Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

GR Morton's Biblical Mediterranean Fllod Model

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    Should it be otherwise? Should we all be willing to change our minds immediately whenever someone said, "I have discovered proof that your entire worldview is wrong"?
    Hand a thousand year old skull to an archaeologist that has a partially healed bullet hole in it ... He'll do everything possible to show that the skull is a fake before he even begins to take the bullet hole seriously. So he should. But that's if he's honest. If he isn't - the skull will most likely be destroyed or discrediting evidence faked. (YEC anyone?)
    There is also such a thing as being too willing to embrace a new concept.
    I am willing to investigate any claims that challenge my world view, and without prejudice. That is: WILLING to do it without prejudice - which doesn't mean that I always achieve such a state, and certainly not easily. Sometimes I have an emotional attachment to the prior view which results in anger when an opposing view starts to seem possibly valid.
    But until I have thoroughly investigated a claim, or the claim is so obviously correct that I can't believe I haven't noticed, I'll hold to the old view.
    With regard to doctrine, that "obviously correct" claim has happened a few times on TWeb. One comment citing an appropriate reference, and a long held belief crumbles to dust.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Shaver
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Not without a fight. There's only so much turning upside down of current knowledge that any one generation can cope with.
    Should it be otherwise? Should we all be willing to change our minds immediately whenever someone said, "I have discovered proof that your entire worldview is wrong"?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Yes, if such evidence is found academic archeology will accept it.
    Not without a fight. There's only so much turning upside down of current knowledge that any one generation can cope with. In time, yes, it would be accepted.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Adam View Post
    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.)
    Glenn proposed a Noah's arc flood in the inundation of the Mediterranean Sea 5.3 million years ago. He basically proposes a time when pre human Homos were wiped out in the flood in the Mediterranean except the descendants of Noah and his companions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Shaver
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    There may be evidence that is not now extant but may be later.
    Fine. When new evidence is discovered, I can change my mind then.

    There are countless things I could believe if the only evidence I needed was something that I can imagine being discovered sometime in the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adam
    replied
    5.3 million?

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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.)

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    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.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-11-2014, 05:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    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)
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-10-2014, 12:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Shaver
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by tabibito; 07-10-2014, 01:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by JimL, 07-09-2024, 10:33 PM
193 responses
955 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
78 responses
406 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
27 responses
149 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
82 responses
486 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
156 responses
652 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X