Likewise, the bible reads as if at least one of the calamities which separates our own age from past ages, the flood at the time of Noah, was a punishment visited upon the world by God for man's sins whereas a careful reading of the source material for the bible (Midrashim) along with other ancient works, indicates that those kinds of events and, in general, all major harm in this world, are things which occur in the physical realm and over which God, in his spiritual realm, has little if any control over.
It is a dogma of establishment science that the tale of the biblical flood is a fairytale or, at most, an aggrandized tale of some local or regional flood. That, however, does not jibe with the facts of the historical record. The flood turns out to hae been part and parcel of some larger, solar-system-wide calamity.
In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice within a short space:
Gen. 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights;...These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:Gen. 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."
"...Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days..."
Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one day. That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood. The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn't use articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".
It turns out, that the bible claims that Methuselah died in the year of the flood. It may not say so directly (if it does, I don't know where), but the ages given in Genesis 5 along with the note that the flood began in the 600'th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) add up that way:
Gen. 5:25 ->"And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years and begat Lamech. And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years.
<i.e. he lived 969 - 187 = 782 years after Lamech's birth>
And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years and begat a son. And he called his name Noah...
<182 + 600 = 782 also...>
Thus we have Methusaleh dying in the year of the flood; actually seven days prior to the flood...
Louis Ginzburg's seven-volume "Legends of the Jews", the largest body of Midrashim ever translated into German and English to my knowledge, expands upon the laconic tales of the OT. Midrashim amounts to the full body of rabbinical literature, and often can flesh out the laconic stories of the OT.
From Ginzburg's Legends of the Jews, Vol V, page 175:
...however, Lekah, Gen. 7.4) BR 3.6 (in the week of mourning for Methuselah, God caused the primordial light to shine).... God did not wish Methuselah to die at the same time as the sinners...
The reference is, again, to Gen. 7.4, which reads:
"For yet seven days, and I shall cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights..."
The week of "God causing the primordial lights to shine" was the week of intense light before the flood.
What the old books are actually telling us is that there was a stellar blowout of some sort either close to or within our own system at the time of the flood. The blowout was followed by seven days of intense light and radiation, and then the flood itself. Moreover, the signs of the impending disaster were obvious enough for at least one guy, Noah, to take extraordinary precautions.
The ancient (but historical) world knew a number of seven-day light festivals, Hanukkah, the Roman Saturnalia etc. Velikovsky claimed that all were ultimately derived from the memory of the seven days prior to the flood.
If this entire deal is a made-up story, then here is a case of the storyteller (isaiah) making extra work for himself with no possible benefit, the detail of the seven days of light being supposedly known amongst the population, and never included in the OT story directly.
.
I've seen you post most of this before.
I must tell you it's not clear why the vast bulk of it tells me why you believe as you do.
One would suppose there to be a cause and effect relationship, such as we have a, b and c, therefore d follows.
Your presentation is not unlike my sole complaint with Velikovsky:
Maybe he was a time traveler who was forbidden to disclose it. Then when he traveled back to 1946 from 2000 with all those discoveries locked in his ken, "How will I disclose what I learned?" became a problem he never quite overcame. </humor>
Speaking of Dr. IV in earnest, do you have another thread where you discuss what you just dumped here where it relates to the topic? I'd like to discuss it there.
From what I recall, IV clearly connected Saturn (Kronos) with the flood. In the Greek myths, the titan Kronos was said to swallow his children. It was his son, the chief God Zeus, who made him to cough them up. What if it were Saturn which grew to be as bright as 7 suns? It would have obscured the view of all the other planets (swallowed) just as daylight does now.
IIRC, IV also suggested that Jupiter was once "the light of the night" rather than the moon. That when Venus was ejected "from the brow of Zeus," Jupiter lost just enough mass to lose it's binary sun qualifications.
Please forgive me if I'm botching this. It's been a long time. Velikovsky taught us what to consider that we were ignoring even if he didn't disclose how he got from a+b+c to t.