GR Morton's Biblical Mediterranean Fllod Model

[tabibito]

That is only an inference from what is in the Bible. A loose inference

I only discovered that there was any academic support for the view that the Pentateuch arose from collected material while I was checking into matters that arose in this thread. I have held the view that Deuteronomy was not (at least wholly) written by Moses, or people of that time, for more than 30 years. Internal evidence makes it impossible.

[shunyadragon]

I have difficulty with tis line of reasoning on many accounts. The response did not propose a simple coherent justification for a date before 100,000 years ago. I appears that you are using a similar approach as Glenn looking for a time that the flood event could have whipped out humanity leaving the select Noah, family and his companions.

Simple enough - the first known h sap sap remains are in the vicinity of the Omo River in Africa.

Ok according to present finds this is the case. The Omo River site appears to continuously occupied by Homo Sapiens from ~195,000 to ~104,000 years ago. This continuous sequence of finds are available because of the particular environment that allowed for the preservation of fossil and not that this was the only location where the lived. These same early Homo Sapiens. Other finds in the vicinity of Herto, Ethiopia date at 154,000 and 160,000 years ago. The consistent culture of all these finds represent a primitive Neolithic Culture. Also associated with the Omo site is a more primitive Homo called Omo II, demonstrating the evolution of humanity in a diverse variety of subspecies living at the same time. The finding in Omo and Herto demonstrate a regional extent of these first (at present) known Homo Sapiens.

If those people had been - shall we say - castaways from an offshore original home of h sap sap which was obliterated in a Krakatoa like event, there would be no way to establish what the state of technology was at that time, or even a prior existence of h sap sap. It is also fairly certain that below a certain population, technology cannot be maintained: the constraints of day to day living make it impossible even in a relatively benign environment.

The above is highly hypothetical without evidence. At present there is no evidence of such a Krakatoa like event in this period. The only event that is known to likely have impacted humanity is the Toba event ~70,000 years ago. There is no evidence that the preservation of technology is population dependent.

The beginnings of primitive technologies begins after ~50,000 years ago (not sufficient to make things from parts), and not until within the past 10,000 years.

Assuming that there was some exploration by boat originating on such an island, evidence of hunting, or other evidence, earlier than 200 000 years past might exist. What an archaeologist might attribute that evidence to is anyone's guess. Given that no evidence for H Sap Sap existing prior to 200 000 years past, it would likely be attributed to some other member of genus homo, perhaps even the one for which only a genetic trace exists, a recent discovery for which no archaeological evidence is available.

The present extent of evidence indicates that the extent of Homo Sapiens was regional over the first 100,000+ years not local. The known ancestors found prior to 200,000 years ago were similar enough to demonstrate a diverse evolution of closely related species and subspecies like Omo II after 200,00 years ago with a broad regional distribution over central and parts of Northern and Southern Africa.

The Biblical count of generations is definitely wrong. Nothing in the derived time period makes a Noah event possible. This thread and the associated checks taken show that if Noah was not H Sap Sap, the event would of necessity have occurred even further into the past.

All indications are that if Noah existed or an event or events that this narrative evolved from would be relatively technological advanced culture within the last 10,000 years.

If "Noah's Island" existed, the story could be regarded as simply being assigned an incorrect chronology. However, in the absence of acceptable evidence to that effect arising: the story of Noah can't be reasonably asserted to be true - it must be accepted as mythological.

The evolution of the Genesis narrative possibly represents one or more experiences of local and/or regional floods, and is the most likely scenario within the past ~5000 years with the depiction of the Arc itself an added feature of the narrative. I believe the earliest known cuneiform text depicts it as a round ship. The likely region for the 'Garden of Eden' and the flood event(s) is likely the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys.

[Truthseeker]

Does not work for a ship that size. It would basically fall apart.

Holy cow, how did you know? But people trying and failing does not mean there is a technique to construct rafts of that size given skilled labor.

[Truthseeker]

Well - I am now satisfied that a "Noah" can have existed, and that the Bible date is confirmed to be incorrect.
But - if there was a Noah, he would necessarily have lived circa 200 000 years ago. To make the story workable, the "first humans" arising in Africa would necessarily have been Noah and family - arriving from an island obliterated in a Krakatoa like event.
On the data to hand, it doesn't seem to be anything like a realistic scenario. (understatement)

Why so-advanced people? If the ark project is something a gang of children could do given adequate supervision and time . . .

[Truthseeker]

Your over stating the supposed 'logical positivism' in my argument, and evading the problems with considering the Genesis flood and Noah's Arc in anyway historical. I do give priority to Methodological Naturalism as far as the nature of our physical world, and I give priority in standard academic historical methods to understand our history and the available evidence. Ancient literature alone is not reliable evidence. It qualifies as the human view of the world the authors lived in set in history. these historical narratives may be used to understand history, but they are not considered accurate history in and of themselves.

Rejecting the witness of ancient narratives, unless corroborated by outside evidence, does not make me a logical positivist.

I am now puzzled why you started this thread. Initially I thought I knew, but now it appears you only want to discount Glenn's theory so that everyone except Glenn rejects it as impossible.

[shunyadragon]

I am now puzzled why you started this thread. Initially I thought I knew, but now it appears you only want to discount Glenn's theory so that everyone except Glenn rejects it as impossible.

I feel it was obvious from the beginning that I rejected Glenn's proposal that the inundation of the Mediterranean Sea ~5.3 million years ago represents Noah's flood. I also reject all the present proposals in different time frames that try to place Noah's Flood and the Arc as being in some way real historical events. I consider the Genesis narrative to be an evolved account of the pre-Babylonian flood accounts found on cuneiform tablets. These accounts are most likely evolved oral accounts of natural flood events of the Tigris Euphrates Valleys.

[shunyadragon]

Holy cow, how did you know? But people trying and failing does not mean there is a technique to construct rafts of that size given skilled labor.

How do I know?!?!? By the evidence I do not believe the building of the Arc and the accompanied flood is remotely plausible. There is no evidence that the tools and skilled labor was available. First it was not a raft, even if it was it could not possible support the reported animal population reported to be on it for the time frame described in the Bible. The huge size of Arc and the technology required to build it is far beyond the abilities of any culture before ~10,000 years ago. Even within the past ~3,000 to 5,000 Bronze to Iron Age Cultures it is unlikely that such a sea worthy vessel was possible, though the basic wood working tools and skills were available within this period.

[tabibito]

My examination focuses on "what conditions have to be in play if the story of the Ark were true" - it isn't a matter of trying to show that the story is true. For the story to have veracity, hypotheticals are necessary. As stated previously, without concrete evidence to support the possibility of one or another of the hypotheticals, the story of the Ark has to be consigned to the realms of myth. That fact is acknowledged.

The likely region for the 'Garden of Eden' ... is likely the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys.

Eden translates to Koine Greek as παράδεισον - Paradise, the same place that Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be in. Records from the Old Testament show that Eden is still in existence at the time (at least) of Ezekiel. Eden, according to the Biblical accounts, is not on this planet.

All indications are that if Noah existed or an event or events that this narrative evolved from would be relatively technological advanced culture within the last 10,000 years.

That time frame has been ruled out of contention. If the story could be proven to have originated less than 70 000 years ago, it would certainly be a myth.

I believe the earliest known cuneiform text depicts it as a round ship. ... the flood event(s) is likely the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys.

And it is also possible that these are independent stories arising from the same event, or wholly unrelated. Nothing demonstrates conclusively a copying from Babylonian or any other culture's lore. That there are some consistencies in the narratives is not evidence of cross cultural contamination. It is evidence of possible cross contamination.

Tamil legends refer to an extensive land comprised of 49 countries that was claimed by the sea. There are consistencies with the Greek legend of Atlantis. The Tamil story might be an adaptation of Atlantis, via cross contamination through the Roman empire. Whether cross contamination is involved, and to what extent, would be purely a matter of conjecture. To some, might be = is: not a logical course.

The Omo remains, archaic h Sapiens, progressed to h. S. Idaltu which were anatomically but not behaviorally modern, then to h S. Sapiens who are the anatomically and behaviorally modern humans of today. Recent DNA evidence shows there was little gene flow from previous species such as h. Neanderthalensis, and h. Denisova.

Based on the archaeological evidence, somewhere in the divide between - h. S. Idaltu and h. S. Sapiens or shortly after, is the only viable time frame for a Noah event. If the objections regarding technology are valid, it didn't happen, or rather, if they are valid, evidence of a a suitably advanced, hitherto unknown, technological development would need to be unearthed to bring a Noah event back to the realms of possibility.

The second objection, that no flood of suitable proportions occurred, makes a different scenario the only viable possibility. The only way the Ark story could have veracity is for a largish land mass to sink below the sea. A Krakatoa event is not the only way that might happen, but it is the easiest to point to.

[Doug Shaver]

Based on the archaeological evidence, somewhere in the divide between - h. S. Idaltu and h. S. Sapiens or shortly after, is the only viable time frame for a Noah event. If the objections regarding technology are valid, it didn't happen, or rather, if they are valid, evidence of a a suitably advanced, hitherto unknown, technological development would need to be unearthed to bring a Noah event back to the realms of possibility.

The second objection, that no flood of suitable proportions occurred, makes a different scenario the only viable possibility. The only way the Ark story could have veracity is for a largish land mass to sink below the sea. A Krakatoa event is not the only way that might happen, but it is the easiest to point to.

If we must defend the notion that the Noah story had some connection with actual history, what's wrong with this hypothesis: Somewhere in Mesopotamia, probably during Sumerian times, there was a catastrophic flood in which there was an unprecedented loss of human and other life?

[tabibito]

Our problem is the whole "make an end of human kind" thing. For the Noah story to hold together, there has to be a near extinction event to point to. I thought at first that the event of 70 000 years ago may have been a suitable possibility, but discussion on this thread has shown it to be a non-starter. Associated discussion and checking the matters raised leaves only an event similar to what I have outlined as even remotely feasible.
I'll consider Noah to be a fable until such time as a buried under the sea, hitherto unknown civilization's remains dating back to around the H. S. Idaltu split is uncovered. Or until some wholly outlandish discovery throws the entire archaeological science world into utter disarray.

[shunyadragon]

My examination focuses on "what conditions have to be in play if the story of the Ark were true" - it isn't a matter of trying to show that the story is true. For the story to have veracity, hypotheticals are necessary. As stated previously, without concrete evidence to support the possibility of one or another of the hypotheticals, the story of the Ark has to be consigned to the realms of myth. That fact is acknowledged.

I believe the embellished oral legends of actual local and regional actual floods is the most likely source of the Genesis flood narrative.

Eden translates to Koine Greek as παράδεισον - Paradise, the same place that Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be in. Records from the Old Testament show that Eden is still in existence at the time (at least) of Ezekiel. Eden, according to the Biblical accounts, is not on this planet.

Relying on the Greek is too late to describe the origins of the belief in Eden in more ancient literature.

That time frame has been ruled out of contention. If the story could be proven to have originated less than 70 000 years ago, it would certainly be a myth.

In reality I do not believe any time frame is viable based on the present evidence.

And it is also possible that these are independent stories arising from the same event, or wholly unrelated. Nothing demonstrates conclusively a copying from Babylonian or any other culture's lore. That there are some consistencies in the narratives is not evidence of cross cultural contamination. It is evidence of possible cross contamination.

The evidence in cuneiform pre-Babylonian tablets is quite extensive and conclusive, and no other potential source is known prior to ~600 BCE. There are parts of the Psalms found in the tablets, and other books of the Pentateuch.

Tamil legends refer to an extensive land comprised of 49 countries that was claimed by the sea. There are consistencies with the Greek legend of Atlantis. The Tamil story might be an adaptation of Atlantis, via cross contamination through the Roman empire. Whether cross contamination is involved, and to what extent, would be purely a matter of conjecture. To some, might be = is: not a logical course.

There is abundant evidence of local and regional catastrophic memorable flood events where ever in the world the legends are found. It is most likely that they are independent legends and myths.

Based on the archaeological evidence, somewhere in the divide between - h. S. Idaltu and h. S. Sapiens or shortly after, is the only viable time frame for a Noah event. If the objections regarding technology are valid, it didn't happen, or rather, if they are valid, evidence of a a suitably advanced, hitherto unknown, technological development would need to be unearthed to bring a Noah event back to the realms of possibility.

Based on the present evidence it is difficult to remotely expect hitherto unknown culture with an advanced technology. The science of archeology is reaching the bedrock world wide with little room for significant new cultures hitherto unknown. There is potential in Africa especially across center of Africa for the discovery of early Homo Sapiens and our ancestors, but I doubt the possibility that new technology could be found.

The second objection, that no flood of suitable proportions occurred, makes a different scenario the only viable possibility. The only way the Ark story could have veracity is for a largish land mass to sink below the sea. A Krakatoa event is not the only way that might happen, but it is the easiest to point to.

I believe that many places in the world regional floods are possible that may appear unbelievably vaste and worldwide to local populations. The yellow and Yangtze Rivers, the Nile, Rivers of the Indian subcontinent, and the Tigris Euphrates Valleys. Survivors could be washed into the Ocean, on debris rafts and later then wash up on land roughly creating a situation that would evolve into a Genesis flood myth when the legends were embellished over time until written down, and even embellished and changed after it was written down.

The main motive among Christians to justify an ancient date, ie before ~70,000 and ~200,000 years ago is to come up with a time when most of humanity could be wiped leaving a few Noah survivors to start over as in Genesis before humans spread out across Europe and Asia. Glenn argues for an even more ancient ~5.3 million years ago for the same reason.

It remains the normal for all ancient cultures of the world to attribute catastrophic events to the wrath and disfavor of god(s)

[Truthseeker]

How do I know?!?!? By the evidence I do not believe the building of the Arc and the accompanied flood is remotely plausible. There is no evidence that the tools and skilled labor was available. First it was not a raft, even if it was it could not possible support the reported animal population reported to be on it for the time frame described in the Bible. The huge size of Arc and the technology required to build it is far beyond the abilities of any culture before ~10,000 years ago. Even within the past ~3,000 to 5,000 Bronze to Iron Age Cultures it is unlikely that such a sea worthy vessel was possible, though the basic wood working tools and skills were available within this period.

I am going to let you win in that I am going to unsubscribe the thread after posting this. I don't know what your understanding of Genesis 6:15-21 and Genesis 7:2-3 is, but you WILL always interpret those passages so that it seems impossible scientifically speaking. Maybe for all we know you interpret "kind of animal" in Genesis as "species." No matter how often people suggest a reading of Genesis that seem to square with our scientific knowledge in nearly all points, you WOULD stubbornly respond with your own impossible reading and point out the lack of evidence.

Surely by now you know that the lack of evidence is explicable for at least two reasons: 1) Evidence that was extant got lost in the mists of time. Wars, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, human errors, etc. 2) There may be evidence that is not now extant but may be later. For example, critics pointed out the lack of evidence for the Hittites for years. But now we have much evidence.

[tabibito]

I believe that many places in the world regional floods are possible that may appear unbelievably vaste and worldwide to local populations. The yellow and Yangtze Rivers, the Nile, Rivers of the Indian subcontinent, and the Tigris Euphrates Valleys. Survivors could be washed into the Ocean, on debris rafts and later then wash up on land roughly creating a situation that would evolve into a Genesis flood myth when the legends were embellished over time until written down, and even embellished and changed after it was written down.

Something along those lines would seem a logical explanation.

Genesis 7:2-3 is, but you WILL always interpret those passages so that it seems impossible scientifically speaking. Maybe for all we know you interpret "kind of animal" in Genesis as "species."

And nothing says that "erets" means the entire planet, which means that not even every species of animal would need to be on any ark that may have existed. But even at that, the story of the Ark, in full, can't be reconciled with the known history of the planet. It isn't impossible scientifically - as I have outlined, some scenarios would allow for it ... but those scenarios are so outlandish that, in the absence of supporting evidence, they have to be consigned to the realms of science fiction.

[shunyadragon]

2) There may be evidence that is not now extant but may be later. For example, critics pointed out the lack of evidence for the Hittites for years. But now we have much evidence.

I think this challenge deserves a response. It cannot be expected that academic archeology and history would accept the existence of a culture, kingdom or technology until discoveries and investigations provide the evidence to support it. Before modern discoveries Archeologists did not consider the Hittite culture nor the kingdom confirmed to exist. It is inaccurate to call them 'critics.' They did not say the Hittites did not exist, like all academics, without evidence, it was not accepted as fact that they existed.

The proposition that there is potentially not yet found evidence of an ancient technology over ~50,000 to ~70,000 years ago capable of building an Arc is stretching ones expectations beyond reasonable limits. Yes, if such evidence is found academic archeology will accept it. It remains the fact that academic standards of archeology will not take the testimony of ancient narratives as evidence alone without corroborating archeological evidence.

[Adam]

5.3 million?

The main motive among Christians to justify an ancient date, ie before ~70,000 and ~200,000 years ago is to come up with a time when most of humanity could be wiped leaving a few Noah survivors to start over as in Genesis before humans spread out across Europe and Asia. Glenn argues for an even more ancient ~5.3 million years ago for the same reason.

When I saw Glenn quoted earlier at 5.3, I assumed that was a misprint for 5.3 THOUSAND, which would exactly fit how long ago the Septugint places the Flood of Noah. Yet it would still fit into a time frame allowing for Young Earth Creation. (As it would for counting the Bible years from the creation of Adam at 4004 B. C. or 5300 B. C, allowing for the age of Earth to be billions of years.)