An Old Story

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So can it be assumed that you hold that all flood motifs are simply rehashes of the Sumerian account?

Not all.

The flood stories from the civilisations of the Ancient Near East can be traced back to the Sumerian account i think.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Not all.

The flood stories from the civilisations of the Ancient Near East can be traced back to the Sumerian account i think.

How do you account for the universality of the flood motif in literally (not virtually) every civilization known to man?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How do you account for the universality of the flood motif in literally (not virtually) every civilization known to man?

The short answer would be that mankind has always lived next to rivers and rivers have a habit of flooding, sometimes rather dramatically. Throw into the mix the Last Glacial Maximum ended around 19,000yrs ago, since that time massive amounts of ice have melted, sea levels have risen 120m+ ,under which the lands of Beringia and Sundaland have vanished.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch of the imagine to picture water having devastating consequences on communities lives when you take into account the massive changes on the Earth since the and of the LGM.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]An ark landing somewhere on the mountains (plural) of Ararat could indicate a huge land area in square mileage.

True. But you'll notice i said the stories were similar, not an exact copy. That's why the word 'rehash' is used and not the word 'copied'.

There are central themes that run through the Sumerian, Babylonian and Jewish ...[text shortened]... and each story has slight alterations from the story that preceded it. Do you accept this?[/b]

=============================
True. But you'll notice i said the stories were similar, not an exact copy. That's why the word 'rehash' is used and not the word 'copied'.

There are central themes that run through the Sumerian, Babylonian and Jewish flood myths and each story has slight alterations from the story that preceded it. Do you accept this?
================================

I believe that the Bible's account is the trustworthy truth of God. Whether it was local or global I do not know. The point is that the society was judged and 8 were saved in the ark.

But, the ark is a type of Christ. The Apostle Peter makes this clear in his epistle (1 Peter 3:20-21). Many of us believers in Jesus regard the Old Testament as the picture and the New Testament as like the caption under the picture.

Peter connected the resurrection of Christ to the ark of Noah. He said that "eight souls, were brought safely through by water: which figure also now saves you, baptism .... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." We believe therefore that the ark resting upon the dry land of the mountaintops signified Christ's resurrection out from the death waters.

But the month and the day were exactly the same. So the typology is very strong. How could Jesus have orchestrated such a coincidence unless He is truly God incarnated ?

Since God is sovereign and transcends time it was no accident that Christ's salvation in His resurrection corresponds to Noah's ark resting upon the dry land on the same day of the year.

A new beginning for those who trust God ..., a new beginning beyond divine judgment is the strong symbolism there.

" ... Genesis 8:4 says that the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. If you read the bible carefully along with history and the best lexicons, you will find that, at the time of the Passover in Egypt, the seventh month was changed to the first (Exo. 12:2). The Jews have two kinds of calenders, the civil calender and the sacred calender. The civil calender was the old one, and the sacred calender was the new one, which began from the first Passover. When God told the Israelites to have the Passover, He told them that that month had to be counted as the first month of the year. In Hebrew the name of that month was Abib (Exo. 13:4), which means sprouting, budding, fresh ears of corn. This signifies that, in the eyes of God, the Passover was counted as a new beginning of life. ... The Lord Jesus was crucified on the day of the Passover, on the fourteenth day of the month (Exo. 12:6; John 18:28). According to the sacred calender, He was crucified in the first month, and according to the civil calender, He was crucified in the seventh month, the same month as when the ark rested upon the mount. The Lord was crucified on the fourteenth day of that month and was resurrected three days latter. Thus, according to the sacred calender, Christ was resurrected on the seventeenth day of the first month. According to the civil calender, it was on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, the very day that the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. So, in that early type of the ark resting upon the mountain, we were told the exact date of the resurrection of Christ. This is wonderful."

[ Life Study of Genesis, Witness Lee, pg.423,424 ]

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
True. But you'll notice i said the stories were similar, not an exact copy. That's why the word 'rehash' is used and not the word 'copied'.

There are central themes that run through the Sumerian, Babylonian and Jewish flood myths and each story has slight alterations from the story that preceded it. Do you accept th ...[text shortened]... This is wonderful."

[ Life Study of Genesis, Witness Lee, pg.423,424 ] [/b]

I think the Bible's account is trustworthy.

I wouldn't expect any less.

The point is that the society was judged and 8 were saved in the ark.

Which brings me nicely to my next point. You're a man who likes to pop into the science forum every now and again to reconcile your religious beliefs with what we understand about the man, earth, universe etc etc.

How come there is no genetic evidence that the whole of humaity descended from 8 people only 5,000yrs ago?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I think the Bible's account is trustworthy.

I wouldn't expect any less.

The point is that the society was judged and 8 were saved in the ark.

Which brings me nicely to my next point. You're a man who likes to pop into the science forum every now and again to reconcile your religious beliefs with what we understand about the man, ea ...[text shortened]... e is no genetic evidence that the whole of humaity descended from 8 people only 5,000yrs ago?[/b]

no time for comments now.

Originally posted by jaywill
I cannot talk anymore right now.

But when I do "pop" into the science forum it is for discussion of science.
Don't be so paranoid.

Paranoid? You've lost me.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Paranoid? You've lost me.

forget it.
no time for discussion now.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I think the Bible's account is trustworthy.

I wouldn't expect any less.

The point is that the society was judged and 8 were saved in the ark.

Which brings me nicely to my next point. You're a man who likes to pop into the science forum every now and again to reconcile your religious beliefs with what we understand about the man, ea ...[text shortened]... e is no genetic evidence that the whole of humaity descended from 8 people only 5,000yrs ago?[/b]

======================
How come there is no genetic evidence that the whole of humaity descended from 8 people only 5,000yrs ago?
============================

I don't know how long ago that flood was. There are gaps in the geneology. And maybe Ussher's famous chronology is not accurate, just traditional.

5,000 years ago? 15,000 years ago? I don't know.

No time right now.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================
How come there is no genetic evidence that the whole of humaity descended from 8 people only 5,000yrs ago?
============================

I don't know how long ago that flood was. There are gaps in the geneology. And maybe Ussher's famous chronology is not accurate, just traditional.

5,000 years ago? 15,000 years ago? I don't know.

No time right now.[/b]

5,000yrs or 15,000yrs makes no difference, there's no genetic evidence to back either up.

Post when you're ready.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
5,000yrs or 15,000yrs makes no difference, there's no genetic evidence to back either up.

Post when you're ready.

We had this discussion about genetic diversity a few times in the past. Guess what? The suggested model continually supports the particulars as established by the biblical account of the flood.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
We had this discussion about genetic diversity a few times in the past. Guess what? The suggested model continually supports the particulars as established by the biblical account of the flood.

And what would your biblical account of the flood be? I could ask five different Christians who post on these forums and i would get five different answers. Being as you are also a 'lone Christian' with no particular affiliation to any denomination you could make up anything you so choose.

I guess the first question would be, when was the flood?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
And what would your biblical account of the flood be? I could ask five different Christians who post on these forums and i would get five different answers. Being as you are also a 'lone Christian' with no particular affiliation to any denomination you could make up anything you so choose.

I guess the first question would be, when was the flood?

The best clue would be to figure out the dates from the coins in Noah's cloak: did they say 2,000 B.C. or was it 4,000 B.C., or... ? Let's start there.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The best clue would be to figure out the dates from the coins in Noah's cloak: did they say 2,000 B.C. or was it 4,000 B.C., or... ? Let's start there.

You tell me, it's your account of the biblical flood i'm interested in.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You tell me, it's your account of the biblical flood i'm interested in.

Sometimes, you can move your bishop to command an important diagonal, and your opponent will press his counter against the edge of another of his counters, so that it flips into the cup. What you have to ask yourself then is, what's the point of developing your kingside pieces?