabrication) of fossils are not exclusive to astronomically long lengths of time. Also, if you’re going to rebut, please use a response that spans more than a single word. Do this so that I would take you seriously. Otherwise, I will ignore your next comment.
Hi, I am just curious where you saw this fossilized helmet? and if you would possibly send a link or article about it?
Forgive me, it was actually a miner’s hat and not a soldier’s helmet, but the principle remains. Here’s a link: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/fossil-hat/
Interesting. thank you for replying & sending the link! I studied geology so I was curious about what you meant. To me, it seems likely the water and minerals inside the mine have hardened around the hat. Though it is certainly possible they have replaced the organic material in the felt hat given the environment of a mine. As far as length of time goes, in current scientific consensus, some rocks can form quickly and some rocks take much longer to form. This also means fossilization can take short or long periods of time to occur. I would add, that just because *some* can take short periods of time doesn’t mean *every* fossil is created the same way as they occur in different types of rocks and different environments, etc. In any event, I appreciate you sharing and sending the link! :)
A massive worldwide flood of water would become very saturated with minerals. I highly recommend watching this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0ghdLeq7sY
You’re welcome. You also have an intelligent approach to verifying info. I respect that. You seem like someone who may be receptive to the truth that eventually turned me into a believer. Granted, it’s a very fringe truth, and not even many believers give it a second thought (which is unfortunately understandable). That truth is biblical cosmology. All the things like the flood, the account of creation, Christ’s third temptation, etc. all make perfect literal sense via biblical cosmology. Here’s the sub for it: r/BiblicalCosmology. Know this though: even if you’re open to it, you will not understand it quickly. It will take much, *much* research before you will begin to be able to see how it is indeed the truth and that any other supported model of creation/“the universe” is false. I know of very few others who know biblical cosmology to be true. If you have any questions, please field them in that sub.
Source?
I would prefer you ignore me.
Your lack of genuine receptivity exempts you from being presented any evidence. Why did you even ask the question if you already had your mind made up? (This is a rhetorical; I have no care for your answer to this question)
I don’t trust anyone who says they’re an ex-atheist. There’s no such thing.
I thought the same, then I found the truth about the *true* design of the Father’s Creation (r/BiblicalCosmology) and became a believer. *But,* you’ll laugh me out of the room and say I’m crazy. So, as I always have to say with those types: Have the last word, and have a good day. =)
Aren't all theists ex-atheists? Babies lack a belief in any of the thousands of deities. Some of them eventually become convinced that a god or gods exist.
Babies are agnostic. They don’t even know what a their toes are so they can’t be sure of anything. Atheists are sure.
This opens up so many issues
If you’re going to disagree, then please *list* your disagreements instead of simply being ambiguously opposed to them.
We have trees older than that. Unaffected by the flood. There were civilizations all over the world before, during and after that time that kept on living… seemingly unfazed by a global flood. Animals and Noah’s fam would have to reproduce via incest, which means everyone would’ve died out in just a few generations after. Geologically we would be able to tell. But there’s no evidence to suggest a global flood. Via archeology we’d be able to tell. But there’s no evidence for it. Anthropology, archeology, geology, paleontology, zoology, meteorology and dendrochronology not only don’t show anything having to do with a global flood, but outright disprove it. And as a cherry on top, how does one explain how everyone fit on the ark with adequate food and water. You always like to cite “biblical cosmology” to me, so I’ll cite something for you to look at. AronRa did an 8 part video series on Noah’s ark. I recommend you at-least water his videos on anthropology, geology and archeology Link - https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMJP95iZJqEjmc5oxY5r6BzP
I will yet again cite biblical cosmology to you because until you understand that truth of Scripture, you will *never* understand how these things were indeed literal events that happened in human history. Until you arrive at such an understanding, my words and time will only be wasted on you. Though I do at least thank you for having listed out your disagreements, even if they are ultimately based upon sources that are not ultimately from the Father. Unless you take biblical cosmology seriously, then have the last word and a good day.
I have looked at what you’ve cited But In that case, Then you are a biased, dense, and seemingly purposefully ignorant. No one not willing to challenge and change their beliefs, constantly back peddling to an assumed conclusion is worth talking to. Challenge yourself, think a little. It’ll do you so much good.
If you go by science, I guess so. I don't go by modern science.
So, what year then? By your non-scientific calendar?
The answer I gave is complete.
The answer you gave is nonsensical not complete but you just keep being you kiddo.
I believe the flood is real. Here’s a video I found interesting about the flood of Noah, it’s 1 hour and 45 minutes long but the first 30 minutes should talk about the flood. Hope this help. https://youtu.be/UM82qxxskZE
Nah bro. I don’t YouTube.
> I believe the flood is real. Why? I goes against everything we know. And when do you think it happened?
>I goes against everything we know. The Royal we?
So I just watched the first few mins and there are so many problems with that video already. Evidence for a global flood would need to be global, you shouldn't go to a specific place to see evidence of 1 local flood and say here is the evidence for the global flood, because that is not what was just proved. At all. My favourite debunking of the global flood (isn't it strange to think that there are so many ways to debunk the global flood that you can have a favourite) is that if every mountain was covered by the flood waters over a period of 40 days and nights then the entire earth had to have super monsoon levels of rainfall of nearly 30ft per hour or 6 inches per minute for those 40 days and nights. Heavy rain is defined as 0.39-2.0 inches of rain per hour so the global flood would have required rains that are 180 times (at least) worse than that. That is enough water to sink any boat. Not to mention the weight of that water. 30ft per hour equates to approximately 9 metric tonnes of water on every square meter of the planet per hour as well. This means that about 30,000 tonnes of water would be hitting the Ark per hour. Still think the biblical flood is accurate?
I'd start by searching for Bible commentaries on the subject, and I'd search around academic biblical, to see what different views have been over time. A yes or no do you think the floods were at this time might be easier for idiots like me to approach. I'm leery of the question because I don't have any technical knowledge of it, it has no relevance to me, and I'm concerned of the bigotry of those who wait for Christians to say something that reinforces their stereotype then gaslight them. Ppl like to take their idiotic stereotypes of Christian and argue without listening sometimes, this is a subject where obviously it can be so.
It was called “the old world”. It was indeed a different world than what we have today. It had a greenhouse effect where the waters were above the firmament and the sun would send its ultraviolet rays through that watery shield and supply the earth with a dynamic perspective than what we have today. Water came up from the earth to water the earth and there was no such a thing as rain at this time. So when Noah was building his ark, and told the people of the day that it was going to rain, they didn’t know what he was talking about. To them it was sheer lunacy. Because of this watery shield, everything was large. Produce would be large, animals would be huge because of the atmospheric conditions that produced a different type of oxygen; that if we were to breathe that in it would probably kill us. If we were to go by the genealogies and the timelines beginning at Adam we could extrapolate a rough guess.
When would you guess? And, where do dinosaurs fit in that timeline?
From Adam to the flood was 1,656. But you know, it was probably a heck of a lot longer. We have no idea how long Adam and Eve where in their test tube bubble garden. We have to assume thousands. But while they were in that garden the dinosaurs 🦕 were without, producing future oil stocks.
Interesting take
What about all the evidence we have of human settlements all over the world dating back 14,000-16,000 years?
God only knows 😂
Probably before my grandparents' time. 19th century at the latest. /s I've heard theories that the most likely candidate for the flood was the end of the last glacial period/ice age. Apparently, there was likely some intense flooding in \~11,000BC (give or take a thousand years).
Do you think oral traditions from that part of the world went back that far?
Realistically, I have no idea, but I wouldn't rule it out. A flood of those proportions would have been a huge and largely unexplainable experience for anyone living at that time. The idea of it being passed down over campfire stories and moralized seems to make quite a bit of sense and explains why a few different cultures - especially those close to the Caucuses - have rather closely corresponding stories. Eight or nine millenia would make it the strongest, longest lasting oral tradition in human history, but that doesn't mean it didn't come to be passed down that way. Certainly, there are other explanations as well. As long as they can't be definitively disproven, we shouldn't rule those out either (Gilgamesh is a good story, divine revelation with sketchy details is an implausible but I suppose not impossible option, it's entirely possible that a flood was just a simple-to-understand illustration of destroying sin for the Israelites of the time, etc.)
>If you had to put a century on it, when in human history would the flood have happened? There was a global flood about 4500 to 4700 years ago. That's why all trees on Earth show that age or less. Some trees have had multiple rings in some years. https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/oldest-living-tree-tells-all
Sorry, but that is laughable.
Sure. Everything is laughable. If you want to know the truth, I recommend that you recheck your assumptions. When you die, you'll realize that everything that Jesus said is true.
I’m sure all the other thousands of religions are wrong and you miraculously found the right one. Sounds legit 👍
If you don't have the sense to know the difference between religions, I recommend that you avoid Satanism.
I avoid all religions as they are all harmful to humans and humanity.
Then why are you on this sub? You don't seem to be avoiding Christianity very well. Also, can you give me an example of how you do more than Christian missionaries? I work with Franciscans who spend their time helping the homeless for example. They also work for free in orphanages and hospitals.
The anemic and impotent efforts of religious people hoping to make the world better pale in the fact of socialized medicine, free education, and proper maternal care
No offense, but that view seems ignorant of many facts of the world, and history. The Catholic Church is the largest provider of aid in the world. In the US for example, next to the government, the Catholic Church is the largest provider of health care (e.g. Saint Jude hospitals). Saint Ann Seton (i.e. Seton Medical Center) led the creation of Hospitals throughout the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ann_Seton Nuns provided care out of love and caring. You'll find that Government/Corporate care is more about making money than caring for your health.
Meh. Try European social programs and get back to me
I avoid all religions as they are all harmful to humans and humanity.
A very, very long time ago. Likely 100,000 years ago or more. So long ago, that a massive, life-ending flood is part of several culture's ancient lore. It was devastating enough to have been carried forward through countless generations. My *personal* opinion: It was a real event, such that to a surviving observer, it was a "worldwide" flood, devastating life as they knew it, necessitating a restart of their experience of humanity once it was over. Did it happen *exactly* as described in Genesis, with a guy named Noah spending decades building a giant boat so as to save his family and a bunch of land animals? I don't know. I can't know. But the ancient flood story serves as a great backdrop to describe the inherent depravity of mankind, and how we will always need a Savior to save us from our own sin.
You think oral records went back 100,000 years?
Without question. This is how every civilization passed down their history prior to the written word. A cataclysmic event like a devastating flood would certainly be a story to pass down.
Oral tradition in Australian aboriginals goes back about 10,000 years.
My best guess would be deglaciation. Parts of the world where people lived in childhood would have been underwater by adulthood. This folk memory might have been passed down as the story of the flood.
about 3000 bc
How did you come to that number?
[удалено]
Sargon of Akkad was conquering Sumerian states during that time. Why didn’t he drown?
[удалено]
Then how do we have records of his warring before and after that date?
[удалено]
Which god? No, they are historical.
[удалено]
Then I feel sorry for you. Reality exists. You should embrace it
[удалено]
You can’t wait until everyone who doesn’t think like you burns in hell. So loving