Noah's Flood Hypothesis May Not Hold Water

It's a non-issue to a sensible person, but it is a serious issue to somebody who maintains that the Bible is literally true in its every particular. In that case, approximations cannot be assumed. The Bible didn't say, "about thirty cubits"; the Bible said, "thirty cubits".

You apparently avoid the other obvious answer in an attempt to reject any possibility that the measurements could be exact. If you leave your agenda behind and put on your open minded scientific mind for a moment you may see what I am talking about.

Think of different shapes. For example a bowl shape.

Let me try a more recent example. Does a claw tub bath tub have a different circumference at its rim than its main body ?

In examining the Noah story it is very relevant whether the text is supposed to be completely literal or metaphorical.

And I am pointing out that any claim that the text is completely literaly immediately takes you into the realm of mythology, not science.

There is not one chance in a gazillion that the bible is 'the unerring word of god', in my opinion.

I don't believe the myth of biblical accuracy, so when you use that myth as 'evidence' for something I have nothing else left to add to the discussion. You're now discussing mythology, not archaeology or science.

So other than some story written about the event by men 6,000 years later, do you have any comment about the flood the story mentions?

If you keep reading the text you will see this description of what is being measured

The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. 26 It was a handbreadth [17] in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. [18]

Your assumption that the object is cylinder is contrary to the text. In light of this part of the text, your objection that the idea that the measurements can be be from two different circles (the rim vs the main body) of one object look to me like a vain attempt to maintain your original posistion and don't look anything like application of the scientific method where alternate hypothesis can me attempted.

In fact I agree with your main presumption that parts of the bible are metaphors and approximates but this isn't one of them. I saw this reference about a year ago when it was discussed and thought it was interesting. I found some time to actually read the surrouding text and found that the author is describing a lilly blossom or cup shape.

I have yet to see anything written by God about it Trying to be cute? Well, those of us who believe that the Bible is "the Word of God," can say, "God 'writes' the people who write the Book, and the book of nature, for that matter. He being the great producer of this great play. He has the advantage over us in that he knows how it turns out in the end. As the old hymn says, "We'll understand it, all bye and bye."

And I am pointing out that any claim that the text is completely literaly immediately takes you into the realm of mythology, not science.

I agree but the article and the scientists are attempting to explain the physical trigger of that event. Underlying their claim is the idea that the Noah story has some basis in an actual historical event. Do you believe that most myths have a basis in history ? If you don't then you should object to the premise of the scientists at the outset.

There is not one chance in a gazillion that the bible is 'the unerring word of god', in my opinion.

Personally I find myself open for either interpretation. I come to the text with an open mind and try not to rule out anything. When the text seems to contradict my sense of what could be I question my premises and often arrive at a fuller explanation of the text. If you happen to read my responses to physicist you will get a sense of what happened to me regarding the text of the description of the "Sea". I would have been perfectly ok with the idea that PI was being approximated but I challenged myself to read the text and see if there were not something else going on. When I did that the text that described a cup and a lilly blossom jumped out at me. The idea that the measurements of the rim were separate from the measurements of the body gave me a fuller interpretation of the text.

On an unrelated note my literal reading of Genesis 1 says that the world isn't 6000 years old but rather 5 1/2 days old. We are in the middle of the 6th day.

I don't believe the myth of biblical accuracy, so when you use that myth as 'evidence' for something I have nothing else left to add to the discussion. You're now discussing mythology, not archaeology or science.

I don't hold to biblical accuracy either but I haven't ruled it out. However it becomes somewhat of an issue in the present case when attempting to compare because it is always an issue when doing any biblical reading.

So other than some story written about the event by men 6,000 years later, do you have any comment about the flood the story mentions?

I don't think the flood being mentioned is the Noah or Giglamesh flood. I would expect the flood that is the source of the myths was more sudden and more devastating. If it were not, then as soon as peoples from other lands not very distant were contacted the story wouldn't hold water.

I wouldn't rule out that ONE of the Black Sea floods wasn't a part of a larger flood that is the source.

I wouldn't rule out that ONE of the Black Sea floods wasn't a part of a larger flood that is the source.

Thank you, for mentioning the topic of the thread, it's the only thing here I have any desire to comment on.

If I had to take a guess, and it's just a wild guess, I don't think the evidence here does suggest a 'fast' flooding of the Black Sea. If I had to guess, I'd say likely not.

As for any possibility that the bible is the 'unerring word of god' -- I just don't see any chance that it can be. That, to me, is completely impossible, based upon the evidence.

You're misrepresenting.

1. Those "two verses" are the same verse reported in two different books. It's really only one verse.

2. As VRWC_minion has already told you, there is a significant difference between the inside and outside diameter.

3. Even if the ID and OD difference didn't exist, there is the simple matter of measurement, and what you claim is "two significant digits." The verse reports a measurement in cubits only. IOW, the measurement is recorded to the nearest cubit, not to the second significant digit. If we assume that the circumference figure is accurate, the diameter figure (9.55) is rounded to the next higher cubit.

Even eighth graders used to be taught the rules for recording measurements and for rounding. It doesn't take a Physicist to figure these things out.

Your agenda appears to be leading your science around by the nose.

If I had to take a guess, and it's just a wild guess, I don't think the evidence here does suggest a 'fast' flooding of the Black Sea. If I had to guess, I'd say likely not.

I think either a fast flood or a slow flood could be the basis for a flood myth but the area covered by the black sea is too small. I would assume people were living apart from the black sea and the survivors of a flood wouldn't be able to pass off a world wide flood myth to people who were not the subject of the flood. We conclude the same thing but for different reasons. Even the Noah story wouldn't rule out a flood that rose over several months time.

As for any possibility that the bible is the 'unerring word of god' -- I just don't see any chance that it can be. That, to me, is completely impossible, based upon the evidence.,

Besides the description of miracles which are by definition impossible. I wouldn't rule out something (in the bible or in life) because I thought it was impossible. Even if I did there is the risk that I might conclude that a passage in the bible isn't possible when in fact it is.

It might be just me, but before I attempt to interpret something I try my hardest to identify my preconceptions and then put aside as many preconceived notions as I can. (Maybe its just my training for interpreting income tax law.)

Let me attempt an analogy again with you about how I see the bible passages as well as how I see reality. I liken it to the experience of looking at a light through a prism. The same light will look like different colors depending on the angle even though the source light is the same. If you see green and I see red we are both accurate in our descriptions. I am not wrong and neither are you but neither of us see the true light. In this case I would have to accept that what we both see are true and further that what each of us see is incomplete in describing the true nature of the light.

So it is with interpreting the bible passages. Althought their are many variations to interpreting the biblical text, in general what the literalist see's and what the allegorical reader sees are both true but incomplete by themselves.

2. As VRWC_minion has already told you, there is a significant difference between the inside and outside diameter.

That isn't my premise. My premise is that the diameter of the rim and the circumference of the body of the vessel are two separate circles which the author of the text describes. It possible that the author was giving us the externa and internal measurements of the rim but I don't think so because he already gives us the the information about the thickness of the vessel.

But because its real important to the author that we are aware of the shape of the vessel in that he gives us two shapes to compare it too (a cup and a lilly blossom) its real important to the author. Additionally, by giving us the diameter of the rim and the circumference of the body it gives us the complete information needed to draw a close approximation of the vessel. If the author only gave us the measurement of the rim our ability to draw the shape of the entire vessel would be limited.

Even the Noah story wouldn't rule out a flood that rose over several months time.

Except, as the article mentions, I think it likely that the flooding of the region took thousands of years. So it isn't likely that the event was considered a 'flood' by anyone, in my estimation.

And re: the bible -- certainly one 'pre-conception' I operate on is that no single written work in history is 100% accurate. No work of man can possibly be 100% accurate. I have gained that 'pre-conception' thru hard experience. There have been, and continue to be, soooooo many people claiming to be the instrument of 'god'!

The suggestion that the bible was the direct words from some invisible, all-powerful being is completely, totally unfounded in any factual ground, to me. Show me some evidence, some reason to believe. Because absent any evidence, it's just a myth.

Consider, there are many, many writings by men thru history that claim to be the inerrant work of god -- the Koran, the Morman writings, heck there have been so many -- I consider the claim to be right up there with the claim 'I was abducted by aliens'.

Do you likewise take the writings of these other religions with the same 'open mind', I wonder?

It was the whole world that was covered with water in the version they taught me.

It was the whole known world at that time which was flooded. They would not have had any idea if the whole globe was covered or not, not even understanding the concept of the globe or the size of the earth, so the idea of a global flood to them is not the same thing as it is to us.

Sorry. I compressed the idea just to make the point to Physicist that the verse was detailing two different things. I referred to the two different things as ID and OD. You were saying they were two different objects, one inside the other, right?

But the point remains: there are different things being measured. Even so, even if he won't accept this, the point I made about the rules of recording measurements and significant digits is still valid.

I am glad you have so much faith in your god. I hope that it brings you happiness and prosperity.

My point has been that Science has be wrong many times in the past. You may have faith in it's accuracy now, that is your mistake to make. I know I cannot convince you, I only hoped you were opened minded enough to look at another theory. But then science has been cursed with closed mined, closed looped people since the beginning.

Your reasons for believing in an old earth have be at least questioned by some of the greatest minds on earth. (But they are not as enlightened as you.) All the forms of aging you have used have been at least found to be flawed. That is a fact, so I admire your faith. (Faith: Believing in something you cannot see or prove).

May your god save your soul, if you believe in that sort of thing.

Except, as the article mentions, I think it likely that the flooding of the region took thousands of years. So it isn't likely that the event was considered a 'flood' by anyone, in my estimation.

I would expect that even within a constant increase in size that periodic floods would occur. I would also expect that even a gradual increase would be variable. Finally, I would expect the possibility that the ground isn't uniform and that spill over's could occur resulting in flash flooding. So even a gradual process could trigger a catastrophic event. However, unless the event was of a much larger are I just don't see the myth grabbing hold because numerous folks who were not affected would reject a world wide flood based on their own experience.

And re: the bible -- certainly one 'pre-conception' I operate on is that no single written work in history is 100% accurate. No work of man can possibly be 100% accurate. I have gained that 'pre-conception' thru hard experience. There have been, and continue to be, soooooo many people claiming to be the instrument of 'god'! ,

But here is the rub. Which passages aren't 100% accurate and which ones are ? I resolve it first by attempting to review my understanding of what I read, i.e do I really have the literal meaning of the text. If I cannot reconcile them then I let both versions stand because of my prism theory. I don't rule out the possibility that God could have seen to it that every word is truth.

The suggestion that the bible was the direct words from some invisible, all-powerful being is completely, totally unfounded in any factual ground, to me. Show me some evidence, some reason to believe. Because absent any evidence, it's just a myth.

The bible doesn't make this claim. In fact its clear from many writers in many passages what they consider to be their opinion and what God told them to write. I just happen to believe that its dangerous to start with the presumption that its all error or based on man's intepretation at the outset.

Consider, there are many, many writings by men thru history that claim to be the inerrant work of god -- the Koran, the Morman writings, heck there have been so many -- I consider the claim to be right up there with the claim 'I was abducted by aliens'.

I cannot speak for the other religions except that I reject any religion's that has as its basic premise that I can become good enough to save myself which I think is the premise of any religion besides Judaism or Christianity. I don't believe that man or me is capable of becoming good by my own acts or my own will. I also find any religion that preaches this concept as being very dangerous because it allows people to make the claim they have achieved God like qualities and use it to control others

Do you likewise take the writings of these other religions with the same 'open mind', I wonder?

I don't read them except so far as to understand they require me to achieve something I cannot attain to be saved.

I understand your point and first off I'd like to thank you for not getting personal. There is no call for making fun or demeaning people.

I could be wrong. I am not the one claiming to know it all. My point has always been that of truth. I cannot prove what I believe, but neither can you. I only want to show all that the science in this subject is young and flawed. Old earth (over 100,000 to 500,000 years) has not been proven and is not fact. Many questions remain, for example, there have been over 300 objects found fossilized and aged at times and in places when and where man was not supposed to be here. Times aged at millions of years, along side and coexisting with creatures thought to be extinct millions of years before man. Could there be some explanation that does not disprove current thought? Sure. But it is not fact and anyone who portrays it as such is arrogant, stupid or both.

You were saying they were two different objects, one inside the other, right?

No. I wish I could draw it. Picture a vase or as the writer says "a cup" or a "lilly blossom".

The diameter of the rim of the cup or the vase will be larger than the diameter of the body of the rim of the cup or the vase.

I identified the two separate circles of one object because there is the circle at the mouth which is larger and which is the rim and their is the circle of the main body which is smaller.

The vessel is supposed to be a bath and the bath would be designed to have a rim that is larger than the main vessel (just like an old fashioned claw tub) to hold water and facilitate entry.

OK, now I see what you're saying. The vessel is bigger around at the top than below the top.

Here is one example of a shape, i'll see if I can find something closer to what I picture

It at least captures the idea of a rim with a different size body.

THe hot tub is too exagerated but it emphasises the point.

This vase is more the shape I picture that would look like a lilly.

The vessel is bigger around at the top than below the top

Yes, exactly and I am not making it up on my own but if you continue after the reference that Physicist uses the following verse from 1 Kings 7:13 - 8:12 - The Temple's Furnishings

The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. 26 It was a handbreadth [17] in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. [18]